Talk:Arica School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)

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)

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)