Talk:Enneagram of Personality/Archive 2

17 August 2009
Regarding the mass of cleanup tags and proposed rewrite of Enneagram by Irbisgreif:

NB: The Enneagram article started off about Gurdjieff and others' use of what they called the enneagram; then someone added the pseudo-maths; and finally someone decided to move the original material to Fourth Way Enneagram and Enneagram of Personality. Hence, we're left with just the geometry, which is a repeat of the material in Nonagon.

Why not ditch the geometry material at Enneagram (some of which is in nonagon anyhow) and replace it with Fourth Way Enneagram, with a redirect to Enneagram from that article, and a link to Nonagon? May need to add some of the material to Nonagon.  Esowteric + Talk  19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging from google books, the most common use of the word "enneagram" in published literature is in the context of personality types/self-help, i.e. the scope of the present article. Content related to that meaning is what users should find when they enter enneagram as a search term. I'd say the Gurdjieffian use of the symbol could be covered in the same article; after all, there is a historical link between the present-day use and Gurdjieff's teaching. I couldn't find any uses at all of enneagram in the sense of "nonagon" in google books.
 * As for the sourcing issues, we shouldn't build this article on the basis of self-help sources or esoterics manuals. Here is a google books search for books published by university presses that mention the enneagram: I'd suggest this is where a search for appropriate sources for this article should start.  JN  466  23:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, welcome to the article. I'll be looking at that search as one of my sources for the next phase of rewriting. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly suggestion and with thanks for your efforts, edits labelled "removal of uncited pseudoscience" smack a bit of POV in my eyes. Beliefs held by those in a school of mysticism, providing they are well cited, have as much right to exist as does the contrary belief that such-and-such is pseudoscience, so they could be reworked rather than simply section blanked or censored. Anyhow, good luck.  Esowteric + Talk  08:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding references

 * Have added what references I can find for "Ones" through "Nines". Some are just odd words taken from Oscar Ichazo's diagrams. A few sentences I can't find anywhere, possibly accumulated by a user who's read lots of material on the subject and now very difficult to track down (tried google and yahoo web and google books).  Esowteric + Talk  17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Three Centers of Intelligence section is a copypaste from internationalenneagram.org. Have for now put in quotes and used cite web reference.  Esowteric + Talk  09:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the whole section is a copyvio, it needs to go right away. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ but have left section heading + copyvio notice missing information notice in place for now (other editors may like to know about it or see it). The copyvio may be found at edit diff  Esowteric + Talk  10:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of cleanup tags
Hi Irbisgreif, any chance of reviewing the cleanup tags you added to the article? Have already: (these section-specific tags are far easier to understand and correct)
 * added a category and taken out catimprove
 * added a copypaste tag to the The three centers of intelligence section
 * added an unsourced tag to the section Applications (the rest I've referenced myself)

Which leaves page the top templates you added: and Cheers,  Esowteric + Talk  10:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * primary sources
 * refimprove
 * advert
 * cleanup
 * confusing
 * disputed
 * essay-like
 * npov
 * original research
 * peacock
 * tone
 * unencyclopedic
 * weasel
 * under construction
 * too few opinions
 * requires subject expert (which I added).

I'd say go ahead and remove refimprove, advert, cleanup, disputed, essay-like, tone, unencyclopedic, and weasel. The others I still have concerns with. I'm trying to get input from psychologists, for a second wave of edits, so please leave UC at least. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks.  Esowteric + Talk  11:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Points and lines
There are nine points shown on a circle. Some pairs of points are connected by lines. Some are not. What does the presence or absence of such a line indicate? (Or could it be just a dumb decoration?) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1/7 = 0.142857142857...; 142857 is the order in which the numbers are connected by lines. The numbers 3, 6 and 9 don't occur in the recurring sequence. Note that
 * 2/7 = 0.285714285714 ..., i.e. the same recurring sequence of numbers. Likewise:
 * 3/7 = 0.428571428571 ...
 * 4/7 = 0.571428571428 ...
 * 5/7 = 0.714285714285 ...
 * 6/7 = 0.857142857142 ..., all having 142857 as their recurring sequence.
 * 7/7 = 0.999999999999 (obtained by adding 1/7 and 6/7, or 2/7 and 5/7, or 3/7 and 4/7) -- JN 466  14:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This response doesn't make any sense. The question is still open: What's the meaning of the lines? What claims about certain connections between different types do they represent? Have these claims been tested scientifically? Hans Adler 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms
Needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.39.48.126 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconded 128.214.106.13 (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not really saying much. If there is specific criticism that is verifiable and from reliable sources that can be considered for inclusion in the article.  There was a criticism section some time ago but it was removed as most of it wasn't verifiable and mostly vague unreferenced assertions and personal opinions. Afterwriting (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would personally criticise it as a Forer effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect -Henri

Enneagram and Catholic Church
I would like to put this new section about Enneagram and Catholic Church. What do you think? --Sviolante (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A special mention goes to the connection between Catholic Church and Enneagram. If part of the clergy showed clear distrust against an esoteric circles doctrine, it is undeniable that since the '70s this tool spread to become one of the major personality indicators in seminaries and Catholic universities.

After learning from Naranjo the use of enneagram, the Jesuit Robert Ochs taught at Loyola University Chicago the first course on the Christian use of it; from then on it began to spread in many Christian communities (exponents are Sister Mary C. Beesing OP, Fr Robert J. Nogosek CSC, Fr Patrick O'Leary SJ, Fr Richard Rohr OFM, Sister Suzanne Zuercher OSB and the former Jesuit Don Richard Riso).

The climax of hostilities occurred in a document of the Pontifical Councils for Culture and for Interreligious Dialogue in 2003, labeling enneagram as a tool that "when used as a means of spiritual growth introduces an ambiguity in the doctrine and the life of the Christian faith".

This document has been followed by studies highlighting links to the Church's tradition, keeping apart the esoteric background. We can find references of that sort of links in the Pauline epistles (i.e. 1 Cor 12:7, Gal 5:22), but only Evagrius Ponticus elaborated a list of nine fixations preventing soul's vocation to holiness and the corresponding graces to overcome them :

Another similitude is the graph of the nine names of God, of Blessed Ramon Llull. He believed that the Trinity was the intimate structure of reality and that the Incarnation was the last and necessary expression of the Divine. In his treatise Ars Generalis Ultima (1303), Llull argued that through three rotating triangles, representing the nine aspects of God, all knowledge could be combined in new connections. Llull's Ars Brevis published in 1307, represent a great number of images that are reminiscent of the Enneagram.

The Jesuit Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680) referred to the "enneagram" of Llull in his treatise of 1665 Arithmologica, in which he made a connection between astrological planets and types of personality. On the cover of the book, Kircher represented an enneagram surrounded by nine orders of angels.


 * Notes


 * This could be a valuable contribution; however, the passage could be simplified into maybe one relevant paragraph and avoid direct copying the cited sources. Seems like a style issue to me. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A section of this kind could be very valuable and there is no reason why there shouldn't be one. There are, however, a few style policy issues at present with what you have written - and also the fact that English obviously isn't your first language and the grammar needs improving. It is also not an established fact that Evagrius, Llull and Kircher are actually sources for the Enneagram of Personality as it has emerged in more recent years. So the section would need to reflect this in a neutral manner rather than making "truth claims" about things that can probably only remain speculation. Let's see how we can improve things. Regards, Ontologicos (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's true: english is not my first language (...neither the second actually!), that's why your help should be important. Anyway, I didn't say that Evagrius, Llull and Kircher are sources for the modern Enneagram, but many catholic supporter prefer to refer to them rather than to Gurdjieff or to Ichazo. Thanks for the advices! --Sviolante (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Check it now!--Sviolante (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have again removed this section. The serious problems have not been addressed.  The English is still not adequate and the section is riddled with speculation and assumptions.  There is no historically verifiable evidence to clearly support claims that the Enneagram of Personality has its origins in the quoted sources.  Articles are not based on speculation.  Comments about speculative opinions can be included but they must be adequately referenced.  If you can find adequate references regarding speculation about possible connections with Evagrius etc then they can be included.  However, as this section is currently written it is not acceptable within an encyclopedia article. Ontologicos (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I repeat what I said before: I didn't say that authors were sources for the modern Enneagram, but it's verifiable that catholic supporters referred to them as sources instead of Metatron. I talk about “similitude”, “reminiscent” and not that this are the sources of the Enneagram of Personality. You can find this speculative opinions in the books of Rohr, for example. If the English is still not adequate please feel free to make the adjustments needed.--Sviolante (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain Validation removal
This what are your specific issues to be addressed? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Post hoc, you can specify the validation removal explanation here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the research's conclusions did not in fact indicate the "validity" that you - and apparently Riso - have claimed for it. Secondly, it was not well written.  Thirdly, it is very doubtful that information and references that are based on a doctoral thesis are even close to acceptable.  Therefore it is really up to you to try and justify this section. Ontologicos (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read the paper ? Was something specifically misrepresented from this source? Are you rejecting this source? How would you write it better to represent this source?  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read it and its conclusions fall far short of supporting claims of the Enneagram having been "validated". What it does partially support is the contruction of the RHETI but this is not the same thing at all.  But, in any case, making such claims in an encyclopedia on the basis of a doctoral thesis is not acceptable.  As the section currently is it should be entirely removed. Ontologicos (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What would you accept from the source to better describe and elaborate the research's significant to this article? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be totally missing the whole point that the research just isn't acceptable for claiming "validation". The way I have worded the section is at least a more accurate statement about it but the whole thing is still very problematic in terms of the acceptable referencing policies. Why should this section remain in the article if it violates these policies? Ontologicos (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple, because the content meets WP:V. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source issue
OK .. Apparently Ontologicos claims the "research which doesn't qualify as published and reliable"  We seem to have a reliable source issue here. Ontologicos, do you have any sources to support your claim? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop playing games. It is your responsibility to defend the research as being a reliable source for claims of validation. If you think you can then please do so on the basis of Wikipedia's referencing policies. Ontologicos (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK .. It's a reliable source, published by organization with peer review and reputation for fact checking. Now, where do you get this idea that it isn't reliable?  Or, that I exaggerated from it? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo(what)?
Where is the verified source support for this claim? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This pseudo source triggers wiki spam filters http:// www. statemaster. com/encyclopedia/Popular-psychology  Having difficult finding reliable sources.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is from a course, is it a reliable source? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I found many blogs and unreliable sources claiming the enneagram as pseudoscience. There is a support that "some" consider it as pseudoscience; however, I have been unable to identify who "some" really is, and suspect this issue isn't adequately supported at this time for inclusion in this article. As analogy, if the FDA regulated "pseudoscience" labeling, then there would be little evidence to support the labels claims. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Added an FAQ to address this issue. Will remove the category tag in 24 hrs. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I added the category Pseudoscience. According to the wikipedia category criterion: "Pseudoscience is a broad system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific, but that are not considered being so by the scientific community." The onus is on enneagram to prove it is science not for a WP:RS to prove it is not. As it stands the "scientific" evidence for the enneagram is threadbare as evidenced by the article's own sources of a couple of masters dissertations of dubious quality. --Wlmg (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this mean you are citing Wikipedia as a reliable source? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the enneagram is so obviously silly and arbitrary I doubt anyone has devoted much time and money to scientifically debunk it. I'm not citing wikipedia as an RS. Placing enneagram in the category of Pseudoscience should be self-apparent. --Wlmg (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Silly, like in the content you added is based on your assumptions? There is a difference between the Enneagram of Personalty as a theoretical construct and the RHEIT which over a dozen scientist have results to validate its attributes. I can not find one serious person to quote this subject as pseudoscience. Why are we wasting time, I wonder. I'll update the FAQ to be productive about your concerns. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two sources supporting the validity RHEIT in the article. Rebecca Newgent's Ph.D. dissertation is one and Mustafa Abdullaha's study that also appears to be a masters dissertation. Since when are dissertations considered WP:RS? I will look into this, but could only see them as reliable if they were notable dissertations of highly notable persons. Where are the dozen you speak off?--Wlmg (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the scholarly method produces scientific dissertations as reliable sources which are routinely applied to verify and reference Wikipedia content, the scholar's notability is irrelevant now. What matters is the peer review process inherent to granting a degree.  I've counted 3 completed RHEIT dissertations, citing scholastic authority from Rebecca A. Newgent, Patricia E. Parr, Isadore Newman, Kristian K. Higgins, Mary Ann Elizabeth Giordano, Ralph Piedmont, Mustafa Abdullah and Qassem Saleh.  The professional validations were performed by Don Riso and Russ Hudson working with David Bartram.  There is one major PH.D by Sara Scott, et. al underway. The most notable enneagram scientists in this group must be Riso and Hudson for constructing the REHIT. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I call shenanigans. Alerting WP:FTN about this promotionalism of enneagram lunacy. jps (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

lacks scientific foundation
Here's a line for ya:

"[enneagram of personality] remained a set of teachings without any scientific foundation." 

