Talk:Ones (Enneagram of Personality)

NPOV Issues
These type descriptions are unoriginal summaries of descriptions and theories already published by one particular school of Enneagram thought. They also seem to have been possibly written by a member or follower of that school for some sort of promotional purpose.

A number of aspects of these descriptions and theories do not have universal acceptance by Enneagram teachers. In my opinion these  pages need to be heavily edited in order to present a more neutral understanding of the Enneagram personality types. Ontologicos 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: What format would you suggest as being suitable for NPOV? from Mullah_Nasreddin

Thanks for responding. Almost anything would be an improvement on the current profiles which are only summaries of the writings from one particular school of Enneagram theory - and one that has aggressively promoted a number of arguably idiosyncratic theories about the Enneagram of Pesonality that haven't received general acceptance and probably never will. It seems to me that the profiles cannot be edited for NPOV without deleting most of what's already there since these are enclyclopedia articles that are meant to present some sort of general consensus on things. Ontologicos 14:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I'm not the author of the page(s), I can only offer my opinion:Edit the pages for NPOV, and let the author edit them back, until you have some version acceptable to both. from Mullah_Nasreddin 07:38, 25th May 2007 (UTC)

I added an infobox last night (see sidebar) that was reverted by Ontologicos because of POV issues. Ontologicos is right to say that. It is certainly incomplete, but I really like infoboxes so I thought it would be a halfway-decent starting point. After reading this discussion page and thinking a bit, I agree the articles on each type are incomplete and need a significant amount of work. I also think that might mean mostly starting over by an expert and slowly drawing from various sources as the nine articles are re-written. This is not much help, as I am mostly saying "we need an expert to start over, and it isn't me", but does anyone think we could work on a more neutral/complete infobox template as a starting point?Schaber (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision Issues
I have started the process of revising the nine type articles to be more representative of the whole Enneagram of Personality teaching tradition instead of just one particular school of thought within the tradition.

The revisions I have made so far are only the start of this process. It should not be assumed that if something hasn't been revised that it is acceptable the way it is. Ontologicos 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose removing the NPOV box on all these pages. First, I don't think NPOV really accurate or appropriate - seems like Ontologicos is saying that the pages are incomplete. This may be so. E.g., an article on Christianity that only talks about Catholocism is not really NPOV, just incomplete and needs expanding. Below, Ontologicos said that he or she began revisions in May. Now it is September. The boxes can't stay there forever, so I say remove them.--160.39.71.53 18:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The boxes should stay as long as the many NPOV issues remain. The pages as they currently stand are not just "incomplete" but are riddled with all sorts of theoretical and other NPOV problems. To edit the articles properly will be a big understaking. I appreciate, however, that more should have been done to improve things by now and thank you for the reminder to do something about it. Ontologicos 04:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, great. but I'm still not clear what the neutrality issue is. Which school's perspective, specifically, does the page's info endorse, and which schools are neglected. Do you plan on including only "universally accepted" information (that might leave nothing left!) or break it down by school? --160.39.71.72 04:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You really seem to me to be missing the point. All articles need to present a consensus view, as far as reasonably possible. Where there are significant differences of interpretation etc. these also need to be commented on at times. To present, however, one particular Enneagram school's (Riso & Hudson's) more idiosyncratic theories as if they are the accepted and established mainstream interpretation of things is not appropriate in encyclopedia articles. How the process unfolds to correct the current problems with these articles remains to be seen. Also, if you wish to continue discussion about this please create and use a User Name from now on. Thanks. Ontologicos 15:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is my first attempt to edit/contribute to Wikipedia so please bear with me. I've been studying the Enneagram and using it for both personal growth and to understand others better for something like 10 years.


 * I'd say the task of creating NPOV consensus will not be an easy one. Not only are there several schools of approach, each of these is continually developing their ideas.  Just comparing Riso and Hudson's 1996 book "Personality Types" with their 2000 book "The Wisdom of the Enneagram" demonstrates the ongoing development and maturation.


 * I very much agree that the current pages here with descriptions for each type are inadequate -- at best a stop gap measure while more work is done. The description of the One seems an attempt at summarizing the description in Wisdom of the Enneagram.  A poor attempt, in my opinion.  While Riso and Hudson (and their Enneagram Institute) are one of the leading developers of Enneagram ideas, I agree that their works can't be quoted as accepted and established.  Neither can the work of anyone else.  There are common threads among the works of the major writers/teachers as well as many disagreements (often subtle and nuanced).  Sandra Maitri's work "The Spiritual Dimension of the Enneagram" adds, in my opinion, a whole new dimension to the Ennagram concept that Riso and Hudson barely touch on.  And no description of a particular Enneagram type can be a fully accurate description of a given person with that personality type.  Wayne KIng 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ontologicos - maybe I did miss "the point," which is why I decided to ask some simple questions to clarify - what school's info does the page currently contain, and what schools are neglected? E.g., what specific POV was present and what was neglected. I think you answered the first question (Riso and Hudson) at least... Also, I wanted to know whether you wanted to list out different schools separately or find a "mainstream" summary. Not being an expert in Enneagrams, I do not know what is considered mainstream. Anyway, these seem like pretty basic questions...Anyway, Wayne King's comments were helpful and I look forward to seeing how all 9 pages develop. --160.39.71.41 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Examples Sections
I have removed the lists of 'Possible examples'. As far as encyclopedia articles are concerned these lists can only be considered subjective and speculative rather than objective and factual. If anyone disagrees with this edit please discuss first. Thanks. Ontologicos 10:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)