René Guénon was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Miniapolis, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 24 April 2018. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Proposed merge
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: Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello, Thiagovscoelho, you have created “Esotericism” template [1] 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 [2], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [3], [4]. Side question: what is the use of this "Transliteration" template? Regards, Hamza Alaoui (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
.png)
