Talk:Esotericism
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Esotericism article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Untitled
[change source]For being linked ON THE MAIN PAGE, this article is exceedingly short. 66.215.20.28 (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Make it longer? ;) --Eptalon (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- What a great idea, Eptalon. :P Way to keep the spirit up. :) -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- 3 and a half years later, it's still inadequate, what's going on? 65.117.146.2 (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- 11 years later and it's still short :p
- …and bad. Tesseract71 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- t’inquiète quand tu auras l’âge de ta prof d’histoire géo tu verras que l’article n’a de longueur que par le temps et non par le nombre de caractères.(-: Teofsci (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
 | This article contains a translation of Esotericism from en.wikipedia. |
Short and abrasively wrong
[change source]This is very obviously written by someone out of spite of the topic, probably a member of one of the "Abrahamic religions" they mention in the last of the article's 3 total sentences. I mean, the opening sentence is a misappropriated partial take from the Oxford dictionary and clearly colors their bias. This is particularly harmful on a simple English page. The entire thing is woefully short and incorrect, attempting to paint the topic as something bad ("knowledge only for a few people" which is patently false, and then giving no context or sources for claiming major religions broadly label it as "black magic", which is true in a specific historical sense but not an absolute, especially on an individual level).
Please, it is incredibly unproductive to have broad topic pages lack clarity and insight like this, but then again, that was probably the point of the original author. Tesseract71 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- serait tu croyant(e)?sans être agressif Teofsci (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)