Talk:Christian theosophy/Archive 3

Peer reviews
Factseducado has been talking about "peer reviews of Theosophy" but we are yet to see any, do any exist? GreenUniverse (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In order to answer your question I need you to answer two questions. What does peer-review mean to you and how do you apply it to a book in contrast to a journal article? Please note that I am asking for your own interpretation of the Wikipedia policy on reliable and verifiable sources. Explain your own answer to the two questions I've posed so that I can understand what you believe peer-review means as it relates to journal articles and as it relates to books. Do not simply quote or paraphrase the WP policy or policies.


 * Next from the perhaps dozens of articles, encyclopedia entries, and books that writers here have submitted as being pertinent to the subject, list below any which you do not think have been peer-reviewed in a way satisfactorily to you or which you believe violate the WP policies on reliable and verifiable source.


 * With so many sources having been provided, the onus is on you to provide evidence that properly peer-review publications on theosophy do not exist.


 * Finally, your prior willingness to accept Versluis' book published by Lindisfarne appears to set the bar low on what you consider a proper source for this article. Have you changed your mind or can you express a reason that would make books published by Lindisfarne eligible for use in this article and books published by another publisher you may feel is acceptable not eligible for use in this article? Additionally, what about the WP article on the reputation or notability of the scholar? In your interpretation should this trump the publisher of a book or not? If you believe that sometimes the scholar's reputation should trump the publisher, then in what sorts of cases should it do so and in what sorts of cases shouldn't it in your view? Factseducado (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This whole discussion is rather out-of-hand. I have examined some pages of contentious articles like Christianity and Islam. The articles talk about the various aspects of the subject but keep things of contention on a totally separate page that is briefly mentioned at the very end of the article. The discussion as seen here to date suggests strongly we should do the same. I think some people here would would be willing to write a Criticism of Theosophy wikipage so we may then reference it. JEMead (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * JEMead, a section on parts of theosophy you don't want discussed in this article such as scholarship on racism in theosophy and theosophical influence on Nazi ideas will have to be included. Of course the corresponding scholarship that indicates theosophy has embraced all races and religions must also be presented in the same section. To quote Binksternet, "NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The article is not neutral because it does not represent critical scholarly views." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can put up the 6 pages of international scholars who contributed to Hanegraaff, Hanegraaff (2006). Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism. Brill Academic Pub. pp. 1230.  e.g.it does have an article on Ariosophy written by Goodrick-Clarke, N., University of Wales, Lampeter, United Kingdom JEMead (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Arisophy is not theosophy. In order to discuss theosophy one must include "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." All forms of gnosis and western esotericism are not theosophy. The focus of this article must be theosophy because of the name of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources for overview and summary

 * This entry references Emanuel Swedenborg, Helena Blavatsky and the "fourth dimension", explained by Blackburn as being akin to Bernhard Riemann's concept of a dimension "into which things might disappear, only to reappear elsewhere".
 * This entry continues with sections entitled "Doctrine" and "Divisions". It lists the following bibliography:
 * The Theosophical Movement 1875–1950 (Los Angeles 1951).
 * e. a. greenwalt, The Point Loma Community (Berkeley, Calif. 1955).
 * c. p. ramaswami aijar, Annie Besant (Delhi, India 1963).
 * c. e. b. roberts, The Mysterious Madame (New York 1931).
 * g. l. williams, Priestess of the Occult (New York 1946).
 * g. h. whyte, H. P. Blavatsky (London 1909).
 * j. symonds, Madame Blavatsky (New York 1960).
 * a. h. nethercot, The First Five Lives of Annie Besant (Chicago 1960); The Last Four Lives of Annie Besant (Chicago 1963).
 * t. m. francis, Blavatsky, Besant and Co. (St. Paul, Minn. 1939).
 * f. p. spinks, Theosophists Reunite! (Boston 1958).
 * c. j. ryan, What is Theosophy? (Covina, Calif. 1944).
 * l. w. rogers, Elementary Theosophy (Wheaton, Ill. 1950).
 * i. s. cooper, Theosophy Simplified (Wheaton, Ill. 1955).
 * h. p. blavatsky, Key to Theosophy (New York 1913).
 * w. c. ohlendorf, An Outline of the Secret Doctrine (Chicago 1941).
 * The bibliography includes Theosophy in the Nineteenth Century: An Annotated Bibliography, by Michael Gomes, a text which Ellwood describes as "an essential resource." Ellwood also recommends Gomes's 1987 book, The Dawning of the Theosophical Movement, "an empathetic scholarly study of Blavatsky and early theosophy in context."
 * (Entry about Western Esoteric Family I: Ancient Wisdom: Theosophy. The author puts theosophy in context with Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry, Mesmerism, liberal Catholicism and various Western esoteric/occult beliefs.)
 * (Entry about the Point Loma Theosophical Community.)
 * (Theosophy entry)
 * (Theosophy entry)
 * (Theosophy entry)
 * (Theosophy entry)
 * (Theosophy entry)
 * (Theosophy entry)

The above sources mostly place pre-Blavatsky theosophy in a very minor position, one of background information leading to Blavatsky-style theosophy. None of them exalt pre-Blavatsky theosophy to the point of deserving the honor of being called theosophy while Blavatsky's doctrines are called something else. In other words, none of these encyclopedia sources support the form of the article as it existed last week, with its great emphasis on pre-Blavatsky theosophy with a faint compromise nod to Blavatsky. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is great research. Though academics in Religious Studies and other fields have recently increased scholarly focus on esotericism and new religious movements (with a few exceptions on those topics which have not received increased attention), the recent publications by scholarly presses and in peer-reviewed journals do not support the idea that "theosophy" is a word more properly applied to pre-late 1800 religious, cultural, intellectual, scientific, mystical, occult or esoteric practices and/or ways of thinking. Factseducado (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All these references about Blavatsky are not needed, she already has a main article, that is not what this article is about. GreenUniverse (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GreenUniverse, please examine the previously written views to the contrary which I have placed below to facilitate your examining the prior discussion. The first comments series below addresses your comment that "she already has a main article." The last two comments in the series below address your comment, "that is not what this article is about."


 * "This article, with its global title, must be about all of Theosophy—the gamut, including your "plethora of types of Theosophy". All the significant belief systems that have been called "Theosophy" must be represented. This article with its global title cannot only be about one type of (perhaps) idealized Theosophy, to the exclusion of other forms of Theosophy. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)"


 * "It is a huge topic. Why not mention things and then link-out to the wikipage reference that covers various issues. The Theosophists (Theosophy as in TS) have a lot of page space already. Why should anyone duplicate their material when a person can mention Doctrines and supply the links?? where does one actually get a chance to actually discuss theosophy??JEMead (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)"


 * "When someone wants to learn about Theosophy, they will turn to this article. It is okay to have links at the beginning of various sections taking the reader to a more detailed article on the topic. If we have reliable sources that provide information about Theosophy, that information can usually be added, as long as due weight is considered. JEMead, you and a few other editors have been working on this article for some time. Your efforts are to be commended. The article will improve quickly as other editors, newer to the article, enter the editing process. drs (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)"


 * "NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The article is not neutral because it does not represent critical scholarly views. NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I do not think all significant views have been fairly represented. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)"


 * "These critical authors, books and concepts are integral to the scholarship of Theosophy, and their absence in this article makes a mockery of NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)"


 * GreenUniverse, I brought these WP:Tertiary references to the talk page to demonstrate that Theosophy is commonly and integrally linked to Blavatsky in reference texts. Most authors say that Blavatsky started Theosophy, and those who mention a prehistory, pre-Blavatsky, do not accord it any great import. The 17th and 18th century notions of theosophy are cast as background information to the much larger theosophy of Blavatsky. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Binksternet has supported his view that all parts of the topic of theosophy belong in the article Theosophy. These topics include at least the following: 17th and 18th century instances of theosophy, the Theosophy movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s and theosophy/Theosophy today. When considering undue weight I believe Binksternet has provided reliable, verifiable sources which demonstrate that pre-Blavatsky theosophy is not of more importance than the rest of theosophy. Binksternet's sources can be used to build a case for the idea that pre-Blavatsky theosophy has relatively less and perhaps markedly less relevance to the topic of theosophy compared to the theosophy of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Binksternet's sources certainly indicate that pre-Blavatsky theosophy should not be accorded greater weight in the article Theosophy than the theosophy of the late 1800s and early 1900s.


 * WP has a policy that indicates it is incorrect to create separate articles when the topics being discussed belong in the same article. This is what I think JEMead is advocating when he points out that Blavatsky has an article and that Ariosophy has an article. I'm not suggesting those articles be merged with this one. I am stating that separating out discussion of theosophy in the late 1800s to the present day so that Theosophy doesn't give those eras due weight is an incorrect decision.


