Talk:Helena Blavatsky/Archive 3

A curious discrepancy
In Blavatsky's Sketchbook, the entry dated August 12 1851 states:
 * Memorable night! On a certain night by the light of the moon that was setting at Ramsgate on August 12th 1851 when I met [symbol] the Master of my dreams!

This is so highly problematic that it boggles the mind. Not only did Blavatsky apparently claim on another occasion that she first met this master in London, not Ramsgate, later justifying the contradiction as a "blind" thrown up for any unauthorized reader of her journal, but even worse, the moon was just past full on that date, meaning it would have set between 7 and 8 AM, long past sunrise. The woman's self-contradictions are unbelievable. HGilbert (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * To put it kindly, Blavatsky was a great falsifier of the truth (others simply call her a liar). As her biographers make clear, she made outright contradictory statements about her own past, and it is this, coupled with the lack of textual documentation prior to her arrival in the U.S., that makes it so difficult to really know what she was doing in the early part of her life. I have added a few sentences testifying to the problems that biographers have faced at the start of the "Biography" section, and thus I hope that readers can appreciate these difficulties. Accompanying this, I have used a lot of terminology along the lines of "Blavatsky later claimed" and "allegedly" to make it clear to the reader that many of the things which Blavatsky stated happened in her early life are not entirely reliable. Further, when it comes to a discussion of Blavatsky's life in Tibet I have tried to include reference to biographers and critics who have disputed that this ever happened; in time I hope to include information from biographers like Paul Johnson and Marion Meade who have articulated alternative accounts as to what Blavatsky was doing in this period. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Blavatsky's beliefs", as from 19:59, 23 January
The section title stems from 19:59, 23 January 2015, before "leading theoretician" appeared at the top. Given the content of the article, does anyone, let alone editors here, know what to believe she believed? We may feel sceptical about a writer who claimed to. That is not to doubt her "good faith" or personal integrity, but one of her undoubted capacities was as a storyteller, and she evidently let her manifold capacities be used in serving as the leading theoretician for the cause the Theosophical Society professed to be advancing, according to the article. For npov something better would be "Blavatsky's doctrines" or "Blavatsky's teachings", or perhaps better still "Blavatsky's theories" to be consistent with leading theoretician in the current version of the opening sentence. Qexigator (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A very fair point; we cannot be sure what she actually believed, only what ideas she promoted through her publications and teachings. I'd be happy to see this section renamed "Blavatsky's theories" or "Blavatsky's doctrines". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's use "Blavatsky's doctrines". I am having second thoughts about "theoretician" in the lead- "clunky" maybe, and certainly not attuned to usage in her day. I feel it would read better to put "proponent" there. Qexigator (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed the title in the article to "Blavatsky's doctrines". Let's discuss the other issue (pertaining to the lede), in the section about the lede, rather than here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is Steiner in this bio?
Perhaps we should reconsider what Steiner is doing in a bio of Blavatsky. She had long been dead for a decade before he accepted appointment (on his own terms) as general secretary for the German section of TS, and was not himself a member of TS. Qexigator (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A brief, concise mention of the influence that Blavatsky's Theosophical ideas had on Steiner (alongside other prominent figures within the Western esoteric tradition) could probably be warranted, so long as they are cited to reliable sources. Anything more than that would be redundant in my opinion. 15:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * brief, concise = nil. Nothing known of Steiner's biography or philosophical or other works (writings, books, lectures, art), before, during or after his appointment with the German Section of the Theosophical Society supports the opinion that he was at any time influenced by Blavatsky's doctrines. Qexigator (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll have to take your word for that right now (my knowledge of Steiner and his work is sketchy at best). Certainly, if we have no reliable sources testifying to a Blavatskian influence on Steiner then we should not include any such statements in the article. Conversely, if such reliable sources do come to light then I think that we would have to look at including said information. Certainly, we have reliable sources testifying to Blavatsky's influence on Ariosophy and the New Age movement, and it is thus appropriate for that influence to be briefly highlighted within the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He respected the contributions of Blavatsky, but was very critical of her followers.--Trinity9538 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * respected the contributions of Blavatsky: have you a source of Steiner's to support that? Qexigator (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless we are including that information in the article itself, then there is no need for a reliable source here. We don't need reliable sources for every comment on the talk page (thankfully!). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is surely obvious that the reason for the question was that an unfounded assertion cannot affect the content of the article. Qexigator (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree completely that unfounded statements should not be included in the article. However, didn't specifically appear to be suggesting that we include that information in the article. As I read their comment, they were simply informing me of something about which I knew little, following my own admission of ignorance regarding Steiner. Hope that clears my perspective up a bit there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * clears my perspective up- That may be so, but my question was not about your perspective, but whether the commenter had a source which could be used for improving the article. That question still stands: it should not be obscured by suggesting that it was about requiring sources for comments on this page. Qexigator (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have located a reliable source (from the academic journal Nova Religio) testifying to the fact that Blavatsky's doctrine of Root Races was an influence on Steiner's Anthroposophy; I have cited it at the appropriate juncture within the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is unlikely to be a reliable source if only because the author proposes that Steiner was converted to (Blavatskyan) Theosophy "at the beginning of the twentieth century", which is more than a distortion of the indisputable fact that "Steiner served as General Secretary of the German Section of the Theosophical Society from 1902 until 1912, when he broke away to found the Anthroposophical Society", and in that period some of his lectures or writings included mention of "Root Races". Others may be better informed about this controversy, but a websearch has produced Cosmic Memory, Prehistory of Earth and Man (1904). The provenance of the 1939 publication is given in a Preface, stating that "These Essays of Dr. Rudolf Steiner which first appeared in 1904 are now published in book form after thirty-five years. They were written for the periodical Lucifer Gnosis, which appeared at first as a monthly and then at longer intervals....What is here presented in form of a brief survey, finds its continuation in the books Theosophie and Geheimwissenschaft im Umriss." Another: The Submerged Continents of Atlantis and Lemuria, Their History and Civilization, English translation from German, 1911, London, Theosophical Publishing Society  I don't propose to unravel the terminology Steiner was using at that time, which would, we may suppose, have been the lingua franca of the members of the TS. Qexigator (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * +As I see it, it would be more accurate to say that Rudolf Steiner made use of some of Blavatsky's Theosophical ideas regarding Root Races, in the period from 1904 before the founding in 1912 of the Anthroposophical Society by breakaway members of the Theosophical Society in Germany. Qexigator (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Blavatsky's writings influenced Steiner and other people too. For example, mid 20th century fascists who dehumanized people with metaphors that equated groups of people with non-humans. Blavatsky clearly dehumanized various groups of 19th century people in her writings. That is arguably her most conspicuous and significant legacy when compared to trivial things like secret knowledge, imaginary continents, or staged magic tricks. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography and further reading sections
Should these not be merged? I cannot see that they are differentiated in any significant way. HGilbert (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. If merged could use merged title: "Bibliography and further reading". Given that there is a formal and practical distinction, it is not clear whether it has been applied here, or need be continued. Normal usage would be to list the works on which the book or article or chapter is based, whether or not actually cited, under "Bibliography", but "Further reading" could be used, perhaps at the end of a section or chapter, to advise a reader who is looking for more information, or to instruct a student what is on the prescibed reading list. I doubt whether either strictly applies here, or if it has been or will be consistently applied.
 * "works cited"....lists at the end of books and articles" per Bibliography
 * "a citation is an abbreviated alphanumeric expression embedded in the body of an intellectual work that denotes an entry in the bibliographic references section of the work for the purpose of acknowledging the relevance of the works of others to the topic of discussion at the spot where the citation appears. Generally the combination of both the in-body citation and the bibliographic entry constitutes what is commonly thought of as a citation (whereas bibliographic entries by themselves are not)'' per Citation.
 * Qexigator (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * + Given that in the article "Sources" serves as the bibliography of the works cited as References. That lets "Bibliography and further reading" be used for other works, some of which may be cited in the works listed in "Sources", and thus part of a full bibliography. Qexigator (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely merge. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception/criticism
This section was removed by @Midnightblueowl with the comments that it was duplicated elsewhere or that Wikipedia discourages such sections. Neither seems to be the case, and I have restored much of the material. I agree that the section needs work and balance, and have renamed it "Reception" to allow reviews of all kinds. HGilbert (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I was working on the basis of Criticism. I think that all of the information currently contained within the "Reception" section (it was called "Criticism" when I removed it) fits more appropriately in other parts of the article, including the biographical section, the "Blavatsky's beliefs" section, and the "Influence and legacy" section. Certainly there are various places where information is duplicated in different sections (for instance, Blavatsky's influence on Ariosophy is now mentioned in two separate places in the article, which to me seems superfluous). Similarly, I am concerned that the very idea of a "Reception" section largely duplicates the subject matter of the "Influence and legacy" section, and would argue that this article would be better served if the two sections were to be combined. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Right now there is a large section on Reception and influence, within which there are five subsections on influence preceded by one on reception. This could be broken up into two primary sections, reception and influence, if you prefer.
 * The reason I believe that a separate reception section is valuable is to distinguish between facts about and evaluations of Blavatsky. Much of what is in the reception section really doesn't belong in the body of the article, as far as I can see. HGilbert (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the section as it currently stands (which in a much cleaner, better referenced and organised state than it was a week ago), I am now happy to see it divided into separate "Reception" and "Influence" sections. There is undoubtedly some areas of overlap between them, but I don't think that that will cause too much trouble to introduce this partition, and it may well neaten the general appearance of the article. I'll go ahead and make the proposed change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue reliance on a dissertation
Extensive quotations from a dissertation on Blavatsky were added by SERGEJ2011, who essentially solely edits this article. This seems to be an WP:UNDUE use of a single source. I am trying to consolidate these. HGilbert (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not User:SERGEJ2011 (User contributions) "solely edits this article" those edits are usefully informative and are some of the better ones being made here. If you make a good job of consolidating well and good. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? One of these recently added states, "According to Kalnitsky, the theosophical movement of the nineteenth century was created and defined in the main through the astuteness and conceptual ideas provided by H.P. Blavatsky. He stated that "without her charismatic leadership and uncompromising promotion of the theosophical agenda, it appears unlikely that the movement could have attained its unique form"". The article already makes clear that she was the chief theorist and a co-founder of the movement. What does this quote from someone who has no real expertise add? HGilbert (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying Kalnitsky has no real expertise? By what criteria and on what information is that opinion based? Personal knowledge of him or what? Qexigator (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * However, Kalnitsky's dissertation is a height-quality source. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It reads as a carefully researched analysis and assessment of the Blavatsky and TS phenomenon in the context of that period, to a good academic standard, including bibliography, which is more that can be said of some of the content of the present article and sources (still under revisal). It does not seem to suffer from undue pov, fiendly, hostile, populist or sensational. I see no reason for treating it with supercilious disdain. Perhaps others know better? If possible, articles on such a topic as this should not be unduly reliant on a single source. Qexigator (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added parameters on Kalnitsky’s dissertation. "Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY in the subject of RELIGIOUS STUDIES. Promoter: Dr. H.C. STEYN." Biblical and ancient studies (section). SERGEJ2011 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That does not state that the degree has been awarded, but as I understand it we are not obliged to use only sources by authors holding doctorates. This source helps to avoid undue reliance on Lachman. Qexigator (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what field the dissertation is in. It is published by the university online, i.e. it is published academic work. It is written by a theosophist – so it is sympathetic to the subject – who provides good information. It presents the author's findings, they are commentary by an expert who researched the subject. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This article needs to duplicate references on Lachman's work by ones on scholar's works. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Lachman is being extensively cited here: no harm in that, may be.  In his Wikipedia article he is classed as a "Cultural historian". He is a fairly prolific writer of books for sale to the general public, and, like any other writer, may be subject to publishing requirements, which is not the same as independent scholarly work such as Kalnitsky's, but his work seems to be well received and not partisan. If supported by Kalnitsky so much the better, if not, we need to know. He appears to have read widely, as well as publishing a blog. Another writer being cited is Goodrick-Clarke "professor of Western Esotericism at University of Exeter, best known for his authorship of several scholarly books on esoteric traditions." He "took a D.Phil with a dissertation on the modern Occult Revival and theosophy at the end of the nineteenth century."  That was the "basis for his most celebrated work, The Occult Roots of Nazism. This book has been continually in print since its first publication in 1985, and has been translated into twelve languages." It would be useful to know how far he and Kalnitsky (or similar) are in agreement about Blavatsky and the "influence" of her writings. Qexigator (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have begun to back up the prose using citations to Sylvia Cranston's prominent 1993 biography. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph
The present version of the first paragraph would be better expressed to read:
 * Helena Petrovna Blavatsky....was a Russian by birth who, after travelling widely, and while for a time in the United States (1873-1878), was a founder member of a society taking the name "Theosophical Society", which gained an international following. She later wrote that she was a proponent of this Theosophy "not as a religion but as religion itself".

