Jump to content

Talk:Theosophy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based almost solely on one book...

[edit]

Just dropping in to point out that this entire article might as well be deleted and replaced with a link to Bruce Campbell's book. Just look at the footnotes. Yikes. Surely this isn't up to wikipedia's standards for a balanced representation of a subject. All we have here is one single author's interpretation of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.88.215 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many WP articles are digests of books and articles, with superimposed edits. I would have to be very bored to attempt a rewrite, however.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to only portray Theosophy in a positive light

[edit]

As with any other religion, not to mention any occultist movement, I guess besides the positive portrayal, which of course is valuable, there should also be some sections of this article dedicated to criticisms/controversies of the subject. SZJX (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the article needs is an editor to add content which balances the positive portrayal. As for myself, I am ignorant on the subject of Theosophic controversies and criticism. Would you like to be that editor? Do you have access to reliable sources? Please feel free to add content to the article if you would and do.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that "separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints". Moreover, can you provide specific examples where you believe that the article presents an unduly positive image of the religion? If not then I suggest that we remove the tag. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reversions

[edit]

I noticed some recent reversions, including this one which seem more to be based on personal taste than on facts. I don't believe the IP editor who was reverted operated in bad faith, but seemingly had a different perspective on Theosophy than the person who reverted. It would have been more productive to ask that IP editor for a source, rather than simply revert their contributions. Indeed, I feel that the reversions themselves require a RS where they reinterpret the facts presented by the IP editor.

I write this because I have been wholesale reverted on several occasions by editors who have taken a life-and-death proprietary interest in certain articles, bypassing reason.

I'd be gratified to find a brief discussion, on this page, over the edits in question.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts by Midnightblueowl

[edit]

Midnightblueowl , can you please explain your reverts in more detail?

Most of the edits were not in the lede, as you claim in your edit summary.

Most of it were restorations of material from previous versions of the theosophy article that seem to be relevant to this article.

I would have expected a reply and explanation for the removal of content in your reverts. Your edit summary was not accurate, and the edits were mostly not even in the lede.
Here is a brief explanation of my edits:
  • Only stating it is a Religion in the first sentence is not NPOV. I have checked articles for other closely related esoteric movements, where the lede calls it a religious or spiritual philosophy, see [1] [2]. These are closely related esoteric movements that are (rather inaccurately) also called religion by some, but the lede calls them religious or spiritual philosophies, because it is both more NPOV and accurate. We should follow this precedent also here.
  • The other edits were restorations of text from previous revisions that went missing when you were splitting the theosophy article. I believe that this material is relevant, maybe some minor cleanup is needed. What are your objections about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.6.151.86 (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "religious or spiritual philosophy" is more neutral and accurate. Theosophy is not normally classified as a religion. The rest of the text also seems quite helpful. Clean Copytalk 23:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As is made clear in the article, scholars of religious studies describe Theosophy as a religion. Theosophists themselves often dispute that, much as many Rastafari, Spiritualists, Muslims, and Hindus dispute that their systems constitute "religions", insisting on describing them as a "way of life", "spirituality", "philosophy" or something of that ilk. Indeed, over the past few hundred years it has been very common for groups to insist that they are not "religions" despite the fact that scholars of religion and social scientists regard them as just that. Wikipedia does not exist to present Theosophy (or any religious movement for that matter) as Theosophists see it. It exists to present Theosophy as it is described and portrayed in the WP:Reliable Sources produced by academics operating in the study of religion and related fields. There are plenty of other websites out there that present Theosophy as it is perceived by its adherents; Theosopedia: The Theosophical Encyclopedia, for example.
As for the other edits being made, I am not intrinsically opposed to all of them, but am concerned about material being dumped into the article without being properly referenced or formatted. If you think that there are certain things that the article is missing (and there is much that it is missing, certainly) then let us know at the Talk Page and we can work towards inclusion. But please, don't just make disputed edits unilaterally. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MBO: I have shown precedents from the esoteric movements which are most closely related to this one where it is called a religious or spiritual philosophy in the first sentence. These examples should matter, not Rastafaris or what not.
Three editors [3] [4] support an alternative versus one editor (you).
So currently the consensus is for an alternative, and you should not have restored your version.
Below is the content that you deleted while splitting the article. What are your objections about it?
The Reliable Sources describe Theosophy as a religion. Find me Reliable Sources of comparable quality that dispute this and we can look into making a change to the designation. I am more than happy to acknowledge that Theosophists don't like referring to it as a religion; indeed I have ensured that the article does this. But, as I said before, this article cannot be allowed to become "a Theosophists' take on Theosophy". That's not what Wikipedia is for. The evidence which you are trying to add is in some places totally unreferenced; in other cases the source material is of dubious or disputed quality. In some cases the references are decent, and in those cases I do not object to the inclusion of said information, but it should be properly formatted (page numbers, for instance, are an absolute must). Some of the things that you are adding (mention of Gandhi or Mondrian, for example) already appear in the article anyway, so it's sheer duplication. Other parts, such as a picture of a book given by Blavatsky to Tolstoy, is pretty pointless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor User:Srleffler [5] has provided a reliable source for an alternative wording, this means references can be found. The infobox is small and compact, I see no problem about it, and articles for other closely related esoteric movements have an infobox without problems, see [6] [7].Can you show sources that FA does not allow infoboxes? This article is not even GA, before FA comes GA, and when it is in review you can then discuss it with the reviewer if the infobox is appropriate or not. I think the content on influence on artists and intellectuals should be added back, and the parts concerning Scriabin and Tolstoy seem to be well cited. Do you agree on this?
Srleffler as restoring (a variant) on the longstanding wording (which I am defending); they are supporting the statement that Theosophy as a "religion", which surely supports my view rather than the one you have put forward in your edits, no? As for the infobox, what is it actually accomplishing? Does it provide anything that the article at present does not? The sources cited for on Scriabin and Tolstoy are in Russian, so admittedly I am unsure as to what their quality is. Can we find decent English language sources for the same information (I imagine that we can). The article, as it stands, already makes some mention of the influence on artists and intellectuals; what exactly would you like to see added out of the passage below? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Esoteric religious tradition is not quite the same as just "religion", but religious philosophy would still be better. Other articles of related esoteric movements call it spiritual or religious philosophy or even just philosophy in the first sentence which is more accurate and npov as User:Clean Copy agreed. Many articles have infoboxes, and many find them useful. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose_of_an_infobox. It summarizes key facts that appear in the article, and it is very useful for navigation and exploration of related articles. It seems for some reason you are biased against infoboxes, but this is not a majority view, since you find them on many articles. Other articles like Islam or Christianity and many others all have such a box in the top right. Indeed, it is difficult to find large articles about religions or philosophies without such infoboxes. I agree that the sources for the content on artists is not optimal. I may try to find some better sources and add later.