 * I am also stating that simply mentioning Ariosophy and linking to it will not give the NPOV required in this article if reliable, verifiable sources do show academic research that indicates racism have some connection to some theosophy or theosophers. Of course, scholarship demonstrating the not racist nature of theosophy should be included for balance. The same holds true for reliable, verifiable sources showing academic research that indicates theosophy may have some connection to Nazism. The important points of consideration are not to give undue weight to the ideas of theosophy/racism or theosophy/Nazism compared to the amount of text in the entire article and to represent scholarly opinions from all relevant and significant sides with proper balance. Factseducado (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After the RFC: ideas for future methods of moving forward if an editor is dissatisfied
Which method of handling disagreement among editors is currently preferred by editors, if there is not response to the RFC?


 * These are my ideas:


 * It would feel helpful to me if [any future dissatisfied editor] were to list specific items or issues that concern him or her here so those things could be further discussed. I think it's natural that each editor has a point of view and exploring the reasons behind each others concerns will lead to the best article over time.


 * Earlier I wrote: "If uninvolved editors or commenters do not respond to the RFC by 18:00 of May 5th as time is recorded on the Talk page (which is a bit over 72 hours after the RFC was submitted) and [an editor] is still unsatisfied then I suggest all editors of the article and the Talk page follow a couple of steps outlined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC. The first one is to 'discuss the matter on the talk page first.' Then if [an editor] is still unsatisfied I suggest we follow the next step outlined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC which would be to 'ask for help at the relevant WikiProject.'"


 * I also wrote, "In the future I would prefer if 'a simple actionable question had been crafted in the request for comment as is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_through_talk_pages which states, 'Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template, and sign it with [four tildes](name and date) or [five tildes] (just the date).'"


 * I specified that, "I think relevant WikiProjects are those that link to this Talk page. These are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Theosophy&limit=500. They include the WikiProjects Occult, Religion, Philosophy, and Rational Skepticism. I think that asking the same question to each Wikiproject would avoid canvassing and votestacking. I suggest that any way of asking for help at any of those WikiProjects should be discussed here so that the request is neutrally stated, specific, narrow, and actionable. I also think WikiProjects on History and Language could be useful places to submit neutrally worded, specific, narrow, actionable questions. Factseducado (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)"


 * and I wrote, "Since the first method of requesting comment has been used, does that mean nobody can use the 'alternative to request comment through talk pages' which is to 'do so through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board. Follow the directions on that page, and your request will be transferred to an appropriate location,' which is mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Suggestions_for_responding? Factseducado (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)" Factseducado (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Making citations work well
Let's discuss any issue related to improving or commenting on any citations in the article in this section.


 * I need this citation to be properly formatted and show up down below in the article as a reference. I don't have any idea how to do this.


 * Jackson Spielvogel and David Redles writing at The Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance Online at http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395043#45 in Annual 3 Chapter 9 cite Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine, vol. 2, pp. 339-94 regarding Blavatsky as follows, "And although her racial doctrine clearly entailed belief in superior and inferior races and hence could be easily misused, she placed no emphasis on the domination of one race over another. She certainly did not advocate the use of force since human racial evolution was an inevitable process that operated primarily on the basis of spiritual laws. Nevertheless, in her work Blavatsky had helped to foster antisemitism, which is perhaps one of the reasons her esoteric work was so rapidly accepted in German circles. She sharply differentiated Aryan and Jewish religion. The Aryans were the most spiritual people on earth. For them, religion was an 'everlasting lodestar.' For the Jews, religion was grounded on 'mere calculation.' They had a 'religion of hate and malice toward everyone and everything outside itself.'" Hitler's Racial Ideology: Content and Occult Sources Factseducado (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * JEMead, the article text now reads, Faivre suggests the following typical characteristics of esotericism and theosophy:[25][26]." Citation 26 is to Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2006). “Esotericism” in The Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism; Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Editor. The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers. Are you saying that you are citing Faivre's contribution which is titled "Esotericism" in The Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism? If so, this needs to be clearer because one of the tags states, "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources." This tag is a reference to using Faivre for so much of the reference material. Factseducado (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is Hanegraaff. That should be clear. Other references will be added. That criticism is not hard to put to rest.JEMead (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not clear as it stands because the sentence now stands as, "Faivre suggests the following typical characteristics of esotericism and theosophy:[21][22]" Then citation 22 leads the reader to "Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2006). “Esotericism” in The Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism; Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Editor. The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers." This is the same dictionary you earlier described as having six pages of contributors. I am trying to check point out three things. The dictionary contributor who is credited in Theosophy as listing "the following typical characteristics of esotericism and theosophy" is Faivre as the sentence now stands. On this Talk page you state the contributor is clearly Hanegraaff and that is also how citation 22 reads. If the writer of "Esotericism" in the dictionary is Hanegraaff, then the sentence needs to give Hanegraaff credit instead of only crediting Faivre. Are you sure Faivre didn't write that dictionary entry on "Esotericism" because before you added citation 22 only Faivre was cited in citation 21 and only Faivre is credited in the sentence. Also, you earlier wrote that dictionary was edited by Professor Wouter J. Hanegraaff and listed Professors Antoine Faivre and Roelof van den Broek as a collaborating editors. You also stated that dictionary had a list of contributors six pages long.


 * I have added "citation needed behind some sentences in the article. Each time I placed the "citation needed" I also filled in "reason=reliable source needed for" and supplied a reason. These reasons did not show up and I don't know why. There are some other sentences that also need citations but getting these citations done would be a great start.


 * citations for the split is a good idea. I will check several references that discuss it and cite them. Also used is just The Theosophical Society instead of Eastern. Both are used, rather interchangeable. JEMead (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * JEMead, if you have a reliable, verifiable source that uses "Eastern" interchangeably with "The Theosophical Society" that would be an important citation. The outdated, racist "mystical orient" idea is something we need to avoid giving any semblance of support for. I'm not saying your'e doing that. I'm just saying that either calling it The Theosophical Society or supporting with a citation calling it Eastern Theosophy is important to avoid accusations like OR or challenges to the division into Eastern and Western or accusations of non-neutrality.

Need to deal with topic esotericism in light of length of entire article to avoid undue weight
This is a critical piece to include. The wording is somewhat cumbersome and needs refinement. I'll check to see how Goodrick-Clarke and/or Godwin describe it. That should help. JEMead (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think shortening it will help. I think those sources will be useful. I'd still like the quote by Hanegraaff removed because it's superfluous and in my opinion it reads like a fan-page which is not necessary for the topic of theosophy, esotericism, or Faivre.Factseducado (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Getting rid of Faivre's name would also be good. I'll clean that up when I get better wording figured out on other items there as well. Thanks JEMead (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't dislike mentioning Faivre but it will strengthen the article to use many other sources and to not have sections appear to read as if he is the only and best source. One way of stating this idea could be, "In his book Name of Faivre's Book Faivre proposed one system for classifying esoteric thought. That system includes the following six points, the first four of which are always necessary to classify a thought as esoteric," or something like that. Factseducado (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the following passage needs shortening.

In particular the quote from Hanegraaff at the bottom reads like a fan-type endorsement of Faivre and deals with the topic of esotericism in a way that doesn't directly relate to the topic of theosophy. I believe it should be deleted.

I'm also not sure the article needs to list the six qualities Faivre states as relating to esotericism because it's not essential to understanding theosophy and it's so lengthy that it gives undue weight to esotericism in my opinion.


 * "Esotericism:


 * Correspondence: Everything in Nature is a sign. The signs of Nature can be read. The microcosm and macrocosm interplay. Synchronicity exists, and can be found as signs from Nature and may lead to the understanding of the divine.


 * Nature is Alive: It is not just correlations between pieces of matter. It is a living entity that will, and does, surge and evolve through its expanding self, replete with dynamic flows of energy and light.


 * Imagination and mediations: Complimentary correspondences as Imaginations as mediators between the perceptible and the invisible datum.


 * Experience of Transmutation: The Gnosis and illuminations of self and mind performing a transmutation of consciousness. The birth of an awareness, a second new life becomes born.


 * Practice of Concordance: Primordial Tradition. Studying traditions, religions etc. seeking the common one Root from which all esoteric knowledge grows.


 * Transmission: Master-Disciple, master-Initiate, initiation into the Occult.


 * Note: the first four of these are always present in esotericism, the latter two are sometimes present.