Qexigator (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We can certainly quote Blavatsky, but the lead shouln't include a quote from a primary source (Blavatsky). The quote "not as a religion but as religion itself" also needs to be more fully explained, otherwise it will not be clear to the reader what Blavatsky meant in the article. The article is also a relatively obscure one from Blavatsky, better to quote something better known from her like the Key to Theosophy. --Trinity9538 (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, what exactly is wrong in calling her an occultist?--Trinity9538 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. I see no reason for leaving out the quotation marks, but it could be expressed in indirect speech. Either would be an apt, succinct and encyclopedic way to inform the reader what she claimed she was propounding. That would be entirely npov, not affirming or endorsing its validity. It is for that Theosophy that she became chiefly notable, and to a lesser extent but closely connected, for her involvement in the spiritualist movement and her activity as a spirit medium; so that, if something were to be added to this first sentence, it would be more exact, and in accord with the article, to allude to this than to occultism, which is mentioned here and there in the article in an imprecise way and with hardly any supporting source. Qexigator (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lucifer is not obscure; it just was not successful; and in the 21st century, is accessible to everyone on internet. The definition of theosophy was a source of controversy. Nothing wrong about including it. She, of coarse, did write that and in more than one work. It is just one example of language that was sculpted over time. Another example is the formula of the three objectives – earlier versions included "the psychical powers latent in man" and "the psychic powers latent in man" instead of "the powers latent in man" when that was more marketable. Moreover, about "not a religion", sometime both positions were claimed at the same time, like Derrida's différance. The extraterrestrials from Venus in her writings are also downplayed. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Version 2
A revised version:
 * Helena Petrovna Blavatsky....was a Russian by birth who after travelling travelled widely and became involved with the spiritualist movement. While for a time in the United States (1873-1878), she became a founder member of a society taking the name "Theosophical Society", which gained an international following. It was her contention She later wrote that the Theosophy she propounded was not a religion but religion itself.

Qexigator (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) revised Qexigator (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Her writings are dogmatic within the sect, so I believe her statements should not be qualified as "her contention". It should just be stated that Blavatsky wrote that her theosophy was not a religion but religion itself. Her theosophy was also not knowledge about god or gods but god knowledge, according to her. She is claiming her theosophy is a type and not an instance of a type. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Revised above. Qexigator (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked revisal done. Qexigator (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Critique
Without wishing to cause any argument or upset, I have some strong concerns pertaining to the first paragraph of the lede as it currently stands. For me, it is just not as clean and concise as it should be. For instance, we refer to Blavatsky as "Russian by birth"; why not just as Russian ? Admittedly this is problematised both by the fact that Ekaterinoslav lies within modern-day Ukraine and that Blavatsky took U.S. citizenship, but nevertheless I think that the current wording simply confuses the reader. We then go on to state that she was involved in the Spiritualist movement, but this is already included in the second paragraph of the lede, and further it seems unbalanced to not only state her involvement in Spiritualism before than in Theosophy (when her impact and involvement in the latter was magnitudes larger) but also to include Spiritualism but then not mention Buddhism, a religious tradition which she was also involved with. From there we go on to mention the time she spent in the United States, but why do this when we then ignore her time in India, which was equally if not more significant in terms of her life story ? Worse still, we don't even mention that Blavatsky was an occultist, which is precisely what she was (I wouldn't go so far as to state that she was a philosopher, as previous versions of this article have stated).

I would suggest that we look to the Aleister Crowley article – which has achieved GA status and which is devoted to a comparably significant figure within Western esotericism – for a template on which to base our lede here. The first paragraph in the lede is the most important one in the article, and it is imperative that it is very clean, very concise, and explains exactly who the individual in question was and why they are significant, without any extraneous information that can be more appropriately conveyed later in the lede. Thus, I would offer the following as a proposed alternative: "Helena Petrovna Blavatsky […] was a Russian occultist and author. She promoted the religion and philosophy of Theosophy, which she interpreted as a revival of the ancient knowledge of humanity, and was a co-founder and key theoretician of the Theosophical Society in 1875." So what do people think ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with all your comments. She, at least in later years, was strongly criticizing Spritiualism, so it would be wrong to simply say she was part of the spiritualist movement. --Trinity9538 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nationality was a problematic facet of the Russian Empire about the time she was born, there was a Russification of Ukraine which included an autocratic policy of official Nationality. Ethnicity was suppressed. She may have been a Russo-German. In my opinion, her spiritualist and occultist activities should not minimized – nor the fraud controversies about those activities. She wrote, in 1875, that her theosophy "is the same spiritualism, but under another name." She was not a philosopher. She may have nominally a Buddhist but I don't think she practiced any religion. She quoted that "Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God" and she believed that being, Lucifer, i.e. Sanat Kumara who is leader of the Great White Brotherhood, is misrepresented by Christianity – those were her beliefs. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the lede does not minimize Blavatsky's Spiritualist activities or the accusations of fraud that she faced; they are already mentioned at the appropriate junctures in the second, third, and fourth paragraphs. The questions facing us right now are what to include (and what not to include) in that very first, opening paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * would either of you be willing to offer support for my proposed alteration to the first paragraph in the lede ? Or do you have recommendations for how my suggestion could be further improved ? Any clear ideas would be really useful for the progress of the article, at the moment. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * BoBoMisiu: If, as you say, her nationality is uncertain, would it be preferable to leave it out from the present version thus: "Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, born Helena von Hahn 12 August [O.S. 31 July] 1831 – 8 May 1891), a Russian, travelled widely and... " ? Qexigator (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is standard practice to include nationality in the opening sentence of pretty much every biographical article here on Wikipedia, so I'd be very concerned about leaving it out altogether. We certainly have reliable sources testifying to the fact that Blavatsky was Russian (see for instance Encylopaedia Britannica, or written sources like Washington, 1993, p. 26). That being said, we could go for something like "Russian-born American", which perhaps offers a little more precision ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your proposal, MidnightBlue. The first paragraph only needs to state what you wrote in the proposal. --Trinity9538 (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

My comment is about her nationality and her ethnicity. See for more. I am not questioning that she was born in the Russian Empire, became a naturalized American citizen, and then lived in the British Empire. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Problems (not solutions!): "occultist" is not informative as a bare descriptor here; it is too often loosely applied to be meaningful, and is best avoided where possible. T/theosophy is not considered to be a religion, and It was not promoted as such by Blavatsky or TS.  She was never known as "key theoretician" of TS or anything else.  The proposed wording above is not npov summary of the known facts but more pov SYN. Do not overstretch the coulour writing. "philosophy of Theosophy", leaves a reader to work out whether that is tautology or oxymoron. Nationality: what the article states is that she became an American citizen late in life, but was born within the then Russian Empire to a German father. Certainly, she has frequently been referred to as "Russian", but where is the verification that she was of Russian nationality? Taking one consideration with another, the above proposal is not an improvement on the present version, but nationality "Russian" is better left out if not positively verified, or expressed as the place of her birth in the then Russian Empire, which  has relevance to her father's postings and the places where she resided in the early years.Qexigator (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would certainly disagree over the issue of "occultist". While the term is sometimes used very loosely in reference to almost anything and everything vaguely esoteric or paranormal, within the academic study of Western esotericism, it has a very specific meaning, one which described Blavatsky fairly aptly. Furthermore, she openly described herself as an occultist, so there shouldn't be a problem there. In other articles, such as Jack Parsons (rocket engineer) (FA quality), Aleister Crowley (GA quality), and Wilfred Talbot Smith (GA) we include the statement that they were occultists in the lede sentence; why should Blavatsky be any different ? Further, we are clear that Blavatsky was of Russian nationality; the question is whether she also had other nationalities (such as American or German) which we should reflect here. Regarding the question of "religion and philosophy", Blatatsky's Theosophy was a system of beliefs surrounding the origin of the universe, the nature of divinity, life after death; under most definitions accepted within religious studies that would count as a religion. Agreed, Blavatsky and the TS don't like calling it a religion, but this article does not exist to promote emic Theosophical perspectives as fact. (I will look into finding reliable sources that testify to the idea that Theosophy can be considered a religion). I think it essentially unequivocal that the proposed wording is an improvement on the cluttered, repetitive and unclear prose that we currently have in that first paragraph, and while I am not claiming that the proposed wording is perfect and beyond improvement and critique, I do think that it should be implemented here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, we do actually have two referenced sources (both in the article) testifying to the fact that Blavatsky was the TS' key theoretician; it wasn't a title that she had within the group, but it does reflect her de facto status and role within the group and wider movement. Hope that clears things up a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the present version is not "cluttered", and serves well as an npov factual opening sentence, free from evaluative or emotive terms, and then duly elaborated in the text which follows in the lead, and further expanded in the main body (currently undergoing revisal and improvement), which adequately covers occultism. The article and the sources show that her comtemporaries, and later biographers and commentators to this day, have difficulty in pinning on her any particular badge or specific classification. The main point is that, whatever her actual convictions at any time (and who really knows?), given that she was a born story-teller and seems to have enjoyed adventure in more senses than one, her conduct and writings in some measure resulted from the necessity of obtaining a place to reside and the other necessities of life, like most other people, however talented in matters regarded in the popular imagination as "occult". Where has "Russian" nationality been verified?  I think we all know that the article is not to promote Theosophical perspectives as fact, but factually it was not pretending to be or promote a religion, and it would be misleading to write the article as if it were.  Religion is not simply about some sort of belief in life after death.  Swedenborg's system, which he presented as god-given revelation, was not a religion, but "The New Church (or Swedenborgianism) is the name for several historically related Christian denominations that developed as a new religious movement, informed by the writings of Swedish scientist and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg."  I do not see "key theoretician" anywhere in the article, and it is encyclopedically unsuited to the lead. Qexigator (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Both Lachman and Santucci describe Blavatsky as the key theoretician of the TS and the Theosophical movement; we state as much in the very first paragraph of the section on "Blavatsky's beliefs", so it is there even if you could not find it. I have no idea why you would think this vitally important piece of information to be "encyclopedically unsuited to the lead", indeed I think it the exact opposite. It was Blavatsky's beliefs, encompassed in her writings, which provided the theoretical guidance behind the entire Theosophical movement: how is that not of great importance and thus worthy of inclusion in the lede ? As for the claim that the current prose is cluttered I would point to such prose as "she became a founder member of a society that took the name Theosophical Society". That is not good English; something like "she was a founder of the Theosophical Society" is far more concise and appropriate.
