Talk:Frithjof Schuon#NPOV Template

@Prezbo you added this template, however this article copied in Word format (without bibliography, reference, photos etc.) totals only 12 pages. Whereas similar ones e.g. Julius Evola=17, René Guénon=22, Immanuel Kant=23. What is your basis for tagging this article as too long? Is there an objective criterion that you are using that everyone should follow and warrant the same tag being applied to all those pages I mentioned and more? LeonardoVisconte (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I just found it to be a slog, in terms of the reading experience. That probably has more to do with the prose style than the length per se. If you want to replace or remove the template then that’s fine. Prezbo (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Prezbo...I appreciate the clarification and will go ahead and remove that template. LeonardoVisconte (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prezbo I also notice that you deleted "According to Harry Oldmeadow..." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frithjof_Schuon&diff=prev&oldid=1290745426]." I believe that these synonyms can be a valuable help to readers who know one or more of these expressions to better understand what FS means by “primordial wisdom." Do you agree? LeonardoVisconte (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:As written it sounds like this is Oldmeadow’s view, not Schuon’s. If Oldmeadow is attributing this view to Schuon I would try to make that clearer. Prezbo (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Prezbo, Thank you for your thoughts, that makes sense. I will consider ways we can make the attribution clearer. LeonardoVisconte (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prezbo...I also note that you removed the example of Schuon's poetry. Was there a specific reason you decided to do that? As FS was a prolific poet who composed over 3,000 poems late in life it seems an important aspect to touch upon. Many WP articles on poets for example; William Wordsworth, Geoffrey Chaucer, Emily Dickinson include one or more samples of their poetry. LeonardoVisconte (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:It seemed hagiographic to me, especially for someone who wasn’t primarily known as a poet, but it’s an editorial judgment call so I won’t press the point. Prezbo (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you @Prezbo...it seems to me that given the scope of the opus, it is a worthy addition even though you are correct that FS was not primarily known as a poet. For readers and researchers however, an example gives a sense of the type of poetry he composed and remains helpful context given the sheer volume of poems he authored. LeonardoVisconte (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prezbo....you also added the NPOV template. Could you give me some specific examples of non-neutral passages so that we can try to make them more neutral? LeonardoVisconte (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sure.

:1. From the age of ten, his search for truth led him to read not only the Bible but also the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gītā and the Quran, as well as Plato, Emerson, Goethe and Schiller. Schuon would later say that in his early youth four things had always moved him most profoundly: "the holy, the great, the beautiful, the childlike."

:2. He then immersed himself in the world of the Bhagavad-Gītā and the Vedānta; this call of Hinduism sustained him for ten years, though he was perfectly aware that he could not become Hindu himself. In 1924, while still living in Mulhouse, he discovered the works of the French philosopher René Guénon, which served to confirm his intellectual intuitions and provided support for the metaphysical principles he had begun to discover.

:3. Schuon reported that one night in July 1934, while immersed in reading the Bhagavad-Gītā, he experienced an extraordinary spiritual event. He said that the divine Name Allāh took possession of his being, and that for three days he could do nothing but invoke it ceaselessly. Shortly afterwards, he learned that his Sheikh had died on the same day.

:4. In 1991, one of Schuon's followers accused him of misconduct during collective gatherings. A preliminary investigation was begun, but the chief prosecutor concluded that there was no proof, noting that the plaintiff was of extremely dubious character and had been previously condemned for making false statements in another similar affair in California. The prosecutor declared that there were no grounds for prosecution, and the local press made amends. Some articles and books, including Mark Sedgwick's Against the Modern World, discuss this event and the related "primordial" practices of the Bloomington community.

:The general tone of the article is rather "apologetic" and reads as if it was written by one of Schuon's devotees rather than an encyclopedia writer aiming for neutrality. Maybe template:tone would have been a better choice though, I'll change it now. Prezbo (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Prezbo I will give some thought as to how these passages might be modified to increase neutrality. LeonardoVisconte (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Prezbo, allow me to number your 4 examples, so that it will be easier to refer to them. And I'm deleting the references so they don't unnecessarily clutter up the bottom of the Talk Page when text will be added. I know we shouldn't edit someone else's post, but I'm sure you understand why I did it. Regards--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::No worries. Prezbo (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Prezbo. Regarding your example no. 4, which passages would not comply with WP principles?--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:The whole passage could be improved I think. It's very vague about what Schuon was accused of, and it bends over backwards to assure the reader that whatever he was charged with, he was definitely innocent. I don't know the details of the case but from reading Sedgwick's book it sounded like the situation was more ambiguous, although he doesn't say much about it either. Prezbo (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::I tracked down my copy of Sedgwick's Against the Modern World and what he says about this seems pretty damning at first glance. It's kindle edition so I can't figure out the page number, sorry--search for "nudity" and you'll find it. I'll read more closely and try to summarize later. Prezbo (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::To briefly summarize Sedgwick's account: after setting up an intentional community in Inverness, Indiana, (near Bloomington), Schuon moved away from Islamic practices towards a more Native American-inflected form of spirituality. He instituted some secret esoteric practices which involved ritual nudity or very revealing dress. The Inverness community had a hothouse atmosphere with a lot of intrigue, gossip, and infighting. A discontented follower went to police with charges that Schuon was organizing ceremonial gatherings where he "would embrace women present, including some under the age of 16, in such a way that their genitals might briefly touch." He was indicted for child molestation and sexual battery but the charges were later dropped for insufficient evidence. However the incident harmed Schuon's reputation in Traditionalist and Sufi circles, and he largely retired from public life afterwards--he was quite old at this point. Prezbo (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Prezbo Thank you for your thoughts here. Regarding this section, I do think it is important to note that in order to retain a more neutral point of view and tone I think that the most appropriate sources for this section are the documented media accounts of the incident as Sedwick seems to rely heavily on biased sources while admitting on page viii "...some sections of this book depend more on guesswork than usual" which renders his accounts somewhat sensationalist and suspect. From my reading of the available unbiased primary documents surrounding these events, it seems reasonably clear that a disgruntled disciple with an ax to grind set out with the intention to ruin FS' reputation. The dismissal of all of the charges along with the prosecutor's statement that there was "not one shred of evidence to support the charges...aside from the testimony of one man" and subsequent apology are helpful context.