 * Wouter J. Hanegraaff noted that due to "... the emergence of the Faivre paradigm in the 1990's, Western esotericism is now increasingly recognized as an area of research that deserves serious academic attention, and the implications of which are likely to transform our perception of Western religious history as a whole."[23]" Factseducado (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms of theosophy section in article
Note: I am expecting the people who are experts in this topic to add to this section as needed. This Criticisms of Theosophy section/breakout follows common wikipage practices as seen in other articles. If there are some subsections and changes that should be added, I could copy from here and past into the subsection (or new subsection) to help with this. We all have time limits, but I am willing to help with edits if they are straightforward. I still believe that there is enough material for this section to be used as a Criticisms of Theosophy wikipage. The advantage of this is that the page can be referenced by all of the societies, HPB wikipage and elsewhere. The Theosophy Banner on the front page of all Theosophy articles could include this link as well. Having it on the Theosophy Banner I would strongly support. JEMead (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This looks like a very promising start on the Criticisms section. It will need improvement over time. Maybe one day there will be enough text in the Criticism section that an entire page devoted to it will be clearly in accordance with WP policy. If that day comes, creating that separate page will be a service to WP. As I understand it there is some aspect of the forking policy that strongly states that clearly related material on the same topic is supposed to stay on the same page unless certain conditions apply. I don't believe any of the certain conditions apply to the Criticism section today. I cannot speak about Banners. I only know that I like the ease of finding information this banner supplies. Mr. Sands who added the banner may be a source of assistance. Factseducado (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's make sure sources are cited so OR is not included and does not appear to be included.Factseducado (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement, "The Occult Doctrine, as expounded by Helena Blavatsky, has possible influences on Nazism as well as aryan supremacy groups, racism etc.," needs a citation.

The statement, "Most of these influences were incorporated into Ariosophy," needs a citation.

I believe the scholarship discussing possible ties between some parts of theosophy and Nazism relates to areas beyond just the narrow focus of Blavatsky's Occult Doctrine.

Scholarship discussing racist aspects of some parts of theosophy has not been mentioned.

The statement, "The Occult Doctrine, as expounded by Helena Blavatsky, has possible influences on Nazism as well as aryan supremacy groups, racism etc.," needs a citation.

The statement, "Most of these influences were incorporated into Ariosophy," needs a citation. Factseducado (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * the Goodrick-Clarke 1985 reference is the one I have seen most. in the Ariosophy article note 2 says "In this book [i.e. The Occult Roots of Nazism] Ariosophy is used generically to describe the Aryan-racist-occult theories of both men and their followers.(Goodrick-Clarke 1985: 227, note 1 to the Introduction)." That is correct from the sources I have read. I am sure there are other books you may prefer, or change the sentence entirely. JEMead (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If the Goodrick-Clarke reference says something like theosophy was incorporated into Ariosophy, then it supports the statement. Otherwise, with no source to support the statement, connecting Ariosophy to theosophy cannot be included in the article.


 * Note 2 of the Ariosophy says nothing about theosophy. It does say, "The term 'Ariosophy', meaning occult wisdom concerning the Aryans, was first coined by Lanz von Liebenfels in 1915 and became the label for his doctrine in the 1920s. List actually called his doctrine 'Armanism', while Lanz used the terms 'Theozoology' and 'Ario-Christianity' before the First World War. In this book [i.e. The Occult Roots of Nazism] 'Ariosophy' is used generically to describe the Aryan-racist-occult theories of both men and their followers." (Goodrick-Clarke 1985: 227, note 1 to the Introduction).Factseducado (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Eastern and Western Theosophy
We need a source, or sources, identifying these two divisions of Theosophy and associating Blavatsky with the Eastern division. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All over this talk page JEMead argues that there is a Western theosophy (which he favors) and an Eastern theosophy (Blavatsky's version). The whole reason we are here debating the topic is because the goaltenders of this article have been fending off the Blavatsky version as much as possible. My above list of tertiary sources shows that the Blavatsky version is the most important, everything else relegated to also ran status.
 * Basically, this article should talk about everything that has been called theosophy, primarily covering Blavatsky's version. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above points made by DonaldRichardSands and Binksternet. I would change an idea Binksternet stated above ever so slightly. 1) If the increasing scholarship pertaining to esotericism and theosophy has turned up radical, far-reaching new information which the prior sources (which Binksternet has rather exhaustively reviewed) did not have access to at the time of publication, and 2) if that new analysis has gained wide acceptance among a consensus of qualified academics, then it is possible some scholarship in intellectual history or Religious Studies may have discovered there was more to theosophy in the 1600s and 1700s than Binksternet's sources had indicated. Even if 1) and 2) above are shown to be true, everything happening around the time of Blavatsky and after that time will still need more space in the article due to notability and undue weight. Finally, in fields dealing with intellectual history academic wheels turn slowly. New research does not usually catch on and enter into widespread use like wildfire.


 * A further concern is the multiplicity of terms: Eastern Theosophy, Blavatsky's Theosophy, Theosophy vs. theosophy, traditional theosophy, academic theosophy, Western theosophy. Each term must be examined using multiple reliable, verifiable sources to find out what is meant by it and whether each of these terms is widely accepted as a term. In my opinion all these terms are not needed or supported by reliable, verifiable sources. I feel safe in saying the term "academic theosophy" only causes confusion. Additionally, theosophy being termed an "academic discipline" also causes needless confusion. In fact, theosophy is the focus of some scholarly research and publication. Philosophy, English, Physics, Electrical Engineering, etc. are academic disciplines. The difference is salient and huge. Factseducado (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Factseducado (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

JEMead has now submitted a source to support not including the Theosophy of The Theosophical Society in the heading Western theosophy. This source is the entry “Esotericism” apparently written by Hanegraaff in The Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism which Hanegraaff, Faivre, and another professor co-edited. I would like to be sure the interpretation stated in Theosophy fits with the intention of the writer of the article "Esotericism." I want to be sure the "Esotericism" author is not simply using the terms eastern and western esotericism and is rather stating that Western theosophy exists it does not include The Theosophical Society. I would like JEMead to supply the quote(s) in "Esotericism" which states that The Theosophical Society is not part of Western theosophy or something to that effect. Unfortunately when I have looked up passages in this article which cited Faivre and the quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Vladimir Solovyov I have found inaccuracies. I have not independently looked at each citation. Every citation I have looked up has not been entirely accurate. Some have been critically inaccurate others were only somewhat inaccurate. For example, the quote regarding Solovyov was not written so the reader was able to accurately identify what had been written by the author of the entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and what had been added by the writer of the WP Theosophy article. Factseducado (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of the term, "Western theosophy", another example: G. R. S. Mead and the Gnostic Quest, p. 32 DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Great research DonaldRichardSands.


 * On page 32 the Goodrick-Clarkes used the term Western theosophy and indicate that before his death in 1933 G.R.S. Mead was one of the first Theosophists to "articulate" it. Prior to that Mead had been a Theosophist who, along with others, had experimented with modern Theosophy which had been Orientalist in nature. On page 32 the authors end the chapter describing Mead's "seminal influence" on "modern Theosophy..." On page 33 the authors describe Mead as having become interested in Theosophy after reading the book Esoteric Buddhism. When Mead joined The Theosophical Society he focused on "Oriental religions" and then embraced a "'Western' theosophy deriving from Alexandrian and Hellenistic sources in the early centuries A.D." Mead sought to combine Eastern and Western traditions in a way that "was a defining object of the Theosophical Society." This was a "universal theosophy" of East and West which "reflected contemporary scholarly interest in the common 'Aryan' ancestry of all Indo-European culture and religion..."


 * It is important not to conflate Orientalism during the late 1800s and early 1900s with a hypothetical neologism such as Eastern Theosophy. Orientalism occurred in the West and was done by Westerners. Orientalism was all the rage at around the time the Blavatsky et al. started the Theosophical Society. Factseducado (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So this source was published in 2005 by North Atlantic Books and written and edited by both Claire and Nicolas Goodrick-Clarke.


 * Claire is "a homeopathic practitioner in Devon, England has a long-standing interest in Gnosticism and Western Esotericism. She has published articles on Comenius, Justinus Kerner and the Seeress of Prevost, and G.R.S. Mead, and she is currently working on Samuel Hahnemann and the history and practice of alchemy," according to Amazon's "About the Author" which describes Nicholas as the "General Editor of the Western Esoteric Masters Series is Professor of Western Esotericism at the University of Exeter and director of its Centre for the Study of Esotericism. He has published studies on Paracelsus, John Dee, Cornelius Agrippa, Emanuel Swedenborg, and Helena Blavatsky. His pioneering work The Occult Roots of Nazism has been translated into nine languages."


