Talk:Charles Webster Leadbeater/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leadbeater followers trying to whitewash this page[edit]

Those who espouse leadbetter's ideas, or very similar ones, have for a long time now, been carrying out a concerted effort to keep perpetually white washing this article, and taking pains to obfuscate their motivations, but the motivations are still quite glaringly obvious (for the same reason they don't see the lies, they perpetuate them: the subtly between the truth and a lie that sounds very similar to it, is lost on them.)

Gay Church?[edit]

I have read an anthology/book on gay history (circa 1996), which says that Charles Webster Leadbeater "created the first gay church" in 1916. I did not see anything about this on the wikipedia article and wanted to know if it is true or not. See pg. 343 of The Gay Almanac. Compiled by the National Museum & Archives of Lesbian and Gay History. Paperback Edition June, 1996.

Untitled[edit]

The two dates are important to astrologers who may want to cast a day chart on CWL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PriesltyKnight (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Improvements[edit]

Astrologers may want to cast a day chart on either date of birth for their own research.

In continuing to improve this article, in the section subtitled Return to England, I would pray for permission to delete the paragraph on the seven-year date of birth discrepancy on the grounds that readers of CWL's books today could not care less whether he was born in 1847 or 1854. Therefore this issue is irrelevant. Oliviera (www.cwlworld.info/Cwl Bio) suggests that this change may have taken place in the early eithties before Leadbeater traveled to India. We will never know and it does not matter today anyway. I would also pray for permission to delete the section subtitled Occult Powers because neither CWL or Annie Besant had any "occult powers." They both had only reliable, clear and consistent clairvoyant perception. Thirdly, an accusation is nothing and should not be repeated unless it was followed by sufficient credible evidence and a conviction, in the absence of which, as in this case, the repitition of such accusation is tantamount to a slander. Therefore, I would pray for permission to rephrase the following subtitle from Accused of Pederasty to Confronts Victorian Narrowness, which puts the 1906 affair in better perspective.RAmesbury (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Whomever:

As a "newbie" to Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia.


I think my additions to the pedophile claims are fair, accurate, well documented and impartial. I do not refute the allegations that were levied against CWL, and provide a contrasting point of view from a reputable source, and then let the reader decide for themselves what to think. The way some of the various articles are posted about C.W.L., are basically, one side, narrow in focus and present a distorted picture of things and actually boarders on character defamation, which I think is still illegal in most parts of the world. I think you, and others of Wikipedia community can see by my ability to cite from a large number of reputable sources and that, that content I add to this listing of C.W. Leadbeater will create a more complete and accurate picture of his life.

Blessings of Love, Light, Peace and Goodwill to you and yours. Priestly Knight P.S. Please see quoted text below for rules on articles.

"For article specific questions or discussions on NPOV please go to the Neutral POV noticeboard.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles., I have a learning curve I am on.

I have found that the following rules apply to all articles onNeutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia.

For article specific questions or discussions on NPOV please go to the Neutral POV noticeboard.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia.

For article specific questions or discussions on NPOV please go to the Neutral POV noticeboard.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles."

Intended Improvements[edit]

This is an invitation to all to improve this Wiki article. A biographical article should be positive and kind.

So you'll be editing the Hitler article? Yes, I know, Godwin's law, blah, blah.
Do you know anyone at all who has been accused of teaching pubescent boys to masturbate?
Do you know anyone at all who thinks pubescent boys NEED to be TAUGHT to masturbate?
Do you think Leadbetter was a kid-toucher? If your answer is no, Krishnamurti, an eye-witness, contradicts you.
Booyah!!!!


Enough is enough of smears and insinuations. The time for CWL's detractors to put up or shut up was 100 years ago. 
Yesterday I managed to upload a benign 1914 photo of CWL. Today I will delete the word alleged before the word
clairvoyance in the introductory sentence as even titilating Tillett in his biography of rumors and insinuations accepted
that CWL WAS clairvoyant.  No reasonable person who reads only a few of CWL's books, in all their meticulous detail,
could conclude otherwise. RAmesbury 12:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphiwn (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ALL clairvoyance is alleged.


For introduction.........................................

CHARLES WEBSTER LEADBEATER 1847 - 1934

C.W. Leadbeater (C.W.L) was one of the most controversial occultists of his time. His biography shows at the same time multiple periods both professionally and spiritually, all lived with surprising energy, but with one single goal: the service of humanity.

Gregory Tillett, his most noted biographer tells us in The Elder Brother "The world's greatest occultist and psychic, and a living saint? Or the worst sort of charlatan, con-man and sex-pervert? These widely ranging views of Charles Leadbeater were current in his lifetime and even now...." http://www.spiritwritings.com/leadbeater.html

Leadbeater was born February 16, 1854 (some say on February 7, of same year). While a curate in the Church of England in Hampshire, he became interested in Theosophy and eventually left the Church. In 1884 he moved to Adyar, the headquarters of the Theosophical Society near Madras, India. He devoted himself to the cause of Theosophy and the related Liberal Catholic Church for the rest of his life. He traveled in Ceylon with Henry S. Olcott, one of the founders of Theosophy, and publicly professed himself to be a Buddhist. He returned to England in 1890 and became a tutor. After the death of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky in 1891, Leadbeater wielded considerable influence over Annie Besant, Blavatsky's successor, in part due to his reputed clairvoyant abilities. 9http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-webster-leadbeater)

