Talk:Christian theosophy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Review of discussion/debate questions

It may be helpful for us to clearly state the questions being discussed. I suggest we have two subsections, one for the editing of the wording and the second for further discussion of the questions, in review.

Questions currently of interest

1. This article will focus on theosophy before, during, and after Blavatsky. How should we balance the three time periods to provide due weight? Most of the available sources discuss Blavatsky and those who came after her. We do not have any major disagreements, but would like some counsel on balancing the article.
2. Do we really have a significant disagreement among us? If so, what is a clear question for the issue(s)? If we don't have a significant disagreement, do we need an RfC?
3. What are the specific POV concerns for this article? What needs to be done to move this article closer to an NPOV masterpiece?

Discussion of the Questions currently of interest

1. This article will focus on theosophy before, during, and after Blavatsky. How should we balance the three time periods to provide due weight? Most of the available sources discuss Blavatsky and those who came after her.

JEMead has pointed out that books he's found published in the 1990s and after discussed the intellectual current of theosophy as it began and had become prior to Blavatsky. He has said some or all of these books focus on the non-Blavatsky theosophy.

I agree Blavatsky is discussed by most, perhaps all available sources. I wonder if this simply represents a bifurcation of interest among the scholars: some went on to study roots of Western esotericism while others went on to examine the spiritualism, New Age movement, and NRMs based in HPB's time. I wonder if we would thus find many specialized sources on the Theosophical Society and what came later as well as specialized sources on what came before. If so one of us could easily find only half (so to speak) of the relevant sources. 173.30.26.12 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not think we have a true need for an RFC currently. However a request for comment can always be good just to receive yet another view. I agree it should be in a separate section. wikipedia suggests that I believe. JEMead (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Goodrick-Clarke's work The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction (Oxford 2008)is a good source and maybe a model we rather could follow to settle some loose ends. As one would expect, theosophy is throughout the book as the traditions, currents etc. are discussed. It is a good balanced overview (ok, MHO). I noticed two things -- theosohy occurs without defining adjectives. I believe there is no eastern, western, other etc. I am still going through the book checking this. The Theosophical Society has an entire chapter. After the TS chapter, both the TS and (traditional)theosophy are discussed through the 1900's to present. The context, author, society etc. disambiguate the term theosophy. I would not have a problem using the weighting between HPB/TS and Traditional theosophy as used in this book. i.e. the book can act as a basic guide. I am suggesting this as (hopefully) a neutral approach? The table of contents with page numbers (weights) can be viewed at Goodrick-Clarke 2008

I think eliminating the adjectives before theosophy is perhaps a good idea. Otherwise, I don't know how we could do justice to each form of theosophy. I know some scholars have written on Christian theosophy and I might (don't recall) have seen a reference to Jewish theosophy today. In any event multiple scholars seem to use their own nomenclature for splitting up the various theosophies. The new source I examined today by Pasi (see List of sources heading above) seems to take a view regarding Eastern theosophy which I would agree with (i.e. it's Orientalist). If I read carefully Pasi balances that view with a view based on Richard King's book Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and “The Mystic East,” London and New York: Routledge, 1999 which I haven't read. Factseducado (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

JEMead wrote of Goodrick-Clarke 2008, "After the TS chapter, both the TS and (traditional)theosophy are discussed through the 1900's to present. The context, author, society etc. disambiguate the term theosophy." This makes sense to me.

JEMead's idea to use Goodrick-Clarke 2008 "as a basic guide" might be useful. After reading the Table of Contents and I believe the preface as well I didn't notice anything problematic but I wasn't sure how the organization would look in the Wikipedia article. I'd like an elaboration of exactly how that would be accomplished in the Wikipedia article. Factseducado (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of an historical approach which covers (space used in wikipage) items in a similar proportional weight (space used) of the book. We basically are doing historical sequence already. JEMead (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to look at the number of pages in the book and run the ratios. I don't see any hypothetical problem. I assume this would work well. Factseducado (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically theosophy is traditional theosophy and Theosophy of the HPB/TS current. The capital T for theosophy is rather a common shorthand for the proper noun Thesophical Society or a member of such (I am agreeing with this distinction). JEMead (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree except to add that if a reliable source says there was never a traditional theosophy then that view gets at least a sentence and a citation.

2. Do we really have a significant disagreement among us? If so, what is a clear question for the issue(s)? If we don't have a significant disagreement, do we need an RfC?

The term Eastern Theosophy has now been sourced to Hanegraaff (I believe) by me. I am not a fan of the term. I do not know if it is in widespread use among reliable sources. I preferred the term I found in the Goodrick-Clarkes which was Theosophy Orientalist in nature because I believe it is more accurate and less racist.

I am very interested in what the current consensus is in the field of Religious Studies at their major national conferences. If it is to avoid the word "Eastern" when it does not properly belong, then I wonder if we can find a reliable source to state that. I somewhat doubt we can find a source arguing against using it regarding theosophy because if using the word "Eastern" is out of favor it would seem more likely that scholars would drop it rather than discuss why they have dropped it. If we can find a reliable source to state using the word "Eastern" is out of favor I wonder if we're allowed to use it in this article. I don't know if stating what most scholars have written is the standard in the field today (i.e. avoiding "Eastern when it's not merited") without the source mentioning theosophy specifically would be considered synthesis. I would think it's not because it's relevant to the article and I don't think it would be stating anything in a novel way. 173.30.26.12 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) Factseducado (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As to the last part of question 2 above "If we don't have a significant disagreement, do we need an RfC?"

I believe we are allowed to have an RfC even if it's not to settle a significant disagreement. I base that opinion o: "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input," which goes to immediately mention and then deal with dispute resolution a lot.

I would think that getting someone to comment who is really knowledgeable about building religion articles and who might anticipate new areas of disagreement before they happen could be helpful.

I slightly lean in favor of having an RfC because I think it's better to nip problems in the bud. If we keep agreeing for two weeks then reach a stumbling block, I don't know how long we'd be bogged down. Also other editors may return and raise the issue(s) all over and it would be nice to point to the comments of an uninvolved editor. Factseducado (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

3. The title Post-Blavatskyan Theosophy and Western (Hellenistic) theosophy doesn't seem right. It is a tough item to get a wording we all like. Western may be the problem. Basically one is looking at theosophies that have traditions and are outside of the additional items and restrictions of HPB. Perhaps: Post-Blavatskyan Theosophy and Traditional (Hellenistic) theosophies ?? I am not at all sure. JEMead (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I will accept JEMead's proposed heading while a greater number of reliable sources are examined. I think theosophies is always preferable because it's more accurate.

I'm not sure how many scholars argue that a historical, traditional theosophy has existed as opposed to the known theosophical thoughts of Boehme and Emanuel Swedenborg. We'd have to examine the reliable sources.

my concept was traditional as historically evolved or created. Tradition as used/meant in Goodrick-Clarke's The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction; if that makes sense. JEMead (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Goodrick-Clarke 2008 has the word traditions in the title. I wonder if it would be more accurate and clear if we used the heading Post-Blavatskyan Theosophy and other theosophical traditions (Hellenistic). It could also be more accurate and less clear. I do not feel the reliable sources have given us a simple choice. On the one hand, if a reliable source accepts Faivre's typology then that source might see something called traditional theosophy. It's tricky because one or some reliable source(s) seem to say there is no one tradition and no typology as Faivre postulated. This makes the heading difficult. Perhaps Late modern theosophies is workable. I don't know. Factseducado (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A cursory reading of the article by Pasi (see List of sources above) seems to be splitting esotericism and theosophy by periods such as post-Reformation, early modernity, and late modernity. This works well for me because it simplifies things in an intuitively easy to grasp set of historical eras. I'd have to examine the Pasi more closely and compare it to other reliable sources to conclude the article should follow that split of historical eras. Factseducado (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

4. Goodrick-Clarke's The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction (Oxford 2008) does evaluate different scholar's systems for analyzing esotericism including Faivre's. Not every scholar think's Faivre's typology is correct or useful. I think we need a sentence and a citation stating that. We can use Goodrick-Clarke 2008 to see who he uses as a source for the criticism of Faivre's typology.

Yes. I think the Introduction covers these. if you need me to look up a note from the introduction (I have the book) I can do that.JEMead (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a simple note from Goodrick-Clarke 2008 explaining that some scholar(s) disputed Faivre's typology and a bibliographic reference to the source(s) Goodrick-Clarke used would be helpful. Factseducado (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Other Comments

some citations should be brought into the Bibliography for consistence? (formating problem)JEMead (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds useful.

Need to fill in some details for specific people in the historical sections (with references). I have been slow to do this. takes time and we mostly want the major contributions. I prefer links to these people where possible. JEMead (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we will have to prioritize work and major figures.Factseducado (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I removed RFC rfc|reli|Theosophy|rfcid=0597C89. We can add a new one for these questions.JEMead (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Factseducado (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I added JEMead's Goodrick-Clarke source and this one under the list of sources heading above: The Modernity of Occultism: Reflections on Some Crucial Aspects by Marco Pasi at http://uva.academia.edu/MarcoPasi/Papers/459798/The_Modernity_of_Occultism_Reflections_on_Some_Crucial_Aspects Factseducado 18:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 18:27, 8 May 2012 18:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we archive any of the old parts of the Talk page?

It's getting really long. Factseducado (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

yes. I was looking at it and thought maybe archiving 1 through 11 (inclusive of 11). is there a better more preferable range? JEMead (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 1-11 could use archiving. I'd appreciate it. I haven't learned how, yet. Factseducado (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. see Archive 2 at top of page.JEMead (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your awesome archiving, JEMead. It's appreciated. Factseducado (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I can set up an automatic archiver listed in WP:ARCHIVE if there is agreement? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Most kind of you. I have not done that before. Nothing is better than a permanent solution :) JEMead (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JEMead. That would be really helpful, thanks, IRWolfie.Factseducado (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Idea for RfC: Ask for help with tentative outline based on WP:NRMMOS but adapted to Theosophy

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/New religious movements WP:NRMMOS has guidelines for articles like Theosophy.

I believe one reason this article is hard to write is that it fits both the category NRM and the category history of religious thought. For that reason the specified NRM Article content structure needs adjustment for the particularities of this topic.

Theosophy means multiple things: 1) the intellectual history of religious thought prior to HPB 2) the Theosophical Society and 3) both of them after HPB.

I believe we have concluded that if we were to use separate pages and disambiguate the Theosophical Society and theosophy then we would be violating Wikipedia:Content forking WP:CFORK.

I think using WP:Summary Style is very appropriate here. some NRM's exist as wikipages already, and are large. They are marked NRM's as well. JEMead (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Have I read WP:Summary Style correctly? I think the day may come when we will have to use WP:Summary Style because the article will be so long. When and if that day comes, we will have to decide which part goes to its own article. That would be a hard call. If we take out Blavatsky's Theosophy, the Theosophical Society and the new religious movements that grew out of it while replacing it with a link and a summary, then the the article would be about historical eras in theosophy, Faivre's typology, and the religious thought and writing of early theosophers. In that case, I wonder if the article would need re-titling to something like "History, thought, and typology of theosophy." Of course that title is no good because it sounds bad. I think it would be helpful to ask for guidance in the RfC about how WP:Summary Style would be implemented if and when the day comes that the article is too long. I'm not advocating an approach here. I just have questions. Factseducado (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• On a regular NRM the guideline would be to structure the article as below. The topic of Theosophy a different kind of topic since it means more than the NRM part of theosophy. For that reason we need to adjust the article structure below, perhaps drastically.

Maybe I am confused. Most NRM material already exists in their own separate articles in Wikipages List of new religious movements. Our items like the HPB Theosophy, is Helena Blavatsky#Theosophy. This section (3.) in the HPB article covers everything in more detail than we would ever try to add here. HPB belongs in a separate article because it is a separate article in its own right. I would expect this article to cover the theosophy as typology of ideas, theory, history etc. My guess is that I am missing what you want to add? JEMead (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I want to add anything. I just think it's difficult to structure this article since it means Theosophy, the movement, and theosophy, a type of thought. Factseducado (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/New religious movements WP:NRMMOS

Article content structure
Articles on movements
"The article on a new religious movement should cover at least the following points:

1. History of the movement
2. Beliefs, teachings or practices of the movement
3. Reception

A movement should have its own article if it has developed social structures and behaviors that have attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources. If there is no substantial coverage of these aspects of the movement in reliable sources, a section in the founder's biography is sufficient to describe the movement.

Articles on movement founders
The article on the founder of a religious movement should cover at least the following points:

1. Biography, including important events in the movement's history
2. Teachings
3. Reception of the founder and her or his movement

Where the article on a religious movement redirects to the article on the movement founder, the article on the founder should cover at least the following points:

1. Biography, including important events in the movement's history
2. Teachings
3. Description of the movement
4. Reception of the founder and her or his movement"

• Furthermore, we have to consider how prominent each aspect of theosophy needs to be so that these three areas all have due weight: 1) the intellectual history of religious thought prior to HPB 2) the Theosophical Society and 3) both of them after HPB.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/New religious movements WP:NRMMOS Further information: WP:DUE

Due weight
"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant facts and viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Due weight is established by secondary sources. [emphasis added]

Prominent topics in self-published sources (movement and countermovement) may not be prominent in third-party sources (scholarly works, high-quality mainstream media); it is the latter which establish due weight in articles on new religious movements." Factseducado (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Task lists for this article

well - really brief and top level:

1. Collecting references to expand on those. I have started on that. others as well I believe.
2. The eastern theosophies can be tricky. People from all the various schools (some societal, others not) might see if we have good wikipages we can use (there are several), also what to add.
3. The western theosophies we just keep filing in... using other pages etc. as well.
4. societal influences. I think people have ideas for the eastern theosophy's influences. The western side has several, but I have not given it much thought. I can look around some.

JEMead (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

More re: tasks

1. Develop comprehensive, clear, sourced paragraphs regarding the basic tenets of Theosophy. As JEMead has mentioned, Theosophy varies regionally, globally. We need to capture that variability.
2. Begin to show what the skeptics and critics say about Theosophy.
3. Include in the preceding task, reliably sourced responses from Theosophy spokespersons.
4. Identify POV wording and replace with NPOV wording; at least move towards NPOV edits.

drs (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And more re: tasks

1. Theosophy has varied over time so multiple sources with varied points of view on the history of theosophy are needed.
2. The revival of theosophy and organized theosophy today should be included. The scholarship labeling Theosophy a new religious movement should be included.
3. Sources should include the full range of modern scholarship. The modern scholarship should elucidate both earlier source material and differences of opinion among current scholars so that all "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" are presented.
4. Notable people, places, organizations, and publications related to theosophy should be included and properly sourced.
5. Controversies associated with theosophy especially regarding race and association with Nazism.
6. Briefly mention any concepts that aid in explicating theosophy such as esotericism. Also clarify theosophy does not equate with occultism, Gnosticism, mysticism, spiritualism, mystery religions, and pseudoscience. Conversely, discuss ways in which theosophy, theosophers, and theosophical movements did at times incorporate elements of occultism, Gnosticism, mysticism, spiritualism, mystery religions, and pseudoscience.
7. Make clear the difference between theosophy and Theosophy.
8. Explain theosophical ideas about science in different historical epochs.
9. Present scholarly views on theosophy as religion, religious thought, religious doctrines.
10. Present historical linguistics and sociolinguistics of the word theosophy from a variety of modern scholars.
11. Restate any article text necessary which cites Faivre's Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition: Studies in Western Esotericism so that it summarizes Faivre's statements with the most accuracy possible.
12. Earlier section of this talk page titled "Comments from Binsternet" should be incorporated. It's pasted below for easy reference. Factseducado (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I accomplished a few of the tasks. I clarified the article and improved its flow. I fixed a direct quotation about Solovyov so it was accurate. I clarified the subject of some sentences; many sentences need more specific subjects rather than "some people" and the like. I tightened the text and fixed punctuation, style, and grammar to some extent. I substituted Faivre and Hanegraaf's definition of theosophy for Western theosophy since there is no source citation to support the terms Western and Eastern Theosophy. Factseducado (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Factseducado (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Binksternet wrote, "

• Over-reliance on Faivre is a problem here. (I've heard it called Freshman Disease: the reader of one book always thinks it is the whole truth but the reader of many books knows otherwise.) Faivre is not the established mainstream writer on Theosophy; Faivre has been challenged.
• Not enough from other scholars such as:
  • Joscelyn Godwin (1994), The Theosophical Enlightenment, SUNY Press. Godwin's widely cited book starts off early with Richard Payne Knight and phallic worship, then invests heavily in biographies of notable Theosophists but goes light on the Golden Dawn and later groups influenced by Theosophy.
  • Wouter J. Hanegraaff praised Godwin's "landmark study" in his 1998 New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought, SUNY Press. Today, Hanegraaff continues in this vein by saying Godwin wrote a "groundbreaking study" back in the 1990s, writing in Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture, Cambridge University Press.
  • Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke writes about the recent historiography of Theosophical scholarship in his paper, "Western Esotericism in the United Kingdom", a chapter within 2009's Hermes in the Academy: Ten Years' Study of Western Esotericism at the University of Amsterdam. Goodrick-Clarke is known for connecting Nazism and Theosophy, a matter that is completely absent from this article likely for ill-considered reasons. See Goodrick-Clarke's Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth, and Neo-Nazism, New York University Press, 1998; Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity, New York University Press, 2003; and The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults And Their Influence on Nazi Ideology, Tauris Parke, 2004.
  • Jeffrey D. Lavoie's 2012 book The Theosophical Society: The History of a Spiritualist Movement. This accessible and readable new book is by a doctoral student at Exeter.
  • Emmett A. Greenwalt, in his 1978 California Utopia: Point Loma, 1897-1942, traces the Theosophical roots of utopian communities. This book is a reworking of his 1955 The Point Loma Community in California, 1897-1942: A Theosophical Experiment. Both books start out with a "Theosophical Roots" chapter. Right now there is nothing about utopian groups in the article.
  • Racism in Theosophy is currently absent from the article, an astonishing lapse. The idea that Theosophy is racist "is much disputed", of course, but Goodrick-Clarke's work with esoteric Nazi beliefs is one cornerstone. Corinna Treitel writes that "Theosophy aimed, after all, to bring the so-called "sixth root race" into existence", a contrast to Theosophy's otherwise inclusive pan-racial goals (A Science for the Soul: Occultism and the Genesis of the German Modern, JHU Press, 2004.) Mattias Gardell writes that Theosophy emphasized "elitism, racism and esoteric knowledge" which made it very suitable to German racial thought. (Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism, Duke University Press, 2003.) On the other hand, Colin Kidd writes "Theosophy is a form of spirituality founded upon an ecumenical and explicitly anti-racist platform. Indeed, Theosophy proclaims itself a religion of global racial and religious reconciliation." (The Forging of Races: Race And Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600-2000, Cambridge University Press, 2006.) Besant was one of the prominent Theosphists fighting against racism."

Requesting feedback on how to phrase the RfC

DonaldRichardSands presented and revised proposed questions for RfC. Then I started a new section which proposed a broad way to frame the RfC by asking for help constructing an outline in which the aspect of theosophy as part of the history of esoteric thought is blended with the NRM aspect of Theosophy. Then JEMead indicated the utility of WP:Summary Style and I wrote, "I think it would be helpful to ask for guidance in the RfC about how WP:Summary Style would be implemented if and when the day comes that the article is too long."

The topics

My proposal is that we use this for the RfC:

• The topic of theosophy blends both theosophy as part of the history of esoteric thought and theosophy as a NRM and its influence up to today. We would like help figuring out how to construct an outline which blends both aspects of theosophy. The article structure suggested by the WikiProject on NRMs would not encompass theosophy as an aspect of the history of esotericism. We need something different. Also, we are asking for guidance in thinking ahead to a time when the article may become long enough to need to use WP:Summary Style. Which aspect of theosophy would go to its own article and what would be the correct name of whatever part stayed part of this article since the term Theosophy includes both types of theosophy: theosophy as part of the history of esoteric thought and the Theosophical movement.

Please indicate your agreement with the above proposal, disagreement with the above proposal, suggestions for improving the above proposal or suggest an alternative proposal for wording the RfC. Factseducado (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If one looks at the Theosophy Banner, Hermeticism (and banner), Esoteric Christianity etc. they list many topics which are items we should use for the summary style. If we add a NRM section which refers to the various NRM movements associated to theosophy, then that should cover NRM's. JEMead (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

JEMead, the Hermeticism banner looks like something we could base an expanded Theosophy banner on. I agree the NRMs need a section separate. I looked at Esoteric Christianity briefly and see some ways we could list topics. Factseducado (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Factseducado, here is a rewording of your paragraph. This is just an attempt to clarify, I am okay with any rewording, DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21

08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A Proposed RfC

This RfC seeks advice from editors on the following

Theosophy includes

1. A history of esoteric thought and
2. A description of a New Religious Movement (NRM).

Q1, We want this article to include both. What would be the most effective outline?

Q2, If the article gets too long, would it be appropriate to create two articles, i.e. one on the history of esoteric thought and the other on the NRM?

Q3, If the article gets too long, how should the articles be divided, in particular?

Q4, How should Helena Blavatsky, now a historical figure, and those who came after her, be included in the article(s)?

I am in favor of the wording of this RfC. I would like to move foward with it. Factseducado (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

An RfC would be helpful; more input. However, we are being too civil. lol. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, civility with an article that is this historically contentious is scary :)

The Main page (here) should cover all aspects. Rather the lead article in a new Theosophy Banner. The religious philosophy, esotericism etc. can be a huge amount of material. The number of NRM's that have sprung up (most post-Blavatsky) is also very large. I have always believed this topic must refer to many other wiki-pages and only summarize many of the major pieces that already have a large amount of material existent within wikipedia. One example is Alice Bailey; She has a large article that we can use (reference). Hermeticism, esoteric christianity, Astrology, Kaballa, Gnostic thought etc. are all traditional theosophies that have been around for a very long time and still continue within their own right. HPB really focused on the One Perennial Wisdom Religion which opened the flood-gates of religious movements with doctrines and dogmas and that whole realm. Yet, she herself always said that accepting any doctrine was irrelevant to being a Theosophist.

I guess my point is to proceed with the RFC. However, the question of focus includes the NRM, but a lot more as well. JEMead (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If I write DonaldRichardSands dresses funny do we qualify for an RfC? Actually, I'd rather get input while things are going well. Theosophy is not the easiest article to write.Factseducado (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, theosophy includes the NRM and "a lot more as well."Factseducado (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree this main article should include all aspects and that we must refer to other articles because the topic is big. Factseducado (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I need to see sources that tie "Hermeticism, esoteric christianity, Astrology, Kaballa, Gnostic thought" to the umbrella of theosophy. I do wonder if calling all of those part of esotericism is more accurate. I would need to evaluate actual sources to see if those categories are sisters of theosophy, mothers of theosophy, or daughters of theosophy. Each category could be related in all three ways (unlike a human family). Also, each category may relate to theosophy differently. I tend to think Astrology and Kaballa predate theosophy, gave rise to theosophy, and were then used by theosophers. I think Faivre wrote about that but I'd have to look again. Factseducado (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, HPB focused on One Perennial Religion. Movements with doctrines and dogmas do seem to have resulted and she said doctrine was irrelevant. Then theosophy ties to Alice Bailey and the New Age Movement which often took the form of spirituality and esotericism without doctrines and dogmas. I think our task is to reflect what good sources say on any significant matter. Factseducado (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Flow of Article - Introductory Overview as several books have done

I believe the article should follow the normal flow that most introductory books take. We are basically there with a couple changes in format.

shuffle as below: Content shuffle. move typology of traditional theosophy currents before history. This is needed to understand how the history's flow, develop common threads etc. We should add an NRM section after the Blavatsky section.

1 Etymology

2 Traditional (Hellenistic) Theosophies

2.1 Theology and Typology

3 History

3.1 Antiquity and Medieval ending c. 1450 C.E.

3.2 Theosophy in early modern Europe beginning in the 1500s

3.2.1 Enlightenment theosophy, 1650-1775

3.2.2 The nineteenth century

3.2.3 The twentieth century to present

4 Blavatskyan Theosophy and the Theosophical Society

4.1 Overview of Blavatsky's teachings

4.2 Criticisms of Helena Blavatsk and The Theosophical Society

4.2.1 Helena Blavatsky's skeptics

4.2.2 Blavatsky's Theosophy connected to antisemitism, racism

5 Post-Blavatsky Theosophy and New Religious Movements

6 See Also

7 References

7.1 Citations

7.2 Bibliography

7.3 Online Sources

8.External links

This will allow the NRM's and also have the History as a meaningful examination of the flow and evolution of theosophical thought. JEMead (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

JEMead, I would tend to think the history section helps understand the typology section. I would have to think about it more. I can't see any reason for you to not move the typology section now. Any interested person can comment on the talk page. If later the typology section is moved right behind the history section, you would not oppose that would you? All other aspects of your outline seem useful. I'd still like an RfC though. Do you agree on the proposed RfC DonaldRichardSands has constructed? Factseducado (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we are making progress with the outline above. We don't seem to disagree significantly. Let's agree to the outline, tweak it, and move forward. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

ok. I will move the typology section to match the above. I have always thought it would be more useful to have it in mind before reading sections in 3.2 etc. After HPB, many additional currents were created and the typology is harder to see. I need to add a couple lines mentioning other research (or typology, etc) some people prefer for their work. JEMead (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's do as JEMead and DonaldRichardSands have suggested. Factseducado (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully in the next 30 or so days we'll get feedback. Factseducado (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we will all learn more about theosophy and Faivre and responses to Faivre. I think Faivre's typology is useful and should be included. Apparently not all reliable sources agreed with Faivre and they should get a sentence or more if we find the actual areas of disagreement. I think Faivre has been well-received by other reliable sources and it is not a problem that some reliable sources disagree with one thing or another. Factseducado (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I know we will have to include more of substance that was written by sources besides Faivre because he's not the only significant reliable source. Factseducado (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

JEMead added that external link to the history of theosophy and that journal is good as are the editors and authors there. Factseducado (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote, and added some references, for parts of the Common Characteristics section. It should be easier to read. The extra comments on variants of typologies etc I am still looking at. Christian Theosophy has to get in there also. Faivre-dominated references are mostly in the history sections now. Most of the historical development is not contentious. (to my knowledge) JEMead (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the recent editing by all has been brilliant. If I see anything that could be improved I'll speak up here. I would like to see a Christian Theosophy section also. Multiple reliable sources reference it. I'd like to learn more about when the term started. You probably already know. I don't know yet. Thanks for your work (and Hgilbert and DonaldRichardSands's work, too.)

I just removed an edit (editor unknown) which had added the 21st century into history as below:

The Twenty-First Century

In the twenty-first century, Theosophy took to the internet. Esotericist and "Spiritual Seeker" Jordan Duchnycz launches his website and social forum, Spirit Science www.thespiritscience.net, bringing many theosophic ideas and theories to a new audience.

I think the above looks like an advertisement for a web site. If the poster cares to comment, please do so. JEMead (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree if the editor would like to help us understand a way to include reliably sourced information that would be welcome. I'm sure JEMead or I or someone would be happy to give ideas about how to write something with sources that could help discuss theosophy in the last decade or so. Factseducado (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am ecstatic about the article. I wonder if it may keep improving and reach eligibility for good article status. Bye. I'm deleting my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! JEMead (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of improvements

I made a couple of improvements: I moved Template:Theosophy down the page to the relevant section on Blavatsky's Theosophical Society. I'll slightly change the template's title linking so that it links there instead (ie "Theosophy", with the template's sub-heading linking to Theosophy). I also added a section on theosophy in Judaism: the Kabbalah, including its non-Jewish syncretic offshoots Christian Cabala (NB. the page name spelling is due to be changed - see Talk:Christian Kabbalah) and Hermetic Qabalah. The latter is important especially for this page, as through it Cabalistic theosophy became a central component of Western esotericism till today. I also mentioned the Gnosticism similarity with Kabbalah: theosophy=gnosis. NB. the page Cabala is a disambiguation page for the different traditions; the Jewish version is usually spelled Kabbalah today, the Christian version Cabala (hence Cabal=intrigue), the non-Jewish occult-magical tradition Qabalah (despite the contemporary Q convention, it is this Hermetic tradition that influenced the popular association of Cabala with Cabal. Cabala seems to have been the standard non-Jewish transliteration before recent times). Hope this helps. April8 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I like the additions you have made. I also need to get back to this page and brush up some fine points. I noticed that some people want references added. I had (originally) decided that when several sentences in a paragraph use the same reference, it made more sense to put that major reference at the end of the paragraph. It made it look cleaner. The comments over the last few months imply people do not like this. I may have been confused on the preferred wikipedia style. comment? JEMead (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The banner needs to be adjusted (rewrite?). It was originally made by Societal members and reflects their view. I felt it needs rather a complete overhaul. Any suggestions? The new placement is very good. The changes you mentioned are good ideas. JEMead (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The post Blavatsky section is somewhat complex. The movement splintered greatly. Several theosophists (some academic) appeared with little/no Societal connections. It was more like the original currents before HPB. I believe some (from more Eastern currents) developed due to the Parliament of World's Religions. However - reliable sources need to be found first. JEMead (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Updated the first paragraph in the History section. The TS only founded the Esoteric Society (Iniate society). Much earlier (1600's), Rosicrucianism was started, which was also initiatory. I think that paragraph needs total rewording. Possible deletion should be considered. The point of that paragraph, I believe, is that many new initiatory organizations were started in the 18th century. I do not have a copy of the reference referred to. JEMead (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The sidebar was reworked to include both the TS and also the western theosophy. TS items on the sidebar were left as is.JEMead (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Post Blavatsky" section I am now working on. rather an FYI. I have references now that were needed. JEMead (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I undid Owensp22 changes and editions; Devas is not really a part of theosophy but a part of various religions. Where the eastern ideas come in is after HPB's syncretic work. Also , it has come to my attention that the Eranos Foundation was very influential and also introduced eastern ideas as well. hence, after WWII it helped to lay an academic ground which intertwined into the new age movement. That piece we need to look at. It is post HPB, and part of theosophy as it affected the culture through the beat generation, new age and forward (and independent from HPB material). The various items from it sprouted the non-HPB theosophy and thinking. JEMead (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed the Enlightenment period to the "18th century." Also I added the (apparently first) Theosophical Society in 1783-1788 based on Swedenborg ideas. The ref (chapter excerpt) was also printed in an online peer-reviewed article published in Esoterica out of Michigan State Univ. Other references can be found. JEMead (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I added the reference from goodrick-Clarke 2008 as well JEMead (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

BC/BCE and AD/CE

One item comes up occasionally: CE or AD, and BCE or BC. The world is only 33% Christian. There are more Hindus+Muslims than Christians. The Academic references we use follow BCE and CE I see no reason to go back to favor a particular religion by using BC and AD. When Christ was born is not even known. The Era is the important part. I thank you for keeping dates as they are found in the Literature! i.e. BCE and CE (note - in a subject like this, no religion should outweigh the others) JEMead (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation supplied

Hi there, I've supplied the "citation needed" under the heading "Overview of Blavatsky's teachings". It was the last citation under that heading, and is now numbered ref 31. I came across the relevant info in a scholarly course, Robert S Ellwood. After that I deleted the "citation needed" reference in the text. Hoping this is all cocher, as I am new to editing.Jyddcc (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Jyddcc Thanks! at least we have one from a decent source. Whether TPH is Kosher -- don't know. Ellwood is a good source though. JEMead (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There Was No English Language in 2nd Century AD

