Talk:Isis Unveiled/Archive 1

Removed statement
I removed the following sentence (inserted by 200.140.81.83) which I thought was a little pov:

The rest of the external link, besides the title, is a little pov'ed as well, but I let it stay there because I thought I'd be reverted anyway. So you all decide. Aaрон Кинни (t) 11:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an extraordinarily vague article. Is anyone going to add what the gist of the book's vision or ideology is? ThePeg 22:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Restored article
The topic is notable enough and significant enough within its field to warrant it's own article. However, the previous version was unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I restored the article from the redirect and deleted all un-sourced info (most of it). Additionally, I added a discussion from two scholarly sources that summarize the book's significance to justify keeping the article on as a stub. The page still badly needs attention, however, as the topic does have potential for expansion.Flygongengar (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC) (also 207.237.208.153 (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC))

The article has become overly biased...
After a series of edits by user "A little angry" between Sept. 10-20, 2015, the article has clearly taken on a more biased tone focusing primarily on critiques of the work as plagiarized. The user even deleted a quote from scholars discussing counter-arguments to the plagiarism. I have no problem with more criticisms being added to the article (and kept all of the users additions intact); however, counter discussions should not be removed so I restored this quote and tried to rephrase the lead to once again present a more balanced viewpoint. I do not have time to police the article or want to get into an edit war. I hope future editors will strive to keep a balanced viewpoint in the future.108.46.147.132 (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read up on wikipedia policies. It is not always entirely possible to have an entirely 'balanced' article when it comes to fringe-related content. The majority of scholars have dismissed Isis Unveiled as pseudohistory or occult plagiarism. We don't 'balance' many reliable scholarly sources with a single source that may defend Isis. JuliaHunter (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, Bruce Campbell and Nicholas Clarke are not fringe scholars. Both are respected scholars in their fields and the latter headed esotericism studies in the history department at Exeter before his death. In fact, both discuss the work in light of historical developments of religion, which does not make their research "fringe" (i.e. they are not trying to assess if something supernatural/spiritual is real but rather trying to understand its development within the broader cultural milieu). Secondly, it was at least 3 sources listed in the article, not a "single source" as you put it, which is a significant amount of the total sources used in the article. It is also entirely wrong to state that the "majority of scholars have dismissed Isis Unveiled as pseudohistory or occult plagiarism" as modern scholars also tend to also discuss those statements in context instead of outright dismissing the work. But sure, I'll add several more academic sources before the end of the day that offers counterpoint. Also, no source I added or used in the article denied the criticism of plagiarism and never once in the article did they say that parts were not plagiarized. Rather they offered insight into why the plagiarism occurred, which is needed for a balanced article. Yes, it is not entirely possible to always have a balanced article as you put it, but outright deleting the other side and not including it at all is not the way to do it and definitely against Wiki policies. Also the charges of pseudo history by a modern scholar completely disregards the worldview during the late 1800s. Blavatsky references stuff like Lemuria (continent), which was based on scientific ideas at the time, even if later dismissed by modern theories of plate tectonics. None of the pseudo history sources discuss this and so the context is entirely lost. Finally, as I pointed out, the Bruce Campbell quote in the criticism section, having checked the source, is the way I restored it. User "A little angry" didn't just delete the quote, he outright changed it to fit his argument. There is no reason to delete the information and certainly no justification to change a direct quote to suite the opposite opinion. Also, as my new lead said, even accepting the work as plagiarized, modern scholars do see it as a milestone work precisely because of the importance of the Theosophical Society in the field of Western Esotericism.108.46.147.132 (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've already added 4 additional sources by respected scholars, most also university published. I'll be adding more later today to expand the criticism section. The new sources should be sufficient to prevent my previous edits being deleted as I continue to expand the article.108.46.147.132 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with your recent edits, i accept the book is influential in the field of esotericism, my problem is if the plagiarism charges are downplayed or removed. It seems to me there will be Theosophical defenders who usually log in on these articles or related ones and try and remove certain criticisms, I have noticed this recently and will working on some of these said articles, look at the whole Hodgson Blavatsky exposure. That is all i have a problem with. Wikipedia is not censored. The criticisms seem to be well referenced and should remain in the article. I do not object to a contrary viewpoint, but not always 'equal' balance if we are dealing with a fringe or paranormal article. JuliaHunter (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, and I apologize if I came off harsh before. I was mainly upset by the edit by “a little angry” who changed a direct quote so that it would suit his argument. I never intended to deny the copying and pseudo history present in Isis Unveiled. In fact, I think it’s important to note it. However, I think it’s equally useless to just fill the article with the buzzword “plagiarism” but provide no context (which is what the article was primarily doing before and why I called it biased). I think it’s important to try and explain the context behind the plagiarism and pseudohistory (which is what my sources were trying to do) so that readers can understand why, despite these accusations, the work is still considered important in the field of Western Esotericism.108.46.147.132 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)