Trained for clairvoyance by an Indian Master, he became one of the prominents researchers in the field of supra-physical human consiousness. He applied is knowledge by supporting several occult mouvements, particularly the Theosophical Society and the co-masonic obedience Le Droit Humain. He was also a Rosicrucian, a Martinist, and a prominent member of the Egyptian Rite of Memphis-Misraïm. His investigations into the unseen dimensions of life have had a far-reaching influence on the contemporary world, one of them being the discovery of the young J. Krishnamurti on the Adyar beach in Madras, India, in 1909, who would later become one of the most respected and insightful spiritual teachers of the twentieth century.(http://www.cwlworld.info/)

With the purpose to spread the spiritual energies of Christ, he was consecrated to the Episcopate, and is considered by many as the co-founder of the Liberal Catholic Church, of which he became the second Presiding Bishop.

C.W.L authored dozens of books and pamphlets on theosophy and related subjects and is also the co-author, with Annie Besant, of a trilogy entitled Talks on the Path of Occultism (1926) which includes their commentaries on the so called three Theosophical gems – At the Feet of the Master, Light on the Path and The Voice of the Silence. http://www.cwlworld.info/html/theosophical_society.html C.W. Leadbeater is an enigma, and those who knew him personally thought him to be a person of extra ordinary compassion, breath of vision, and unconcerned with what the world thought of him.

Defrocked[edit]

I have read a lot of Leadbeater and never read that he was "defrocked" for pederasty. Rather, I believe that he had left the church some time before this charge of having "immoral relations" with boys came about. The link provided seems to be a cheap-shot and not a reliable source. I'll remove this shortly, and hopefully can find something more useful. Discuss. Wjhonson 10:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the section out of the article. Any such accusations should come from a book reference and the details must be right. Web references are not considered reputable sources for such information. See WP:RS. -999 (Talk) 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accused of pederasty[edit]

Leadbeater was accused of pederasty look at the definition of this word) in 1906 and was defrocked as a result.[1]. One such accusation came from Hubert van Hook of Chicago (not correct person), who as an 11 year old was proclaimed by Leadbeater as future World Teacher but at twenty four denounced his mentor for improper relations (where is the factual proof?)[2]. Nonetheless, he was never charged or brought to court (which attests to his innocence), though there is a body of evidence that suggests he had sexual relations with students in the United States, India and Australia. Peter Michel, in his biography of Charles W. Leadbeater, writes that these accusations are suspect as they came from what can be considered as his enemies: Alexander Fullerton, Herbert Burrows, G.R.S. Mead, Hubert van Hook, Katherine Tingley and Hilda Martyn. It has been speculated that an incriminating letter to a young boy attributed to Leadbeater, advising the youth on masturbation methods and signed "Thousand kisses darling", was a forgery by Fullerton.

It is true however that (before 1906), he recommended the practice of masturbation as a prophylactic in certain cases to young boys. But these were ideas that Charles Leadbeater already had before he joined the Theosophical Society and still was a member of the Church.

I'm not necessarily believing that he was defrocked, but the remainder of the section is accurate. Wjhonson 01:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're correct, so you should be able to come up with a citation to a reputable source. Web references are not permitted. -999 (Talk) 02:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is bad form to delete and try to force your *view* of correct editing on others. You are wrong. Web citations for one, are certainly permitted, half of wikipedia is web citations. Secondly every single biog of the man states it. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica states it. Wjhonson 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is my right to do so per WP:V:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Please familiarize yourself more thoroughly with current Wikipedia policies, WP:V and WP:RS, which no longer allows web-only references, particularly for information which is damaging to the subjects reputation. Normally, I would just place a citation tag, but this sort of information should not be in the article until it can be backed up with citations from reputatble biographies, not web articles. -999 (Talk) 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not backed up with web articles. You are deliberately failing to understand. It is mentioned in every, single, biography on or about the man period. Every one. There is not, one, single, comprehensive biography of the movement in this time period, which fails to mention it. Your lack of even the most superficial research, is not my failing. Wjhonson 18:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And your citations to WP:RS do not state that web pages are unreliable sources. Please cite a more specific and exact mention which exactly state this view. Wjhonson 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand all right. You claim it is backed up by biographies, but you who possess them and who added the information, refuse to provide citations to those biographies per WP:V. Removing information until it is properly cited. A passing remark in a book review and an unverifiable website claim without even an author is not sufficient. Use the biographies. -999 (Talk) 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the discussion of the use of online sources. While the first might be reputable, you are refering to a passing remark in an otherwise unrelated book review. I don;t think that is adequate, since not all the information you convey in the paragraph is included. The second web reference is completely unacceptable: it is not on a site like the New York Times or any other reputable site with fact checking. Per policy, such a page my not be used as a citation. It also does not include the informaion related in your paragraph. Please provide a source or sources which verifies ALL of the information in your paragraph. Unverifiable information, such as "some have speculated" without a specific subject, is prohibited per WP:WEASEL - please read it. -999 (Talk) 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't act smug. You have consistently refused to read ANY of the cited biographies in this article. And yet you try to hold yourself up as some editor extraordinaire which you are not. I have *yet* to see this claim backed-up with which you started, that web sources are not credible at all. Now you've backed off that I see. Interesting yes? Furthermore, your use of *policy* is completely at odds with what wiki policy truly is on the use of sources. I suggest you cite the *specific* and *exact* phrase that provides your backup or back-off. Wjhonson 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to read the biographies. I quote The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Also, you have just violated WP:3RR and may now be blocked for 24 hours. You can prevent this by self-reverting. -999 (Talk) 00:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reliable sources. My definition of reliable isn't yours. But it is wikipedias. Which you consistently misquote. Wjhonson 00:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All my quotes of policy have been cut and paste. Please note that you have been reported for violating WP:3RR. Also, I appreciate your additions - citations with page numbers would have been sufficient - but there is still unsupported information in the article and no, your web references are not allowed by WP policy. -999 (Talk) 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sir. You have failed to quote the *exact* phrase from policy. You post to huge pages which do not state at all that web apges are not allowed. You try to beat people with your *policy* which isn't policy at all. Quote the exact policy and point to the exact location and I'll read it. Wiki policy does allow web pages as sources. Wjhonson 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Response[edit]

