Talk:Neo-Theosophy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 18:31, 6 February 2024

There is no reason for this as a separate article. If it can not be merged with another article, it would be better to remove it. Kwork 18:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term Neo-Theosophy is not in general use, and this article seems an effort to to introduce it into use. That amounts to Original Research. Kwork 21:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not original research, nor am I trying to introduce a neologism. See Google Book Search or follow the links at the bottom of the page M Alan Kazlev 03:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It simply is not a term that is in use, but rather a term you want to bring into use. The books that introduced that term are about as obscure as it is possible to get, and I would be surprised to find that any one but you, or other specialists in esotericism, has read them in decades. Kwork 11:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well that's the whole thing about an encyclopaedia. It shouldn't just be about well-known knowledge, but also about less well known knowledge. Obviously, not all of Wikipedia's one million plus pages are on well known subjects M Alan Kazlev 01:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia you seem the Johny Appleseed of Neo-Theosophy. Kwork 11:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term definitely in use: I haven't read those in decades, though was in decades before this article, and discussed with many people.

what is it?

So what is Neo Theosophy about? There's a lot of names and dates in the article but no comparison to old Theosophy.

Scientology was not particularly influenced by Aleister Crowley. Although L. Ron Hubbard's respect for Crowley is unquestioned, there is little similarity between Scientology theology and Thelema theology.--67.52.196.238 (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

explanation

Firestar464 I did explain why I removed the advertising guff. Can you please restore my edit? Fine if you want to move that content to where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.49.83 (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

outdated

Outdated; Benjamin Creme is called current but died in recent years: whoever edits this more should move him to historical section or update sections such as by century.--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 12:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
-{{WPOccult|class=|importance=}}
+{{WikiProject Occult|importance=Low}}
+}}
 There is no reason for this as a separate article. If it can not be merged with another article, it would be better to remove it. [[User:Kwork|Kwork]] 18:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 6: / Line 8: @@
 :No it's not original research, nor am I trying to introduce a neologism.  See [http://books.google.com/books?q=Neo%2dTheosophy&as%5fbrr=0 Google Book Search] or follow the links at the bottom of the page [[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] 03:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
-It simply is not a term that is in use, but rather a term you want to bring into use. The books that introduced that term are about as obscure as it is possible to get, and I would be surprised to find that any one but you, or other specialists in esotericism, has read them in decades. [[User:Kwork|Kwork]] 11:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
+::It simply is not a term that is in use, but rather a term you want to bring into use. The books that introduced that term are about as obscure as it is possible to get, and I would be surprised to find that any one but you, or other specialists in esotericism, has read them in decades. [[User:Kwork|Kwork]] 11:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
-:well that's the whole thing about an encyclopaedia.  It shouldn't just be about well-known knowledge, but also about less well known knowledge.  Obviously, not all of Wikipedia's one million plus pages are on well known subjects [[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] 01:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
+:::well that's the whole thing about an encyclopaedia.  It shouldn't just be about well-known knowledge, but also about less well known knowledge.  Obviously, not all of Wikipedia's one million plus pages are on well known subjects [[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] 01:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
-In Wikipedia you seem the Johny Appleseed of Neo-Theosophy. [[User:Kwork|Kwork]] 11:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
+::::In Wikipedia you seem the Johny Appleseed of Neo-Theosophy. [[User:Kwork|Kwork]] 11:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
+:::The term definitely in use: I haven't read those in decades, though was in decades before this article, and discussed with many people.
-==
+== what is it? ==
 So what is Neo Theosophy about? There's a lot of names and dates in the article but no comparison to old Theosophy.
+Scientology was not particularly influenced by Aleister Crowley. Although L. Ron Hubbard's respect for Crowley is unquestioned, there is little similarity between Scientology theology and Thelema theology.--[[Special:Contributions/67.52.196.238|67.52.196.238]] ([[User talk:67.52.196.238|talk]]) 05:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
+== explanation ==
+Firestar464 I did explain why I removed the advertising guff. Can you please restore my edit? Fine if you want to move that content to where it belongs.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.49.83|82.69.49.83]] ([[User talk:82.69.49.83#top|talk]]) 11:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== outdated ==
+Outdated; Benjamin Creme is called current but died in recent years: whoever edits this more should move him to historical section or update sections such as by century.--[[User:Dchmelik|dchmelik]]☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆([[User_talk:Dchmelik|talk]] 12:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)