Talk:Oscar Ichazo

Copyright lawsuit, accuracy

A recent flurry of edits has included a significant change to the description of the results of Ichazo's copyright lawsuit, making it sound as if the court's refusal to grant him copyright was trivial or a technicality. The issue was not so trivial: Ichazo claimed to have discovered facts about human psychology (not a picture or diagram), but then also wished to claim those as HIS facts and prevent others from stating them. Ichazo's hypocritical treatment of the situation is one of the main reasons that the case deserves to be mentioned, and IMO shouldn't be obscured. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I merged two articles. I kept the better cited of duplicate sections. I didn't copyedit the parts about the court case. It looks like the sources are WP:PRIMARY sources, though. We typically can't use court cases. We have to summarize third-party reports. So those are the rules, have at it! Skyerise (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I just checked, and the text that used to be in the middle of the Enneagram section is still in the article, under the Influences section. It didn't belong in the middle of the explanation of the Enneagram. If you want to pull it out under a heading of Copyright or Lawsuits, go ahead. It repeated the language of the old Influences section and was better cited, so I moved it there... Skyerise (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I understand now, and I see no need to change what you're doing. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Oscars name doesnt have an accent over the O

The soanish name Oscar is never used with an accent, and Ichazo has never used his own name with an accent. I tried to edit the article, but couldnt edit the article name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.58.243 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong. See the corresponding article on Spanish Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Circular reference… use a dictionary 73.222.58.243 (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you provide a reference. You're making the assertion. A reference specific to the individual. Skyerise (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I see both variants online. The page was moved here in 2017 with the edit summary "correct Spanish spelling" by an editor with an account. He may be wrong, but I'll take the opinion of an editor with an account over that of an IP editor for now, unless you can provide sources. Skyerise (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I am Aardvark.

I accept that both variants are in use.

I accept that the rules call for an accent:

https://llevatilde.es/palabra/new?word=oscar

However:

References:

https://www.arica.org/oscar-ichazo

Books by Oscar Ichazo - see his name on book covers, including recent books, at Amazon

The California Secretary of State name search for Oscar Ichazo Foundation lists "Oscar Ichazo Foundation".

Also found here: Oscar Ichazo Foundation: https://www.guidestar.org/profile/54-2097007

I would think that Oscar's choice of how to spell his own name, especially in his publications and his Arica bio, would show how he intended his name to be used.

Thank you and please accept my apologies for not knowing the wikipedia rules, and thank you for bringing them up. Aarkvard (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll look into it further over the next couple days and possibly open a requested move discussion so other editors can contribute to the discussion before the page is moved... Skyerise (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see any move discussion, only a unilateral decision made a short while later. Fortunately, someone reverted that pedantic change, which contradicted nearly 1/2 century of how Ichazo's given name was spelled in English media, presumably by his own choice. For comparison and broader perspective, notice the accents on the cover of this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Oscar-Arias-Sanchez-Modern-Peacemakers-ebook/dp/B00DSJ57NU/

There is an accented "A" in Sanchez but no accent on the "O" in Oscar. Wikipedia respects personal pronoun preferences, so why not accent preferences? Clearly Sanchez was aware of (and most likely approved) the spelling on the book cover. Martindo (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Influences: who sez it's a sufi symbol?

Laleh Bakhtiar, that's who. Although https://www.amazon.com/Sufi-Enneagram-Secrets-Symbol-Unveiled/dp/1567448356 displays a statement from Samuel Sotillos (who wrote the book's Introduction AND reviewed it) that the origin is "enigmatic", she published a book a few weeks later which backdates the origin to Rumi: https://www.amazon.com/Rumis-Original-Enneagram-Laleh-Bakhtiar/dp/1567440886 Martindo (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

Please note that claims of naturalization require citation. See also WP:CONTEXTBIO - we describe the subject as having the nationality held at the time of the work which brought them notability. Therefore we also need the date of naturalization. If the creation of Integral Philosophy predates naturalization, then we do not add American to the lead sentence. If it postdates naturalization, then we describe him as American. What we never do is use a hyphenated nationality which implies birth in the US. Skyerise (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

What was the notability? An argument has been made in regard to the merge, mostly by Weight of content, that his Enneagram development (inc lawsuit) was the source of his notability. Those publications occurred after naturalization, I believe. In any case, please stop the unilateral reverts -- just flag it as needing a source if you feel it is a fact outside your personal awareness.

A lot of actors/actresses have dual/changed citizenships which are not evidenced by citing naturalization papers in WP. Check out the lede for Arnold_Schwarzenegger for example. Martindo (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Bolivian-American suggests he was born in the US. We use 'and' between dual citizenships, not a hyphenated ethnicity-nationality, See WP:CONTEXTBIO and User:Skyerise#CONTEXTBIO. Skyerise (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Not true for Arnold Schwarzenegger who was born in Austria. Did you even read his lede, as I suggested? Martindo (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I fixed it. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Just use 'and' Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You know there are countless rules in WP that can be cited by a gatekeeper who wants to get legalistic, and then others which can be counter-cited, such as acceptability of self-published sources that are not the major content of a bio page. See bullet #5 in WP:BLPSELFPUB which explains conditions of acceptability (e.g., interview material).

You're claiming a grammatical rule, but that means adhering to a style guide like APA which requires serious consistency, not "use the rule whenever I feel like it and ignore other stuff." So it's not a rule, just like accents aren't a rule.

As for Arnie's lede, you didn't "fix it", you changed it without discussion (yet another example). And you didn't even do it consistently ("grammatically")! You eliminated "Austria" rather than using "and" -- but he not only retains dual citizenship, he also won the 2007 European Voice award for actions he took as an American governor!

The problem with "and" is that it indicates dual nationality definitively, rather than naturalization. AFAIK, dual is very hard to confirm for Ichazo, who was referred to as "Bolivian American" (with or without hyphen -- see below) in various sources. If we leave it that way but flagged for a week (I know that's a long time for you to wait), then maybe someone will find a source to confirm it or modify it; if not, just revert it to "American" -- his birthplace is clear.

https://books.google.co.id/books?id=S8FQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA7&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

is a direct link to the relevant page in Bolivia's constitution which is not really clear on retaining citizenship after being naturalized somewhere else. Other google hits also seem uncertain about dual citizenship before 2004 or so.

As for the *custom* of referring to dual ethnicity, consider this page, please:

https://purehistory.org/bolivian-american/

"Bolivian American is a compound term that applies to American citizens of Bolivian origin."

So, if you are going to be persnickety, or at least fair, then you should flag your own "and" as "citation needed". Martindo (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Really read WP:CONTEXTBIO, okay? 'And' is perfectly grammatical and has no ambiguity. The definition of Bolivian-American is ambiguous. The required information is nationality devoid of ethnicity. Only the word 'and' prevents Bolivian from being used as an ethnic modifier to American. Basic grammar. "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." Skyerise (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

Please discuss below whether Arica School should be split from this article, overwriting the redirect, as proposed by Suntooooth. Reason given by proposer:

Arica School is a redirect to the Oscar Ichazo article; the Arica School section takes up most of that article, with multiple subheadings and sub-subheadings, so it seems like it should be its own article. I already attempted to split it myself, but I struggled with the short footnote templates enough that the article probably wouldn't have been sufficiently sourced due to the links not working. Felix QW (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I could certainly implement the referencing if consensus for the split can be found; however, I see two issues with the proposal as it stands: Firstly, even though the article seems at first glance to be well-referenced, the only independent reference discussing the school seems to be Kopfkind (1973). For notability, we would like to have a little more than that. All the remaining sources are to the subject's own work. Secondly, it seems to me that the majority of the section about the school is more about the subject's positions and ideas rather than about the school as an organisation, which is not even mentioned in the subsection on Integral philosophy. Felix QW (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO this is not a sufficient reason to oppose the split. If you look at Diamond Approach, it is subsumed under A.H. Almaas for similar reasons. Even the more widely known Gurdjieff and his influential followers like Ouspensky and Rodney Collin have very little distinction between bio page and foundation/organization (e.g., Fourth_Way#Institute_for_the_Harmonious_Development_of_Man. Only Ken Wilber seems to have a detailed page on theory.

The anti-split is justified by lack of motivation for finding sources that describe actual activities (e.g., quasi-ashram, mystical school, social gatherings, artistic productions). This is due to seeking only academic sources (which "naturally" only want to discuss ideas, ideally with at least some reference to evidence) as well as the fact that published accounts of the experiential aspects of such groups (other than Rajneesh) generally predate the internet, partly due to New Age fading by 1980.

For example, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03060497.1973.11086399 tries to include some experiential account(s) but it was uploaded 40 years after the Celia Weaver material cited therein.

In a certain sense, personal accounts like this published (or at least cited secondarily) in reliable sources differ little from film reviews, political campaign platforms, academic opinions on new topics, and similar intellectual "fluff". However, failure to include *any* such accounts really just indicates a truncated concept of what mystical groups attempt to accomplish.

Anyone seriously interested in presenting a truly encyclopedic account of mystical groups in the 20th century will address the experience of members, not just theory. Personally, I don't have time to dig for this, and my appeals to people with more vested interest than I generally have resulted in a simple repetition of promotional material. <sigh> Martindo (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the split for the reasons given by Felix QW. Skyerise (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)