RFC Response[edit]

It is the responsibility of the editor that believes a fact or quote belongs in the article to produce reliable sources that verify that fact or quote. This is established at Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is too strong to say that Web references are banned, but they are subject to critical evaluation, and are more likely to fail that critical evaluation than print sources.

The Hubert van Hook accusation has [3] offered as a reference. This is not a reliable source. "The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web." There is no evidence visible that this page was published by someone with the requisite credentials and expertise. Working through the site to the maintainers autobiography, the maintainers expertise is in computer programming, not historical research. They are thus not a reliable source for historical research. Since this is not a reliable source, the accusation needs to come out until one is found and cited. Additionally, it is a personal website, as a single person claims authorship/responsibility for the site. WP:RS also states "Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly." This is an independent reason that this citation does not meet the required standard.

The book review [4] is a very weak source, and does not support the first sentence as it is currently written. It contains nothing about the date of defrocking. It is, at best, a dubious source. Book reviews are not fact checked the way scholarly papers and encyclopedias are. It is unclear from the text of the review if the statement about Leadbeater comes from the book under discussion (which the review later describes as "riddled with elementary historical errors that give rise to the suspicion that it cannot have been adequately proofread"), or to the reviewer (I think the second is more likely). The reviewer displays a bias against "Catholics" that are not Roman Catholics throughout the review, and this appears to be a throwaway line that is part of a general attack on non-Roman Catholics, rather than core material. Thus, at best, this is a line by the reviewer that fails this test (from WP:RS "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?").

A Google Book search for "Leadbeater" and "defrocked" returned exactly one hit [5], which when closely read does not say that Leadbeater was defrocked, it says that the person who ordained Leadbeater was ordained by someone who was themselves defrocked. A Google scholar search for those two words returns no hits. I found no reliable sources on a Google Web seatch for "Leadbeater" and "defrocked" excluding "Wikipedia". My guess is that much of this paragraph can be backed up with reliable sources, but since it doesn't have reliable sources cited yet, it doesn't belong in the article yet. GRBerry 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a citation[edit]

I just removed a citation that was being used. It was to an e-mail list. This cant be used. I also removed the proceeding statement, because if i left it in, it wouldnt make sense. Zos 00:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "email list entry" was from the author of the main biography on Leadbeater. You can find it on Amazon to convince yourself. I've added back the book citation. Wjhonson 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Unusual claim[edit]

Anon editor added this which I've removed to this talk page "No source can be found of it though.As of 2006 Priests of the LCCI hired detectives to search records abroad.These so called sources and bodies of evidence do not exsist.It appears to be a simple smear campaine centered around political control of the organization and the fact C.W.Leadbeater disagreed with some of Blavatsky's points in published work correcting it with a more Christian translation.This and helping establish the Old Catholic/ Liberal Catholic Church, Theosophical purists have never forgivin Leadbeater to this day."

I would suggest such an unusual claim requires a source before we can put it on the page, so I reverted it. Please find and add the source for this paragraph, thank you. Wjhonson 03:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of Revision[edit]

Here ends my extensive revision of this article. It is much better now. It is positive, concise and reflects human dignity. All smears and insinuations have been removed. The reinsertion of same will be considered malicious. Thank you all for your cooperation.RAmesbury (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's what you're doing, but are you actually claiming that you aren't following NPOV? The old article might have had problems, but your changes are obviously POV. I'll revert, and add an POV tag in hopes that others might assist in improving the article. --Philosophus T 22:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding you improper revert of my contribution to the C.W. Leadbeater biography, you admit "the old article might have had problems." You add a "POV tag in hopes that others might assist in improving this article." Why don't you be more specific? If you are knowledgeable in this subject then make specific suggestions for improvement. If you are not knowledgeable in this subject then you have no business editing this article. No editor has the right to revert the good faith contribution of another editor. I will undo your improper reverts. Communicate. -- (unsigned comment by User:RAmesbury left on User:Philosophus' user page)
If you have some reason to consider my reversion actually improper per Wikipedia policy, rather than ill-advised or incorrect, then you should explain it. If not, then you should be aware of NPA, and probably should retract that claim. As you can see here, I did give an explanation for my reversion, along general lines, as the specifics should be readily apparent to editors familiar with Wikipedia policy. Your own summary of your revision appears to indicate that you aren't following the NPOV policy, and even a brief look at the changes easily confirms this. In addition, the style of writing doesn't conform to the MOS. If you look at the edit history of the article, you will notice that after I added the POV tag, several editors arrived and started fixing the problems I mentioned might exist. I am not knowledgeable in this particular subject at all, but I am quite knowledgeable on the subject of Wikipedia policy, and can often tell when isn't being followed even for topics I'm not familiar with, so long as the problems are not too subtle. I would highly advise that you read the fundamental policies of Wikipedia, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and so on before trying to make major revisions of articles, as otherwise you will find that much of your work will be in vain. Also, pleas sign your posts with four tildes, and please leave them either on the article talk page if about the article, or my user talk page if concerning only me. My user page, despite being blank and thus rather confusing, isn't the right place to leave comments. --Philosophus T 13:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in complete agreement with Philosophus's revert, with the exception of the placement of the POV tag... is there in reality a POV dispute? What specifically is in dispute? If a dispute exists, let's resolve it here on the talk page and then remove the tag. Dlabtot (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should Wikipedia state as a fact that spirits of the dead visited and trained Charles Leadbeater?[edit]

