Talk:Western esotericism

"No wife, no horse, no mustache" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect No wife, no horse, no mustache has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 25 § No wife, no horse, no mustache until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Revert

@TAs: WP:CITELEAD gives the reason for our reverts. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There’s no such thing as pseudoscience. You are not the judge of that. WP:RS are the judge of that. And the website policy WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

WEIGHT issue of "pseudoscience" in lead

Moving this here from the FRINGE noticeboard. Having sat down and read through FRINGE and PSCI, I'm convinced that the current use of "pseudoscience" in the lead paragraph is an overzealous misapplication of WP:PSCI, per "Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight."

• The relevant sentence is "[Western esotericism] has influenced, or contributed to, various forms of Western philosophy, mysticism, religion, science, pseudoscience, art, literature, and music."
• There are two very brief mentions of pseudoscience in the body:

• "According to Maria Carlson, "Both [Theosophy and Anthroposophy] turned out to be 'positivistic religions,' offering a seemingly logical theology based on pseudoscience."
• The recently added sentence by Tgeorgescu covering New Age pseudoscience.

The word is

1. largely anachronistic and certainly disproportionate when compared with the influence of the intellectual tradition being discussed on philosophy/mysticism/religion/science - in fact, the material scholars have gathered under the umbrella term "Western esotericism" is so intertwined with the European intellectual tradition that in some cases the article is not describing influence but the thing itself, i.e. in philosophy, where Platonism more or less is "Western esotericism", at least a part of it.
2. gives significantly undue weight to Theosophy and New Age WP:QUACKERY. These are miniscule in relevance and notability compared to the breadth and age of the intellectual movements covered on this page. Maybe we can't, but we should expect that a reader of an encylopedia article on "Western esotericism" is more interested in the writings of Iamblichus, Paracelsus, or Johann Jakob Brucker than that of New Age bloggers.

I propose to replace the word in the lead with "occultism", as Theosophy is at least minorly notable, and is more aptly described as occultism than pseudoscience (and can be appropriately tagged as PSCI on its own pages or where it is mentioned.) This would also fix the issue of the relative lack of prominence of "occultism" in the lead (compared to its prominence of coverage in the body).

Pinging @Tgeorgescu @Guy Macon @PARAKANYAA, as editors involved in the discussion on the noticeboard. DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Pseudoscience is not a major aspect of this so it is WP:UNDUE weight in the lead; reliable scholarly sources on western esotericism do not cover it as one of its major aspects. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Responding to Guy Macon's reply on the noticeboard: this is a strange response which is majorly stretching to compare some of the most enduringly notable figures of European intellectual history to Nazi quackery in the Third Reich. The second link is a good example of "New Age blogger quackery" which, when considering notability, pales in comparison to the intellectual traditions being covered in this article.

As I mentioned on the noticeboard, what you are lumping in with modern quackery was, as recently as a few centuries ago, standard fare at the most vaunted academic institutions in the world: see the Cambridge Platonists as an illustrative example, covered in the body of this article. DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the book in question is specifically in the context of Nazi esotericism (as discussed by Goodrick-Clarke). PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Western Esotericism has had a significant impact on the progression of pseudoscience as its theological precepts are foundational to many claims within ESP, Ghost hunting and Pseudoarchaeology. A single-word mention in the lead is absolutely not undue. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't address my argument. Daoism had a significant impact on the progression of pseudoscience practiced in East Asia, and its precepts are foundational to modern WP:FRINGE such as Qigong or Internal alchemy, yet even the specific articles on Qigong or Neidan don't have a WP:PSCI call-out in the lead.

"While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community." Here, the relevant community is "scholars of intellectual history". Serious scholars in this field are not publishing monographs on ESP or ghost hunting. They're publishing monographs on the influence of Hermeticism, Gnosticism, or Neoplatonism on the work of notable intellectuals, such as Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Giordano Bruno, Paracelsus, Jakob Böhme, Emanuel Swedenborg, John Dee, or Isaac Newton. DiodotusNicator (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Neither Qigong nor internal alchemy are pseudoscience. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Neither is Western esotericism. Relevant section in the body of Qigong:

"Along with popularity and state sanction came controversy and problems: claims of extraordinary abilities bordering on the supernatural, pseudoscience explanations to build credibility, a mental condition labeled qigong deviation, formation of cults, and exaggeration of claims by masters for personal benefit." DiodotusNicator (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Why does this not warrant WP:PSCI mention in the lead? Probably because modern quacks are an insigificant fraction of the notable aspects of Qigong as discussed in an encyclopedic article. DiodotusNicator (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

What I will say is that anyone who tries to suggest Qigong or Internal Alchemy (which are religious practices) has a scientific basis is engaging in pseudoscience. However I would suggest that they have contributed far less to pseudoscience than Blavatsky and her ilk. Furthermore that is best a discussion for Qigong or Chinese alchemy rather than this page per WP:OSE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, it's becoming clear to me that you're conflating the entirety of "Western esotericism" (nebulous and debated term in the first place) with Theosophy specifically. This is part of the WEIGHT issue as I've described it above. DiodotusNicator (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources on western esotericism that state this? Otherwise I don't see how it is at all WP:DUE, if it is one word or not this is an incredibly broad topic with a lot of scholarship about it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Here you go:

1. Mind the (Unbridgeable) Gaps: A Cautionary Tale about Pseudoscientific Distortions and Scientific Misconceptions in the Study of Religion, Leonardo Ambasciano, Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, Vol. 28, No. 2 (2016), pp. 141-225 (85 pages) Contribution from Brill Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.
2. (PSEUDO)SCIENCE, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, AND HISTORIOGRAPHY: ASSESSING THE SCIENTIFIATION OF RELIGION'S METHOD AND THEORY. By: Ambasciano, Leonardo, Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 05912385, Dec2016, Vol. 51, Issue 4
3. Introduction: Conceptualising heterodox palaeoscience. By: Fallon, Richard, Guimont, Edward, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 03080188, Jul2024, Vol. 49, Issue 3/4
4. Alternative Archaeology: Many Pasts in Our Present. Pia Andersson, Numen, Vol. 59, No. 2/3, Alternative Archaeology (2012), pp. 125-137 (13 pages) Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.
5. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public, Edited By Garrett G. Fagan, Copyright 2006, Routledge Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Garrett G. Fagan (2006) pp. 38-40, 43 "Diagnosing pseudoarchaeology" was your intention with that source? Obsession with esoterica one of 11 "Characteristics of attitude" in pseudoarchaeology? fiveby(zero) 15:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

So the Fagan one I found pull quotes in a review but not the full text. I knew the pull quotes were relevant but it was not a great cite. I honestly thought about leaving it off TBH. It's the weakest of the five in that I was not able to do as thorough a review as I usually would but I left it with the intention to return to it later. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I like it for possible use in the article body, there is also a whole chapter on esoterica in Egypt. Raises some questions for article content tho and how we are all approaching WP:DUE for this question. If everyone is looking at DUE in different ways then we are unlikely to come to an agreement for the question at hand. Need to read your other sources yet tho. fiveby(zero) 15:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The Fangen source does not mention Western esotericism at all. Esoterica is not western esotericism, and esotericism can sometimes be used in reference to that , which is how Fangen is using it. He gives an extensive definition of what he means at the start of the book and how he defines it is in the general sense of the word "esoteric", , which is not synonymous with this topic. The former name for this topic in scholarly studies did not even have the word esoteric in the name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Saw the omission of 'western' but was inattentive in reading and didn't see the different usage. Just noticed there is Academic study of Western esotericism for a primer. fiveby(zero) 17:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

From my reading, some of these sources don't say this they still do not evidence due weight.

Source 1 - This article is about pseudoscience and mentions esotericism. It is generally a critique of religious studies. The only place I can find with a sentence that could be construed as saying this is a single sentence: "Eliade's academic work during his Chicago years could be considered as a part of the pseudoscientific movement that in the 1960s and 1970s tried to "combine multiple unorthodoxies into a single volume" (Thürs and Numbers 2013: 139), from esotericism to archetypical psychoanalysis, from the paranormal to Intelligent Design, etc."; specifically in the context of Eliade, this says, to my reading, though it can be hard to extrapolate from a sentence structured this way, so I see how you could get it another way, that western esotericism was also "unorthodox" and so grouped with other unorthodox activities, like pseudoscience.

Source 2 - From the same author as source 1. This is again a critique of the discipline of religious studies. As far as I can tell, this does not say that western esotericism has influenced pseudoscience.

Source 3 - This article does not mention esotericism in its own words, though includes it a single time, in a quote, which says that in the "three episodes in the evolution of these ideas [pseudoarchaeology]", one of these episodes was "the Victorian-era revival of occultism and esotericism".

Source 4 - "[Alternative Archeology is] often based on sources and inspiration that can be traced to Western esotericism, occultism, new and old forms of religion, myth, and folklore". There is no elaboration on this.

Source 5 - The context in which this source uses the word "esotericism" is completely unrelated to the topic of this article. It is in reference to esoterica, which is usually not referring to western esotericism , in this context, Fangen defines it as the obsession with finding hidden meaning in basically mundane historical artifacts or in buildings. This is not what western esotericism is. As far as I can tell this book says nothing about western esotericism. It does not say western esotericism has been influential on pseudoscience.

To my reading (which could be inaccurate if my search failed, feel free to correct), 2 of these sources straightforwardly do not say this. 1 is ambiguous. The other 2 are single sentence mentions with no elaboration or detail. If these are the only sources you can find for this connection I would say this is evidence this is not due weight for the lead for a topic with this many sources about it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"Esoteric" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Esoteric has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 8 § Esoteric until a consensus is reached. Gotitbro (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)