Talk:René Guénon

Sockpuppet investigations/TwoHorned
Please be aware that this article is frequently targeted by a sockmaster who has been investigated at SPI and subsequently blocked: Sockpuppet investigations/TwoHorned/Archive --Dekacarandaebonelm (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

TwoHorned
Anupamakk was confirmed to be a sockpuppet of site-banned editor TwoHorned, so the edit was reverted per WP:BANREVERT. Please be aware that this article is frequently targeted by a sockmaster who has been investigated at SPI and subsequently blocked: Sockpuppet investigations/TwoHorned/Archive. His latest edits was also discuss in this talkpage and was removal for sourced texts and additions of unencyclopedic language. --Dekacarandaebonelm (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good. It is unfortunately likely that there are more sockpuppets in the wp universe than one would dare to suppose in first place. To get to the core subject and come back to the article, my opinion is that both versions, yours and those reverted have serious flaws. I propose to make a discussion here to support any modifications. In any case that's what I would do soon. Thank you. GraemeKad (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Non Human"
Hi User: Hamza Alaoui I undid your modification because it's the doctrines that are qualified by Guénon as "non-human". It's a translation of the Sanskrit word "apauruṣeya". If you read the sources given here the word refers to the doctrines. Regards, Numwide (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Numwide, I agree that RG qualifies the doctrines as "non human", as you say, but why is it written "non-individual"? Do you want to enter the correction? Regards,--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi User: Hamza Alaoui. It seems to me that it is indeed the terms "non-individual" which are used by Guénon (at least in the English translation). I check. Numwide (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User: Hamza Alaoui Hindu doctrines, part I, chapter V. On several occasions, the word "individual" is used. You are right in the sense that "non human" could also be used. I change it if you wish. Numwide (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Numwide, I made a research in the French pdf of the book you mention and found 2 occurences for "non-human" and none for "non-individual". For instance: "C'est pourquoi l'origine du Vêda est dite apaurushêya, c'est-à-dire « non-humaine » (This is why the origin of the Vêda is called apaurushêya, i.e. "non-human")". Thank you for your correction. Regards,--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User: Hamza Alaoui It's in the book "Hindu doctrines", p. 132: "peu importe que la  tradition  ait  été  exprimée  ou  formulée  par  tel  ou  tel  individu,  celui-ci n'en est point l'auteur pour cela, dès lors que cette tradition est essentiellement  d'ordre  supra-individuel." Both terms are OK anyway. We keep yours if you wish. Cheers, Numwide (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Voice and tone
The voicing and tone of this article presupposes the reader is a true believer and adjacent to esotericism, it presents itself as though Guenón’s work is made up of observations of consensual reality and not esoteric and possibly untrue statements. This is especially concerning due to the editorial ties this article has to a far right antisemitic conspiracy theory sock account and Guenón’s own popularity with the alt right.