Concerning this disputed section, is it more appropriate for Wikipedia to state "he received visits and training from some of Blavatsky's Masters." - who were spirits of the dead - or for Wikipedia to state that "he wrote that he received visits and training from some of Blavatsky's Masters." ?

I would go with the latter: "he wrote that he received visits and training from some of Blavatsky's Masters." I don't think the book qualifies as a reliable source on the existence of ghosts, which is as yet unproven. I think claims of their existence fact are, at best, equivalent to the plate tectonics example on WP:FRINGE (Notability and correctness subsection). Should the existence of spirits from the afterlife become mainstream scientific belief then it would make sense to replace it with the former. Alun Salt (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The latter because it is verifiable; the former is (to put it mildly) not. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The latter because it will never be verifiable that ghosts actually visited Leadbeater. It is easily verifiable that he alleged they visited him. --NellieBly (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The latter, otherwise the encyclopedia would be stating definitively that there is life after death, which is a question that has not yet been answered in any clear way. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The latter, obviously (not even sure why this got as far as RfC). We cannot state unequivocably that someone conversed with spirits considering our sourcing policies. That the editors involved with reverting this all appear to be single-purpose accounts with no talk page edits should ring some warning bells anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hear the warning bells. However, I have no tools to respond to the warning other than the ones provided by WP policy. Dlabtot (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed RfC per clear consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Theosophy}}[edit]

Is there a reason this template has to be in the article twice? --Lu Ta 16:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the second one out. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Webster Leadbeater liked to have sex with young boys[edit]

Therefore, it is appropriate that his Wikipedia biography reflect that fact. Dlabtot (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's discussion about this above. Is this comment meant seriously? If not, I'd hope for it to be removed by its author. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he has been described in the New York Times as a "flagrant pedophile". Why would I want to remove my comment? I made it in response to some recent edits that attempted to whitewash this part of Leadbeater's history. Dlabtot (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That particular source appears to be a book review rather than a news report, but I'm fine with the idea that it's sourced. I just don't think the comment was a particularly practical way of putting the point across, is all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is important to keep in mind when editing this article that the cited and referenced facts demonstrate that Leadbetter was a pedophile and a fraud. This is not my opinion -- it's what the sources say. Dlabtot (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round Table Discussion on Recent Edits to this Article[edit]