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it?

jps (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly how is your abusive attitude and soapboxing meant to be constructive? Afterwriting (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Who exactly am I "abusing"? What we have here is evidence from a respected researcher that Enneagrams are a whole bunch of hooey. Pretty obvious stuff, obviously, but also points that can be used to make this article a bit more balanced so that readers are aware that it's all stuff made up one day by not-so-smart psychotherapists. jps (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't know what you are talking about and you are obviously determined to wage a misinformed activist campaign campaign based on your personal prejudices. Afterwriting (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazing that you have insight into what I know and don't know and what I'm "obviously determined to wage". I guess the magic of enneagrams can make one a pretty prescient, can't it? Maybe if I believed in enneagrams I'd be more psychic and be able to tell what motivates you? Maybe? jps (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hooey, link in your source is a website published opinion by Robert T. Carroll. Please attribute the hooey to whoey. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean Robert T. Carroll, the expert in all things hooey? Sure, that's attributable. How about "Robert Todd Carroll, the premier expert in debunking pseudoscientific claims has pointed out that the enneagram of personality is 'a set of teachings without any scientific foundation'." Are you liking that better? jps (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I have some assertions for him and you about the "pseudoscientific claim"?  The assertion is vague and lacks specific measurements for reproducibility or falsifiability. It fails to apply operational definitions, so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them. It fails to reasonably apply the parsimony principle because the assumptions are not clearly identified.  Pseudoscientific is obscurantist language, and apparently technical jargon in an effort to give the claim a superficially scientific trapping. The absence of boundary conditions to the claim, is most concerning, because there are well-articulated scientific evidence building about this subjects, limitations under which the predicted claims do and do not apply.  In short the "pseudoscientific" claim is pseudoscientific rubbish based on subjective opinions themselves.  It's essentially meaningless distraction to the article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your distrust of Carroll is perhaps telling but irrelevant. Commentary about how much you dislike "obscurantist" language is beside the point. Carroll was clear: this subject is without scientific foundation. That's a fact that we can incorporate into this article and doesn't look to me to be a "distraction". jps (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I trust Carrol said that, it's verified. However, you may be exaggerating what that means, please do be careful. A single author's opinion should not be cause to ran sack an article with made up issues. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Carroll can safely be said to be the only independent commentator we've got right now to look at this subject. To that end, his statement that there is no scientific foundation to this subject seems to be something we can simply assert. No hedging based upon your distrust of the man necessary. It's like mistrusting any other plain statement. We don't even have someone who has disputed him! Fact it is and you really can't hide behind a section of an essay to obscure this. jps (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Carrol, is be far the most skeptical commentator, there are many others who have Enneagram cometary. Why you would consider Carrol to be the "only" view of value? I am skeptical Carrol has little is any beneficial to say about the subject, give the one sentence weight. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)
 * The cloud of "others" will remain nameless, then, I suppose. In the meantime, we have at least one person who has independently analyzed this subject and, in typical fashion, the people who seem to be fans of this idea are pretty upset about it. That's usually an indicator that he's correct. Your final sentence is something of a mishmash, by the way. I think I get the gist, but maybe you should be a little more careful about editing before you hit the "Save page" button. jps (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

FAQ
The FAQ talk page, created by the FAQ Template is up for speedy deletion. Please explain? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC) The FAQ was intended to address recurring Talk page issues. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)  see: Template:FAQ Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)
 * What is the precedent for FAQ pages? And what was in this FAQ page that did not belong in the main article? &mdash; RHaworth 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is this FAQ Template? What are these talk page issues? But above all, why do you need a separate page? The text is below. Keep it on this page. &mdash; RHaworth 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See again: Template:FAQ and the box above. The recurring issues are addressed in the FAQ text, thanks. For some reason, the FAQ template created a sub-page and uses the Talk page. I happened to edit the actual sub-page article. It get's speedy deleted an then someone else, nominated the Talk page for deletion (without talking) and now your are involved. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Restored. My apologies. Strangely, I had never encountered FAQ pages before. I shall rap the knuckles of the person who nominated it for deletion. I assume the idea of a sub-page is to simplify matters when talk pages are archived. Note that it is supposed to be in the Talk: namespace. Creating Enneagram of Personality/FAQ was a mistake and it has been, quite rightly, deleted. Incidentally, if you had written FAQ in your first message instead of "FAQ Template", you would have shortened the process considerably. &mdash; RHaworth 23:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted the questions in the FAQ as there is 1) no indication on this page that those questions are "recurring" and 2) the answers are wrong. jps (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

These additions are really hostile exaggerated claims, with little scientific support. I can only assume they are intended to inflame a POV issue, or maybe not. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there any consensus to start a FAQ on the talkpage? Is there any evidence the answers you provided are correct? jps (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow FAQ pages to exist as subpages of Talk pages, per WP:Subpages, where you can see at the disallowed section, point number three, it says that any content intended for permanent inclusion in the encyclopedia is not allowed on a talk subpage. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've removed it from this talk page. jps (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged
This article has a lot of issues. I tagged it to get some more eyes on it. Edit warring is a big problem here, I see. jps (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you be specific please. What is bothering you? Maybe we can scientifically diagnose your issues. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the tags are pretty specific. jps (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do the point to specific content issues which can be edited to improve Wikipedia, or maybe they just a result of your weight. Must i guess? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should write a coherent sentence first. I made some edits which were reverted that should be helpful hints as to what is problematic with this article. jps (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * JPS removed some content with an edit summary explaining why. I was able to read it and understand what he meant. Also, I agree with it, so have re-removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is no fun. Goodbye. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * JPS and WMC, please don't try so hard to remove information from the article (as per WP:ACTIVIST). The section could have been written a little more neutrally, which I'll do now. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing stuff that hasn't received independent, third-party notice is a good practice. See WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with William M. Connolley on this. We can't source facts to spam links at the Enneagram.com site. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If consensus is for removal of the text, then I don't have a problem with it. Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There are additional sources ... not worth fight over with folks who have intentions clearly set on disrupting this article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Present the sources here, Zulu, and we'll discuss them. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, many of the sources are listed. There are scholarly sources in RHETI, I'll have to hunt for additional ones like a model Wikipedian would. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Utter garbage
What I've just said. What the heck is this article supposed to be about? The lede is pure psychobabble, and the rest is gobbledygook to anyone unfamiliar with the terminology (i.e. anyone other than an 'enneagram activist'). How anyone can take it seriously I've no idea. Or is this another joke article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you find any of that psychobabble, and gobbledygook "garbage" in the sources? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't have to. If you need to read the sources to understand an article, it has no place in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, instead of just saying, "This article sucks" why don't you start suggesting some specific improvements? Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. Delete the lot. Start again with a clear description of what an 'Enneagram of Personality' is, how it is arrived at, what it tells you, and what evidence there is that it is meaningful. Ensure the article uses no obscure terms it doesn't explain, and give due weight to the suggestions that this is pseudoscience. Ensure that sources cited are from a wider field than those promoting the concept. Frankly though, I'm surprised anyone should ask this, as it seems self-evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Andy. Seems the refs are all in house - where are the outside views? Plus I removed the PhD dissertation section as there was no mention of notability or even what university. Vsmith (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about ... rewrite in your user-space.. then propose to replace? That would do justice to the sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So basically the stock response to criticism of an article is "you do all the work of fixing it, while we go on and create something else?" I've no interest in writing articles on obscure pseudoscientific concepts. If anyone wants an article on the topic, it is down to them to write it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have "no interest in writing articles" then what is your interest here? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think from that ludicrous half-quotation it is self-evident that you are incapable of engaging in collegial debate on article content - the purpose of talk pages - so I have to ask what you are doing here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources for rewrite
An entire article sourced to enneagram.com/enneagram.org, authors who are proponents of enneagram as a spiritual belief system, packaging enneagram as a self-help method, or selling enneagram as a product? Bad. Really bad. Sources need to be objective, independent, and as mainstream as possible. I haven't looked too hard but here's one. Need at least 2 or 3 others to start a rewrite. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Exaggerated misrepresentation of the sources. The "entire article" is not sourced to those sites, only significant and relevant portions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think our policy would agree that "significant and relevant portions" of an article should be sourced to secondary sources and not primary ones. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well then did you read the article, who is the original source, and who is the secondary source in this case? Both are published. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also. And maybe http://www.o(o)cities.com/enneagram.geo/1879514109sample.html, but that triggers the spam filter without the 's William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks WMC, these sources could be incorporated in this and other articles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's another good one: . - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In 1983, Jerome P. "Jerry" Wagner published a doctoral dissertation entitled "Reliability and Validity Study of a Sufi Personality Typology: The Enneagram." He reported positive results, that the Enneagram "may have diagnostic, prognostic, and heuristic value for studying personality structure and dynamics." In 1999 Wagner published a book, WEPSS: Wagner Enneagram Personality Style Scales. As a clinical psychologist at Loyola University Chicago, Wagner must be considered a good source for validation of the Enneagram as a personality analysis tool. As listed on his Linked In page, Wagner is also a paid consultant with "The Enneagram in Business" and the "International Enneagram Association", so his scholarly credentials must be balanced with his affiliation with the subject. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, makes me wonder what (public/private) sources have funded enneagram research and development. I suspect a great deal is self-funded too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream or Fringe
This article is a "mainstream" topic. If, not then what is the mainstream topic that would make this a fringe? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Is that supposed to make sense? Are you suggesting that the article has no connection whatever with any recognised subject, and therefore cannot be fringe? Interesting logic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, when it's not a derivation on a mainstream topic, it can not be fringe. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim that the Moon is made of green cheese isn't "a derivation on a mainstream topic", therefore... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I claim moon beans. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mainstream topic: psychology, personality disorder, ... maybe even yoga per LuckyLouie's suggested ref :) ? Vsmith (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now it is Wikipedia classified psychology and religion, must check how the publisher's classify it, I suppose that would be a reliable source over LuckyLouie's suggestions. Would you agree? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Example for the Wisdom of the Enneagram on Amazon. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #5,808 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
 * #17 in Books > Health, Mind & Body > Self-Help > New Age
 * #24 in Books > Health, Mind & Body > Psychology & Counseling > Personality
 * #63 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > New Age

Brief description of types
I deleted the brief descriptions of the nine types. This section is not an encyclopedic description of the Enneagram types in prose, it is a declaration by Enneagram adherents as to what each type consists of in unhelpful list format. A more encyclopedic description or comparison is needed, or no description at all. At Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the personality types are described in prose (though not well referenced) and they are compared to other systems. This article could use a little of that kind of objectivity. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The tabulation presentation was awkward, but it is the tabulated categorization which is important to the subject's objectivity. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To me, it looked 100% subjective, the list of types and their associations. No objectivity at all. There's no such list of sun signs and 'planet' archetypes at the astrology article. What was placed here was more like what would be found in a pop psych book promoting the Enneagram rather than a textbook describing the Enneagram. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, objectivity originates from reliable sources and well articulated constructs, which survive validity testing. Did you even bother to check the source? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noted that the sources were all from practical guides rather than objective studies. This encyclopedia article is not here to help the reader discover which type they are... for that they can buy a book in a store. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right, that's described in WP:NOT. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Objective relative to what, the objective studies for the RHETI construct are there. The objective reference for the Enneagram of Personality article are here. What WP:V standard for objectivity would you apply?


 * I'm confused. Are you saying the sources are objective because they objectively exist as sources? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am asking which standard of objectivity did you chose when you said "practical guides rather then objective studies"? All the sources you cite were published by reliable sources and objectively verified so, content was added and edited. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I meant objectivity from us, from Wikipedia editors who decide what goes in and what gets removed. Putting the list of types in was too in-universe for me—I was looking for a more objective article describing the Enneagram in general, not a practical guide to the Enneagram. The 'brief list' was a foot in the door for making this article into a "how to" guide, and I wish to remove the foot, to close the door. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think this particular amputation is appropriate. A reader not interested in fringe who comes across this "enneagram" stuff in a novel, or maybe at work, when someone is described as "a typical seven" or whatever in the same way that some people describe others as a "typical scorpion" or whatever is likely to come to Wikipedia in order to find out (1) what that enneagram stuff is about, and (2) how to translate the characterisation of that person into ordinary language. Both aspects are valid. We have the usual problem here that fringe fans are much more motivated to write about fringe than others, but I am afraid that's a systemic problem for which there is no silver scalpel. Hans Adler 00:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the best reason so far expressed for reverting my large deletion. Well spoken. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be. But I've just restored the deletion. I don't think we need to worry too much about telling people all the details of this stuff - if people want to know what a typical 7 is, whatever that means, they can go to enneagram.com or somesuch. as far as I can see, neither Astrology nor Horoscopic_astrology do the equivalent for this much better known system - they don't list out what a "typical aquarius" is William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have just restored it. People coming to this article are entitled to find a brief understanding of ways the nine types are understood in the same way that they would expect at the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator article.  These brief overviews are hardly detailed. Afterwriting (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And it has been removed again, though not by me. However, your comparison against Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is indeed perceptive. I bet you looked there and realised that the types there are *not* listed: I trust you'll accept the validity of the argument you yourself have proposed and mow admit that adding the types is not a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, the problem with this presentation of the subject is that there's no real acknowledgement that enneagrams are not an academic or scientific system, but rather a rationalized integration and extrapolation of a number of spiritual and psychological principles. That doesn't mean it's bad, mind you, but we have to be careful to present it in its proper (e.g. New Age) context, otherwise it will 'appear' to be much more scientific than it actually is (due to the nature of the language it uses). So my question to every one is: how exactly do we do that? -- Ludwigs 2 00:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your text looks a good way of saying this, so I've added it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - accusations of "pseudoscience" and "New Age" etc
Just because it is possible to find some websites and articles - which are usually riddled with false opinions and "facts" and mostly written by uninformed skeptics and ultra-conservative Christians - that accuse the Enneagram of Personality as being some kind of "pseudoscience" or a "New Age" movement it doesn't mean that it's justified to impose this POV on this article. For your information, the Enneagram of Personality has been taught in a number of respected universities - including Loyola University in Chicago (where it has been taught since the 1970s) and Stanford University where it has been taught in its business school and its psychiatry school which co-sponsored the First International Enneagram Conference which was held at Stanford in 1994. A significant number of doctorates have also been published on Enneagram research since at least the early 1980s. There is now a considerable body of respectable research into the applications of the Enneagram in various fields. The attempts in recent days by editors to impose misinformed POVs on this article are highly unjustified. You can criticise the article if you want on policy grounds but there is no valid reason for making sweeping generalisations that the EOP "isn't science", that it only to with "spirituality" and so on. This is just POV pushing of the worst kind. I have, therefore, restored the important enneatype overviews and removed the blatant POV comments and categories.Afterwriting (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The "pseudoscience" category was determined by a consensus of Wikipedia administrators. Removing the category (again) would be most unwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there any basis in the sources? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a link to the relevant administrative star chamber that made this determination? I can't see through the smoke of this forest fire.--Wlmg (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please provide some evidence of the discussion that lead to this alleged "consensus" and the rationale for this highly arguable and POV categorisation. Unless you can provide evidence of such consensus then removing this dubious category is justifiable.  The false assumptions about the basis of the Enneagram on this discussion page is very concerning and it seems obvious that there is currently a campaign going on to discredit the Enneagram in the article based on the selective use of some highly inaccurate opinion pieces on certain websites. Afterwriting (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two obvious dimensions of this discussion that ought to be respected:
 * Administrators do not rule on content: the pseudoscience cat should be used if and only if it is an effective navigational link for wikipedia readers (which is the point of categories).
 * E'grams may have an academic basis (apologies if that's true; I did not know that, even though I know the field) which should be reported if it exists. however, I do not believe e'grams have currently represent a significant or active area of academic research.  We going to find most e'gram books in the self-help section of the library, or in the business/motivational area, not not tucked in with Freud and Maslow.  sources would help a lot with this discussion.
 * The goal here is to produce an article that both accurately reflects the subject matter and contextualizes the subject matter properly within the greater world. The difficulty is interpersonal: some people are worried that accurate description aggrandizes the idea, while others worry that proper contextualization reflects badly on the theory.  we're not going to find a balance that makes everyone happy, so let's aim for something that doesn't may anyone too unhappy.  ok?


 * (I kind of like that last para - think a version of that might work as an addition over at wp:FRINGE?) -- Ludwigs 2 16:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A number of significant books on the Enneagram and its use in psychotherapy - especially those by Claudio Naranjo - and other fields have been published. The simplistic depiction of the Enneagram as some "new age" and "self help" fad is a distortion.  There has been significant research into its applications for many years. Although it has an "image problem" in some quarters - and I can understand why - this shouldn't detract from the serious attention which it also attracts in various reputable ways. Afterwriting (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear here. There are a few different ways to look at this topic, and none of them leave e'grams in top-dog position.  to whit:
 * As a descriptive typology: There's a long history of descriptive personality typologies in psychology (freud's. adler's and maslow's stages, MMPI and myers briggs type systems, etc.). so far as I can tell, e'grams is not generally put on the list.  might be a fringe theory or too new to have reached textbooks yet, but either way it's not mainstream.
 * As a clinical practice: e'grams are not so far as I can tell part of the core curriculum in clinical psych programs, either for diagnosis or treatment.  They may be used by specific practitioners and there are assuredly people who advocate for their broader adoption, but that would make it (at best) a minor league theory vying for entry into the bigtime.
 * as an object: E'grams does have a New Age aspect - it has (if I remember correctly) a tangential relation with the transpersonal psych movement and is largely used in self-help, seminar, and alternative therapy contexts.
 * I make no judgements about any of that - I'm rather a fan of the transpersonal psych movement, actually - but an article that doesn't explain the niche in which e'grams currently live is not a balanced article. I understand your objection, but can the argumentativeness and start suggesting how we can contextualize the article better.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems as if you confirmed that pseudoscience doesn't fit. The most significant and notable theory for comparison to fringe is the RHETI. Which significantly stands out from other scientific topics, by virtue of the scholarly validation efforts. Many a mainstream topics (must I cite examples) have anything but face value, this topic has advanced into construct validity.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What scholarly validation efforts? The ones that were there on RHETI just seem to compare that test with others, doesn't mean the categories have been validated.  On the face of it pseudoscience is a valid label.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...this topic has advanced to into construct validity"? Can we have an English translation please? This is precisely the problem with this article. Endless gobbledygook, and no attempt to explain what the heck it is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not forgetting Many a mainstream topics (must I cite examples) have anything but face value, which is equally opaque William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far a psychometrics go for reliable construct, this topic is ahead of our other favorite topic(s) which we are forbidden to talk about. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So because you are (allegedly) forbidden to talk about one topic, this justifies writing gobbldygook about another one? Can you please attempt to stay on topic, and explain what your earlier post was supposed to mean. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This suggests that page 576 of the book "Personality theories: critical perspectives", which is currently reference number 1 in the article, does indeed mention that some observers consider the enneagram of personality to be a pseudoscience. That particular page is not available on Google books. Does anyone reading this have access to a good university library? ( At the moment, I don't) Cardamon (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the pseudoscience claim was attributed to unknown and mysterious observer opinions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Directional scales
I'm dubious about the Directional scales section. It seems to be ref'd only to a couple of enneagram-a-like websites William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Restoring the well sourced nine type summaries (with the constructed personality trait descriptions) would have greater value than the scales. Without the type summarizes and their associated trait description, the scales are meaninglessness. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. As the discussion above (and in particular the rather telling comparison with Myers-Briggs that Afterwriting proposed) concludes that the types should go, I've removed the scales per your suggestion William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Selective fact-tagging
Re : there is plenty else uncited in this article. I'd suggest either a banner at the top, or not bothering to tag individual statements or sections William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hexagon
The article sez:
 * The enneagram figure is usually composed of three parts, a circle, an inner triangle and a hexagonal "periodic figure". 

Could someone point out the hexagon? And, ideally, a source for the above William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Doh! I must have read that half a dozen times and never noticed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect they mean the connection between 1,4,2,8,5,7 as a uniquely six pointed hexagon. Whereas 9,3,6 is the triangle.  These 3 by 3 connections are rumored to be a key in DNA coding too. Will look for source. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Page 16 and 12. Silent on the DNA code construction. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sequence 1-4-2-8-5-7 isn't a hexagon. 1-2-4-5-7-8 would be an irregular hexagon William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By virtue of 6 point and six lines, I guess the source claimed hexagon. Do you intend to argue with the source? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes, any six discreet points on a plane constitute a hexagon, of sorts, when linked in a closed path - in this case a bilaterally-symmetrical self-intersecting one. I can't see what is particularly 'unique' about it though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The combination into of the three shapes, circle, triangle and special hex, into the the enneagram symbol is unique. It is the basis from which the connected topologies are formed and pioneers have conjectured further theories. Again, the existing validation has really only confirmed nine type classifications.  However, the exact topology and their relationships to each-other, are largely based upon mapping other personality theories onto this shape.  Is short, the shape is a structure which served well for mapping relationships.  There is a great body of work required to take this further. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is clearly non-unique. You can rotate all the symbols by 1 (or 2, or...) and you get another pattern William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

the hexagon represents the "law of seven". is also rather odd. Why not the law of 6? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Without looking at the source, there are are esoteric paths which may add one to account for the unknown (mysterious) categorizations. This kind of leaves room for further development and infinite expansion progression as the new ones are better identified. Can't say that is what is happening here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which, translated into English, means that any old hogwash can be incorporated into an article on 'Enneagram of Personality' (but it isn't pseudoscience though, really...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * hogwash isn't pseudoscience, it's just hogwash. The act of saying something vapid and meaningless as though it were a brilliant insight is such a common occurrence in the human species that it hardly deserves a special category.
 * More meaningfully, the 'law of seven' is one of those generic observations: certain numbers (5, 7, and 12, for instance) come up in religious discussions far more than chance would allow. In some ways it's the corollary to the old joke that all social science typologies come in 4's (because social scientists just love those 2x2 tables).  for seven, you can look at the seven day week, the seven deadly sins, the seven generations rule, and probably even Snow White and the seven dwarves.  it most likely has something to do with the well-established 7±2 limitation of short term memory, which would have a decided impact on material that is passed down through oral tradition (but that's pure OR, so let it go). It's not a meaningless concept, in other words, but it does need better sourcing and discussion to integrate properly into this topic.  Zulu, can you point me to a source that discusses this?  -- Ludwigs 2  15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well turn out "the law of seven" points to the 1-4-2-8-5-7-1 repeating pattern (maybe seven when repeating), which is the repeating decimal created by dividing one by seven.  Another amazing prime discovery, probably has greater significance to the underlying typological code then we can realize now, but for now its a simple number theory issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only valid in base 10 arithmetic; you get "1" in base 7 for example. So unless there is something cosmic about base-10, you'd better hold off the amazings for a bit. Anyway, thanks for the ref, I've added it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cosmic like in many animals have 10 digits per half. (smile)   Put your thumb together and count them as one (to make nine digits), then assign digits (1, 2, 3 ... 9), map the 1/7 code at X, and you will see a repeating 0XX0XX0XX0  pattern right in front of you. Just missing the 3.  So what ... it's all humbug illusions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...or stick your thumbs in your ears, stand on one leg and whistle Waltzing Matilda. This will bring as much enlightenment as ZPs last post. Please at least try to write comprehensible sentences... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Making arbitrary assignments (count your thumbs as one? Buh?) lets you create whatever pattern you want. There's nothing cosmic in our having 5 digits per limb. Nor does this have anything to do with improving the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess in 2 dimensions the enneagram law of seven path is not a hexagon; because, it has greater then six sides, due to creating overlapping line points. However, when the shape is placed in 3 dimensions and the points are spaced some, it has six edges. Wondering what such a warped 3D crystalline type object with six edges and six points is called. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)     Post note ... see Unicursal hexagram Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's 3D, it's not a hexagram at all. And it's not unicursal either. Really, this isn't a singular geometric shape at all. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're all getting over-focused on the shape. This is not a regular hexagon, but rather a hexagon in the loose  sense (an irregular closed planar figure with six lines and vertices).  the six-sided figure is formed by following the inner lines from 1 to 4 to 2 to 8 to 5 to 7 and back to 1 (one has to imagine that there in no actual contact where the lines seem to cross, but only contact at the expected vertices).  -- Ludwigs 2  23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

overhaul
I'm going to overhaul the article - mostly reorganization and copy-edit, though I think I'm going to recover the deleted 'personality types' section and rework it into a table (that seems like central information to this topic). -- Ludwigs 2 18:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have at it. I went as far as dared, considering the touchy climate at the article. I'd support adding the table as well. The only kink is that according to the 3rd party sources I've read there may not be any "one, correct interpretation" of the personality types, so if you go with Ichazo it may be better to note they are "according to Ichazo" or somesuch qualifier. I'd also like to see the "p" word" addressed, if we can find another source in addition to Carroll. I'm sure it can be phrased in suitable language. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * well, I'm not in this case entirely comfortable with the 'p' word. I don't see that the system has ever actually been offered/rejected as a challenge to mainstream psychological personality typologies - it's just kind of hung out there for what it is, without much in the way of claims to scientific rigor.  If we called it pseudoscience, then we'd probably have to call the entire idea of 'Human Resources' pseudoscience, since the 'human resources' concept tries to do pretty much the same thing with pretty much the same level of hand-waving.  As a business concept this is just one more effort in a long series of business efforts to look intellectual and progressive while reducing employees to standardized objects, and as a spiritual concept it's not at all concerned about scientific validity.  where's the pseudo?  but if you have a different view, I'm open to discussion on it.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't have anything too strident in mind. If we have good sources (Ellis, Personality theories: critical perspectives - Page 576, for example, sadly unavailable in the Google book preview) or others, who offer criticism that, when its been presented as science, they feel it's a pseudoscience, it wouldn't harm the article to note that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering to restore the nine types, the whole table could have single foot note entries, maybe collapse boxes. The way it was done before, seemed to lead folks to the false conclusion that the article was primarily from the sources that were repeatedly listed. Again, the RHETI classification methodologies have shown the most validity to the constructed trait descriptions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch, footnotes are not for storing information like that. It should only be done in exceptional cases, when you really need to explain something lengthy and it breaks the flow of the text. Also, no collapse boxes, please; they are bad for usability (problems when printing the page, broken or difficult to view in certain viewers, etc). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. that was a compromise with myself while I decided whether to delete them entirely or rewrite them.  the footnotes will be gone soon, no worries.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The further reading section is bloated. There are really only a handful of authors each of whom has written a lot of books. There must be some way to condense this. --Wlmg (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, too. WP:FURTHER recommends a "reasonable number". 10? 15? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 9? --Wlmg (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * let's compromise on 9.5.
 * I'm done with revisions for the day - come back at it tomorrow for a bit. please feel free to comment/revise.-- Ludwigs 2  21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The books used as references need to have their full publication information included- author, title, publication date and location, and publisher. I would do it but I don't have those books. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about the table? I saved the references, I just haven't put them back in yet. I'm trying to decide the best way to deal with the differences of opinion about the typology (which will require a better understanding of exactly what the DoOs are). -- Ludwigs 2  22:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the books referenced in the footnotes don't appear to be the same books listed in the "Further Reading" section. The books listed in the footnotes need to have their complete publication information provided. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, Ludwigs said he hasn't put them back in yet. Give him a little time. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * looks like someone got to it already. -- Ludwigs 2  17:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Vice/Passion
Thanks for the new table. The Vice/Passion column has a number of links to the traditional Christian descriptions, otherwise known as the seven sins. Enneagram scholars consider that the Christian's reduce their count to seven, after originally having, I believe 9. Regardless, the traditional Christians descriptions are pale in compassion to the the newly formulated enneagram versions. Possibly the result of the major evolution that consciousness work has taken on in the past 100 years. Question, what is the best way to elaborate the enneagram versions for these all too telling and often condemned traits? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question. Do you understand WP:OR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 15:04, January 18, 2011
 * Yes .. how does that apply here, the nine descriptions are well represented in the sources. The issue is how to add them without creating OR. That would be helpful. That's why I asked. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you have independent reliable sources making the comparison, you don't add them at all. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

After thinking this over, I think it's best just to dewikify most of those terms. they are common enough that the wikilinks are not essential, and if the terms have specific meaning in the world of enneagrams we can either flesh that out later or leave it to the reader to investigate further. -- Ludwigs 2 20:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Some Issues
It seems that a number of people are editing this article to promote particular schools of Enneagram teaching. The type descriptions, for instance, are all heavily derived from Don Richard Riso's writings. As many aspects of Riso's Enneagram teachings are highly contentious this is not exactly helpful in what is meant to be a encyclopedia where some sort of general consensus is what is required. This comment was original made somewhere else (Talk:Enneagram?) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeuio (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 April 2007 moved some threads because of a page split! mabdul 12:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is true. Not only that, but the origin in Sufi teaching seems entirely lost, with only the derivative modern aspects - and, as you say, competitive commercial organisation views. 196.209.244.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

history section
I've renamed the development section 'History, and de-listified it. can someone tell me when the specific term "Enneagram of Personality" came into use? It was either Naranjo or one of the authors writing about his work, but I don't know which. -- Ludwigs 2 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarke's overview seems to indicate Ichazo was among the earliest (1969) to use the term. (Also, for those who care, Clarke has some reliable material regarding the law of seven, etc.). - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added that information with the reference. but I have to say - dude! the writing! "A drastic watershed in enneagram exegesis was imminent..."  that had to have gotten honorable mention (at minimum) in the 2006 Turgid Prose awards.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, Clarke can be rather, er, colorful, but I've seen a lot worse college text writing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not just turgid, it's horrible. o.O &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