Thus the statement that "The word esoteric dates back to the 2nd century CE" is misleading; and thus your source (if it actually says that) is not reliable. I came up with this etymology: "mid 17th cent.: from Greek esōterikos, from esōterō, comparative of esō ‘within,’ from es, eis ‘into.’" -- The great Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon says, "ἐσωτερικός, ή, όν, inner, esoteric : ἐσωτερικά, τά, of certain Stoic doctrines, Gal.5.313 ; ἐ. μαθήματα Iamb.Comm.Math.18 ; of persons, -κοί, οἱ, the disciples of Pythagoras, Id.17.72 ; μέμνης. τὸν μὲν ἐ., τὸν δὲ ἐξ. καλεῖν (of Aristotle), Luc.Vit.Auct.26. (Prob. coined to correspond with ἐξωτερικός (q.v.).)" Thus, the statement should be changed to say "The English word esoteric is derived from the Greek word esōterikos, which is attested in ii AD in the writing of Galenus Medicus." Citation: A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (1940), p. 700. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC))

The word dates back to Lucian of Samosata in a dialogue between Zeus and Hermes selling Philosophers. It is an interesting story. I'll remove those changes. JEMead (talk)

Why do you remove the changes? Both Lucian and Galenus are 2nd century. Liddell and Scott is the best better authority here. (EnochBethany (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC))

The Greek word dates back to the 2nd century. I think we agree. The text states the "word" (Greek implied) dates back to the 2nd century. The English word may be different, but it is taken from Greek regardless, and from the 2nd century Greek. The text did not imply "the English word" in my mind. Perhaps we should say "the Greek word esoteric"  ?? That would make us both happy. Hannegraaff is the leading (or a famous leading) modern expert on Esotericism and Theosophy, I used his wording. Hence - it can not be techniquely wrong as he states the Greek reference and refers to the word esoteric as dating to the 2nd century. He also implied Greek not English as I did. We are arguing a minute matter here. 96.247.159.191 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Note - edits were mine JEMead (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Divine is An Adjective; Theos = God, not "divine"

It is simply a fact that "divine" is an adjective. Like "the divine apple tasted good." Of course adjectives are sometimes substantivalized into nouns, like when some ecclesiastical figure is called "a divine." But theos in theomorphic names means, God, not "divine." I have re-corrected the reversion. I have added a citation from the standard Greek-English lexicon, that theos = God. (EnochBethany (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC))

Divine is a common noun and is listed as such, as well as the substantive form. It is also a verb. In Theosophy, we use the word Divine because of the possibility of "many" gods as divine and the synonym God is a bit off. The modern Academy all (to my knowledge) translate it as the noun "Divine." This is the modern academic use/translation. Divine fits better. I am not sure who the Greeks thought God was (which one?). Divine avoids confusion and is also a good and common synonym for God. (Merriam Webster lists it as a noun and also a synonym for God as well. 96.247.159.191 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Note - edits were mine (from 96.247.159.191) JEMead (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I appreciate the wish to include Blavatsky in the lead, but the TS should not take it over. I've tried to compress the relevant information into a single paragraph. I hope I haven't lost any key details; there was considerable repetition in the original formulation. HGilbert (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There seems to be shuffling of content between articles. The archive shows common discussions and maybe should be distilled into a FAQ section on talk page to help with this. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I can agree on the current version of the lead. But I must say that I find it very strange that Blavatsky's Theosophy was not mentioned in the lead at all.--Trinity9538 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Focus

This entry should focus more on the main use of the term (Theosophy), which most people will associate it with. If we compare with the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the whole article focuses on Theosophy (occult movement originating in the 19th century.) It should also be the case in wikipedia, and looking at the history, it was the case also in wikipedia until one editor changed it. In any case, in todays usage it refers to the occult movement. --Trinity9538 (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead does not even mention the occult movement and Blavatsky! The lead should mention what the main uses of the term are. The mainstream use should be explained, as the Encylopedia Britannica also does correctly.--Trinity9538 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears this article has been hijacked by a sectarian and extremely narrow interpretation of Theosophy, which disregards the mainstream use of the term in modern usage. --Trinity9538 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Trinity9538: looking at the article, you are right, it has been hijacked. You shifted the definition in the lead section to a particular type of theosophy, although this article is about the general concept. Hgilbert said in his edit summary "move special usage to body". You wrote above that, this article should focus more on the main use of the term (Theosophy), which most people will associate it with. That is a logical fallacy – argumentum ad populum – and, in my opinion, just a way to reinforce a POV. I see in the Helena Blavatsky article, that you removed content about her, including blanking the criticism section about her (which I reverted). In this article, you section blanked root race section which completely eliminated any reference to root race in the article (which is a Victorian era, i.e. Blavatskian, concept); your section blanking of racial theories section; you changed the section title from "Criticisms of Helena Blavatsky and The Theosophical Society" to "Criticism" which implies a shift from a particular group and person to a broad concept. In my opinion, some of your changes are good, but most of your edits have sanitized this article and the Helena Blavatsky article to fit an opinion, which may that it is a "Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour" (which you added in this edit). Some of what you are doing was discussed here in 2012 and here in 2012 (also read through the archives).

Blavatsky is not a player in Academic/Traditional Theosophy. Actually, considered a source of confusion. The society picked the name as more or less of a fluke (according to Olcott). She is easily found elsewhere in New Religious Movements etc. This article/page is about Theosophy, the academic topic. There is a continuous thread we are following and it exists in academic circles, not pop-culture. If you look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) the absence of HPB is clear. Also Faivre's esotericism is a very important academic topic to review. I actually did not add lots of quotations, since we would end up with several pages of quotes. I think expanding the 4 major sections of theosophical thought from Boehme forward is probably the next best step. I actually just noticed we had two of HPB's books as references..(!!?) Those do not belong on this page. This is not about her religion ("Secret Doctrine" etc.). We mention her, and have a link for her. A polite recognition, but not more.
— User:JEMead

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Theosophy is commonly and integrally linked to Blavatsky in reference texts. Most authors say that Blavatsky started Theosophy, and those who mention a prehistory, pre-Blavatsky, do not accord it any great import. The 17th and 18th century notions of theosophy are cast as background information to the much larger theosophy of Blavatsky.

I'm correct in saying that this article was "hijacked" by one or a clique of editors, shifting the meaning from the mainstream version to a "special usage" or sectarian version. Basically, (and I'm again quoting from what someone wrote in the archives), this article should talk about everything that has been called theosophy, primarily covering Blavatsky's version.

A lot of sources have been added in the archived discussion to support this view. I also repeat that the Encylopedia Britannica entry on theosophy is also about the occult movement.

As to my edits in the Blavatsky article. That article is a biography that should discuss biographical details, not primarly theosophy which was developed by other people as well. And some material like the root race stuff should be discussed in the root race article, not here. --Trinity9538 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to read the Encylopedia Britannica article you are discussing, which edition of EB are you discussing? Is it the online version at britannica.com contributed in part by John Gordon Melton? That is user generated content, for example see click to see some of the edits and notice the radical change from Melton's contribution. I also read "Theosophy" in the 11th edition which states

The term "theosophy" has in recent years obtained a somewhat wide currency in a restricted signification as denominating the beliefs and teachings of the Theosophical Society.

Which is the opposite of what you wrote, The 17th and 18th century notions of theosophy are cast as background information to the much larger theosophy of Blavatsky.

I read through the archived discussions and disagree with you on the meaning of the discussions. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with BoBoMisiu: The Britannica articles of recent printed editions also clearly adhere to the principle that the traditional Theosophy is the main usage, though they add some information about the Blavatskyian movement. HGilbert (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So does Britannica print edition of 1950. Qexigator (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The latest edition I have is the 15th (1995). It splits the article about 50-50 between the two topics, in a similar way to the current state of this article. I have modified my proposal below accordingly. HGilbert (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The version I looked at is : Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.

Apart from the introduction, the article only discusses the TS version, notably in the history section (the "beliefs" section is very general and does not mention any authors or names). This is the introduction:

"occult movement originating in the 19th century with roots that can be traced to ancient Gnosticism and Neoplatonism. The term theosophy, derived from the Greek theos (“god”) and sophia (“wisdom”), is generally understood to mean “divine wisdom.” Forms of this doctrine were held in antiquity by the Manichaeans, an Iranian dualist sect, and in the Middle Ages by two groups of dualist heretics, the Bogomils in Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire and the Cathari in southern France and Italy. In modern times, theosophical views have been held by Rosicrucians and by speculative Freemasons. The international New Age movement of the 1970s and '80s originated among independent theosophical groups in the United Kingdom."--Trinity9538 (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are some more academic sources that refer to theosophy as Theosophy:

• Bevir, Mark. "Theosophy as a Political Movement" in Gurus and Their Followers: New Religious Reform Movements in Colonial India. Antony Copley, editor. New Delhi & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Carlson, Maria. "No Religion Higher than Truth": A History of the Theosophical Movement in Russia, 1875- 1922. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
• Daschke, Dereck and W. Michael Ashcraft. eds. New Religious Movements: A Documentary Reader. New York: New York University Press, 2005. [Part II: Theosophy - 2 entries]
• Dixon, Joy. "Ancient Wisdom, Modern Motherhood: Theosophy and the Colonial Syncretic" in Gender, Sexuality, and Colonial Modernities. Antoinette Burton, editor. London & New York: Routledge, 1999.
• Dixon, Joy. Divine Feminine: Theosophy and Feminism in England. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.
• Faivre, Antoine. Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition: Studies in Western Esotericism. Christine Rhone, trans. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000.
• Godwin, Joscelyn. The Theosophical Enlightenment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994.
• Gomes, Michael. Theosophy in the Nineteenth Century: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland Publishers, 1994.
• Johnson, K. Paul. Initiates of Theosophical Masters. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995.
• Lewis, James R. ed. Theosophy. New York: Garland Publishers, 1990.
• Pels, Peter. "Occult Truths: Race, Conjecture, and Theosophy in Victorian Anthropology" in Excluded Ancestors, Inventible Traditions: Essays Towards a More Inclusive History of Anthropology. Richard Handler, editor. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000.
• Sharp, Lynn L. Secular Spirituality: Reincarnation and Spiritism in Nineteenth-Century France. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006.
• Sutin, Lawrence. All is Change: The Two-Thousand-Year Journey of Buddhism to the West. New York: Little, Brown, & Co., 2006. [Chapter 6: "Rise of Theosophy and the 'Great Game' "] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinity9538 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Divide article?

I wonder if it might be helpful to divide this article into two, one reviewing the general term theosophy, the other specializing on the Theosophical Society...or possibly linking to the existing article on the TS for the latter purpose. Are the two usages sufficiently distinct to warrant this? Please share your thoughts. HGilbert (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Theosophical Society should be mentioned. probably a few paragraphs. Then perhaps a link to the Theosophical Society entry for follow up if interested. The usage is very distinctly made in the academic community. JEMead (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The article was divided in 2012 but moved content leached back. Look through the history and archives for this article and blavatskiy article. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Broadly agreeing with reasons given by BoBoMisiu above (19:08 and 19:18, 11 January), and JEMead, the article is overloaded with information about TS and Blavatsky, which should be distributed to the other more specific articles. Qexigator (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We could as well discuss moving content to articles like Theosophy (history of philosophy), Christian theosophy or Western esotericism.

Most of the material was just copied and pasted to Blavatsky, even though that is supposed to be a biography article, and Theosophy was also developed by others beside herself. I agree though that some details on theosophic philosophy like the root race stuff should be moved to more specific articles. On the other hand, a lot of material in the traditional theosophy section could be moved to more appropriate articles. --Trinity9538 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If we are agreed that there are two largely distinct topics here, and that we should split the article into two (with cross-links), then we could discuss the titles of each. First: is there agreement that the topics should be separated? HGilbert (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder, looking at Special:Contributions/Trinity9538, whether Trinity9538 is a new user or a WP:SPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoBoMisiu (talk • contribs)

good Point. WP:SPA seems likely. JEMead (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Original: I would like to formally suggest the division proposed above, keeping this article on Western Theosophy. The bulk of the Blavatsky content should probably be merged into the article on her, unless someone wants to start a new article on Theosophy of the Theosophical Society or the like. As per JEMead's comment above, we should retain 1-2 paragraphs summarizing the development of a side branch of theosophy, connected with the traditional Western movement more by common goals or orientation than by common cultural heritage, and linked to pages that give more detail (e.g. Blavatsky, Theosophical Society). HGilbert (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. JEMead (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision: In line with the 15th edition of EB, I would be open to including a somewhat more generous overview of Blavatsky's Theosophy here, rather than splitting the article, but still think the section on B's Theosophy should avoid needless duplication with the existing article on her ideas. HGilbert (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment (oppose?) Unlike EB 15, I see no need for this article to have a second prominent section on TS, when there are other articles which, on Wikipedia, can be easily viewed by any reader chosing to use the links. This article would be improved if the entire sections on Blavatsky and TS, from "Blavatskyan Theosophy and the Theosophical Society" to "Influence" were removed to other specific articles, leaving no more than a few brief summary sentences with appropriate links. EB made no attempt to confuse "theosophy" in general with TS, Blavatsky's writings and the latter day history thereof, but the presentation in this article is, in that respect, erroneous and misleading. Qexigator (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. You could as well discuss moving the "traditional theosophy" material to other articles like Esotericism, Gnosticism or Theosophy (history of philosophy), rather than the other way around. Theosophy is in todays' world commonly understood to refer to the Western occult movement started by Blavatsky, this is a fact.

But I also agree that the article should include some material on the history and etymology of the term, and how it was applied pre-19th century. Böhme, for instance, should be mentioned in the article. --Trinity9538 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. We must not forget that theosophy has a 1800+ year history where HPB is somewhat of a Blip. Also, what about the first theosophical society in 1775? (Swedenborg centered). The current of theosophy (traditional) is very much alive. Having a couple paragraphs on the TS makes sense, especially considering the amount of material existing on HPB and the TS. Linking to those seems very appropriate. JEMead (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

moving the "traditional theosophy" material to other articles-- False reasoning: compare the article for swastika, as part of the Hinduism series, not to be ousted by its 20c. propagandist appropriation for the use of a murderous totalitarian regime which went to war after gaining power in one of the European states. Qexigator (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. This article is about theosophy in general. I have read that a technique cults use to indoctrinate victims is through redefining some language so it has different meaning for the indoctrinated. I feel using phrases like "the 'traditional theosophy' material" does just that. The Victorian era syncretism, that some authors have called "Blavatskyan theosophy" (for example, Pasi p. 199), is not the whole of theosophy. Maybe a separate article "Blavatskyan theosophy" is the better way than moving that content back into the Helena Blavatsky. From what I have read, while untangling the article about her, factionalism divided her adherents after she died. A faction focused on her adventist writings and even claimed the vehicle for Maitreya was Jiddu Krishnamurti – until Krishnamurti resigned from his adventist role in 1929. The ""Theosophy"" article in the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica says it best:

If theosophy were to be judged solely by the published revelations of this "Secret Doctrine" it would hardly be deserving of serious consideration; for, as suggested in the separate article on Madame Blavatsky, the revelations themselves appear to have been no more than a crude compilation of vague, contradictory and garbled extracts from various periodicals, books and translations. It was an article of faith with her disciples that the outward and visible Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was on certain occasions the vehicle of psychic powers of transcendent spiritual import. Although there is not much to justify such a proposition, it may perhaps be conceded that she was in many respects abnormal and that some of her work is characteristic of a process known to modern psychologists as "automatism," or in other words that it is the result of a spasmodic uprush to the surface of sub-conscious mental activities. Apart, however, from these pseudo-revelations the Theosophical Society has given rise to an extensive literature, some of which displays a high degree of argumentative and expository ability; and moreover the movement has from time to time attracted the attention and secured the co-operation of many earnest seekers, of some few of whom it can be truly said that they possessed undoubted spiritual power, insight and knowledge. (p. 789)

So, I think content about her should not dominate this article. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with most of previous comment (BoBoMisiu 22:45). But there are enough existing articles about "Blavatskyan theosophy", and another is not needed. The main section of the EB 11 article "Theosophy", on pp. 788-9, which mentioned, among others, Eckhart, Boehme and Schelling, was contributed by Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison, Prof. of Logic and Metaphysics at Edinburgh. The subsidiary section, on pp.789-791, headed "Oriental Theosophy", was contributed by St George Lane Fox-Pitt, of King's College, London. He concluded the section: "... the serious student would be well advised to... avoid the confusion and errors of writers who in most cases have but a superficial if any knowledge of the original languages and systems from which their doctrines have been arbitrarily culled". --Qexigator (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Blavatsky article in Wikipedia has a serious problems. Part of the article was, I believe, a copyright violation:

I believe that unattributed content with unreferenced citation numbers was added in this 2011 edit by Deodarvostok; and, I see that those unreferenced citation numbers were removed in this 2011 edit.
— User:BoBoMisiu 02:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It also has problems with translated content, some of which originally started as English language content from English language sources but translated into Russian and then back into English. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

So the consensus is to add links to the Theosophical Society and HPB with a few paragraphs about them in the article? JEMead (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, and link to neo-Theosophy; and, include a paragraph describing that there are new religious movements that have assimilated theosophical terminology. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree (Hgilbert 18:06, 14 January )

A few sentences should suffice amounting to not more than a shortish paragraph. Qexigator (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I have discussed the Encyclopedia Britannica 2013 "Theosophy" article. This version has a very heavy focus on modern theosophy. I have skimmed the archives, and other editors have mentionned there other encyclopedias and sources where modern Theosophy is very prominent. I need time to read the talkpage archives fully, and won't have time before the week-end for wikipedia.

Meanwhile, wikipedia also has disambiguation pages. What is your opinion on the possibility to make a disambiguation page of Theosophy which links to all variants? --Trinity9538 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have also considered a disambiguation page, but this seems unnecessarily clumsy when there are only two usages, and they are closely connected. It seems to me that we could keep the current lead largely intact, and just trim the Blavatskyian Theosophy section down to a better proportion with older theosophists. We don't need huge sections on Bohme, etc., because they have dedicated articles; short summaries are fine. Similarly, we could have a paragraph or two on Blavatskyian Theosophy (is there a better name for this?), with rich links to appropriate pages. That leads to the central question for me: what should the chief article on this form of Theosophy be? Should it be Blavatsky's page? Or the TS's page? Or should there be a separate page on Theosophy (Blavatsky) or the like? Whatever it is, this could go into considerable detail--far more than the current page would ever allow. HGilbert (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The standard breakdown is usually Theosophy and then the Theosophical Society. HPB (her theosophy not Bio) appears within the TS. It makes a lot of sense to use links to point the reader to detailed info on the TS and their associated people. The material in question here is often taken from the Secret Doctrine, Root Races etc. An article on the book, the Secret Doctrine, may suffice. JEMead (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that Henry Steel Olcott was co-founder and first president of TS, participated in the move to Adyar, survived Blavatsky and remained president in the Besant years until his demise in 1907, why not make Olcott's the lead article of the set of articles on and connected with TS, with links to Blavatsky, Besant and the other personalities involved in the formation and continuing of the TS, and retaining Secret Doctrine and similar articles? Blavatsky was certainly a remarkable and notably influential woman in her own right, but her writings, also notably influential in their way, were not to TS quite either what M.B.Eddy's were to Christian Science or Gurdjieff's to the Fourth Way. Qexigator (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Olcott was important for the Society, but much less so for the ideas, which came from Blavatsky. HGilbert (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm....JEMead's suggestion that the structure would normally be Theosophy as a movement (the largest theme), then the society and the various personages associated with it, resonates with me. If we were to go this way, any suggestions for a title for the Theosophy article? HGilbert (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the Main article is titled Theosophy, then at the end a brief paragraph about the TS/HPB NRMs and other orgs (split-offs from TS) with links to HPB, Theosophical Society etc. We could add TS/HPB criticisms if not in the linked pages? Maybe you meant Theosophical Organizations/NRMs as a new page? JEMead (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

the Main article is titled Theosophy: clarify please, does that mean the present article, from which TS, Blavatsky etc is to be removed, except for sufficient to cover links? Qexigator (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Theosophy as a movement? Commenters here will be aware that it appears from "THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT 1875 -1950" (THE CUNNINGHAM PRESS, Los ANGELES , COPYRIGHT, 1951) p.29, that Olcott was the founding member who brought the other two, Judge and Blavatsky, together as his co-founders. "During the early months of 1875, Olcott and Judge were made to realize that Madame Blavatsky was no ordinary 'Spiritualist'—if, indeed, she was a Spiritualist at all."[1]; and aware of the article on the magazine The Theosophical Movement "started by the United Lodge of Theosophists India on November 17, 1930", and that the ULT was founded in 1909 by Robert Crosbie who "wanted to focus exclusively on the literature left behind by H.P. Blavatsky and William Quan Judge". Qexigator (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement that the last section should be trimmed. Who would like to do this, and move it to the appropriate place (either TS or Blavatsky)? HGilbert (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we agreed what is comprised in "the last section"? If that means "of the present version", the last section would be "8 Influence". But if it means the second part comprising the Blavatsky and TS information, that would be sections 4 to 8:

• 4 Blavatskyan Theosophy and the Theosophical Society 4.1 Overview of Blavatsky's teachings 4.2 Definition and origin 4.2.1 Scope 4.2.2 Methodology 4.2.2.1 Law of correspondences 4.2.3 Applications 4.2.4 Terminology 4.3 Basic tenets 4.3.1 Three fundamental propositions 4.3.2 Esotericism and symbolism 4.3.3 Septenary systems 4.3.3.1 Seven cosmic planes 4.3.3.2 Seven principles and bodies 4.4 Criticism 4.4.1 Helena Blavatsky's skeptics 4.4.2 Blavatsky's Theosophy connected to antisemitism, racism
• 5 The World Teacher Project
• 6 Post-Blavatskyan Theosophy and New Religious Movements
• 7 Major works
• 8 Influence.

It would be helpful if we could agree to which other articles any of that should be redistributed/merged, and then proceed by stages. As above said, my own leaning is to bring out the leading role of Olcott, but that may go further than is presently acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Esotericism and symbolism

Is there a reason to include the Theosophy#Esotericism_and_symbolism section here? It seems like it belongs more in a dedicated article to this form of Theosophy, which is a possibility that keeps being mentioned. HGilbert (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of it is now moved to Theosophic mysticism. But I think it may be useful to explain the symbols of the T. seal. this could also be done in the legend of the image of the seal. --Trinity9538 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Theosophy/Sources

I have summarized sources for Theosophy here Talk:Theosophy/Sources. They show that it is an indisputable fact that Modern Theosophy is the most common use of the term. Theosophy is clearly important enough to have an article on its own (instead of in the HPB or TS pages), and the benchmark should be articles for other important New Religious Movments like Anthroposophy and Thelema (both influenced by Theosoohy). The latter article for example explains the usage of the term "Theleme" in the Bible and in Rabelais, but then concentrates on the modern and common usage. It should be the same with Theosophy. --Trinity9538 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As another user stated on the talkpage: "All over this talk page JEMead argues that there is a Western theosophy (which he favors) and an Eastern theosophy (Blavatsky's version). The whole reason we are here debating the topic is because the goaltenders of this article have been fending off the Blavatsky version as much as possible. My above list of tertiary sources shows that the Blavatsky version is the most important, everything else relegated to also ran status. Basically, this article should talk about everything that has been called theosophy, primarily covering Blavatsky's version. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)"

More false reasoning: as if the article for swastika, a part of the Hinduism series, is to be ousted by its 20c. propagandist appropriation for the use of a murderous totalitarian regime which went to war after gaining power in one of the European states. Qexigator (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that all that you can reply on the common usage of the term, Godwins Law? This article should be compared to articles for other NRMs like Anthroposophy. --Trinity9538 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

One who responds with a slogan such as "Godwins Law" has evidently failed to grasp the error which the comment exemplified. But, just as Theosophy does not supersede and oust theosophy, nor does Anthroposophy supersede or oust anthroposophy, nor Christian Science christian science. Qexigator (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As is clearly documented in Sources, modern Theosophy is the most common usage of the term. This is a fact (and we should report on facts), just as Thelema (related to Theosophy) today has a different meaning than it did in the 16th century. At best, you can say, as Faivre does, that there are two major forms or families in Theosophy: theosophy and Theosophy, which would imply roughly a 50:50 split. But the fact is, that the evidence shows that Blavatsky's version is the most important, and that the term theosophy was not very common before (was "practically absent" in dictionaries and encyclopedias in the 18th century). --Trinity9538 (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

In contrast, sources for Traditional theosophy are scant: Faivre acknowleges that the term "Theosophy" is practically absent throughout the entire eighteenth century in dictionaries and encyclopedias, and that It only appeared more and more frequently beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century. And he wrote: [Classical theosophy] is an under-researched area, a general history of it has never been written. --Trinity9538 (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Even JMead amitted that modern theosophy is more common:

Weighting is tough. Common perception always over weights on the HPB side (successful marketing phenomena). ....JEMead (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Blavatsky's belief system must remain prominent in this article, not relegated to a content fork ghetto. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguing that it is more common is false reasoning – for example, cars are more common in the 21st century than in the 19th century, yet facts about 19th century cars should not be excluded from a general article about cars (although they are "practically absent" in the 21st century). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Original research

It seems to me that a good part in the traditional theosophy part of the article and the template is original research. It mixes Gnostics, Christian priests, Kabblists, Christian fundamentalists (Ambrose?), freemasons, and so into a Traditional theosophy section, without really explaining why they are theosophists. In many cases, it seems to be just because some 20th century writer compared them offhandedly with theosophical thought or offhandedly called them theosophists. The Theosophy template included thelemic organisations as "theosophic". I can understand that someone like Böhme is explained in the Traditional theosophy section, but many of the other writers may be better discussed in articles like Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Catholicism, Esotericism and Western occultism.

Is it possible to define what and who exactly is discussed in the traditional Theosophy section? To be discussed in "Traditional Theosophy", there should be some criteria. They should self-identify as theosphists or be commonly (and not just offhandedly in some publication) be called theosophists. --Trinity9538 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Examples, please. Qexigator (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The problems with the Traditional Theosophy section are many.

• There is an overreliance on Faivre who is quoted over 15 times. (He is a great source...for Esotericism. Applying it to Theosophy would be OR; the two are clearly not identical, though there are certainly commonalities. )
• Much of the material actually belongs to the Western Esotericsm, Christian mysticism, Kabbalah, or related articles. (All forms of gnosis and western esotericism are not theosophy. The focus of this article must be theosophy because of the name of the article. )
• For example, why is this sentence in the article: Hellenistic Alexandrian culture expressed religion through a syncretism that included influences from Egypt, Chaldea, Greece etc. It became a "philosophizing and systematizing" culture containing mythology, theosophy and gnosis of the East.
• Theosophy was not a word commonly used in Judaism prior to modern times, yet we have a full paragraph on it.
• The template listed Thelemic organisations as Theosophy, and includes Christian fundamentalists (Ambrose), and topics like Tarot and Astrology which belong to Esotericsm rather than Traditional theosophy.--Trinity9538 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Trinity9538: you are confusing the concepts of theosophy with the brand marketing of word theosophy itself. You are, again conforming the content to a particular type of theosophy. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with BoBoMisiu's above comment (0:02, 17 January). Qexigator (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Faivre himself says that in his 2000 book that large parts of the book are studies on esotericism (the subtitle of the book is Studies in Western Esotericism). He only acknowleges that the term "Theosophy" is practically absent throughout the entire eighteenth century in dictionaries and encyclopedias, and that It only appeared more and more frequently beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century. And he wrote: [Classical theosophy] is an under-researched area, a general history of it has never been written.

Large parts of the section are original research, because it just talks about religious or mystical writers who never called themselves Theosophists. That sort of material should be in articles like Esotericism. And with the exception of the Boehme article, none of the other articles mention anything about theosophy in their articles.

What the section should do is explain the who history and meanings of the term instead of drawing up a list of all people to whom the word was applied retroactively. --Trinity9538 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I also propose to move the six characteristics of esotericism to the esotericism or to the Faivre article, since this article is about Theosophy (we can keep the three characteristics of theosophy, wich in Faivre's 2000 book are listed without those six of esotericism). --Trinity9538 (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody object to this? --Trinity9538 (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It sidesteps the fact that Blavatsky's theosophy was called esoteric buddhism by Sinnett and others. Esotericism is explicitly part of it and also changed after the Blavatsky died. So ossifying, in the article, to Blavatsky's works removes all of the 20th century. That seems very odd to me. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Bold, but feel free to change or revert this edit

I have archived most of the material under discussion to User:Hgilbert/Theosophical Society. Feel very free to add, subtract, and alter the result here, and to work with the archived material as you see fit. Or to revert if this was too bold a change. HGilbert (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Qexigator (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

definitely an improvement JEMead (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This was not helpful and such drastic changes such as this with less than four days discussion are usually considered vandalism. I'm reverting back, but will work on the article in the next days. There is indeed some material that can be easily moved to other articles (but it shouldn't be just moved to HPB, as Theosophy was developed by other persons as well). --Trinity9538 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Far from vandalism, it was, as agreed by others, a constructive step towards rectifying this article by way of removing unsuitable content (for reasons given above) and letting that be redistributed to other articles more suited to it. It would be easier to let that proceed from User:Hgilbert/Theosophical Society. Please leave the version as at 18:09, 16 January 2015[2], and let us know where you are proposing to redistribute the text now at User:Hgilbert/Theosophical Society. This will help to avoid confusion. It is not helpful simply to reimport it. Qexigator (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a drastic removal of content outside of article space for which a longer discussion than just 3-4 days is needed. I have begun moving some of the material to other articles and will continue to work on this article. --Trinity9538 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Trinity9538 disregards others. This shuffling seems like a WP:POVSPLIT. I think using draft pages, like User:Hgilbert/Theosophical Society and Talk:Theosophy/16-January-2015-draft-further-reading-section, would have been better. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have now moved some material to more appropriate articles and the modern Theosophy part is now down to a reasonable size (will continue on working on it). As I explained on this talkpage, there needs to be a page on Theosophy, like there is also a page for Anthroposophy. You cannot just move the material in Anthroposoophy to Rudolf Steiner or to the A. Society. --Trinity9538 (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an important difference; anthroposophy is unambiguous, so the article is only about that. Theosophy is about two diverse themes, and neither should overwhelm the other. For exactly the reasons you raise, I think a separate article on Theosophy in the Blavatskyian sense would be helpful. This could then be quite extensive. Do you perhaps agree? (If so, what should this be titled?) HGilbert (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Since Theosophy is commonly and integrally linked to Blavatsky in reference texts (the 18th century notions of theosophy, if mentioned, are cast as background information to the much larger theosophy of Blavatsky), it follows that it is clearly the much more common usage of the term, so it would be more appropriate to use this article as the main article for the more common usage term, with links to the theosophical current.

As User:Binksternet said: "This article, with its global title, must be about all of Theosophy—the gamut, including your "plethora of types of Theosophy". All the significant belief systems that have been called "Theosophy" must be represented. This article with its global title cannot only be about one type of (perhaps) idealized Theosophy, to the exclusion of other forms of Theosophy." And: "The above list of tertiary sources shows that the Blavatsky version is the most important, everything else relegated to also ran status. Basically, this article should talk about everything that has been called theosophy, primarily covering Blavatsky's version."

I see two ways forward which should be acceptable to both views. We split it in roughly 50:50 (additional material can be moved to specialized articles), or we make a disambiguation, which is done when a single term is ambiguous, which seems to be the case here. Do you agree on one of these two? --Trinity9538 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I continue to believe that this article must be about the main belief systems that have been called Theosophy. All of them, not just one of them. The global title forces the issue. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Almost all references indicate that Blavatsky's version is the most common usage, so it makes no sense to remove or drastically reduce that section. Currently, the split is approx. 50:50, which is generous to the Traditional Theosophy side (given that this form of theosophical esotericism is not in as common usage). --Trinity9538 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely and think that the current situation is pretty good. HGilbert (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is now getting into better shape. Qexigator (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)