Talk:René Guénon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Section on Reception and Article

I am currently working a lot on the article in French. I have bought many books: for instance Xavier Accart : René Guénon ou le renversement des clartés 2005 and David Bisson René Guénon, une politique de l'esprit 2013. Both are based on PdD works. The book of Xavier Accart (around 1300 pages), based on a 11 years PhD work, is now considered as the first full intellectual biography of Guénon (as said by Daniel Lindenberg). The foreword is very interesting and written by Antoine Compagnon who is the professor of French literature at the Collège de France, the highest academic institution in France. The book of Bisson is on the political reception of Guénon. I think that it is impossible to write a section of the reception of Guénon without a good understanding of these two books.

I have been studying them in great detail (as well as other books): you can already see the changes in French on Wikipedia. The conclusion is clear: there is a general academic consensus that there is no link between Guénon and the far right and the fascist regimes. His evolution during the 1930s is very well detailed in these books: Guénon rejected any political action and expressed very clear opinions against antisemitism, racism, etc. He saw even the "counter-tradition" at the origin of the careers of Hitler and Mussolini.

Bisson also wrote some chapters on the "political" reading of Guénon by authors like Evola, Douguine, etc. The hijacking of the works of Guénon by some small groups of the far right comes entirely from the reinterpretation of the "Tradition" (a concept from Guénon at the origin) by Evola especially in the 1960s. There are very long parts in the books of Bisson and Accart explaining the huge differences between Guénon and Evola. They both very clearly claim that the direction taken by Evola is in contradiction with the spiritual path suggested by Guénon.

It is true that Guénon is read by some members of the New right but this is through Evola's complete reinterpretation and one can claim (like these academic authors) that this reinterpretation is based on a misinterpretation of Guénon's work. Of course, it does not mean that one must hide this kind of reception, although the context must appear very objectively.

In any case, it is sure that the present article is based on an incorrect use of both the primary and secondary sources. The part of the reception is the worst (although I made already some changes).

I just mention a few points: it is wrong to say that Guénon has influenced Carl Schmitt in formulating his theory of the Absolute State. The reference must be wrong. The influence of Guénon on Schmitt is studied in detail by Bisson. Schmitt was influenced by Guénon when Schmitt had been excluded by the Nazi party (in 1936). One can detect Guénon's influence on Schmitt in the book Der Leviathan in der Staatslehre des Thomas Hobbes of 1938, where Schmitt predicts the fall of the third Reich. He uses only the ideas of Guénon of occult forces acting on the modern world and of a symbolic interpretation of history. But there is nothing between Guénon and the constitution of the Absolute state. As Evola, Schmitt has used some ideas of Guénon combined with other ideas coming from a very different (often contradictory) context.

The fact that Guénon published his second book in the "Nouvelle Librairie nationale" associated with the Action Francaise doesn't make any link between Guénon and far right! The editor was, at that time, the Catholic thinker Jacques Maritain and this publishing house published, at that time, mainly books on theology, as well as the books of the famous French historian René Grousset who had nothing to do with the far right! Jacques Maritain and Henri Massis (one of the main leaders of the Action française) had already condemned Guénon's thought before in 1921. Maritain accepted to publish the second book of Guénon only because it was a sharp critic of the theosophical Society and prevented Guénon from writing anything about his personal opinions. This is the reason why this is the only book of Guénon without any doctrinal development. This is very well described in the book of Accart.

The worst point in the section of the reception is still the use of statements of Evola to orientate the reader to a very personal interpretation of Guénon (mainly the one of Evola). This is in contradiction to the philosophy of wikipedia. The academic authors (as Guénon's followers) completely reject the idea that Guénon belongs to any political movement (from the right and from the left). The articulation between Evola's thought and Guénon's thought should be written with great care and should be a small part in an article on Guénon.

I will help in the future to change this, but I am very busy with the article in French. Gatti fabien1 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times

There is more information about this book in this article then in the book's article. I also note that the fringe source that I removed claiming it is his best known work has been restored. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, nothing there worth saving. The pages on some of his other books might benefit from the same treatment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doug Weller's argument for a redirect, "There is more information about this book in this article then in the book's article", is 100% fallacious. The relevant issue is not the current state of the article but its potential. Anyone could simply move or copy information from René Guénon to The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times and it would then cease to be true that "There is more information about this book in this article then in the book's article". The source that claims it is his best-known work may be fringe, but that does not mean the claim is wrong. Redirecting the article would be a mistake. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a standard reason for redirecting an article. You made no effort to improve it and even left the fringe source in it whether than find better sources. The normal thing to do would be to merge/redirect and build up a well sourced section in the author's article. Or alternatively turn the stub, which has no decent sources, into a well-sourced article on the book. Just leaving it as it is is the worst scenario. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • What is that claim based on? Is it just your assertion? I have never seen a discussion in which anyone thought it was reasonable to redirect an article that could potentially be improved and expanded simply because it had little content at any given moment. If you think the article could be turned "into a well-sourced article on the book", then why exactly are you proposing redirecting it, which would make that impossible? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral The article focuses on both ideas and his books. It would then be necessary to determine in which section "The Reign" would enter. GraemeKad (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. As you can see easily : I am writing a long article on the book in French (as for many books of Guénon). It could be used to improve the article in English. For a summary, I could even do it myself. This is the major book of Guénon on this history of mankind and on his critics of modern world. David Bisson, in his PhD, gave a thorough analysis of the book. It would be a pity not to use it. Fabien Gatti (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

DDupard has proposed (and started) to translate the article in French into English [1]. I think this is an excellent solution, right? --Fabien Gatti (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

French article

Hi, I was wondering if the article in French could not be taken as a basis. Apparently it is being redesigned quite deeply by a French contributor who has been active also here on wp:en (assuming it's the same person). The French article is too long, should be shortened: limited to a biography based on good sources. Some sections in the wp:en article look like WP:OR, or defamatory, as already noted. I know a little French, I could translate somehow, to be proof checked by a contributor who masters French well. GraemeKad (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, GraemeKad. Yes it's me who is changing the article in French and who wrote some comments here. Unfortunately, my level of English is not good enough to write a very long article in English and, thus, to make the translation myself. But, it could be great if somebody could summarize and translate the article. I could help of course and "check" the translation. One does not need to give all the details. I try to be very thorough and it makes sense in French since Guénon is very important in French speaking countries, but it can be much shorter in English. Be aware that I am still working on the article in French: I have to change the beginning of his life (his youth) and to improve the end (after 1937). It is also planned to improve and correct the article with the French "Wikipedia:Peer review" team. Thus, there is still some work to do. Best Fabien Gatti (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I have cleaned up a little bit the section on reception. There is still a lot of work to improve the article. Fabien Gatti (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted version by FreeKnowledgeCreator

As aforementioned, I had started to clean up again the section on reception, but User:FreeKnowledgeCreator removed my changes. I am not going to reverse back his/her modifications since, by principle, I do not reverse changes of other contributors.

As already discussed before, the section on reception (and the whole article) has been vandalized.

For instance a sentence such as

"In addition, Carl Schmitt, the "crown jurist of the Nazi Third Reich", told scholar of comparative religion Mircea Eliade that he regarded René Guénon as “the most interesting man alive today”.[74] Guénon has influenced Schmitt in formulating his theory of the Absolute State and the forces that work against it"

leads to a complete trickery.

The influence of Guénon on Carl Schmitt has been studied in detail by David Bisson in one chapter if his PhD (David Bisson, René Guénon, une politique de l'esprit, Paris, Pierre-Guillaume de Roux, 2013, 528 p).

When Schmitt started to read Guénon after 1936, he was already in disgrace in the Nazi regime. At that time he was definitely not the "crown jurist of the Nazi Third Reich". Only Guénon's symbolic interpretation of history had an influence on Schmitt (more precisely on his book "The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol (1938)"). Guénon had NO influence on Schmitt's theory of the Absolute State. You do not need to read David Bisson's PhD: all the readers of Guénon know that there is no line in his books about the organization of the state. His main reference was the Hindu world, which was not centralized at all.

In the same manner, writing sentences such as

"For instance, Evola wrote that "Guénon's deductions assume a radical character: hierarchical, aristocratic, anti-individualist, anti-social and anti-collectivist.""

is a nonsense for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. The reception of Guénon must be based on secondary (academic if possible) sources. Here, it is a primary source: a direct quotation of Evola, which commits Evola only. It would be a complete nonsense to write a brief section on the reception of Karl Marx by using quotations of Mao Zedong, Joseph Staline or Pol Pot about what they thought of Marx.

The sentence

"Guénon's second book was published by a publishing house ("Nouvelle Librairie Nationale" directed by Maritain at that time)[65] associated with the Action Française, and he also wished for his first book to be published there (it was published finally in the publishing house of the syndicalist Marcel Rivière)."

is again a complete trickery. The goal is to make a new link between Guénon and the Action française, which is assimilated to the far right.

Thus, Guénon = far right. I had added myself that his first book was "published finally in the publishing house of the syndicalist Marcel Rivière". Thus, was Guénon a fascist or a socialist? It is true that Guénon published his second book "by a publishing house (Nouvelle Librairie Nationale directed by Maritain at that time)[65] associated with the Action Française", but again this is a pure trickery if you leave the sentence like this. The author of this sentence wanted to say that Guénon = Action française = far right. But at this time, the editor of the Nouvelle Librairie Nationale was Jacques Maritain who was conservative but had nothing to do with far right. Jacques Maritain was the head of the neo-Thomist movement and there was after WW II a short coalition between the neo-Thomist movement and the Action française, which was not a proto-fascist party yet. The Nouvelle Librairie Nationale published at that time, among others, books on theology and was the official publisher of René Grousset, the greatest French orientalist of the first half of the 20th century and who had nothing to do with politics and the far right. In addition, Maritain prevented Guénon from developing his own ideas in this book, which was accepted only because it was a sharp and precise critics of the Theosophical Society.

Thus the argument: Guénon published at the "Nouvelle Librairie Nationale" = Guénon is a far right writer linked to the far right Action française is a sophism leading to a completely wrong interpretation.

There are many other examples like this in the article. The section is written such that the reader will think:

-that Guénon had an impact on "Schmitt's theory of the Absolute State", and Schmit was the "crown jurist of the Nazi Third Reich" thus Guénon had a strong impact on the Nazi regime,

-Guénon was close to Evola who was close to Mussolini (during a short period), thus Guénon had an influence on Mussolini's regime

-Guénon had a link with the Action française in the early 1920s and thus is linked with the French far right (since the Action française became the French fascist party in the 1930s).

All these opinions are not only completely wrong, they are denied by all the academic sources (Jean-Pierre Laurent, Xavier Accart, David Bisson, Marie-France James, etc...) For those who can read a little bit French : look at the huge number of references and their quality in the article I am writing in French.

There is now a consensus between academic sources, Guénon's followers and experts and even most of the leaders of the New Right (such Alain de Benoist) that there is no link between Guénon and the fascist regimes and the far right. There are only some readers of Evola of the far right who still try to hijack Guénon because Evola had a very high opinion about Guénon (even now with Aleksandr Dugin or Steve Bannon, etc... but these people are much more influenced by Evola (for Dugin) or Maurras (for Steve Bannon)). We should not hide the fact that Dugin, Evola have been influenced by Guénon, but this can NOT be the main part on the section on the reception of Guénon. If not, this is a pure biased PoV.

I am still working a lot on the article in French. I don't have time to change completely the article in English yet.

I let User:FreeKnowledgeCreator revert back to my last version if he has a high opinion of Wikipedia and its goals. If not, we will leave the section on reception with huge serious absurdities in the article on Guénon ("one of the most influential intellectuals of the 20th century" as written by Antoine Compagnon in the foreword of the PhD of my friend Xavier Accart) in the most important international language.

Fabien Gatti (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Fabien Gatti. It would have helped if you could have used more informative edit summaries: simply stating that material is "biased" and that you are removing it for that reason is not very useful by itself. I will consider what you have to say and get back to you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello FreeKnowledgeCreator. I agree with you, but all the points have already been discussed on this page (see above). We can discuss the sentences I had removed one by one if necessary. For people who can read French, you can find lengthy descriptions about Guénon's reception with many references in the article in French. Fabien Gatti (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

OK.

You altered one passage - "Just before and after World War I, Guénon was close to some circles of the far right Action Française including Léon Daudet, Jacques Bainville and, above all, the major Catholic philosopher Maritain (Maritain, as many Catholics, left the Action française later on)" - to read, "Just after World War I, Guénon was close to some circles of the conservative French right such as the neo-thomists, above all Jacques Maritain, and some members of the right-wing political movement Action Française including Léon Daudet, Jacques Bainville (Maritain, as many Catholics, stopped any links with the Action française after the papal condemnation of the movement in 1926)." What struck me there was the change of "far right" to "conservative", which might be regarded as a euphemism.

You removed a passage that read, "Guénon's second book was published by a publishing house (Nouvelle Librairie Nationale directed by Maritain at that time) associated with the Action Française, and he also wished for his first book to be published there (it was published finally in the publishing house of the syndicalist Marcel Rivière). Among Guénon's acquaintances was also George Valois, who was at first an Anarcho-syndicalist, later member of the Action Française, founder of the fascist Faisceau and finally member of the French Resistance who died in a concentration camp, and Pierre Winter (former member of the Faisceau party)." At first glance, that seemed like significant information and I wasn't sure that it was an improvement to remove it. Looking at it again, I grant that some of that information could be considered irrelevant or unnecessary to the article.

You altered a sentence reading "Even though Guénon repeated on many occasions that he was apolitical and that he rejected in advance any political interpretation of his work, he has been sometimes associated with far right and anti-democratic politics and he also influenced several writers who are on the far right of the political spectrum" to remove "has been sometimes associated with far right and anti-democratic politics". In this case, that seems like significant information and I still am not convinced that it was an improvement to remove it.

I'll have more so say soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello FreeKnowledgeCreator,

OK let's start to discuss all these points. I think that everything is already clearly explained in the article in French.

My three main sources here are (unfortunately they have not been translated into in English until now):

- The PhD work of Marie-France James on the relationships between René Guénon and the Catholics published in

Marie-France James, Ésotérisme et christianisme autour de René Guénon, Paris, Nouvelles Éditions Latines, 1981, 476 p. (ISBN 2-7233-0146-X)

- The PhD work of Xavier Accart on the influence of Guénon on the French intellectual life during the period 1920-1970 published in

Xavier Accart, René Guénon ou le renversement des clartés : Influence d'un métaphysicien sur la vie littéraire et intellectuelle française (1920-1970), Paris, Archè EDIDIT, 2005, 1222 p. (ISBN 978-2-912770-03-5)

- The PhD work of David Bisson on René Guénon's metapolitical ideas and on the political interpretations of his work published in

David Bisson, René Guénon, une politique de l'esprit, Paris, Pierre-Guillaume de Roux, 2013, 528 p. (ISBN 9-782363-710581)

Even though, Guénon claimed that he was apolitical, David Bisson shows that Guénon's thought has a strong “metapolitical” aspect with the precise definition of Metapolitics given by Antonio Gramsci. Many discussions followed the publication of David Bisson's book (you can find some videos in particular on Youtube, but there are in French) and one of the conclusions was that Guénon is neither a left-wing nor a right-wing author. Note that this is what the so-called "Guénonians" (those who claim to be the strict followers of Guénon) have always claimed. ("La Règle d'Abraham" and "Les cahiers de l'unité" that you can find online are some of the small reviews that are written by those "Guénonians" in France).

You say

1) "You altered one passage - "Just before and after World War I, Guénon was close to some circles of the far right Action Française including Léon Daudet, Jacques Bainville and, above all, the major Catholic philosopher Maritain (Maritain, as many Catholics, left the Action française later on)" - to read, "Just after World War I, Guénon was close to some circles of the conservative French right such as the neo-thomists, above all Jacques Maritain, and some members of the right-wing political movement Action Française including Léon Daudet, Jacques Bainville (Maritain, as many Catholics, stopped any links with the Action française after the papal condemnation of the movement in 1926)." What struck me there was the change of "far right" to "conservative", which might be regarded as a euphemism."

This is a very good remark. The original sentence was "Guénon was close to some circles of the far right Action Française including Léon Daudet, Jacques Bainville". I had added myself the rest.

Guénon had some contacts with "some circles of the Action Française" only during the early 1920s, thus I focus on this period only. If you read the many chapters of the book of Xavier Accart dedicated to the 1920s, you will see that Guénon was a central figure of the French intellectual life during this period and that he had a huge number of contacts in many circles including the French surrealists who wanted Guénon to join their movement. Keeping the relationship between Guénon and "some circles of the far right Action Française" in the 1920s only is by itself very one-sided. It leads very easily to the possible (totally wrong) following interpretations: since the Action Française supported Mussolini's regime in the 1930s and Léon Daudet was antisemitic, thus Guénon has a link with antisemitism and Fascist regimes.

The books of Marie-France James and Xavier Accart show that Guénon met Noëlle Maurice-Denis Boulet (the daughter of the painter Maurice Denis) during World War I, when they were studying philosophy. Noëlle Maurice-Denis Boulet was a very bright student in Christian theology and introduced René Guénon to the French leaders of the most important catholic intellectual movement of that time, i.e. the neo-Thomist movement. The head of the movement was the major Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain, with whom Guénon had many discussions and exchanges of letters. Most of the members of the Catholic movement were "conservative" (very conservative for the present standards in the West). They considered that the Catholic Church must be placed above everything else and were very critical of the French French Third Republic (1870-1940), which was very anticlerical (the main result of the third republic was the fact that the Catholic church lost the control of French education), but participated in the democratic system following the instructions of the Vatican. Jacques Maritain was not a far right thinker: Maritain's political theory was extremely influential, and was a primary source behind the Christian Democratic movement. Christian democracy is conservative on cultural, social, and moral issues but not a far right movement (read the article on Christian democracy on Wikipedia). The main point is the following (here I follow Xavier Accart) : Guénon was not interested by the main ideas of the Action Française at all. The Action Française was a royalist movement dominated by Charles Maurras who was an Agnostic and whose main philosophy was the integral nationalism. It is difficult to find a more “Gnostic” author than Guénon and he was very anti-nationalistic. Guénon was interested in the neo-Thomist movement since the main goal of Guénon during this period was to convince Maritain and the Catholic Church to revitalize Christianity through a dialogue with oriental religions. Now just after world war I, a "coalition" between the neo-Thomist movement and the Action Française had been created to influence French politics. This coalition did not last long since in 1926, Pope Pius XI condemned the Action française and many of the Catholics left the Action Française and the coalition with the neo-Thomist movement stopped. The reasons of the condemnation are easy to understand : Charles Maurras was an Agnostic and considered that "a true nationalist places his country above everything" (and thus not the Catholic church). Jacques Maritain has always said (after 1926) that this coalition had been a mistake.

Anyway, this "coalition" explains that, indeed, Guénon had some contacts with the Action française. All of them (Guénon, the Action Française, the Neo-Thomists) shared only one important think: their sharp critic of the liberal democratic system of the France of that time and of modern world in general. But, again, Guénon's main goal was to influence the neo-Thomist movement and thus the Catholic church. As regards his relationships with the members of the Action française: we can say that he cited Léon Daudet and Jacques Bainville in two of his books and that Leon Daudet wrote a rave review of Guénon's book "East and West" on the front-page of the journal of the Action française in 1924. In addition, Guénon became a close friend of Gonzague Truc, an independent author but close to the Action française. As explained by Xavier Accart, the Action française, and more generally this “coalition” (between the Action française and the Neo-thomists) was at that time (1918-1924) a broad movement including many branches and independent thinkers. For instance, Leon Daudet was in charge of the section on literature and culture in the journal of the Action française and this section was read by many leftists and artists (it is what Xavier Accart explains). For instance, Leon Daudet played an important role in the discovery of the great writer Marcel Proust who was homosexual with Jewish roots. Thus, the fact that Leon Daudet wrote excellent reviews on Guénon's first books does not prove anything about a proximity between the ideas of the Action française and Guénon (except the critic of the modern world). It is not exact to say that this coalition included only members of the far right. It is only sure that it was a conservative movement. The situation changed a lot after the condemnation of the Action française and the departure of most of the Catholics. In particular, in the 1930s, the Action française supported Mussolini's regime, for instance the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy in 1936 (Second Italo-Ethiopian War). (Note that Guénon condemned this invasion very sharply since he considered Ethiopia as a sacred country).

To conclude, the main point during the period in the (early) 1920s is the fact that Guénon was close to some conservative (and definitely not far right) Catholic circles, the main one being the Neo-Thomist movement. Not only, Guénon did not succeed in influencing the neo-Thomist movement and thus the Catholic church, but he was rejected by most of the Catholics. Jacques Maritain became his worst enemy. He was also fired from the Catholic review Regnabit in 1927. The publication of Crisis of the Modern World in 1927, where he sharply criticized nationalism and Henri Massis, one of the main leaders of the Action française, displeased the Action française and the Catholic hierarchy a lot. The publication of Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power, where he supported the Catholic church against the Action Française after the condemnation of the latter by the pope, was the end of any relationship between Guénon and the Action Française. Thus I changed far right to conservative, since Guénon's strategy was to influence the Catholic church. In this context, the fact that he cited Leon Daudet and Jacques Bainville and that Leon Daudet wrote a rave review on one of his books is secondary. I don't want to hide it: look at my article in French, those facts appear explicitly. Again the whole article in English must be rewritten but, as it is, the article puts the emphasis on something secondary and gives the feeling that Guénon had links with the far right Action française that supported Mussolini in the 1930s, thus during a time when Guénon had no link any more with the Action Française.

We cannot say that, generally speaking, Catholic (even conservative) = far right, except if you are one of the people like one of my colleagues who is a Troskyist .

That's it for today Fabien Gatti (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

2) "You removed a passage that read, "Guénon's second book was published by a publishing house (Nouvelle Librairie Nationale directed by Maritain at that time) associated with the Action Française, and he also wished for his first book to be published there (it was published finally in the publishing house of the syndicalist Marcel Rivière). Among Guénon's acquaintances was also George Valois, who was at first an Anarcho-syndicalist, later member of the Action Française, founder of the fascist Faisceau and finally member of the French Resistance who died in a concentration camp, and Pierre Winter (former member of the Faisceau party)." At first glance, that seemed like significant information and I wasn't sure that it was an improvement to remove it. Looking at it again, I grant that some of that information could be considered irrelevant or unnecessary to the article."

There are two points here:

a) "Guénon's second book was published by a publishing house (Nouvelle Librairie Nationale directed by Maritain at that time) associated with the Action Française, and he also wished for his first book to be published there (it was published finally in the publishing house of the syndicalist Marcel Rivière)."

The original sentence was: "Guénon's second book was published by a publishing house associated with the Action Française, and he also wished for his first book to be published there."

I had added the rest myself.

The sentence was only here to make a link between Guénon and with far right. Here, it is as for the above point 1). This publishing house was directed by Jacques Maritain and thus the Neo-Thomists. There was a indirect link with the Action Française because of the temporary "coalition" between the Neo-Thomists and the Action française. Guénon could publish his first books only with the help of Jacques Maritain and of Father Peillaube (another Neo-Thomist). This story of publications has nothing to do with a political and ideological link between Guénon and the Action française. What makes this story even more ridiculous is the fact that the first book was finally published by the far-wing publisher Marcel Rivière.

b) "Among Guénon's acquaintances was also George Valois, who was at first an Anarcho-syndicalist, later member of the Action Française, founder of the fascist Faisceau party and finally member of the French Resistance who died in a concentration camp, and Pierre Winter (former member of the Faisceau party)." At first glance, that seemed like significant information and I wasn't sure that it was an improvement to remove it. Looking at it again, I grant that some of that information could be considered irrelevant or unnecessary to the article."

The original sentence was "Among Guénon's acquaintances was also George Valois, later member of the Action Française, founder of the fascist Faisceau."

I had added the rest myself.

Here, we can see clearly that there was something dishonest. It was mentioned that George Valois was the founder of the fascist Faisceau party but not that he switched back to the left afterwards and that he was member of the French resistance and was killed finally by the Nazis. If you look at the huge influence of Guénon on the French intellectual like in the 1920s and 1930s in the book of Xavier Accart, you can see immediately that the reference to George Valois is totally anecdotal and was added just to make a new artificial link to far right.

3) You altered a sentence reading "Even though Guénon repeated on many occasions that he was apolitical and that he rejected in advance any political interpretation of his work, he has been sometimes associated with far right and anti-democratic politics and he also influenced several writers who are on the far right of the political spectrum" to remove "has been sometimes associated with far right and anti-democratic politics". In this case, that seems like significant information and I still am not convinced that it was an improvement to remove it.

You are right: the fact that Guénon "has been sometimes associated with far right and anti-democratic politics" should not completely disappear in a complete description of Guénon's reception.

To understand the situation, we go back to the discussion, above (5 October 2017), about Daniel Lindenberg ((Daniel Lindenberg is professor at the university and comes from the far left). As explained by Xavier Accart, all the prejudices about the association of Guénon with far right and anti-democratic politics were well summarized in an article published by Daniel Lindenberg in 1991: René Guénon ou la réaction intégrale that you can find easily on internet.

The guy who wrote the original sentences used this article to make as many links as possible to far right. He gave up only because I proved that even Daniel Lindenberg himself recognized (in 2007) that he was completely wrong about Guénon after the publication of Xavier Accart's book. In a review on Accart's book, Daniel Lindenberg concludes (It is just a copy/paste of what I wrote above): (If you can read French you can obtain the review on the website of the French journal Esprit of February 2007 p. 218-222.):

i) An amalgam between Guénon and extreme right is not possible and that one can not "extrapolate" anything from his short period with the Action française. ("Evoquer ces débats conduit naturellement à traiter du rapport du guénonisme avec les mouvements d'extrême droite, sujet sensible. [...] c'est un des apports de cet ouvrage que de le démontrer, l'amalgame n'est pas possible, de même qu'on ne saurait extrapoler à partir du bout de chemin que [Guénon] a fait avec l'Action française" p. 220).

2) Guénon has never accepted any political hijacking by the neo-monarchists or by the totalitarian movements. ("cet homme aux tendances conservatrices indiscutables n'a jamais accepté de "récupération" politique, que ce soit par les néomonarchistes ou par les mouvements totalitaires se réclamant des glorieux Ancêtres", p. 220)

3) Guénon is not a political but a metapolitical author. He is against any form of racism and nationalism. ("L'oeuvre de réaction au sens premier du mot, à laquelle il invite, passe par la constitution d'une élite qui dépasse les frontières étatiques et idéologiques. D'où son opposition au nationalisme et au racisme [...] Même la croisade pour l'Europe qu'une certaine droite européenne (Gonzague de Reynold, Julius Evola [...] Paul Véléry et bien d'autres...) mène dans les années 1920 n'est pas la sienne, car il ne croit pas, et cela est un clivage fondamental, à une césure Orient/Occident. M. Accart touche l'essentiel lorsqu'il établit de façon définitive que la visée de Guénon est métapolitique. Il ne s'agit pas de rectifier la grande "Déviation" en collaborant avec tel ou tel régime politique. La constitution d'une "élite" est une entreprise d'ordre purement spirituel, quasiment hors du monde, comme le prouve la retraite de Guénon en Egypte", p. 220).

4) He says that the definition given by Pauwels and Bergier of Hitler as "Guénon plus panzerdivisionen" is empty of meaning. Lindenberg even says that Evola is the counterexample of what Guénon wanted (as many of Guénon's followers)! ("il juge sévèrement les dictatures totalitaires, surtout lorsqu'elles semblent caricaturer l'enseignement traditionnel. On peut donc considérer que la définition bien connue du nazisme par Pauwels et Bergier - selon laquelle le nazisme, c'est "Guénon et les Panzerdivisionen" - n'a pas plus de valeur qu'un mot d'auteur, et entache gravement la mémoire de [Guénon]. Julius Evola est le contre-exemple, qui s'engagera à fond derrière Mussolini et prononcera des conférences devant le gratin SS. Mais ce sera justement en donnant à la violence un rôle salvateur que Guénon n'avalisera jamais, quelle qu'ait pu être leur proximité intellectuelle par ailleurs", p. 221).

In addition, Lindenberg says that Guénon can be considered as a support for the third world and recalls that he was a strong supporter of a dialog with Islam (p. 221). I repeat that Lindenberg comes form the far left.

To conclude it is true that Guénon "has been sometimes associated with far right and anti-democratic politics". Xavier Accart even explains how it happened (mainly because of Evola and Pauwels after Guénon's death). The sentence Guénon "has been sometimes associated with far right and anti-democratic politics" should appear in a long and complete description of Guénon's reception but cannot be left like this, at least, without a clear explanation. The main point that should appear in a first version of the article is on contrary that there is now an academic consensus about the fact that Guénon cannot be associated with far right and anti-democratic politics !

Again in a complete article, we should talk about the "political interpretation" of the Traditionalist school, but this part should appear mainly in the articles about Julius Evola and the Traditionalist school. It must be clear that the Traditionalist school has very different branches and that it s mainly the branch associated with Evola that was associated with far right and anti-democratic politics. Of course, there are authors (like Alexander Dugin) who mix both (Guénon and Evola) but all the links to the far right come from Evola. There was a confusion between Evola and Guénon in the past (especially in the 1970s-80s-90s), but this confusion is now clarified in the academic world especially after the PhDs of Xavier Accart and David bisson.

I hope it is enough to show that I am working on serious secondary sources. To answer to your questions, one needs very long explanations because Guénon is a very complex author, although there is a very strong unity in his work. I have still a lot of work on the article in French. The article in English should be rewritten. As it is, it still gives a biased description on Guénon's reception, focusing too much on possible links with far right. Thus, I had removed some of the sentences (that I had already changed in the last months) since we cannot keep an article on Guénon in the most important international language like this. Fabien Gatti (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Fabien Gatti on this. Numwide (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment to article authors

This is really excellent and well done.

Thank you. Genetikbliss (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Section on Reception

The page in italian is well organized and not so focused on these political tirades at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Eldritch (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

edits by new editor

Luceveritatis, here is where you discuss edits to the article. Beyond My Ken, this brand new editor seems to be trying in good faith to help. Luceveritatis, why don't we discuss what you're trying to accomplish? —valereee (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

My problem with their edits to this article and to Julius Evola is that they're adding unsourced information, and that what they're adding doesn't seem to me to be improvements, but are WP:PoV in nature. I've pointed them to WP:V and WP:RS on their talk pages (IP & account), but the edits continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Luceveritatis appears to believe that the "Influenced" parameter should contain every single person in the world who has been influenced by the subject of the article, but that is not the case. Only people who have been strongly influenced by the subject -- and for whom there are reliable sources to confirm that influence -- should be listed. I have pared down the list somewhat by deleting all those names which no not have a cited reference at all, and those for whom the reference cited did not confirm that they were strongly influenced by Guénon. It is not, for instance, enough that a person's name is mentioned in the same sentence with Guénon for that person to be listed as "influenced" by Guénon, as was done in one case.

I do not have access to all the sources cited, so there were many names that I could not check, but I would urge other editors to do so if they can, and I would urge Luceveritatis not to restore anything that has been removed because it is unreferenced or unconfirmed by the reference provided. The list is simply too long at this time, and still needs to be culled. @Valereee:, I would ask you to keep an eye on the actions of the IP editor here, as they do not seem to be interested in learning how Wikipedia works, or what our policies are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Luceveritatis: Rather than leaving message on the talk pages of multiple admins, you need to comment on this discussion. That's how we do things here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

BMK, I suspect that IP was Luceveritatis, maybe not realizing they'd been logged out. —valereee (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the time/date stamps actualy indicate that Luceveritatis created the account after a short spell of editing as an IP. I temporarily forgot that, which is why I referred to them as an "IP editor", and then went back and changed those references to their account name. My ping to you would have shown my original post, not the corrected one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right though that their most recent edit was as an IP, either accidentally or not. The salient fact is that they have yet to come here to discuss my objections to their edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, God, what is with this article? The levels of contentiousness over a philosopher dead 70 years. —valereee (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Valeree I've been trying to figure that out as well. There are a couple of editors who seem to solely edit this article, or this one and Julius Evola. I don't know enough about the subject to make any major edits to it, but it appears to me to be bloated and in desperate need of trimming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee corrected ping, see last comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Perspective on initiation

Hi, I changed a lot of things there: this section is too long, too categorical on a subject that Guénon himself said not systematic. And there are too many mentions of the same refs (Bisson, Vivenza). Let the reader read the book, we are not here to summarize a book, just give the maion lines. Numwide (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Numwide,

It seems that you don't know how to proceed with Wikipedia. I don't claim to be an expert, but I have some experience now especially on Wikipedia in French: for instance for Wilhelm Furtwängler, my work was elected as a fetaured article, then I start to know the whole process.

I just recognize that what I wrote was not a summary of the book Perspectives on Initiation but on the initiation according to Guénon in general. I removed the title of the book.

The goal of a work on wikipedia is mainly to synthesize the reliable secondary sources on a subject: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources" (see Wikipedia:No original research) and not to make your own summary of the primary sources : "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them".

For instance, your new summary on The Symbolism of the Cross is not admissible. It is exactly what is called an original research. It is not on Vivenza, on Bisson but also not on Guénon: it is on Numwide and his/her subjective interpretation of Guénon and it is exactly what we want to avoid in Wikipedia. I know the book well: what you wrote is sound, but some important points are missing and I would have made another summary. Then, who is right? We don't have to decide : we must summarize the reliable secondary/tertiary sources to describe the book.

This is the reason why I cite other authors like Vivenza and Bisson to show that this is precisely not only my subjective interpretation of Guénon. The summary on initiation is based on the book of Bisson, which is his PhD work. This is clearly a reliable source. it does not mean hat he is right, but if you want to qualify his summary, you must use other secondary reliable sources not to remove it. Many of the sources I am using are academic sources (Bisson, Accart, James, Laurant, Vallin). I perfectly know that Guénon had a very bad opinion on academic works, but this is not the point. We have to follow Wikipedia's rules.

In the article on Guénon in French, I do use primary sources with Guénon's quotations, but this must be used very carefully : "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care" (reliable source).

You say that the text is "too long". This is again a subjective point of view and there is no clear restriction in Wikipedia. According to my experience, if the article becomes to be very long, one proposes to split it into different sub-articles, but you are not supposed to remove it without discussing it before.

You say: "Let the reader read the book". My ultimate goal is indeed to push the readers to directly read Guénon's books so that they will have their own personal opinion, but this is not an argument to prevent authors from writing texts on wikipedia.

Please

1) first read the general rules of wikipedia since obviously you don't know them.

2) please discuss your changes here first.

I will change your text on The Symbolism of the Cross since it is a typical original research.

For all the readers: I am sorry to use a lot secondary sources in French and not in English, but this is impossible to write an article on Guénon on Wikipedia if you cannot read French. All the primary sources are available in English, but almost all the important secondary sources are unfortunately in French only. In English, there is the small and old book by Charcornac on Guénon's life and a book by Segdwick. The latter contains a small part on Guénon's life only and is more a list of all the possible gossips on the Traditionalist School. If you know other secondary sources in English, I am very open to read and use them.

Best wishes, Fabien Gatti (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Fabien Gatti

Rest assured that I am quite familiar with Wikipedia's editorial rules. In this case in the article that interests us here, your sources are certainly academic, but in reality very oriented, and confined to a small number of authors, always the same, which boil down to the trio "Bisson, Vivenza and Laurant". We can say without exaggeration that what you wrote is Bisson's summary of what Guénon wrote on initiation. For instance, your use of the word "politics" on the subject of initiation is just a paraphrase of Bisson's way of thinking. Your way of writing is simply not encyclopedic. It consists in summarizing the whole thesis of what a single writer, or at a pinch two or three, produced on Guénon. There are many other authors, such as P. Geay for example, who are often cited in academia, with a totally different perspective. In addition, among your three favorite authors, there is one whose academic credit is not unanimous. I'm sure that the writings of another author you use, X. Accart, wouldn't match that Bisson's vision you are overly exposing here. What you have written on initiation is boring, excessively long, and reflects only the view of one author. On the other hand I do not see what allows you to say what is written on the symbolism of the cross is a WP: OR. It is a simple summary of the introduction of Guénon himself. So overall no, I don't agree with your way of writing. I myself will add various sources along with the writing. Cheers, Numwide (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Numwide,

Do as you wish. I know P. Geay since I was subscribed to his review La Règle d'Abraham. His book Hermès trahi can be considered as a reliable source since it is his PhD work, but this is only on the late Christian mysticism. I have already used La Règle d'Abraham as a source (see above in the text) but it was not considered as a reliable source. If you want to base the article on ephemeral reviews of small Guénonian groups (Like also Les cahiers de l'unité, Le turban noir), somebody will always finish to remove them as non-reliable sources. I have nothing against them since I read them, but they will not be considered as reliable sources on the long term. But as I said do as you wish. Best wishes, Fabien Gatti (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Fabien Gatti

