Talk:Egregore

This article was nominated for deletion on November 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Chaos Magic Classification?

Why is this tied to just the chaos magic subject? The concept of an egregore has much wider scope P Todd (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have determined that in the sense of a demon, this does fit there, but has a different sense in esotericism. I have created an Esotericism template and added this there also. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is too focused on the "Magical" aspect. This Egregore designate a known phenomenon that has had many names across cultures and has been studied in the scientific field. HyperSite (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meme Magick

We need a section relating egregore to Meme Magick. Meme Magick is mentioned on the Meme page. The connection of occult egregore and meme magick repeated in Dark Star Rising, Gary Lachman, with historical examples from Blavatsky, back through the centuries, adding considerable more depth to the contemporary egrepore usage LarryLACa (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision, 2023-06-22; archived outdated talk page comments

I have made a major revision to the page, adding most of its current content. This makes most of the previous comments here outdated, so I have created a talk page archive for them. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Gods

Neil Gaiman seems to use this concept to explain the gods in his novel American Gods. Don't know if he or a critic have explicitly said so. I know this is OR, but throwing the idea here in case anyone might substantiate it. 27.96.195.1 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found one book which made this connection, which was The Philosophy of Dark Paganism by Frater Tenebris. I added a section on it to the article and rearranged the sections to fit. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-structuration of the Article, Encyclopedification, Sourcing and Neutrality

This page contains too many unsourced claims and is biased, it needs to be redone in a more professional and neutral way. HyperSite (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM:

Maintaining the Recent Article Improvement and Preventing Edit Wars

The recent complete rewrite of the Egregore article (1 Nov 2024) by HyperSite and Sammi Brie significantly improved the article's encyclopedic quality. The attempted reversion by User:Wound theology (3 Nov 2024) to the older version raises serious concerns. To prevent an edit war per WP:BRD, here is a comprehensive analysis of why the improved version should stand:

Major Improvements in the New Version:

Reframes supernatural claims as cultural/sociological phenomena per WP:NPOV
Introduces peer-reviewed academic sources per WP:RS
Connects to established scientific framework (Durkheim's collective effervescence)
Maintains proper weight between academic and esoteric interpretations per WP:WEIGHT

Critical Issues with the Old Version:

Presents supernatural claims as facts without qualification (WP:FRINGE)
Relies primarily on self-published esoteric sources (WP:RS)
Lacks academic context (WP:SCHOLARLY)
Contains unsourced extraordinary claims (WP:EXCEPTIONAL)

Specific Improvements:

Area	Old Version	New Version	Policy
Definition	"non-physical entity"	"sociological and psychological concept"	WP:NPOV
Sources	Occult websites, blogs	Academic journals, peer-reviewed research	WP:RS
Structure	Esoteric focus	Scientific framework with cultural context	WP:WEIGHT
Claims	Supernatural statements	Documented cultural interpretations	WP:FRINGE

Conclusion: The new version represents a substantial improvement in encyclopedic quality while respecting the subject matter. Per WP:CONSENSUS, this discussion aims to establish agreement on maintaining these improvements rather than reverting to a less encyclopedic version.

Recommendation: Maintain the improved version while remaining open to constructive additions that meet Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality standards.

HyperSite (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I did is restore the short description that was erased inadvertently in the major rework of this page. I have no other involvement. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply, the "improved" page is a hodgepodge of WP:OR. The "academic journals" and "peer-reviewed research" often have nothing to do with the scope of the article. For example, Durkheim (actually cited twice and more if you count secondary sources) never uses the term "egregore," neither does Jung. "Egregores" are not discussed here or here or here or here and I imagine in none of the other actually published papers you cite here.

This self-published schlock and this partially-AI generated book are also sources used in the "improved" version. Often the other sources are just blatantly unrelated: like this usage of the term in the bylaws of a LARP group or this random blog post about musical performance.

Also, I think the strangest thing about the "improved" page is your use of "egregore" as a sort of emotion instead of as a class of being, which is clearly what the page is meant to be about.

I am pinging the ever-productive Skyerise (talk · contribs) here as I'm sure she'll have something to add. wound theology ◈ 03:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]