Deleted content

[edit]

Theosophy comes to us from the Alexandrian philosophers, called lovers of truth, Philaletheians, from phil "loving," and aletheia "truth." The name Theosophy dates from the third century of our era, and began with Ammonius Saccas and his disciples, who started the Eclectic Theosophical system.

— Helena Blavatsky, The Key to Theosophy pp. 1–2

Theosophy comes from the Greek theosophia (θεοσοφία), which combines theos (θεός), "God"[1] and sophia (σοφία), "wisdom".[citation needed] Its etymological meaning is thus "wisdom of God."[2]

The book The Voice of the Silence presented by Blavatsky to Leo Tolstoy
India and Sri Lanka

The Theosophical Society Adyar was closely linked to the Indian independence movement: the Indian National Congress was founded across the street in 1885 during a Theosophical conference, and many of its leaders, including M. K. Gandhi were associated with Theosophy.[3] However, Hindu spiritual teacher and leader Swami Vivekananda has criticized Theosophy and Theosophists.[4]

Some early members of the Theosophical Society were closely linked to the Indian independence movement, including Allan Octavian Hume, Annie Besant and others. Hume was particularly involved in the founding of the Indian National Congress.[5]

The Theosophical Society had a major influence on Buddhist modernism[6] and Hindu reform movements, and the spread of those modernised versions in the west.[6]

Blavatsky and Olcott took part in Anagarika Dharmapala's revival of Theravada Buddhism in Ceylon.[7][8]

Art, music, literature

Artists and authors who investigated Theosophy include Talbot Mundy, Charles Howard Hinton, Geoffrey Hodson, James Jones,[9] H. P. Lovecraft, and L. Frank Baum. Composer Alexander Scriabin was a Theosophist whose beliefs influenced his music, especially by providing a justification or rationale for his chromatic language. Scriabin devised a quartal synthetic chord, often called his "mystic" chord, and before his death he planned a multimedia work to be performed in the Himalayas that would bring about the armageddon; "a grandiose religious synthesis of all arts which would herald the birth of a new world."[10] This piece, Mysterium, was never realized, due to his death in 1915. Leonid Sabaneyev, in his book Reminiscences about Scriabin (1925), wrote that The Secret Doctrine and the journal "Bulletin of Theosophy" were constantly on Scriabin's work table.[11] Scriabin reread The Secret Doctrine very carefully and marked the most important places with a pencil.[12][a] Artists reported to be Theosophists were Wassily Kandinsky and Piet Mondrian.

Blavatsky presented her books The Voice of the Silence, The Seven Gates and Two Paths to Leo Tolstoy. In his works, Tolstoy used the dicta from the theosophical journal Theosophischer Wegweiser.[13] In his diary, he wrote on 12 February 1903, "I am reading a beautiful theosophical journal and find much in common with my understanding."[14]

See also: Thought-Forms (book) § Thought-Forms and modern arts
New Age movement

The present-day New Age movement is said to be based to a considerable extent on original Theosophical tenets and ideas. "No single organization or movement has contributed so many components to the New Age Movement as the Theosophical Society. ... It has been the major force in the dissemination of occult literature in the West in the twentieth century."[15]

Other organizations loosely based on Theosophical texts and doctrines include the Agni Yoga, and a group of religions based on Theosophy called the Ascended Master Teachings: the "I AM" Activity, The Bridge to Freedom and The Summit Lighthouse, which evolved into the Church Universal and Triumphant. These various offshoots dispute the authenticity of their rivals.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Liddell and Scott: Greek-English Lexicon
  2. ^ Faivre 1994, p. 24.
  3. ^ Bevir, Mark (2001). "Theosophy as a Political Movement". Alpheus.org. Archived from the original on 19 May 2016. Retrieved 8 August 2016.
  4. ^ STRAY REMARKS ON THEOSOPHY
  5. ^ Кранстон 1999, sect. 5/1.
  6. ^ a b McMahan 2008.
  7. ^ Gombrich 2006, pp. 136–140.
  8. ^ Fields 1992, pp. 83–118.
  9. ^ Carter 1998.
  10. ^ Minderovic 2011; Кранстон 1999, sect. 7/4-6
  11. ^ Сабанеев, Леонид Л., ed. (2000). Воспоминания о Скрябине. Москва: Классика-XXI. pp. 63, 173, 241.
  12. ^ Schloezer, Boris de (1923). A. Skrjabin. Vol. 1. Berlin: Grani. p. 27. OCLC 723767921. Цит. по: Бандура А. И. А. Н. Скрябин и Е. П. Блаватская // 175 лет со дня рождения Е. П. Блаватской. Материалы Международной научно-общественной конференции. – Санкт-Петербургское отделение Международного Центра Рерихов, Санкт-Петербург, 2006 г. – С. 120 (А. И. Бандура – кандидат искусствоведения, председатель музыкально-философского общества имени А. Н. Скрябина, Москва)
  13. ^ Толстой 1955, p. 67.
  14. ^ Толстой 1935, p. 155.
  15. ^ Melton 1990, pp. 458–461. Note "Chronology of the New Age Movement" pp. xxxv–xxxviii in same work, starts with the formation of the Theosophical Society in 1875; see also Lewis & Melton 1992, xi.

Moved to talk

[edit]

Did some cleanup, moving material that seems unrelated here:

Occult movement or religion

[edit]

Tertiary sources are preferred, and Encyclopedia Britannica is a superior source in this regard. If other sources, particularly encyclopedias of religion or the like, can be found that emphasize the religious nature of the movement, this should be added for balance, but the other not removed. Worst of all is to change the wording while keeping the source; then the citation and wording no longer correspond! Clean Copytalk 21:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to open an RfC on this. Encyclopedia Brituannica is not necessarily a superior source to other academic works, particularly when there is a general consensus among scholars of religion that Theosophy is, for all intents and purposes, what they would recognise as a "religion". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy has this to say: "Blavatsky’s theosophy has several distinctive features, some in common with the traditional theosophy of Western esotericism, and others in common with Oriental esotericism" (author: MICHAEL B. WAKOFF). It does not mention religion. Clean Copytalk 21:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But most reliable sources do. Just because one or two do not does not mean that all of the others are discounted. The Handbook of the Theosophical Current, perhaps the most up-to-date and broad ranging academic publication on the subject, refers to it as a "religion", as do a whole host of other academic authors writing from at least 1980 to the present. Besides, Michael B. Wakoff (with due respect to him), does not look to be a scholar of religion; he is the editor of Shambhala Publications, a "Publisher of books and audios that bring wisdom to life" (i.e. a 'New Age' publisher) and his work at Cornell University was as a librarian, not as a teaching academic. His entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy literally consists of two short paragraphs. His entry on "Theosophy" is not even about Blavatskian Theosophy specifically, but rather about the term and its various usages; it is only in the second that he actually deals with Blavatsky's movement. So when discussing Wakoff's writing on Blavatskian Theosophy we are really only talking about a single paragraph of no more than 200 words. With respect to him, I don't think we can view him as typical of present academic thought on the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Handbook, which I did not previously know, is a truly excellent source. It has a series of articles, each of which should be consulted for phrasing. It appears that only the introduction uses the term religion in regard to Theosophy. I do agree that Wakoff is not the best source, given the bio of him you present. Clean Copytalk 22:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the J. Gordon Melton authored entry on Theosophy in the Encyclopedia Britannica explicitly categorises Theosophy as a "religious philosophy", so citing it to argue against the "religion" tag is more than a little specious! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A correction is necessary here: Melton's entry does not categorize Theosophy as a religious philosophy. Nothing in his writing states this. The online version of the encyclopedia, at least, has classified his entry under religious philosophy, but this would have been an editorial decision, and I would not consider this classification particularly relevant, as we have no idea who undertook it, with what background. Clean Copytalk 05:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions (8th ed.) terms Theosophy "a contemporary presentation of the perennial wisdom underlying the world’s religious traditions." (p. 711), an emic point of view. There appear to be no individual authorial attributions. Clean Copytalk 06:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Lavoie, in his The Theosophical Society, addresses how to categorize Theosophy: he variously suggests the terms Western esoteric movement, Western esoteric spiritualist movement, or occult movement (p. 5).
Maria Carlson, in her No Religion Higher than the Truth, terms Theosophy "occultism" and discusses it as belonging to the history of occult and esoteric movements.(pp. 3-5) Clean Copytalk 13:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the description of Theosophy as a religion in the lede

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus seems to be in favour of using the term "esoteric religious movement" (which also, I feel, covers the "Both" option). Yunshui 雲水 08:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the opening sentence of the lede refer to Theosophy as a religion? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Alternative, more open-ended phrasing: How should the lede describe Theosophy: as a religion, occult movement, or both? (late addition: or in some other way) Clean Copytalk 22:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we clarify which aspect of the lead that is under discussion here? I believe the suggestion is to change only the first sentence, from: " Theosophy is an occult movement originating in the 19th century with roots that can be traced to ancient Gnosticism and Neoplatonism " to " Theosophy is a religion originating in the 19th century with roots that can be traced to ancient Gnosticism and Neoplatonism. " Is this what is the exact change being suggested here? --- FULBERT (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is solely designed to discuss whether the lead sentence should say "Theosophy is a religion" or whether it should not. Any other aspects of the wording in the lead sentence and paragraph can be discussed elsewhere. To keep things very clear, this RfC is only about that word "religion" and whether it should appear in the lead sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Midnightblueowl. I wanted to be clear, as I agree occult has little evidence, though religion alone is not entirely accurate, either. The Theosophy Portal uses a more inclusive phrasing of religio-philosophic, and think that Theosophy is more in a grey area between religion and philosophy --- FULBERT (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could certainly all argue till the cows come home as to whether Theosophy is best described as a "religion", "spirituality", "philosophy", "way of life", "cult", "occult movement", "esoteric movement" or what have you, and I'm sure that many fine arguments could be produced. But the key point is that it is not really up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to decide how Theosophy is best categorised. It is up to us to follow what the RS say: and they describe it as a religion, as well as a form of occultism (and by extension, a form of esotericism). If the RS themselves begin to shift their views in future, then so should we. But at any given time, we should follow the example of the RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not following what is meant by RS --- FULBERT (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, WP:Reliable Sources! Although it is of course also a common acronym for religious studies. And, ironically, in this case the best RS (reliable sources) are the writings of scholars of RS (religious studies). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Claiming Knowledge, Hammer usually refers to Theosophy with the terms Esoteric tradition, esoteric thought, or "post-Enlightenment esotericism", but uses the term religion one time, as well.
  • In his Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, Faivre exclusively uses terms such as esoteric currents, except where he mentions that Theosophy is sometimes, "rightly or wrongly," described as a religion, thereby casting into doubt the claim that this is a definitive definition. Clean Copytalk 04:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, is Faivre here referring to Blavatskian Theosophy or Theosophy (Boehmian) as I know that he discusses both (and mostly the latter) in his work? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blatvatskian Theosophy. Clean Copytalk 05:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions (8th ed.) terms Theosophy "a contemporary presentation of the perennial wisdom underlying the world’s religious traditions." (p. 711), an emic point of view. There appear to be no individual authorial attributions. Clean Copytalk 06:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeffrey Lavoie, in his The Theosophical Society, addresses how to categorize Theosophy: he variously suggests the terms Western esoteric movement, Western esoteric spiritualist movement, or occult movement (p. 5).
  • Maria Carlson, in her No Religion Higher than the Truth, terms Theosophy "occultism" and discusses it as belonging to the history of occult and esoteric movements.(pp. 3-5) Clean Copytalk 13:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Yes. As the article makes perfectly clear, the reliable sources written by academic experts on the topic of Theosophy repeatedly refer to it as a "religion"; conversely, I am not aware of any such academics that dispute this tag. Theosophists may not care for this description, just as many New Agers, Rastafarians, Buddhists, Confucians, Jews etc (and even some Muslims and Christians!) dislike the "religion" tag, preferring to present their systems of belief as a "spirituality", "way of life" or "philosophy", but Wikipedia does not exist to present belief systems as their practitioners wish for them to be seen. It presents them as they are depicted in the reliable sources, especially the work of academics who have studied said movements. The reliable sources call Theosophy a "religion". Thus, so should we. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Midnightblueowl. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both religion and occult movement, given the range of descriptions out there. In particular, even sources such as Hammer and Rothstein's introduction to the Handbook of the Theosophical Current use words like "Current" in the title, rather than religion, and describe this as having a place in both religious and esoteric history: "The third section looks at some of the ways in which the Theosophical current has interacted, and continues to interact, with other religions and with various social and cultural domains....Blavatsky’s Theosophy inscribes itself in the history of Western esotericism by borrowing massively from Hermetism, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, magic, Freemasonry, and other earlier esoteric currents....If the contents of Theosophy were largely culled from Western esoteric sources, much of the vocabulary and many of the legitimizing references were indebted to Oriental religions and philosophies" Clean Copytalk 22:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that there is any dispute when it comes to describing Theosophy as a form of occultism. The first paragraph of the lede should certainly mention the fact that it exists within the broader framework of esotericism and the more specific framework of occultism. I think it best if, here at this RfC, we purely restrict ourselves to asking the question as to whether or not we call it a "religion", because that's the issue that some editors (and many Theosophists) take issue with. As far as I am aware, no-one is disputing that it is a form of occultism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Midnightblueowl and the dictionary definition of "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Also because it deals with ultimate reality. Perhaps the word "movement" should also be retained. Jzsj (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The above discussion by Clean Copy (prior to this RfC) seems to indicate that the subject is a philosophy, a cult belief, or some sort of irreligion. From reading the article, I don't see that this is a religion; anyone that says otherwise is stretching the term "religion" into meaninglessness. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of any Reliable Sources provided by academic scholars of religion that explicitly state that Theosophy is not a "religion"? Moreover, what makes you think that it isn't a religion when so many academic scholars of religion who have studied and written about Theosophy describe it as a "religion"? I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and comment, but I don't see anything in your statement that pertains to Wikipedia policy; your argument seems to hinge on the fact that Theosophy does not meet the criteria that you personally have for demarcating what is a "religion" and what isn't. There may be many editors who don't want to describe Theosophy as a "religion" — many Christians for example think that theirs is the only true "religion" and that virtually everything else is just "superstition", "magic", or a "cult" — but at Wikipedia we shouldn't be following their example, we should be following the example of the reliable sources. And in this case the reliable sources refer to Theosophy, unambiguously, as a religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See above: some sources use this term, others don't, but refer to it in other terms. NPOV would seem to indicate including the range of thought here. Clean Copytalk 04:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There might be some confusion here. No scholar is saying that it is either a religion or a form of occultism. It is both. But some scholars obviously go straight into discussing "occultism" because they are aiming their writing at a specialist audience who really don't need to be told that it is a "religion". It is like a scholar of religion who refers to a Baptist Church as being "Protestant"; in referring to it by this term, they aren't denying that it is "religious" or "Christian", they just think it more appropriate to use very specific, precise terminology in the context of their writing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Early Blavatskian Theosophy actually did almost avoid being a religion in itself but instead a pool of alternative beliefs which one could attach to a variety of religions. However, within Blavatsky's lifetime, acceptance of her (and to some extent Leadbeater's) particular beliefs became the standard by which one was judged a Theosophist. This is illustrated by the split between Theosophical Society Pasadena and Theosophical Society Adyar illustrates this (disagreement over which stance Blavatsky would have held), as well as the shooting off of Anthroposophy (just disagreeing with one idea of Leadbeater's was enough to prompt Steiner to find a different name for what was previously his branch of the Theosophical Society). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I am convinced that the current first sentence is not accurate enough, and short of anything else that captures this complexity, not to mention per the Wikipedia definition of religion here, I agree with this change. --- FULBERT (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: I'm going to be bold and close this RfC now. I am aware that I was the original proposer and one could argue that I have a conflict of interest, but as per the snowball clause I think that the result is so obvious to everyone that there is really no need to ask an uninvolved admin to close this. The RfC has been open for nine days and hasn't had a fresh response for seven of those, suggesting that it might be a little exhausted: it's time to shut it down. Of the seven people to vote (including myself), six think that the article should refer to Theosophy as a religion in the lede, and the only objection was not accompanied by any reference to Wikipedia policy. Two individuals to vote also stipulated that the article should refer to Theosophy not just as a religion but also as a form of occultism; although that was not the central question of the RfC, no objections to this were raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out my conclusion and cancelled my closure of the RfC, as per concerns raised below by User:Clean Copy. I will now request that the RfC be closed by an uninvolved editor. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if this closure would state whether religion has been decided on as the sole or primary categorization, or simply as one viable and representative categorization. Clean Copytalk 20:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify for the editor who closes this, I don't think that there is anyone who is disputing that Theosophy is a form of occultism, because many RS refer to it as such. I personally support referring to it as "occultism" (and also as "esotericism") in the lede paragraph. However I think that it would be inappropriate to refer to Theosophy as "occultism" alongside, or even before, referring to it as "religion" in the opening sentence. "Religion" is by far the primary and largest categorisation here; then comes "esotericism", and then comes "occultism", which is a sub-set of esotericism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elements of Both Though Clean Copy has 'hit the nail on the head', that the bigger issue is how to represent the balance/relationship ("the sole or primary categorization, or simply as one viable and representative categorization"). A false logic is being followed above and below that occultism is a sub-set of esotericism, which is a sub-set of religion (the analogy being made with Baptist-Protestant-Christian=religion). Were this a wholly valid analogy, A) one would expect the 'occultism' and esotericism articles to be clear that occultism/esotericism are religions, or strands of a religion - one doesn't, the articles are very equivocal as to what their relationships are to religion/religious thought B) there would be no need to label Theosophy as a religion - as there is no need to label either 'Baptist' or 'Protestant as religions. I suggest the RfC be re-launched with more specific text. That Theosophy has religious elements does not seem to be disputed by any sources, but 'having religious elements' is not the same as 'being (primarily) a religion'. Pincrete (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose the relaunching of the RfC with an altered question just yet. Let's wait and see how this plays out and then—if necessary—a second RfC could be launched once this one has run its natural course and been closed by an uninvolved editor. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I take the point (and agree) that my analogy of "religion > esotericism > occultism > Theosophy" with "religion > Christianity > Protestantism > Baptist Church" is not a perfect one. I never thought it was and apologise if I gave that impression. "Esotericism" includes some things which are widely considered "religious", some things which are not, and a great many things that live in that fuzzy borderland between "religious" and "non-religious". However, I thought it would prove heuristically useful for many editors (including the future closer) who will likely have little or no idea what "esotericism" and "occultism" actually are beyond a vague perception that they refer to "spooky" or weird supernatural goings on. They really need to be aware that "occultism" and "religion" are not separate, mutually exclusive categories and thus Theosophy is not either an religion or an occult movement. There are many different groups, not just Theosophy but Wicca, Thelema, LaVeyan Satanism, New Age and the like, which are classified as both "occultism" and "religion". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One possibility for the article would be to refer to Theosophy as an "esoteric religion" in the opening sentence. This is how it is described by the historians Bruce Campbell and Joy Dixon, so it has strong RS backing. It would also mirror the way that we refer to Heathenry as a "modern Pagan religion" in the opening sentence of the FA-rated article on Heathenry (new religious movement)). How does this proposal sound, Pincrete and Clean Copy? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly.rcommend you step back and let others propose solutions. That's the idea of an RFC and of its closing: to invite more objective voices in. And then to listen to them.
One proposal has already come in, see below. Clean Copytalk 05:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Just to point out that - of your above examples - only 'LaVeyan Satanism' has an opening sentence that says "XYZ is a religion", being a religious movement (new or otherwise), or having religious elements, is not synonymous with being 'a religion' - whatever precisely that means. Pincrete (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, although Wicca goes for "contemporary Pagan new religious movement" (which contains "religious" in there) and the Thelema article goes for the (dreadful) "a social or spiritual philosophy", which is most certainly not how it is described in any RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the sources sufficiently well to endorse or oppose your suggestion, though it seems a step in the right direction. How would ""esoteric religious movement" work? To me 'a religious XYZ' does not automatically equate with 'a religion', which - apart from other considerations - implies 'seperateness'. The Baptist Church isn't 'a religion' precisely because it is a branch of a bigger religion - it is however indisputably 'religious' in character. Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Esoteric religious movement would be fine with me. It seems to embrace the range of characterizations. Clean Copytalk 00:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're probably entering hair-splitting territory here, as I can't see much difference between calling it an "esoteric religion" and an "esoteric religious movement" in the lede sentence. Certainly, I don't object to either. At the same time, why bother with the "movement" tag when "religion" on its own is simpler? That's not to say there's anything wrong with "movement", but what does it actually add? I note that typing in "religious movement" into Wikipedia redirects us to Sociological classifications of religious movements, which isn't what we want, so if we do go with "esoteric religious movement" in the lede then I think it is important that we ensure that the piping takes the reader to the article on "Religion" as opposed to "Sociological classifications of religious movements". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like "esoteric religious movement" is acceptable to all parties. It should, of course, be doubly piped: esoteric religious movement. Clean Copytalk 01:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Clean Copy: Thanks for making the alteration to the lede. It is a solution that suits us all, I think. I have however altered the linking: "esoteric" to Western esotericism (and then removing the duplink later in that paragraph), and "religious" to Religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I think that tidies everything up, then. The RFC can be closed as far as I am concerned...Feel free to go ahead and do this now. Clean Copytalk 13:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just received a new feedback request and am pleased to see the consensus you reached. Jzsj (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead

[edit]

The lead is way too long and poorly conceived. It should present a clear overview for the casual reader. The history should probably be moved out, for example. Clean Copytalk 06:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is not too long by any of the Wikipedia policies and recommendations that I have ever seen; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Indeed, it is a perfectly standard length for an article such as this. I also very much disagree that mention of the movement's history should be stripped from the lead. What purpose would that achieve? The only reason that I can see for removing said information is a desire to present Theosophical teachings as somehow ahistorical or timeless; a perspective that many Theosophists themselves might be happy with but which is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. As per Wikipedia's standard practice, the lead exists to summarise the content of the article; and that includes the movement's history. As an exemplar of an FA-rated article on an 'alternative' religious movement, perhaps look at the article on Heathenry (new religious movement), and the way that that lead is structured. This being said, I'm certainly not claiming that the lead here could not be improved, so if you have specific recommendations for how wording could be altered or made more concise then I would be very happy to discuss them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of RFC by bringer of RFC

[edit]

I don't think I have ever seen an RFC closed by the person who brought it before, nor one closed in such a one-sided fashion. Nothing in the RFC justifies taking out the reference to Theosophy being an occult movement, and if this was your intention you should have mentioned this in the RFC itself, upfront. Please reconsider your approach to take into account NPOV and the many sources that have been provided that do not support an exclusive, and in some cases even a partial, definition of T as a religion.

With good will -- Clean Copytalk 18:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:RFCEND, "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable". I really think that the consensus is obvious; there are six votes against one here, and the one expression of opposition does not even make reference to any policy. However, as you have expressed concerns, I will re-launch the RfC and then ask for formal closure. That's not a problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not question whether religion should be mentioned, only that it should be treated as the primary categorization. Clean Copytalk 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to clarify, I did not remove the reference to "occultism" from the lede; I merely removed the duplication of the term from the lede. There is really no point in saying Theosophy is an "occult movement" in one sentence and then that it is a form of "occultism" two sentences later. That's just pointlessly repetitive. Many good quality reliable sources refer to Theosophy as a form of occultism and I agree with you that it makes great sense to therefore refer to it as such in the lede paragraph. I just don't see any point to saying it twice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the first sentence not say "occult movement" and religion be mentioned later? It seems clear that you would not accept this alternative. The NPOV approach would be to mention the two terms, which are equally supported by RSs, equally. Clean Copytalk 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because they refer to different levels of categorisation, rather than two mutually exclusive categories. A "religion" is a big, broad category. "Occultism" is a far more restricted level of categorisation; indeed it is a subset of "esotericism". So while it is true that Theosophy is regarded by scholars as a religion, a form of esotericism, and a form of occultism, it is important that we present this in a neat and tidy way. Yes, some RS refer to Theosophy as a form of "occultism" straightaway rather than going for "religion", but that is because said sources are already aimed at an expert, scholarly audience who don't need to be told that it's a "religion". An academic study on a Baptist church, for example, is not necessarily going to start by saying "the Baptist Church is a religion", but it might go straight in by referring to the Baptist Church as "Protestant", bypassing any mention of "religion" or even of "Christianity" because it takes for granted that the reader will already be well aware that the Baptist Church is both Christian and religious. Wikipedia, however, is not an academic publication designed to be read only by experts; it's aimed at a wider audience, and our prose needs to reflect this. "Religion" should therefore take primacy; both "esotericism" and "occultism" should come after. That's much neater and much more user friendly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a world of difference between being 'a movement with religious elements', and being 'a religion'. The Baptist analogy doesn't work - since it is not clear that 'occultism' and 'esotericism' are largely regarded as being religions in any universally accepted sense of that word and both adherents and commentators appear to propose a more nuanced categorisation. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The RS repeatedly refer to it as a "religion", or by synonyms such as "religious movement" or "religious tradition". So I don't really think that, on policy grounds, Theosophy could simply be presented as "a movement with religious elements". As I specified above in the RfC, I concur that the analogy is not perfect (because "esotericism" is not a type of religion, but a category in which many religions are placed, alongside some other, potentially non-religious things) but it is heuristically useful in emphasising the important fact that "religion" and "occultism" are not mutually exclusive categories; we should thus not imagine that Theosophy is either a religion or a form of occultism. It can be, and is, both. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's both, find a way of saying that - in the opening sentence, without relegating or promoting either element. Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection to the RFC now being closed? As far as I can see, there are no outstanding issues. Clean Copytalk 07:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Midnightblueowl: and @Pincrete:; this was a very positive example of the collaborative working of people coming from very different starting points! I look forward to further such! (This sent in response to the final closure of the RFC.) Clean Copytalk 10:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

After all the heavy talk about religion or not, this may seem a trivial point.

I have been a theosophist for decades. For some of those decades I have also been a Theosophist. I'll be happy to explain the difference, if anyone has any interest. My point is that I have seen many, MANY Theosophical logos. There are four international organizations who identify as Theosophist. All use the same logo, sometimes with slight alterations. I must have seen at least 100 of them. NEVER ONCE have I seen a TS logo on a black or dark background. Trivial, you may say. Not so trivial. For almost 150 years the TS, in its various forms and incarnations, has used, as a part of its logo, among other mystic symbols, the ancient svastika or swastika, since long decades before the German National Socialist Party even existed, much less adopted the svastika. The svastika is a truly ancient symbol, used by many cultures, but before the Nazis, it did not have the negative, fascist, angry, bullying, warlike connotations, which are the reasons the Deutsche Republic has outlawed its display. I would argue that displaying the logo on a dark background, with the svastika as prominent as it is, is far from neutral, and I hope that someone can come up with another example of same. We are PROUD of our logo, and of ALL the symbols which it comprises, but the additional subliminal effect of the dark background puts ME in mind of Nazi brownshirts with black armbands, or of the earlier Golden Dawn subset. And I KNOW better. Not neutral, I contend.

Now I'll put in my 2¢. I have heard the TS described as a religion, even on occasion as a cult, but never by anyone who had attended even one meeting. Religion is a factor. It is intended to be. There are some members for whom theosophy is an anti-religion. The study of many religions is part of the raison d'etre (please pardon, my French is almost non-existent), and that study and comparison of religions was the initial attraction for many of us. But, as was accurately pointed out at least once in the previous discussion, there is a world of difference between a religious philosophy, a study of religions, and the PRACTICE of a religion. To MY mind, at least, the PRACTICE of Religion involves WORSHIP. Now maybe there is worship going on SOMEWHERE, with the label of Theosophy, but if there is, I've never heard about it, and I've been paying attention for just such a thing. I would go to observe, and I know there are others just as concerned as I am. Of the theosophists I have known, along with the atheists and agnostics, and the anti-Christians, I have also known devout Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Bahai's, Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Jews, and probably some others, almost all of whom see no contradiction in dual participation. I can't think of a Muslim Theosophist I've ever known, but I only know very few Muslims, and we really don't proselytize, which is another reason why I just can't agree with the "experts" who are so sure we are a religion. Nuff said. Original Research. So be it. Rules are made to be broken.

I mentioned in passing the Golden Dawn. There is very little negative to write about theosophy, imo, but in the interest of balance, and fairness (most theosophists I have ever met believe strongly in fairness), if you need a negative note, there once was a subset of theosophy, around 1920-1930, called the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Read one of Alistair Crowley's books, if you have the stomach for it. That should fill the bill. Theosophy was once a large movement, and within large groups of people, you'll always find deviance, is the only defense I can offer. rags (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Ascended Masters" and "Mahatmas"

[edit]

I've changed the sentence in the lede from Ascended Masters to Mahatmas. As this is specifically an article about Blavatskian theosophy, the reference to "Ascended Masters" doesn't belong in this article in this way. It is a concept that is developed by later, Theosophically-influenced organizations after Blavatksy's death. A seemingly minor difference to those unfamiliar with Theosophical history but highly significant in fact.

Reviewing the Theosophy_(Blavatskian)#The_Masters section and the Ascended_master#Origins article will help clarify the reasons for this change in terminology. Youarealwaysfree (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current adherents

[edit]

Are there many, if any, adherents to Theosophy in 2019? I was looking for this information in the article but could not find this. --LukeSurl t c 06:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are still Theosophists out there. Not as many as there used to be, but they still exist. Unfortunately, there are many areas of the topic that the article does not cover very well at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The number of ST-A members was as of 2008 of 29,014 (http://teozofija.info), thus unless something really unusual happen that number most have been similar in ten years later, probably increased or if it diminished probably not too much, unless something very extreme happened in a decade that caused some massive defection from the movement which doesen't seem to be the case and there's nothing on the news about it (such thing would have make it to the news), and that doesen't includes the non-Adyar membership which although minor is still generally in the thousands. So basically yes, the number of theosophists is in the tens of thousands, probably around 30-35,000. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 November 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

– Move was the original name of this article, and we should revert to that. Theosophy (Blavatskian) is problematic as page title, since the article makes clear that the founders of Theosophy included more people than just Blavatsky (Henry Steel Olcott, W.Q. Judge), and other persons have greatly contributed and defined or redefined Theosophy, like Alice Bailey and many others. Reliable sources, including virtually all encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Brittanica, Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion or The Encyclopedia of World Religions, when using this term, primarly use it to mean the modern theosophical movement (and of course in common parlance, it is used in this way) Theosophy, which was the original name of this article for many years (actually since the beginning of Wikipedia). It seems it was moved without discussion to this problematic title. Riley0O0O0O (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophy (Blavatskian) is problematic as page title, since the article makes clear that the founders of Theosophy included more people than just Blavatsky (Henry Steel Olcott, W.Q. Judge), and other persons have greatly contributed and defined or redefined Theosophy, like Alice Bailey and many others.

Reliable sources, including virtually all encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Brittanica, Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion or The Encyclopedia of World Religions, when using this term, primarly use it to mean the modern theosophical movement (and of course in common parlance, it is used in this way) Theosophy, which was the original name of this article for many years (actually since the beginning of Wikipedia). It seems it was moved without discussion to this problematic title.

I think the article should be moved back to its original title, Theosophy, which was the title for many years (actually since the beginning of Wikipedia). It seems it was moved without discussion to this problematic title.

Reliable sources, when using the term, primarly use it to mean the modern theosophical movement. Examples:

  • Encyclopedia Britannica
  • Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions
  • Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion
  • The Encyclopedia of World Religions

Riley0O0O0O (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In 2002 both articles Theosophy and Christian theosophy were created by User:F. Lee Horn. This was the status for the longest time and makes the most sense and we should revert to the original names. As explained, reliable sources and other encyclopedias like Encylopedia Britannica do it this way also. The articles were moved without discussion last year. The reason for the move were not explained AFAIK at least I cannot find any discussion about it. --Riley0O0O0O (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article history was made a complete mess

[edit]

The Theosophy article was created in 2002 [8] as an article on the modern theosophical movement. 16 years later, in 2018, the article was moved without discussion to Theosophy (Boehmian), even though the article was originally on the modern theosophical movement. This means that now the article history of Theosophy, which should begin in 2002, is incomplete. For the earlier article history on this article on the modern theosophical movement, one has to check the article history of Theosophy (Boehmian). The article history of this article is now at another article. And the same is true for the talk page archives.

(Also the early article history of Theosophy (Boehmian) is at Christian theosophy (the original article on this topic since 2002), that article history is also messed up.)

I don't know how this mess can be fixed, I didn't find any tools to merge or copy the article history of Theosophy (Boehmian) into this article. Does such a tool exist? --Riley0O0O0O (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT. 2804:29B8:50EE:3FC4:B9A6:B3B9:FD30:5AD4 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theosophy/Archive_1&oldid=1169182531"