 * I'm not accusing your wording of being POV (although the inclusion of a primary reference from Blavatsky might be seen as bordering into that territory), so you needn't worry about that. My opinion is that it is just not as clean and concise as it should be, omits things that should be in the opening paragraph, and includes things that needn't be. I made all of this clear in my opening statements in this discussion. We now have two editors (myself and Trinity9538) who favour my proposed wording (or at least some variation of it), while you continue to champion your own choice of wording. We are going to need to hear from other editors on this one ( your opinion on this issue would be greatly appreciated). Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, another point on which you are mistaken, whether or not another editor may not discern that. The words "took the name Theosophical Society" were carefully chosen, is good English, is concise and is more aptly informative than "she was a founder of the Theosophical Society" . Again, I invite you to think about what you write and what you oppose more carefully. And in particular, this is the opening sentence.  I am also concerned how far you are aware that some of what you propose may not be as npov as you may wish, possibly due to insufficient acquaintance with the topic in itself and in the wider contexts. Qexigator (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * +So far as I can see, neither Lachman nor Santucci uses the phrase key theoretician, and that must be regarded as unverified. Please verify by actual source, not paraphrase. If not verified,  claiming it is inaccurate and misleading. Qexigator (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I was not mistaken. "member of a society that took the name Theosophical Society" is clunky; we have the name society repeated twice in short succession for one thing. That is not a good use of English. For another, why place an emphasis on the fact that their decision to choose the name Theosophical Society ? I don't see any good reason to emphasise Blavatsky and co's choice to use that terminology specifically; you've said that you had a specific reason for doing so, but have not explained what that may be. Further, you claim that Santucci does not use the term "key theoretician". On that you are correct, but Santucci uses "leading theoretician" while Lachman uses the term "theoretician and ideas-person". If you really think that the exact words "key theoretician" are a problem here, then fine, but I worry that we are splitting hairs on this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment
There is currently a debate as to the prose in the first paragraph of the lede. Qexigator has championed the following prose (or a variation of it), which they authored several days ago: "Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (Russian: Еле́на Петро́вна Блава́тская, born Helena von Hahn 12 August [O.S. 31 July] 1831 – 8 May 1891), a Russian by birth, travelled widely and became involved with the spiritualist movement. While for a time in the United States (1873-1878), she became a founder member of a society that took the name Theosophical Society and gained an international following. She later wrote that the Theosophy she propounded was not a religion but religion itself.[1]"

Conversely, I have argued that this reads poorly, duplicates information found in more appropriate places elsewhere in the lede, and ignores key information (such as that Blavatsky was an occultist). Instead, I have proposed the following (or a variation of it): '''Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (Russian: Еле́на Петро́вна Блава́тская, born Helena von Hahn 12 August [O.S. 31 July] 1831 – 8 May 1891) was a Russian-born American occultist and author. She promoted the religion and philosophy of Theosophy, which she interpreted as a revival of the ancient knowledge of humanity, and was a co-founder and key theoretician of the Theosophical Society in 1875.'''" My proposed wording (which is based upon imitating the lede structure found on GA and FA esotericism articles like Aleister Crowley and Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)) has been supported by Trinity9538 although has been opposed by Qexigator, who instead favours their own original wording. Input from other editors would be greatly appreciated here. 14:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, she spent only 4 years of her life in the United States. To term her an American occultist and author seems wide of the mark. Otherwise the latter wording appears to me better. I have tried out my own synthesis, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (Russian: Еле́на Петро́вна Блава́тская), a nineteenth-century occultist and author, developed the spiritual philosophy of Theosophy, which she intended would express the universal religion of mankind, and co-founded the Theosophical Society, which gained her an international following. See what you think. HGilbert (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm generally happy with your changes, HGilbert, but why write "nineteenth-century" when we already specify the dates of Blavatsky's life ? Surely that is redundant ? We don't usually state the century in which a person lived in the lede of their biographical articles. If I may, could I remove that without opposition ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that. Feel free to tweak away. HGilbert (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While she spent little time in the U.S., she gained American citizenship at the end of her stay there, hence why I suggest that she be termed "Russian-born American" or something along those lines. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well...it still seems misleading. Did she retain her Russian citizenship? If so, that would be the primary reference. HGilbert (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There is also the additional issue of whether we should be including the reference, to a primary source authored by Blavatsky, in the opening sentence. This reference was originally included when the first paragraph in the lede contained direct quotation from Blavatsky. Now that that direct quotation no longer exists, I see no reason to leave the reference in there, and suggest that we remove it. The information that it is citing is not controversial, and is attested to by better, secondary sources elsewhere in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I see HGilbert's version as an improvement, but it begs a number of possibly awkward questions: What does "occultist" signify here? What is a "spiritual philosophy", and what others are there? "she intended would express the universal religion of mankind": Can this be reconciled with the ref: IS THEOSOPHY A RELIGION? By H. P. Blavatsky "Religion is the best armour that man can have, but it is the worst cloak." (Bunyan), published in Lucifer, Volume III, November 1888? On page 2 she writes "Theosophy, we say, is not a Religion... by no means excludes the fact that "Theosophy is Religion" itself.", and other references on the following pages. This is equivocal: is she propounding her Theosophical writings as a scripture, similar in type to Swedenborg's writings (mentioned in comment above as (Christian) revelation given to him by God), but Blavatsky expressed no such manner of revelation; or does she intend it to be taken as something more like her Lucifer co-editor Mabel Collins's  Light on the Path, A TREATISE WRITTEN FOR THE PERSONAL USE OF THOSE WHO ARE IGNORANT OF THE EASTERN WISDOM, AND WHO DESIRE TO ENTER WITHIN ITS INFLUENCE(1885) (and would that be a work of spiritual philosophy?). Perhaps we should take note of the titles of those of Blavatsky's publications that are mentioned in the lead, and see no mention of "occult":
 * Isis Unveiled: Mysteries of Ancient and Modern Science and Theology
 * The Secret Doctrine: the Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy
 * The Key to Theosophy: a clear exposition...of the ethics, science, and philosophy for the study of which the Theosophical Society has been founded
 * The Voice of the silence, being chosen from the "Book of golden precepts". For the daily use of lanoos (disciples), translated and annotated by "H.P.B."
