Talk:Oscar Ichazo

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. 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. Martindo (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Who here are you accusing of having vested interests? Why would you expect any other editor to "dig for this" if you don't have time yourself? If you think it can be done, do it, even if you have to do it in your sandbox over several years. Whinging about it on the talk page is hardly constructive. Skyerise (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the gaslighting which completely ignores my point by dismissing a generic flaw in such pages as "whinging".
 * Why would you think I "accused" you of vested interests? Reread that sentence about promotional material, which you have never included in this page. Obvi, I wasn't referring to you. Martindo (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have clarified that "no time to dig" refers to access. T-and-F online has a paywall. Articles and books on the experiential aspects go back decades and I don't have a way to access such hardcopy via university login, public library, etc.
 * Take a look at Esalen_Institute if you're honestly interested in my generic criticism. Esalen was a major influence 50+ years ago, but the tenor of its WP page is name dropping, listing activities, plus discussing facilities, internal politics, and widespread influence. Nothing on user experience (UX). This particular section on Esalen merely echoes "published an article" three times without noting any of the content of those WP:RS articles! I bet they included personal accounts in order to address public interest.
 * Wikipedia writing/editing about spiritual movements avoids any serious attempt to describe experiential aspects, even when they were duly recounted in WP:RS. Using lists to report on such groups and their leaders is like thinking you can teach someone a language using only a dictionary. Martindo (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


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

More independent sourcing
The best way to make the sourcing more independent would be to use the several accounts by John C. Lilly which I added to the Further Reading section some time ago. I've got other projects going, but perhaps one or more of the talk page quibblers might have time for that, since the sources have already been identified for them. Skyerise (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)