Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Occult/Archive 1

untitled
I don't really know how to make templates or talk boxes so if anyone happens upon this, you're more than welcome to help. SynergeticMaggot 03:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Paraphysics article in danger
there is currently a big discussion going on at the paraphysics sections as to whether its going to be deleted or not. If this article is to be deleted, it would be a shame, and a great loss to paranormal, occult and spiritual research. I suggest, and hope, that you vote for its continuance,and maybe even write a few sentences about the subject if you know about it, as it is currently very messy, and not much has been written about it yet.

details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paraphysics

thank you. user:openforbusiness

Sign up list
KV(Talk) 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC) --Svartalf 20:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I added myself... hope I'm not trespassing on a private club. I'm not quite sure if I'm expert enough to be useful, but I'll try.


 * Your not tresspassing. Right now I'm working on the user box. SynergeticMaggot 20:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Increasing Support
The more people we get to visit the pages, the more likely it is that they'll join. So if we make a 500+ word article that is less than 5 days old, we can submit it to Did You Know? so more people see the articles.

KV(Talk) 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sign-Up
Considering that this is the proper way to sign up (I can't figure out wjich talk page I'm supposed to use) I would like to know if my assistance is acceptable for maintaining and bettering Portal: Occult.--Whytecypress 17:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation Link
I've had some difficulty locating this portal, so I added a link on the diasmbiguation page for Occult. That should make it easier for more people to view it and join. To see the link, click here, as it may requre some rewording.--Whytecypress 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Its in the Portal directory here: []. Other than that, you are more than welcome to add the portal to relevant article's. SynergeticMaggot 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Project
I'm taking my user name off of the project and leaving it up to the members. Also, the portal is to be left up to the project still. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 06:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry
Im not certain, but I checked several times, Freemasonry isn't included in Category: Occult. Does It qualify for addition to the Portal? (Forgive me if It's already here)--Whytecypress 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Might get some pushback from that for many Masons would not consider the masonic organization related to the occut. Might cause more harm then help.--P Todd 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. Actually the "Project Scope" does list Secret fraternal orders, which would certainly fit Freemasonary.  Following the link leads to Secret societies in popular culture which does in fact list Freemasonry.  There are practices within Freemasonry that could be categorized as occult-ish.  I'd say it fits, but you are right that someone might give a pushback.  Personally I don't see why, but who knows. Trippz 11:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sign-Up
I'd like to join the Occult WikiProject. Do I just add my name to the members, or wait for confirmation of acceptance? I'm not sure how things work here. Cheers, Emma. --MerKaBa 12:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Just sign up on the project page. Also, create your userpage and copy our userbox onto it to show you're a member. Then just come aboard. Welcome--Whytecypress 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to begin work with everyone here on this project. thus far, my edits have directed towards settling disputes with the articles regarding satanism, chaos magick, and will soon include Crowley. I believe that I will contribute much to this project and look foward to working with you all. AlexanderLevian 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. Your role is needed. It's quite important to have a mediator on these articles associated with the project. --Whytecypress 00:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Another sign-up. I post it here so the contents don't get messy. I would like to join this WikiProject. I'm currently working in cleaning up some of the articles about the demons of the Ars Goetia. As references I'm using the Legemeton and the Pseudomonarchia Daemounum. I'm also trying to contact people who make edits to find out their sources. --Legion fi 06:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your efforts will be greatly appreciated. I would recommend you find some sources that cite and discuss the works you mention. We should avoid using primary sources when possible. Vassyana 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Im signing up as well. For now i will mostly be focusing on Enochian and perepheral topics, but that may expand as my intrest grows Debeo Morium 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Member Communication
There has been almost no communication or collaboration between the project members ever since a short while after the project started. Suggestions, please.--Whytecypress 01:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 2 monts later,no reply. --Whytecypress 02:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Internal Alchemy
I would appreciate any help is building up the internal alchemy article. Thanks!! Vassyana 13:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll contribute some things --Whytecypress 02:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tarot Cards
Hya.

I'm on a quest to clean and flush out Wikipedia's articles on the Tarot and am looking for 1) a place to coordinate activities in this regard and 2) help! I was wondering if Tarot would fit under the remit of WikiProject Occult and, if so, if I could set up a sub-page in your project space.