 * A proposed revised version is:
 * Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (Russian: ...), a nineteenth-century occultist and an author of works +propounded as+ on mysteries of ancient and modern science and theology, and on was an author whose works were claimed to provide a synthesis of science, religion and philosophy. developed the spiritual philosophy of Theosophy, which she intended would express the universal religion of mankind, and co-founded She was a founder member of a society that took for its name, the Theosophical Society, gaining her an international following. She later wrote that the Theosophy they and the society were propounding was not a religion but religion itself. note: the ref may not be needed here if covered elsewhere in the article.
 * Qexigator (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * +words added above+ Qexigator (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * further amended in response to comment. Qexigator (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To my eyes, that proposal reads like something that we would find on the Theosophical Society's website, and not in an academic study of Blavatsky herself. It is full of Theosophical jargon; whether rightly or wrongly, I am immediately led to suspect that the editor suggesting it is a Theosophist themselves with a keen interest in promoting their own emic, insider perspective. To make my own position clear, I am not a Theosophist, however nor am I anti-Theosophist; I don't believe in Blavatsky's claims although I am very interested in the academic study of Western esotericism as a facet of human history. Now, we have only recently seen the NPOV tag removed from this article, and were wording like this to be incorporated into it then that NPOV tag would have to be slapped right back on there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * False supposition. Please retract and desist from this kind of wholly unwarranted attack. If that commenter has been "immediately led to suspect..." that shows something less than the capacity on that person's part to evaluate text in an objective, let alone academic, manner. Is anything like it actually found on a Theosophical website? Even if it were is it factually reporting what she purported to write about, rather than what commenters or editors here might choose to say, often without adequate means of discernment? Qexigator (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I've caused offence, for that really isn't my intention, but I simply cannot read your proposed introductory paragraph without feeling that it is overwhelmingly Theosophical in content. I'm just being honest. The wording that you originally proposed (and which you have since amended) stated "an author of works propounded as on mysteries of ancient and modern science and theology, and on a synthesis of science, religion and philosophy" reads like it is straight out of one of Blavatsky's own works. Your amendments are better, but I'm still far from convinced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this suggestion would not be an improvement. HGilbert (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not try looking again free from the bias which some comments above have unintentionally revealed. ...were claimed to provide... is hardly partisan; and as made clear above ... synthesis of science, religion and philosophy... was indeed taken from the titles of her own books, as a way of avoiding the flaws in the other proposed wordings, whether you happen to like it or not. For the sake of constructive discussion, I will enumerate again:
 * What does "occultist" signify here?
 * What is a "spiritual philosophy", and what others are there?
 * Would Mabel Collins, Blavatsky's co-editor of Lucifer magazine, also be deemed to be an "occultist", and would her book Light on the Path be deemed to be a work of "spiritual philosophy"?
 * How to reconcile ...she intended would express the universal religion of mankind with Blavatsky's own equivocal words in Is Theosophy a religion? (Lucifer 1888): "Theosophy, we say, is not a Religion... by no means excludes the fact that "Theosophy is Religion" itself."  If she, as the "key theoretician" (your words), is not propounding her Theosophical writings as a scripture, similar in type to Swedenborg's writings (mentioned in comment above as (Christian) revelation given to him by God), does she intend her version of Theosophy to be taken as something more like co-editor Mabel Collins's Light on the Path, a treatise written for the personal use of those who are ignorant of the eastern wisdom, and who desire to enter within its influence (1885). How can that be understood, at the level this article is being aimed at, as religion or philosophy?
 * It would be unencyclopedic to suppose we can make a good job of this article by blinding ourselves, or readers, to what is readily available to all comers on the internet. Qexigator (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to concede that "spiritual philosophy" may not be the best way to describe Blavatsky's Theosophy, and I certainly am open to any sensible alternatives. Perhaps, for instance, we could refer to it as an "esoteric philosophy" or "esoteric current" (for it is certainly esoteric) or as an "occult philosophy/current" (because it is also certainly occult) ? For instance, "[HPB] developed the esoteric current of modern Theosophy" ? I still maintain that it could be viewed as a religion, although admittedly it is clear that it is not normally referred to as such in the reliable literature. "Esoteric" helps cover ground that fits into various categories, among them religion, spirituality, and (pseudo)science. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * it is certainly esoteric: how so, in your opinion? esoteric current: in your opinion, what is the support for that wording if at the same time you hold that "Esoteric" fits into ... (pseudo)science? That looks self-contradictory. You might clarify your position if you addressed the points listed above at 21:55, 24 January.  So far I see nothing to rebut the wording of: "Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (Russian: ...)  was an author whose works were claimed to provide a synthesis of science, religion and philosophy. ....  Qexigator (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Too awkward. Sorry. HGilbert (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that withdrawing your above proposed wording? Qexigator (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry; that was unclear. I was referring to the wording whose works were claimed to provide a synthesis of science, religion and philosophy being unwieldy. I think the lede in its present form is pretty good, but some tweaks may well still be helpful. HGilbert (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming it is not what those words say but how. Qexigator (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that "were claimed to provide a synthesis of science, religion and philosophy" is awkward wording. As for my claims that Blavatsky was an esotericist and that Theosophy was an esoteric school of thought, I need only point to the wide variety of studies on Blavatsky produced from within the academic study of Western esotericism. Further, occultism is a form of esotericism which emerged (roughly) in the nineteenth-century as an esoteric response to scientific modernism; modern Theosophy was undoubtedly a part of that response (just look at the way it tried to make use of evolutionary theory) and thus Theosophy was an occult movement. See the works of the late Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Wouter Hanegraaff, and Antoine Faivre; all specialists in Western esotericism who identify Theosophy very much within the Western esoteric tradition, and, more specifically, within the occult tradition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that response, explaining the way you see it, with which I agree at least in part. But, allowing for the development