removing the 'issues' tag?
I've done all I can with updating this without digging in to do some more research. I can see where it needs expansion, but I can't d an effective job with it at this point. however, I think the article is better balanced now. can I go ahead and remove the 'issues' tag? -- Ludwigs 2 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection from me, although I'd keep a single tag for the "Basic typology" section needing more objective sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ichazo & Naranjo
An editor keeps asserting that Naranjo's so-called "split" with Ichazo was over their interpretation of the Enneagram. Whatever the reasons were for Naranjo leaving Ichazo's course in Arica (and there are differing accounts about this), there is no evidence that I know of that suggests that their "split" (if that's what it actually was) was over any differing interpretations of the Enneagram. In fact the available evidence only indicates that Naranjo began developing some different ideas about the Enneagram after he left and returned to the United States. Nor do I know of any lawsuit between Ichazo and Naranjo over the Enneagram - the only lawsuits of this kind that I know of were between Ichazo and Helen Palmer and Patrick O'Leary in the 1980s. If there is a source that suggests that the "split" between Ichazo and Naranjo was over the Enneagram then I suggest that it probably has its facts wrong. I would also want to know what the actual text of the source says. Ontologicos (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The source: Personality theories: critical perspectives by Albert Ellis, Mike Abrams, Lidia Dengelegi Abrams, page 572 - "Ichazo had a disciple named Claudio Naranjo (1997) an anthropologist and psychiatrist who split with Ichazo over the correct interpretation of the Enneagram." I don't understand the reversion of this cited material. It seems to indicate a reluctance to report the various disagreements among Enneagram proponents, or whitewash the subject matter. I suggest we report what reliable sources say rather than interpret them as "wrong" according to our personal ideas. The lawsuit brought by Ichazo and Helen Palmer is also reliably sourced and can be reported on in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That Ellis et al source is an excellent scholarly source. If no other source discusses the split between Ichazo and Naranjo then the book's analysis stands as the correct one. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be an "excellent scholarly source" in your opinion but Ellis isn't an expert on the Enneagram and on the reasons for the "split" he seems to prefer a good story to the known facts. And describing Naranjo as being Ichazo's "disciple" is also far-fetched. So his "analysis", as you've called it, is almost certainly *not* "the correct one" at all but only misinformed opinion. There are more original sources that refer to their "split" and I don't recall that any of them ever refer to disagreement over understanding the Enneagram as being the reason for it. It seems to have been a "personality conflict" more than anything else. There may have been conflict between them over the Enneagram afterwards but that is entirely a different matter. Ontologicos (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you link to or quote the sources which contradict Ellis et al? Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Onotologicos, Wikipedia isn't always right. WP reports on what experts say. It's not fair, but it's policy. The hard truth is that if wrong facts get accepted in the mainstream, then WP has to report the mainstream view, even if one particular editor or another has superior knowledge and knows it's wrong. Sorry. Binksternet is right. You have to go find your own good source to make any point that you yourself would like to make. Leadwind  (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try to find some sources as soon as I'm able. In the meantime I have rephrased the wording to something less factually contentious. Ellis' claim is not the "mainstream view" on the "split" between Ichazo and Naranjo and is, I believe, almost certainly factually incorrect. What is known and uncontentious is that Naranjo attended a long residential course with Ichazo in Arica, Chile in, as I recall, 1969 or 1970. It is known that Naranjo left the course before it ended. Both Naranjo and Ichazo later made conflicting comments about the reasons why he (Naranjo) left the course - but neither, to the best of my knowledge, have ever stated that it was in any way due to a difference in their understanding the Enneagram. It seems, therefore, that any conflict between them over the Enneagram came only after their "split" (or whatever it actually was) but wasn't the reason for Naranjo leaving the course. In any case, its not really all that important. What is actually important is that Naranjo began developing and teaching an understanding of the Enneagram that was partly different from Ichazo's in some aspects. Ontologicos (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Old, outdated information repeatedly cited
I attempted to update the Enneagram section to reflect progress in Enneagram studies both in the fields of Counseling and Psychology. I detailed how presenters had discussed the Enneagram at the American Counseling Association for a number of years (2004 - present). Also,several graduate counseling programs now includethe Enneagram as electives in their curriculum. In addition, several doctoral students are currently studying the Enneagram in their dissertation. However, the information, which is completely verifiable, was deleted twice. Someone appears to want to control the site with outdated, inaccurate information that leads the reader to believe the Enneagram is underground and seemingly obsolete, except when used with businesses. How unfortunate. The poster wrote that the Enneagram was not widely used. It is curious that he or she does not seem to be interested in promoting helpful information that would encourage serious Enneagram study. It is also interesting they feel entitled to remove information they could not possibly have tried to verify. What absolute privilige and assumed power this communicates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tduffey (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are quite correct. For some months editing this article has been kept hostage by a small group of POV editors who have sought to prevent anything apearing in the article which contradicts their ignorance and prejudices on this topic while at the same time actively seeking and including some inaccurate or biased information which supports their POV. Ontologicos (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "whup whup" sound you can hear is the black helicopters closing in. Run now before it is too late.
 * But actually, I've no idea who this evil cabal is, or what edits you're on about. Do you mean ? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

wings..?
"Most, but not all, Enneagram of Personality theorists teach that a person's basic type is modified, at least to some extent, by the personality dynamics of the two adjacent types as indicated on the enneagram figure. A person of the Three personality type, for example, is understood to have points Two and Four as their wing types."

If this process of wings is linked to the enneagram, would is not make more sense for the wings to be the ones it is connected to via the repeating number of 142857?? so 3 would be 6 and 9 (on the triangle) and 1 would be 4 and 7 and so on? It's just I am not convinced by the explanation of it being numerically adjacent personality types. I question it as it is unsourced and the logic of having a special hexagon is sort of pointless if it does not link in...is it? 86.164.60.91 (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By definition that's what the "wings" are - they are the two on either side on the circle. The lines indicate other connections and aren't wings. Afterwriting (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Protection request
. Please protect this article and block (and IP sock...has been tagged) for edit warring and persistent vandalism against consensus. They have been warned abundantly. This has to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Article was protected, and IP blocked by JamesBWatson - Happysailor  (Talk) 14:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cultural reference addition?
Ah, I hate to butt in here, but may I just mention that this symbol features prominently in Alejandro Jodorowsky's The Holy Mountain (1973 film)? It's the alchemist's pendant and comes up again in an illustration related to the quest, shown carved into a table top. (In the film this part is at about 1:17).

Just tracked it down. I'm not one of the privileged elite so somebody else can decide if you want to toss that in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.61.139 (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is true but this use of the enneagram geometric figure in the film probably has little if anything to do with the subject matter of this article apart from the film's connection with Oscar Ichazo. His article - and the Enneagram (geometry) article - would be more appropriate for any mention of the film's use of the figure.  The figure appears at various times during the film as I recall. Afterwriting (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)