Current editors of this article are invited to a round table discussion of recent edits to this article. Please state whether you have read any books on or about Leadbeater. If not, then your comments should be limited to grammar or established Wiki edit policy, but not content or evaluation of sources. Please read the latest version of this article (the one we are discussing that is associated with CrunchEL, Fryymb, Migraine4, and Yourkarma) from begining to end. Then specify a section, paragraph and if necessary line or sentence, and constructively comment on it. Mushy general comments are not constructive. This discussion will be open for one week, until April 8th, presuming this will allow enough time for everyone to participate who wishes to do so.CrunchEl (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to read WP:RFC. The conditions for dispute resolution under a Request for Comment are set by the project, not under the terms of whomsoever starts the debate.
The first thing I'd like to make abundantly clear is that the editing pattern of User:CrunchEL, User:Fryymb, User:Migraine4 and User:Yourkarma thus far hints very strongly that these accounts are interrelated. If this is in fact the case, then I'd advise the editor(s) involved to read WP:SOCK very thoroughly before continuing to edit in this manner. I've been close to reporting this activity for administrative intervention for some time now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Cunningham (not at work) Thank you for your participation in this discussion. I should be complemented that you have found or expressed no fault in any section, paragraph or sentence in the instant recently revised version of this article. Your other comments are irrelevant.CrunchEl (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now opened a case for this issue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CrunchEl the editorializing you've been putting into this article is not appropriate. Nor is it appropriate to describe the claims made by Leadbeater as anything other than claims made by Leadbeater. And yes, people can read what he wrote for themselves - they don't need to be reminded of that fact in the text of the article. Yes, Leadbeater was a pedophile and a fraud. There is no reason, however, for the article to state that - the facts make this abundantly clear. Similarly, there is no reason for the article to go to absurd lengths to imply the possibility that he was not a pedophile and a fraud. We simply let the facts speak for themselves. Finally, I've removed the acronym 'RfC' from the header of this section, since it is not an RfC. See WP:RfC for more. Dlabtot (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot Thank you for your comments in this discussion. By the statements you have made on this very page it is clear that you hate Leadbeater so much that you cannot possibly have a NPOV, and therefore, should not be editing this page. You have convicted yourself. You edit this article solely to smear, to slander, and to malign. Young man, cease causing yourself harm in this way.CrunchEl (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Gavrilo Princip was a murderer, and my saying so is not an indication that I 'hate' him. Similarly with Charles Webster Leadbeater. He is a historical figure, not someone with whom I have some sort of emotional connection. Dlabtot (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a positive move that CrunchEl and Yourkarma have decided to join in the discussion. It shows they recognise there is a problem. If they can persuade Fryymb and Migraine4 to participate as well then that would be grand. It's a shame Fryymb hasn't so far as I suggested it to him a couple of days ago, but it's possible he's away on holiday. In contrast Yourkarma states that he's participated in the discussion here, but so far that's just providing a header. I'd love to hear what different perspective he can bring to the discussion. There do seem to be some issues which CrunchEl and Frymmb seem to be unaware of. For instance they both seem to think that evaluation of sources isn't related to Wikipedia policy, but it is under WP:V and WP:RS. Thankfully I have read about Leadbeater, but it isn't necessary to have read his work to see that where Leadbeater's supernatural, paranormal and eldritch abilities are stated as fact from Leadbeater's own writings they fall under WP:SPS and should be stated as claims rather than fact.
Currently I can see two ways forward. We can either follow the Wikipedia policy and apply WP:V and WP:RS or else we can all just follow my opinion. As it happens I'm fortunate enough to be a reincarnation of Charles Webster Leadbeater and can reliably inform CrunchEl, Yourkarma, Fryymb and Migraine4 that sadly they are in error on this occasion. I was making it all up - except the reincarnation bit obviously. Now I don't honestly expect CrunchEl et al to believe that. I could be making that claim up as an illustrative point. But once they all understand why they don't consider me a reliable source on the supernatural then hopefully they'll understand why the other editors don't consider my alleged earlier incarnation a reliable source on supernatural matters either.
As for an RfC, it may be a good idea seeing as CrunchEl and Yourkarma are willing to consider one. The only reason I'm here is that there's an RfC out on an article I'm interested in and I thought it might be helpful to contribute to another one elsewhere. It's possible their participation may persuade Fryymb and Migraine4 to accept the result of the RfC. Alternatively would CrunchEl, Yourkarma, Frymmb and Migraine4 prefer that the matter were discussed on WP:RSN or Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard? Certainly more participation is needed. So far I count three people under this section, citing policy, against including Leadbeater's claims as fact and one person, CrunchEl, in favour. Yourkarma so far has only provided a heading and refrained from supporting CrunchEl. That would suggest that consensus is currently against CrunchEl. Alun Salt (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alun SaltGenerally supporting the later, we'll call CrunchEl's, version, I would agree with Alunsalt that "supernatural powers" should be stated as claims, not as fact. Hence the adjective alleged before clairvoyance in the first paragraph. Alleged or reported could be repeated in later paragraphs, but I would suggest once or twice is enough.Fryymb (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the introduction should not describe him as an 'alleged' clairvoyant, as per this ArbCom decision, as well as WP:AVOID. That is a separate issue from the question posed in the RfC above. Dlabtot (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed it. Dlabtot (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. W. Leabeater never "defrocked"[edit]

I am a Liberal Catholic Priest, and would like to comment on the inaccuracy of the aforementioned reference that C.W. Leadbeater was a "defrocked" Liberal Catholic Priest. The Liberal Catholic Church came into existence as an independent and totally autonomous church in 1917. Bishop James Ingal Wedgwood was conscrated by Bishop Willowby In the mean time the independent Dutch Catholics, in conflict with Rome, who refused them Bishops, were rescued by Bishop Varlet who had left Paris to take up a new post in Babylon. On His way through Holland he confirmed 604 Catholics before moving on. Deposed by Rome for this act of insubordination he returned to Holland and consecrated several Bishops, thereby establishing what is called the Old Catholic Church of Holland. [for additional details see The Willow in the Tempest by Robert Norton (The St. Alban Press, Ojai, CA ), p.2-4 and The Apostolic Succession in the Liberal Catholic Church, by A. W. Cockerham (St. Alban Press)]. Cited from; http://members.tripod.com/~SRLCC/lcchist.htm On April 4, 2008.

For a more complete detail of Apostolic Succession read quote from http://www.heartlandoldcatholic.org/apostolic_succession.htm,

"Gerard Gull was the Old Catholic Bishop of Utrecht. Arnold Harris Mathew, upon his consecration, became the Old Catholic Bishop for Great Britain and Ireland. Perhaps the majority of Old Catholic bishops in the United States trace their Apostolic Succession to Arnold Harris Mathew and the Old Catholic Church of England. Bishop James Ingall Wedgwood and Bishop Rudolph de Landas Berghes, both consecrated in the Arnold Harris Mathew Episcopal line, eventually found their way to the United States. Bishop Wedgwood would lead the Liberal Catholic Church and Bishop Rudolph de Landas Berghes, the Old Roman Catholic Church. Both jurisdictions are Old Catholic. The Apostolic Succession of James Richard Judd proceeds from James Ingall Wedgwood and the Liberal Catholic Church in the United States and Canada.

Arnold Harris Mathew in 1914 consecrated Frederick Samuel Willoughby Fredrick Samuel Willoughby in 1915 consecrated Rupert Gauntlett Fredrick Samuel Willoughby in 1915 consecrated Robert King Fredrick Samuel Willoughby in 1916 consecrated James Ingall Wedgwood James Ingall Wedgwood in 1916 consecrated Charles Webster Leadbeater James Ingall Wedgwood in 1917 consecrated The Jonrheer Juliad Adrian Manzel James Ingall Wedgwood in 1919 consecrated Irving Steiger Cooper Charles Webster Leadbeater in 1924 consecrated Frank Walters Pigott James Ingall Wedgwood in 1925 consecrated George Sydney Arundale Charles Webster Leadbeater in 1926 consecrated John Moynihan Tettemer Charles Webster Leadbeater in 1926 consecrated Ray Marshall Wardall Ray Marshall Wardall in 1947 consecrated Edward Murray Matthews Edward Murray Matthews in 1955 consecrated James Pickford Roberts Sr. Edward Murray Matthews in 1955 consecrated William Harry Daw..."

The Old Dutch Catholic Church never forbade their priests and bishops to marry, and the Liberal Catholic Church followed this tradition, and many are married, with wives who provide music in some form while their husband celebrates mass. Many priests have families, and every priest must support himself, as the church does not provide the same kind of support to its clergy that other churches, like the Roman Catholic does. Rome recognizes the Apostolic Succession in the Liberal Catholic Church as being derived from the same source as her own. a Liberal Catholic Priest can and does administer the 7 traditional sacraments that a Roman Catholic Priest does: but without all the "red tape" and "hoops to jump through" that the RC Church currently demands. The RC church recognizes only those sacraments she has oversite over and the paper trail to verify. This means that Rome does not necessarily recognize the sacraments performed by the 30 or so "Catholic" churches that are autonomous of Rome, such as the Greek Orthodox as being on equal footing as her own. The idea that the Liberal Catholic Church often leaves its congregations free to pursue their own path to spiritual awareness and progress as they see proper for themselves, is a unique quality among the churches of Christianity.

Getting back to CWL, he left the Anglican Church, of his own free will, to pursue theosophical study. As the reader can see from the documentation above, CWL was consecrated Bishop in 1916, so could not have been defrocked by any church in 1906. As an interesting aside about the Sea of Utrecht and the Dutch. The Dutch Liberal Catholic Church broke away from its affiliation with one schism of our beloved LCC, the first schism occurring in mid 1940's, and is now ordaining "Woman Priests". I am not convinced this is the right path for womanhood as there are some many more paths of service open to women than there are for men, I am sure time will tell.

Many like to sensationalize past happenings with current happenings. In some ways we are still coming out of the Medieval, Puritan, Victorian Era of sexual awareness. While it is wrong to sexually abuse children and many women, men, priests, ministers, nuns, etc., are being brought to justice as an end result of the womans movement and their stand against sexual abuse, we cannot accuse anyone of being guilty of a crime unless they had their day in court. To my knowledge, CWL was never arrested nor convicted of any wrong doing, he was just accused. Anyone can make an accusation falsely to further their own agenda. To give you an idea of how far women have come since the turn of the 19th century, consider Annie Besant, who has an exemplary record of public service and has made untold contributions to humanity. Annie Besant was thrown in prison for promoting birth control to the impoverished women living in the slums of London, around the turn of the 19th century. She also lost custody of her children for this "crime?" to her ex-husband who was a minister. How would women respond to this allegation today? It is this same "narrow mindedness" that C.W. Leadbeater confronted in the allegations levied against him. People seem to have a good memory for all the bad a person may or may not have done; and a bad memory for the good they have done for the world. Charles Webster Leadbeater was approached by incarnate teachers living in the east, and was instructed on how to safely unfold what we call clairvoyant fatalities, he was not a born with this "gift". He was guided by these same teachers whose virtue and ethics are purer than the whitest snow and the same as our Lord and Master Christ. They guided him as we guide our infants and children, to navigate the world of sight that unfolds as they grow, showing them both the beauties and and dangers of the world. Perhaps this "second sight" is within reach of all who are in earnest and perhaps will someday be the norm, as we unfold that 90% of brain capacity, that we do not yet use or know about. We know there is light spectrum that we cannot see, so is the same with worlds that we cannot as yet see, because we do not have the eyes to see, or the open mind to imagine an existence other than our five senses.

Priestly Knight —Preceding unsigned comment added by PriesltyKnight (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The article doesn't say he was "defrocked". Please stop cluttering up the talk page with off-topic material not related to improving this article. Dlabtot (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of being off-topic, how much evidence is needed to report a sock puppet? Alun Salt (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It varies. If you're talking about the edit wars of the last two weeks, that's been resolved. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using anandgholap.net as a source or link[edit]

This site is the personally registered site of Anand Gholap of Pune, India. He has a disclaimer that he is not responsible for the use of anything on his site (http://www.anandgholap.net/Terms_Of_Use.htm). He makes no special claims of expertise or any affiliation. A number of texts and images from books are on his site but copyright status is uncertain as he does not have specific permission to make these public domain but has added these on the basis of his understanding of copyright law which is not the same as Wikipedia's. There is no guarantee that texts or images he includes are faithful reproductions or correctly sourced. His site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be used as a reference or link for any article apart from (possibly) an article about himself.—Ash (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, based on this disclaimer: "Maximum possible care is taken to ensure accuracy. However no express or implied guarantee is given that contents are accurate reproduction of the original.". Dlabtot (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

I've added "Theosophical Manual Nº5: The Astral Plane (Its Scenery, Inhabitants and Phenomena)" to his bibliography - a quite good book. But I'm not sure about it's date, even more because it's the first book in the list! I've done some research, most resulting in year 2007 (obviously wrong, I don't know if there's a recent reprint or something) and the best I've found was this: http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/astralplane.html . Could anyone verify this? BTW, the correct name is only "The Astral Plane (Its Scenery, Inhabitants and Phenomena)" but I thought adding "Theosophical Manual Nº5" had more detail, for the better... 201.82.170.208 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here you go:
    • Leadbeater, C W (1910), The astral plane, its scenery, inhabitants, and phenomena, Theosophical manuals., no. 5, London, Theosophical Pub. society, OCLC 5223748
Follow the OCLC link.—Ash (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added some works to the Bibliography section. CWL wrote a great deal of books and articles, The article should reflect that Eponymos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Krishnamurti quote re: Leadbeater being "evil"[edit]

This is attributed to a German-language source, which I have not had access to. However, it seems that in many other instances, the ultimate likely source of this and similar quotes is CWL's biographer Gregory John Tillett.

From the Introduction (Chapter 1) of G J Tillet's "Charles Webster Leadbeater: A Biographical Study" of 1986:

"To Mary Lutyens, when told about The Elder Brother, and asked for his comments, he said simply: 'Leadbeater was evil', and refused to discuss the matter further, beyond the comment that he found even thinking about Leadbeater, or hearing his name, distasteful."

This according to Tillet, was said by M Lutyens, following discussions with her in 1978 and 1979, as per note 90 in the Notes to Chapter 1 section of the same work.

First, note that the source is several places removed. Krishnamurti told Lutyens something about Leadbeater, who then mentioned it to Tillet. I have not been able to find any supporting statement by Lutyens. This strikes me as odd, since the statement, if made, is a pretty powerful one. I do not think I've ever seen any sources where Krishnamurti refers to ANY person as "evil", or indeed make any other "personal" statements, with the exception of one unpublished - and for all intents unverified - letter pertaining to a legal dispute with a longtime associate. Lutyens though, mentions the following, published 1996 in her "Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals":

"It was not until after K’s [Krishnamurti's] break with the OSE in 1929 that Leadbeater turned against him, not the other way round. RS states (p. 64) that on occasions K expressed abhorrence 'at the very mention of Leadbeater’s name'. This was only after 1982 when he had been told about Leadbeater’s homosexual practices at The Manor as revealed by Dick Clarke in Gregory Tillett’s book, The Elder Brother."

There are subtle differences here with Tillet's statement above, not least of which is the time discrepancy. Tillet says Lutyens mentioned the "evil" etc in 1979 at the latest. Lutyens says it happened in 1982. Also the Elder Brother came out in 1982, 3 years after the discussion about it.

I wonder whether the statement in Tillet, 1986, is not a self-reference, ie brought about by a previous book of his (Tillet, 1982:The Elder Brother).

Also, in Pupul Jayakar's biography of Krishnamurti, a visit of his to the Theosophical Society in Adyar is described after the election of Radha Burnier as President. This visit happened after 1979, therefore after Lutyens's last discussion with Tillet as noted in his bio of CWL. Krishnamurti stood before CWL's portrait and said "Pax" (Jayakar p 405). So what are we to assume, if anything? I therefore tagged the statement with Template:Dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the editor who added that about your concerns. [6] Frankly I find your conjecture and original research to be a lot more 'dubious' than this sourced statement. Dlabtot (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that what I write in the talk page, as opposed to the article page, maybe original research. The point is, does it help improve the article by either clarifying, or adding pertinent facts? I can find the source noted in the article about the "evil" statement, but I don't know German. Is it an Anthroposophical source? They were vehemently opposed to CWL. It is fair to assume that their position would be partisan and a POV.
I don't understand what you find "dubious" about the quotes and my conclusion, I thought it was pretty straight-forward. The bottom line is Krishnamurti's biographers do not mention this (extraordinary for Krishnamurti) statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is clearly sourced to Helmut Zander, Anthroposophie in Deutschland, ISBN 978-3-525-55452-4. p.171. What other books do or do not say is irrelevant. If you want to challenge it, start by getting a copy of Anthroposophie in Deutschland, turn to page 171, and see if it really does say what User:Hgilbert says it does. Meanwhile, I suggest you read WP:AGF. Dlabtot (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I don't dispute that Zander actually says that, I dispute its accuracy. There is no other corroboration for Zander except Tillet. In page 171 of Zander's book, he footnotes the so-called statement as number 295, and I quote the footnote: "Tillet, The Elder Brother, 10." It is here: Zander, retrieved April 5, 2010. My previous concern remains, and the Template:Dubious is to be reinserted.
As for WP:AGF, relax, you're jumping the gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm trying to make is that the article presents the statement as fact, with no modifiers or any other qualifying language, which is imo, appropriate here. Not even an "according to..."? What my "dubious" OR indicates is that Tillet's statement (of which Zander's is a derivative) could be at least within WP:Hearsay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a extremely well-sourced statement. If you think it should be sourced directly to Tillet, fine. Your belief that it is 'not accurate' is irrelevant. Charles Webster Leadbeater was a pedophile and a con-man. There's nothing at all extraordinary about Khrishnamurti calling him evil. Dlabtot (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added this originally, and agree that it would be better to source this directly to Tillet (it seems clear that's Zander's sole source based upon the footnote) and that it would make sense to add "According to one of Leadbeater's biographers..." or the like. hgilbert (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's recap. This is not about Leadbeater, or Dlabtot's or anyone else's POV about him. It is about Krishnamurti, and his supposed statement. The source for Zander's statement is Tillet. Tillet's source supposedly was Lutyens, who (according to Tillet) said that Krishnamurti said it. This is a source four times removed, count them: CWL Article on Wikipedia -> Zander -> Tillet -> Lutyens -> Krishnamurti. So, first, this is NOT "an extremely well sourced statement". Secondly, when exactly did Lutyens discuss this with Tillet? As per Tillet's bio of CWL Look in page 73-74 it is referenced to Note #90 Look in page 958, and I quote: "90. Correspondence with Mary Lutyens, 1979, and interview with her in London, 1979". Only...there's a problem. The first edition of Tillet's bio didn't come out until 1982, whereupon according to Lutyens Look in page 2, only then did Krishnamurti comment against CWL, and the "evil" statement is not mentioned.
Saying that "Charles Webster Leadbeater was a pedophile and a con-man." is a POV. He might have been, but this is irrelevant to the question at hand. Adding: "There's nothing at all extraordinary about Khrishnamurti calling him evil" is only accurate if Krishnamurti's and Dlabtot's POVs coincide. This implied coincidence is conjecture on Diablot's part. What is NOT conjecture is that Krishnamurti, as a matter of course, just didn't use such language. Also, his relationship with Leadbeater was VERY significant. IF he had made such statement, at least ONE of his biographers would have included it. I've gone through over a dozen bios of Krishnamurti, the more comprehensive ones. I have not found this statement ANYWHERE I looked.
If this so-called "statement" is considered significant enough to be included in the article, its nefarious provenance should be made clear. As it stands now, it is dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.214 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The tone of the section on the accusations of pederasty is extremely POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.62.156 (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Does anyone know if there's a previous consensus for not including a person infobox in this article? I thought I would ask before adding one. - MrX 23:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious akashic records claim[edit]

There is an on-line copy of Man: Whence, How and Whither to be read here, and the page referenced for the claim about Leadbeater reading the akashic records can be seen to be nonexistent. As far as I can tell there is no reference at all in the book to the concept, at least not by name. I have therefore excised the passage on the book. Possibly some of it can be restored, but I cannot personally sort this out, and I didn't see that this paragraph was that crucial. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leadbeater's reading of the Akashic records is implied in the book on pages iv, 326, 409 and 455. I'm pretty sure there are other sources that state it explicitly. I will look for them when I have a chance. - MrX 14:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks lile I have time now. Here are some sources that support Leadbeater viewing the Akashic records: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. - MrX 15:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK< that last one looks good. I'll see what I can do with it, thanks. Mangoe (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pederasty[edit]

I have added an WP:UNDUE tag to the "Accusations of pederasty" section. Fair warning: I plan to substantially trim it to make it more concise (some day). The lengthy quotes would probably best be contained within the footnotes. - MrX 18:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biography of Leadbeater by Gregory Tillett called "The Elder Brother" does not dance around the unconcealed abuse which Leadbeater subjected his students. Leadbeater promoted enemas, genital manipulation, and onanism as a means of promoting physical, psychic and spiritual (occult) vigor among his youthful disciples. “This spiritualizing of paederasty absolves him from the guilt which makes him hate society. …His is no longer a common human weakness, for he has felt the cleansing fire of divinity,” related Gregory Tillet, Leadbeater’s biographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.23.141 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV - Writing and Speaking Career[edit]

The wording is POV and reads more like a quote or paraphrase from citation #17 in the following text from the article: "Two noteworthy titles, Astral Plane and the Devachanic Plane (or The Heaven World) both of which embodied careful research into the realms the soul passes through after death…and which were so unique in the history of the society that the Masters of Wisdom asked for the manuscript of Astral Plane to be sent to the museum of history in the Himalayas." Careful research? Masters of Wisdom? Museum of history in the Himalayas? - Is this a quote?

Lives in the Shadow with J Krishnamurti[edit]

[[12]] Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti is a 1991 memoir written by Radha Rajagopal Sloss who has a lot to say about Leadbeater (and the allegations made against him). Maybe this should be used as a source as well. --Wool Bridge (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Charles Webster Leadbeater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Webster Leadbeater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with How Theosophy Came to Me[edit]

altogether disproportionate coverage DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater[edit]

totally disproportionate coverage DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there some reasons those articles should not simply be deleted? Dlabtot (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better that the article title exists as a redirect to the biog, imo.TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Healings[edit]

what type of healings have you been involved in if any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.149.252.22 (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Webster_Leadbeater/Archive_1&oldid=1010530092"