of "esotericism" and "occultism" in the 19c. being in truth somewhat obscure and opaque to honest and well-informed academics, and in that sense an esoteric and obscure topic in itself (like many aspects of social and cultural development- as editors of such articles we can hardly hope to do better than the best of those diligent experts), is it being used by editors here (as distinct from quoted sources) in a way which answers "Yes" to the question put above: Would Mabel Collins, Blavatsky's co-editor of Lucifer magazine, also be deemed to be an "occultist", or "esotericist" or both? Her article describes her as a theosophist and writer of occult novels. Evidently, like Blavatsky she was a gifted storyteller and, like Edward Bulwer-Lytton, wrote novels about occultism; and a facsimile collection of her "Occult Writings" was published in 2010. Qexigator (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, all occultists are esotericists, but not all esotericists are occultists. It's a bit like the statement that all Anglicans are Christian, but not all Christians are Anglican. Occultism is a form of Western esotericism. Thus, if Collins is an occultist, then she would also be an esotericist. Given that Collins was a Theosophist, then yes I would be inclined to consider her an occultist, but she is a figure about which I know very little so I would be loathe to make a definitive statement on the issue. However, I am unsure as to precisely why you ask the question regarding Collins. Surely you are are not suggesting that we should follow the Mabel Collins article as a guide for our actions here, given that the Collins article is in an abismal state ? I'd appreciate it if you could clarify why you ask this question, and explain what relevance it has to our discussion as to the opening paragraph of this, the Blavatsky article ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a helpful explanation about the way the words are being used in these ongoing edits. Currently, "occultist" is in the first paragraph. I was using Collins as a comparator only. The revisal is still in progress, and  I may come back to that first paragraph later. Qexigator (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * +There is, of course, also the distinction between investigating or writing about such things, including fiction, and being a practitioner (or reputed or pretending one), and that distinction is not always sufficiently observed by writers reporting on these topics, like not all Christians are churchgoers, or communicants or priests or ministers or pastors. Qexigator (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. This is something that has been discussed at various junctures within the academic study of Western esotericism. Who exactly is an occultist ? Someone who actively performs occult rites and rituals and articulates occult ideas ? Certainly. Someone who believes in occult ideas ? Probably. Someone who includes occult ideas in their fiction or art ? Maybe not, but it is an issue of debate. Blavatsky, however, certainly falls under both of the first two categories, and thus it is fairly unequivocal that she was an occultist, and by extension an esotericist, at least as those terms are understood within the academic study of Western esotericism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In this connection, it is interesting to see this assessment of Blavatsky and the Theosophical movement in an online academic study of 2009: From The theosophical movement of the nineteenth century: the legitimation of the disputable and the entrenchment of the disreputable, Kalnitsky, Arnold Date: 2009-08-25. "By noting that Madame Blavatsky seemingly instinctively chose the subtitle of The Secret Doctrine as The Synthesis of Science,Religion, and Philosophy...In attempting to create an attractive, appealing, convincing, alternative to the worldviews inherent through those traditional ideational edifices, we have shown how Madame Blavatsky felt the need to convincingly show how her vision was superior by substituting what was called an esoteric perspective for conventional interpretations of truth and knowledge. Thus, it is no coincidence that her magnum opus, The Secret Doctrine, sets as the measure of its success the production of a plausible and convincing synthesis of those three categories of knowledge interpreted in occult and mystical terms show how her vision was superior by substituting what was called an esoteric perspective for conventional interpretations of truth and knowledge. Thus, it is no coincidence that her magnum opus, The Secret Doctrine, sets as the measure of its success the production of a plausible and convincing synthesis of those three categories of knowledge interpreted in occult and mystical terms." Qexigator (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I see a similar quote from Kalitsky is now in the article. Qexigator (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * She was first of all a Victorian era writer who rejected science and inductive reasoning in favor of pre-modern mythology and spiritualism. She wrote about occult secret knowledge that she claimed was empirical fact, that a century after her death could be considered more as pseudo-historical and pseudo-scientific. EB1911: "In 1875 she conceived the plan of combining the spiritualistic 'control' with the Buddhistic legends about Tibetan sages." I think something like that should be in the lead. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The EB 1910/11 article is a good source for her reputation at that time, also online. It includes "In 1858 she returned to Russia, where she created a sensation as a spiritualistic medium. About 1870 she acquired prominence among the spiritualists of the United States, where she lived fo six years, becoming a naturalized citizen." It is unsigned but states that information can be found in V.S.Solovyov's (who visited Paris in 1884 where he met Blavatsky and mixed with other people in the Paris occult scene) Modern Priestess of Isis trans. Walter leaf (1895), in Arthur Lillie's ''Madame Blavatsky and her Theosophy" (1895), and in the report made to the Society for Psychical Research "by the Cambridge graduate despatched to investigate her doings in India". The article ends "when she died...at the theosophical headquarters in the Avenue Road, London, she was acknowledged head of a community numbering not far short of 100.000, with journalistic organs in London Paris, New York and Madras." Qexigator (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Summoned by RfC bot. The second alternative reads better. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Second alternative also summoned by RfC bot. I actually think the current lede is fine but if you need to change it, the second suggestion is fine. Wikimandia (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Closed ? As I understand it, we have now setlled for the current version which was made 14:41, 12 February and this RfC may be considered closed. Qexigator (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Version 3
In view of the above comments, here is another version. The current version of the first paragraph includes (Blavatsky), an occultist and author, developed the spiritual philosophy of Theosophy, which she intended would express the universal religion of mankind... For reasons given above that is awkward in content and expression, unlike "an author whose works were claimed to provide a synthesis of science, religion and philosophy": the latter is concise, simple, factual, suited to the main content of the article and npov. In case any editor would regard the following as more than a tweak, here is a third version, even simpler and more concise than the revised version 2 above:
 * (Blavatsky) was an occultist and author who developed what she called a synthesis of science, religion and philosophy. She co-founded the Theosophical Society in 1875 and became the leading theoretician of the Theosophy it promoted, thus gaining her an international following.

Qexigator (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Further trimmed to read: "(Blavatsky) occultist and author, co-founded the Theosophical Society in 1875, and gained an international following as the leading theoretician of the Theosophy it promoted." Qexigator (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That proposal doesn't contain mention of "Theosophy" itself, which I think is an absolute must. Further, paragraph three of the lede currently states that Blavatsky viewed Theosophy as a "synthesis of science, religion, and philosophy". While I think that it works fine there, I am still very sceptical of the idea of including that wording within the very first paragraph, and would suggest that there, Theosophy be described as an esoteric or occult movement. I worry that emphasising the "science, religion, and philosophy" statement is placing too much emphasis on Blavatsky's own, emic perspectives at such a crucial juncture in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In view of that comment, and given that by the link we say "Theosophy is considered a part of the broader field of esotericism", let esotericism have it: amended as above, yet more simple and concise; so far, so good. But one part of the editing problem is that no one could be a theoretician of Blavatsky's Theosophy before her leading works were brought out with those catchy titles: first, Isis Unveiled (1877), in which, the article reports, she wrote that Spiritualism "alone offers a possible last refuge of compromise between" the "revealed religions and materialistic philosophies"; and later The Secret Doctrine (1888), where she stated "that the law of reincarnation was governed by karma, with humanity's final purpose being the emancipation of the soul from the cycle of death and rebirth."  Those works are known to be the author's compilations and commentaries, much of doubtful provenance, and neither is actually esoteric or occult, except in the meaning of obscure, opaque or otherwise deficient by academic and everyday standards, however enthralling many followers or commentators have found them; so why let the lead present her or her works as esoteric or occult? I do not see that we are obliged to put it in the opening paragraph because other articles use these words as classifiers. Qexigator (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Now further trimmed as above. Qexigator (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but if you are stating that Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine were not esoteric and occult works then I would have to strongly disagree. These are most clearly tomes that fit within the broad aegis of Western esotericism, relying as they do so heavily on Hermetic and Neoplatonist ideas and seeking to combine religion and science in a manner common to occultism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

why is there no reference to Agardi Metrovitch being a fake name/person?
I was summoned here by the RfC bot but as I was reading the article I noticed this supposed Hungarian composed named "Agardi Metrovich"... it was curious to me why a Hungarian would have a Russian last name so I googled it... No references to him separate from her. Nothing even with modified spellings. Then I found this abstract here and it confirmed that he didn't exist. Of course this is only an abstract, but apparently this is common knowledge and even notorious. What's the deal with it not being mentioned? Wikimandia (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This seems to be one of Blavatsky's many imaginary friends. I have removed the reference from the article, as it is an unimportant detail anyway. HGilbert (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be a contrarian but I have reverted that removal. Whether Metrovich was real or not, Blavatsky talked about him a fair bit and every biographer has discussed him; indeed, given that Blavatsky buried her child under the surname of "Metrovich", Meade argues that it is this mysterious composer who actually fathered Blavatsky's child (I'll get around to putting references into the article from Meade's biography once I have done so for the Cranston biography). Bear in mind that many of the figures who appear in Blavatsky's own account of her life, most notably the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom, are potentially fictitious inventions, so Metrovich isn't alone in that respect. This is important stuff, let's not ignore it. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I felt like he shouldn't be mentioned in the article, but at first reference it needs to be mentioned that there is no person by that name, and it is believed to be either a pseudonym or fabrication. If it's enough for someone to devote a college essay to, there must be plenty of sources documenting this. Otherwise nerds like me might start searching thinking "hmmm I never heard of that Hungarian composer, maybe that's a typo".... Wikimandia (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Lachman wrote that Metrovitch (no “Metrovich”!) was an opera singer, as his wife Teresina, also an opera singer. Goodrick-Clarke wrote about Blavatsky’s “friendship with Agardi Metrovitch (sic!), the Hungarian opera singer.” Howard Murphet wrote in his book When Daylight Comes: A Biography of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky that “Metrovitch” was revolutionary's pseudonym. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers stated that “Metrovitch was a disciple of Giuseppe Mazzini, prophet of Italian nationalism.” The Encyclopedia of Magic and Alchemy wrote about “Hungarian opera singer Agardi (Agadir) Metrovitch.” SERGEJ2011 (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The mispelling of Metrovitch as "Metrovich" in the article was, I believe, my fault, so I apologise for that, and thank SERGEJ2011 for picking up on it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a comment about the transliteration of names: I have . A writer explained the problem of transliterating Ruthenian/Ukrainian (and probably all Cyrillic languages), he "used a modified form of the Library of Congress system" to transliterate from Ruthenian/Ukrainian (p. 20). He also noted that "orthographies of the variants of the Ruthenian literary language employed in the late nineteenth century often differed substantially from that of modern standard Ukrainian" (p. 21). So there seems to be 19th century and 21st century forms of transliteration. Most 21st century writers use a contemporary form of transliteration, so a name may be written in an old work one way but changed in a newer work. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Countess Blavatsky – spiritualistic investigator
"Countess Blavatsky" was commissioned as a spiritualistic investigator by Alexandr Aksakov, while he was a member of the Russian Imperial Chancellery.



Is there more about her work as spiritualistic investigator? Was her "Countess Blavatsky" title debunked? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * She was certainly from an aristocratic family; whether that makes her a countess or not I have no idea, but certainly she is not regularly referred to as such in the biographies and other studies of her life and ideas. Regarding Aksakov, he is mentioned in pages 123, 153, and 175 of Lachman's biography, and on pages 173 and 174 of Cranston's biography. From these it doesn't seem like Blavatsky's involvement with Aksakov expanded much beyond a correspondence; Lachman also notes that Aksakov requested that Blavatsy might translate Olcott's People from the Other World into Russian, although he does not state whether this actually happened or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a referenced mention of her correspondence with Aksakov into the article, at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)