Cheers! --jwandersTalk 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles French Tarot and French suited tarot should NOT fall under the Project Occult umbrella as there is minimal if any connection with the occult. French tarot has no more connection with the occult than Sheepshead and French suited tarot cards are so very rarely used for divination. I only know of three examples of French suited tarot decks being used for divination See "Tarocchi di Alan" "Tarot de la Nature" and "Les Secrets du Tarot à Jouer" for these three exceptional cases. We should keep in mind that not all of tarot is connected with the occult.Smiloid 03:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaballah
Is anybody interesting in seeing a Wikiproject Kaballah? I'm looking to see if it's feasible, and if there's anybody qualified to make it happen. If anybody's interested and wants to help; please leave me a message on my talk page.Lighthead 03:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to touch base over at WikiProject Judaism as well. Vassyana 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Satanism
While there is a Left Hand Path Workgroup, I find that the more help, the better. The Satanism articles are really in a poor state and are just recovering from what they've been left to (Mainly starts, stubs, and B-class articles with minimal sources). The main problem is sourcing. The more sources we find that are outisde and objective, the better. WerewolfSatanist 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome. Just to know, which articles are you editing?. Maybe I could help you with some references. --Legion fi 01:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well currently I'm concentrating on LaVeyan Satanism, though if anybody has seen the main Satanism article, it could definitely use some refining.WerewolfSatanist 02:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks... Not much I can do about those articles... If I have some spare time I0ll try to find some references... especially to the Satanism article. --Legion fi 04:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
I have updated the project navigation and project talk page templates. I have created an assessment department for the project. I have also revised the main project page. Please help the assessment department succeed by placing WPOccult on occult article talk pages. Of course, it would be wonderful if you would assess them at the same time. :) However, it is not necessary. Building up a list of articles to assess will be highly useful in and of itself. Vassyana 08:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks
Thank you to User:ProveIt. ProveIt standardized and cleaned up the WikiProject Occult categories. It's a great improvement and appreciated. Vassyana 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with assessment
Please help the assessment department by placing WPOccult on the talk pages of relevant articles. If you have the time, please rate the class and importance of the article according to the assessment guidelines. Also, feel welcome to come and improve the assessment guidelines and page. Vassyana 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

difference from paranormal
What's the difference between the occult and paranormal? Is not the occult a subset of the paranormal? (Or vice versa, or are they both subsets of each other?) It just seems we could be more of a "force" if we united projects (WikiProject Paranormal--perhaps as Wikipeda: WikiProject Occult-Paranormal?)... -Eep² 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on such topics, but I think the term paranormal is more related to investigations and phenomena that current science cannot explain in a satisfactory way. And for me the term occult It's about seldom explored knowledge or topics, such as magic, that may or may not be true. For instance, alchemy is another occult topic, and from it derived chemistry, which clearly is not an occult subject, that can be used to explain paranormal phenomena. I see the connection between the terms, but I'm really not interested in paranormal phenomena or investigations, as the latter involves recognition of the existence of the former. In occult topics, you don't have to accept that the devil exist in order to study demonology.--Legion fi 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a couple people from each project to discuss mutual goals and articles might be appropriate. Legion fi is correct, in my opinion, that the paranormal field is generally more about investigations and phenomena. ESP, Fortean events and parapsychology would be good examples of things found prominently within the paranormal category. The occult is generally more focused upon the esoteric, mystic and personal spiritual experience. Good examples of strongly occult topics would be Hermeticism and the Key of Solomon. Again, it would probably be a good idea to collaborate with WikiProject Paranormal. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but things like channelling (mediumistic), conspiracy theories, and extraterrestrial life can fall under both categories though--especially in terms of alternative history and pseudohistory. -Eep² 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would hardly consider conspiracy theories or extraterrestrial life to be occult topics, in and of themselves. For example, ETs might be considered an occult topic in the limited range of things like Crowley's Enochian beings, but generally speaking even then we're talking about completely different approaches. (Additionally in this example, it would require accepting that Enochian angels and "aliens" are one in the same.) Paranormal investigators are unlikely to use the rituals of Thelema to summon an "extraterrestrial". Just the same, followers of Crowley are unlikely to go UFO chasing with electronic sensors to make contact with an Enochian "angel". Even on such subjects where overlap can be found, there's a drastic difference between occult and paranormal research. Channeling is the most appropriate example and as I said, both projects could "discuss mutual goals and articles". I believe that while they are related, the occult and the paranormal are very distinct fields. Vassyana 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Distinction is relative. Depending on the context, occult and paranormal topics can be quite similar. Mediums like Crowley and others are often versed in occult knowledge yet they tend to dabble in the paranormal. I am just wondering why there are so few users in this project (and others like WikiProject Spirituality and WikiProject Alternative Views) compared to other related projects like WikiProject Paranormal and WikiProject Neopaganism. It just seems we would have more of an impact if we "joined forces" or something--at least collaboration is necessary, I believe; some kind of umbrella project (perhaps WikiProject Alternative Views is sufficient to include these other projects--a meta Wikiproject of sorts). -Eep² 05:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I vastly agree with Vassyana. ET's are clearly paranormal, not occult. Tell me how can it be occult if a lot of its researchers use videos as material?. Also, the occult has nothing to do with the praxis of magic or adivination. Crowley studied the occult, but only as a way to approach the paranormal. For me that is in indeed one of the main differences. An a very objective one. Extending the example, Crowley used "the occult" to reach paranormal experiences. He may as well have gotten high and reached the same paranormal experiences. That's another approach. As someone studying "the occult" I can say that I really don't care if Crowley indeed had those "paranormal" experiences. And most occultist neither. We care about, for instance, the numbers of the British Library manuscripts thay Crowley and Mathers used in their transcription of the Lemegeton, and the diferences that such edition has with the Peterson edition, and also how it is related with the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum. And there are few people interested in the occult, precisely because of that. Because occultism is a more scholastic discipline than the paranormal. BTW, a good way to interact could be to put "Expert needed" boxes refering to the appropiate project in articles that need them. If an occultish article has some paranormal in it, then we could place a box, and viceversa. Another good way could be to put the assesment box in the talk page of the article. That way we could assess the article, and remove or leave the box according to the article. I see no need in creating a different project.--Legion fi 05:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would take it that this project is concerned with things that are concealed or hidden from view. it can include supernatural forces and events and beings collectively; or supernatural practices and techniques (eg., like magic mentioned above). Some mysterious thing included would be those that are beyond ordinary understanding, such as mysterious symbols, mystical styles, occultic lore, or any of the "secret learning" of the ancients. Some conspiracy theories may be occultic ... but some are not. Paranormal and occult may overlap at time ... but are distinct. Just an opinion. J. D. Redding 22:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Photon Belt
I have proposed a deletion review of The Photon Belt if anyone wants to contribute their comments about it. -Eep² 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice way to make the collaboration we are talking about above. I've already checked the article (as well of that of Samael Aun Weor, that is the article that binds The Photon Belt to the Occult Project), and have voted in favored of restoring it. Although I most admit it needs much work. --Legion fi 07:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your vote/comments. I agree it needs work, which is why I'm requesting help with it, but I feel it has enough notability now to be included in Wikipedia. However, I don't like the negatively biased views of some admins/users... -Eερ² (t 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal
There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at WikiProject Council/Proposals that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Con AfD
Conspiracy Con has been nominated for deletion--even after extensive sourcing. Please give your comments/vote. Thanks. -Eερ² (t 21:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Voted. I should say that the article needs work, but I did find it interesting and notable. It is a shame that people just go about deleting every other article just cause it has few reliable sources. --Legion fi 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, how does the article need work? Aside from adding who appeared at each con, and the topics discussed, I'm not sure what else to add. It needs more support though so I'm going to try posting about it on other relevant Wikipedia article talk pages. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes
Would anyone object to some diff graphics for a userbox? Maybe the all seeing eye? or the eye of horus? or some other symbol besides the pentagram? Just wondering. J. D. Redding 22:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to improve the userboxes or anything else, be my guest. :) While the pentacle is nice and generic, I'm not wedded to it. Of course, it also means it is very broadly used and abused. The all-seeing eye, or Horus' same, sounds pretty good to me. They would be nicely general yet distinctive. don't be shy about improving the place. :) Vassyana 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)











Possible candidates .. any favorites? anyone? J. D. Redding 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was kinda thinking of opposing to change the userbox, but now that I see the candidates I definitly like the third one. Nice work --Legion fi 02:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the current infobox doesn't have to be replaced; it can simply be added onto as WikiProject Paranormal has with a few different infoboxes. -Єερ² (τ 11:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a play on words would be good, too:
 * Or something like that (if only the box could be closer on top and bottom). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Scope comments?
Any commments on the edits to the "scope" section"? I was trying to delineate it alil better. J. D. Redding 01:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mhh... first of all, nice work, congrats. But I do have something to say. Dont worry, is a minor thing. Why does "magick" is widely used as a synonim for "magic"?. It is not a change-specific error, many sources say "magic or magick". I'm just asking why. According to me, "magick" is a system proposed by Aleister Crowley. So it would be a subset of "magic" practices. In spanish, the word for "magic" is "magia" so there is no way to add the 'k' to the word. If i had to translate "magick" I would have to say "la magia de Crowley" wich litteraly means "Crowley's magic". This is also not a spanish-only problem. For instance, in french I would have to write "la magie de Crowley" to make a reference to what in english is known as "magick". So, in conclusion, all I'm asking is that the word "magick" was not included in the scope section. Thanks.--Legion fi 06:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly think that "magick" is a purely Crowleyist term. It's widely used in Wiccan and other neopagan literature. While I would agree it's almost entirely an Anglo-American term of art, it is widely used in English-speaking occult circles and literature. Vassyana 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just wanted to make an account that using the term magick as an alternative spelling for magic is wrong. As you said, the term magick is used in relationship with Wicca and Neopagan beliefs (both of them influenced by Crowley, but well) so other kinds of magic cannot be described by the alter magic --Legion fi 19:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment drive
I've recently abused AWB to tag many occult articles with the assessment/project tag. Please take a look over the assessment page and help assess the unassessed articles. Thanks! Vassyana 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fallen angel - evil angel merger
In October 2006 someone proposed Evil Angels be merged into Fallen angel. This has not been resolved. Please discuss it here. JohnnyMrNinja 09:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Input appreciated
I've just started filius philosophorum, working on a concept I encountered in researching Orion (mythology). I'm not too familiar with alchemical writimgs however, and any help on understanding the various interpretations of this concept in different alchemical writings would be appreciated. Thanks.--Pharos 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What Does This Mean?
In the page on the Wiki Occult project, i found this:

Occult Writers -- Writers that deal or knowledge that has been "hidden" and the deeper spiritual "reality" that extends beyond pure reason and the physical science.

Huh?

Witers are people, hence one should say, "Writers who" not "writers that" -- but what does "deal" mean in this context, and why is "reality" in quote marks -- and why is "the physical science" singular??

I hope someone will rewrite this as

Occult Writers -- Writers whose works deal directly rather than sociologically with occult topics, who present instructive or theoretical knowledge that has been "hidden", or who take as their theme a deeper spiritual or magical reality that extends beyond pure reason and the physical sciences.

Why not change it then? Your wording is much better. But you should sign your contributions, Thus - Apepch7 14:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of links
has deleted all links that he could find to the katinkahesselink website, with the pretext that they were spam and were spammed by Kh7. The links were not added by Kh7 to many of these articles, A. G. E. Blake, Mahatma Letters, Ernest Wood, The Ancient Wisdom, Edicts of Ashoka, Ashoka the Great, and many other articles. After she was warned for adding the links, she has only added two links (which she shouldn't have done), but then Ohnoitsjamie goes on and deletes links that were added by other people or before she was warned. The links point to a website that is not a spamsite, a website which is often linked on other websites and is of high quality. Some of these links were added with an explanation that even that they are appropriate to the article. --Voidocore 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Discuss it on the article talk page. If you do not receive a response, reinsert the links and point the remover to your talk page post. If you cannot reach an agreement, please seek assistance from the many options and fine people that are around to help. Cheers! Vassyana 20:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the websites are the same, but in the Agares article, someone added two spam websites in the see also section. And happily for me, someone reverted the adds.--Legion fi 19:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My First Article Rewrite
Hi, I am about to make an attempt at rewriting Enochian Magic. There seems to be consensus on the talk page (pretty much the ONLY thing on the talk page, lol) that it needs a rewrite. Since I am most knowledgeable on this topic then any other occult topic i figured it would be a great attempt for my first wikipedia article. I just wanted to make sure that no one else was doing this, that you guys generally agree, and that any objections or input is raised before i invest an entire day into doing this. You can go to my user page and follow the links there to see the ongoing draft of this page as it develops (right now its just a copy and paste of the current page so nothing to see). Thanks in advance for any input. Debeo Morium 08:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but I'd say go ahead if you haven't already. If someone has a beef about your input I'm sure they'll pipe up. If you'd like, I'd be happy to take a look at it when you are confident with it enough. I'm not knowledgeable about the subject, but I can give you a reader's perspective. Perhaps if you (or anyone in the Occult Project) are willing to take a look at my own rewrite of Isaac Newton's occult studies, I'd greatly appreciate it. That article was/is rated start class and tagged with a 'needing immediate attention' notice by the project which is why I jumped in. I haven't removed the tag and would rather leave it up to somebody else to do. It is my first rewrite too and to be honest, I don't know if it meets wikipedia's requirements or not. Would like a bit of feedback myself about how it reads, the discussion page is not very active. I like the article subject and honestly think it would have broad enough appeal to make it to FA status with a little work and collaboration. Aside from the intro section and a somewhat troublesome section on The Temple of Solomon, the rest is currently my rewrite. Feedback, corrections, suggestions by anyone is appreciated. Thanks in advance as well. --Trippz 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Chumbley article - deletion indicated?
Hello there I've been assisting with the Wiki article on Andrew Chumbley since November last - there has been a "lively discussion" over there, but the whole thing seems to be drawing to a conclusion, as one user has now raised the issue of notability. The argument has been robustly proposed that Chumbley is not notable enough to warrant a Wiki piece. I've voted "no contest" to deletion of the article if this is indeed the case, as have others. The user proposing deletion suggested an outsider's eye might be helpful, another (who has actually worked on the piece) suggests running it by you guys here.

Your advice would be really helpful. Thanks! reineke 16:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

 * 21 September 2007 - expires 26 September
 * Occult Chemistry (book) ( PROD by User:Hrafn; PROD nominator states : "Not notable: this book meets none of the notability criteria in WP:BK." Excerpt : "Occult Chemistry describes clairvoyant observations on the chemical elements." ) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

List of occult writers
I have been contributing to this list for quite a spell (pun intended), but recently an unnamed editor, followed up by one with whom I've had some contentions, deleted every entry that did not already have a Wikipedia article associated with it. You can see my arguements against this move on the discussion page of this article and on List of Neo-Pagan festivals and events: basically, I see no advantage over the list you get when you click on the category "Occult writers" in a list that includes only existing articles, whereas I see a great deal of advantage both to readers and editors in a list that is complete (according to some objective criteria, such as having been published at least three times by a non-vanity press and/or recognized major publication in the field) that can inspire articles. The other editor has used what IMO is a misinterpretation of the definition of WP:Listcruft as a justification, ignoring an explicit part of the definition which includes lists like the one he created by deleting all the non-article entries. (He also criticizes me for using other examples of lists that have many non-article entries as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, while using another article as an example himself.)

I have created a list of all the deleted entries on the discussion pages of both articles, but I'd be interested in your feedback. If you have an article that is a list of, say, "species of butterfly", or "members of the 1964 Cleveland Indians", or "characters in Sherlock Holmes novels", why would you need to do anything except support the fact that your entries do, indeed, qualify as real members of the list? (See: List of authors of new Sherlock Holmes stories) Why should you be limited to entries that have articles already written about them? I see plenty of lists in Wikipedia that have entries that either haven't as yet had articles about them or, although they may be valid members of the list, just don't merit their own article (though they do merit mention in the articles of more important subjects). I gave List of Marvel Comics mutants and List of sitcoms as examples that I knew the other editor was aware of. I'm sure there are hundreds of others. What do you think?Rosencomet 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the idea of a List of occult writers is great. Otherwise we will never be able to get an overview about this topic. The only thing is that I would have made separate lists for Germany/Austria, France and the Englisch speaking world and that I would add birth an death date to the list. But then I figured out the with the material in The Occult Roots of Nazism, I could directly write an article Esotericism in Germany and Austria. I have come to the Knights Templar and Anthroposophy so far.


 * In a List of occult writer one clearly can include also writers who yet have no article on Wikipedia. The only problem is that - since they don't have an article - one cannot tell whether they are notable. To get around this problem, I would propose that we create a List of occult writers deserving their own article on this project page. I would have some persons to add to such a list, too. When could then provide the information on the notability on that page. Zara1709 18:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The way many projects do this is by creating a "Missing articles" list, either on the main project page or on a separate page entirely. That could certainly be done here as well. John Carter 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Rennes-le-Château needs your help!
Rennes-le-Château needs some serious cleanup. In particular, it has perhaps the worst cite I've seen on Wikipedia in the last few years:

"An international spiritual ascension community has formed around what is regarded by the "new age" community as a strong energy centre in the Rennes Le Chateau region causing real estate prices to have sky rocketed in recent years" -- Cited as: "this is common knowledge in Southern France - the trend can be verified with a cursory reading of net postings""

See WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE for good citation style. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)