I think a warning about article neutrality is easily warranted just from this entry’s history of edit wars and the obvious issues it has reading the talk page, I don’t know how or if i can add one myself so please someone else/moderators do it if you agree. Thanks. Dayofthecope (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said before (see in the archive), there is a problem with this article, indeed.
 * I had started to rewrite the article with a lot of secondary sources as in the article I wrote
 * in French, but another contributor
 * replaced, in a systematic way, the secondary sources by primary sources and, of course,
 * it leads to an "original work" that loses the neutral point ov view.
 * It indeed gives the feeling that the reader is presupposed to believe that what Guénon says
 * is true.
 * I have asked one administrator to stop this, but it seems that the administrators
 * of wikipedia in English do not know that an article based on primary sources only
 * is an "original work" and can not be acceptable in wikipedia.
 * That being said, I want to add these points:
 * 1) there is an academic consensus that René Guénon does not belong to the far-right
 * in general and to any antisemitic political movement (I will not repeat the discussion
 * and the numerous citations that you can find in the archive). Guénon even denied explicitly
 * the existence of an antisemitic conspiracy. The fact that his work was highjacked by
 * some people from the far-right does not change anything.
 * 2) perhaps the only secondary source that does not come from me is indeed antisemitic: ref. [159].
 * This source is not valid. The author has even been ejected from "guenonian" groups because
 * of his antisemitic evolution that only reflects the development of anti-Semitism
 * in the Muslim world and has nothing to do with Guénon.
 * The use of this reference proves that the contributor that changed the article has no clue
 * about the nature of the sources that he/she is using.
 * I will only modify the article to make it a neutral and acceptable article
 * (as for the wikipedia article in French that I wrote)
 * if I have the guarantee that my work is not systematically
 * destroyed and sabotaged as this was the case until now. Fabien Gatti (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Esotericism template
Hello, Thiagovscoelho, you have created “Esotericism” template and posted it under the Infoboxes of several articles. Does any Wikipedian have the right to create any template and insert it in the articles of his/her choice? The list of characters and organizations you propose in your template are based solely on your own POV = original research. Moreover, someone has modified your list, but your template has been maintained in articles that are no longer on the list; this is something absolutely unmanageable, isn't it? And if you have a look at, you will read: "Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or "See also" section list can perform the same function". To take the example of Guénon > Categories: if you click on "Esotericists", you will find the same articles you mentioned + many more. I suggest you delete your template before someone else does, unless you have arguments that I have overlooked. Thank you. Manamaris (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This should probably have been asked at the template's talk page, or my talk page, not here. "Does any Wikipedian have the right to create any template and insert it in the articles of his/her choice?" Well, no special permission was required of my account to do this, and there was no Wikipedia rule against it, so yes. We're supposed to "be bold" and all that, right? Unless, of course, it falls under "original research" as you say, but this would seem to preclude every other series template from having been created, such as the "Chaos magic" template that is featured on some relevant pages, so I don't think so – specific citations are not typically required for putting a page under a category either, so it's not like categories are any more rigorous than series templates. If you think the template is inaccurate then you are free to edit it, like User:Bafuncius did – I had supposed that the reliable sources under each page will support its association with the template, but any mistakes I made may be corrected. The "Notable figures" section of the template may perform similar functions to the category "Esotericists", but the template as a whole seems to give more context than that. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Esowteric, since you are familiar with esotericism and know WP's recommendations well, may I ask your opinion? Thank you, --Manamaris (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm sorry: I know almost nothing about policy and guidelines relating to templates. I think that discussion should really initially made at Template_talk:Esotericism, though you may need to open a request for comment (RfC) to get any input on the question. Ultimately, there is Templates for discussion which is about deleting or merging templates. Personally, I think that this is a useful template (especially for me, entries that are about Western and Eastern esoteric traditions; the "Golden Chain"). Sorry I can't be more helpful.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   14:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously, like categories, templates should only be added if the content of articles supports their use.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   15:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Thiagovscoelho, If I wrote to you on this page and not on the template's talk page, it is because I thought that those who follow Guénon's page would probably react to seeing occultists lumped in with Pythagoras, Hermes, Paracelsus, Böhme and Guénon, but it was not the case. I might continue this discussion on the template TP. --Manamaris (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Yes, I've heard that Guénon strongly upheld a distinction between occultism and "true" esotericism, although I have not yet read about it in his own works just yet. In making the template I went for the broader usage that Wikipedia itself makes, following the similarly scattered usage in published reliable sources. I understand that this can be a difficulty for Guénonian researchers, but I would not have been able to do anything else on Wikipedia at the moment. The template was made chiefly because someone pointed out, rightly in my opinion, that the "Chaos magic" template did not fully capture the contexts of Egregore, and I thought an Esotericism template would help with that and also be of broader interest. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I know that things are a lot more nuanced, but in the Frithjof Schuon‎ article, for example, "esoteric" and variations are mentioned around 17 times, so maybe the template should not be removed from that page. Traditionalist School (perennialism), too, also has half a dozen mentions. I should note that I've tended to lump all sorts of things together under the broad umbrella of "esotericism".  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it was removed because, as of when User:Bafuncius edited the template, it no longer listed Schuon as a notable figure or the Traditionalist School as a key concept, although they were part of it when I first wrote it. That's definitely one for the template talk page if you disagree with these removals. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussion has now been continued at Template talk:Esotericism.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   11:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Transliteration template
Hello Revolution Saga, you have added "Transliteration" templates in front of Arabic words which are phonetical transcriptions but not transliterations (except for ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Yaḥiā and taṣawwuf, which are transliterations). Rather than transliterating all the other Arabic words, would you delete the "Transliteration" templates? WP guidelines:,. Side question: what is the use of this "Transliteration" template? Regards, Hamza Alaoui (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Hamza Alaoui, I was unaware of the special guidelines for Arabic transcriptions and have been using template:transliteration for both transliteration and other romanizations (as it says in the template description). I was going off of MOS:FOREIGNITALIC which calls for marking of most foreign language text with the "lang" template rather than manually italicizing. Since "lang" displays romanized Arabic in the wrong font, I used "transliteration" instead. I will go back and revert my changes. Although, I am still not completely clear about whether to use "lang" and when to use "transliteration" for languages not written in Latin in general. Best, Revolution Saga (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)