Talk:Jean-Louis de Biasi

'Puffery'?

Dear 'Lord Vetinari',

I am a new wikipedia user/contributor, and I saw you edited an article on author Jean-Louis de Biasi I tried to write. I saw what you took out, and it says the reason is that it was 'puffery' material. I am confused. I could change the language a bit more again, but really, I added this information to show what was characteristic of the work of the author. He is a contemporary occultist drawing on (RE quoting and interpreting) ancient philosophy. This is rather unsual, and I thought the article would gain in texture and quality by adding this as it shows the specificity of de Biasi's contribution to the field of esotericism. Please tell me if I am wrong in approaching it this way, and how I can improve this article.

Thanks, Pentad55 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please find below a brief analysis of the textual rearrangement:

• His work is inspired by past masters of Hermetism such as Plato, Iamblichus, Proclus, Pletho, and Ficino.
  • "Past masters of hermetism"? Unless it can be verified that those people are independently considered masters of hermetism, it might be best to leave that sentence out.
• His recent books, and forthcoming ones, engage with techniques used by Hermetists to work with the Gods and Goddesses. In his works, philosophy and practice are always weaved together. De Biasi invites readers to reflect on magic, theurgy, and initiation through practical experimentation as well as philosophical intuitions drawn from the Hermetic tradition.
  • A review of forthcoming books is (almost always) out of place in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is about things notable. It is rare for something to achieve notability prior to achieving existence.
  • "Gods and Goddesses"? I strongly advise a more neutral point of view when discussing the particulars of belief systems.
  • The paragraph sounds like a book review or promotional piece. When one considers the references used, I suspect either original research or that the sentences have been copied from the text. If the latter is true, the sentences may be rephrased as direct quotations or else reworded. However, note that an article subject's own works are rarely an acceptable source for references about that subject.
• Bibliography Becoming Gods: Invoking the Powerful Divinities to Transform and Enjoy your Life. Llewellyn Publications, 2012 (forthcoming); The Divine Arcana of the Aurum Solis: Using Tarot Talismans for Ritual and Initiation. Llewellyn Publications, 2011 (forthcoming)
  • See comment above about forthcoming books.

Overall, the exclusive use of self-published sources as well as what appears to be an inordinate emphasis on the subject's books makes the article seem very promotional. As the subject's sole claim for inclusion in Wikipedia is for being the current leader of a religious/philosophical organisation, discussion of his books seems somewhat out of place, at least to the degree that they were. LordVetinari (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and I was initially clumsy for sure. However, aside from a point or two, most of the things you mentioned can be nuanced. For example, for 'past masters of Hermetism' I can quote historians if needed. Some, Frances A. Yates among others, will have such a perspective on the 'Hermetic Tradition'. You can 'google' her, and Antoine Faivre too. They were/are well established historians.

I could also highlight that they are 'masters of Hermetism' from the perspective of those belonging to this tradition. As with the 'Gods and Goddesses', it is a matter of highlighting the particular perspective of a religious group. I do understand that, and will change it this way if you tell me it would be acceptable.

Then, to be coherent, would you support any project of 'cleaning' every single article about monotheistic religions not being able to account for nuances between sects inside these religions (Roman Catholic-Prostestant-Orthodox, etc...), or with other religions by using a language affirming that there is a unique male God? This is something worth reflecting upon as I already found quite a few examples of such wiki-articles and might be, in your perspective, 'anti-encyclopedic'.

Thanks for your generous perspectives on my intellectual integrity. If it is of any confort, I can assure you that the sentences were not copied, or even rephrased from the original books. Again, I know this author's work, as well as many others in his field, and I wanted to highlight the difference between his approach and others. Again, I could have been more careful with the language, but I do not see what is the source of the problem there as I myself wrote quite a few peer-reviewed scholarly articles using similar language.

Finally, I understand your last concerns about the books, again, I think 'Jean-Louis de Biasi' could be there both as author (the reason I put him there) and a the 'leader' of a esoteric-religious organization.

What do you think? Pending on your feedback, I would like to make this article a relevant one for wikipedia. Again, thanks for your help.

Pentad55

Pentad55 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to apologise for my previous tone. I've learnt to be severe with the unending flood of people only using Wikipedia for advertising and I was afraid you may have been doing the same.

I see your point about notability for authorship as well as for leadership of a sect. Nonetheless, I urge you to find as many third-party sources as you can rather than relying on sources by the author. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Thank you for bringing the christian articles to my attention. I'll have to look into that. I would point out in this case, however, that, being an article about a sect leader rather than the sect itself, the term Gods and Goddesses might confuse the casual reader. The obvious question is which gods and goddesses? Greek? Chinese? Or is it some new age term? A couple of words and a link to the relevant article should clear that up.

One last point, before referring to Plato et al as past masters of hermetism, make sure that reliable sources that are independent of hermetic belief clearly state so. If you use hermetic sources to back up that claim, you'd risk being accused of projecting hermetic beliefs on to those early thinkers (similar to how modern Chinese communism projects communist views onto Confucius or how christian thinkers have occasionally projected christian views onto Aristotle). Basically, if they were hermetic thinkers, make sure you have reputable sources to back it up as I don't think the Plato and Iamblichus articles, to name a couple, refer to them as such. Also, in that case, if you have reliable sources to back up that claim, it'd be worthwhile to add something to the articles concerned, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to state one thing here that conflicts with something in another article. Alternatively, if Plato and friends weren't hermetic thinkers themselves but their ideas were adopted by those who were, then make sure you clarify that point for the reasons stated earlier.

Anyway, thank you for your work on Wikipedia and, again, I'm sorry for my earlier tone. LordVetinari (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear 'LordVetinari',

Thanks for your last message. I was a wee bit cynical about your tone, but thought it might be because you see many questionable article, or modifications, in your work on wikipedia. I understand. I am happy you understood what I was trying to do, and I will certainly keep working on this article. Thanks for your advice. I will bring in many more, and differing, sources, and change some of the language. 'Pentad55' Pentad55 (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pentad55,

Thank you for your kind understanding. I do indeed come across several 'questionable' articles and it can be very easy to fall into the trap of responding to an article's writing style more so than its content. I'm learning to avoid that. As for helpful guidelines, you'll see I've added banners to the top of this page. These link to relevant WikiProjects where you can find Wikipedians who edit in areas similar to this one. Thank you again for your understanding and I look forward to editing with you in the future.

Sincere regards, LordVetinari (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean-Louis de Biasi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306214301/http://www.meetup.com/Maryland-Masonic-Research-Society/events/69794392/ to http://www.meetup.com/Maryland-Masonic-Research-Society/events/69794392/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)