::::In reviewing this section, with the intention of not being either sensationalist or libelous one could argue that not enough space is given to the specific allegations, however as these were summarily dismissed by the prosecutor, one would have to say something like "was falsely accused of ..." which seems altogether less encyclopedic than the current text. LeonardoVisconte (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Libel is a legal term that I don't think applies here, but I will say we want to avoid "blackwashing" as well as whitewashing. Both are common on Wikipedia. Sedgwick's book is more reliable than the original media reports, which he presumably encountered and evaluated in the course of his research--it was published by a university press. Wikipedia's editorial guidelines are weighted towards secondary sources (like Sedgwick's book) rather than primary sources --see Wikipedia:PSTS. The fact that no charges were ultimately filed doesn't mean the allegations were false. If the prosecutor apologized I'm not opposed to noting that. We should make clear what Schuon was accused of. I think the information summarized above about the theology, ritual practices, and general atmosphere of the Bloomington group, as well as the effect this incident had on Schuon's career, is also helpful context for the average reader. Prezbo (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::This paragraph has already been discussed on this page and given, on the one hand, that the accuser was motivated by Schuon's refusal to bless his relationship with a married woman and, on the other, that the prosecutor dismissed the charge, it was found more honnest and thus more encyclopedic to use the word “misconduct”, rather than relying on Sedgwick's account, which is based solely on Schuon's opponents declarations. And for the readers who want to know more, the following sentence was added: "Some articles and books, including Mark Sedgwick's Against the Modern World, discuss this event and the related "primordial" practices of the Bloomington community." The fact that Schuon was accused for child molestation and sexual battery means nothing because anyone can be accused of anything and, as one knows, “the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of law that states a person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty”; and, as Sedgwick writes, “even [the accuser] now accepts that Schuon’s intentions were not primarily about sex”. So this time I cannot agree with Prezbo when he says that "we should make clear what Schuon was accused of". Regards,--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Do you also think that OJ Simpson's article shouldn't mention that he was put on trial for murder? In this case the legal proceedings didn't go as far, but I think standard Wikipedia practice is say what crime someone is accused of in a situation where charges are filed. If no one else chimes in I'll try to find some other articles where charges were dropped and see how they handle it. I would also disagree that Sedgwick's account is based solely on Schuon's opponent's declarations, it seems like he talked to a few people inside the community. Anyway I would return to my point that Sedgwick's book is a more reliable source according to normal Wikipedia standards than the original news stories. I'll read the earlier discussion for context but the fact that something was discussed in the past doesn't mean it's settled once and for all. Prezbo (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Looking at the talk page archives, I do see this topic was brought up before, most recently in 2018, but the discussions had limited participation and don't really offer resources for resolving the current issue. I could ping participants in earlier discussions and see if they want to weigh in. I think if this was a higher-traffic article there wouldn't be a dispute here. Prezbo (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Other Wikipedia articles where we state the charges, even though they were dropped:

::::::::*Marie Avgeropoulos

::::::::*Justin Roiland

::::::::*Aaron Swartz

::::::::*Vincenzo Guzzo

::::::::*Joseph Tapine

::::::::I'm sure many others could be found. Prezbo (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I was also able to find this source on Google Books which names the charges:

::::::::*Curtis, Edward E. "Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History". Infobase Publishing. 2010. [https://books.google.com/books?id=owZCMZpYamMC&pg=PA503&dq=frithjof+schuon+bloomington+battery&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbiPSP0eaNAxW9M1kFHWIYDqwQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=frithjof%20schuon%20bloomington%20battery&f=false Page 503].

::::::::It cites Sedgwick's book among the references, so perhaps not a new source of information, but further evidence that Sedgwick is considered reliable by other scholars. I apologize for leaving multiple comments, it's just how I think. Prezbo (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Prezbo, we started a discussion with a view to reaching a consensus. I am therefore astonished by your disrespect for your two interlocutors. I therefore delete your changes and ask you to propose them in the Talk Page.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's been two days since the last comment in this thread, how long did you want me to wait? If you have more to say then go ahead. Prezbo (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Prezbo, I think the best I can do is insert your proposed text in my sandbox [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hamza_Alaoui/sandbox8] and give you my opinion in the coming days. There are Wikipedians who spend their days in the company of WP, but that's not my case, so please give me a few days to reply, since your proposal requires some thought. Perhaps LeonardoVisconte will also give his opinion.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I appreciate the timeline. I understand that not everyone lives on Wikipedia and I can wait a few days, but I also know that sometimes Wikipedia disputes take a long time to resolve and I'm trying to move things along. Prezbo (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Hamza Alaoui..I agree this would be the most appropriate way to move forward. In utilizing this Talk Page, I was attempting to take @Prezbo's concerns into account and see if a consensus on neutral language could be reached. We should take the time to properly consider the proposed changes. My intention was to create new topics for each of @Prezbo's concerns which I am happy to collaborate on via the sandbox. Other edits, for example the removal of some of the most prominent/important Perennialist authors from the "See Also" section should be reverted in my opinion as they remain central to the topic. LeonardoVisconte (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::This is a separate topic but per the Wikipedia manual of style, people (or other topics) that are already linked in the article body shouldn't be linked in the "See Also" section. See WP:SEE ALSO. Prezbo (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@LeonardoVisconte, why did you write your message in my sandbox? I copy it hereunder.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Hamza Alaoui..my mistake, I had the wrong talk page open. LeonardoVisconte (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hamza Alaoui, I am not sure where you are in preparing your response to @Prezbo, but I have finished a draft that generally follows his suggestion and incorporates some of the discussion on the FS talk page. Ideally, I would insert it below his suggestion in your sandbox. Would that be an appropriate next step? LeonardoVisconte (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::LeonardoVisconte, I am also working on a draft, but I’ll be interested to see yours. It's a good idea to insert it in my sandbox below Prezbo's text: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hamza_Alaoui/sandbox8].--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Hamza Alaoui...the text has been added to your sandbox. I will look forward to your comments. LeonardoVisconte (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It looks good to me, but you should also have asked Prezbo. No doubt we will soon hear from him.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Indeed. I edited the article to incorporate new text that I'm OK with. We can go through it sentence-by-sentence if needed. There were also some other changes I made that Harza Alaoui rolled back, that would be the next order of business. And also the lead. Prezbo (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Concerning the lead, could you wait until tomorrow? I'll give you my opinion. Thanks.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Sure. Prezbo (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Prezbo, in order to understand your motivations, can you explain why you think it is appropriate to add to the lead the episode of that charge since the prosecutor found that there was a miscarriage of justice, and the charges were dropped? The only thing that is certain is that a former disciple accused Schuon, but it's such a common and banal thing that I really don't see why it should be included in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article's important points. We do not seek to capture the attention of readers fond of tabloid journalism, do we? Thanks for your explanations.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:The lead reflects the body—are you OK with the body text as it stands now? If not, we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Prezbo (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::On second thought, forget about the lead. Honestly, I'm going back and forth on whether it should be included there or not, so I'll leave it for someone else to fight that battle. So I would just return to the question of the existing text in the article body, and the other changes I made that you rolled back, most of which weren't directly related to this topic as I recall. Prezbo (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Prezbo, In the body text, I respectfully disagree with your last sentence "...and he largely retired from public life afterward" as 1.) That was not a conclusion reached by the source (Sedgwick) and 2.) Having read all the existing biographies of FS, he never had what one could term a "public life," so he could not have retired from it.  If you have found a different statement within Sedgwick, could you provide the page number or otherwise, delete that last sentence? LeonardoVisconte (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think I know what you mean but I would disagree that he didn't have a public life. If he was just a private citizen nobody would be writing about him, including Wikipedia. Sedgwick says that "Schuon, now an old and evidently a troubled man, wrote to his principal muqaddams announcing that he was retiring from directing the Maryamiyya and that they should proceed independently." Maybe my phrasing was bad but I think that's worth mentioning. I'll amend the article and you can give me your revised opinion. Prezbo (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree that the article, as it was, needed some pruning to make it more neutral. In addition to Prezbo’s examples, I would add the sentence: “His father, an amiable and distinguished man, was a concert violinist, and the household was one in which not only music but literary and spiritual culture were present.” The reference to “an amiable and distinguished man” is subjective and unnecessarily laudatory and should be deleted.

::::However, WP cannot consider the Hugh Urban article as a reliable source. Urban is an academic, but that doesn’t mean he is being honest or objective. He starts his article by writing: “Schuon’s community progressively grew into an eccentric religious synthesis, combining a variety of Eastern religions, apocalyptic imagery, esoteric sexual practices, and a great deal of symbolism drawn from Native American traditions. At the center of the community was a form of ritual dance, based primarily on the Sun Dance of the Oglala Sioux—though fairly radically reinterpreted through Schuon’s metaphysical system. Indeed, by synthesizing the Sun Dance with Islamic mysticism and Tantric sexual yoga, Schuon professed to have revealed the universal core of all religions. His dance was sup- posed to have symbolized nothing less than the Divine Self (Atman)—the sacred Center or Sun at the hub of all existence—which lies motionless amidst the transient “play of masks” of the phenomenal world (Maya), represented by the Circle of naked dancers.” Yet for all of this he gives no source other than: “See Schuon, The Play of Masks 41ff + “The Sun Dance,” Studies in Comparative Religion.” However, if you read these two sources, you will see there is absolutely no reference by Schuon to these practices. Moreover, so far as I know, neither Sedgwick nor any other source—whether hostile, neutral, or friendly—corroborates Urban’s claims. I thus ask you to delete this source, which shouldn’t be a problem given that the Curtis and Sedgwick references you mention suffice. Well-knownBugler (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Urban's article is unsympathetic to Schuon but that doesn't make it unreliable. As you say, he's an academic, as were the editors of the book where his essay appeared, though I do see it wasn't published by an academic press. That's enough by normal Wikipedia standards. I don't have an opinion on his assessment of Schuon's religious beliefs and practices, but that's not what we're citing him for, we're citing him for the one-page summary of the charges against Schuon that appears as an appendix at the end of his article. In that capacity it's a useful citation because he talked to people involved and read the court documents and participant memoirs. It's useful to have an another perspective on these charges from a trained academic aside from Sedgwick. Curtis cites Sedgwick and his article is much shorter so it's not really a replacement for Urban. Prezbo (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I will continue to think about the Urban article. For now, I eliminated the unnecessary "amiable and distinguished man" clause, and I made a minor change to the discussion of Schuon's retirement, adding some specificity and an additional source. Well-knownBugler (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Prezbo, I agree with @Well-knownBugler Citing Urban does not add anything meaningful as the charges are documented in Sedgwick which is already cited. Urban's article lacks the necessary scholarship to be used as a reference here, in addition many of the source documents he cites in the appendix are not readily verifiable or available. This combined with his misappropriation of sources in the body of his article, does make him unreliable and therefore questionable. I have for these reasons removed that reference. LeonardoVisconte (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with WB and LV that Urban’s paper should not appear in the FS article. Not because he criticizes FS, of course -everyone has this right-, but because he does it with dishonesty and perversity. I read the whole document and I’ve noticed that he numerous times distorts the content of his sources, either intentionally (in many cases) or by lack of discernment, of intelligence. WP insists that we don't deviate from what the sources say, so we must demand the same of an author before taking him/her as a source.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:I’ll take this to the reliable sources noticeboard and see if we can generate consensus that way. Prezbo (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Prezbo, the lead now says: "where he established a community of followers near Bloomington, Indiana". But the article says: "settling in Bloomington, Indiana, where there was already a large community of disciples". --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll change the lead. Prezbo (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prezbo..I am starting a new section to here to discuss some improvements to the text for neutrality. It may be easier to tackle these separately as time allows.

First example:

1. From the age of ten, his search for truth led him to read not only the Bible but also the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gītā and the Quran, as well as Plato, Emerson, Goethe and Schiller. Schuon would later say that in his early youth four things had always moved him most profoundly: "the holy, the great, the beautiful, the childlike."

Suggested changes:

Beginning at the age of ten, he read various spiritual and philosophical texts including the Bible, Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gītā and the Quran, as well as Plato, Emerson, Goethe and Schiller. Schuon later reflected that in his early youth, four concepts had a profound impact on him: "the holy, the great, the beautiful, the childlike."

This is a more neutral treatment. What do you think? LeonardoVisconte (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:LeonardoVisconte, I edited this paragraph in the main page a few hours before your post, but you probably didn't see it; it goes in the same direction as your proposal, which seems fine for me. Let's see what Prezbo says. Upanishads doesn't need an article? (English is not my mother-tongue as you certainly noticed.)--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think this is closer to Wikipedia’s standard prose style, but I would cut the last sentence entirely. It’s basically telling the reader that Schuon was attuned to the holy and beautiful throughout his life without communicating much concrete information about what he was like as a child. See Simone Weil for an example of an article about a modern religious figure that does a better job of conveying what their childhood was like. Prezbo (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

In reading about the court case you find references to Schuon's "spiritual wives." This is another thing the article should probably cover. Prezbo (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)