Talk:Theosophical Society

message: Please Wikipedians delete this article. We will make new one with more information and suitable references. (from my opinion)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahusha (talk • contribs) 14:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mahusha

message: I would like to propose removing the misleading sentence that states the Thule Society "provides the final link between occult racial theories and the racial ideology of Hitler and the emerging Nazi party." This incorrectly suggests that the Third Reich was the natural outcome of Theosophy. I propose re-writing the statement to more accurately reflect Hitler's relationship with Thule outlined in the Thule Society article.Yonderboy (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: To me the the statement "While all three organizations trace their history back to the founding of the original Society, that Society must in some sense be said to have ceased to exist after the 1895 schism." sounds very much like opinion with the "in some sense to be said". However with the "must" it was stated as a fact. Instead I changed it to "While all three organizations trace their history back to the founding of the original Society, one might say that in some sense the original Society has ceased to exist after the 1895 schism." to clarify that it is an opinion.
If someone wants to change it back to the way it was I'd recommend adding in WHO believes that the original Society is dead. Do the 3 factions themselves believe this? Do critics? --John Lynch 15:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact and Opinion

message: The theosophical seal is as follows:
The current seal given (seems to have been changed today) is Blavatsky's seal, on which (probably) the TS-seal was based. 
I don't know how to edit pictures, so I hope someone will change this back or something. kh7 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the theosophical seal

message: This article bads needs some references with footnotes. Sardaka (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This site is the personally registered site of Anand Gholap of Pune, India. He has a disclaimer that he is not responsible for the use of anything on his site (http://www.anandgholap.net/Terms_Of_Use.htm). He makes no special claims of expertise or any affiliation. A number of texts and images from books are on his site but copyright status is uncertain as he does not have specific permission to make these public domain but has added these on the basis of his understanding of copyright law which is not the same as Wikipedia's. His site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be used as a reference or link for any article apart from (possibly) an article about himself.—Ash (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using anandgholap.net as a source or link 

message: Is there a specific reason all IP users are not allowed to edit? I understand there is a dispute with one IP user (I posted on that thread yeaterday), but why limit all IP edits? Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking around the noticeboards, I saw the article is semi-protected for 1 month by Ed Johnston, I believe, but no reasons are given why confirmed accounts should have the privilege to edit. The parties in this dispute include confirmed accounts, and it seems to me that the dispute is still not resolved. Blocking all IP accounts and allowing all confirmed accounts strikes me as one-sided. The proper thing to do (maybe it can't be done for technical reasons) imo is to disallow editing only to the parties in dispute. Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is less than ideal. The problem is that (a) as far as I know, it isn't possible to block a single IP from a single article, and (b) it is relatively easy to obtain a new IP anyway, to get around a block. I can only suggest that you either register with a username, or alternately, post any suggested revisions here: if they are uncontroversial, it shouldn't be a problem for someone else to add them. Note that you will not be able to edit this article immediately, even with a named account: you need to have made at least 10 edits elsewhere, and to have had the account for four days: see WP:AUTOCONFIRM AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the prompt response. I have to say that I don't even understand the current controversy, so I can't tell what would be uncontroversial material. In any case, there's also technical stuff to do, like introducing anchors, citation templates etc. I'm only peripherally interested in this particular topic, so it's not a priority, especially since there's an ongoing dispute. Mainly I was interested in setting the record straight regarding the World Teacher/Krishnamurti issue, which I previously did, imo. Thanks 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Semi-protected" ??? 

message: An IP editing from the NY Public Library has tagged the article for expansion. The article seems complete. What's missing? JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The org. has been around for almost 140 years. The article says next to nothing about its development up to the present. It basically concentrates on the founding, and examines at some length doctrinal matters more suited to the Theosophy page. Who were prominent members? Why? Did important bylaws change? Why? How did controversies, etc. impact the institution? What institutional actions deserve mention and why? What was/is the institution's influence or criticisms? etc. etc. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion? 

message: A substantial bank of material for possible merger with this article, originally from Theosophy, can be found at User:Hgilbert/Theosophical Society. If someone wishes to take on merging this into this and related articles, it would be helpful. HGilbert (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material for merger 

message: I wanted to suggest a link be inserted to Moncure D Conway's page 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moncure_D._Conway 
since he is so much a part of a book entitled "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon: Theosophy and the Emergence of the Western Guru."
rumjal 05:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: wow

message: Does anyone here have this book?
Washington, Peter (1993). Madame Blavatsky's Baboon: Theosophy and the Emergence of the Western Guru. London: Secker & Warburg. .
It seems to have a section on the School of Economic Science and the Wiki on that article would benefit greatly from additional content based on more reliable sources such as this. Please bring the book there if you can. Thanks -Roberthall7 (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference book 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Theosophical Society. 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/20061004010720/http://theosophical-society.org.uk/ to http://www.theosophical-society.org.uk/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://blavatskyarchives.com/olcott1890.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified