Talk:Arica School

POV issues

I have a number of problems with this article.

Much of it was originally written in a manner that displays a distinctly biased Point Of View (POV) in favour of Ichazo and the Arica School and against those who have used Ichazo's ideas in ways that he didn't intend.

It would seem that the original article was written by a member of the Arica School. There's nothing wrong with this, in principle, but the lack of neutrality is quite glaring at times.

I have attempted to rewrite some of the article to retain the original claims and assertions but also make the criticisms of others more appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

The article needs considerable more development to be an adequate presentation of Ichazo's teachings. Ichazo's theories deserve a proper treatment without rehashing all the conflicts with the Fourth Way tradition, Claudio Naranjo, Helen Palmer et al.

So I would ask that all further edits strive to follow the policies and guidelines on neutrality and POV etc. Ontologicos 09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago, I posted a few edits to this article. Yesterday my edits had been changed to imply that my edits were a point of view rather than point of fact and requesting citations. I responded by citing both legal and academic sources in one case (expertlaw.com and Oxford University Press) and a three-citation bibliography in the other. Today I find that these edits have again been changed to imply partisanship and all five citations have been deleted. I suspect that someone who does not like the facts is trying to spin this article. Patrickwooldridge 16:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these comments by "Patrickwooldridge" some sort of joke?! It should be obvious to any intelligent person that he has been intentionally editing the Arica aricle to promote an Arican "spin" on things! As he is not dealing objectively with established "facts", but seems to be just slavishly following the usual Arica stance on these matters, it may be reasonably to assume that he is also somehow associated with Arica. I cannot think of any other possible reason for the kinds of edits he is making. If he doesn't want his biased comments to be challanged or changed then he should leave the article to people who can contribute to it in an objective way. And I will ensure that the article doesn't just become another Arican diatribe. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, NOT an article espousing Oscar Ichazo and criticizing (no matter how subtle) others with whom he has been in conflict! Yahboo 11:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous comments, the reason I removed the citations and references because they were not specific to the Arica versus Palmer case but seemingly included to bolster the claim that all Enneagram teachers are under a legal obligation to declare Oscar Ichazo as the "source" of the Enneagram personality types. The references to certain Enneagram books (seemingly because of their particular titles) was also, seemingly, included to support the claim that these and other authors use the concept of personality types for manipulative purposes. For what it's worth I actually agree that this is frequently a major problem with how the Enneagram is popularly taught. So I don't have a problem in principle with such comments. My problem is with how such opinions are expressed in an *encyclopedia* article. I am not an opponent of Ichazo or a supporter of other Enneagram teachers - but I do want to see an article on Ichazo and Arica that is worthy of his ideas and contributions and free of bias in its treatment of "facts". Yahboo 11:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible and turgid writing style

Much of this article will probably be next to totally incomprehensible to the vast majority of readers. It would be helpful if it could instead be written in a way that people with no association with Ichazo and Arica could reasonably understand. As it stands it includes far too much in-house jargon and too many assumptions of what certain ideas mean. Ontologicos (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as I found it in mid Jan 2009, focused way too much on the Enneagram, especially info about Enneagram of Personality which already has its own page (and is also mentioned on the Oscar Ichazo page). I added two sections at the beginning, attempting to address "what is Arica?" rather than play "blind men and the elephant" with vague claims about influences from Kabbalah, Taoism, etc. (also a problem on the Diamond Approach page).

Some of the descriptions are hard to verify without resorting to materials published by Arica or experiences gained over the course of years of trainings. For example, the use of "enneagon" instead of "enneagram" actually made a lot of sense in the 1970s because the vast majority of exercises utilized a movement around the outside of the figure (1 attracted to 3 results in 2, etc.), not internal movement. Now, how am I going to "prove" that? I cited one book and two manuals, but that still doesn't prove the "most of the maps" statement. Yet, I feel that it is valuable to include this info in order to understand some background to the controversy.

It is encouraging to see honest questioning of statements from an outside perspective, but incessant insertions of "citation needed" start to seem persnickety. It's rather hard to provide citations without falling into the trap that is identified so clearly in the flag for the Scientology page: "third-party references are needed". There are also many references given in Wikipedia which simply quote speculation. For example, footnote 1 of the Enneagram of Personality page quotes Helen Palmer calling the enneagram "an ancient symbol of perpetual motion". How does she know that? Because Oscar Ichazo told Claudio Naranjo, who told her? Does adding a "citation" make her guesswork become more verifiable or worthy of an encyclopedia?

There is a difference between "traceable" and "verifiable". Further, there is a difference between labeling a map of the psyche "detailed" and claiming it is "accurate".

There are some excellent issues being addressed in the dispute of neutrality, but I seriously wonder how that dispute can ever be resolved. Martindo (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding - and thanks for improving the comment about the map of the human psyche (which really wasn't adequately worded before my edit of it - and had nothing to do with my misunderstanding of "semantics"). I also appreciate many of your concerns and comments. However it really is necessary to provide citations for many of the grand claims made in the article. And I appreciate that "reliable citations" can add to the problem when the citation is obviously factually incorrect or, as you've said, based on speculation (like many of the citations in the Enneagram of Personality article). Please appreciate that I would like this article to be both readable, interesting and neutral (as far as possible). At present I don't believe it is any of these and that it instead of helping "outsiders" appreciate Arica only encourages the view that Arica is another Scientology-like cult. There is, for instance, still too much focus on the Gurdjieff and Naranjo issues - which, frankly, seems to be an unhealthy fixation with many Arica members. Regards. Ontologicos (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in several ways. First, you did provoke a more accurate wording about the distinction between "detailed" and "accurate." Second, the ideal is to produce a smoothly written page that integrates multiple viewpoints but ends up reading as if it has one voice. This can be seen on the Idries Shah page, among others. Third, there is still over-emphasis on the Enneagram of Personality -- I toned it down, but frankly, I have never read more than a few pages of Palmer, Riso, et al so I am not able to produce citations in that regard -- let someone else pick up the ball and carry it. In addition, I only put my toes in the water regarding the Protoanalysis section by adding a sentence as a historical note. I really don't know about Arica trainings in the 21st century, including the latest jargon and philosophical riffs. This final section is the most turgid and sounds an awful lot like it was lifted from Ichazo's writing without adapting it to the Wikipedia audience.

In sum, I've gone as far as I can go, but will keep an eye on the page from time to time. IMO, the Enneagram of Personality section should be reduced to a single paragraph, with the main story relegated to the Wikipedia page on that topic. The Protoanalysis section should be written so that it sounds like explanation rather than promotional material. I just received word this morning that an official committee of Arica members is planning to upload changes soon. Martindo (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's been over a year. Shall we consider the "talk" over? Pabarge 12:25, 8 February 1010 (CST)

Why are you you asking? Do you have some thoughts on improving the article? Ontologicos (talk)

NPOV tag removed

As the article has made steady progress since 2007, I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} for sections or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - Roy Boy 02:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues, take 2

Looks like the POV issues are creeping in again...the last paragraph "Protoanalysis" reads like a an excerpt from a promotional pamphlet. This paragraph and the lack of citations are a cause for concern. I am not an editor, nor am I associated or dis-associated with the subject matter...just hoping this post gets the issue on the radar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.106.139 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge and redirect

Suggest merge into creator's article, Óscar Ichazo, due to duplicate content and much higher name recognition of Óscar than the school. This should be a section redirect to Óscar Ichazo#Arica School. Skyerise (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange justification, considering that almost the entire Oscar Ichazo page consists of Arica School information with almost zero biography. The allegedly "higher name recognition" (evidence, please) Ichazo should be redirected TO the Arica School page (not vv) in light of the Weight of the content included.

I also noticed that you unilaterally reinserted the accent in his given name today, contrary to your April statement to wait so "other editors can contribute to the discussion before the page is moved" in Talk:Oscar_Ichazo which is still distinct from this Talk. The undiscussed Redirect therefore has made debate about several topics logistically awkward. I understand that 6 months of no response may have given you the impression that "silence implies consent" but previous discussion and 15 years of POV tug-of-war should have given you a clue that such consent is untenable. Martindo (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See listings for books by Costa Rican Nobel laureate Oscar Arias Sanchez at amazon.com -- the A in Sanchez has an accent but the O in Oscar does not. Clearly his English-language publisher is NOT ignoring all accents for a name rooted in western hemisphere Spanish. At WP, we honor self-requested pronouns, self-identified ethnicities, and there's an entire page KyivNotKiev, so let's respect the fact that Ichazo himself shed the accent in his publications. Martindo (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]