Thank you, I will not, obviously, monopolize the article, we can work together. And about P. Geay, the "Règle d'Abraham", or other journals (whether ephemeral or not), we could be two to support them here. Numwide (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Numwide, ok. To tell you the truth I am not a fan of Bisson and Vivenza at all, I just use them as "reliable sources" (that can be easily checked) to include information that I judge relevant and not in contradiction with Guénon's thought. If you read what I wrote I carefully did not include their personal opinions (for instance about politics for Bisson and about Freemasonry for Vivenza) that are very controversial. The main issue of the article is the lack of secondary sources. Fabien Gatti (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Fabien Gatti Ok, I'll be back very soon, I have to care care of some business. Numwide (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. As you are in the process of revising part of the article, you may wish to review the second paragraph of the introduction. The words "non-individual character" here falsely refer to "Eastern doctrines" whereas Guénon uses this expression when refering to his own message, as you know. I do not want to make the correction myself, since English is not my mother tongue.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hamza Alaoui, I did not change the introduction: change as you wish. Fabien Gatti (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"Oriental metaphysics" ?

I highly doubt the usefulness of an entire section on "Oriental metaphysics". This brochure is essentially the reproduction of a lecture given at the Sorbonne, the subject of which is taken up by Guénon in another book ("Hindu doctrines"). To devote an entire section to this conference when the article is already far too long seems to me a questionable choice. Numwide (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

content dispute

Hey, Numwide and Fabien Gatti, you are both skating on thin ice here. I'm not going to get into a content dispute, but I'd highly recommend to both of you that you immediately stop reverting huge sections of text. That's just disruptive.

I recommend you start by discussing one item at a time in a single section. You both seem to think there are major issues here; pick one and discuss it instead of trying to discuss everything at once. Stop filling the talk with walls of text; if you can't say it in five sentences, you're biting off too big a chunk. If necessary discuss one source at a time in a single section. Start using edit summaries religiously; enable Preferences>Editing>Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. —valereee (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi —valereee, thanks for your intervention: as you can see I stopped reverting sections. Please make clear that reliable secondary sources are mandatory for an wikipedia article. Fabien Gatti (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear —valereee, as you can read at the end of the section above, Fabien Gatti and I will be working on the article together. Thank you. Numwide (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Policy is at WP:RSPRIMARY. Both secondary and tertiary sources can be used, but using primary sources often results in WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, which we don't do here. Numwide, I see that you've done some editing as an IP, but since we can't go over your past edits, we can't know how much you really understand about policy. —valereee (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I understood the rules on sources, especially on the fact that they must also be diverse. Thank you. Numwide (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Numwide, not sure what you mean by especially on the fact that they must also be diverse. —valereee (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You need secondary and teritary references, but do not focus the writing on a small selection of these references, it must be diversified while remaining admissible. Numwide (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Numwide, I think you're talking about including differing viewpoints on a particular point? Yes, we do want to do that, without giving undue weight to any that are not generally accepted. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. The fact you can find some extremely minor viewpoint somewhere does not mean it needs to be included. —valereee (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's an example: The section in the article about Shakespeare makes only a very brief mention of the question of authorship, even though a ton has been published about it. WP treats it as a fringe theory, and we have a separate article on that fringe theory. We barely go into it at all at Shakespeare. —valereee (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Numwide (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Eastern Metaphysics section

@talk: Dear Fabien, do you think the section on "Eastern Metaphysics" is really necessary? It is an introduction to his book on Hindu doctrines. This publication is of historical interest, but the theoretical content is rather in the book. Numwide (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Numwide: I am not going to work with you if you refuse wikipdia rules. You have rejected my changes without any good reason. You claim to use sources that are not admissible (until now you have not used any secondary source). I am closer to P. Geay than to Bisson and vivenza, but you have to understand that you cannot write an article on Guénon from a fanatical point of view. You could be a Muslim, but you cannot write an article on wikipedia on Islam from a stake muuslim point of view. You have first to explain why you rejected my changes based on reliable sources. It is explicitly written that this article has a problem: it is not based on reliable secondary sources. You have to explain first your arguments: "I don't like what you wrote, readers have to read the books to have their own opinion" and the fact that you refuse to use academic sources. This is totally contradictory to wikipedia rules. You are currently vandalizing this article and just slowing down the process of getting a reliable article on Guénon. I am probably closer to Guénon's thought as you, but you have to understand that we have to follow wikipedia's rules.

As regards "Eastern Metaphysics", you perfectly know that the problem is not the book: the content is extremely important and indenepent on the book. This is the proof that you don't want to describe the real real content of Guénon's thought. We can change the title and put another name. Fabien Gatti (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's not accuse one another of vandalism; that's counterproductive to collaborative work, and requires a very compelling diff. —valereee (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, FG, please indent correctly on talk pages. Guidelines are at WP:TPG. —valereee (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please give argument according to Wikipedia rules. You don’t give any reliable secondary source. Please agree with Wikipedia rules. I am very patient. It can take years. If you don’t agree with Wikipedia rules you just will slow down down the process with several years. I think we agree about the importance of Guénon. Just try to think on how to proceed. Fabien Gatti (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Fabien Gatti, I fear that the use of words like "fanatic" inconspicuously attached to that of "Muslim" strongly indicates a collaborative attitude on your part. Also, where did I write that I didn't want to follow Wikipedia's rules? I am forgetting all this but watch your language please. Now, to get to the heart of the matter: on "Oriental metaphysics", you know very well that one of the sources, in this case Chacornac, describes the importance of "Hindu Doctrines" by recalling that it is the first book of Guénon. Most secondary sources on Guénon (Chacornac, Robin when he was reasonable, etc.) describe "Hindu doctrines" as Guénon's first major work. Eastern Metaphysics is rarely cited, except perhaps by your three favorite authors, but it seems to me that there is rather unanimity on the "hindu doctrines" as a fundamental introduction. Now concerning initiation. Please reread your text. It's practically a sumary of Bisson's. Another reference, that of Erik Sablé ("R. Guénon, Le Visage de l'éternité"), does not present things at all in the successive way you have chosen: first the qualifications, then the transmission etc. . E. Sablé simply givesa definition of initiation as Guénon wrote it. It's shorter, more readable, and more centered. In addition, your always Bissonian reference "to initiation vs politics is in my opinion an unshared opinion of Bisson. Numwide (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I repeat that I see that it is obvious that wikipedia rules are not respected at all: as written at the top of the article the article is based on on primary sources and not on reliable secondary sources (expect the biography). Numwide wants to write the article on primary sources only and just pretended that he/she will include sources in the future that are not admissible at all (P. Geay who claims that we have to believe Guénon word by word and who published a review what that does exist any more: I am probably the only one here who read this review here and until now no reference has been added). My changes, that are based on reliable sources have been removed, in contradiction with the most basic rules of wikipedia. The objective readers of wikipedia will understand that this article cannot remain as it is and will have to be rewritten (on the long term if some contributors continue to block any change). I am not going to reverse the changes since I don't believe this is the good way to proceed on wikipedia.

I mentioned "muslim", but I could have said buddhist, hindou, christian or Jewish: what you say is a pure wrong intention. I cited in the article in French Erik Sablé, whose book I like very much and there is nothing in my text linked to Bisson's political interpretations. Once more, what you write is purely subjective and has nothing to do with wikipedia rules. Best wishes, Fabien Gatti (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes. Fabien Gatti (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you please try to read more carefully? I haven't removed any of your references, they are all in the text, as you can easily see. I actually changed your text on the initiation part because I find it contrary to the WP principle: WP:FALSEBALANCE. I maintain that these are paraphrases from the point of view of one author, Bisson. In addition, I have just added a reference (there will be many others), that of Sablé. Are you really sure it's a primary source ? If so, there is a serious editing problem on your side. I'm sorry, but I have more and more the impression that you want to monopolize this article by throwing at your opponents the argument of not respecting the rules. Numwide (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Give up

I give up with for this article temporarily. As a spiritual practitioner, I don't want to be wright for the sake of being wright. My goal was to give a clear description of Guénon's thought to motivate some people to read Guénon using wikipedia rules. There is a way to present the extremely important work of Guénon without making an original work or presenting his work based on his devotees (something that cannot be admissible for wikipedia), but people like Numwide are not clever enough to understand this (what he writes is fine: he simply does not understand that he has to follow wikipedia rules even for Guénon) and the administrators are not courageous enough to support my point of view. I let you do what you want: I will change this perhaps in 20 years when people like Numwide will be exhausted to feed their ego with this article. Good luck. Fabien Gatti (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Waow. I am still quite amazed that your knowledge of Wikipedia rules has notoriously missed WP:NPA. Look, I'm going to continue working on this article and we'll discuss it here if you don't agree. Numwide (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Fabien Gatti, Numwide is correct that it's best to focus on the edits rather than the editor. (And Numwide, you need to brush up on that, too.) FB, I don't have the knowledge or access to sources to have any way to judge whether what Numwide is adding represents OR, but if you believe it does, you might ask for a third opinion from someone on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/participants, or look through the editing history here to find someone who has edited this article in the past and as still active. Do you have Preferences>Gadgets>Browing>Navigation popups enabled? That allows you to hover over names on the list to find someone who is both experienced and see if they'veh edited recently. —valereee (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"Non Human"

Hi User: Hamza Alaoui I undid your modification because it's the doctrines that are qualified by Guénon as "non-human". It's a translation of the Sanskrit word "apauruṣeya". If you read the sources given here the word refers to the doctrines. Regards, Numwide (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Numwide, I agree that RG qualifies the doctrines as "non human", as you say, but why is it written "non-individual"? Do you want to enter the correction? Regards,--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi User: Hamza Alaoui. It seems to me that it is indeed the terms "non-individual" which are used by Guénon (at least in the English translation). I check. Numwide (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User: Hamza Alaoui Hindu doctrines, part I, chapter V. On several occasions, the word "individual" is used. You are right in the sense that "non human" could also be used. I change it if you wish. Numwide (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Numwide, I made a research in the French pdf of the book you mention and found 2 occurences for "non-human" and none for "non-individual". For instance: "C'est pourquoi l'origine du Vêda est dite apaurushêya, c'est-à-dire « non-humaine » (This is why the origin of the Vêda is called apaurushêya, i.e. "non-human")". Thank you for your correction. Regards,--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User: Hamza Alaoui It's in the book "Hindu doctrines", p. 132: "peu importe que la tradition ait été exprimée ou formulée par tel ou tel individu, celui-ci n'en est point l'auteur pour cela, dès lors que cette tradition est essentiellement d'ordre supra-individuel." Both terms are OK anyway. We keep yours if you wish. Cheers, Numwide (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Voice and tone

The voicing and tone of this article presupposes the reader is a true believer and adjacent to esotericism, it presents itself as though Guenón’s work is made up of observations of consensual reality and not esoteric and possibly untrue statements. This is especially concerning due to the editorial ties this article has to a far right antisemitic conspiracy theory sock account and Guenón’s own popularity with the alt right.

I think a warning about article neutrality is easily warranted just from this entry’s history of edit wars and the obvious issues it has reading the talk page, I don’t know how or if i can add one myself so please someone else/moderators do it if you agree. Thanks. Dayofthecope (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said before (see in the archive), there is a problem with this article, indeed.

I had started to rewrite the article with a lot of secondary sources as in the article I wrote

in French, but another contributor

replaced, in a systematic way, the secondary sources by primary sources and, of course,

it leads to an "original work" that loses the neutral point ov view.

It indeed gives the feeling that the reader is presupposed to believe that what Guénon says

is true.

I have asked one administrator to stop this, but it seems that the administrators

of wikipedia in English do not know that an article based on primary sources only

is an "original work" and can not be acceptable in wikipedia.

That being said, I want to add these points:

1) there is an academic consensus that René Guénon does not belong to the far-right

in general and to any antisemitic political movement (I will not repeat the discussion

and the numerous citations that you can find in the archive). Guénon even denied explicitly

the existence of an antisemitic conspiracy. The fact that his work was highjacked by

some people from the far-right does not change anything.

2) perhaps the only secondary source that does not come from me is indeed antisemitic: ref. [159].

This source is not valid. The author has even been ejected from "guenonian" groups because

of his antisemitic evolution that only reflects the development of anti-Semitism

in the Muslim world and has nothing to do with Guénon.

The use of this reference proves that the contributor that changed the article has no clue

about the nature of the sources that he/she is using.

I will only modify the article to make it a neutral and acceptable article

(as for the wikipedia article in French that I wrote)

if I have the guarantee that my work is not systematically

destroyed and sabotaged as this was the case until now. Fabien Gatti (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)