 * The Amazon book description describes Mead as "a pivotal figure linking the late 19th-century esoteric revival to 20th-century art, literature, and psychology. As a young convert to the new movement of theosophy, he served as private secretary to its co-founder, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, and after founding the European section of the Theosophical Society edited its London journal, Lucifer, for many years. Mead's initial interest in theosophy and Hinduism soon blossomed into a lifelong and wide-ranging engagement with the texts of Gnosticism, neo-Platonism, and hermeticism. His editions and commentaries on previously inaccessible sources became standard works before the First World War and an important source of inspiration to such figures as Jung, Ezra Pound, Yeats, and Robert Duncan. A new entry in the Western Masters Series of concise biographies noting key figures in the Western esoteric tradition, G.R.S. Mead and the Gnostic Quest..."


 * An Amazon book review by Dr. C. H. Roberts from 01/10/2006 states,"...Only the first 32 pages are biographical material but the editors (the Goodrick-Clarke's) have done an excellent job of presenting a concise yet interesting overview of the life and labors of G.R.S. Mead. The remainder of the book provides commentary from the editors and selected quotes from Meads own work on a variety of esoteric and philosophical topics, the most interesting and extensive of which is (quite properly, in this reviewer's estimation) on Gnosticism..."


 * On page 7 the Goodrick-Clarkes refer to "Western (Hellenistic) theosophy." On page 8 they trace Mead's interest in Gnosticism to Blavatsky. They explain Blavatsky's theosophy had begun with an interest in Western esotericism which shifted to eastern ideas around the time she moved to India. On page 9 the authors discuss what Mead proposed "that Western Theosophists should do, 'The Task of the Theosophical Scholars in the West..." Mead believed they should focus on Eastern and ancient Western sources. [Those would be sources in antiquity which ended in roughly 450 CE. This does not necessary mean the Goodrick-Clarkes are stating that theosophy had begun in ancient Greece. Rather they trace to ancient Greece only one of the many trends in thought that would much later emerge as theosophy.] The authors indicate Mead believed Gnosticism was the precursor of Theosophy. On page 10 the authors explain Mead consciously struggled differentiating between Occultists and Theosophers. Mead did not believe following an exoteric creed automatically disqualified a person from being a Theosopher. On page 11 the authors indicate that Mead believed all forms of esoteric and occult knowledge were useful for Theosophy. The authors state Mead explicityly taught that only knowing one form of theosophy was inadequate and that all forms, Eastern and Western, must be known to truly know theosophy. On page 12 the authors discuss how Alexander the Great's empire [in roughly 333 BCE] created the situation in which the East and ancient West mixed. The authors indicate both East and West co-influenced "Hellenistic and Roman Egypt." The authors trace Western esotericism to the "mythology, theosophy, and gnosis of the East." On page 13 the authors describe some of Mead's writing as revisionist because he decried a fantasized takeover by orthodoxy in times long past. The authors use the term Gnostic theosophy on page 13. On page 16 the authors introduce a section titled "Trismegistic Theosophy" which they describe as a result of mixing ancient Greek and Eastern ideas. On page 17 the authors indicate Mead believed the Hermetic writings were of Egyptian origen. On page 21 the authors indicate that in 1909 Mead mentioned Neo-theosophy which he associated with Besant and Leadbeater. The authors state Mead contrasted Neo-theosophy with theosophy that embraced teachings from all parts of the world. On page 22 the authors use the term "Blavatskyan Theosophy." The authors explain Mead founded his own society and sought out experts from many sources including the academic study of Buddhism, yoga, Hinduism and science. On page 25 the authors state Mead's publication included advertisements for The Asiatic Review. The authors indicate Mead was interested in Zoroastrianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. On page 30 the authors describe Jung as creating a "view of an esoteric spiritual tradition that was opposed to Christian orthodoxy and remained a vital current in the collective unconscious." On page 31 the authors describe Hesse's relation to Jung who had in turn been influenced by Mead. Factseducado (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Faivre wrote another book, Access to Western Esotericism which was published in 1994 by the State University of New York Press as part of the SUNY Series in Western esoteric traditions. Faivre does a good job defining the esoteric in pages 3-8 inclusive of that book. On page 4 Faivre argues against using the noun "esotericism" because it only appeared in the early 1800s. On page 4 he does state that using "esotericisms" would be a better choice but that the best choice is to use the word "esoteric" "wherever possible." On page 4 Faivre also writes esotericism is probably not something that exists "in itself" and that it is not "a domain" like "painting, philosophy, or chemistry." Also on that page he states esotericism is not "a specific genre" and is instead "a form of thought." On page 6 Faivre explains that all of esotericism is Western and that there is not proper correlate of the term in the East or the Far East. On page 6 he also discounts any "universal esotericism." On page 7 Faivre traces esotericism to the end of the 1400s and attaches its emergence to the beginning of the Renaissance. On page 7 Faivre also says its in the 1500s after the Middle Ages that the sense of the word esotericism he writes about comes into being. On page 8 he states theosophy began in the 1600s in Germany. [Theosophy is a subset of esotericism.]Factseducado (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Faivre uses the term "Western theosophy" but Goodrick-Clarke does not. Nonetheless, Goodrick-Clarke is referenced in the "Western Theosophy" section, using a book that contains not one instance of "Western Theosophy". Another reference in that section—Hanegraaff—is not available to me. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to believe Binksternet that the book by Goodrick-Clarke referenced in that section does not mention "Western Theosophy" or Western theosophy despite the book by Goodrick-Clark DonaldRichardSands found. I would prefer the citation of Goodrick-Clarke in that paragraph be removed or placed directly behind the sentence or idea being attributed to Goodrick-Clarke. Factseducado (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

List of sources
This section intends to help those editors who need/want to broaden their understanding of Theosophy. Comments on the suitability of sources listed here are welcomed in the next subsection. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Academic research

The Modernity of Occultism: Reflections on Some Crucial Aspects by Marco Pasi at http://uva.academia.edu/MarcoPasi/Papers/459798/The_Modernity_of_Occultism_Reflections_on_Some_Crucial_Aspects

The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) 17:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Informative about Theosophy tenets.






 * Critical sources


 * Nazi
 * Goodrick-Clarke's Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth, and Neo-Nazism, New York University Press, 1998;
 * Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity, New York University Press, 2003; and
 * The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults And Their Influence on Nazi Ideology, Tauris Parke, 2004.
 * Hitler's Racial Ideology: Content and Occult Sources


 * Christian Evangelical



Discussion of the sources listed
JEMead (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Informative about Theosophy tenets.




 * "The writer attempts to supply a clear and simple study of the principal teachings - as he understands them- of the portion of the body of ancient knowledge now called theosophy, which particularly relates to man, and which will be neither too vague nor too difficult for the beginner."


 * http://tsdetroit.org/Assets/ach/Nov%20-%20Dec%2002.pdf mentions "Mike Whitty, Ph.D. teaches management and leadership skills at U.D. Mercy and conducts seminars around the world. He is a tireless activist for peace, justice and enlightened community." I wonder if this Mike Whitty, Ph.D. is related to Michael James Whitty mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Foster_Case#Whitty_and_Alpha_et_Omega.


 * This source will be most useful if it is referenced in a reliable, verifiable work in which a scholar comments on it. It is also useful background reading for what some people in a particular culture, place, and time assert that theosophy means. These people do exist and this book is proof. According to a point of view on this talk page these people don't represent traditional theosophy. Of course, the academic study of theosophy will treat this as a primary source written by an adherent because that's what it is.Factseducado (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Whitty is deeply involved and he is a century out of date; he is not a modern scholar with a modern outlook and objectivity. I do not think Whitty is what we would call a reliable secondary source. If Whitty is to be included in the article I think it would be his work as observed by a secondary source. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, I agree. I have a question: In the article is it appropriate to include a primary source like Whitty as an online source of information for the reader. Can Wikipedia not only provide a scholarly review of Theosophy, past and present, but provide reading links to help the reader learn more about the topic? Is there a policy to guide us on this? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting question. In academic Religious Studies classes first hand accounts and primary sources by adherents are often required reading and I know the value of that. In those classes there is a professor to guide learning by putting ideas in perspective and providing further information to frame the primary source reading. There is often secondary source reading as well. Factseducado (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Critical sources


 * Aryan, Nazi, Racism etc. influenced by HPB & Secret Doctrine etc.


 * DonaldRichardSands has contributed a handy online source on this topic: Hitler's Racial Ideology: Content and Occult Sources. I've been aware of the ideas of ranking races in this type of theosophy and it is a travesty and an horror what this kind of thinking has done and can do. Thanks DonaldRichardSands for making it so easy to review a source that addresses this connection between racism, Nazism, and theosophy. Factseducado (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The above topics are covered in the wikipage on Ariosophy and we should mention and reference that page versus rehash it here. JEMead (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Binksternet provided a number of scholarly sources relevant to this controversy. Unless it is demonstrated that the sources Binksternet provided do not meet the criteria for Wikipedia, the scholarship on this issue must be presented from all relevant points of view. Here are the relevant comments and sources submitted by Binksternet:


 * "Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke writes about the recent historiography of Theosophical scholarship in his paper, "Western Esotericism in the United Kingdom", a chapter within 2009's Hermes in the Academy: Ten Years' Study of Western Esotericism at the University of Amsterdam. Goodrick-Clarke is known for connecting Nazism and Theosophy, a matter that is completely absent from this article likely for ill-considered reasons. See Goodrick-Clarke's Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth, and Neo-Nazism, New York University Press, 1998; Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity, New York University Press, 2003; andThe Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults And Their Influence on Nazi Ideology, Tauris Parke, 2004."


 * and


 * "Racism in Theosophy is currently absent from the article, an astonishing lapse. The idea that Theosophy is racist "is much disputed", of course, but Goodrick-Clarke's work with esoteric Nazi beliefs is one cornerstone. Corinna Treitel writes that "Theosophy aimed, after all, to bring the so-called "sixth root race" into existence", a contrast to Theosophy's otherwise inclusive pan-racial goals (A Science for the Soul: Occultism and the Genesis of the German Modern, JHU Press, 2004.) Mattias Gardell writes that Theosophy emphasized "elitism, racism and esoteric knowledge" which made it very suitable to German racial thought. (Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism, Duke University Press, 2003.) On the other hand, Colin Kidd writes "Theosophy is a form of spirituality founded upon an ecumenical and explicitly anti-racist platform. Indeed, Theosophy proclaims itself a religion of global racial and religious reconciliation." (The Forging of Races: Race And Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600-2000, Cambridge University Press, 2006.) Besant was one of the prominent Theosphists fighting against racism.""Factseducado (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * these points against the HPB's Secret Doctrine and Theosophical Society are mostly covered in ariosophy and the link should be mentioned appropriately. If that link has issues (not complete?) - it is better to fix that page. We do not want to reinvent the existing wikipages in the current page. The other fact to remember is this only belongs within the appropriate HPB & Theosophical Societies section and not related to the other theosophies in the Eastern traditions or Western traditions. JEMead (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * JEMead, the original purpose of the "Sources on Theosophy for background study" section came from Johnfos's comment"...It is clear that we have some knowledgable people here, and many useful sources are coming to light in this Talk page discussion. The challenge now is to make good use of these in the article. I would suggest that perhaps a Further reading section could initially be added to the article and then, when we get a clearer picture of what useful sources we have, these sources could be used as references to expand the article. Johnfos (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)"


 * This comment was seconded by DonaldRichardSands who wrote, "A further reading section in the article is a good idea. We have WP:FURTHER and Wikipedia:Further reading for help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)" Then DonaldRichardSands created this section, "Sources on Theosophy for background study" and wrote, "This section intends to help those editors who need/want to broaden their understanding of Theosophy. Comments on the suitability of sources listed here are welcomed. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)"


 * Now under the heading of "Critical sources" you, JEMead are introducing sources and topics that you don't want included and explained in this article. I believe you should take this up in a different section such as the one(s) it was previously dicussed in. That would leave this "Sources on Theosophy for background study: Critical sources" section for its originally intended purpose which was to propose sources the proposer feels are useful for further study.
 * Mentioning it is fine (not sure where you thought I was against it?). However, the topic has existing pages we can link to. Ariosophy is a resource we can use. JEMead (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am suggesting that none of us use this section to argue over whether NPOV issues. As Binksternet observed, adding this "further reading section... is only an interim step," in resolving the NPOV issue.


 * As an alternative to using this section for books and ideas you want to keep out of the article, I suggest raising your concerns in other areas such as in any of the spots:


 * The spot where Binksternet first suggested this article include the issues you object to and provided scholarly sources:


 * The spot where Binksternet wrote, "NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."


 * The spot where Binksternet wrote that this article is not "balanced in its insufficiencies."


 * The spot where Binksternet wrote that these issues and others "are integral to the scholarship of Theosophy."


 * The spot where Binksternet wrote, "This article with its global title cannot only be about one type."


 * or


 * The spot where DonaldRichardSands wrote, "When someone wants to learn about Theosophy, they will turn to this article. It is okay to have links at the beginning of various sections taking the reader to a more detailed article on the topic. If we have reliable sources that provide information about Theosophy, that information can usually be added, as long as due weight is considered."


 * Finally JEMead, you could create a separate section for discussing the pros and cons of the issues of racism in theosophy and theosophy's association with Nazism.


 * JEMead, would you do one of those please? Factseducado (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Christian Evangelical


 * Walter Martin was a thorough investigator of various groups. He reported his findings from a conservative Christian evangelical world view. With that in mind, as editors, we should find the 16 pages of information useful in providing critical balance to the article. We need to find other critical works from other world views, too. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Walter Martin was a thorough investigator of various groups. He reported his findings from a conservative Christian evangelical world view. With that in mind, as editors, we should find the 16 pages of information useful in providing critical balance to the article. We need to find other critical works from other world views, too. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with some of Martin's work. He is well-educated and did good research. I believe this source would provide a perspective on theosophy. Then a reliable, scholarly source could put Martin's perspective in a scholarly perspective. Factseducado (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Krishnamurti's perspective would be valuable for a different world view. His involvement then departure from the movement provides notable historical information as well. Factseducado (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there an online source for Krishnamurti? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * He wasn't a grudge-bearing kind of guy so I'm not sure what he wrote of his experiences. Reliable source material exists but I'd have to track down which exact books contain relevant information. I'm not positive it's online though undoubtedly some of Krishnamurti's writings are online because of his prominence. The trickier question is whether there is primary or secondary source material online that gives insight into the particular time in his life in which he was around theosophists, was part of theosophy, or left theosophy. Basic background material is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti Factseducado (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think it is a good idea to use Christian Evangelical sources on the page, they are not scholars on this topic. GreenUniverse (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing about being a evangelical Christian precludes an author from having an academic post in the finest institutions of higher education or publishing in notable, reputable, scholarly, peer-reviewed publications. Many professors of Religious Studies at places like Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame, and Princeton regularly publish in top peer-reviewed journals while being Christians.


 * Your statement that being a evangelical Christian somehow makes any person not a scholar on the topic of theosophy is an extraordinary claim. What evidence do you have of this? This is comparable to saying Jewish people can't be experts on Buddhism or Muslims can't be experts on esoteric trends in Germany in the Middle Ages. It's an unbecoming statement that is extremely intolerant and offensive. Each scholar should be judged by the content of his or her research and his or her record of publication in peer-reviewed publications or by scholarly presses.


 * I know Martin's education and his work. He was an expert in this area. I would have to evaluate any publication of his by the independent criteria of having been peer-reviewed or published by a scholarly press. It's the same standard for Christians and non-Christians. Factseducado (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read Martin's book on cults, I wonder does he include a section on Christian evangelicalism in there? GreenUniverse (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GreenUniverse, I am assuming good faith. Are you actually asking if Christian evangelicalism is a cult? Let me preface this by saying that though some reliable scholars at research universities do use the word cult, it has been falling out of favor for a long time. New religious movement, emergent religion, and sect are terms being favored by more of the experts in the field. So first, do you understand the reason for the scholarly shift away from using the word cult and the reasons some scholars prefer to retain the word? Third question, do you associate cults with being bad? It is important to note that scholars distinguish between destructive cults and nondestructive cults in all accepted academic work. Fourth question, are you asking if what some academics class as a destructive cult has ever emerged from a group properly referred to as an evangelical Christian group? The answer to that is yes and these cults have received reasonably extensive academic research attention. I would say more academics have been involved in researching and publishing on these kinds of cults than on new religious movements associated with the New Age, occultism, and esotericism. This is one reason for the growth in the academic study of esotericism, it was a niche that needed to be filled and our universities are turning out new Ph. D.s who need to do OR, then find a tenure track job. It makes sense that these new entrants to academia would look for the fertile soil of subject less related to the already well staked out area of the myriad topics associated with Christianity. Fifth and final question, are you really asking if scholars of Religious Studies believe that evangelical Christians do not provide top level research in the field of Religious Studies? If so, the answer is no, religious bigotry is especially repugnant to and vehemently opposed by professors in Religious Studies departments. Those departments tend to be deliberately peopled with professors of varied backgrounds who have top level expertise. Frankly, it's not hard to find extremely qualified Jewish people, African Americans, indigenous persons, Buddhists, ayurvedic practitioners, wiccans, Christians, Muslims, atheists and other groups who are engaged in academic scholarship focused on the study of religion. The best scholars of these varied backgrounds are in high demand and some may have an edge in the job market when looking for an academic posts. For example, any excellent scholar focusing on Islam is especially sought after by departments due to the enormous need for information in the United States today. Not surprisingly some people who are or have been Muslim studied topics in Islamic Studies when they obtained their doctorates. For that reason it's not unusual to find a Religious Studies department hiring someone with top level expertise on Islam who is or has been Muslim. Factseducado (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV again
NOTE: I removed the RFC. We can add one based on new discussions below.JEMead (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC) We are having difficulty maintaining NPOV in both the main page as well as the talk page. There appears a possible confusion or bias by the editors and the discussion is stagnant. JEMead (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion section for outside comments
Dear Religion and philosophy uninvolved editors from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service and other outside commenters,

This is a section dedicated to your input. Factseducado (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Factseducado (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion section for already involved editor comments
Let's use this area for comments from people who have edited the article or Talk page in the past. Factseducado (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your definition of "stagnant" is new to me. Comments are continuing today just as they were yesterday, the day before, etc. What is stagnant about that?
 * Who is confused? How are they confused?
 * Who is biased? How are they biased?
 * Your assertion that the talk page is not conforming to WP:NPOV is without merit. The guideline applies to article space, not talk page space. If you mean to assert that the talk page is not neutral right now, I don't see the problem. We are discussing the best published sources and how they do not mesh with the article as it was a week ago. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see much evidence of progress. DonaldRichardSands has improved the article enormously. Sunray suggested a section for further reading and DonaldRichardSands created it. Much relevant reliable and verified scholarship has been listed. Comments on the appropriate use of various sources have been made and agreement has been reached. Areas of disagreement are being refined so people can better understand each other's views. Task lists for improving the article have been drawn up. I'm sure I could think of perhaps a dozen or more ways the discussion and article improvement are far from stagnant.


 * It would feel helpful to me if JEMead listed specific items or issues that concern him so those things could be further discussed here. I think it's natural that each editor has a point of view and exploring the reasons behind each others concerns will lead to the best article over time.


 * I would have preferred a simple actionable question had been crafted in the request for comment as is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_through_talk_pages which states, "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template, and sign it with [four tildes](name and date) or [five tildes] (just the date).


 * If possible, keep your statement or question simple and succinct, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response. For example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" The longer and more complicated your question or statement, the more diverse the responses will be, and the harder it becomes for the closing admin to interpret the consensus."


 * The section "Advertisement of RfCs" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Advertisement_of_RfCs states, "Most RfCs are of local interest only. But if the RfC concerns an issue that many editors may be interested in, consider advertising it in appropriate venues to reach the appropriate audience. For example, posting a neutral notice (optionally using the [please see in double curvy brackets] template) at related noticeboards, WikiProjects, or Village Pumps may be appropriate. Take care to avoid even the appearance of canvassing. Do not post content disputes in articles to the Centralized discussion template."


 * I think this "RfC concerns an issue that many editors may be interested in" and it appears to me that since this article is of interest to WikiProject Rational Skepticism it would be appropriate to "consider advertising it in" that venue. If I understand correctly there is a way to do this using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Please_see. I don't understand how to do it though.


 * Apparently there is a tool called "what links here to check where particular discussions have been publicised." I don't know how to use it though. Factseducado (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the first method of requesting comment has been used, does that mean nobody can use the "alternative to request comment through talk pages" which is to "do so through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board. Follow the directions on that page, and your request will be transferred to an appropriate location," which is mentioned at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Suggestions_for_responding? Factseducado (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked ten uninvolved editors from the religion/philosophy section of Wikipedia:Feedback request service to comment on this Talk page as a response to the Request for Comment. I wrote, "Hello, An editor of the Theosophy article and its Talk page created a Request for Comment involving both the article and its Talk page. Now I'm asking five to ten uninvolved editors from the religion/philosophy section of Wikipedia:Feedback request service to comment on the Theosophy Talk page. If you are able and willing to comment that would be appreciated." Factseducado (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If uninvolved editors or commenters do not respond to the RFC by 18:00 of May 5th as time is recorded on the Talk page (which is a bit over 72 hours after the RFC was submitted) and JEMead is still unsatisfied then I suggest all editors of the article and the Talk page follow a couple of steps outlined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC. The first one is to "discuss the matter on the talk page first." Then if JEMead is still unsatisfied I suggest we follow the next step outlined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC which would be to "ask for help at the relevant WikiProject."

I think relevant WikiProjects are those that link to this Talk page. These are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Theosophy&limit=500. They include the WikiProjects Occult, Religion, Philosophy, and Rational Skepticism. I think that asking the same question to each Wikiproject would avoid canvassing and votestacking. I suggest that any way of asking for help at any of those WikiProjects should be discussed here so that the request is neutrally stated, specific, narrow, and actionable. I also think WikiProjects on History and Language could be useful places to submit neutrally worded, specific, narrow, actionable questions. Factseducado (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Short, specific points for outside comment on
Let's make lists here to let the commentators know which specific points are most in need of outside comments. Factseducado (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to request comment on everything I view as unresolved because I believe there are many details to be worked out such as whether each of Faivre's citations is adequately or even accurately summarizing his work.


 * I feel the request for comment should be simpler, more succinct and more actionable. That way the closing admin will have an easier time interpreting the consensus. I'd like the request for comment to focus on foundational questions.


 * List of specific, narrow, actionable questions for comment by Factseducado


 * Should this article's main focus be pre-Blavatsky theosophy even though some editors here oppose that and have cited reliable and verifiable sources to support their views?


 * If this article should focus on theosophy before, during, and after Blavatsky, then is there a specific balance of the three time periods that should be adhered to in order to avoid undue weight or is this something that will need to be worked out over time?


 * If the publications regarding association or connection or influence between racism and theosophy and/or Nazism and theosophy are found to be reliable and verifiable, should balanced scholarship on these issues be presented in the article? If the answer to this is yes, would it be suitable to have a section near the end of the article titled something like "Controversies" or "Criticism of theosophy" as long as that section were to be balanced and not have undue weight? Is a simple link to Ariosophy adequate if the scholarship regarding racism and Nazism having some tie to theosophy is found to be reliable and verifiable even though some editors here oppose that option because they disagree that Ariosophy encompasses the scholarly research focused on theosophy in these matters? Factseducado (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Action

 * I think the only way that this article can be improved is if Factseducado actually gets involved with the article by adding references etc, this user has alot to say and they are obviously well read on this topic. But they need to get involved with some action and add these "peer reviews" or scholars from the field on Theosophy into the article that they have mentioned.. becuase so far well over a week or more and he has written 100s of lines on this talk page doing all kinds of debates (some of which off topic), but when it comes to the article itself nothing, no action taken, no improvements whatsoever. I really do not have time to read all of this users posts, I am afraid there is just too much, it may be nice to have a chat on here but that is not what the article is about, we discuss improvements or nothing at all. So in short, there needs to be less talk on here and more action on the article itself, atleast then it will be easy to see what is going on. DonaldRichardSands has obviously tried to improve the article, but other editors need to get involved. So less talk more action, I am going on holiday for a week, so good luck with it all! GreenUniverse (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe any policy forces me to make changes. DonaldRichardSands has communicated with many of us on the Talk page and done excellent work on the article. As has been discussed previously it is important to me that consensus of some degree is reached on the Talk page because others, possibly including you, have registered disagreement of having the article significantly re-worked which is what I and others believe must occur. Due to thinking edit wars are counterproductive for WP, I will continue to engage in dialog. I hope after your holiday you will engage in dialog to build areas of agreement. Your interactions with me would be improved by responding to the direct questions I ask you. I take the time to reply to your comments even when I find them morally repugnant. Please take the time to answer my direct questions to you so I can understand how your view is shaped. Through mutual understanding and communication progress in agreeing with each other can be made. Factseducado (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GreenUniverse, You wrote "peer reviews." Putting words in quotes that way can have ambiguous meaning. Please state what you mean. I have attempted to get you to explain your views of the peer-review process for both journals and books but you have not answered my questions. Factseducado (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Original Points as agreed upon
 * Article was correct as long as additional References were added (original POV issue) and it should continue from that startup state and expand from the april 27 page (to include criticisms section - last POV issue). No POV existed after this.
 * Existing reference wikipages are to be referred to whenever possible. This includes the Theosophical Societies, HPB, HPB's Theosophy and her Occult Doctrines. The Occult Doctrine which was used for Nazi ideas is included in the wikipage on Ariosophy. We should only add what has not been covered.
 * The topic should cover all of theosophy which has an extant time-frame of roughly 3rd century CE to the present.
 * Criticisms on theosophy from various skeptical, conspiratorical and religious fundamentalist schools (and other) are to be in a section at the end of the article. If this section is too long it should be placed in a separate wikipage Criticisms of Theosophy.
 * Additional reading references will be used/added as people choose.

I am more than happy to consider improvements. FYI - If a long post has low signal/noise ratio I am unlikely to read it. This article is about the academic field of theosophy which is a part of Esotericism and Religious Philosophy. Attempts to make this a judgement on the Theosophical Societies or HPB Theosophies are misguided since those comments belong in the wikipage of those topics. JEMead (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * JEMead, there is substantial disagreement with your view by multiple editors. This disagreement is based on both WP policies which require certain things and reliable, verifiable source material. WP policy states that things once agreed upon by some editors at one point in time do not become etched in stone. The possibility of change is always with us. WP, "If you do not want your writing to be edited... then do not submit it here." I suggest you dialog with, attempt to compromise and try to understand the views of all those you disagree with.


 * JEMead, now that you have submitted both the article and the Talk page for RFC others will come to provide input, advise on direction, and possibly try to mediate. They may take up any question they feel is relevant to them. I have attempted to flesh out some foundational questions that they may consider useful to attempt to comment on. I do not feel a RFC was helpful at this time or in this way. I respect that you do. Now we will have to wait and see. Factseducado (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I made a first cut of the Academic Breakout that divides western and eastern theosophy. This was overdue since previously the eastern was mostly provided by links to The Theosophical Society and Blavatsky. At this point in the page (we are still a startup page) we need to make the distinction explicit. Following the academic stance adds to the NPOV we are after. JEMead (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bias in the article
Currently we have hit another point where the article is biased and has a singular POV.


 * The POV issue has never been resolved since it was raised. As Binksternet noted earlier so far only interim steps have been taken to resolve the issue. Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

All TS/HPB/SD id already on Wiki. If this page tries to rehash those items, it is a duplication of existing wiki material only. The item that may be new material (excluding western theosophy)is a few parts within the Skeptcism article. Hence rename the page to skepticism of hpb etc...


 * As Binkernet and I have have pointed out WP has a policy on forking and the option you support would violate it. Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is underdevelopment so more material will be added to flesh out the sections on Blavatsky, other founders of The Theosophical Society, Krisnamurti, other notable people associated with Theosophy and theosophy, notable publications associated with Theosophy and theosophy, controversies associated with Theosophy and theosophy, concepts closely related to Theosophy and theosophy which aid in their explication, and organizations related to Theosophy and theosophy including academic departments whose researchers publish on the topic. Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Some people here believe Theosophy = The Theosophical Society. Not true.


 * No person here has made the claim above.Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 2. People have as a primary objective to use this page for HPB/theosophy bashing.


 * No person here has expressed in words or actions that what you wrote above is his or her primary objective. Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 3. If you exclude Western Theosophy, the academic opinions are out of date by 20 years. Theosophy has a 1800 year old tradition. The article should be about all of theosophy. That is what we meant by NPOV.


 * No person here has suggested not covering recent scholarship on theosophy or the history of theosophy. No source has been cited for the term "Western Theosophy." This term may be OR. It must be removed unless someone finds a reliable source. This has been brought to your attention before. The reliable sources in the article indicate that theosophy did not mean what is now mean by the word in the 3rd century CE. The history of theosophy is not a 1,800 year old tradition according to the sources cited in the article. Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 4. People who are new to 3., above, are not willing to consider other opinions seriously.


 * I am unaware if Binksternet or DonaldRichardSands previous knowledge on this topic. It is not a topic new to me. Other editors appear to be of the opinion that you are not willing to update your opinions based on sound evidence from multiple reliable, verifiable sources. Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 5. Theosophy is inherently western esoteric traditions. This includes early Christianity, hermetics, kabbalah, astrology, alchemy, magic etc. These are being practiced today from a Western Theosophy POV. They were practiced before HPB, after HPB, and not using any of HPB or her contortions from her supposed Doctrine. Even the Theosophical Society admits they knew nothing about theosophy when they took the word and named the society Theosophy


 * Your attribution to The Theosophical Society appears to be OR. You have been asked to cite a source on this before. No source has been provided which supports your assertion. The word "contortions" seems to indicate you have a bias against Blavatsky, The Theosophical Society, and new religious movements which stemmed from them. Theosophy has always been a fluid concept which reflect the culture around it. This is true today as it has been in the past. Attributing the word "Western" to any form of theosophy appears to be OR or synthesis. It must be removed unless someone finds a reliable source. This has been brought to your attention before. Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We have two choices here:
 * Make a HPB TS only/primary article proclaiming it to be all relevant theosophy.
 * Return to a serious commitment to NPOV and cover all of Theosophy (the only point to having the article). ''Western Theosophy will take most of this article because HPB etc. are fully covered (ad nauseum) elsewhere and can be properly linked in as is common practice on wiki.


 * Those are not the only alternatives. Please read and respond to the above section: "After the RFC: ideas for future methods of moving forward if an editor is dissatisfied" Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If 2 is unacceptable, then there is no other choice but to break the article up for disambiguation.
 * One link called HPB Theosophy The Theosophical Society, see Helena Blavatsky#Theosophy
 * One link called Western Theosophy
 * one link called Criticisms of Theosophy wikipage created.

''I believe this topic may only proceed fairly by Disambiguation. We can argue forever here. The reason is that this exact scenario has played out forever on this page's history. ''


 * As Binkernet and I have have pointed out WP has a policy on forking and the option you support would violate it. Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If a Theosophy page exists it must cover all theosophy that is existant.

NOTE:
 * Esotericism clumps all of HPB (and other eastern esoteric schools) together as "The Theosophical Society". That is what that branch of theosophy is called. It has <~ 130 year history
 * All other Theosophy is called Western Theosophy. It includes the western theosophy topics of Hermetice, kabbalah, astrology, alchemy etc.JEMead (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your words "that" and "All" are in quotes which makes them ambiguous. Please explain what you mean. I assume you are not citing a source without providing a reference. Esotericism is not a person or a movement with spokespeople so esotericism cannot speak. Are you inferring that, "Esotericism clumps all of HPB...?" and if so, please cite your sources and page numbers. Attributing the word "Western" to any form of theosophy appears to be OR or synthesis. It must be removed unless someone finds a reliable source. This has been brought to your attention before. Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your assertions sound strong but I don't see them supported by reliable sources. You wish to separate Blavatsky's theosophy from the kind that came before but when I look at reliable sources they are discussed together.
 * Regarding the overlap with other articles, this is normal and usual for Wikipedia. Articles commonly have some amount of overlap, especially ones such as this covering a changing topic that is described with one word. The various sub-topics are described briefly and a prominent link is shown to take the reader to the sub-topic article. There is no good reason to keep any information from being summarized here. Binksternet (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Binksternet's points above are valid. Factseducado (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If I overreacted I apologize. However, It is getting very strange that people request a peer-reviewed source for a question (hypothetically) as why christianity does not have root races?? Or better yet - I ask for a reference from you that must state that the bible is part of the Vedas to justify the supposed equality that you believe exists between Western thought and the Theosophical Society. You really believe the bible and vedas are the same??  The excess scrutiny is on trivial points and not constructive. JEMead (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * JEMead, what are the trivial points you believe are being excessively scrutinized? Also, I have not read anyone requesting a reliable, verifiable source such as you suggest. I have not read that anyone believes the Bible is part of the Vedas. Please explain why you are discussing Western thought in your comment when a current topic on the Talk page is Western Theosophy/Western theosophy and Eastern Theosophy/Eastern theosophy. I would find it helpful if you would kindly reply to questions I have asked on this Talk page. Factseducado (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is why things get so strange... Western Thought, Western Esotericism, Western Religions, Western Theosophy.... You are right. Put it all under the Eastern Esotericism, Religions, Theosophy of HPB. JEMead (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Theosophy of HPB has its own specific meaning as do other terms used by reliable scholars. See the way the Goodrick-Clarkes analyze the development of terms and thoughts which is partially summarized above in the Talk page under the heading "Eastern and Western Theosophy."


 * Maybe... The point is Western Esoteric Religious Philosophy and Eastern Esoteric Religious Philosophy are so different that it would take a genius and miracle worker to combine them together. I guess HPB did it to everyone's satisfaction. So, I will stay out of everyone's way. Sorry that I wasted our time. JEMead (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * JEMead, we need all viewpoints in this discussion, including yours. Your input is not a waste of time; that goes for all. I have set my mind to see how Western Theosophy is used by various authors. It is somewhat confusing. Various authors use the term differently. I read one comparing Buddhism to Theosophy where the author likened any individual focus as Western Theosophy. I assume this includes HPB. As we collaborate further on the article it gets better. I think the article is better now than when I first read it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * JEMead, you have contributed valuable sources and a lot of good writing. I have found the origin of the term "Western Theosophy" difficult. Reliable sources do not all say the same thing. There are sources I have not been able to examine. I think you have or have access to one of them. Your collaboration is useful. Factseducado (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, see the development of thought which the Goodrick-Clarkes explained in the book which is partially summarized above in the Talk page under the heading "Eastern and Western Theosophy." Factseducado (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes one gets too close to a subject. sorry.JEMead (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can post how Hanegraaff explained his use of the term Western (page xi in the dictionary). I doubt anyone ever really needed the adjective Western until HPB rather mangled the word theosophy. At that point, distinctions and use of adjectives became mandatory. Also, HPB has the last two (5 and 6 of esotericism) items as nearly axiomatic pieces of her theosophy. JEMead (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing Hanegraaff's quote or having you paraphrase it would be helpful. I have not seen contention among the reliable sources I've read. Which is to say reliable sources don't seem to argue over the term. A couple of those sources used the term "Western theosophy" another one or two didn't. Those sources that did not use the term did not argue against the term.


 * I think the reliable sources will all support that HPB used Western esotericism and likely Western theosophy and then mixed it with Eastern religious ideas. I have not yet found a source calling HPB's Theosophy Eastern though one calls the Theosophical Society around that time Orientalist. Orientalist may sound similar but it is very different because of the reasons stated in Said's book Orientalism. Orientalism also has to do with a Western trend before, during, and for a period after the Theosophical Society was founded. I'd like to avoid the term "Eastern Theosophy" because I think it is racist. If some reliable sources use it, then maybe we can't leave it out. I would say that any reliable sources published before the publication of Said's book may not have have been using the term Eastern in a way that is not usually supported these days. Factseducado (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Advertising the Request for comment: request work together, describe dispute neutrally, draft summary or questions
It has been explained to me that Requests for comment remain open for 30 days.

Since lingering dissatisfaction may creating bad feelings or escalate the unhappiness before the 30 days are over, I suggest we advertise the Request for comment. I suggest we post a note on 2 or 3 WikiProject Talk pages. The WikiProjects which link to this Talk page are Occult, Religion, Philosophy, and Rational Skepticism.

I suggest we post on the Talk pages for the Religion and the Rational Skepticism Wikiprojects. Does anyone object to posting to those two WikiProjects?

First, I suggest we "describe the dispute neutrally." I also suggest the Request for comment should be simple, succinct, narrow, and actionable.

Below is the draft of questions for outside comment I have made. I invite other current editors to improve my questions or create a summary.


 * Should this article's main focus be pre-Blavatsky theosophy even though some editors here oppose that and have cited reliable and verifiable sources to support their views?


 * If this article should focus on theosophy before, during, and after Blavatsky, then is there a specific balance of the three time periods that should be adhered to in order to avoid undue weight or is this something that will need to be worked out over time?
 * Alternate reading: OR, Should this article focus on Theosophy before, during, and after Blavatsky. If so, how should we balance the three time periods to provide due weight? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * DonaldRichardSands has provided a way of stating the above questions which is clearer. I prefer his version. Factseducado (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Next I suggest we follow the specified procedure for advertising the Request for comment. This involves first making a subheading on our page to link directly to for the recipients. Then the link itself is supposed to be "be a concise, neutral description of the heading under discussion."

The steps I am suggesting are based on the directions in the references below.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment has a subheading "Advertisement of RfCs" on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC#Before_requesting_comment. Which suggests in circumstances like this one "posting a neutral notice (optionally using the double curly brackets around Please see template) at related... WikiProjects... may be appropriate." The Please see template is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Please_see which states "This template is meant to be subst:ed on the talk pages of users whose attention you would like to draw to a discussion." It also states, "The location parameter is for the page at which the discussion is taking place. For the convenience of the recipient, be sure to link directly to the section header. The heading parameter should be a concise, neutral description of the heading under discussion. The more parameter is an option chance to add a little more discussion to the invitation." Substitution is explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Subst. Linking "directly to the section header" is explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Section_link#Section_linking_.28anchors.29 which explains, "you can use:... to link to a section in another page: double brackets around page name#section name|displayed text." Factseducado (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect that none of us object to seeking wider counsel through the RfC process. Factseducado, if the active editors for this article don`t have any objection, let`s start the RfC process. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like wider counsel so we are all able to collaborate effectively and nobody's dissatisfaction builds. Just to be clear there is an RfC already. After that began I did follow-up by asking for comments from 10 religion/philosophy feedback users as I explained on this Talk page. As far as I can tell, asking for comments from relevant WikiProjects is part of continuing the RfC process already underway.


 * I wrote above the summary of how to ask the WikiProjects for comment but I don't actually know how to make those things happen. Templates, "linking directly to the section header," and substitution are more than what I comprehend how to do. I do know how to make a new section header so I am able to create that "[f]or the convenience of the recipient" of the RfC. I can either ask people and places on WP how to do the other steps or another editor can do it or walk me through it.Factseducado (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I always like feedback. Creating an RFC for Philosophy and Religion Projects was easy. Both projects use the same RFC acronym of reli. One just adds the rfc|reli|project2|project3 ... etc. Whatever follows before signing it becomes the question. The bot takes it over and adds whatever is needed (like links). I cannot find an acronym for rational skepticism. The other option I've seen is adding the |attention=yes| into the top of the page inside the project box. The rational skepticism project banner has had this in it a long time. Response has been nil. I suspect if one deletes the current rfc on this talk page, the bot will remove it and links etc. Then we add a new one with the new and better questions. It should trigger a new RFC etc. Is that what you want or need help with? doesn't hurt to try. I will even do it (may track names of submitter etc.) The question(s) we want to add are...?  My primary concern was hpb/ts and what I saw (original concern) was a slow attempt to abolish the original hundreds of years of theosophy that existed, and still exists, in western culture to create yet another hpb article with the criticisms. JEMead (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just checked - removing the rfc request from this page will activate the bot and it will delete everything (RFC request). we can add a new one at the same time as well. My RFC is not the one we want to keep, is it? JEMead (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weighting is tough. Common perception always over weights on the HPB side (successful marketing phenomena). Also, looking for theosophy on the wikipedia already over weights HPB because there is nearly nothing on traditional theosophical currents and there is very much material on HPB/ts. I under weight HPB because I think her proclamation of being a theosophical organization is weak and her stuff is everywhere on the internet already; I do not like giving the organizations and her ideas more free advertising. My current resolution has been to stick to and explain the basic ideas, timeframes/eras, and evolution of the term. When I get a book (since about 1990+) and look at esotericism and theosophy I see one chapter+ on theosophical societies, with over half the book on the "western" theosophies.(for me: western = non-eastern & non-societal). hence - I tend to a flat-rate of coverage. I also know I have a POV that Traditional Theosophy has been around longer and is more important. The Societies have been declining since the Krishnamurti affair. JEMead (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment -Can we create a section here for noninvolved editors to look at then post "a neutral notice (optionally using the double curly brackets around Please see template) at related... WikiProjects" like the ones for Religion, Philosophy, and Rational Skepticism? It sounds doable and there are the instructions above which I summarized but I don't know how.


 * JEMead, I'm neither for or against keeping your RfC. I feel that's your choice. I would like to see an RfC with some versions of the questions above. I'd like your input on any part of the questions above that you think we have consensus on here on the Talk page. If we already agree on parts we might as well leave them out. Either that or we could ask to find out what new people think.


 * Question version -Maybe we could change the version of the question DonaldRichardSands submitted to something like, "This article will focus on theosophy before, during, and after Blavatsky. How should we balance the three time periods to provide due weight?" Then we could add something like we know we can't leave out the Theosophical Society but we don't want to obscure the roots of Western theosophy which go back to the 1600s. So we don't want to underplay it because we don't want to feed into the incorrect stereotype that theosophy = the Theosophical Society. We could add that it's a difficult weight question because things happened after the Theosophical Society which had impact on the New Age movement. We could also state that the Theosophical Society around the turn of the century seems to get a lot of recognition in the world and that focus on it can detract from earlier roots of theosophy. Finally, we could ask about terms: which terms are the most widely used by reliable sources and which will most help the article readers?Factseducado (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the societies in Germany came as splits from the Theosophical Society with an intention to focus on the Western esoteric or theosophical traditions. So in those instances the societies and Western theosophy may overlap. I'd have to examine reliable sources to say for sure but I think the Goodrick-Clarkes mentioned it.


 * The pre-Blavatsky Western theosophies will need to be expanded on using reliable sources. Some of the influence of the Theosophical Society may need to be expanded. I think the New Religious Movements WikiProject or the Religion WikiProject have posted guidelines and a Manual of Style. I'm not positive which project posted them. In any event they provide a guide for articles to follow to aid complete coverage of an article topic. Factseducado (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)