Talk:Occult science

Latest comment: 7 years ago by David Tornheim in topic Adding RS


Bunch of Theories

edit

Capital T is not a misspelling! Statements in the article are dubious. Occult science is just a word, not the concept. Article is completely unnecessary, it contains original research or original idea. --Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

edit

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Occult science/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Class: Stub, broad information, lacks specific characterization of concepts for casual reader. No Cites, unsourced, and leaning toward an essay or WP:OR

Import: In current format the article is specialized within Occult studies.

--Trippz (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding RS

edit

@Layzner: @Rhododendrites: @Midnightblueowl: I am trying to collect some of the WP:RS that was described in the WP:AfD and add it to the article, if appropriate. I haven't figured out the best way to add it. I am open to suggestions. (If it is redirected the same issue will come up).

Essays/Articles:

  • Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2013). "The Notion of "Occult Sciences" in the Wake of the Enlightenment". Retrieved 6 March 2017. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (added)
  • Olcott, Henry Steel, "Theosophy, Religion and Occult Science" [1]
  • Grafton, Anthony Secrets of Nature
  • Newman, William R. [2]
  • Steiner, Rudolf [3]
  • Steiner, Rudolf [4]
  • Wilson, Leigh, Modernism and Magic, Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2012 [5]
  • Scientific American: [6], [7]
  • Possibly useful: [8]

Already in the article, but mostly without in-line references:


Writers:

Related Subjects:

--David Tornheim (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply