Talk:Alice Bailey/Archive 5

Major new update to the Bailey Biography Oct 1, 2007
I've posted a major update to the biography. It contains new sections and a reorganizing of headings and subheadings in way that more closely approximates AAB's life and work. It is throughly referenced and with some new references throughout, together with quotes and paraphrases that closely matches the citations. It includes many new details and documentation on her life and conflict with the Theosophical. Kind Regards to all. James 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I've tried to retain yours and all good edits and references right up to today. Any omissions or errors are accidental. James 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats James. If you and others keep up the good work, this article will surely become a featured article. Sethie 17:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow James! Thank you for your time and effort on this.  These sources are great -- added perk of having your own bookstore?  This article is looking really complete.  Thanks again for your work on this.  Renee Renee 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extensive work. At first reading, the new organization of headings seems good, and the text added to fill in the missing information is interesting.   I'll review further when I have a chance.


 * A couple technical notes I noticed and fixed: you had omitted one, and that caused the entire "adult life" section to get stuck inside a footnote.  I Also, you changed the sutcliffe reference format resulting in ommission of the name of the reference, that had been set up as .  As a result of that, the various other places referring to the reference by the shorthand method of  did not work and those other footnotes were then lost.  I've repaired both of those glitches.  The repairs did not affect the content of the text.


 * I removed this external link that was added in-line in the last paragraph of the intro: http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/concerning_the_ageless_wisdom_writings_on_the_jewish_people


 * That link is an essay by Lucis Trust, an organization she founded and that publishes her books, so it's not an independent source. It would be OK to link to them for something basic like a list of their catalog of her titles, or their historical background information about how the company was formed.  But in this case, that essay is an apologia for Bailey's writings on the Jews and as such is a biased non-independent source and does not seem to me something that should be used.


 * Yes the link is a pro AAB essay though the reason for it in this instance was just that it gave a convenient in-one-place list of some things she criticized; these were non-controversial and not likely to be disputed. It saved me having to substantiate the list with numerous references to the scattered portions of her writing where she addressed all these. But given that you removed it, I went ahead and did the many citations to replace the one simple one.  I appreciate your thoroughness in rule application, though I might have had less appreciation for it yesterday when I was more exhausted from looking things up!   :-)   James 00:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My initial impression overall is that the new version of the bio seems like a good-faith rewrite and expansion of the missing information. When I review it further, I will do so in the spirit of collaboration. --Parsifal Hello 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to Parsifal & other friends
This may be your edit; not sure:

"According to author Olav Hammer, Bailey's early writings of communications with the Tibetan were well received within the society, but society president Annie Besant questioned Bailey's claims of communications with "the Tibetan" and expelled the Baileys from the organization.[11]"

Anyway, Hammer's text, if exactly referenced, is not quite correct. It was a Theosophical leader named Rogers--the man in charge at the time--who expelled AAB, while Annie Besant just allowed it to happen. AAB sent a telegram to Annie Besant requesting her to intervene on her behalf. Annie Besant declined and let the Rogers faction do the ousting. Incidentally, Ross, Joseph E., ''Krotona of Old Hollywood, Vol. II, is the most in depth info on this and includes details right down to the letters and telegrams exchanged during this stormy period. James 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was my edit, but I'm not attached to the particular wording. I only had the one reference to go by, so that's what I used. What I thought important was that previously the way the article read, it seemed like Bailey simply left on her own.  But she was, as you put it "ousted", which is a significant difference in the story.  Whether that was done by Besant, or by Rogers with Besant declining to intervene, is less important than that the ouster happened one way or another.


 * It's OK with me if you want to re-edit that section of the article to explain it the way the Ross reference explains it. If you do, please keep the Hammer reference as a footnote there,  but we don't need Hammer's name or specific version of the story within the text of the article.  --Parsifal Hello 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter greatly to me either; its a fine point. I started to try to integrate the two accounts yesterday but finally just left them as is.   James 00:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Krotona
Tangential note: I had never heard of Krotona before, and neither had Wikipedia, so I started that article. Its just a stub now, but that could easily be a 25-30k article. If anyone who knows something about it would care to contribute, that would be great. Eaglizard 20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a further note, to anyone who might care: I went and copyedited the holy hell out of the middle sections of the article. Almost all of these were changes to wording and format, etc, that should have had no affect on the meaning (or emphasis) of the text. Generally, I never care about further edits to these. However, there are a few that I didn't mark simply as "copyedits", that are based on more technical concerns; I would appreciate discussion anent those points before anyone improves them, if you wouldn't mind. :) Eaglizard 22:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Roberto Assagioli edits
removed my comments as Eaglizard suggested Sparklecplenty 05:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two separate issues here - one is the content of the article, and I'll get to that next.


 * First - I am aware you are new to Wikipedia, but you should know by now that making unfounded accusations is a serious offense and violates many policies. I suggest that you read WP:Assume good faith, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.  I have removed your accusation from the section heading, but   I've left it in the text of your comment though, so people can see what you wrote and how you approach your interactions with other editors.


 * Regarding your accusation, it's just plain way out of line, unfair to me as a person, and if you study my contribs and Kworks' (as you should before making any such accusation), you'll see clearly that your suggestion that I am his puppet is completely absurd in many ways.


 * The best way for you to show good faith at this point would be to withdraw your unfair and groundless accusation, along with an apology, and I respectfully request that you do so.


 * [Note added later: Sparklecplenty, thank you for removing your comment above.  I've struck through my response as well to indicate that the issue has been resolved.  I appreciate your good faith gesture. --Parsifal Hello 07:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)]


 * Regarding my edit to the article about Assagioli - I do not question that they knew each other, and I do not have any reason to want to keep his name out of the article. What I am questioning is this text:


 * "Given that Dr. Roberto Assagioli, founder of Psychosynthesis, had a close association with her, this philosophy likely derives from the influence of Alice Bailey"


 * Unless there is a reference that states that Psychosynthesis is derived from the work of Bailey, writing that it "likely derives" is just a guess - it's a form of original research known as synthesis (see WP:SYNTH). That means, making a jump from a set of unrelated facts to assume that a new fact is the result.  In other words, we know that Assagioli knew Bailey, and it seems to us that Psychosynthesis has some concepts in common with Bailey's work.  To take those two ideas, and create from them the new idea that Psychosynthesis is based on Bailey's work,... that is original research and is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article.


 * If you can find a reference that makes the statement that Psychosynthesis is based on Bailey's work, then we can include that. I have no agenda to keep it out of the article.  But without the reference, it's not a fact, it's just a guess.


 * On the other hand, if you want to mention Assagioli and his relationship to Bailey as a biographical fact about her life, I have no problem with that at all. If he was a part of her life, that story can be told.  There is no agenda here other than to follow the core policies.  In addition to the other policies I  linked in this comment, I suggest you read the core policy of WP:Verifiability.  Thanks.  --Parsifal Hello 02:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Source
'''If you can find a reference that makes the statement that Psychosynthesis is based on Bailey's work, then we can include that. I have no agenda to keep it out of the article. But without the reference, it's not a fact, it's just a guess.'' Parsifal

Here is one of about five I can give:


 * "Assaginoli used imagery and meditation extensively, adapting and developing techniques that gleaned from the works of the metaphysical healer Alice Bailey, among others."


 * Source: Martin L. Rossman, Guided Imagery for Self-Healing, Contributor Dean Ornish Published, H J Kramer, 2000, page 213

Please don't make me go to the trouble of troubling you with lots more references. Why don't you do some research yourself instead just voraciously start deleting stuff others have carefully researched. The information is out there, why don't you go to work instead trying to undo the work of others. This feels dishonest to me. Sparklecplenty 03:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, you have insulted me yet again, and accused me of dishonesty. You also described my one edit on this topic as "voraciously start deleting stuff others have carefully researched".  That's just plain not accurate.


 * You seem to be very upset, and taking this personally. It's not personal, it's just a Wikipedia article.   I ask you to please stop insulting me, stop accusing me of all sorts of ulterior motives, and to drop your aggressive, antagonistic method of communicating with me.


 * I did not ask you to find five references, I only asked you for one. If you have one, you are welcome to add it to the article.


 * Discuss the content and not the editors. --Parsifal Hello 03:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, Sparkle, that's one of the most egregious and undeserved insults I've ever seen on WP. Parsifal has contributed more than any editor except James in the last month. Wtf are you thinking? Great work, Parsifal, thanks for helping. Eaglizard 21:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bailey on the Jews
removed my comments as Eaglizard suggested Sparklecplenty 05:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You'll be pleased to know that I am not taking your comments personally.  The purpose of the civility guidelines I quoted is not to protect our feelings, the purpose is to facilitate quality collaborative editing.


 * It seems you're mistaken about the focus of my edits. If you review the page history, you will see that I've edited a variety of sections that do not involve Bailey's writings on the Jews. --Parsifal Hello 09:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This bickering is very tiresome to read. Please drop it. A suggestion: we should include one or two examples of Bailey's statements that have been regarded as antisemitic, balanced by the same number, one or two, that express a much more positive view of Jews and/or Judaism. What do others think? Itsmejudith 09:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

removed my comments as Eaglizard suggested Sparklecplenty 05:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, your edit of the section, called "On the Jewish people", did create a much better balance in that section. I had been thinking of removing that section altogether, but in its present form it is more acceptable. Kwork 11:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "It seems you're mistaken about the focus of my edits. If you review the page history, you will see that I've edited a variety of sections that do not involve Bailey's writings on the Jews." --Parsifal Hello 09:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that you have expanded the racial intermarriage section. Sparklecplenty 16:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, I was at first taken aback by your extensive addition on the subject, but after I made myself read it (lol) I was very happy with it indeed. Although it might be a bit too much, it does quote what I believe are excellent examples of AAB's thought on the matter. Bailey wanted to admonish the Jews for what she saw as their not taking responsibility, and she does this repeatedly. However, the article is beginning to give the impression Bailey deployed all her criticism along "racial" lines. Eaglizard 21:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

removed my comments as Eaglizard suggested Sparklecplenty 05:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Sparklecplenty, allow me to be very specific: you have violated WP:CIVIL in several of your recent posts. Egregiously. You've been damned insulting, in fact, after most of the childishness on this page had been muted for some time. It's not cool, ok? Eaglizard 21:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

to Parsifal and other editors re Assagioli and the Jews
Below is a formated version of Sparkle's reference together with more of the same. Please put this issue to rest and stop struggling to divorce AAB and and her Jewish disciple Assagioli.

Put the Jewish issue to rest. The article already contains a disproportionate amount of text related the the Jews. The Jewish issue is one percent or less of her texts. As Renee and others have repeatedly said: this is an article about Alice Bailey and not an article about anti-semitic issues in relation  her.  You have already severely bent the rules by including as much as you have. Any more will be an absolute violation of the rules and such expansions can justly be and should be removed. I repeat, obsession with this theme is not appropriate to this article. James 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"An entity who called himself the Tibetan as acknowledge by Alice Bailey as the real author of a series of her spiritual wirings. Roberto Assagioli credited the same entity as the source of his psychological system of psychosynthesis."

"Assagioli worked in close collaboration with the theosophists Alice Bailey. Her ideas are clearly recognizable in the system of psychosynthesis."

"Lesser known is Roberto Assagioli, an Italian psychiatrist who absorbed Theosophy and especially its revisionist presentation produced by Alice Bailey. His thought and the preofessional who practice his system, psychosynthesis, have become throughly intertwined with Bailey's Arcane school and its offshoots."

"Psychosynthesis is a variety of New Age psychology...It was devised by Roberto Assagioli, sometime assolciate of theosophists Alice Bailey and her Arcande School, and represesnts, 'a link between Theosophy and the the human potential movement'..."

"Assaginoli used imagery and meditation extensively, adapting and developing techniques that gleaned from the works of the metaphysical healer Alice Bailey, among others."

1. Assagioli was a Jew only if you consider Judaism a race (which it is not), instead of a religion (which it is). In religion, Assagioli worshiped in the Church of Alice Bailey, and had rejected Judaism to the point of accepting Bailey's antisemetic ranting as true. No rabbi would consider him any longer a Jew under those circumstances. The Jewish teaching allows a lot of leaway for non-observance of the religion, but practicing another religion means a separation...as it would with any religion. (I always found it strange that a man of Assagioli's great stature could have been drawn into the circle of an intellectual midget like Bailey, but such things are not all that unusual.)
 * Thanks for that prokaryote's view of the matter, Kwork. Eaglizard 21:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

2. No one who has read Assagioli's book, Psychosynthesis, could possably say it is just a psychological presentation of Bailey's writing. He believed in Bailey, but knew better than rely on her to deal with psychological matters. For instance, I was just looking at a section in the part of his book called Spititual Psychosynthesis - Techniques, in which he describes an exercise (involving many stages) for group application based on the Grail Legend. Bailey simply has nothing like that, or most of the rest of Assagioli's book.

But, if you have a source to support you view, by all means use it. It will be wrong, but nevertheless usable in Wikipedia. Kwork 16:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Jamesd1 feels that section 2.8 Races (On the Jewish people, and On the negro race) is drawing too much editing attention, and has been changed beyond his own wishes, I will remove that section from the article, if no one objects. Kwork 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research
Jamesd1, the article is filled with statements written by you, such as:

"In Bailey's thought, no one particular group can claim Him — the New Age Christ belongs to whole world, and not to Christians alone, or to any nation or group. Bailey was highly critical of orthodox Christianity — according to her, much of the Church's teaching about Christ's return is directly opposed to His own intentions:"

with the spaces in between filled by direct quotes from Alice Bailey. Without secondary sources, all this amounts to original research, and needs to be removed. I had not actually bothered to look at your ned additions until today, and a lot if it is problematic. Kwork 17:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This an exact paraphrase of Bailey's text and can be found in the references surrounding it. Check the references and read the quotes in the article (preferable before deleting them!).  There is nothing made up, its all there and all there in the references.  You and others misapply wiki rules to undermine the article.  It is a bogus concept that every line should be followed by a citation number.  Citations are required where something is likely to be challenged.  But instead of reading and understanding, and looking at the references you and some others challenge everything.  This is wrong and not an honest approach.


 * The "claim him" reference is on page 109 in The Reappearance of the Christ, just prior to page 110 that is cited. A paraphrase need not cite every damn paragraph.  Read the references and read a bit of the context.  And stop pretending you care whether AAB said such things or not.  You've read enough to recognize her thoughts have you not?  Get real.  These are not controversial statements.  Please find something constructive to do.  James 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jamesd1, a secondary source is needed to interpret the primary source. What you think it means is original research. You and Sethie insisted on this time and again on my OR readings of Bailey's antisemetic statements, and it was necessary to find secondary sources that did say that. What applied to me certainly applies to all. As an editor, you can not interpret Baileys meaning yourself....no matter how sure you are that your interpretation is right. Sorry. Really sorry, because I remember how hard that was for me to live with that. Kwork 18:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sabotage: deletions and requests for citations
An observation just now shows the spirit in which certain editors are proceeding. Someone comes along and deletes a quote or a reference, leaving an unreferenced piece in the place of the original. Then the same person, or another (I did not check) comes along puts a "needs citation" tag on it.

This is ridiculous!

James 18:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jamesd1/Sparklecplenty, its not sabotage, its Wikipedia rules that editors not add their own original research. (I don't know who added the citation tag, but it was not me.)

The fact is that it was my intention not to do more editing on this article, but after this morning's accusations that Parsifal is my sockpuppet (ridiculous and insulting), accusations that everything you don't like done to the article is "sabotage" (subjective evaluation in the extreme), etc; I decided that I might as well take a look at what you have done. I see many problems. A lot of original research. So far I have restrained myself, but there is quite a bit that is going to have to come out of the article. Kwork 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Negro race removed
I removed the Negro race section entirely. Originally, someone inserted a passage or two that was misleading and in order to balance it, I expanded it for perspective. Now some one made the section about 10% of the entire article. This is radically over the top for undue weight. AAB's entire references to the subject constitute far less than 1/10 of one percent of her texts, if that. It deserves nor more than a few lines at most. You could read AAB for half a life time and not even find the material. Recent edits of this article are unfriendly, bias, and are pressing a personal agenda that is obvious: Make her look as racist as possible and never mind the rules.


 * Please reflect on undue weight and perspective in writing. James 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-boot
After seeing the amazing level of bitterness and incivility on this page, I've been thinking about finding a completely new approach.

I did a survey of other biography articles, especially on philosophers, and I found none that had anywhere near as many quotes in the text of the article itself, from writers in general, but especially quotes from the person who is the subject of the biography.

It seems that although Bailey was clearly notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, there are not a lot of books about her life for us to draw from in writing the article. Also, unlike Theosophy, which continued to grow on its own, with Bailey, there are not libraries of books about her teachings, beyond her books themselves. There are some, but the selection is limited.

So the problem is we are writing a biography of a person who's life and teachings were not well-documented by others.

I also re-read the core policies of WP:Verifiability, WP:Original research, and WP:NPOV

In this section of WP:V, WP:SELFPUB, the following guidelines are listed regarding using a subjects words about themselves:


 * it is relevant to their notability;
 * it is not contentious;
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

We have issues in this current article with the second, third and last items on that list.

After doing that research, my conclusion is that this article has a few main problems:


 * 1) Excessive quoting overall, and especially of Bailey's personal writings about herself and her philosophy
 * 2) Excessive discussion of the details of her philosophy without third part sources
 * 3) Overall lack of reliable third party sources on most of the content

Therefore, I believe the article needs to be substantially contracted, with most of the direct Bailey quotes removed.

Rather than editing the main article with a huge change and causing a stir, I've made a new draft according to the above principles and posted it at the following link:

Talk:Alice Bailey/re-draft

I suggest that editors review that version, but keep the discussion here so we don't have discussions happening in two places. If there is consensus, we can move that version, or a newer edited version of the re-draft, to the main page.

I attempted to retain every reliable reference that was not a Bailey quote, and I also retained most Bailey references, though eliminated most of her quotes.

The section about the Jews that seems to bother people so much is a lot smaller in the new draft.

Hopefully, this new approach will help create a good article and also reduce tensions. --Parsifal Hello 20:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsifal,
 * I suggest we start with James' version as it was extremely well researched instead of this one. Then, you can add suggestions to that about what you think needs work. We keep starting back at square one.
 * Let's start from that well-sourced version.
 * Renee 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Renee, just so you know - I did use Jame's version, I did not rewrite from scratch.  I copied the entire article, with all of his references and text.  Then I went through and deleted mostly the Alice Bailey quotes, and some of the other writers' quotes.   But I did not delete the references or any substantial portions text that James wrote, other than some copyediting.  Since there was less text, I then simplified the structure and deleted some of the section headings (but not the text that goes with them).   If you open the two versions in two browser windows, you can see how close they are, minus the extensive quotations.  --Parsifal Hello 22:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My immediate reaction is, to be cute, quite reactionary. I don't like this idea at all. I was feeling rather happy that AAB was getting some much-needed explication outside her previously narrow circles. But I know enough about myself to not trust my reactionary impulses, so I'll think about this idea and get back to you on it tonite, Parsifal. Again, thanks for your efforts. Eaglizard 21:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'm not attached to doing it this way, it's just a suggestion, based on what I noticed in other biography articles. Also, by removing most of the quotes, we don't need to debate whether or not each one accurately conveys the proper balance of her works - that's probably impossible because "balance is in the eye of the beholder"... by that I mean that each person views certain comments as more or less important; balance can't be decided by counting words.


 * If we do keep the current version and move on with it, then we should probably restore some of the new material that was added yesterday that has already been deleted; but until we decide on which approach to use, I'm not going to work on that.


 * This is all in the spirit of collaboration, that's why I didn't just make the edit to the article and instead set up a separate draft page for discussion. I look forward to your ideas on the different versions. --Parsifal Hello 22:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Parsifal, I admire and appreciate the work you put in the new, proposed, version of the article. The problem is, as I see it, that the article still contains about the same of original research. For instance Jamesd1 wrote this:

"She wrote that, behind all human evolution stands a brotherhood of enlightened souls who have guided and aided humanity throughout history."

This is backed up only by a primary source in The Externalization of the Hierarchy. But without a secondary source the statement is just original research. And there are many other such examples of original research in the article.

Previously, I went through months of argument over the inclusion of my own interpretations of Bailey's obviously antisemetic statements, or that seemed obvious to me. But Jamesd1 and Sethie always insisted that secondary sources (saying that the statements really are antisemitic) were an absolutely necessity. Without that, my calling it antisemitic was just original research. Many an edit of mine was deleted over that point, and I want Jamesd1 to hold his own edits to the same standard that he applied to my edits. Kwork 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern and I don't consider that the new draft version I posted is in its finished form. It will never be finished...  Whatever we decide to do, whichever version we use, ... we still need to follow those principles you are referring to.


 * Choosing which of the two approaches to use as our next step won't change that, but a simpler, less full-of-quotes version might help to keep the sight-lines clear. If there is still original research in either version, once we decide which version to go with, that will just be a new starting point.  Then we can go through it and clear out original research, and try to find more third-party sources.  --Parsifal Hello 22:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We are revisiting history here. Self-published sources are allowed in articles about themselves. If the self-published sources are seen as contentious (like the Jew and Negro quotations) then you need third-party sources. This is what the guidelines say. A while back there were about 50 other sources (other than Bailey herself). There is already a balance here done with good intent. Please do not revert wholesale; that just creates bad feelings. Renee 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, certainly, I agree that your idea of reducing the amount of direct Alice Bailey quotes is a very good idea. I vote yes. Kwork 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"amazing bitterness and incivility on this page"
removed my comments as Eaglizard suggested Sparklecplenty 05:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the sort of section that makes me want to just delete it. You're right, Sparkle, that would be uncivil. Which is why, I suppose, Parsifal did give us, not only time to review, but a complete rewrite for us to peruse. That's a lot of effort, actually, my friend. A lot more than, say, just being insulting on the talk page, don't you think? Whose effort deserves more thought and consideration? Btw, you do realize these comments will trail behind you for the rest of your WP "life", dont you? It's a hard lesson I had to learn a few years ago. If I were in your position on this talk page, I'd immediately apologize and delete almost all of my (your) last 4 or 5 comments. You're only hurting your own cause like this. In any case, I for one would appreciate it if you'd stop adding to the general disarray of this already-absurd talk page. Eaglizard 21:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard: Thanks for the heads up. It does concern me that my being seen as uncivil may reflect badly on the editors who have invested a great deal of time getting this article up to Wikipedia standards. Thanks for your good editing. I simply don't understand why other editors are passively allowing this one editor to take control of the article without much regard for other people's ideas or edits. I didn't think it uncivil when you suggested James was claiming "ownership" of this article. Is there there something I don't know that makes this new editor exempt.Sparklecplenty 22:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

instructions for withdrawing or changing one's talk page comments later (per WP:TALK)
Sparklecplenty, thank you for your efforts to delete the comments Eaglizard mentioned. I appreciate that you're doing the right thing, but the method you used introduced some problems, so please allow me to advise you on a couple of better options.

Problems come up when someone deletes talk page comments after someone else already replied to them. That causes confusion and makes it almost impossible to follow the conversation later when someone else wants to review the situation to see what people are discussing.

There are two ways to do this without disrupting the conversation. Either method is OK. The other thing that's good about these methods is that it makes it clear that no-one is trying to hide anything, rather it shows that the person has changed their mind and is withdrawing their comment. If it was an uncivil comment, showing that one has changed one's mind is a good thing, because it confirms that the person has thought better of their prior actions. If the content is reviewed later, that kind of change is seen in a positive light.

I mean this sincerely, and not as any sort of ploy to restore your comments against your will.

Here are the two methods:


 * (1) You can "strike-through" your prior comments and leave them in place. That allows people to follow the discussion completely, but indicates that you changed your mind about what you wrote.  The way to do that is as follows:


 * Add this before the text you want to strike through: and then at the end of that text, add this: .  The result of that will look like this:  Here is an example of text that has been struck-through. .  Then, to make it clear that it was the original author that struck out their own comments, add a note of explanation, such as [struck-through my own comments ~ ]... or whatever else you want to write.  That way no-one wonders what happened.


 * (2) Alternately, if you would prefer that your comments be completely removed so they are not visible on the page, then when you delete them, replace them with something like this: [deleted my own comments that I had entered here. ~ ] - or, whatever other words you want to use. That way, when someone reads the talk page, they won't get confused when the next editor responds to a comment that has disappeared.

With either of the above methods, leave the original signature in-place so the timeline of the discussion is preserved.

There is more information about how to do this in these articles: WP:TALK and WP:Etiquette.

For now, I restored the comments you deleted, because the deletions interrupted several conversations and deleted comments of a couple other editors.

I hope you take receive this advice in the friendly spirit in which I offer it, and don't feel that I reverted your changes just to bother you. I truly only reverted because the result of the deletions was a confusing page, and some other's comments were deleted too.

I do appreciate that you changed your mind about what you wrote, and I hope we can collaborate positively. You are welcome to either strike-through your comments, or delete them and leave a note in their place as I outlined.

If you have any questions, let me know here or on my talk page, and I will try to explain further. Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 03:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting Policies
There is some misuse of the words "original research" in this article. Original research is when one links two or more disparate bodies of research together and makes a claim. James is not doing original research here. He is using primary sources in a descriptive sense, which is allowed (see this).

Also, as I mentioned above, self-published sources are allowed as long as they are not the only sources used in an article, are not contentious, and so forth. The statements about Jews and Negros are contentious; hence, the need for secondary sources. The other quotation blocks are allowed because there are ~50 other sources in this article.

Kwork, you have been removing quotations and saying they are original research when really they are primary quotations, which again, are allowed if they are not contentious and not the sole sources used in the whole article. Here is the definition of [WP:OR]:


 * Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Again, several editors, myself included, prefer to have the quotations from Bailey's work along with the dozens of other third-party sources, to make a balanced article that also gives a real flavor of Bailey's work.

Renee 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not removed any quotes, Bailey or otherwise. What I have removed, and not yet much of it, is Jamesd1's interpretations of what those quotes actually mean, which is original research unless there is a secondary source given that supports what he is saying. I do not mind the quotes even though there seem to be an excessive amount of them. But he has built whole sections of the article, 'explaining' such things as Bailey's thoughts "On orthodox Christianity" that is based on his personal understanding of the texts quoted, (which is OR) instead of using secondary sources. Kwork 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What you removed, as you have done in the past is a series of exact paraphrases of Bailey's passages that were correctly cited. When I quote and cite, then criticism is "too many quotations."  When I paraphrase and cite then the false claim is "original research," but you don't bother to read the citations that corroborate everything that is a said.  Also, there are many instances of secondary sources that corroborate what is said but you ignore the facts.  You do not care about Wiki rules, you care only about one thing which is to find any excuse to delete as much as possible of anything that  casts Bailey in a positive light, and to add as much as possible of anything that suggests negativity.  James 13:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, paraphrasing is okay, which is what James has done. And, he is trying to be responsive to people saying there are too many quotations (hence, he paraphrases).  It is not OR because he has not given analysis or interpretation.  If you object to his paraphrases of quotations, why don't you take a crack at paraphrasing the same quotations?  (i.e., simple summary description of what the quotation says)   Renee 13:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NO. A secondary source is necessary. I have no confidence in the reliability of the "paraphrasing" of Jamesd1, no more than you would have confidence in my paraphrasing. Nor is there any reason not to use secondary sources to avoid original research. (Moreover, aside for the many Baileys quotes and the so called paraphrases of Jamesd1, this article is virtually content free.) Kwork 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea what an "exact paraphrase" is. If it is a quote from Bailey, it must be presented as that. If it is a paraphrase, it is using the words of Jamesd1 to represent what he thinks Bailey means, which is not necessarily the same as what Bailey means. But the problem goes much further than just that. For instance, Jamesd1 writes: "Underlying Alice Bailey's writings are the central concepts of unity and divinity." How can you tell me that such a sweeping statement is not original research if it has no secondary source to support it? And that is far from the only example, because Jamesd1 assumes time and again that he knows how to interpret the meaning of a group of quotes that have preceded, or that will follow, his statements. It is original research and non-neutral point of view also. Kwork 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to weigh in here. I gather the specific passage under dispute is this one? Or at least it's a representative diff of similar passages under dispute? If so, let's see.
 * Paraphrases are allowed; if we can only use direct quotations, the article will look like a ransom note cut from newspapers. If we look at a few Featured articles about other authors and mystics: Mary Wollstonecraft gives paraphrases right in the lead "she argues that women are not naturally inferior to men, but appear to be only because they lack education. She suggests that both men and women should be treated as rational beings and imagines a social order founded on reason"; George Fox has: "his ideas were:* Christians differ in external practice, but all are considered "saved" because of their belief; rituals can therefore be safely ignored, as long as one experiences a true spiritual conversion. Actually, Fox considered the true Christians to be the one who were joining with the Society of Friends, and did not accept the salvation of those who remained with existing groups." and there are many other examples like that.
 * Specifically this "unity and divinity" passage does seem to be backed by the source as stated. I don't have the book in question, but I did download the Esoteric astrology zip file from the external link. That isn't broken down by pages as such, but page 7 looks as if it should be early in the book. astr1002.html from that zip file does say "group awareness, group relations and group integrity are coming to the fore in the human consciousness. As this takes place, the personality which is individual, separative and self-centered will recede increasingly into the background, and the soul, non-separative, group conscious and inclusive, will come more and more to the fore. Interest, therefore, in the individual horoscope will gradually die out, and increasingly the planetary, the systemic and the universal picture will stand out in the awareness of the individual; he will then regard himself only as an integral part of a far more important whole and his world group will interest him far more than himself, as an individual." - that seems that unity is important. astr1003.html says "I will endeavor, above all else, to demonstrate to you that all-pervading unity and that underlying synthesis which is the basis of all religions and of all the many transmitted forces" - that does seem as if this unity is connected with divinity. I would need to have actually read and understood Bailey's works to say more, and I haven't, but from that brief skim, plus a dollop of assume good faith as to James, who presumably has read and understood a number of them, that's at least reasonable. Presumably Kwork has also read and understood her works, so if he has a suggestion as to how to improve the phrasing of the summary of Bailey's views, that's one thing; but just deleting on the grounds that it's unsourced or original research isn't a good idea. We do need to summarize her views, she wrote so many books, we can't quote everything. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, James was the Alice Bailey expert here. I learned that he has written three or four books based on Alice Bailey work. He also wrote a computer program:

"Self Search was the subject of a doctoral dissertation study: Psychological Assessment Of Personality Types Proposed in The Theories of Alice Bailey And Roberto Assagioli, A Dissertation by Paul F. Dorin,, 1988. This dissertation includes a reliability and validity study showing significant correlations between the types as measured by Self Search and other tests including:  The Study of Values, The Sixteen Personality Factor Question"

When James was the main editor, you classified this article as class B. With the new editor Parsifal taking over look what has replaced your class B rating. Sparklecplenty 05:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparklecplenty, I have not "taken over" in any way; there are several people editing this article. I am not in charge, and I have no agenda other than NPOV and verifiability.   --Parsifal Hello 05:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My objection is that the article is a collection of Bailey quotes that Jamesd1 has placed into a context that assumes too much about what Bailey meant. The very organazation, and the paraphrases are telling us, for instance, that "She believed that all religions originate from the same spiritual source", even though it is clear that she did not believe that. There should be secondary sources that say that, instead of having Jamesd1 say that. If Jamesd1 insists on using his own paraphrases without secondary sources, I can add sources that give very different readings of the same Bailey quotes. But the process of doing that will be, I suspect, even more acrimonious than the current argument. Thanks for giving your opinion. I not bother Jamesd1 more over this issue; and will proceed, instead, with my alternative option. Kwork 15:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Kwork 15:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC) wrote: "...that "She believed that all religions originate from the same spiritual source", even though it is clear that she did not believe that."

It is clear:

"The day is dawning when all religions will be regarded as emanating from one great spiritual source; all will be seen as unitedly providing the one root out of which the universal world religion will inevitably emerge. Then there will be neither Christian nor heathen, neither Jew nor Gentile, but simply one great body of believers, gathered out of all the current religions. They will accept the same truths, not as theological concepts but as essential to spiritual living; they will stand together on the same platform of brotherhood and of human relations; they will recognize divine sonship and will seek unitedly to cooperate with the divine Plan, as it is revealed to them by the spiritual leaders of the race, and as it indicates to them the next step to be taken on the Path of Approach to God. Such a world religion is no idle dream but something which is definitely forming today."

Problems Of Humanity by ALICE BAILEY

https://www.lucistrust.org/online_books/problems_humanity/chapter_the_problem_the_churches_part1


 * It would be helpful if you propose your changes on the talk pages here, get consensus, and then post. Renee 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry Laurency
Jamesd1, could you give a ref that is a little more specific than to his complete works? Kwork 13:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not add the reference in the first place, but I looked up the correct link and cited it. James 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Faithful paraphrase versus a giant catalog of quotations
By exact paraphrase I mean that the words, though not a direct quotation, accurately represent the thought expressed in the sources cited. Without paraphrases all articles would consist of nothing but a catalog of quotations. James 16:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense to expect that your "paraphrases" of Bailey be treated exactly like direct quotes. They are, by no means, the same thing. Kwork 18:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unity and divinity
"Specifically this "unity and divinity" passage does seem to be backed by the source as stated. I don't have the book in question, but I did download the Esoteric astrology zip file from the external link...--AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input.


 * I've fixed the page number of "Externalization," which was wrong and added additional supporting references after the sentence. Nice to be precise and accurate.

But no one who studied much of AAB would question the prominence of the themes of unity and divinity. Its not controversial.


 * In the DK downloads, the page numbers are in the works surrounded by brackets like this [101] The lnumber indicates the point where the page changes.   Also if you download Wilbur, a free program you can use it to locate anything in the AAB or other text or html files.

Here is a link:   Unity and divinity

It shows all references to unity and divinity in just one of AAB's book, highlighted in blue so you can see the density of the concepts in her writings. Since it fits the purpose of this link, I've used just the line itself in the case, without more context of surrounding lines. James 17:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem of Undue Weight
The size of the section on Jews has grown very large in proportion to the biography as a whole, so that it is out of all proportion to the attention AAB devotes to it in her writings. Personally, I've no real objection to it as it stands today, but it violates the Wiki rule about undue weight, because as I've pointed out before, Jewish references constitute less than 1 percent of AAB's writings. Because of the extreme emotional importance of the subject to a few of you, I'm willing to leave it alone rather than apply the rule. But the section should not be further expanded, or spill over into other sections. If you wish to expand further, then create a new article that is not AAB's biography. It would be good also, if the emotions surrounding the issue do not spill over into other sections and condition the edits there. Unlike some of the folks we now quote in the biography, it is not our job to demonize AAB. James 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be edited down in accordance with Wiki guidelines. It violates the spirit of Wikipedia to do otherwise.  A loonnnnggggggg time ago there was a much shorter version that kwork was happy with.  I'm wondering if Kwork would be willing to reinstate that?  Renee 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You might persuade me. Here is rule for all to review:  WP:Undue weight

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * [Long partially edited quote from WP:NPOV policy page removed and replaced with a direct wikilink to the quoted section. Please don't include long guideline quotes here.  The link to the policy or guideline page is better so we can read it in context.  A short excerpt for illustrating a point is welcome of course.] --Parsifal Hello 02:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, "undue weight" was one of the issues that I brought up yesterday. I quoted Bailey's work as being approximately 6000 pages (actually 5,500 pages), and only "1" percent of that is dedicated to the Jews. In the Bailey books, the word "Jew" occurs 103 times and the word "love" occurs 2,984 times. Sparklecplenty 00:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, precisely. And the sources for this section are lousy and by fringe authors (with the exception of the Hebrew U source). These sources would never make it in a normal article (i.e., Gershom and Sjoo).  Renee 01:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's good to read in James' comment of 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC) that he has no objection to the section on the Jews as it was at the time of his comment. I do not suggest we expand that section of the article, but it certainly should not be shortened, so hopefully we have the beginning of a consensus here.

But I need to mention that there is no violation in that section of the Undue weight section of the WP:NPOV policy. The policy does not assign importance and weight of concepts by counting words. It refers to majority and minority "viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source," and advises avoiding undue weight for minority opinions. Significance to the subject is determined by reliable sources, not word counts. As I've pointed out previously, this article quotes very few sources who have described Bailey's teachings in detail. That's the biggest problem here. She was notable and wrote lots of books, but most of the sources that discuss her offer only a passing mention. That's why we have an article full of her own statements.

In Bailey's writings, references to the Jews and other races appears throughout, not just in one place. The evolution of souls, solar systems, the rays, the hierarchy and the plan, all sorts of places,... include concepts of karma, expressed in regards to groups, and the Jews are part of those ideas as presented. In light of the controversial nature of her writings on that topic, especially during the times close to World War II, the significance of that part of her teachings goes beyond the number of times the word is mentioned, and it is appropriate that those elements of her writings be included in the article.

As I said, I am not adding these comments to suggest expanding that section further, but to stress that it should not be shortened. That content is needed to maintain WP:NPOV. --Parsifal Hello 03:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleansing the article
It is important that the main part of the article not be cleansed of all Bailey criticism. The small amount I added today needs to be where I put it in order to create some balance, and I do not want it moved into the criticisms ghetto at the bottom of the page. If Jamesd1 does not return the Cumbey quotes to where I put them, I will return them myself when I have time for that tomorrow. Lila Tov. Kwork 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, you said at one time you were happy with the shorter criticisms section -- is that still true? Renee 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, if my memory serves, you have also said that you would leave the article alone if you could have what you wanted in the criticism section--you got it and more. And you also stated that "I can not bring myself to help write an article that would put the Bailey teaching in a positive light." And so many people have said, including Judith, that we're not here to condemn Alice Bailey. And I remember Renee trying to help you by setting up a Wiki article were you could write an entirely negative view of Alice Bailey. We have never tried to stop you from writing the controversy section. The struggle was about having quality references and accurate sources that were up to the WP standards that are required to write this article. Sparklecplenty 15:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Cumbey quote clearly fits only in the criticism section as it is an attack by a Christian fundamentalists evangelists . The barrage of  multifaceted attacks in it does not fit anywhere else.   The Cumbey citation accuses AAB of being a Satanist, a Nazi, etc.  It does not belong as an insertion in an exposition of AAB's philosophy of unity.  That should be obvious.   James 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For context on this question, I recommend reading the documentation on this page: Template:Criticism-section. I recommend that we remove the criticism section and interleave all the critical comments into the body of the article as suggested on that template page. It will make for a more interesting and readable article, and reduce the polarization of the discussion as we move towards a truly WP:NPOV and WP:V article. --Parsifal Hello 04:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I understand your idea correctly I think it is a wonderful idea. : Albion moonlight 05:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsifal, I agree that it would be better to interweave all the critical content into the whole article. The problem is that even in with the criticisms together in one place, I find that someone frequently makes changes and additions that are unwarranted. It will be all the more difficult to watch for such changes with the criticism throughout the article. Still, it would make for a better article and worth trying. In that case I will leave the Cumbey quotes temporarily where Jamesd1 moved them.


 * As for Jamesd1's objection to the added quotes, the reason I put them in the sections that I did is to show that not everyone agrees with his understanding and presentation of Bailey, and that a published author who had read all the books, and who had made a study of them, had very specific criticisms of Bailey's supposed good intentions. That needs to be in the section of the article where it applies, and should not be moved to a remote criticisms ghetto. Kwork 11:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply on this. I think the article would be better, though as I noted in reply to Sparkecplenty in the next section, we would have to be careful the text does not become a debate.  I'm not sure this would be best, but I agree with you the segregating the critical comments does not serve the topic well.  --Parsifal Hello 18:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

interweave all the critical content into the whole article
Parsifal, is this the way that its done? Because I remember when someone tried to put a counter to the anti-semitic and racist, at the top section of the article, it was removed--I don't remember the reason given. And if we're going to make such a major change don't we have to have a consensus? Sparklecplenty 15:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right, we need consensus, that's why I suggested it instead of just doing it right away. I could have made a WP:BOLD edit and done it directly, but I thought it would be a big change, so I asked to discuss it first.


 * Also, keep in mind, even if we do make that change, it does not mean changing the article into a debate with answers for every critical point. All it means is mentioning the crticial points in the same subject section of the article where the rest of the content is.


 * The article should not be a debate, because it should be neutral, WP:NPOV, that means, actually presenting the information without an agenda to prove anything about the topic... not to prove anything bad, and not to prove that everything is good, just to tell the story, and as much as possible, use the ideas of third-parties (secondary sources) to tell the story, rather than our own ideas, WP:Verifiable.


 * But I'm not even sure it's a good idea, because it well could become a debate, considering the history of this article, so maybe we should leave the separate section, I'm not sure at this point.--Parsifal Hello 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

comments requested re original research
I moved the following text from the article Theosophy section to here, because, while I do not doubt that this information is accurate, I could not verify it with the references. Info moved from article:

Theosophy list:

There are several themes that, in some degree, distinguish her writings from Theosophy and related traditions. These include:
 * Unity is the fundamental fact of spiritual life and realization
 * The entire universe is alive—all is energy and energy expresses life
 * Divinity is both transcendent and immanent
 * Man lives within a hierarchy of spiritual lives
 * Divinity unfolds through spiritual evolution
 * All life is cyclic
 * Man is a soul (consciousness) and reincarnates many times to gain experience
 * Life is governed by the interplay of karma and free will
 * Will, love, and intelligence are the essential attributes of the evolving soul
 * Seven fundamental energies underlie all things—seven centers, seven planes, etc.
 * A marked emphasis on the importance of service to humanity
 * Emphasis on the importance of group consciousness and group service
 * A shift away from personal devotion to spiritual teachers or masters
 * A lengthy treatment of the seven rays as expressions of evolving life
 * An elaboration of the glamours or illusions of the spiritual path
 * Teachings on the return of the Christ or Christ consciousness
 * Teachings on the importance of full moon cycles in relation to meditation

I reviewed the sources and I did not see the above points listed; the sources seem to have prose content that may include these items, but pulling these details out of the text of the references would, to me, seem like research.

Please assume good faith. I am not saying this info can't be in the article, I'm just saying that the references don't seem to clearly support it and asking for clarification. Comments are invited. --Parsifal Hello 06:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. I left the original references where they were in the article (at the end of the Theosophy comparison section), so they can support the other text there. --Parsifal Hello 06:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith
Please assume good faith. I am not saying this info can't be in the article, I'm just saying that the references don't seem to clearly support it and asking for clarification. Comments are invited. --Parsifal Hello 06:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it." Wikipedia guidelines

Parsifal, yes I assume you have good faith, you have a good reputation, probably why James asked you come help here. Not possible to write a good faith article when one of the main editors has admitted to "not" having good faith--"I can not bring myself to help write an article that would put the Bailey teaching in a positive light." Sparklecplenty 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the second time you have cited those words of mine here. They were said in private discussion on user talk pages. When Renee complained about my doing that to her I apologized, removed the the material from this page, and have avoided repeating that mistake.


 * But a much bigger problem is that you obviously think that my being a less than perfect person is an important topic of conversation on this article's talk page. The subject is not me, but the article. And, in fact, just this morning I made some additions to the article. But, Renee, perhaps assuming bad faith, reverted the first of the edits without taking time to think out my reason for the change. I reverted the second myself...and felt like a fool for even trying to help you. (When have you ever contributed anything to the article? Every edit you have ever made is either on this talk page or is a revert.) Kwork 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, I apologize for taking it from your page, but the facts remain. Sparklecplenty 18:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What facts? Kwork 18:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"I can not bring myself to help write an article that would put the Bailey teaching in a positive light." Kwork

I don't have a problem with you having an opposing view. And the opposing view is what you provide. But according to Wikipedia guidelines there has to be a "good faith"--people are trying to help the project, not hurt it." You have have an afc for editing without "good faith." And I think  putting anti-Bailey Satanist quote in the middle of the section that discusses her teaching on "unity" is not "good faith". Sparklecplenty 18:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added edits to the article, some of which Jamesd1 has kept in the article out of choice. All you have done is complain about me, Parsifal, or whoever else is doing something you do not like. This is not a discussion forum. If you are not going to contribute something to the article, why are you here? Kwork 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, while I agree completely with what you say here, I wonder if you realize that Sparklecplenty is doing to you about exactly the same sort of thing you have done to others. It sucks, doesn't it? Eaglizard 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How the same? I actually edit the article, not just show a big mouth on the talk page. But certainly I can get very harsh. If you think I can not take it, go back on the attack as you have before. I can deal with whatever comes along. Or maybe you can show that I have broken rules....if you could get me blocked from editing Wikipedia I would consider it as like a gift from HaShem. Kwork 22:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sparklecplenty: You really need to stop doing this. You are again in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You're attacking the motives of another editor, and this time, you started this all by yourself, out of nowhere, not even part of an ongoing discussion.

Just yesterday you made the good decision to remove many uncivil comments you entered previously, and I applaud you for doing the right thing.

But now, you made a serious complaint about Kwork out of nowhere, for no reason. That is called a personal attack and it is not acceptable.

You should immediately apologze and delete or strike through your comments above, and remove Kworks comments that you have quoted here out of context.

This comment you wrote shows that you do not understand Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF:


 * And I think putting anti-Bailey Satanist quote in the middle of the section that discusses her teaching on "unity" is not "good faith". 

That's the problem right there. "Assume good faith" does not refer to good faith about the topic of the article, it refers to the motivations of editors. If a reliable source has reported something that contradicts your idea of Bailey as a perfect teacher or unity, including that information is not bad faith, it's correct editing to achieve a neutral point of view. If that information were omitted for the purpose of making Bailey seem perfect, that would be biased, and is not the way Wikipedia works.

Please stop attacking editors - stop discussing editors at all. If you want to make comments, discuss the content of the articles. --Parsifal Hello 19:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsifal, I can only assume that there was "not good faith" with the putting in the Satanist reference in the middle of the unity section, I was going on what has come before, as you may have been going on my uncivil behavior in the past. The Cumbly reference does not go where it was put, even if we mixed the negatives and positives it doesn't go there. This is a good example of what we would face if we decided to mix the negative and positives throughout the article--chaos would ensue.


 * We all have our world views. I don't belong to one race, a religion or any foundation, so all that isn't personal to me. I am a strong advocate for individual rights, and strive to do my part to see the human hatreds end. I can't really defend Alice Bailey criticism of the nations, races, religions. I guess its where I emphasis lies that makes act the way we do. This discussion page is a reflection of the problems of humanity. I have let the personally charged atmosphere affect infer with the real to desire to emphasis the majority of Alice Bailey's teaching of unity, brotherhood,love. Sparklecplenty 21:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for explaining. I didn't mean for my comments to be just spouting a bunch of Wikiguides for no reason.   Really, on Wikipedia, it always works best to talk about the article and not the editors, unless there is a specific reason that one must discuss an editor as a last resort.


 * Since you didn't like where the quote was placed, you could have entered a comment explaining why you thought it didn't belong there, and where it should go, without saying anything about why you think the person put it where they did. That's a more effective way to use the talk pages.


 * I can understand your frustration with the process and I didn't intend my comment to come across as harsh, but when I saw more comments about editors instead of content again, I felt I should mention it. --Parsifal Hello 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to the Parsifal
The references surrounding the section you removed, and which I restored are more than adequately documented and sufficiently specific to justify the comparative list as it stands. Beyond that, you are also trying to challenge statements that are not controversial. I repeat what I've said before: it is not necessary to place a citation after every line of paraphrased text. James 16:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You cite seven sources, but (as far as I can find) not a single one of those sources says that Bailey shared the points you claim with Theosophical teaching. The connection is your original research. Kwork 16:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Open your eyes.


 * Also, you know enough about AAB and Theosophy to realize that the list is a correct and non-controversial rendering of similarities and differences. James 17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that those who are in the Theosophical Society would agree. Do you have a Theosophical source that supports that?


 * "This article is intended mainly for those attracted to the New Age books of Alice A. Bailey. Her claim that her teachings came from the same Occult Brotherhood that taught HP Blavatsky, the founder of the modern Theosophical Movement, is not valid."


 * Time and again what I have seen from the Theosophical society, when it mentions Alice Bailey denies and connection or basic similarity to Bailey's teaching. Kwork 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the citations. James

Well, show me what supports your claim. Kwork 18:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Its in the references which are free to read and it is not my duty to elaborate them for you here. But go read the Wiki article on Theosophy and, with open eyes, you will find the parallels.  James 18:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But scholarly concern with references is not what this conversation is really about. As the editing history and this long discussion shows, it is really about your intention to do all that you can to emphasize the negative and reduce the positive.  James 18:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the references and do not see anything to support your claims. I said that already. Show me something.


 * As for negative evaluations of Bailey, there is some of that, but very little. The reason it is there is because it belongs in a neutral article. This is the Alice Bailey article, not the Alice Bailey cheerleaders. Kwork 18:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

James, the reason I removed those two lists of principles is that they were not simple paraphrases of what appeared in the references. I read through the sources and I saw dense information with many ideas. It's possible that some, or maybe all, of the ideas you listed might be in those references. But I also saw many other ideas on those pages. There were no passages in the sources that actually listed those ideas and described them as the central concepts of each of the two systems, Theosophy, and Bailey.

Therefore, to use those references to support your lists of principles, is WP:Original research, because, to find those elements in those sources, one would have to actually do research; one would have to study the sources, pull out the info, combine info between the sources,and then create the lists. As part of this process, one would have to make decisions about some elements listed on those pages to omit and not consider to be part of the basic principles. This whole process is the essence of the definition of synthesis, as described in WP:SYNTH.

Further, you state that I am challenging non-controversial information. You're right, I am not saying the information is wrong, or controversial. What I am saying is that it is not WP:Verifiable. If you can provide a reference that shows a single list, so we can look at it and see the list sitting there, then you can include it be saying that a writer has summarized the main ideas of Theosphy or Bailey with a particular list. Or if you have a few references that identify a few different main points, they can be included with separate references. But listing main points and providing a dense page of text for someone to study, to figure out if those points are actually main points or not, is not a satsifactory use of a reference and does not support the content you want to include.

If you can show us a reference or two or three that clearly summarizes the lists you want to include, it's fine with me to include them. I don't find them controversial, but at this point, they seem to be OR and therefore not appropriate. --Parsifal Hello 18:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Slanted editing
When editing, an editor should not take pieces of quotes and leave out crucial context within the same sentence or paragraph in order to make it look as if AAB wrote something different than she actually did. I've seen a lot of this lately. Please stop inserting your personal point of view by use of sentence fragments and omission of parts that result in alteration of the meaning. James 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could indicate who you are addressing?Kwork 18:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, I will refrain from presenting a catalog of the specifics. I'm hoping that editors that are doing this will reflect and take a more objective and impersonal approach.  Let's see what happens next.  If slanted editing continues unabated, then I will go through the history and catalog what has occurred in detail.  We can then call in some outside objective eyes and they can asses whether my criticism here is well founded or not not. James 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the point of waiting till next time? Why not have a good kvetch right now? Kwork 20:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Too technical
"In line with previous Theosophical teachings, Bailey taught that man consists of a soul (existing on the abstract levels of the mental plane) working through a personality (existing in the physical dense and etheric levels, the emotional plane, and the lower three levels of the mental plane) . The soul constitutes the Love-Wisdom aspect, and the personality (consististing of the mind, emotions, and physical body) represents the aspect of Active Intelligence."

The reason I altered your version above, which you restored, is that I think you are being too detailed here in using the in-group vocabulary and it is as if you are writing for students of the ageless wisdom who have some knowledge. While your wording is technically correct, it does not really help the general reader or "layman" and no one but those who have already studied the subject are likely to understand and benefit from such density of esoteric terminology. James 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The AAB article contains a lot criticism
Currently, the article contains 944 Words of explicit and mostly extreme criticism. There is no basis for the constant complaint about painting too positive a picture of AAB's writings.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject
In addition the explicit criticism cited above, the biography contains 1,064 Words in sections on "On the Jewish people" and "On the Negro race." These sections as a group communicate the implied criticism that Bailey was heavily focused on racial themes which is wrong. These themes take up less than 1 percent of her entire writings. Their collection in this biography, as I've pointed out, violates Wikipedia rules because they do not represent a proportionate picture of her writings and there are no references to indicate that this focus reflects the majority view of her writings by scholars. These section are not part of a proportionate picture of Bailey but reflect the narrow focus of the editors who are personally concerned with the racial issues. The sections, by their emphasis, represent personal bias of editors. James 21:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above emphasis on Jews and Negros violates this Wiki rule:

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

James 21:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are repeating a complaint you've made previously.   I replied to it in detail,  above.  Undue weight is about minority and majority references, not about counting words.  You are welcome to read my prior reply if you want to discuss this further, but I am not going to repeat my explanation.


 * No, undue weight is about Achieving neutrality. Its is about more than majority and minority references.  You can take a lot of technically factual references and assemble them as a way of communicating your personal impression or concerns about a writer's words.  This does not represent the writers text as such, or the views of some scholar.  Rather, it relates to what you as an editor want to communicate, rather than what the subject of the biography communicated.  We should confine ourselves to accurately representing the views of the subject of the biography and the views of scholars about those views.  Anything beyond that is personal.


 * Quoting and paraphrasing collections of things that are not representative of the subject of the biography is very unscholarlty and violates the letter and spirit of neutrality.    For instance, the emphasis on Jews and Negroes is not AAB's emphasis or that of a group of reliable scholars.  It comes from the editors, personally.   It deserves some treatment, but not the massive emphasis editors have given it.  James 22:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, most of the changes that you reverted today had nothing to do with race. I added references to various sections of the article on various topics, and you removed most of them, including the sources. You also re-added the original research about the Bailey and Theosophy teachings without responding to the discussion of sources on that, and you reverted the removal of off-topic info and quotes about Psychosynthesis that did not mention Bailey.  Yet after all that, you use "race" as a way to unfairly complain about the work I did on the article.


 * You continue to complain about bias, yet you have never edited any other Wikipedia article. The various editors who you consider to be some sort of biased group have edited articles on wide ranges of topics, some have edited hundreds of topics.


 * An interesting question is: who here is editing with the goal of improving Wikipedia in general, and this article in particular, according to the core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V; and who here is editing only one article for the purpose of controlling the way it presents its subject?  --Parsifal Hello 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * James, I think the emphasis is caused by the amount of controversy in the real world. The fact is, many people have found antisemitism in her words. I think it used to have undue weight, months ago, but that was eliminated -- ironically, by your very own excellent additions to the article. Perhaps there's a way to address your concern in the article? Maybe you could work in a statement to the effect of "while her writings on Jews only occupy XXX pages out of XX,XXX, those sections have garnered much comment." Or something like that? I dunno, just an idea. Eaglizard 22:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eaglizard, Thanks for you thoughts. About the "real world," two things: first the article already contains a heavy dose of criticism (see my recent post on it here in discussion); second, there are two "real worlds," the world of people who study and write about AAB's out of interest, and the world of people in competing religions who are horrified at her blatant and radical criticisms and so attack her as a consequence. As further example of the problem, even following the reactionary side of the real world model, the Christians are a much larger group than the Jews, but no one here has really fought for their critical representation with much enthusiasm. James 22:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, friend James, you apparently may never read this, but I still have to disagree with you here. Really, there's only the one single real world. And in it, lots of different people have a common opinion of the Mrs. Unfortunately, in fact, far more people have heard of AAB through these and other critics than will ever be exposed to her own words. This article is, in fact, a very good chance to correct that sad state of affairs, by doing exactly what WP is supposed to do, presenting a fair and non-biased account of Bailey and her theories. Eaglizard 07:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

three reverts per day
Just reminder to editors. We're only allowed three reverts a day. It prevents edit wars. Sparklecplenty 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkle, you've misinterpreted the rule a bit. If you read WP:3RR carefully, it refers to reverts, not revisions. In fact, we're encouraged to make as many revisions a day as we possibly can. A revert is more narrowly defined as an edit which adds nothing or changes nothing, but simply reverts the text back to a previous version (or one very close to it). And that is something we're not actually supposed to do in the first place, except in cases of outright vandalism or pure bad-faith edits (like someone blanking the page). We're only allowed 3 reverts a day, but we're encouraged not to use them at all. Eaglizard 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eaglizard, It was typo. I meant to spell reversion.


 * I thought you might've ;), but I also thought some editors could use the reminder about not reverting. Eaglizard 07:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

On the bad idea of blending criticism in the article
Currently we have:

Life (childhood and adult) Teachings Influence Controversy

Criticism, of the type we have mostly in the Controversy section does not fit in Life or Teachings which are about her "Life" and "Teachings." If you want to confuse what she wrote with what others wrote about her writings then mixing them is a "good" idea. It will make the biography worse, which is perhaps the point and intention of some edits. James 22:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The blending idea came from WP:NPOV, not from me. The reason it's recommend in that policy is that it makes the articles better, not worse.


 * As far as confusing what she wrote with what others wrote:


 * If the writing is done well, it will not be confusing.


 * This is a biography, not a textbook on Bailey's teachings.


 * The core policy of WP:Verifiable and its corollary WP:RS assigns higher priority to secondary sources than primary sources, so the more secondary sources we include in the article, the better it is for the quality of the article.


 * And... Please omit your speculations on the motivation of other editors and stick to discussing the content. --Parsifal Hello 22:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, not speculating on all editors motives, but some have clearly expressed their motives. And because of it, the "mixing" approach won't work with a topic that includes anti-Semiticism, racist, anti-religion. Mixing won't work because in introduction section, after the "Some have seen her writings on this as racist' and anti-Semitic." [14] [15], you appended a contrasting view, you then deleted. And another editor deleted an Alice Bailey rebuttal in the controversy section. Why is it called a controversy section if rebuttal isn't allowed? And your criticism of James' deleting sections without discussing with us, you and Kwork have deleted or edited massive amounts of without discussing it with us. Four editors praised the first major overhaul James did a week ago--although it needed some minor edition, major edits were made to it, so quickly is was hard to keep up. Sparklecplenty 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mixing the viewpoints to tell a complete story is not a debate where items need rebuttals. That's a fundamental misunderstanding.  The article just tells the story, preferably, as others have told it first.  The article's purpose is not to make a point or judgement.


 * As an example, in the intro, the reason the contrasting view was deleted is that the entire intro is already a contrasting view; there is only one sentence there about the anti-semitism and racism. --Parsifal Hello 23:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsifal, your statement above is way off target. Only "one sentence," one little dash of verbal poison; doesn't take much if the poison is of the high potency variety as it is here.   The introduction does not say anything positive about AAB at all except that she had a  humanitarian philosophy; the rest is entirely neutral except for the critical blast at the end.  The intro  says she was a writer and teacher, published a lot of books, had a big influence, etc.; it doesn't say if the books and effects were good or evil or something in between.  The words used, "religion, telepathic, Theosophy," etc., are either good or bad depending on your experiences in that connection; some readers would be sure she was a nut case for the "telepathic" reference (some in the forum tried to underscore that interpretation some time ago).   The intro concludes with the statement that she was critisized as a racist and anti-semetic.  There is nothing in the intro that comes close to providing any balance for such a hot-button and emotionally charged inditement.


 * I ask myself if it is really possible that you do not see all of the above, and if not, what it implies. I hope you will reflect on your role here in a detached manner and live up to the good repetition suggested by your personal Wiki page. James 00:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is after all, only one sentence, and it does not say that she "is" an anti-semite, all it says is "Some have seen her writings on this as racist, and anti-Semitic." That's a simple, short statement of fact based on references.  It's not an argument or a debate or a portrayal of her as a person.  I don't see what the problem with that is.


 * I do see it as a problem that you are continuing to write things that cast doubt upon my motives or about what kind of person or editor I might be. Please stop doing that.  Discuss the content, not the editors.  --Parsifal Hello 00:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Big square box at the top of biography
Parsifal, please sign your name at the top of your last entry to the biography. It was not agreed upon by the other editors, it may not be the opinion of everyone here. Thank you Sparklecplenty 00:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The box is a content notice and dispute template for "article issues", and as it is in the article and not the talk page, it is not intended to have a signature.


 * It is temporary, so don't worry, it won't stay on the article forever; it's just there to help resolve problems.


 * The purpose of the tag is to alert readers and editors that this article is not in a stable condition, and that there are ongoing disputes about the content of the article. This helps with two things:  For readers, it lets them know that what they are reading is not a consensus version of the article and that changes are in progress, and for editors, it lets them know that help is needed to solve the problems.  --Parsifal Hello 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I rather object to the addition of that issues box, Parsifal. I think inserting it in this particular case is unnecessary, and borders on disruptive. If you want to notify readers that this article has problems, the neutrality claim is the only one that is really valid. And maybe the synthesis. Maybe. The rest refer to editoral issues that all the editors involved are already aware of, and which are being discussed here. I don't see your point in adding it to the article, and I hope you're not trying to make one. I also disagree in particular with the claim of conflict; WP:COI is mainly targeted at commercial promotion. Even tho it's broad enough to cover other misuse, I don't think it should be applied to well-intentioned "true believers" trying to promote the general appreciation of a long-dead spiritual adviser. I recommend the box be removed, because I don't see how it improves this article, or how it helps us improve it. Failing that, I think it should be reduced. Eaglizard 08:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've removed the issues box per your request. I agree that we can solve the issues without the unpleasant box looming on the page, as long as editors are willing to work cooperatively. I don't agree with all of your interpretations about the issues I listed, but also, I don't feel we need to get into that now, since the issues box has been removed.  If those concerns come up again, we can discuss those points at that time.  Hopefully, that won't be needed. --Parsifal Hello 08:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, another edit-war outbreak!
While i was off editing in the reletively dusty and remote pastures of the New Thought Movement, i gave little thought to ongoing battles over Alice Bailey. Checking my watchlist this afternoon, i found a flurry of activity on editors' personal pages and here. So i decided to check it out. My goodness!

First, i have to applaud those who continue to work for the improvement of the page. Second, i must heave a big sigh at all of the reversioning and revisioning that has been going on. Those who have been around the page for a while know where i stand on the matter -- let's be NPOV, not run a quote-farm, and not use Alice Bailey as a canvas upon which to project our own negative emotions.

The article's quote-farm aspect has been troublesome, because, of course, the woman was voluminous in her output and so much of what she published was intended to be spiritually "authoritative" in viewpoint, being dictated from the standpoint of a "Tibetan master" who knew the answers to all of life's persisent questions.

Adding to that, there is the issue of internal contradictions in her texts -- calling Jews "greedy" on one hand and "artistic geniuses" on the other. This internal inconsistency of Bailey's expressions should not become an excuse to run contrasting quote-farms here, but lacking a scholarly outside opinion that makes note of the contradictory aspects within her writing is a problem. How can we present her "both sides now" inconsistency without engaging in Original Research or quote-farming?

We really need a fair and critical source book on her, but, as Kwork has been pointing out for months, no such book exists. Thus the competing quote-farms spring up.

It's a real problem -- and i'm not sure that there is a wiki guideline that covers a situation like this.

cat Catherineyronwode 00:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey cat, I just finished clicking my way thru the edits of the last few days, and it occurs to me that I wanted to mention something to you: excellent copy-edits! While I don't agree with you much, I have to say you are one helluva copy-editor, cat. Your experience shows. Eaglizard 08:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I enjoy it because it's fairly peaceful work, especially when compared to writing or proofreading. cat Catherineyronwode 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye, and Thanks
The situation in the AAB article is analogous to that of a case where two atheists descide to write a Wiki article on Christianity. Parsifal and Kwork tend to be anti-Bailey editors and their personal bias conditions their edits. They make nice little format fixes, but where anything significant is concerned, their bias is likely to control. I have fought their selective-misquotations and distortions and lack of perspective for a long time, and struggled in the face of it to create a biography that is accurate and that contains a just amount of reasonable criticism. It is no use, unless others with knowledge, interest, and authority show up to change the situation.

I am done with editing this article. Without administrative intervention or other knowledgeable editors with a scholarily interest in the subject, it is like writing in Beach sand and there is insufficient support to warrant continued painstaking efforts. There have been a few people who have given mostly moral support and discussion contributions, and for that thanks. But there is no real community of active editors willing to join me in shaping the article.

My friends in this karma, those identified with the Jewish issues, will now control a subject they are averse to and which they have limited knowledge of. The pro-Jewish editors, those I've called anti-anti-Jewish folks, have won and I predict the result will be apparent in the near future. What progress I have contributed will be dismantled. The order and relative sanity I've sought to foster will be undermined. Sections will be cut away until the article bears little resemblance to AAB's life and thought or the contrasting thoughts of a community of reasonable critics. How could it be otherwise when people work on a subject they do not know and are averse to identifying with, even on a temporary scholarily basis.

Yes, the situation in the AAB article is analogous to that of a case where two atheists descide to write a Wiki article on Christianity. It is absurd, and no amount of Wiki rule quoting will avail. For any complex and controversial subject, and in the absence of knowledgeable and clear-headed editors, the Wikipedia process breaks down.

I will not be coming back to the article unless word reaches me by email that the situation has changed. It will likely be some time before I sign on to Wiki again and I will not be checking for response to this, my last post--there is a direct non-Wikipedia email link on my personal page. If anyone should need to contact me, use that, because after I click "Save" on this message, I'm out of here and will not look back. James 02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. "Omit the negative propositions.  Don't waste yourself in rejection, nor bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good.  (R. W. Emerson)


 * It's unfortunate that James never understood that he was not being opposed by "pro-Jewish" editors but by editors who had responded to a request made on this talk page by a reader, more than a year ago, asking Wikipedia to note the fact that critics had accused Bailey of promoting antisemitism and general racism. cat Catherineyronwode 03:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * James, my first response is, sadly, that you give yourself way too much credit. Apparently, you feel that you are the single positive force for good involved in editing this article, and once you leave, all is lost? I apologize for being harsh, but dude... get a grip. Anyways, if there were only one of my many sterling qualities that I were allowed to single out, I would only wish more editors would do like I try to do, and listen to their own damned advice. Btw, that is a very nice postscript, James. And even if you never come back, thank you very, very much for all that you have contributed to this effort. Eaglizard 07:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, for a more historical perspective on this, there is this post. I think your criticism of James is 17.2% true. :-) ownership —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklecplenty (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * James, I am very sorry to see you go. It's clear that you are very knowledgeable about Bailey and were committed to seeing her work presented in context.  I think you should write articles, publish them on-line like Sjoo and Gershom and then we can cite you!  (unless the other editors are willing to take a good look at the references and really omit the self-published ones)  Best wishes, Renee  Renee 16:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
Parsifal, thanks for your quick response. I rather expected you to defend the box, which would have been ok w/ me, if we could remove a few of the lines. But you're right; there's no sense debating the interpretation of a policy that hopefully won't need to be applied.

I have to agree that dispersing the various critical comments to appropriate sections is correct, according to WP style. I also think the 'Prophecy and obscurity' subsection is entirely odd, and doesn't belong anywhere at all. In general, tho, I'm in agreement with James; there is too much negative POV material (like the Cumbey ref) being added, and it threatens to unbalance the article. Btw, have we discussed this Cumbey reference already, and I just forgot it? Somebody refresh my memory on why we need this source that appears to be misrepresentative, and clearly has an axe to grind?

And unfortunately, some technical errors are getting introduced, as well. Parsifal, why did you add the Lane reference, and the words ""the Plan of the Hierarchy"? The sentence originally was "In her concept, the greatly increased ("stepped-up") evolution of consciousness that results from this Master–pupil relationship is made possible only in and through service to humanity. Bailey's writing downplays the traditional devotional and aspirational aspects of the spiritual life, in favor of serving humanity", which is (with the following sentence) a paraphrase of pg 267 of Unfinished Autobiography, which is cited. Her text uses the words service and humanity, but not the word plan. I don't have the Lane book, so it's not clear to me how the reference to Lane supports the entire sentence to which it is attached, or the introduction of that phrase. Can you reference Bailey herself as saying that service is to be rendered to "the Plan", rather than simply to humanity? It may seem like nothing to some, but, like the phrase "new world order", reference to a "Plan" can be inflammatory and biasing, imo.

Are eight citations really needed after the sentence "Bailey's writings stirred controversy because she spoke against orthodox Christianity, American isolationism, nationalism, Soviet totalitarianism, fascism, and Nazism."? Aren't those claims restated and properly referenced in the body of the article? They should be, don't you think?

I find all of these issues, and more, and yet I'm now actually afraid to edit the article, since everybody's gotten so hopped up over it lately. So, let's argue here, and not in edit summaries, shall we? Eaglizard 11:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard 11:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding: why did you add the Lane reference, and the words ""the Plan of the Hierarchy"?  That's directly based on the book I found.  Since people don't have the book, I have now added the entire quotation of that paragraph, to the footnote so you can see it in context.  If after you read that, you think the paraphrase needs to be changed, we can fix it.  Or if you think it should move elsewhere, it can move.  But it seems accurate and should be kept because we need more secondary sources because the article is mostly based on primary references to Bailey's material- that's why I looked for other books.   As far as the term "the Plan of the Hierarchy" - Bailey uses that term, it's important to her, part of the basis of her teachings, why would we want to avoid it?


 * Regarding Are eight citations really needed after the sentence "Bailey's writings stirred controversy because she spoke against orthodox Christianity, American isolationism, nationalism, Soviet totalitarianism, fascism, and Nazism."?  I was not the one who added those, and I don't know why they are there.  All of them seem to be Bailey references. Maybe someone put them there to prove that she was against negative things like Soviet totalitarianism, fascism, and Nazism - but that's a guess, I don't know who added them or why. It would be fine with me if you want to remove them, they seem like too many Bailey footnotes for one sentence.


 * I don't know about the Cumbey reference, I haven't read that book and did not add that text.


 * Don't be afraid to edit the article, I don't see people as "hopped up" at this point. The problems over the last few days were caused not by regular editing, but by disruptive repeated reverting of large amounts of material all at once, including references, without discussion.  As long as editing is mutually respectful between all editors, and controversial edits are discussed instead of repeatedly reverted, everyone should feel welcome to improve the article.  --Parsifal Hello 18:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a fair amount of Lane's book at google books, it turns out, and it reads very well. Google's own synopsis/review says "... Lane unveils the apostate Christian roots of ..." de Chardin, and I would assume by association, those New Age leaders who claim him as an influence. It's a well-written and solid source, to be sure, but it clearly has an agenda, evidenced by the normative term apostate. I don't think it objectively represents Bailey's thought any better than other evangelical Christian writers who have been debated here, like Groothius; its essentially a very scholarly Christian expose. (Having been raised an evangelical Southern Babtist [sic], I'm very familiar with the form. Evangelicals have an obvious bias against our subject.) I wouldn't object to Lane as another scholarly detractor, however, here you seem to be using it as a source to objectively describe Bailey's system of thought. And given that it was you that added the phrase to existing text, I think I can just as well ask, not "why avoid it?" but, "why did you insert it here?" Which is what I did ask, as I recall. And to be more obvious in the argument I used above, I see a textual reference that Bailey cites "service to humanity" as central to evolution; if you want to change that to "service to the Plan", you need to change the Bailey cite to something else that says that. There is a difference in the two formulations.


 * As for those 8 footnotes, it really doesn't matter to me whether they are "pro-" or "anti-" etc; they're ugly, and they don't belong there. I'll take them out later tonite, I guess, if no one else has. Eaglizard 22:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that Lane is generally critical, but I don't see that particular Lane quote as critical, in particular, because he cites it with a footnote and states that it was take from a brochure of the Arcane school. While he may be biased, I don't think that he or his publisher would put an outright lie in a footnote with a specific reference to a source.


 * I also don't see that mentioning "the Plan" or "the Hierarchy" in this context implies any criticism of Bailey. Her whole approach was based on those ideas, throughout all of her writings.  Here is a quote from page 268 of her Autobiography, that is cited in that same paragraph you're discussing.  (It looks like the reference says page 267 and should be changed to 268) - emphasis added for purposes of this discussion:


 * "An esoteric school trains the disciple in group work. He learns to relinquish personality plans in the interest of group purpose - ever directed to the service of humanity and the Hierarchy. He becomes merged in group activities and - losing none of his individualized and particularized identity - he is a dedicated contributor to the Plan, with no thought of the separated self conditioning his thinking."


 * It seems to me this is not in conflict with the Lane reference. In Bailey's writings, from what I've seen, she was not describing a simple form of selfless service like the Gurus of India discuss; her teachings come from the Hierarchy, they have a Plan, and the idea of service is part of that. It doesn't seem to me to be critical or negative to say that her view of service involved the Hierarchy; she saw the Hierarchy as inspiring ascended masters helping humanity.  Why is it bad to have that in the article?  I don't mean to be difficult, but I don't understand what about this is a problem.


 * There are also places in the autobiography where she discusses service more generally. If you feel that other forms of service should be discussed separately from the Lane quote and the Bailey quote I included above, maybe we should expand that section and mention both kinds of service separately, adding different quotes for the other kinds.  Do you have a suggestion for how those sentences can be written to express it better, while still using the secondary source?


 * (By the way, in this regard, it would be easier to do this if we could find secondary sources writing about Bailey's concepts of service to humanity, and her esoteric teachings; those kinds of sources are available for Theosophy, but for Bailey they seem to be elusive.) --Parsifal Hello 22:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

rethinking the article
Parsifal had made a suggestion ( Talk:Alice Bailey/re-draft ) for reducing the amount of direct quotes from Alice Bailey, which suggestion got lost amid other discussion. Perhaps in this quiet moment, before Jamesd1 returns, we could discuss it. Kwork 12:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this violate the spirit of consensus building? i.e., let's get in as much changes as we can while James is out.  Renee 15:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jamesd1 left of his own accord, and is welcome back any time he wishes to return. However this moment of quiet seems a good time to consider the structure of the article. But if there is objection to Parsifal's suggestion (and it is in tentative form), I would certainly not wish to force the outcome in that direction. Moreover, even decisions that might be made now, could still be open to further change. Otherwise, are you suggesting that nothing be done until Jamesd1 chooses to return? Kwork 16:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Renee, I made the suggestion and put the proposed draft on a sub-page so we have a chance to dicsuss it first, exactly as you said, to build consensus. I'm not arguing strongly for it, just putting it up for consideration... mostly because the article is so full of quotes now that it's hard to read. I'm not suggesting we hide any of Bailey's ideas, and I'm not trying to "gut the article" as some have said of this idea. I thought of this suggestion by reading lots of Wikipedia biography articles, and I didn't find any others that have so many quotes.

On the other hand, the quotes are interesting, so I'm not positive the alternate version is the best way to go, and I'm interested in hearing how others see this option.

Regarding your concern that James would not be involved in the consensus, he made that choice on his own. No-one asked him to leave. He is welcome to re-join the discussion and participate in the consensus building process.

For anyone who wants to consider this idea, if you review the alternate version at Talk:Alice Bailey/re-draft, keep in mind that new information and references have been added to the main article since I wrote the draft a while ago. So if we do make the change, we would not start with my draft, we would start over from the current article. The way I did it was to take the article and go from top to bottom, removing quotes, paraphrasing or summarizing as needed, and keeping the references in place so the no information was lost. That would need to be done with the new current article instead of starting with the draft. The paraphrasing needs to be done carefully, and with various editors approving the way they are worded so we keep it NPOV and Verifiable. So think of the re-draft as an example of the idea, not as a starting point.

To keep this all very clear: I am not arguing for us to do this. I'm just wondering if it might be an improvement, and I'm interested in everyone's ideas about it. All editor's comments are invited. --Parsifal Hello 20:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll take a look at it. Renee 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Constance Cumbey
Eaglizard, you seem to have objections to the Constance Cumbey quotes about Alice Bailey in the article. In fact I had placed those quotes in the "Human equality and religion" section of the article, and Jamesd1 moved them to the "criticisms" ghetto at the bottom of the page. It is my intention to return them to where I originally put them to balance the rhapsodic enthusiasm of Jamesd1's presentation of Bailey in that section of the article. The fact is that many people do not see Bailey with the same unrestrained enthusiasm that you and Jamesd1 do. Since there are many who doubt the goodness of the Bailey teaching, and since there are published sources expressing those doubts (such as Cumbey), that needs to be recognized in the article and not just in a remote criticisms section of the article. It need a presence in a main section of the article.

I recently bought a copy of Cumbey's The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow. It says on the cover that it was a "#1 Best Seller". If that is correct, far more people have read her book than have read all of Bailey's 24 books combined. That is something that can not be ignored, or flicked off by calling the author an "evangelical and fundamentalist Christian" as Jamesd1 attempted to do. The evangelical Christians are the fastest growing religious group in the United States, and have been for quite some time. Many of them are very well educated, intelligent and thoughtful people. Constance Cumbey is a lawyer who knows what she is doing, who has apparently read all of Bailey's books and taken extensive notes on them. Evangelical Christians are have growing influence, and Bailey people wopuld be wise to learn to live with them.

I think that is enough to explain why I think the inclusion of the quotes from Cumbey are justified. If not, and you still have objections, let me know. Kwork 13:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, would it make any differences if one of us objected? Statements like this, "The fact is that many people do not see Bailey with the same unrestrained enthusiasm that you and Jamesd1 do. Since there are many who doubt the goodness of the Bailey teaching.", says you cannot be a neutral participate. What quote you choose, where you put that quote, and how you "slimed" it is based your prejudice--in your case hatred of Alice Bailey. And if anyone attempts to write or discuss the 90% good in Alice Bailey writings you add them to your "straw man" image of bad Alice Bailey, as you did to James. How is possible to write or think clearly in such a negative atmosphere of divisiveness.
 * Other editors, I was going to stay and attempt to build on the small sections like "unity and divinity of nations", because that is one of the sections that will show the good of Alice Bailey writings. Because now, that which is good about Bailey's writings is dwarfed by subjects that Alice Bailey said little about. Alice said very little about the Negro, in comparison to massive amount she wrote on other subjects. And yet, the "Negro" section must contain also everything she wrote about the Negro. The section "Unity and Divinity of Nations" has few sentences, but squelch by fanatic's dribble who is a nut case. And yet she is thought to be a good source because she is a lawyer, "assumed" to have read all of Bailey's books, and wrote a best seller. Does anyone see the absurdity of this? I can't see that is possible to write an honest and  neutral article in such an extremely divisive atmosphere. I don't have the Wiki Skills nor the writing skills strong enough to work on this article in the midst of a constant battle. And, as one said here today, to the effect, that you're afraid to make a correction in a "sensitive section" or take something out of a section where it doesn't belong, there is  fear a battle will ensue. James isn't here to cause the fear of battle, just his--"straw man" image as Jew hater. Kwork asked what I'm doing here, because I don't contribute to the article. I'm an idealist, I thought that I might somehow keep this article balanced and honest. Even though I have more knowledge of the Alice Bailey then the rest of you (Kwork has slanted knowledge), I don't have the Wiki knowledge, nor the support. James had the knowledge but not the support.


 * Sorry Parsifal, I can't help but mention the weaknesses of the editors because we are the article. What we are is what makes causes us to pick and choose what to put in this article. Sweet dreams everyoneSparklecplenty 01:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkle, I suggest you use your knowledge to expand the "goodness" sections that you like. Don't worry about the complicated rules or trying to guard the article to make sure it stays neutral, that will happen as part of the process with all of us.  You don't need to defend the article in that way to make it better.  Use what you do know about the work of Alice Bailey to make those sections better.  With your additions to balance the other stuff, things will stay more neutral.  Maybe some of your work might get deleted or changed, or there might be critical stuff right next to your positive additions, but don't let that get you down.  Go ahead and add to the article if you want to, your knowledge can be valuable.  --Parsifal Hello 02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the present state of the article, which appears rather slimed down, it seems that moving the quotes from Constance Cumbey back to where I had them previously might result in unbalance; so, for now, I will leave them where they are. Kwork 15:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! What a freudian slip!  Did you really mean to say the article "appears rather slimed down" -- I think this is what completely disinheartened James.  Renee 15:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see any "freudian slip" in what I said. Kwork 16:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I will return the quotes from Constance Cumbey to their previous place in the article. Kwork 16:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, thanks for taking the time to respond intelligently re: Cumbey; I'm considering whether I want to debate that issue. Just to explain Renee's joke, tho, you meant to write "slimmed down", the spelling you used is the verb slime, as in Ghostbusters: "I've been slimed!". :) Eaglizard 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ghostbusters? Never heard of it. If it was on TV, my wife and I have not had a TV since we got married 41 years ago. If it was a movie, I have seen about five in the last forty years. Maybe a book?... Kwork 20:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ghostbusters ... from the Wikipedia article: "Ghostbusters is a 1984 sci-fi comedy film about three eccentric New York City parapsychologists. After they are fired from a university, they start their own business investigating and capturing ghosts."  One of the enemies in the movie is a green ghost known as Slimer.   (they call him a  "focused, non-terminal repeating phantasm", or a "class-five full-roaming vapor").  Here is the use of the word that Eaglizard referred to:   "Murray's character, Peter Venkman, is struck down by Slimer. Venkman's use of the phrase 'He slimed me...' instantly created a new verb, to slime, which endures as popular slang."   Not exactly on topic for this article, but it was a very funny scene and the slang term is widely used in pop culture. --Parsifal Hello 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * More people have likely read the Weekly World News than have read Constance Cumbey. Does this mean we'll need an article about the Bat Boy, too? Oops. We've already got one. What I'm saying is, the fact that something is widely read doesn't mean Jack. And btw, I wish I had met the evangelicals you seem to hook up with. The ones I meet are somewhat less inspiring, to say the least. I wonder, why does the word disingenuous keep sliming coming to my mind? Eaglizard 05:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, the fact that it has been widely read does establish notability, and notability is a consideration for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is not necessarily the standard I recommend for making judgments concerning value.

For example, in Judaism there is found the beautiful concept of the Tzadikim Nistarim, the unknown 36 spiritual men who, by their very presence, maintain the existence of this world. Of course none of them would qualify for a Wikipedia article about their spiritual purpose because if their nature became known their function would cease. However, I suppose, that such a one could be the subject of a Wikipedia article dealing with an external aspect of their life, if in their external life they happened to become a well known professor, doctor, businessman, politician, artist, etc. But most of them would remain completely unknown (even though the existence of this world depends on their presence). Kwork 11:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, if only you would realize how intelligent you can be when you avoid talking smack about everybody else... Good answer. Eaglizard 22:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In this respect, I would like to add that this Wikipedia article about Alice Bailey and her teaching can make no real difference in terms of spiritual value. However, for those who are Alice Bailey and New Age evangelicals, I understand that it seems vitally important to have this article in the best possible form to spread their own version of the (New Age) Good News, and to present it all in the most positive light, to attract the widest possible public. That is, as I see it, what this fight has been about. Kwork 12:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For me, I have learned quite a bit about "group work" from this endeavor. I'm quite sure that AAB would consider this alone to be "making a real difference of spiritual value". I have no idea what you're here for, since you seem to be getting very little out of it yourself. Just altruism, I guess. Eaglizard 22:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing of value in the teaching itself that can be harmed by anything in an article about it. Nor can the spiritual values held by an individual be harmed by insults, or benefited by praise. Kwork 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying; I couldn't agree much more with that statement. Kwork, we've got to stop meeting like this; I might get kicked out of my clique... :P Eaglizard 03:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Seven Rays
I find it strange that the section on the "Seven Rays" does not give, at least, a simple list of the three main rays, and the four sub-rays of aspect. Something for editors to do in the moments when they are not complaining about me. Kwork 13:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly Kwork, When Parsifal suggested that we move on from the controversy section, Renee then suggested we write a "Seven Rays," section. But as usual, when we try to build, we're distracted by an onslaught of revisions, reversion, and a barrage of misinformation going on behind good the scene. Thanks for the for the suggestion that the "Seven Rays" section be written. Will you be participating in the "Seven Rays" section or editing away on another section? Sparklecplenty 16:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a suggestion. But if nothing gets written it will not break my heart. I have no reason to promise what you seem to be asking for: that I agree to your Plan for a final solution of this article's problems. Kwork 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sparkle and Kwork,  "a simple list of the three main rays, and the four sub-rays of aspect" would be good for the article, with a footnote or two to show where the information comes from. Would one or both of you please add that information? Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsifal, you tempt me, but this is to be my last day. There is a good summary of the Rays in "Bridges" by Aart Jurriaanse. I can't put this much energy into writing for an article that is but a skeleton of what it was. There isn't much left for me to identify with here. Thanks for trying. Sparklecplenty 21:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... I don't understand your choice, but if that's your will, then so be it.  The article doesn't seem like a skeleton to me;  it's got a lot more information in it than it did months ago, even if the controversial topics that have bothered you are not considered.  The biography section is more complete, and there are sections for all sorts of elements of her philosophy, that were not there before.  But whatever you decide, I wish you well.   --Parsifal Hello 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * no personal offense meant. Yes, lots has been written, but it is extreme distortion to place Alice Bailey works along side Cumbey and Elizabeth Claire Prophets. And there is no connection to Alice Bailey mentioned in  Helen Schuman and Jean Houston writings. The article has become a caricature of Alice Bailey, slightly based on fact. Sparklecplenty 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The mention of those other teachers, Helen Schuman and Jean Houston, is not to say that their teachings mention Bailey's. It's just the way Wikipeida works, that it reports on what other writers have written about topics.  There is a reliable source that wrote that those teachers were influenced by Bailey, so that is reported in the article.  Maybe the reference is wrong, but there's no way for us to know that, unless a different author has contested it.


 * I'm not so sure that the way Wikipedia does these things is for the best, but it's how this system works. Some articles are pretty bad.  But I've also found that some articles are very good too; and sometimes I can learn things here that are hard to find anywhere else.


 * Though you are disappointed in how this article is coming out, here is another view you might consider:


 * I did an experiment just now to see what I could find out about Alice Bailey without looking at Wikipedia. I used Google and entered her name.   Thousands of websites appeared, of course, so I started clicking on them.  There were three types I could identify:  some that are disciples of Bailey, some that are (mostly Christian) very anti-Bailey, and a few that mention her in passing, as one of the historical new age teachers.  But I was not able to find even one clear and unbiased biography, or description of her writings and works.  The closest I could find is one paragraph in Britannica, that just says she was an "American Theosophist" and started the Arcane School.


 * So, while this article isn't the way you would want it, even as it is now, it seems to be better than anything else available to a casual reader who's curious about Alice Bailey and her work. A casual seeker might find a positive website first, but equally possible, they might first see one of those fundamentalist websites that warn people about the dangers of her teachings. I have my doubts about Wikipedia articles dependability, and I'm careful when I read them, especially due to the way they can change so fast from one form to another;  it depends when one looks as to whether one will find good information or nonsense.  But I also don't know of any other way someone can find out quickly about many topics. At this point it seems this article gives an OK overview, though there is still much room for improvement.  --Parsifal Hello 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Parsifal, that is exactly the point I tried to make for James. This article, even with its warts, is still one of the most comprehensive and balanced sources of information re: Bailey in the entire world. If you feel Bailey is important, then you should feel the same about this article, and more so for her than for most spiritual teachers, given the state of the world's knowledge of what she actually said. Eaglizard 03:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right on this point, Kwork. I've been meaning to add a simple tabulation like the one in Treatise on the Seven Rays, but haven't gotten around to it. Eaglizard 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Cumbey becomes incumbent
Ok, here we go with Constance Cumbey. I've thought about it for days now, and I'm pretty convinced that she is a completely unacceptable source. Her approach is simply too slanted. She misrepresents Bailey grossly, and her conclusions are questioned even by her evangelical peers. We currently have two quotes from her in the article, as follows:

The Teachings omit little or nothing. They range from the attitude of the Hierarchy toward Jews (negative) through dietary advice. Step by step they plotted the coming of the "New Age", with instructions for the necessary New World Order through the use of identifying rainbows. Plans for religious war, forced redistribution of the world's resources, Luciferic initiations, mass planetary initiations, theology for the New World Religion, disarmament campaign, and the elimination or sealing away of obstinate religious orthodoxies - all were covered extensively in the Alice Bailey writings.

and

While professing support for religious liberty in their public releases, the Alice Bailey books which are meticulously followed within the Movement call for complete abridgement of this freedom. They openly and boldly set forth plans for a new mandatory world religion - a religion completely breaking with the concept of Jesus as the Christ and God as the Father. Jews and Christians - Roman Catholic and Protestant alike - as well as uncooperative Muslims are openly slated for persecution and even a "cleansing action" should they fail to cooperate.6 (6 See The Rays and the Initiations pp754-755. This defines the surfacely innocuous line of the "Great Invocation" calling for "sealing the door where evil dwells." This includes doing away with the religious citadels of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.)

Both of these are incredibly MIS-representative of anything I've read of Bailey's books. In fact, some of them are outright lies.

Interestingly, on the subject of her reliability as a source, we find this statement in Cumbey's own article at Wikipedia:

Groothuis and Miller drew attention to weaknesses in her interpretation of New Age literature, and pointed to problems inherent within her conspiracy model. [emphasis mine]

I am no more inclined to allow this sort of source than Kwork would be to allow David Irving books to be used as a source for articles on The Holocaust. Lies are lies. Eaglizard 04:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a couple issues here - is she a reliable source at all? and, are those quotes too much of her stuff for the article?


 * I agree with you that those quotes are too much and should be removed. Generally, I don't think we should use long quotes from anywhere unless there is a particular reason it's needed.  So that part of the question I think will be easier to find consensus about.


 * Then, regarding the reliability of the source and whether to mention it at all... I do agree she's questionable, but not as obvious as what you've described. David Irving may not be a good analogy.  His article lists at least 25 published sources discrediting him, and that's only the tip of his iceberg.  With Cumbey, do we have specific sources that deprecate her writings?  If we have one or two of those, we could present both views.  If we have a zillion of them, as with David Irving, then that would be different and I'd say, let's just take her completely out of the article.


 * If we don't have enough sources to remove her completely as a source, I suggest that we reduce each of those quotes to a short one-sentence paraphrase, and keep the footnote. Instead of saying "Some writers" as it does now, we should identify Constance Cumbey as the author.  Something like this for example, instead of one of the two quotes:


 * Author Constance Cumbey writes that she believed Bailey's intended goal of unity was to be achieved by eliminating religious groups that would not cooperate, in a process was contrary to human freedom [footnote#].


 * That's an idea for one of them, the other one could be also collapsed to one sentence. Then if there are writers stating that Cumbey is not reliable, we could mention those with a footnote too.  If lots of authors agree she's unreliable, that would be different and we should leave her out completely.


 * Regarding your comment that Cumbey is actually lying, maybe she is, or maybe she believes what she's written. I read through the pages she listed in one of her quotes, and some of the text is somewhat dark.  Here's an excerpt from the Rays and Initiations, p 754-5, where it does seem to indicate that present day religions are evil and should be replaced:


 * "There are certain areas of evil in the world today through which these forces of darkness can reach humanity. What they are and where they are I do not intend to say. I would point out, however, that Palestine should no longer be called the Holy Land; its sacred places are only the passing relics of three dead and gone religions. The spirit has gone out of the old faiths and the true spiritual light is transferring itself into a new form which will manifest on earth eventually as the new world religion. To this form all that is true and right and good in the old forms will contribute, for the forces of right will withdraw that good, and incorporate it in the new form. Judaism is old, obsolete and separative and has no true message for the spiritually-minded which cannot be better given by the newer faiths; the Moslem faith has served its purpose and all true Moslems await the coming of the Imam Mahdi who will lead them to light and to spiritual victory; the Christian faith also has served its purpose; its Founder seeks to bring a new Gospel and a new message that will enlighten all men everywhere. Therefore, Jerusalem stands for nothing of importance today, except for that which has passed away and should pass away. The 'Holy Land' is no longer holy, but is desecrated by selfish interests, and by a basically separative and conquering nation."


 * "The task ahead of humanity is to close the door upon this worst and yet secondary evil and shut it in its own place. ... remember also that what man has loosed he can aid to imprison; this he can do by fostering right human relations, by spreading the news of the approach of the spiritual Hierarchy, and by preparing for the reappearance of the Christ. Forget not also, the Christ is a Member of the Great Council at Shamballa and brings the highest spiritual energy with Him. Humanity can also cease treading the path to the 'door where evil dwells' and can remove itself and seek the Path which leads to light and to the Door of Initiation."


 * I'm not saying I like Cumbey's work or that I agree with her. My point is just that she's a published writer, and not self-published, so unless we have lots of other writers saying that she's not reliable, it seems appropriate to mention her ideas in passing in the relevant sections, though not with those long quotes from her.   --Parsifal Hello 07:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, to a degree I'm allowing my distaste for her methods to color my judgement. But lets not forget that, from the very text you quoted, she derives the descriptives mandatory, persecution and cleansing action. Hardly an accurate paraphrase, and her own statement implies her belief that Bailey's "innocuous line" really means something else -- must we really use a writer who openly declares her hostility to the explicit meaning of the words (ie, that she is revealing the "hidden" meaning in her source text)? Your point on Cumbey's notability is, however, well taken. And you're right, Irving isn't the greatest analogy, maybe I was just being inflammatory. Then again, Irving denies any denialism, as I'm sure Cumbey would deny bias. That was the connection I saw.


 * But anyways, yes, I see that what bothers me is just the specific content of some of the quotes (which I would contend are outright lies for the purpose of influencing her readers, but that is irrelevant). So, if we remove the quotes themselves, I'll probably be okay with it, as long as we leave out the words I mentioned above, and a few other phrases like "plans for religious war" (the least believable accusation I've ever seen thrown at AAB). How does that suit you? At the very least, I'd insist she be referring to actual, citeable Bailey text that can be footnoted to juxtapose her interpretation, but I doubt Cumbey is that specific. Eaglizard 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your considered reply. I've given it a go on the quote in the section titled "Human equality and religion".  Please check it out and see if you find it of appropriate tone.  If not, you're welcome to make changes, though we may need some back and forth on it.  I think it's OK though.  I didn't have time to edit the other one and invite you to do so when you have a chance. --Parsifal Hello 09:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I actually wound up leaving almost half the quote in place, but I think my paraphrase is actually more clear than her text (on the point that Cumbey expects violent enforcement). In any case, I'm happy with your edit, how d'ya like mine? (And I wonder how long a consensus between the two of us will last when other editors see this... heh). Oh, and BTW, thanks for rescuing those links; I hesitated to delete that b/c I knew good links were going, too. But, unlike you, I couldn't see any good way to integrate them. (At least, if those are the links I think they are, that is). In any case, good save! Eaglizard 10:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, your reduction of the quote looks good. Though as you said, there'll be further discussion on this, and that's already begun below so I'll reply there.  About the links, I rescued a few of them, but I omitted the ones that didn't mention Bailey at all and just went to the Theosophy sites; those aren't needed unless the article uses a specific quote or point from them, and I didn't see that.  But the books were specific and seemed valuable  for the article. --Parsifal Hello 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the accusation of any Cumbey lies. What lies? You may think she is wrong, but that is the point in how a neutral point of view is achieved. The article is not to make Bailey just look pretty. I am not willing to have the quotes I added reduced either, and I intend to make sure they are returned. Kwork 11:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I want it clear that, from my point of view, the most problematic areas of Alice Bailey's teaching are those in which she presents her thoughts on how the external world should be reordered. It is very important that those sections of the article, dealing with external religious and political life of individuals and groups, should be balanced in a way to make them neutral. At the moment that is not the case. Many of Cumbey's objections to Alice Bailey are based on the obvious fact that the external changes she wants made can not be induced by democratic means. Quite simply, Bailey wants changes made to society that could not possibly be made in a society where the principles implied in the First Amendment still apply. (I consider George Washington's famous letter to Touro Synagogue to display an attitude toward religious differences that is totally different than Bailey's, a democratic attitude toward religious differences that has become part of the American model of diversity within unity, as opposed to Bailey's idea of unity in diversity.) Kwork 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Kwork 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a beautiful letter from George Washington, thanks for including the link. About Cumbey, I'm on the fence about it.  I did not want the references removed completely, because I agree that those issues need to be addressed, but then again, I have my doubts about Cumbey as a writer.  Her ideas a very extreme in general (not just about Bailey).  One of the things that bothers me about her writing is that she lumps together all of the New Age philosophies into one New age Movement that is based on Bailey's "Plan", and even uses details like "universal credit card" and "centralized, controlled food distribution" as a method of religious control.  Those ideas are so over the top, it's hard to take the rest of her writing seriously.  Also, the New Age movement - if it even is a movement at all - is very wide and diverse.  Bailey's idea of the "New Age" may be more specific, but in today's world, or even the world when Cumbey wrote her books, "New Age" had expanded far beyond control of any one philosophy like Bailey's.  So in that sense, Cumbey is actually off-track.


 * On the other hand, I do see the dark elements of Bailey's social/political teachings and her push to the one world religion. The Bailey quote I listed above is disturbing, and I've seen others like that too.  But I haven't found quotes so far in Bailey indicating as you say, "external changes she wants made can not be induced by democratic means".    I would be interested in seeing those if you can show me where to find them. Anything like that should be brought into the light.


 * Regarding Cumbey's reliability and inclusion under Wikipedia principles, on that I am also on the fence. The Amazon reviews are widely polarized on the two ends ot the spectrum - true believers who say she's a genius, and debunkers who say she's a nut - very little middle ground.  Do you know of any books or published reviews, etc, that discuss Cumbey so we can have some validation of her reliability?


 * I'm not arguing one way or the other on this right now, though either way, I do feel we need to at least include the mentions of Cumbey that are there now, those should not be removed.  Eaglizard made some good points about problems with Cumbey, but your points here are very solid too.  So I'm not sure which way to go at this point and would like to understand more about the whole situation.  --Parsifal Hello 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, it is not you job, nor mine, to decide how seriously to take Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow. It is a published book that sold well, better than Bailey's own book. That means it is notable, and a valid source for criticism; which is necessary to achieve a balanced, neutral, article. As for the truth of her New Age conspiracy theory, I was at one time one of the conspirators, how-be-it a minor player who always had doubts. There ore other editors who are still (functionally, if not consciously) AAB conspirators. They have a complete right to that which is absolutely protected, and I would defend that right even if I do not agree with their views. The problem is in Bailey is humorously summed up in this song:
 * "As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
 * I've got a little list — I've got a little list
 * Of society offenders who might well be underground,
 * And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!" (Mikado) :

Bailey's view toward these things is the inverse of Washington's inclusive view. I don't have time to write more now. Kwork 20:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Several of the sources in this article, including (esp. Cumbey) represent a radical fringe view. We do a great disservice to humanity and Wiki to include citations like this.  I've said this ad nauseum but I think we should set a minimum standard for references and then follow them.  This sort of reference would never make it in an academic journal.
 * I think we all have to keep in mind that Kwork has stated that he will promote a negative point of view on Bailey's writings and references like this show his goal.
 * I hope other editors prevail and that this can truly be a neutral article. Renee 21:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...."radical fringe view"?! Really? Perhaps you have come to think that Bailey's claim that her 23 books were dictated to her by a Tibetan Master living, perhaps in the Himalayas, or perhaps in Shamballa, as something other than "fringe". Perhaps you think her claim that Jews are the "failures" from a previous solar system, hundreds of billions of years ago, is based on verifiable scientific research? Personally, I think Cumbey could not be as nutty as Bailey if she tried. It is Bailey who is on the radical fringe. There is hardly a verifiable statement to be found in the Bailey books. Not even her claim of how they were written. Cumbey bases her views about Bailey on quotes that actually exist in the Bailey books. Kwork 21:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that the link you include (above) is to conversation on user talk pages. When I did that to you, you got very upset. As a result I removed the references, apologized, and have avoided doing that again. Perhaps you should avoid doing what you object to others doing. Kwork 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kwork, the discussion referenced above has direct bearing on this page; when you posted my talk page posts they were completely unrelated to Alice Bailey and were personal. There's a big difference. Renee 23:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, you seem to be saying above that you refuse to accept any compromise or consensus on this point. Is it indeed your intention to ignore WP policy in this way?
 * To answer the actual relevant comments above, yes, it is our job to "decide how seriously to take" Hidden Dangers or any other source. That was (I now realize) my point entirely in bringing up David Irving. His books have received quite some readership, as well, perhaps more than Cumbey. They are written by an actual scholar, and his earlier works were fully vetted and would pass any Wikipedia standard. This only serves to illustrate the fallacy of appeal to authority. If Irving or Cumbey or any other author displays an obvious bias, agenda, or extraordinary claims apposite a wide consensus, that author must face much greater scrutiny before being used as a secondary source. And that is precisely our job, as editors. (Especially with books that claim to "unmask" or "debunk" the hidden meanings of a text!)
 * And yes, even among the fundamentalists (like, say, Groothuis), Cumbey is apparently considered "radical fringe". Eaglizard 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ps Kwork, I rmv'd your neutrality nag-tag because you never discussed it on this page, as the tag generally expects you to do. If you want to state specifically what you dispute in the section (so that we may work to resolve it), then the tag would be more useful (although, I think, unnecessary). In any case, thank you very much for not simply reverting our previous edits, and I welcome your comments on how we've made the section seem non-neutral to you. Eaglizard 22:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I will restore the Cumbey quotes you removed tomorrow, I do not have time now. You made those changes without waiting for my reply, which is not what I would call discussion. That section is now far too one sided. Please do not remove the tag that I just replaced. Kwork 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, please see WP:OWN. Renee 23:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was going to say "Ok, Kwork, since you're nice enough to ask, I won't remove it. But someone else probably will." Kwork, the purpose of a nag tag is not simply to display one editor's dissatisfaction with an article or section. In this case, this particular tag is (I feel) a completely inappropriate response, since this section appears to be no more or less neutral than the rest of the article. Eaglizard 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:OWN: I don't see that applies here. This is a routine content dispute, and both sides are making valid points.


 * The neutrality tag: It's not pretty, but it's appropriate when there is an ongoing dispute about whether a section is NPOV or not. That's what those templates are for. They help readers know that what they're reading has not been agreed about by the writers, and they help editors see that there is something going on that they may be able to help with -  it's a temporary flag indicating work-in-progress.


 * Personally, as I wrote above, I'm undecided about Cumbey at this time. It would be very useful if we had some more references on the topic itself or on Cumbey's reliability, so if anyone can find those, please bring them. --Parsifal Hello 23:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Pars, I don't think a single disgruntled editor really qualifies as "an ongoing dispute". There's no dispute between the rest of us, and it isn't ongoing, it only started when you and I edited those quotes. There's a very fine line between dispute and disruption. Eaglizard 08:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The research I did showed that her out-of-print book appeared on numerous conspiracy theory sites. The author is an attorney who writes about her opinion; not well-researched facts.  I think we should try to use some scholarly sources or mainstream newspaper/magazine/journal sources to up the quality of the article. Renee 00:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems as though (almost) everyone agrees she is an extremist. That being true, WP:RS clearly indicates she not reliable for "outside" articles, such as this one. It's pretty clear-cut, particularly when the local consensus against her reliability is clear. Vassyana 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please sign in
Kwork, please sign in if you are editing. I will assume good faith and just assume you forgot. Renee 00:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

pov template
Parsifal, I was really disappointed to see you choose sides again. There was absolutely no discussion about whether or not to put the template in; Kwork did it on his own and Eaglizard and I objected (because of the biased things he wanted to put in). I'm really surprised that you support this unilateral movement without consensus. Renee 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, you have a misunderstanding about the use of those templates. They are not attacks on an article, they are devices used to improve content.  There are many of those templates for all sorts of purposes.  Maybe it would help if you look at this page, to get an idea of how widely used they are:  Template messages.  Here is an example page that lists all the other pages currently using that template: - it's on thousands of pages!


 * If there is a dispute about whether or not an article is following WP:NPOV, or if the references are accurate (ie, following WP:V), or if there is original research (WP:OR), there are templates for all those things.


 * When the dispute is quickly worked out between the editors, the templates are not needed. But if there is an ongoing disagreement and the article is changing back and forth all the time (like what you saw today with the section being added and removed), then the templates are useful because they tell people that what they are looking at is "under construction".


 * Please note that this helps you also, not just Kwork. If he adds in the Cumbey quote that you don't agree about, or if he removes some of the Bailey quotes you believe should be there,... during the time that you have not reverted his changes, people might read the article.  If there is no POV dispute template, they might think the Cumbey quote is perfectly fine and get an idea about Bailey that does not fit with your idea.  If the disputed template is present, then the reader will know that those facts might not be accurate or complete.


 * So, it works both ways. Accepting the use of the template is just ordinary Wikipedia procedure and does not imply taking sides. And, the template is intended to be temporary.


 * As far as me taking sides in the content dispute, I want the article to be neutral and accurate. But that doesn't mean I won't have an opinion about the best way to do that.  Eventually I'll make a decision about Cumbey or other elements, based on the information I can learn and references I can find or that others provide.  But when I do, I would say it right out, not try to pretend I've not made a choice.  So far, I'm just not sure, other than that I am sure I want the article to be accurate as best we can manage that.  --Parsifal Hello 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Parsifal, thanks for the kind explanation.  I thought we had to have consensus to add things in but understand your point about templates being put in by anyone.  I've added two templates to the article about the current issues under discussion.  It's my understanding from what you've said above that when we reach consensus about an issue, then the templates are removed?  Renee 01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right. Think of them like those orange traffic cones that workers put on the road when there's an open manhole or a tree being trimmed.  Of course, like everything on Wikipedia, they can be misused too.  I've seen some very silly edit wars with templates flying all over the place!   I'm not referring to the ones you added, those seem OK to me at this time. Hopefully we can resolve the issue with that section soon.   --Parsifal Hello 02:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PS.... I'd like to clarify one other point you mentioned:  " I thought we had to have consensus to add things in" —  that's not quite correct and is more restrictive than Wikipedia policy.  Consensus is required for all edits, but it is not required "in advance" except in unusual situations, like when an article already has disputes in progress about the material you want to add, or when re-adding material that's already been deleted.  Generally, editors are encouraged to add info to any article without asking for consensus in advance.  But then if someone removes what you add, or argues about it, that's when discussion is needed to find consensus about whether or not that information can stay in the article.  If you haven't already read it, the main article on this idea has a lot of good info in it:  Consensus.  Another view of how this works is in this article: Be bold, and one more good article that can be very helpful is this one: Bold, revert, discuss.  --Parsifal Hello 02:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Too many quotes
These quotes can be summarized for a better and more readable prose to avoid original research and quote mining. Quotes of and about Bailey can be moved to Wikiquote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I agree with you.  I've been saying the same thing for a while and have posted an alternate version for consideration at Talk:Alice Bailey/re-draft.  So far, although I've requested comments a couple times, the other editors have not seemed interested in the alternate approach.  New information and references have been added to the main article since I wrote the draft a while ago.  So if we do make the change, we would not start with my draft, we would start over from the current article and include the new references.  The re-draft sub-page though is an example of how it can be done, and I recommend that we make that change.


 * Once again, I invite comments from other editors about this. --Parsifal Hello 05:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the quote farm in terms of quality. But I also suggest that if there is a way to connect that section directly to a section of Bailey quotes in wiki quotes with just one click then that section in the article should contain some of those quotes and a clickable link to the wikiquotes section on Bailey. If that is implicit in what Jossi is suggesting excuse my ignorance. Danny Weintraub: Albion moonlight 07:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's easy to link to Wikiquote. Just like this:  William Shakespeare , that results in this: William Shakespeare.  To add an article on Alice Bailey with her quotes, go to Wikiquote, at this link: http://en.wikiquote.org - you can make pages there just like here, though you would need a separate user account for that project.


 * Once you have the page created, you can link to it from here just like any other page by using the "Wikiquote:" prefix in the link.   --Parsifal Hello 07:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats good. I think the idea should be to try to include as many of the positive things about Bailey as we can. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just count me as another voice crying in the wilderness re: too many quotes. Removing them to wikiquotesville is a brilliant idea. cat Catherineyronwode 08:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I really don't like "drive-by nag tagging" of an article. It seems to me that a discussion on the talk page would be sufficient in heavily-edited articles like this one. As Parsifal explains, these tags can help both readers and editors, but I don't see how jossi's move does either one. If jossi were not a (very) well-established editor, I would remove the tag, and admonish jossi to be bold rather than lazy. However, it's fair to AGF that jossi will in fact be re-visiting this article to make the changes if need be, but would rather see us do it instead (as would I). So, I recommend, in line with this section, and using Parsifal's excellent example as a guide, we simply begin the process of summarizing quotations, and get it over with.

But: I would remind everyone that extensive quotations were introduced into this article largely to reduce disagreement over such things as paraphrases of Bailey's teaching, and paraphrases of critical views. Some of Bailey's ideas might prove impossible to accurately paraphrase. I don't believe we can remove more than about 50% of the existing quotes, but which ones? Also, since we'll be paraphrasing critics as well, I expect this effort will produce a large volume of argument. But I'm (almost) always willing to trust the WP process, so let's see how it works out here. Eaglizard 10:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC) PS: As an example of the difficulty in paraphrasing Bailey's thought sometimes, I offer the two quotes I added to Alice Bailey. The second quote was straightforward, and quite easy to summarize, but the first quote is far more "mystical" and technical in nature. I left it in place, and I contend that it cannot be properly summarized by anyone besides DK himself, so I am not willing to try. And, I feel that including some quotations that are purely descriptive like this one is a valid thing for an article like this one (dealing with obscure metaphysical terminology and such). Maybe I'm wrong, maybe someone like Kwork can paraphrase it. We'll see what happens. :) Eaglizard 11:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * extensive quotations were introduced into this article largely to reduce disagreement over such things as paraphrases of Bailey's teaching, and paraphrases of critical views ... is exactly the predicament one gets into when attempting to use primary sources. That is why it is more advisable to 'use secondary sources, i.e. not use quotations or summaries of our own, but use summaries of this person's words as found in secondary published sources. If there aren't any, then we do not summarize or quote directly, as one may be engaging on original research while doing so. Less is more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just checking in
I find it very amusing that Groothuis is now being used as evidence against Cumbey! I remember not so long ago when i first was quoting Groothuis's critique of Bailey and folks were saying that HE was a nut case. It's nice to see that people have come around to a more inclusive stance.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 08:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But... that's precisely my point, cat. Even a nutcase like Groothuis says she's out of line! :^P Seriously though, I don't believe I called Groothuis a nutcase. I object to him for exactly the same reason: it's my personal belief that books by fundamentalists and evangelicals are (almost) always fatally flawed, and should (almost) never be used. I know from experience that fundamentalist bias is subtle, yet all-pervading. They are, in my experience, simply unable to be neutral regarding anything that touches their religious beliefs. However, I do not use this line of argument against either source. For Cumbey, in particular, I argue specifically how I believe her book is biased: she has herself stated her own belief that Bailey's words do not mean what they say. Such a source is worse than useless, in my opinion, it is absolutely dangerous, and only acceptable with wide peer consensus (which Cumbey's theories did not obtain). Eaglizard 10:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, this is exactly the same argument that you used against the sources that are now in the criticism section. No writer who criticizes Bailey can pass your test of acceptability, which amounts to: 'any writer who praises Bailey is good, any writer who criticizes Bailey is bad'. The simple fact is that the editors who worship in the Church of Bailey will not willingly accept any criticism of her into the article. It is exactly because of that intransigence that this argument has gone on for so many long months.

By the way, please you show me the quote from Groothuis that you are referring to. When I did a quick Google search I found this review in which Groothuis mentions Cumbey a number of times, without any hint that he is critical of her views. I did find this second review written by Groothuis in which he is not really critical of Cumbey, but suggests (as a possible alternative explination) that Bailey's channeled books may not have been really channeled but just fabricated lies...so he adds that as an additional possible qualification. Kwork 11:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that I just did some editing of the Constance Combey article, but as often happens, I had forgotten to sign in. I don't want any one to think I am trying to hide my edits - which is not my style. I removed excessive blue ink that made the article hard to read, and unsourced material. Kwork 15:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, the content of the source (pro- or anti-Bailey) is not relevant to me when I consider it's reliability. In regard to your recent edits, you appear (to me) to be very selective, leaving only negative material in place. The consensus here seems to be that we summarize & remove quotations, not shorten them. And, you replaced the WP-encourage specificity of "Constance Cumbey" with "Some writers..." I don't see how ignoring the well-established guideline of WP:Avoid weasel words can possibly help. I am tempted to revert your edits en masse, and I may resort to that in future. Eaglizard 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not weasel words. The "some writers" is correct because there are other authors who I will eventually add to the article in addition to Cumbey. There is a second book by Cumbey that I want to use also. There is no rush though, and I will slowly add quotes, or summaries of the quotes, from the various books. In the mean time, I have no objection to your changing the phrase; and your present version seems better. Kwork 23:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The constitution of man
This section, as it is now written, makes no sense and does not present Bailey's teaching on the subject. Kwork 11:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The section makes perfect sense to me. Whether it presents Bailey's teachings is debatable, but as you have failed to be specific, I cannot answer your concerns. Please describe which particulars you feel diverge from Bailey. Eaglizard 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Then leave it the way it is. Kwork 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

template
Hey folks, can I please get some help here? I respected Kwork's insertion of templates and he has reverted my template questioning the Cumber source (which IS under discussion on this page by the way) twice today already. There is a lack of mutual respect here. Renee 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I have also restored the full Cumbey quote removed previously. The one tag at the top of the section is all that is needed to explain this section is under dispute. Kwork 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would you add in a full quotation when you have been trying to reduce quotations in the article, there is now a template at the top asking for a reduction in quotations, and other editors have worked to create a representation of this quotation? Please respect other editors' edits here. Renee 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be reduced, but Eaglizard's summery of it intentionally obscured and distorted the meaning. I will shorten it, or write a new summery....assuming your attempt to get me blocked is not successful. If you attempt is successful, I assume that you will happily remove all reference of  Combey, who you hate so much. Then (if you are successful) I will be able to say "Free at last! Thank God almighty, free at last!" Kwork 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Combey is an extremist source, which is not appropriate for this article. Be reasonable. Vassyana 18:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support Vassyana, but I believe you are requesting the impossible. Eaglizard 19:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If this were an article about Alfred Whitehead, or Spinoza; neither I, nor anyone else, would care what that Combey said about such respected philosophers. But such respected philosophers have hundreds (if not thousands) of peer reviewed sources written about them. That is not the case with Bailey, who has virtually no academic studies written about her (as, for instance, Richard Noll's studies of Carl Jung). Bailey is just too much of a fringe personality. The most respectable person connected with her, Roberto Assagioli, made it clear that he did not want his connection to her to be public knowledge (he called it "walls of silence"). Since balance is needed in the article, and since Combey has published studies of Bailey, a limited amount of sourcing from her is both justified and necessary to create a neutral article. (By the way, all you did is call Combey an "extremist", which is insulting without being informative. If you have a better critical source for Bailey, let me know, and I will look at it.) Kwork 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this statement, sources are scarce and Cumbey is among the most creditable detractors we have. However, Cumbey uses intentionally inflammatory words in her writing, and I believe Kwork's primary goal is to inject direct quotations from Cumbey as a means of inserting those inflammations into the article text.


 * To this end, I have agreed with a consensus on this talk page, which would seem to be that Cumbey be summarized rather than quoted directly. This satisfies my concern with her wording, satisfies other editor's concern with "quote farming" (and "quote mining"), and also should satisfy Kwork, since he apparently is in favor of the Cumbey material. However, Kwork has not edited in line with consensus. He appears to be willfully ignoring consensus precisely as he has stated he would do, above.


 * Kwork, if you continue to edit distruptively, and against consensus, I intend to subject this matter to greater community scrutiny. And I can promise you, it won't be improperly formatted, nor filed in the wrong place. But GOD DAMN I don't want to waste a week of valuable editing time, going over all the edits to this article since April. Please, just get over yourself, would you? Eaglizard 20:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, please be reasonable. "Extremist" is not "insulting without being informative". It's very clear that Combey is considered an extremist. Combey is openly part of the radical right and a conspiracy theorist. Even many within her own extremist sociological group (radical fundamentalists) consider her extreme. Use some sense. Vassyana 21:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eaglizard, I am willing to live with a fairly done summery of Cumbey.


 * You, and your editorial allies, have spent months disrupting the editing process with wiki-lawering. There is no reason, aside from that, this process has taken so long. So, if you think you have a case, please do not wait until a next time, but take it for "greater community scrutiny" now. I may see if I can take you and a few others down with me. Kwork 22:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, Kwork, that is precisely what I plan to do, if and when I have a solid case for intervention. I will not waste time with an abortive attempt; I have been waiting to see how you would approach editing the article in light of talk page consensus against you. If (as I expect) you again react disruptively, you can expect a much greater effort to attract community-wide intervention than you have seen previously. I encourage you to subject my behavior to the same scrutiny, and I welcome any comments, especially reasonable suggestions that I can improve me. And that is the sum total of my statement on the matter. Please do not take this as a threat, or as a suggestion you stop editing the article. I have accepted and occasionally applauded many of your useful edits. But, I will no longer tolerate disruption on this article. My patience is exhausted. Eaglizard 22:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, responding to your claims for the need to use less reliable sources for "neutrality", it is clear you have a gross misunderstanding of what neutrality entails in Wikipedia. What you are attempting to do is exactly not neutral in Wikipedia. Neutrality means fairly presenting the claims and views found in the general body of reliable third party references. It does not mean grasping for any old source to "balance" the article. Reliable sources makes it quite plain that sources like Combey are not reliable sources outside of articles about themselves and even should only be used in articles about themselves with caution. Your agenda is not superior to the accepted rules of Wikipedia nor to the consensus clearly and repeatedly established locally at this article (or globally through common best practice and WikiProject standards). Please stop advocating for the "truth" and continually demanding changes contrary to the rules and consensus. Vassyana 21:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave you an explanation of my thinking on the subject. You gave me a statement that Cumbey is not good enough four you, without supplying a single particular. I don't want links to Wikipedia rules, but particulars showing why you think Cumbey's book about Alice Bailey and the New Age can not be used in an article about the New Age writer Alice Bailey. Kwork 22:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All you provided was an excuse as to why we should ignore policy and practice, on the basis of a "neutrality" that runs contrary to NPOV. Combey is an extremist within an extremist segment of society. She's clearly and unquestionable on the far fringe. You do not seem to be disputing that fact. She is therefore not a reliable source for any "outside" article. This principle is clearly and unquestionably expressed in WP:RS, and rooted in plain common sense. It's simply ridiculous to assert that an extreme right-religious conspiracy theory not even accepted by most of the writer's own segment of the population is in any way a reliable source for this article, at best. Vassyana 23:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your throwing insults at Evangelicals Christians will not change the fact that they are a large and fast growing segment of the United States population. Evangelicals are important, and deserve to be heard, and Cumbey speaks for them on the subject of the New Age, and the New Age leaders - such as Bailey. Your not liking them is your personal problem. By Wikipedia standards they are important and very notable. Cumbey has sold a lot of books, her books are referred to often as sources, and that qualifies her as notable. If it is your contention that her views are rejected by Evangelicals Christians, produce the sources to prove that. Everything I have seen is that her views have support, but if you can prove the contrary I will certainly listen. Kwork 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Use some sense. Evangelicalism is not the same as fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is not the same as hard-line conservative fundamentalism. The United States population and its demographics are irrelevant. First, the United States is only one part of the broader English-speaking world, which is itself part of the broader world as a whole. Second, we do not represent claims and views based on statistics and poll numbers, but rather by reflecting the majority and minority consensuses found in reliable published sources. Notability and reliability are not the same thing. One determines whether we have an article about them and the other determines their reliability as a source. One can be on the fringe or an extremist and still be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. However, outside of their own articles (where they must still be used with caution), they are not reliable sources. And seriously, if you're asserting that Evangelicalism generally subscribes to the belief that the New Age is a unified conspiracy to bring about a New World Order under Bailey's blueprint ... that's just well off the deep end. Vassyana 03:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

These are just your own opinions and definitions. I asked for sources that prove what you are saying, and you have provided nothing. Cumbey wrote about Bailey, and I see no reason why she can not be used as a source. Kwork 11:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You asked for a source for a claim I did not make. Otherwise, I clearly responded to your error-filled post. Most of my response was spent addressing your gross misrepresentations of policy. You're the one (apparently) making the extraordinary (and absurd) claim that a New Age conspiracy to bring about a New World Order under Bailey's blueprint is accepted in general by Evangelicals, which is simply absurd. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not the rejection of such claims. However, I will provide two sources to demonstrate my point. One from an editor of a NRM academic journal and the other from an academic who is also a Christian apologist. Douglas E. Cowan in Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult classifies Cumbey as a "countercult extremist" on par with Texe Marrs. Ruth Tucker in Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement says that "[o]f all the New Age observers espousing a conspiracy theory, in her book The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, has made some of the most grandiose charges". She also states that "[Cumbey's] writing is often flavored with the jargon of fear and anger". That's just the introduction to the section about Cumbey from a Christian apologetics book by an author that sings the praises of Jerald and Sandra Tanner in the preface. It's quite plain and clear that Cumbey is an extremist/fringe writer and therefore not a reliable source. Please use some sense. Vassyana 22:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see anything in these that suggest they actually disagree significantly with Cumbey. At most, perhaps, that she reduce the volume. Kwork 22:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop this nonsense. It is getting well to disruptive and unhelpful. It is clear that she is considered an extremist and polemicist, which is what I was trying to show and I stated quite plainly. Vassyana 22:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Vassyana, I'm not going to argue on behalf of Cumbey; your points about her are well-taken.  But for context, I would like to point out that WP:FRINGE and parts of WP:RS allow for fringe sources when discussing fringe topics.


 * Perhaps we should consider that article topic - Alice Bailey - is a person who based all of her works on "telepathic dictation" from a disembodied "Tibetan Master", who is a representative of the "Spiritual Heirarchy", that we as humans are part of "rays" from "other solar systems"; that the "Hierarchy" has a "Plan", for a "New World Order" and "One world religion",... and that a huge portion of the sources in this article come directly from those very strange, and to be clear, very fringe books.


 * So, as I said, I am not arguing that we insert Cumbey, maybe she's even too fringe for the fringe; but I do ask that in making these decisions, you consider the extensively fringe nature of the topic of the article, and how that may affect your application of the WP reliable source guidelines.


 * For example, if we remove all the primary sources from the page, and remove all the fringe content, we would have a stub article, about a person who was born, worked with Theosophy for a while, wrote some fringe books, said some interesting things - some that were racist and antisemitic - started a school that continued after she died, influenced some other fringe writers, and that would be about it (as far as I can tell from the secondary sources we do have).


 * I mean no offense to the memory of Bailey or to her followers by stating it that way, I'm speaking from a WP guideline perspective.  I don't advocate that change, but I recommend that we consider the big picture in evaluating the way sources are vetted for use in this article.  --Parsifal Hello 23:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. However, I don't believe FRINGE and RS say any such thing, at least not in the broad sense you indicate. What RS indicates is that such sources may be used in articles about themselves. I can understand how the "parity of sources" section of FRINGE could potentially lead someone to that erroneous conclusion, but it does not indicate that extremist sources are acceptable. It simply indicates that the highest level of reliability may not be available, such as a lack of peer-reviewed articles. It does not indicate that otherwise unreliable sources can be treated as reliable sources in fringe articles. FRINGE must also be interpreted in a fashion consistent with V, RS, NPOV and other related rules, which would preclude unreliable fringe sources being used outside of articles about themselves. (I should also note that FRINGE exclusively comes from a viewpoint dealing with pseudoscience, not with fringe views in religion and philosophy.)


 * I understand the topic is a bit far to field, but it does not mean we should compromise our sourcing standards to meet some nebulous objectivity. On the contrary, we should exercise additional caution to prevent the article from being used as a soapbox by both proponents and opponents. There are people on both sides with a clear and open agenda who employ gross distortions of the sources and of Wikipedia policy to achieve their goals. I don't find either to be acceptable. If the topic is so fringe as to utterly lack the references needed to create an article, then we shouldn't have the article.


 * If stubbing this article is what it takes to have a balanced and policy-compliant slate to work from, then that's exactly what we should do. Vassyana 04:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

edit-warring is a waste
Kwork and Renee, please stop the repeated reversions. This will not be resolved that way. Leave up a dispute template or two, choose a medium version of the text to temporarily agree about, and discuss the situation here.

I strongly suggest that you both read these three pages: WP:CONSENSUS, BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and WP:3RR. Especially the second one in that list, the essay WP:BRD, gives a very good approach for this kind of situation.

Other helpful essays are: Truce, No angry mastodons.

Please skip the administrative reports unless there is a serious and obvious violation. There's nothing happening here that can't be solved with calm and mutually respectful discussion.

Here's an idea for moving ahead:  as Jossi suggested, and as I suggested in my redraft proposal, let's remove most of the quotes from the article, improve the writing, make it NPOV as best we can. Then if there is still a dispute, we can create two versions of the article on subpages, and do a new RFC to invite other editors to review the two versions and help us decide which approach is best. --Parsifal Hello 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that any time 3RR is violated, it should be reported, and the user blocked if appropriate. This is so repeated intransigence becomes more obvious if and when stronger action is required by the community. I strongly encourage all violations of 3RR, in any context, to be reported. Parsifal, you disagree with this? Eaglizard 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should usually be reported, though I don't think that it's required to be reported.


 * But when I wrote the above, 3RR had not been violated yet by either Kwork or Renee - though they are both one revert away from exceeding the limit today, so they should stop reverting now.


 * Also, the report was filed in the wrong place and in the wrong format,and without a warning. So if that procedure is to be used, it should be done properly.  When I advised not using admin procedures, I was referring to general AN/I reports and RFC/U's which are distractions from solving the content dispute.  A simple 3RR report, with proper warnings and evidence, by someone who is not directly involved in the edit war and doing the reversions themselves, that would be appropriate.  Using admin actions to get one's way and stop another editor from getting their way, is not appropriate.  --Parsifal Hello 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, ofc, and I did not realize you were referring to Renee's report in particular. I just wanted to state that 3RR should always be dealt with, in my opinion, even if not "required". Eaglizard 20:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, Kwork did violate 3rr today. First, I inserted a template on a source, then Kwork reverted three times. I undid two reversions and stopped so as not to violate the 3rr rule but Kwork kept going. Here are the diffs:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=prev&oldid=163346135
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=prev&oldid=163358204
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&curid=425823&diff=163359948&oldid=163358811

Also, I warned Kwork that if he reverted again I would report, he reverted after that warning (see the diffs), and I then followed the directions on the noticeboard as specified (at the end, provided diffs) and I posted a notice on Kwork's user page, so I did follow the directions.

I don't understand why you choose to support his templates and edits and then when I ask for help you ignore it. It comes across as very biased and partisan.

Renee 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did remove the template, which was redundant because of the tag at the top of that section, but I have not reverted anything all day. Kwork 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kworks' edits listed by Renee above can only' be classified as reverts, especially considering the lack of meaningful edit summaries. Eaglizard 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A guess most of my edits have been reverts, because I frequently leave out edit sumeries...always on the talk page. Pretty often I forget to sign in too. Maybe you should take that to the administrators noticeboard for another try at getting me bounced. Kwork 20:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you continue to revert, ignore policy, and edit against hard-won consensus on this talk page, that is precisely what I intend to do, Kwork. If you wish to speed this process, you may commit more flagrant violations at will, but I certainly hope you will just adjust yourself to the way Wikipedia works, instead. Eaglizard 21:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are reverts - however there are only three, not four. 3RR violation occurs on the fourth reversion in 24 hours, not the third one. Also, in some cases, it does not need to be the same reversion over and over, but can be considered to be happening between two editors who revert or continually change each other's work in an edit-warring fashion close to 3 or 4 times a day, even it the changes are not exact reversions, or it can even apply if there are less than 4 reverts in a day when the edit-warring is particularly contentious. So, while Renee only reverted that change twice, she did make other edits to thwart specifically what Kwork was doing, and that could be seen as part of an overall escalation.

I am not defending Kwork, I am not accusing Renee, and I am not making a judgment. I'm just going for perspective.

I'm asking that we all respect each other and when there are differences, discuss them here instead of fighting through repeated changes to the article. Even if someone does violate 3RR and they're blocked for a day, what would that accomplish? Nothing at all. The next day, it starts again.

That's why I say that we should solve the differences here and not fiddle around with those noticeboard reports. They don't lead to long-term solutions, they just take time and make bad feelings. They have their usefulness in certain situations, but an occasional one-day block for one too-many reverts is not going to solve the disagreements on this article. What will solve it is to do what I suggested and create alternate versions that can be clearly seen and understood, and then do an RFC to invite more editors to review them and help decide which way works better.

Something like that can take months, so everyone should calm down and try to find real references that write about Bailey so we have more to go on than her words and a few Wikipedia editor's opinions about her.

In the meantime, WP:BRD is an excellent way to handle these things. I've provided various links like that in this conversation, but I wonder if anyone has bothered to read them. They really do offer good methods that can make a difference. --Parsifal Hello 20:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsifal, I searched the WP:3rr page and here is what it say:
 * An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.
 * And, here is the definition of a revert: A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors.
 * Renee 21:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An excellent point from Renee. Please note that it does NOT specify the reversion must apply to the same text, or even the same section, but only to "a single page" (ie, one article). Eaglizard 22:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't argue with that. If you want to make your WP:POINT, then go ahead and file a report at WP:AN/3RR.  I don't refer to WP:POINT as an insult or an attack and I don't mean it in a personal way.  I truly believe this is completely off-track.  The 3 reversions don't matter.  It's just one day, just a few edits.  Kwork has seen all of this, and the AN/I report.  He'll learn from it, just as we all will.


 * According to WP:BLOCK, " Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.". If you feel strongly and want to try and get him punished anyway, go ahead, I won't try to stop you. Even if you succeed, the block will just be for one day, it won't change the flow of the content dispute at all.


 * It seems to me, all of this energy would be so much better spent finding real information about the topic of the article so we can make it better. Right now, we have an article that's full of quotes and references to books written by the person the article is about.  That's not a good way to write a Wikipedia article, and here we are arguing about one little aspect corner of the subject and if one person should be blocked for one day.


 * I do not intend this as a defense of Kwork. I intend it only as a request to get off the topic of the editors and back to the topic of the article.  Is it really possible that someone with as many followers and as much influence as Alice Bailey has almost nothing written about her in any books by anyone?  There must be something we can find somewhere.


 * The article needs to be re-written with far fewer quotes and more solid references. I took the time to make an alternate draft, and I brought it up three or four times already, and even after Jossi put the quotefarm tag on the article, not one person has responded to my request for comments about the alternate version or finding a new approach. All the energy has been put into this unimportant side-dispute.


 * The article has too much information in it that can't be verified from third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or a meditation philosophy book; this article should be an unbiased description of the life and writings of the person, complete with accolades, accomplishments and controversies; supported by verifiable references. --Parsifal Hello 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that I did respond to your draft: in responding to jossi's tag, above, I suggest that we "get on with it", and that we use your proposal as a guide. I find it strange that you would admonish me to work on the article; who else has been working on it, besides you and I? In regard to Kwork, I have no more desire to "punish" him than I assume (on good faith) that you have, Parsifal. As I have now stated, I believe his editing is disruptive, and is now interfering with the very consensus you and I have been working hard to achieve. I can only hope that my handling of the matter will itself convince you of my lack of personal agenda, and my singular concern with improving this article.
 * I tried this the other day, Parsifal, and regretted it, but I've the temerity to try it again. May I suggest you consider whether you are losing your objectivity in regard to Kwork's behavior? In the end, I don't want Kwork punished, but my patience is exhausted, and, as your section title notes, edit warring is a waste. I am asking Kwork to stop but not Renee, because I have no reason to doubt Renee will stop on her own. As for you and I, let's just keep trying to improve the article. Hopefully Kwork will not continue to prevent us. Eaglizard 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, your latest edits appear to be a deliberate effort to target the specific quotes my edit summaries had indicated I wanted left in. If you are attempting to demonstrate that there is not the consensus that I thought we were developing, then you have succeeded. Eaglizard 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all! Sheesh! Whatever happened to assuming good faith? After the hours of work I just put into this, I'm just amazed to read what you just wrote.

All that happened is I got tired of seeing so many quotes in the article so I went through and removed them, trying to summarize as I went along.

I had no idea of whose work I was changing, absolutely no agenda other than attempted accuracy, it was just a mechanical process, one step after another.

If I stepped on your toes, then go ahead and put back in the part that you want.

You know what ? - You go ahead and polish the article. I'm done helping people who assume the worst at every step.

If I see something that looks like POV-pushing, I'll speak up. Maybe.

Other than though, as far as finding references (of which I have added many), or fixing grammer, or digging up dates and names, shortening quotes, or helping with disputes, or anything else...

You're on your own. --Parsifal Hello 03:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you say I am wrong, I will accept that. I reacted (perhaps hastily) to what appeared to be happening. If you look, you'll see that you did, coincidentally or not, delete several paragraphs I had noted I liked in, and in approximately the order I had just worked on them this afternoon.
 * I now realize that all block quotes have been removed from the article, which is not what I thought we were going to do. Surely, in an author's biography, some quotation (maybe 2 or 3?) should be present, if only to give a sense of the writer's style. In this case, they could serve the dual purpose of helping explain her thought.
 * I apologize for the bluntness of my comment. Perhaps you did "step on my toes", which is no excuse for me to overreact. However, I think I have sufficiently expressed my appreciation for your many contributions. Obviously I would prefer you to continue helping. Eaglizard 04:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reported by Renee
So Renee has now AN/I reported Kwork. I was once blocked for 7 days ater a similar report made against me by Renee -- no warning, no discussion -- she just got a sympathic admin to block me. She and Sethie also once cooked up a different complaint against Kwork; the stated intention was to get him "banned", that time, but it didn't work. I'm not saying that Kwork is right or wrong here, just that Renee is up to her old tricks, working the punitive system rather than talking to her fellow editors.

I'll probably get AN/I'd myself now for disussing editors rather than the article, but i think it needs to be said: No author who has criticized Bailey has yet been passed as "okay" to cite, quote, or summarize in this article by the pro-Bailey faction. Every instance has led to a fight, and each fight has been fought on two fronts:

First there have been attempted blockages, AN/I reports, and complaints against the editors who tried to put the material into the article.

Second, there have been complaints made against the authors critical of Bailey, which have ranged from calling them "extremists" or "not experts" to claiming (falsley) that they were "self-published" and accusing them of "lying."

The agenda of those who are pro-Bailey is to remove quotes by authors or the names of authors or the content of material written by authors who have opined that Bailey was racist and/or that she wished to destroy non-White, non-Baileyite peoples' cultures and religions -- and to remove the diting privileges of those who have brought such material to the article.

Cumbey, the latest targeted author, pointed out that Bailey's idea of a "New World Order" involved the destruction of major religions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is nothing that was not previously noted by Shnrielman, Sjoo, and Gershom -- but because Cumbey is a Christian, she is being called an "extremist." When Shnirelman. Sjoo, and Gershom said it, they were called self-published and not experts, and were said to be misrepresenting Bailey.

When editors supported the inclusion of Sjoo, Shnirelman, and Gershom, they were called the "pro-Jewish faction" and the "Jewish Defense League" When editors support Cumbey, a Christian, they are reported for minor infractions of wiki rules.

So here we go again. Now we have FOUR published authors (two Jews, a Neo-Pagan, and a Christian Evangelical) calling Bailey racist. antisemitic, ani-Christian, anti-Islamic, anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, anti-Negro, and so forth -- and still the pro-Baileyites are fighting like devils to close the door to authors and editors who are not 100% pro-Bailey in their analises.

cat Catherineyronwode 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * cat, you really fail to appreciate how little interest we have in your assessment of our motives.
 * I have stated, as clearly as I know how, that my only interest is neutrality and Wiki-policy. However, very much like Ms. Cumbey, you insist that my words do not mean what they say, and that I have a "hidden" agenda. I'm not going to bother arguing this point any longer, I'm only going to remind you that this is an article talk page. It's sole purpose is discussion of the article. My agenda, whatever it may be, and your oft-repeated opinion of it, is of no interest to Wikipedia. If you must discuss it, Wikipedia has conveniently provided me with a talk page &mdash; please place these sort of comments elsewhere from now on. Eaglizard 04:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My, my. Not only was i not referring to you, i was not even THINKING about you while writing the above. I certainly did not "insist that [your] words do not mean what they say, and that [you] have a 'hidden' agenda." As far as i can see, you are not one of the blocking / banning / incident-reporting "gonna tell teacher on you" folks to whom i was referring. cat Catherineyronwode 05:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be because I don't care enough about these comments to actually pay attention to them. If accusations of this sort were appropriate at all, I'd suggest you attribute carefully to whom it is you speak. But, really, you should simply stop doing this. C'mon cat, you're obviously intelligent enough to understand that this isn't what Wikipedia is here for. Eaglizard 05:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If a neutral admin chooses to block someone, then that indicates there is evidence of disruptive editing. If an editor is being disruptive and non-responsive to discussion, then (fortunately) editors have these dispute resolution avenues to pursue.  If they're invalid they'll be ignored; if they're valid then something will be done.  Renee 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Renee, it would seem that your definition of "disruptive editing" is someone editing an article contrary to your own wishes. (Your claim that administrators always decide correctly is incredible. Even in capital court cases many innocent people have been sent to their deaths.) Kwork 14:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-ordered the sub-heads.
The sub-head structure was a mess. It looked like this:

* 1 Biography o 1.1 Childhood o 1.2 India, evangelical work, and first marriage o 1.3 With the Theosophical Society o 1.4 "The Tibetan", split from Theosophy, and second marriage o 1.5 The Arcane School and the Lucis Trust * 2 Teachings o 2.1 Comparison with Theosophy o 2.2 The Seven Rays of energy o 2.3 The constitution of man o 2.4 The spiritual hierarchy o 2.5 Discipleship o 2.6 Unity and divinity of nations and groups o 2.7 Human equality and religion + 2.7.1 On orthodox Christianity + 2.7.2 On fanaticism and intolerance o 2.8 Races + 2.8.1 On the negro race o 2.9 On the Jewish people + 2.9.1 Accusations of racism and antisemitism * 3 Influence * 4 Controversy o 4.1 Prophecies and obscurity o 4.2 Diversion from orthodox belief systems * 5 Bibliography * 6 See also * 7 References * 8 External links

As you can see, "Orthodox Christianity" was presented as a sub-head of "Human equality", "Accusations of racism" was seen as a sub-head of "On the Jewish People" and thus a sub-sub-head of "Teachings"(!), "Negro" was not capitalized -- and the article ended with something totally minor called "Diversion from orthodox belief systems". In short, it was a logical nightmare.

I have re-ordered the material, making a few copy-edits along the way. The hierarchical order is now as follows:

* 1 Biography o 1.1 Childhood o 1.2 India, evangelical work, and first marriage o 1.3 With the Theosophical Society o 1.4 "The Tibetan", split from Theosophy, and second marriage o 1.5 The Arcane School and the Lucis Trust * 2 Teachings o 2.1 Comparison with Theosophy o 2.2 The Seven Rays of energy o 2.3 The constitution of man o 2.4 The spiritual hierarchy o 2.5 Discipleship o 2.6 Unity and divinity of nations and groups o 2.7 Human equality and religion o 2.8 On fanaticism and intolerance o 2.9 Nations, races, and religions + 2.9.1 On the United States and France + 2.9.2 On orthodox Christianity + 2.9.3 On the Negro race + 2.9.4 On the Jewish people + 2.9.5 On racial intermarriage * 3 Accusations of racism and antisemitism * 4 Religious controversies o 4.1 Prophecies and obscurity o 4.2 Diversion from orthodox belief systems * 5 Influence * 6 Bibliography * 7 See also * 8 References * 9 External links

I hope that this is usable by both the pro-Bailey editors and those who wish to see an NPOV article.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 04:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since it's offered by you, then I assume this might satisfy all THREE groups editing here. Eaglizard 04:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I just gotta add: everything I wrote in the previous section is about talk pages only, dear. You act just like Kwork back here, but you copy-edit like nobody's business! The reorganisation needs tweaking, but its certainly an improvement. I can't recall the last time I disagreed with your edits to the article; please don't stop. Eaglizard 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

teachings, viewpoints; racism, antisemitism

 * I made some adjustments as some of the text under "teachings" are not really teachings, but viewpoints, now under their own section. I also moved the antisemitism section into the section that describes Bailey's views on Jews and Judaism, for NPOV. The left-over two pieces under the controversies section ought to be merged into appropriate sections for NPOV. And finally, note that I do not have a POV either pro or con on this person, about which I only learned a few days ago. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * Jossi, I made a change to your change, but it was before I read your comment here. The teachings that you moved to "viewpoints" actually are part of her teachings.  They are not her personal opinions (she gives those in her autobio), these are part of her spiritual philosophy - even the stuff about "races" - they have to do with the "seven rays" and the "plan of the hierarchy" - so those ideas are an integral part of what she teaches (actually, from "the Tibetan"), and they are not her personal opinion.  If you take a look at the sources in her books, you'll see this right away, it's not a subtle difference at all, it's very much integrated into her esoteric teachings. --Parsifal Hello 05:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not seem her views on the Jewish people or the "Negro" race, are "teachings" per se, same about her opinions about France or the US. If she wrote about these in her auto-biography, it supports my point.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. I'm not pro- or con- either, and am very much in favor of NPOV. I concur with moving the criticism sections into the main text per your suggestion. I've suggested this previously myself.  --Parsifal Hello 05:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Eaglizard -- but in the last few minutes, editor Jossi has torn the entire structure apart and has inserted something called "counterpoint" under "Teachings". As if Bailey taught things contrary to her own teachings, by way of counterpoint.


 * Jossi, what you have done is, in my professional opinion, illogical. So i am undoing it. One does not make an article NPOV by shoving random things under other random things.


 * First, as Parsifal pointed out, what you call her "viewpoints" were actually her "teachings." read her books and you will understand this.


 * Second, here's another reason why what you did won't work: You wrote, "I also moved the antisemitism section into the section that describes Bailey's views on Jews and Judaism, for NPOV."


 * The trouble is, there is no "antisemitism section."


 * Read that again! THERE IS NO "ANTISEMITISM SECTION."


 * You have made a basic error. You have looked at the section in which critics have accused Bailey of both racism AND antisemitism, and you have strangely thought it was ONLY about antisemitism and thus should go into the "Jewish" section. But it is not about antisemitism alone, it is also about RACISM, so it can't go under the "Jewish" heading, and when you put it there, it makes no sense.


 * Please familiarize yourself with the material before you mash it up.


 * Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode 05:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * jossi, what I think Parsifal is saying is that the ideas you refer to are not her personal opinions. She does discuss her opinions in her autobiography, and in several of the books for which she claims direct authorship. However, most of the quoted sections are from books which Bailey claims were directly dictated to her by "DK", so they should be represented as "Teachings" from the "Master", since that's how she represents them. Follow me? Eaglizard 05:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ps. The two sets of books (hers and DK's) are conveniently separated in the Bibilography section, so you can determine the nature of a cited quote from that, perhaps. One exception: the book Light of the Soul, written by both of them "together", so to speak.Eaglizard 05:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. If you want to read some of her works, they are available in full for download at no charge, here.

Further, here is one example of the way in which her "teachings" intertwine discussion of "races" and "rays". This is from The Externalization of the Hierarchy, page 76-77 :


 * We come now, for a brief moment, to a consideration of the Jewish question. Remember that it is an interesting fact that the Jews are found in every land without exception, that their influence is potent and widespread (far more so than they themselves are willing to recognize), and that they wield most potently that peculiar concretization of energy which we call money. They constitute, in a strange manner, a unique and distinctly separated world center of energy. The reason for this is that they represent the energy and the life of the previous solar system. You have often been told how, at the close of this solar system, a certain percentage of the human family will fail to make the grade and will then be held in pralaya, or in solution, until the time for the manifestation of the next and third solar system comes around. Then they will constitute the advanced guard and the symbol of the coming humanity of that system. The same thing occurred in the system before this one and those whom we now call the Jews..., are the descendants of that earlier group which was held in pralaya between the first and second solar systems. If you will remember that the third ray governed that system and also governs the Jewish race, if you bear in mind that that system was occupied with the divine aspects of matter only and with external conditions, and that the Jews were the highest product of that system you can come to an understanding of the Jew, his separateness, his desire for racial purity and his interest in that which is commercial and tangible.


 * ...made it possible for the forces of separativeness and of hate, to use the Jewish race to stir up world difficulty, and thus bring to a crisis the basic human problem of separation. When humanity has solved the Jewish problem (with the understanding cooperation of the Jew) and overcome ancient antipathies and hatreds, it will do so by fusing the problem in one vast humanitarian situation. When that happens, the problem will be rapidly solved and one of the major difficulties will disappear off the face of the earth. Racial fusion will then be possible.

There are many many many examples of writings like this. I hope that one example can give you an idea of the difficulties in trying to explain what she was saying.

For some more context, her book Problems of Humanity, also a "telepathically dictated" teaching of the Tibetan has an entire chapter titled "The Problem of the Racial Minorities", and in that chapter there is a sub-chapter titled "The Jewish Problem". This is not "Alice Bailey" talking, this is "The Tibetan" expounding his teachings. That's why the section can't be called "Viewpoints."

If we want her a "viewpoints" section for the article, we can find those in her autobiography,. Here are a few of the things she wrote about Jews in her personal memoir:


 * "People complain (and it is frequently true) the Jews lower the atmosphere of any district in which they reside. They hang their bedding and their clothing out of the windows. They live on the streets, sitting in groups on the sidewalks."
 * "The complaint is made that the moment you permit a Jew to get a footing in your group or business organization, it will not be long before his sisters and his nephews, his uncles and his aunts are in it too."
 * "It is claimed that the Jew is strictly material, that the all-mighty dollar matters more to him than the ethical values and that he is quick and expert in taking advantage of the Gentiles."
 * "That which conditions Gentile thinking concerning the unorthodox and younger Jew is his materialism, of which Shylock is a symbol."
 * "There is much in the Jew and the German which is alike. The German regards himself as a member of the "super race" whilst the orthodox Jew regards himself as the Chosen People."
 * "One handicap comes today from the Jews themselves. Personally, I have never yet found a Jew who would admit that there might be faults or provocation on their side. They always take the position that they are the abused and that the whole problem could be solved by the Christian taking right action."
 * "Lots of us, thousands of us are trying to take right action but we get no cooperation from the Jews."

Not sure what to do with that stuff. I did not add it to the article because it's not her "teachings", just her personal thoughts, but maybe it's of interest for this talk page, for some perspective.

For anyone who thinks I'm anti-Bailey, please consider that I did not make this stuff up. She wrote it, and she published it. So it's not coming from me. --Parsifal Hello 07:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I've been wondering for months why none of the Jewish editors had introduced some of those quotes (especially the first two, about "lowering the atmosphere" and nepotism. I've always considered these to be among the most directly insulting things she wrote, and most revealing of any personal bias against Jews on Bailey's part (of the sort that Kwork has alleged, based on her upbringing). Eaglizard 07:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, those are some of her most directly insulting words, and even more so because they are her own personal feelings rather than something philosophical from the Tibetan. I don't know about anyone else, or who the Jewish editors are (other than a couple who have self-identified as such), but I can tell you why I didn't introduce those quotes.  Specifically, because I have not been trying to trash Bailey, whatever anyone may have thought about me.   I've known about these quotes since the first day I edited this article and downloaded the books.     --Parsifal Hello 07:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yah, and I don't mean to imply anything about those editors who happen to be Jewish &mdash; I try hard not to pay much attention to that. It just seems, if I were Jewish, those things would offend me greatly. Heck, they do offend me actually, regardless. But then, Alice Bailey was a human being, just like I am, and I reckon she had her faults &mdash; just like I do. I can't help thinking that, if Bailey's theories are correct, her and DK must consider those statements among the worst mistakes of their effort together (which mistakes DK acknowledged would perforce occur). But that would be their karma, and not mine, thankfully (although, this very article would be an example of the working out of that karma, so maybe I shouldn't talk). Personally, I would've told Dwjal, "Hey man, not so much with the Jewish thing, you know?" but apparently he forgot to ask my opinion. :D Eaglizard 08:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's horrific stuff. Master's are said to beyond human emotion, so their commentary on the races and religions are in a different context. But it is unfortunate that Alice Bailey, Blavatsky and Helena Roerich, not the stature as a Master, had to put her two cents into the mix--on the Jewish people issues. The Master's (Spiritual Hierarchy) seem to be out of touch with how their commentary on the racism and such, in the hands their human chelas,  can breed hatred. Unfortunately there isn't a world religion that is exempt from such hatred. I say, "Hey man [to the next Master to manifest], make make sure you pay closer attention to the weaknesses in your chelas aura. Sparklecplenty 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for citation
Can someone provide the cite used to support this text: "Her humanitarian philosophy is still influential and there are many groups, schools and organizations that study and implement her ideas worldwide." ^ Balyoz, Harold, Three Remarkable Woman, Altai Publishers, 1986, p. 348

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * jossi, what do you mean exactly? Isn't that a quotation followed by the cite? Are you asking for more context from the source? If so, it was probably James who added that, and he has claimed he won't be back. I don't have that ref myself. I will try to find some support for the "many groups,schools, etc" part, but it should probably come out for now. I believe you rmv'd it, didn't you? Or was that a different but similar section? You made quite a flurry of edits there. :) Eaglizard 05:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What I am asking is a citation, (the text itself) from the book, that was used to assert that text as a fact. Now I see that it has been changed to . What is going on? I am tagging that text as dubious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, i added the reference to the Ellwood book as per a request from parsifal. Ellwood is a professor; in the book he gave basic historical background to the major Eastern Spirituality groups operating in America and also provided anthropological-journalistic accounts of his attendance upon various group meetings that were then ongoing, which derived from Eastern Spirituality in Ameica. He devoted an entire chapter to Blavatsky and Bailey and included his own personal observation of a Full Moon Meditiation Group of Bailey's followers, describing the room, the participants, the words said, etc. The University of Chicago published the book. I am not going to transcribe it. If you think the text is "dubious" or that i made it up, go to Amazon and buy a copy. cat 64.142.90.34 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In my view the phrase "humanitarian philosophy" does not characterize the Bailey teaching very well. The books contain a theosophical teaching (small "t") not a philosophical teaching. Also, although I would not deny that Bailey herself may have had humanitarian inclinations, her work was as a teacher, not as a humanitarian.

As for it still being influential, that is true, but diminishing. For instance, at the School for Esoteric Studies (a Bailey teaching group), when I first studied with them there were sometimes ten full time teachers dealing with correspondence course work coming from around the world. By the time they moved from NYC to North Carolina, there was often only the director there alone, in a much smaller office, when I visited. This is, of course anecdotal, but I believe that there are fewer people who have any real training. Kwork 13:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This book seems very marginal. I am removing the reference. If anyone does not agree and feels it should be added back in, please provide some perspective to indicate why it is reliable. Thanks.

The authors comments do not appear impartial. The book seems to be:


 * self-published (http://www.altaipub.com/)
 * not independent, as the author seems to be a follower of Bailey's teachings:


 * "So, how does one know when the true Masters are present? As Harold Balyoz, one of Bailey's disciples said to me in Arizona recently: 'There are many masters, Kala, but not all of them are Ascended'." (http://www.kalatrobe.com/essays/masters4.shtml)


 * "The pure Teaching given by these remarkable women, about how humanity needs to strive toward the virtues, practice Living Ethics, love and compassion, are helping to bring about the New Age. Without these three, great women, there would still be an Aquarian Age, but there would not be a New Age for humanity.... By Harold Balyoz, author" (http://www.wmea-world.org/MMI/04-5-95.htm)


 * the book is featured in various Bailey's Arcane-school related organizations (examples: http://www.esotericstudies.net/library.htm, http://www.trianglecentre.org.nz/prices.html)

--Parsifal Hello 06:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I should have taken a few minutes to look. So Parsifal is a lot more diligent than I am. So sue me! Btw, I agree with you Pars, but only because, as Joe Blow, one of Bailey's completely ignorant bystanders, said to me in Pago-pago recently, "There are many name-droppers, B'wana, but none of them are Ascended!" Eaglizard 07:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, I'm glad to see that we're looking at citations carefully. All of the criticism you gave for the citation you just removed are valid for the Gershom citation too.


 * Also, please can you and Eaglizard take a look at Vassyana's posts about Cumbey? It does a disservice to a quality encyclopedic article to user sources like this.

Thanks, Renee Renee 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * After months of arguing there were three sources allowed for the criticisms section. Virtually none of the dozens of sources used by Jamesd1 were challenged, although I know for a fact that a large number to them are worthless, and written by people who were Bailey devotees without any objectivity, or written based on (inaccurate) hearsay. So, the article is based on nothing but primary sources, and worthless secondary sources. Kwork 14:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even in the biographical information in the article the only source of information is her own Unfinished Autobiography. Every, apparent, secondary source about her life is based entirely on what she wrote about herself. This creates a problematic situation, because there is no reason to think that her version of her own life is neutral. It also may mean that Bailey fails the notability test. Kwork 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

archived through October 1
This page was gigantic. It's still pretty huge. New archive page created. Nothing was omitted. Everything prior to October 1 is in /Archive 4. --Parsifal Hello 07:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Eaglizard 07:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Integration of criticism and controversies
I have placed tags to request the integration of that material onto relevant sections in the article. For a NPOV presentation of a subject is is more appropriate to do so, rather than relegate these aspects to their own section. In a separate section these lack context. A good example is the Judaism section in the "teachings", which lacks counterpoints made by others. Remember that NPOV asks us to present significant viewpoints not just one viewpoint (Bailey's) in a manner that provides a neutral and accurate representation of a subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of the citations where removed, thus the more positive comments Alice Bailey made about the Jewish people were removed. Of the 5,500 pages written, 103 pages were on Judaism and the Jewish people, both positive and negative comments. Now, most of quotes on the Jewish people are negative. If you choose to bring in more negatives then it should be balanced with positive comments Alice Bailey made about he Jewish people, that were removed. Sparklecplenty 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Many of Bailey's statements about the Jews are so startling they need separate attention. A few of them can be seen on this page (above) under the heading "teachings, viewpoints; racism, antisemitism". This point has been argued non-stop for about seven months. There are editors, who are devoted Bailey followers, who will never be willing to concede her antisemitism because they want to view Bailey as perfect. I have no objection to their relation to Bailey as their guru, but it is problematic if they want an article that shows Bailey without these problems, with the intent that Wikipedia readers will see a one-sided presentation of a perfect Alice Bailey, and a perfect Alice Bailey teaching. Kwork 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not asking that they be removed from this article, although it would be better to have Wikipedia standard sources. Yes, Bailey said a lot startling things about races, religions, countries. Most of the positive thoughts Alice Bailey wrote about the Jewish people have been removed. I was only suggesting that we put back all the positives to give a more complete presentation of her thoughts on the Jewish people. Unless we are here to condemn Alice Bailey for 2% negative remarks, why would want one-sided presentation of her negatives. Sparklecplenty 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The 2% figure is pointless, if even correct. In many books it seems live every time you turn the page Bailey has something else negative to say about Jews. It seems like a strange obsession in the books. And some books contain whole chapters of antisemetic statements. Kwork 19:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, Are you saying that the two tagged sections should be merged into previous sections? I'm a little unclear about what you're asking?  Also, there are a few good criticism sources (like a Hebrew University one) but at least two do not seem to come up to Wiki standards.  First, Cumbey -> see Vassyana's remarks above.  Second, Gershom -> the citation is an opinion post on his personal website.  What do you think?  Renee 17:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Gershom was approved by AnonEMouse, an experienced administrator from the Biographies section when she was over seeing an RfC here. Cumbey is still under discussion; but, since her book Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow dealt with the New Age and with Alice Bailey, it seems reasonable to include Cumbey's views in the article about the New Age writer Alice Bailey. Kwork 17:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gershom is a published author with three books out, and his self-published essay is within his field of expertise. This is acceptable according to WP:V.  In addition, his 1992 book about the psychological effects of the Holocaust, "Beyond the Ashes", contains information about Alice Baileys anti-Semitism.  I don't have access to the book so I can't look up the exact quotes, but we know that the book includes that information because the following text appears in his description of that book on Amazon:


 * At the time "Beyond the Ashes" was published back in 1992 ... the "new age" interpretation of the Holocaust back then was that Jews in the camps were all nasty bad guys who had come back en masse to burn off their bad karma, and that Judaism was some sort of purgatory where folks could do that quickly.  Needless to say, these theories were extremely offensive to Jews. Mostly they came from non-Jews, especially the writings of Alice Bailey, an esotericist who was also an antisemite.


 * The above facts, in addition to AnonEMouse's agreement about the acceptability of the source, should put this question to rest. This same source has been questioned at least three times in the last couple months, and each time it's been decided to keep it.  It's time to drop this and move on to other questions, of which there are plenty. --Parsifal Hello 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Integration of criticism and controversies (back to the topic)
←Back to Jossi's idea about the two sections he tagged as "Criticism sections". Usually, I would agree with that idea. But in this article, I don't see a way to do it cleanly, because there is no place to put them where they would make sense, other than maybe one of the paragraphs. Also, there is more than one controversy section and they are not the same and need to be considered separately:


 * Religious controversies
 * Prophecies and obscurity - this one is an orphan, because "prophesies" are not addressed in the article anywhere.
 * Diversion from orthodox belief systems - this one could be merged into the teachings section, under "Nations, races, and religions".


 * Accusations of racism and antisemitism - the merging of this section has already been debated effectively by Catherine above. I don't see a solution for moving this into the body of the teachings section.  Even the "Nations, races, and religions" is not appropriate, because it is a "teachings" section, and these criticisms are both about her teachings and her personal opinions.   In addition, even if it were moved there, it should retain it's subhead, because these are actually "Accusations" and not "criticisms" in the literary or scientific sense.

Aside from the above arguments, regarding Wikipedia policy and guidelines on this, the issue of whether or not to have Controversy sections in article is not a bright line:


 * WP:NPOV - "Although specific article structures are not as a rule prohibited, in some cases the article structure itself may need attention. Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral   ... Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate"
 * pro and con lists-thread mode - this article has had problems with thread mode in the past. If we try to integrate these sections, there is likely to be endless debate about adding responses within the text of answers to each of the critical comments..  While separating the controversy section may not be optimal, it's better than "thread mode."
 * Criticism - there has been a lot of thought on this issue; the results are not clear, as this essay shows.

Summary: We could merge the one paragraph I noted above, though still a bit awkardly; but merging the others would require significant reorganization of the entire article to avoid major confusion, debate-threading within the article, and burying of the controversial topics. Unlike articles that have sufficient secondary sources, since this article is mostly based on primary sources (ie, Bailey herself), therefore there is an endless amount of material available to overwhelm the controversial information from the secondary sources, and that means extra attention must go into making sure that small amount of valuable information is not buried.

Therefore, I suggest we remove those tags and focus on other aspects of improving the article. --Parsifal Hello 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of context
This text:
 * Bailey has been cited in numerous professional journals[145][146][147][148][149][150] 

... means very little without some context. How Baley has been cited?, in which context? relating to what subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of citations by scholars is the widely accepted standard for notability with academic people. "The importance of a paper can often be deduced from the number of citations of it." Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

The citations, apart from content, show her notability and they are in the "influence" section. Sparklecplenty 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the difficulties in writing this article is that no respected academic writer has made a study of Alice Bailey. There is nothing like Richard Noll's books about Carl Jung. There have not been even (as far as I know) any studies in peer reviewed journals. Kwork 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are academic writers that study Alice Bailey. Psychologist Michael Robbins is one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklecplenty (talk • contribs) 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have corresponded with Michael Robins. He is a very nice guy, and I respect him for his knowledge of the Bailey teaching, and for his application the teaching in his life. However, despite his PhD, he is as much a worshiper in the Church of Bailey as anyone I know of, and there is no possibility that his writings could be called neutral studies. He is, however, certainly an intelligent exponent of the Bailey teaching. It is my guess that if it was Michael Robbins I was dealing with here that an agreement could have been reached long ago, and he could have written a much better article too. Kwork 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, there's the dissertation from an Australian University cited at the end of the article.  Renee 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

archived through October 1
This page was gigantic. It's still pretty huge. New archive page created. Nothing was omitted. Everything prior to October 1 is in /Archive 4. --Parsifal Hello 07:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Eaglizard 07:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

congrats
I just skimmed the article, it's looking pretty good--neat and tidy. I will have to go back and check out the citations because in the past many were removed and replaced with phony ones--reason why so many quotes were removed.

It boggles the mind that this naive Christian woman managed to write an encyclopedic size work that includes subjects that were far beyond her understanding--cosmology, astrology, "rayology". Due to the massive size (5,500 pages) and comprehensive subject matter this article and the criticism should reflect the scholarship of this work. The quotes and persons that criticize her work should be should be the best scholars of her work, or at least have some familiarity with the scope of it. To be a critic of such massive cosmological work, the qualification of those critics should be far better than simply having an advanced degree in an more or less unrelated area, or a personal vendetta. It should not be persons who actually copied the three great ladies (HPB, AAB, HR) work, added some stuff to and left out things, then called it ther own (such as Elizabeth Claire Prophet). And the good works of the other ladies (like Course in Miracles) should be used unless they're connected to Alice Bailey; in the case of Course in Miracles, there is no connection. Rudolf Steiner or Max Heindle's work for instance are in the same part of the universe as AAB's, but Course in Miracles is another animal all together.

Eaglizard, if this work were written by a master, s/he, by Theosophical definition, would have no emotional human attachments to a religion, country, or race. Alice Bailey was a woman caught in the middle, if he was the author of those books. She took the  brunt of the criticism--in her biography she apologized if she hurt anyone. I agree, I wish the Tibetan had allowed more for the state of human consciousness and more for how personal attachments are deeply rooted. I think the world teachers need new messages clarifying the vagueness of their teachings. Humans don't take criticism very well and they get tangled up when ever there is vagueness. Sparklecplenty 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly is remarkable that Bailey wrote these books, given her background. In particular, I found the books to be written with all the rigor of a Schopenhauer, and found almost no internal disagreement or incohesion &mdash; except in the case of the racial comments. I have come to believe that Kwork is right in his suggestion that AAB was given the prevailing biases of her age in her upbringing, and that she (like all humans) failed to fully overcome her limitations as such. Taking her axioms for the moment, yes, the teachings originated in the mind of a Master. However, they were then filtered (one might even say forced) through the mind of a student. If AAB were herself Ascended, she would not have been suitable in the first place. It is reasonable to asume there were mistakes in the transmission. There always are.  And regardless of one's opinion vs. Ascended Masters, one really must respect talk page consensus when editing at Wikipedia. That's the way this group works, you know? Eaglizard 21:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, I left you message in "teachings, viewpoints; racism, antisemitism section." Sparklecplenty 23:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of racism and antisemitism
Jossi, I agree that it would be better to merge this section into the rest of the article. However, even as it is now, that section has been tampered with and changed many times. Even as a separate section it is a worry that the material has not been removed when no one was watching. The problem of keeping track of it will become many times more difficult once merged into the rest of the article. If you have a solution to that, I would be happy to merge the material, producing a more unified article. Kwork 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hearing agreement from various parties, I merged the two racism/antisemitic statements into the comment on nations/races section, and the Jewish criticism into the Jewish section. See what you think.  Renee


 * I reverted the changes. They might be very good, but I would like to see what it will look like here on that talk page first. So much effort went into the criticism section, I am unwilling to make changes that casually. Kwork 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Renee's work in finding a place for those comments, but at this time, pending further discussion, I concur with Kwork's revert.


 * This discussion was confused because it was restarted in a new section, when it was already in progress in here, a couple sections above. So, please continue the discussion there, where specific comments have already been made with reference to Wiki guidelines.


 * I am not saying the merging should not be done, just that it is not yet clear if it should be or not, and if it is done, how it would be best handled. Thanks.  --Parsifal Hello 22:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Gershom's books
The Gershom citation is a self-post on Gershom's website and really is not a valid source for Wiki standards.

Has anyone read Gershom's books? (i.e., Beyond the Ashes, From Ashes to Healing, or Jewish Tales of Reincarnation) Maybe he says the same thing in one of these books as he does on his website post? If yes, then extractions from these sources would be bona fide sources by decent publishers (i.e., A.R.E. and Jason Aronson publishers). Renee 17:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Gershom was approved by AnonEMouse, an experienced administrator from the Biographies section when she was over seeing an RfC here. Everything Renee is complaining about was discussed then. Why do we have to keep going over the same material?, for seven months now. Kwork 17:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sweetie Pie, As great and powerful as AnonEMouse is, he is not the final say in Wiki. Remember at that time that >5 other editors disagreed with him and thought Gershom was a lousy source.  So, you could say the preponderance of opinion was against him.


 * Having said that, I'm trying to find a way to keep Gershom in in a valid way that meets Wiki guidelines. So, I repeat my question, have you read any of his books?  If yes, the matter would be put to rest because even if new editors came on board it is most likely they would not object to a valid source.


 * Again, if we are going to cut out self-published sources as Parsifal did above then it needs to go both ways to be balanced. I'm trying to find a way for you to keep Gershom in but if we're deleting self-published sources he has to go too.  Renee 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Renee, the gershom essay is within his field of expertise, refers to material in his other published works (see above) and is in no way marginal or without verifyability. Please stop beating this dead horse. Gershom is in. Live with it. cat (not logged in, sorry) 64.142.90.34 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There was not a single source in the criticism section that you did not argue about, and fight over, from the beginning of your editing till now. It is hard not to get the impression that your idea of a neutral article is an article free of all criticism of Bailey. You fought the inclusion of every source in that section. But when did you ever go through Jamesd1's edits to find problematic sourcing? That never happened. All you have done is use Wiki-lawering to try to get your way. Kwork 18:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lovey-poo, Personal attacks and lying will get you nowhere. Love the Hebrew U source.
 * I repeat myself, have you read any of Gershom's published books? If he talks about Bailey in any of those then we have a valid source.
 * Renee 19:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Renee, you said "Love the Hebrew U", which is a lie. You fought that too. But you never objected to whatever BS Jamesd1 put into the article, all those sources are perfect for you. Your claim for wanting a neutral article has no credibility. Kwork 19:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll take that to mean no...
 * ...Does anyone have access to these books to check this out? I just checked my library and they have none.  It seems that mainstream bookstores don't carry it on their shelves. I don't want to buy it (just look at it).  Does anyone live in a big city and can check out maybe a specialty store that might carry it?  Renee 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

←I replied to this same question above, just now, but because people are questioning the same source in more than one place on the talk page, I'll repeat my comment here for convenience, and expand on it:

Gershom is a published author with three books out, and his self-published essay is within his field of expertise. This is acceptable according to WP:V. In addition, his 1992 book about the psychological effects of the Holocaust, "Beyond the Ashes", contains information about Alice Baileys anti-Semitism. I don't have access to the book so I can't look up the exact quotes, but we know that the book includes that information because the following text appears in his description of that book on Amazon:


 * At the time "Beyond the Ashes" was published back in 1992 ... the "new age" interpretation of the Holocaust back then was that Jews in the camps were all nasty bad guys who had come back en masse to burn off their bad karma, and that Judaism was some sort of purgatory where folks could do that quickly.  Needless to say, these theories were extremely offensive to Jews. Mostly they came from non-Jews, especially the writings of Alice Bailey, an esotericist who was also an antisemite.

The above facts, in addition to AnonEMouse's agreement about the acceptability of the source, should put this question to rest. This same source has been questioned at least three times in the last couple months, and each time it's been decided to keep it. It's time to drop this and move on to other questions, of which there are plenty. --Parsifal Hello 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I wrote earlier. Since this is now being questioned yet again, I will add that it is tiresome and wasteful to continually question the same few sources over and over again, instead of putting energy into finding new and better sources. For all the so-called positive elements of this article about Alice Bailey, almost all of them are from her own words.

Several people have said that Bailey is so notable that she has been quoted in scholarly journals and people have written books about her, and her philosophy has affected thousands or millions of people, that she is a humanitarian and that her work has changed the world and made it better, that she is a great teacher of spiritual truths that continue to be studied to this day, inspiring positive action and works, and on and on and on.

Please note: I am not naming names. I am not directing this comment at any individual. So everyone, please do not take this personally.

That said, if Bailey is as wonderful and notable as all that, I have a question: Why is it that it's so easy to find secondary sources about Helen Blavatsky and Theosophy, or Rudolf Steiner and Anthrosophy, but we can't find even one independent biography of Alice Bailey, or one independent analysis of her system?

Since people here are so focused on how reliable the sources are, let's see some NPOV - let's have that same concern applied to finding and vetting secondary sources about Bailey in general, rather than focusing so much time and attention on one little quote from one little essay from one little author about one little topic in this article about a person who apparently, did not manage to inspire many people to write about her - even though she did inspire many people to buy her books and do her meditiation practices.

How many references or books could each editor here locate, if they were to spend the time locating references, that they had otherwise spent on arguing about the details of the text?

Maybe it's easier to just write on the talk page then to actually look for real references. But the fact is, this article is largely un-supported by secondary sources. If we remove the primary source material, we' have a stub.

I'm not saying that should be done. But I am saying that we need more third-party sources. Someone must have written about Bailey. Lets find those materials. --Parsifal Hello 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsifal, Gershom is not an expert in Bailey, but in reincarnation and Jews. But besides this, if you allow this self-published post then you need to allow the one you deleted above.  Gershom is openly hostile toward Bailey (not neutral) and you said the book you deleted above was written by someone pro-Bailey (I don't know if this is true or not).  But, BOTH sources should be allowed.  We are not being consistent here but selectively allowing weak negative sources and eliminating positive sources (again, I haven't read it so I'm just going by what you said).  Also, if I recall admin jpgordon said the source was questionable and he's on the arb board.  (I actually think saying because AnonEMouse said it was okay, or even jpgordon said it was okay is silly, but I'm trying to show you how it sounds.)
 * I tried offering a reasonable way out of this problem by asking if someone could please read Gershom's books to see if he mentions Bailey in them. What do you think of that?
 * Also, I will reinsert the self-published source you deleted if this is our standard. Vassyana, an extremely well-respected admin said to cut Cumbey. Will you do that?  (Again, we can't selectively pull out admin reviews, let's be consistent.)
 * Let's agree on a standard for sources. Renee 21:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Gershom is completely different than the self-published source I removed. His books are not self-published, only his essay is, and it is a topic on which he writes books that have been published by a third-party, and by the info I provided above, we know that his 1992 book does include information about Bailey and her anti-semitism, though we do not have his exact quote from that book. Someone who has a viewpoint, like Gershom, is not excluded by their viewpoint.

The one I removed was not only self-published, but was also not independent, which is a more restrictive criteria. In other words, that person, a member of Bailey's following, self-published a book about their guru, and their book was not even distributed by a third party distributor. That's a completely non-independent self-published source and does not meet WP:V.

I thought Cumbey was already cut, and I didn't argue with that.

Now, I repeat my more important question:

How many references or books could each editor here locate, if they were to spend the time locating references, that they had otherwise spent on arguing about the details of the text?

Are there really no independent books about Alice Bailey at all, or even books with significant portions about her? --Parsifal Hello 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsifal, the last I looked Cumbey is still in the article and I want to keep it that way. In my view the two sections of the article that I inserted the Cumbey quotes were very non-neutral in content, and I felt a second opinion about Bailey was needed there to balance that. If the sections are made more neutral in content, there would be no need for the Cumbey quotes. For now they are needed. Nevertheless, I think Cumby is a good source, and right on the mark in her view of Bailey's intended solution for dealing with traditional Jews and Christians. Her thinking on doing away with views different than her own are the inverse of democratic ideals of pluralism. Using Cumbey as a source is very justified. Kwork 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the question Renee started this section with was also important, and it hasn't been answered either. No, Renee, I haven't read Gershom, sorry. Sadly, Kwork, your many good comments are often lost among your voluminous off-topic non-responses like these. :( Eaglizard 22:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article should represent what is presented by the general body of reliable sources. It should not be "balanced" with unreliable sources. This is the wrong place to try and correct what is "wrong" with the body of reliable references. Vassyana 22:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I looked again and Cumbey is gone. But the good news is that those two sections are much more balanced now. I may add a few words to "Human equality and religion", with a Cumbey reference; but I do not have time for that now. Just something very short saying that not all religious groups feel enthusiastic about Bailey's ideas for a new world religion, and a reference to Cumbey. Kwork 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cumbey is not a reliable source. She should stay gone. Vassyana 22:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, try not to act like a clown. You have not produced anything, but your own preconceptions about Cumbey. Moreover, the whole biography part of the article is built on nothing but one primary source, and some so-called secondary sources that are entirely based on the same primary source, and all you can find to worry about is Cumbey Kwork 00:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you could at least use some truth in your insults. I produced two very relevant sources to the discussion. One calling her an "extremist" was written by an editor of an academic journal focused on new religious movements. The other indicating she is more extreme than most far-right religious conspiracy theorists was written by a reputable Evangelical scholar from an apologetics POV. That's hardly my "own preconceptions". There are certainly other problems with this article (and they are multitude), however that doesn't excuse your defense of clearly unreliable sources, nor your other problematic attitudes and behaviours. Please be reasonable and civil. Vassyana 00:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not shown quotes and sources that coincide with what you are claiming. Moreover, you started with the intention to show Cumbey is not acceptable, and have been working to build on that point only. I have already shown links that are contrary to what you claim. I can do no more till tomorrow. Kwork 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have shown exactly what I claim above. Insisting otherwise is either dishonest or foolish. I'm quite done discussing this with you. Vassyana 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "I'm quite done discussing this with you". I certainly that is a promise you keep. However, I am not necessarily finished discussing the matter myself. Kwork 11:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-Warring Again
Dear Editors, Yesterday when I edited Kwork reverted me three times and ya'll said it should be talked about here first.

Well, today, after Kwork agreed that the criticism sections should be merged above (with other editors talking at that time, including Jossi) I took the plunge and merged the sections and asked what people thought about it.

I will wait for a community sanction against this behavior. Kwork's edits show that clearly he is attacking me to revert an edit he first said he agreed with! This is a clear violation of civility and good faith. He didn't even discuss the edits.

Renee 22:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I explained above. That change needs more discussion. If you think I do not trust your editing, you are right. Kwork 22:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Renee, I'm sorry I have to leave for work in 10 mins, but I briefly looked at the history and yes, that appears to be 3 clear reverts to the article. However, it's not a violation until the fourth one. I would suggest, at this point, you take the attitude that he's "used up" his reverts for the day. Make the changes you want to make, or allow other editors to do so (but I must recommend against simply reverting his reverts, ofc). If Kwork then reverts yours (or anyone's edits) within 24 hours, file a 3RR violation. At this point though, it's not a violation, I don't think. It's not very considerate, but it is allowed, I guess. Eaglizard 22:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This suggestion is disruptive and shows bad faith. I explained above that the changes, if they are made at all, need more discussion. Renee's making those changes also are disruptive and show bad faith. Kwork 22:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kwork, WP:3RR is an exceedingly simple, bright-line policy which has achieved very widespread consensus in the WP community. If you violate it, I will either report it myself, or encourage someone else to do so. I have made myself very clear on this point. I assure you, my only goal is to prevent further disruptive editing. WP has identified 3RR to be a policy which helps to do that very thing. Them's the rules, my friend. I promise, it's nothing personal. And to be extra clear, Kwork, I am only addressing you because Renee's comment was about you. If Renee 3RR's, or Parisfal, or myself even, I will report the violation. It's not about you, my friend. Eaglizard 22:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the 3RR violation. If there is one, someone would need to point it out. I see multiple edits, but not multiple reverting of the same repeated edits or anything like that. Also, he wrote in his edit summary that further discussion was needed. And, I wrote on the talk page above that I concurred with the change he made and that further discussion was needed - and - that discussion was already in progress - so, there was at least support for those  edits from one other and he was not unilaterally edit-warring. You can report him if you want to, but I don't see the point. That rule is to protect Wikipedia from vandals and unreasonable non-consensus contributors. That's not happening here, and I see no reason to use that kind of process for this. You have the right to do as you will, of course. But that's my two cents on this, as a human being recognizing a difficult situation, in which there are very strong polarized opinions, not all coming from one person.

I've removed his name from this section heading. Accusations about editors should not be placed in section headings for all the world to see when they are only allegations and this is not a noticeboard. You're welcome to discuss the issue, but please don't do it that way.

Renee, you wrote that Kworks' work is about you. That's your assumption. I don't believe he has shown that kind of behavior. He's not a sterling example of civility, but he's a lot better than he was a while ago, and he is definitely working with all of us to make this a better article. He happens to disagree with much of your viewpoint. Please, relax and stop taking that personally.

If he changed his mind after he agreed to the merge, well maybe he changed his mind. People do that sometimes, it doesn't mean they're attacking you.

Don't get upset about edits, just discuss them. There is more to discuss about merging those sections, and I've entered a lot of information about that in the section above. Take it easy... please... --Parsifal Hello 22:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsifal, I've put back in the good faith edits I did and would ask all editors to look at them and discuss them before reverting. There has been much interest in integrating the sections and I did that.


 * Please take a look at the present version in good faith. Renee 00:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. also, please look at Kwork's words above, If you think I do not trust your editing, you are right.  If you read that how can you make an assumption that his work is not about me.  Please read his words.


 * p.s. I wasn't accusing Kwork of doing a 3rr today. What I objected to was the unilateral removal of an edit that had long been discussed on the talk page.  The reason I chose that edit was specifically because Kwork said he agreed the sections should be integrated and I thought it would be a good place to act in good faith and move forward.  What I hope the Wiki community does is sanction or at least point out when someone is being uncivil and reverting based on personality instead of edits (and I actually had hoped someone would revert his reversion so we could discuss my good-faith edits).  Is this the impossible dream?  Renee 00:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How many references?
Parsifal wrote:"How many references or books could each editor here locate, if they were to spend the time locating references, that they had otherwise spent on arguing about the details of the text? Are there really no independent books about Alice Bailey at all, or even books with significant portions about her? --Parsifal Hello 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)"

To which i reply, books are locatable, but their inclusion is not approved by log-jamming editors. Last night, when i added a reference to organizations that follow Bailey's teachings, which i found in a book on religion by the eminent Professor Robert S. Ellwood, published by the University of Chicago, it was IMMEDIATELY (in less than half an hour) labelled with a "dubious" tag by editor Jossi.

This is so ludicrous that it beggars belief.

It takes a lot of patience and Assuming Good Faith to edit through barrages of nay-saying like that.

According to amazon, here is another book that mentions Bailey on 36 pages: A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion by Catherine L. Albanese. I don't own it, but there it is.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0300110898/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-0130951-4408658#

Also, can anyone explain the content of this book, also available at amazon?:

Diamond Light, Cosmic Psycholoogy of Being, 4th Dimension, 7 Rays & More (Teachings Similar to Those Given to Alice A. Bailey) (Paperback) by Djwhal (channeled Through Violet Starre) Khul (Author)

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 23:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the text in the article which I tagged with dubious:
 * "Her humanitarian philosophy is still influential among the groups, schools, and organizations that study and implement her ideas worldwide"


 * The source you provide does not say that, meaning that you are engaging in original research, by making a statement which is not directly supported by sources. From WP:NOR: Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position


 * I would also appreciate that you assume good faith, and if it beggars belief that an editor is challenging what seems an obvious case of OR, so be it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Jossi, the source DOES say eaxactly what i edited it to say. Remember that first, i took out the word humanitarian which was NOT supported by Ellwood. I also took out the vague and unsupportable word "many". You reinserted those words, then claimed Ellqwood did not support them. I will delete them again. Ellwood (Alternative Altar page 134) described Bailey as "founder of the Arcane School and Full Moon Meditation Groups" and further described the latter as "groups which customarily meet each full moon to create lines of spiritual force..." etc. This is support for the fact that Bailey-founded or Bailey-inspired GROUPS exist, which is precisely what needed citing. cat Catherineyronwode 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now added a second reference book by Professor Robert S. Ellwood of the University of Southern California that mentions groups founded by Bailey which have persisted after her death, in response to Jossi's incredibly obtuse "dubious" and "OR" tagging of the first Ellwood book that i cited. The other book Ellwood wrote which mentions Bailey-founded groups is this: Ellwood, Robert S. (1973). Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0137733178 -- Pages 103 - 106: "The Full Moon Meditation Groups" and "Reading Selection: The Full Moon Meditation Groups". This second Ellwood book is now cited in the article, right next to the other Ellwood book.


 * I possess copies of both books and can vouch for their authenticity.


 * I am quite offended -- profoundly and personally offended -- that Jossi accused me of misusing the Ellwood citation for the purpose of "making a statement which is not directly supported by sources" and engaging in "an obvious case of OR" ("synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position").


 * To claim, as Jossi did, that i deliberately cited a book which did not support what i stated it supported when i used it as a citation is to claim that i LIED about the contents of the book.


 * To futher claim that i "obviously" "synthesized" an author's material to "advance a position" (that "position" being the simple statement that groups founded by Bailey still exist and still utilize her philosophy and teachings) is to claim that i MISUSED the author's works to support my own theory.


 * If continued, accusations like this will poison the working atmosphere here intolerably. I adjure Jossi to stop this incivility now.


 * cat Catherineyronwode 09:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * cat, it is my opinion that you are the one being incivil here. In fact, I think you're being downright absurd. I strongly suggest that you examine WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and actually read and understand them. It seems clear to me that you have never actually read and do not understand those policies, given your repeated "over-the-top" statements like this one to anyone who questions your almighty judgment on matters editorial. Wake up call, cat: you are not the boss of us. We are allowed to tell you we think you are wrong. It does not justify an attack like this, nor is this appropriate in any way to this talk page. Please calm down, and continue your excellent editing of the article instead of wasting energy attacking an experienced, well-respected administrator. Eaglizard 11:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eaglizard, if you had a book in your hand and you based an edit on a specific passage in the book, using the book as a footnote, and then you read a comment from someone telling you that the book "does not say that", followed by telling you you're doing "obvious" original research against policy,... how would you respond?  --Parsifal Hello 12:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Pars, I don't really know. It's never happened to me. But damn, I really hope I wouldn't shout about it. I hope I'd just state my case without yelling "you claim I LIED" and "I'm profoundly and personally offended". Knowing cat's writing and thinking skills, its obviously deliberate hyperbole, and can only be construed as attacking. It doesn't advance her point in any way. It just maligns jossi. That is my definition of an attack. Do you feel that making accusations as she does here is itself not a violation of AGF? If you feel jossi was afoul of policy, say so. I would. Do you feel cat is not violating WP:CIVIL here? BTW, please observe that I am not, in any way, commenting on her point regarding the source material. Eaglizard 13:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am stunned by the lack of listening that is happening here. As an editor, I am challenging some of the assertions made, that seem to be to be dubious. Rather than addressing the issue raised, some people here prefer to cast aspersions on these that challenge material. I will fix the challenged text myself so that it stays close to the source and does not dab into OR territory. 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Influences
I have done further research on Violet Starre and found more material for the "Influences" section. This is the text i just placed online in that section:


 * Djwal Khul, the "Tibetan" teacher whom Bailey claimed to be channeling, returned to print in the early 21st centuries, with two new channelers, Violet Starre and Moriah Marston. Starre has channeled Bailey's old teacher twice: the title of her first book, Diamond Light, Cosmic Psycholoogy of Being, 4th Dimension, 7 Rays & More, owes an obvious debt to Bailey's writings, and the same influence can also be seen in Starre's The Amethyst Light: Djwhal Khul Through Violet Starre, published in 2004. Marston's Soul Searching with Djwahl Khul, the Tibetan, was published in 2006; according to her publisher, Airleaf Books, "She has been a conscious channel for Ascended Master Djwhal Khul since 1986."

I am just running out the door to see my daughter on her 36th birthday, so i do not have time to add the full cites for those three books (publishers, isbns, etc. THEY ARE ALL THREE AT AMAZON. Please, rather than tag them "dubious," would some kind soul go to amazon, grab their data, and make them into full refs with citebook tags? THANKS!

cat Catherineyronwode 00:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cat, this source looks okay but the text doesn't seem to be about Bailey, so I wonder if it's appropriate here (it's about Djwahl Khul). Renee 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, everyone's claim to have "contacted" or been "instructed by" some hypothetical "Tibetan" named Djwal Khul is just that: a claim, and nothing more. Including Bailey's. The most that should be said is "The name DK reappeared in print, from authors claiming to be in contact with him, yada yada yada". I do believe that's the reason that, while we mention Bailey's claim vs. DK in the text, we consistently refer to Bailey's teachings & writings. (Btw, I believe that, among Bailey's students, it's more common to refer to DK's or "The Master's" teachings & writings, instead.) On the other hand, cat, it wouldn't surprise me if you found a good way to work that factoid smoothly into the text somewhere. It's not really INappropriate, either. Just peripheral, I think. Eaglizard 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The section into which i placed that material is the sectiojn on Bailey's INFLUENCE. One of the books advertises itself at Amazon as Diamond Light, Cosmic Psycholoogy of Being, 4th Dimension, 7 Rays & More (Teachings Similar to Those Given to Alice A. Bailey) by Djwhal (channeled Through Violet Starre) Khul. Look it up. Do some WORK and don't expect your hand to be held every step of the way. If you don't get how that fits into the "Influences" section, you are hopeless. But rather than make that assumption, i am going to assume you are all people of average intlligence and can understand that when somneone ADVERTISES their book as "Teachings Similar to Those Given to Alice A. Bailey" then they are INFLUENCED by Alice Bailey. Clear on that subject now? I should hope so. I have added that to the Alice Bailey article. cat Catherineyronwode 07:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your good suggestion, cat. Oh btw, have you a band-aid? I'm afraid you've left tooth-marks. Eaglizard 07:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cat, second warning for incivility (first Jossi, then Eaglizard). Can you please figure out a way to communicate in a kinder way? It will go a long way toward making progress on the article.Renee 13:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Warning, Renee. This is to warn you for incivility. Your sarcastic remark on Catherine's humerously intended "wise as Solomon" is mean spirited. Please stop making such comments, which till now I have let pass without commit. Kwork 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * hmmm...well, the humor's lost on me but I'll take it back just to make your day! So, please, let's focus on the point, that communicating more kindly with other people and assuming good faith about wanting a balanced article will probably allow us to make more progress. Have a great day Kwork.  Renee 14:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pattern Interrupt
In psychology, a Pattern interrupt is an action that changes a dynamic in a personal situation or relationship by making an unexpected change. (Surprisingly, there was no Wiki article on this, so I started the stub).

Anyway, we need one of those here.

I've been thinking about what to do about the fact that we have here what is apparently a biography article about Alice Bailey, but it has become a compendium of her teachings. Also, I've been reviewing other biography articles to compare their approaches, and mostly, I've found that when there is a teacher with a philosophy, the teachings are usually presented in a separate article from the story of their life. That makes sense because it makes the person's article clearly a biography, and the related teachings article clearly a philosophy or religion article. As these types of articles have different purposes, that improves the results, and it also reduces conflicts in editing because it's easier to see what is being worked on.

For examples, check out Helen Blavatsky and Theosophy, or Rudolf Steiner and Anthrosophy. Helen Schucman and A Course in Miracles, etc...

I strongly recommend we do exactly that same change for Alice Bailey. Her biography can then become very well sourced with both secondary sources and filled in with primary sources from her autobiography, concentrating on verifiable content.

Then, for the "teachings" article, since she did not create an entire historical system like Blavatsky did, we have two choices:

(1) create an article on the Arcane School (so far, I have redirected that title to this article), and use that page to describe the functioning of the school and Bailey's teachings, or...

(2) expand the article on Djwal Khul, and place the teachings there. Since he was actually the teacher (according to Bailey), the teachings are not hers and don't really belong in her article. His article would be a welcome spot.

My choice would be option (1), because that is the actual real-world organization that is spreading the teachings. (2) seems a bit too metaphysical to me for a solidly sourced WP article, but even that would be better than keeping the teachings in this article, which really, is a biography article and should be focused in that manner.

I suppose I should address in advance any ideas that I am trying to hurt Alice Bailey's memory, in light of the extended conflict on this page.

No, I am not trying to hurt her memory. I am trying to save this article. The more I work on it, the more it becomes clear that most if it is not supported by reliable sources. If the editing were peaceful and without ulterior motives (from all or any sides), then that would be less of a problem because consensus could work with the sources we can find and we'd come up with something valuable and NPOV.

But considering that there is continual argument about the content, we should be extra careful to follow the sources.

Her biography should be split from her teachings. That way, each can be addressed more effectively, and to use the "e-word", in a more "encyclopedic" fashion.

As it is now, we can't tell if this is a biography or a philosophy article.

It should be split and focused. The tendentious editing on both sides will be less, and the usefulness of the content would be improved.

In addition, as several Bailey followers (or ex-Bailey followers) have said, the teachings may be "perfect" (ie, the transmissions from the Tibetan), but the "chela" (ie, Alice Bailey as a person) had personal flaws. That shows that the two are separate, and so the article should be split. --Parsifal Hello 00:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is an interesting idea but don't see how it operationally could work. For instance, was it the Tibetan who made the antisemitic and racist remarks?  Then, how would you use the sources that called Alice Bailey (and not the Tibetan) antisemitic or racist?  Does the Arcane school sanction these now?  I just don't think it will work but am open to hearing how you would operationalize these issues.  Renee 01:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's not a no-brainer, but also that it's not difficult. Certainly not compared to the difficulty we've had so far.  The Teachings section would be the new article, maybe with some of the influences section, but most of the influences section I think would stay in the biography article.


 * Regarding the anti-semitic stuff you asked about... that would have to be worked out with consensus.  I think some would have to go in each of the articles.  The Tibetan teachings about Jews, and races, etc,  would go with the teachings, of course.  So the critical comments related to those would go there too.  But Bailey made those comments and she had some of those same attitudes, so that would need to be acknowledged in her article too, but probably in less detail.  Each article would need to be NPOV, and verifiable, as usual.


 * As far as the Arcane School sanctioning those comments now, I read their apologia essay on their website, and as far as I can tell, they do not retract any of what she said. They try to explain it and make it not seem so bad, but they don't say the Tibetan was wrong or retract those teachings.  The Jews apparently, according to them, came from the third ray (or whichever one it is), from the earlier solar system, are stuck in a materialistic attitude, need to stop complaining, intermarry with Gentiles, stop being separate, stop causing trouble, and get on with their spiritual evolution... according to the teachings.  I don't think anything has changed about that from what Bailey wrote.  If it has, and there is documentation that it has, then that could be included and would be most welcome.


 * An example of that is that Anthrosophy has been accused of racism. But that organization has explicitly rejected that stance.  In that article the following appears:
 * "To clarify its stance, the Anthroposophical Society in America has stated: 'We explicitly reject any racial theory that may be construed to be part of Rudolf Steiner's writings. The Anthroposophical Society in America is an open, public society and it rejects any purported spiritual or scientific theory on the basis of which the alleged superiority of one race is justified at the expense of another race.[68]'"


 * I have not been able to find any statements like that about the Jews from the Lucis Trust or Arcane school. If they have published something so direct and clear, that would be very different and I would be very happy to see it.  --Parsifal Hello 01:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm....sorry to say that I think it just would triple the complexity and tendentious editing, arguing who says what and who didn't. I don't think its feasible to separate out criticism of Bailey and the tibetan. Renee 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea as the article is becoming way too big. As per WP:SS we could create a spinoff article Teachings of Alice Bailey, and a summary of that article featured here under a section "Teachings". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a "Teachings of Alice Bailey" would work because that would incorporate the "two" sources (Khul and Bailey) into one article. If all of the teachings were in this article, then I think it would be possible to have separate articles on Khul, Bailey, and the Arcane school and then refer them to the teachings for the Bailey/Khul work.  Renee 02:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

requesting comments on spinoff article Teachings of Alice Bailey, per WP:SS
We seems to have three editors endorsing this change per their comments above: Parsifal, Renee, and Jossi. If I have not expressed someone's view correctly, please correct me.

Others are invited to enter comments here. --Parsifal Hello 03:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment This idea has been discussed several months ago, but I forget who proposed it or why it was dropped, and I'm not wearing my emo-waders, so the archives are out of the question. In any case, IIRC it never received adequate attention. I believe I support the idea, provided a) it does in fact take this proposed title ("of Alice Bailey") even if it refers to DK's teachings (see my comment in the section above), and b) we talk about how we're going to do it and succeed in some reasonable consensus beforehand. Does that seem reasonable, that we could actually develop a plan for this action ahead of time? I just mean have a plan; I know about those best laid ones of mice, so I'm not asking "can we make it work", just "can we have a consensus beforehand?" I'm seriously concerned Renee is right, and this will only double (or triple!) the contention and difficulty. More pragmatically, I think the likely outcome would be to simply shift the arguments to the talk page of whichever article discusses the criticisms, in particular, the antisemitism claims. It does occur to me that this would serve AAB's person the best, since most of the controversy would be removed to another page. This would make efforts to paint her with a POV light much harder to get away with. However, I foresee objection from certain editors on this very point, since it might appear to minimize or misdirect attention away from those charges. I'm curious to see what other editors think, and I really hope everyone comments on this proposal. Eaglizard 06:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Eaglizard, if we split the "Teachings" off onto another page, that means we can discuss DK's racism and anti-Zionism on the "Teachings" page and use the actual "Alice Bailey" biography page to disucss the personal, non-channeled, and even more rabid antisemitism of Alice Bailey herself, as expressed in her autobiography. Cool, huh? You betcha! cat Catherineyronwode 10:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why the sarcasm and the animosity, Cath? There is no reason not to do a spinoff article that could be summarized here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How about a sandbox of proposed pages? Get consensus on those before posting?  If we do get a bunch of sarcasm and POV pushing then we'll realize it won't work.  It would be a good test run of the idea.  Renee 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

uncivil
Hi Parsifal, In case you missed it. Sparklecplenty 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Vassyana, try not to act like a clown. You have not produced anything, but your own preconceptions about Cumbey. Moreover, the whole biography part of the article is built on nothing but one primary source, and some so-called secondary sources that are entirely based on the same primary source, and all you can find to worry about is Cumbey Kwork" 00:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kwork: please cool it, or you will end up getting your editing privilege withdrawn. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

or this one: Sparklecplenty 02:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Renee, you said "Love the Hebrew U", which is a lie. You fought that too. But you never objected to whatever BS Jamesd1 put into the article, all those sources are perfect for you. Your claim for wanting a neutral article has no credibility. Kwork 19:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool it (second warning) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, Please take these warnings seriously. Especially with edit summaries, make them with clinical care, very specifically focused on the content and not your feelings about the editors. Edit summaries can never be erased or changed.

With your talk page comments, don't think of them as toss-offs that will fade away. When you feel annoyed - type what you want to say into a text file instead. Then wait a few minutes, look at what you wrote, and consider how it will appear to others. You can make your point more effectively by avoiding words that trigger defenses before the person has even read what you want to communicate.

I do not suggest that you simply lie down and accept things that you believe are wrong. But modulating the way you communicate about them will help you make better progress. Thanks for considering my comment. --Parsifal Hello 02:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What are they going to do, bounce me out of Wikipedia? I really do not care, and would rather keep my freedom of speech. I have made it very clear many times that I do not like most of the company I am keeping while editing this article, and that I have no respect for most of the editors who are not capable of get beyond thinking like technocrats, and acting like Wiki-lawyers. Let them bounce me if they think it will do them any good. Kwork 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please integrate...
... this secondary source where it would be appropriate:

Sources: Judah, Stillson J. History and Philosophy of Metaphysical Movements in America (1967), Westsmister Press, pp.119-131, and Campbell, Bruce, Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement (1980), pp.150-55, Univ of California Press, ISBN 0-520-03968-8, as cited in Beekman, Scott, William Dudley Pelley: A Life in Right-Wing Extremism And the Occult (2005), p.196, Syracuse University Press, ISBN 0-815-60819-5

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So that's a quotation of Beekman paraphrasing both Judah and Campbell, right? Correct that if I'm wrong. In any case, it's Beekman's words, right? I might object to the use of heterodox, otherwise (but I might not). In any other case, I thought we already had a paragraph very much like this describing the founding and such of the correspondence school; perhaps its been lost in the many shuffles. We certainly need one, and this looks like pretty excellent secondary sourcing (yay!). Eaglizard 06:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see now that this is primarily a quote about Bailey's connections to Theosophy, and some ways she differed from it. And unfortunately, they distort her words a bit; I would say Bailey did not believe in a "literal second coming of Christ", but merely a return. Her book The Reappearance of the Christ uses the phrase "second coming" exactly once, on its very last page. In From Bethlehem to Calvary it does not appear at all, except in a quotation. (According to my searches of the online text.) Elsewhere she writes "This appearance can be called (in Christian phraseology) the second coming of Christ", making it clear she's only adopting the term to show what she saw as a connection or affinity. It's not a phrase she used very often to describe the return of the Christ (9 times in total). The source makes it sound, to me, as if she "followed the Christian line", so to speak. It may seem a minor point to any of you, but for most Christians belief in "the literal Second Coming" is an iconic and foundational shared belief, its effectively a normative term, and value-laden. Secondary sources can be tricky with esoteric works, in my experience. Not always, but sometimes. (I'm not saying we shouldn't use this quote. I'm just expressing my opinion on it as a quote. Its a bit weak. But almost all quotes we have are weak in this manner, actually. It's Bailey's fault; see occult.) Eaglizard 09:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is Beekman, quoting Stillson and Cambell, making this a good secondary source. I will integrate this later on into the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. See this and this.  Renee 14:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't studied her works as deeply as you have, so maybe I have this wrong, but to me the quote seems pretty much right on. Aside from that, the whole point of using a third-party source is to have secondary references and not have only primary references anyway.  So whether or not the quote exactly matches Bailey's words (and it seems very close), it is still a good secondary source we can use.  Still, I was curious, so when I read your comment, I did some searches and found some quotes in the Bailey work that fit with the above summary.  Here are some examples:


 * Discipleship in the New Age II, p145: "May Christ return to Earth. This return must not be understood in its usual connotation and its well-known mystical Christian sense. Christ has never left the Earth. What is referred to is the externalization of the Hierarchy and its exoteric appearance on Earth. The Hierarchy will eventually, under its Head, the Christ, function openly and visibly on Earth. This will happen when the purpose of the divine Will, and the plan which will implement it, are better understood and the period of adjustment, of world enlightenment and of reconstruction has made real headway."


 * Discipleship in the New Age II, p172: "When Christ comes, there will be a flowering in great activity of his type of consciousness among men; when disciples are working under the recognition of the Christ, there will then come the time when he can again move among men in a public manner; he can be publicly recognized and thus do his work on the outer levels of living as well as upon the inner."


 * Discipleship in the New Age II, p410:"Preparation for the reappearance of the Christ; this will embody your life service to humanity and to the Hierarchy."


 * Discipleship in the New Age II p 80: "These are due to the reorganization which has gone on within the Hierarchy itself, necessitated by the imminent reappearance of the Christ."


 * Then I saw one more that had something else in it... not to harp on an unpleasant subject... but  I realized I had stumbled on yet another batch of anti-Jewish stuff.  I wasn't even searching for it, but there it was, in a quote about the return of the Christ (that was what I was searching for).  It appears a couple more of the Christ quotations also include anti-Jewish text.  Here's a few of them (emphasis added):


 * The Externalization of the Hierarchy p. 543: "This situation is one which the Christ is seeking to alter; it has been in preparation for His instituting a new and more correct presentation of divine truth that I have sought - with love and understanding - to point out the faults of the world religions, with their obsolete theologies and their lack of love, and to indicate the evils of Judaism. The present world faiths must return to their early simplicity, and orthodox Judaism, with its deep seated hate, must slowly disappear; all must be changed in preparation for the revelation which Christ will bring."


 * The Externalization of the Hierarchy, p 544: "The gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the orthodox Jewish faith, with its obsolete teaching, its separative emphasis, its hatred of the Gentiles and its failure to recognize the Christ."


 * The Externalization of the Hierarchy 551:
 * 1. The Reorganization of the World Religions.
 * Reasons
 * 1.	To make way for the World Religion, universal religion.
 * 2.	To return humanity to the simplicity which is in Christ.
 * 3.	To rid the world of theology and ecclesiasticism.


 * 2. The Gradual Dissolution of Orthodox Judaism. 
 * Reasons
 * 1.	Because of its presentation of a wrathful Jehovah, caring only for his chosen people. This is a basic evil. The Lord of the World, the God in whom we live and move and have our being, is totally otherwise.
 * 2.	Because of its separativeness.
 * 3.	Because it is so ancient that its teachings are largely obsolete.
 * 4.	Because when the Jews become spiritual they will greatly benefit mankind, for they are found in every land.


 * I didn't go searching for those, I was looking for info on "the return of the Christ" as you mentioned. But when I saw these additional items, I couldn't ignore their presence and felt I should share it with the other editors here.


 * Back to the quote above, it seems like an OK secondary source and I'm sure we can find a place to integrate it into the article. --Parsifal Hello 10:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Parsifal. We have chewed over some of those hateful quotes before -- one of them is cited by Rabbi Yonnason Gershom and is thus mentioned on the Bailey page already -- but they are always bracing and refreshing to read in all their boldness and baldness. "This is basic evil." is particularly pithy. cat Catherineyronwode 11:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that "in any way possible" was a bone of contention at one point, I believe. Parsifal, didn't you notice the words in your first quotation above: This return must not be understood in its usual connotation? What else would she be talking about besides the usual Christian connotation? I don't argue that Bailey believes the Christ will return, or "reappear". It's in a book title I quoted. I'm just saying the phrase "Second Coming" is a value-laden Christian "code word" that means a lot more to them than it does to you. Christian readers will be misled by its use in this quote. But I applaud secondary sources (see above), and again, I'm not saying "dont use it". Eaglizard 11:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bailey did believe in a second coming of "the Christ" - as she liked to call her concept of a particular entity, who "overshadowed" Jesus (as she believed) the first time. (Of course, in the Jewish view he has not jut come the first time, and will not need a second time to get things right when he does come.)  She absolutely believed that this spiritual entity, the Christ, would come to establish the New Age.You may remember the phrase from the Great Invocation: "May Christ return to earth. I will leave the explanation at that. If you actually read the books you can find it for yourself. I am rather disinclined to spent much time trying to explain the Teaching to you while, at the same time, you are doing your worst to get me bounced, and other rather unfriendly stuff. Kwork 15:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed she did. Which would be the reason I said so several times. Honestly, how much good can you do responding to comments you've apparently not even read? But thank you for what I take to be a genuine concern with my spiritual development. Btw, I believe your reasoning applies to Bailey's thinking: The return of the Christ won't mark only the second coming, and it might not be the last, either. Eaglizard 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bailey's influence on UFO cultists, per Ellwood
I have just added the following text to the "Influence" section:


 * Professor Robert S. Ellwood of the University of Southern California, investigating a wide range of religious and spiritual groups in the United States during the 1970s, found evidence that Bailey had also influenced UFO believers. He attended a meeting held in Inglewood, California by members of a nationwide UFO group called Understanding, Inc., which had been founded by a contactee named Daniel Fry and was headquarted in Oregon, and he reported that, "There is no particular religious practice connected with the meeting, although interestingly the New Age Prayer derived from the Alice Bailey writings is used as an invocation."

The fact that Daniel Fry has a Wiki page (and is thus deemed notable) led me to decide that this was important enough to include on the Bailey page. I hope it is acceptable to all. cat Catherineyronwode 11:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My first thought was woah... some weirdo fringe UFO cult now?? But looking at Fry's article, I agree he's interesting enough for this addition. His article is kinda ugly, but I don't feel like copyediting tonite. Does go to show there's no such thing as a sane explosives expert, tho. :) Eaglizard 11:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, i had the exact same thought about the Fry article! All of the facts are there, but the article lacks structure ... and ... well ... sorry, but it's just too late at night for me to start copyediting now. :-) cat Catherineyronwode 12:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And have you ever seen anything quite like that "Truth or fiction" section heading? It's a list of "He said XX, but actually, YY!", over and over. How's that for a novel "approach" to NPOV?? Let's not try that one here, ok? :) Eaglizard 13:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, can you cite this quote?
In recent conversation with Jossi regarding the differences between Bailey's "Teachings" and her "Viewpoints," you pasted in a bunch of Bailey's NON-"Tibetan" comments about Jews, among which was this one:

"'People complain (and it is frequently true) the Jews lower the atmosphere of any district in which they reside. They hang their bedding and their clothing out of the windows. They live on the streets, sitting in groups on the sidewalks.'"

I love this quote! I would love to see it on the Bailey page because it is so clear-spoken, unmediated by tact, and delivered directly from the heart. Can you please list the book and page number for citation so that it can be added? Thanks! It is now my new favourite, better even than the long-lost quote about the Kosher bucher shops! (well, co-equal with that one, anyway.)

cat Catherineyronwode 12:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And a big AHA and thanks to AnonEMouse -- i found the kosher butcher shops reference in Arhive #2 where she had placed it, fully cited. For the record, it is now my 2nd favourite Bailey quote:


 * Problems of Humanity - Chapter IV - "The Problem of the Racial Minorities" - Section 1. "The Jewish Problem". In the http://laluni.helloyou.ws/netnews/download/index.html copies, it is prob1043.html


 * The complete paragraph reads:


 * The word "love" as it concerns relation to other people is lacking in their religious presentation, though love of Jehovah is taught with due threats; the concept of a future life, dependent upon conduct and behavior to others and on right action in the world of men, is almost entirely lacking in The Old Testament and teaching on immortality is nowhere emphasized; salvation is apparently dependent upon the keeping of numerous physical laws and rules related to physical cleanliness; they go so far as to establish retail shops where these rules are kept - in a modern world where scientific methods are applied to purity in food. All these and other factors of less importance set the Jew apart, and these he enforces no matter how obsolete they are or inconvenient to others.


 * I just get this incredible mental picture of Bailey struggling down a city street, fretting over "obsolete" and "inconvenient" Jewish retail food shops, while overhead she is beset by Jewish laundry hanging out to dry and her path through the chaotic ghetto is blocked by teeming clusters of Jews who sit on the sidewalks in groups and "repudiate Christ." It's like she wandered into one of those warm and shmaltzy graphic novel memoirs about tenement life in New York City written and illustrated by Will Eisner and came completely and permanently unhinged. See what i mean here -- -- from the short story Cookelein in Eisner's A Contract With God.


 * cat Catherineyronwode 12:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dang, I was picturing an Eisner style scene along about the time we came across the hung out laundry! One thing, I'd change 'fretting' to 'muttering'. ;^D LOL @ the guys (prolly all in full-on Hassidic hairdo) sitting around repudiating Christ! What a great comedic scene, Mel Brooks would just love this. (And yes, I'm deliberately trying to demonstrate that, even if I admonish elsewhere, I do like you anyways, somehow. Call it obsequiosity if you must. :) Eaglizard 13:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi folks, just dropping by. All kind of interesting! Seems to me the above 2 posts show you all a great way forward; humor! If Madame Alice Bailey never had any (which seems possible) at least we Wiki people in the next century can. I shall now scuttle away before a shower of diamond lights and cosmic rays descends on me, causing me perhaps fatal enlightenment. Rumiton 13:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cat - that quote (and plenty of others, so sad they're almost funny) are found in the Autobiography, on pages 118-121. That particular one is on page 120: ( http://laluni.helloyou.ws/netnews/download/index.html copies filename: prob1041.html).

It's in the section that begins with the part where she says some of her best friends are Jews. --Parsifal Hello 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just curious, but who here has read any actual Jew-hating literature? I suggest that, compared to Did Six Million Really Die? or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Bailey is simply a completely different thing altogether. But that's apparently sailing against the prevailing winds of POV here, today. Btw, given that cat recently used the "some of my best friends" text in an extensive (if tortured) demonstration of Bailey's antisemitism, I suspect her request for the citation is a tad disingenuous. Well, if you'll excuse me, I've got to get back to the priory a prior engagement. :^P Eaglizard 20:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The preceding comment is entirely sarcasm, not to be taken seriously, and I'm not really particularly happy with it, myself. But I rarely rmv my comments once posted. Eaglizard 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eaglizard, i would like to reply seriously to your (humourous) question. I have read lots of "actual" Jew-hating literature, and i consider Bailey's to be "actual" in the sense i think you intended. Here's why:


 * Within the scholarly literature describing the phenomenon of antisemitism there are several widely-recognized themes that go beyond merely xenophobic generalities (laundry hanging out the windows, "inconvenient" retail food shops, etc.) and create specifically targeted fictions about Jews as a "race" or a "religion" or a "tribe". I have listed a few of these targeted fictions before, particularly those that have wiki pages of their own, such as well poisoning, the blood libel, supercessionism, deicide, repudiation of Jesus' position as the messiah, and charges of international financial conspiracy. As i noted in an earlier iteration of this discourse, Medieval trends in antisemitism were centered upon religious themes, in the 19th century various themes of racial antisemitism gained ground (focus on physical charcateristics and on "greed" as a racial characteristic, etc.), and by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was an increase in political and financial themes in antisemitism and a simultaneous decrease in religious themes. A good book on the subject of the history of trends in antisemitism, should you wish further reading, is " The Blood Libel Legend: A Casebook in Anti-Semitic Folklore" by Professor Alan Dundes of the University of California at Berkeley.


 * Bailey came out of the late 19th century and worked on into the middle of the 20th century. She did not invoke the full panoply of Medieval-era religious forms of antisemitism. For insance, she did not, to my knowledge, accuse Jews of well poisoning or the blood libel (which may be why you think her antisemitism is "a completely different thing alotgether") but she did dwell at length on the old medieval ideas of supercessionism and the repudiation of Jesus as the messiah. Her 19th century style of racially-based antisemitism is flagrant (the laundry, the kosher shops, the charges of Jews affecting the "atmosphere" of areas where they dwell, etc.). As a progressive 20th century antisemite, she also made repeated charges of financial conspiracy. She even added a new political charge to the toolchest of the 20th century antisemitic fringe, namely, the charge of organized international political terrorism, which, considering when she wrote about it, was not a common charge, but has since become common. In fact, it might be suggested that her charges of political terrorism against "the Jews" influenced later thinking along those lines.


 * Wait! Monica Sjoo and Victor Shnirelman already said that! :-)


 * cat Catherineyronwode 23:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * cat, I really enjoyed this well-considered response. And I cannot easily disagree with what you say here. However, the difference I see is much simpler: Unlike typical hate lit, AAB devotes the vast majority of her work to other themes. AAB never directly advocates any action to be taken against Jews (although she does state what she believes will happen, she outlines no agenda for its accomplishment), and (outside of certain contentious remarks), the bulk of AAB's philosophy is entirely and fundamentally opposed to all forms of negativity &mdash; violence and hate-based actions in particular. Unlike any "real" hate lit. That's my point, you've made yours, lets not turn this into a debate. If you want to discuss if further, I welcome your interesting points on my talk page. Eaglizard 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just briefly, Eaflizard -- thanks for your response. I understand much better now what you meant, and i agree: Bailey's deliberate avoidance of violence in favour of invoking a wished-for change in humanity does set her antisemitism apart from that of others -- except for that troubling "again, by any means possible" clause. That's the one thing that goes against the grain of her sweetness and light image and opens a door into darkness. cat Catherineyronwode 23:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a troubling phrase, sounds so ...well, Germanic, I'm afraid. I'm just relieved it says "gradual dissolution" and not something like "elimination" or God forbid "destruction"! Eaglizard 06:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcane School citation
Kwork, you edited this sentence and deleted the accompanying citation. The edit's fine by me, but the first sentence in this paragraph is unsourced now. Can the original cite for the sentence still work with this sentence? Renee 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted these edits. I do not see the reason for these deletions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the trouble with a revert is that it undoes a series of edits, and can easily cause good edits to be lost with the bad, baby 'n bathwater style. I have restored some of Kworks edits, specifically his contention that Mary Bailey was not their daughter, but Foster's second wife. Did anyone even notice this? More importantly, is this correct? Kwork says it is, and the only reason I see to doubt him so thoroughly as to revert sans discussion would be to assume bad faith on his part. So I re-removed the references to "daughter", per Kwork. Also, I believe the trust offers what should be called a series of correspondence courses. Again, I restored Kwork's edit on that.


 * Everyone, please try to pay attention when reverting. (Personally, I recommend never reverting outside of vandalism and such.) jossi, since your edit summary referenced only the removal of other text, and not these two issues, I can only AGF that you undid this work by simply not paying attention. Thanks for considering my suggestion. Eaglizard 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The information is based on private discussions with Roberto Assagioli and with Frank Hilton. Both had been coworkers with Alice Bailey for many years. I know the information is correct, but if you put back in the incorrect (but sourced) information it makes no difference to me, and I will not advocate for my edit. A problem is that much of the information from published sources is wrong, but at this point I do not give a shit. Kwork 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, I'm really trying hard to work with you on this. Are you saying that published sources describe Mary as their daughter? If so, then please undo this change immediately. You should know better. I won't insult your intelligence by linking WP:RS. Eaglizard 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, and am not interested. As I have explained, I do not care about Wikipedia rules. All I can tell you is 1.the information in my edits is correct, and 2.I don't give a shit if the edits stay in the article or not. Kwork 22:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the editor who found the source. It does not describe Mary Bailey as Alice Bailey's daughter.  It uses this phrase: "the Baileys' daughter."  Since Kwork has expressed first hand knowledge of this, I have edited that section to use this description:


 * "Foster Bailey took over as head of the Arcane School and Lucis Trust until his death in 1977 at which time his daughter Mary Bailey became president of the Lucis Trust."


 * If it bothers anyone that I added "his daughter" and someone wants to change it, then they could use the term "the Bailey's daughter". However, I don't see any reason not to use an editor's first-hand knowledge of a non-controversial point, so I think this is a red herring and we should move on.   That said, do what you will, as long as you don't change it to say Mary was Alice's daughter, since she was not.    --Parsifal Hello 23:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how you will like the source for this:

"After the death of Alice in 1949, Foster Bailey eventually married Mary Bailey, another staunch female esotericist. Foster Bailey, author of the book 'Running God's Play', dies in 1977 and his widow, Mary, has continued the work at Lucis Trust, which was formed to be the custodian of the Alice Bailey writings. Lucis Trust is the single most important organization within the New Age Movement."

but it agrees with my version Kwork 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops! I misread your comment above. And - it looks like answer.com was wrong.  I found another reference that matches this:


 * http://www.bokkilden.no/SamboWeb/produkt.do?produktId=1047553&rom=MP


 * "Having lived through two World Wars, Mary Bailey soon realised that life involved much more than day-to-day survival. Her search for meaning and purpose led her to the Alice Bailey books and this was the start of her thirty-three year involvement with the Lucis Trust. It was during the years 1951-52, after Alice Bailey's death in 1949, that she and Foster Bailey came together in recognition of shared work."


 * We should fix that in the article. I don't have time to do it right now, but it should be changed I changed it to show that she was his second wife, not his daughter, and used the above reference (which is from an advertisement for Mary Bailey's book) as the footnote.  --Parsifal Hello 00:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC) updated: --Parsifal Hello 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Parsifal. I rather suspected Kwork would turn out to be right about this particular info. Eaglizard 20:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

clarification for cite
About this cite: She was aware of and accepted the controversial nature of her comments in this regard.[135]. I am interested to know the text used. I do not have a copy of that book, so could someone be kind enough to post here an excerpt from these pages? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again I'm late for work, but I do have time to say that I think that's one of the more archaic sentences still existing from a much earlier version; it does seem poorly placed or something. Could it just be removed? I don't know, I'll look again later. Eaglizard 22:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, the quote was one that I removed at your request when you placed the quote-farm tag. It's from pages 103-105 of Problems of Humanity (emphasis added):


 * "Such is the problem of the Jewish minority, given with a frankness which will evoke much criticism, but given in this way in the hope that because it is prompted by love, the Jews will shoulder their own responsibilities, will cease crying aloud to the Gentiles to solve the problem alone, and will begin to cooperate with a full sense of spiritual understanding and so aid the thousands of Gentiles who earnestly want to help."


 * Eaglizard, the paraphrase is not poorly placed and it should not be removed. If you think it needs copyediting, you are welcome to improve it, or replace it with her actual quote if you wish.


 * However, it is a pivotal point that she did not make these controversial statements in a state of ignorance about the effect they would have. She knew what she was doing (or rather, the Tibetan I suppose, knew what he was doing, but Bailey accepted that as she was the one that wrote it down and published it).  That she was aware her actions would be criticized should not be obscured.  --Parsifal Hello 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, as the text is quite close to the source. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. Jossi - you can have all the books for free by downloading them in HTML format at this link to the zip file or from this web page.  The files of the books are indexed, have tables of contents, include page numbers, and in local hard-drive HTML, the content is easy to search.   --Parsifal Hello 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When I said "seems poorly placed" I was thinking in terms of copy-editing. I didn't mean to imply the information was out of place, just the sentence. I suppose I should have said it "doesn't flow well in the text". Sorry. Eaglizard 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on what you wrote, specifically: "Could it just be removed? ", I did the work of explaining why it should not be removed. It's already clear it will stay in the article, per the discussion above; but now that you've withdrawn your objection, I'm glad you agree about it as well. --Parsifal Hello 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like it everything I say that isn't "ok, good", someone else interprets as "no, we can't use that!". The only reason I questioned it is that it dangles, without the quote it once supported, it's too bald. I didn't object to anything, I just asked if it could go. Then, I pointed out that I don't know. Please. A question is not an objection. Eaglizard 06:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ok, good."...  Sorry I misunderstood and no offense intended.
 * As far as it dangling, it seems to me like an effective wrap-up for that section; if you or others find it awkward and want to copyedit, I'm not attached to the particular wording as long as the meaning is clear. --Parsifal Hello 07:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Influences
This text in the "Influences" section: Bailey has been cited in numerous professional journals[168][169][170][171][172][173] , will benefit from a short summary of how and in which context Bailey has been cited. Otherwise, the statement is not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be removed unless it is expanded, since it tells us noting about what is in the citations.   I didn't add that and I don't know what's in those citations, so I can't offer illumination about that.


 * If it is removed, we should keep track of the references, perhaps by moving the content of the "ref" text to the talk page, so they don't get lost in the fog - since references on this are hard to find. --Parsifal Hello 23:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can be commented out and left there until some info on these is provided. Enclose the text and citations between these tags to comment it out from the visible text   ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's in there because in academia this is how one shows notability and standing in the field, by how many people have cited your work (it's called an SSI index). For instance, you really can't make it from associate to full professor in the US at a research 1 university unless you have a high standing in your field based on the citation indexes.  So, I think someone was trying to show that her work is notable because it is cited.  Renee 02:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

←Per Jossi's suggestion, I have commented out that sentence and the associated references. Before doing so, I tried to google the references but was not able to locate anything definitive. If someone can find the content of those references, then we can write about what they said, and include them in the article. If anyone wants to do this, the information is still in the page, commented out per Jossi's instructions above. I made the comment more visible in the wikitext by including the word "NOTE" in all upper case. Another way to find the descriptions of the references if anyone wants to do this research is to look at the page revision just before the time stamp of this comment. Browser-search for the sentence noted above, and then click the footnotes to find the names of the journals. --Parsifal Hello 03:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Protest
This is not an anti-Jewish biography--about 85% of the discussion page is about that. And the article is coming close to being all about the Jewish people or racism. I agree her comments on the Jews are ignorant, but during her ife-cycle most of humanity was ignorant about the Jews and races--though that's not an excuse. I don't sanction what she said about the Jews, but to call it "Evil" only perpetuation divisiveness--good and evil, black and white. It appears, from the insults, the Jewish editors may not be noticing that the other editors are intelligently informed enough to know that racial and anti-Semiticism is wrong. There is no need to delete and revert non-Jewish editors under the assumption that we're all anti-Semitic and racist--if that is what's happening. This not about taking sides, there is no anti-Jewish faction here creating this article.

Alice Bailey was not "theorist" on racism as stated in the Wikipedia biography. Most of Alice Bailey's writing  (5,500 pages ) are Metaphysical. In Theosophical terms metaphysical means--beyond form. Metaphysics is the study of the hidden or unseen world. It is the study of energy--Seven Rays, Etheric energy; planes of existence; Spiritual Hierarchy; Deva (angels); Astrology; Initiation; The Kingdom of God. These subjects are not understandable from a materialistic perspective. It takes some stretching on our part. And there are people like Michael Robbins and James1 that have dedicated their lives to gaining a greater understanding of these unseen worlds. I know both of them, both I have hosted both in my home, either of them are anti-Semitic. Michael was born into and raised in a Jewish home. Please check out their web pages to see what real students of the Alice Bailey work are really about. Sparklecplenty 00:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but it is encyclopedic to summarize Bailey's views on these subjects as well. OTOH, it should not overwhelm the article. I for one did never think even for a minute that any of the editors here is antisemitic, and fully understand the uncomfortable situation to be seen as aligned with these views. What would be interesting to add to the article, is if there have been any official repudiation of these views by contemporary students, groups, etc.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, thanks for your compassion response. Its good of you since I know you're primarily here to make the Article "Wikifide."
 * Of course there is repudiation, as seen through the actions of people and groups that were inspired by the 90% good in the AAB/DK writings--the New Group of world servers (headquartered in the United Nations), Psychosyntheis, and Michael Robbins--world wide foundations, schools, and volumes of literature based on the metaphysical works attributed to Alice Bailey. This groups aren't out promoting hatred of the Jewish people or races. They aren't focused on the personality of Alice Bailey. They don't try to hide what Alice Bailey said, they just don't obsess about it. They are too busy working to improve the world situation--so opposite of what is being portrayed in this article. The focus of these international groups are "world service," "self improvement" and "cosmology".


 * What about proportions--undue weight. The word "Jew" occurs 103 times and the word "love" occurs 2,984 times. The 1% to 2% Alice Bailey negatives do overwhelm this article. Look at the shadowy portrait that has replaced the original photo. And the outright dares to get you to take action against editors for their own defiance of Wiki rules, guidelines, standards. "I have no idea, and am not interested. As I have explained, I do not care about Wikipedia rules. All I can tell you is 1. the information in my edits is correct, and 2.I don't give a shit if the edits stay in the article or not. Kwork 22:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)"


 * And there is more so much more. Sneaky Vandalism--citations deleted and then sections deleted because there are no citations. Statements that a quote is being added when its being removed. I may be mistaken but it looks like editors that deleted large sections today (or maybe its yesterday where you are) may have gone over their allotted 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. There are no checks and balances here. On the personal pages. The "clown" remark was okay by one editor, until I brought it to your attention. Racial remarks against "gentiles" is thought to be funny. Attacks on those that are called pro-Bailey editors are ignored or excuses are made to protect the attackers. And uncivil slips made by those called pro-Bailey editors are hung out like dirty laundry, as if to intimidate. Thanks again for your response. I saw this as an impossible situation and left a few days ago, then I noticed a new administrator was in town. I see that you're good at getting articles up Wiki standards and rules, the best to you on this one.  Sparklecplenty 08:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I replaced the book cover with the only free image I could find in Wikipedia commons, as cover art cannot be used on articles about other subjects than the book itself. See the fair use guidelines. What I have asked is to know if there is an official statement or published materials by related associations that repudiate these controversial opinions so that these can be added to the article. I know from experience that editing an article about which there are strong POVs s not easy, and requires a lot of patience and perseverance to get the article right. Focus on improving the article, and be the first one to avoid discussing either the subject or the editor. Discuss the edit is the only approach that works in the long term. Deletion of material that is challenged for lack of sources is not vandalism, as per WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Thanks for the cover art information. Sorry I should have made myself better informed. With the massive amount of edits, especially in the last month, without much discussion, it possibly to get a little paranoid--once in a while. If I don't get better at this soon, I promise I'll withdraw. As I've said before articles are written by personalities, and it's difficult to separate the two.

About the citation:

You said, "Deletion of material that is challenged for lack of sources is not vandalism" It's on going--a removal of valid citation, or a phony citation put in its place, caused the whole quote to be deleted. I don't know who is doing it but its a regular happening. Perhaps it may be helpful if you have time to read the article of two weeks ago, that I sent you. It included all the editors contributions, and was given accolades by 5 editors. It also was a continuation of an article that inspired administrator AnonEmouse to give it a "B" rating.

About repudiation--there are no Alice Bailey experts present because, as we have witnessed here, those 103 words create a horrible inflammatory atmosphere. The repudiation that is expected, from the those who take the anti-Bailey stance, is a repudiation of the whole encyclopedic work--"throw the baby out with the bathwater". I have repudiated AAB's racist & antiSemitic remarks. But as seen below it isn't noticed. We have to be realistic here. If this is to be an anti-Bailey article then it should be stated as such. The article as is, is a far cry from neutrality that we were on the verge of, about a week ago. This is not a reflection on you Jossi, it started before you came here. Perhaps why you came here. Sparklecplenty 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know that Wiki is not paper? As such, there is space to create as many sipinoff articles as needed, this one becoming the main article, in which summaries of the spinoff articles could be created . So, eventually, we can end up with:
 * * Alice Bailey (main article, with bio and summaries of sub articles)
 * * Teachings of Alice Baliey
 * * Racial theories of Alice Baliley
 * * Alice Bailey influences
 * * etc.
 * Each one of these subarticles could be developed as needed to provide a complete picture of this person's life and work.
 * The only caveat is that editors will need to avoid creating POV forks, meaning that these subarticles cannot be divided along the lines of POVs pro or con≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A few points:

1. I have not accused editors of antisemitism. If anyone can show me a case where I have, I will promptly apologize.

2. I have been accused many times by Jamesd1 and Sparklecplenty of such things as hijacking the article, of being a member of the Jewish Defense League (a terrorist organization), of trying to turn the entire article into nothing but a discussion of Bailey's antisemitism.

3. I do not know how Sparklecplenty got the number 103. Bailey often mentions Jews more times than that in a single book. In any case some of the statements about Jews are so incredible they would need attention even if the 103 number were correct.

4. Sparklecplenty seems to think that my personal deficiencies discredit my views on Bailey, which is a logical fallacy.

5. The edits I added to the article yesterday had nothing to do with the antisemitism issue, but were intended to improve the article by adding information and removing mistakes. I have not looked at the article since, and I do not know if those edits are still there. Kwork 12:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Response: On this page another editor called James a "meatpuppet" to someone who have called an "anti-semitic. And you followed up with the same accusations on two adminstrators, in an effort to have James removed.


 * 2 Response: James made these claims. He admitted that he didn't know what the "Jewish Defense League" symbolized. I sympathize with his frustration. I estimated that about 85% of the discussion page is about the Jewish quotes.


 * 3. Response: I used my digital copy of the Alice Bailey books and counted.


 * 4. Response: I quote what you say.


 * 5. Response: You say, "the edit...were intended improve the article by adding information and removing mistakes. And you have also your stated, to the effect, that you don't want a positive article written. Sparklecplenty 16:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sparklecplenty, you accused me of calling opposing editors antisemetic. I will appoligize if you show me a case where I have done that. If there actually was such a case, and you can not find it, or have forgotten it, I assure you that I am sorry if I did that, and would consider that a serious mistake on my part. However, I do not think I ever said that.

I do consider you and Jamesd1 to be single purpose meatpuppets for Philip Lindsay. But I have not even mentioned that for months. In this case, you brought up the subject yourself.

I did NOT say I did not want a positive article about Alice Bailey written. I said that, because of the defects I perceive in her teaching, I would not contribute to that. Nevertheless, despite what I said, I did make additions to the article that increased its accuracy, and which were neutral to Bailey. For instance, the information that Mary Bailey was Foster Bailey's second wife did nothing to diminish the status of Bailey, but did increase the factual accuracy of the article. (By the way, you have never added anything to the article aside from reverts.) Kwork 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A little reorganization
Hi, folks,

I just wanted to let people know that i made a slight reorganization of the material in the article this morning. I did not add or delete any cited quotes, but i did rewrite a few bridging passages for ease of textual flow.

Here's what i did and why: This morning i noticed that Jossi had moved the material on Judaism so that it was separated from the material on Christianity and instead appeared in the "Jewish People" sub-section, which was in turn under the Nations-Races-Religions heading. Since Judaism is a religion, not a racially defining characteristic of Jews (that is, Judaism is a belief system held by some, but not all, Jews, and all human beings are welcome to join the Jewish religion, including those who have no genetic link to Jewish families), i realized that it was time to break apart the Nations-Races-Religions sub-head (which i had created earlier, for ease of handling the material) and to establish three separate sub-heads, namely Races, Religions, and Nations. This allowed me to place Judaism alongside Christianity under Religions, The Jewish People alongside the Negro Race under Races, and Israel alongside the United States and France under Nations.

In doing this, i moved material into and out of other sections -- particulaly those sections dealing with Unity and Divinity. But, as i said, i neither added to nor subtracted from the material already on the page.

For ease of understanding what i did, here is the relevant portion of the table of contents as i first designed it:

* 2.8.1 Racial theories * 2.8.2 On the Negro race o 2.8.2.1 On "the Negro problem" in Africa o 2.8.2.2 On "the Negro problem" in the Americas * 2.8.3 On the Jewish people o 2.8.3.1 On the social characteristics of the Jews o 2.8.3.2 On "the Jewish Problem" * 2.8.4 On interracial marriage * 2.8.5 On the United States and France * 2.8.6 On Israel and Zionism * 2.8.7 On orthodox Christianity * 2.8.8 On Judaism
 * 1) 2.8 On races, nations, and religions

Here is the same portion after Jossi moved the religion of Judaism to appear under the Jewish race, thus separating it from its natural textual partner, the religion of Christianity:

* 2.8.1 Racial theories * 2.8.2 On the Negro race o 2.8.2.1 On "the Negro problem" in Africa o 2.8.2.2 On "the Negro problem" in the Americas * 2.8.3 On the Jewish people o 2.8.3.1 On Judaism o 2.8.3.2 On the social characteristics of the Jews o 2.8.3.3 On "the Jewish Problem" * 2.8.4 On interracial marriage * 2.8.5 On the United States and France * 2.8.6 On Israel and Zionism * 2.8.7 On orthodox Christianity
 * 1) 2.8 On races, nations, and religions

And here is the relevant portion in the new table of conents as i redesigned it, giving equal weight to each of the three formerly grouped concepts, Races, Nations, and Religions:

* 2.8.1 On the Negro race o 2.8.1.1 On "the Negro problem" in Africa o 2.8.1.2 On "the Negro problem" in the Americas * 2.8.2 On the Jewish people o 2.8.2.1 On the social characteristics of the Jews o 2.8.2.2 On "the Jewish Problem" * 2.8.3 On interracial marriage * 2.9.1 On the United States and France * 2.9.2 On Israel * 2.10.1 On Judaism * 2.10.2 On Christianity
 * 1) 2.8 Racial theories
 * 1) 2.9 On nationalism and nations
 * 1) 2.10 On organized religions

I hope this is acceptable and meets with approval. I like it not only because it is neater, but because it also opens the door for the inclusion of new material that describes her teachings about further nations and further religions not yet metnitoned. In particular, since Bailey is often identified as a teacher of "Eastern" or "Oriental" beliefs, if would be great if someone could find small snippets of her teachings that deal with Buddhism and / or Hinduism and add them under the new sub-section "On organized religions".

Cordially, cat Catherineyronwode 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good structure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with this outline as well. Good work.  --Parsifal Hello 22:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's serendipity; I was just noticing yesterday that there's not much about the Buddha in the article, even though AAB refers to that figure almost as often as to the Christ; the two are clearly "equals" in her idea, I believe. More later after work, I hope. Eaglizard 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

please talk, Jossi
This talk page is so that discussions to the article can be discussed. However, Jossi, you have made massive changes to the article with virtually no explanation, and no discussion. This is a serious problem because you have no knowledge of Alice Bailey or her teachings. I am aware that you are an administrator; but, nevertheless, I will attempt to get this article protected from your edits if you do not engage in a more open process. Kwork 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been engaging in open discussions about my edits. And as this is a wiki, you cannot "protect" an article from good faith edits. Protection can be implemented by admins, in case of disruption or edit warring. Also note that I am here not as an admin, but as an editor with some experience in WP. Admins do not have any special privileges related to editing articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I will take you at your word when you say that "I have been engaging in open discussions about my edits". Perhaps they were just so small I failed to see them. My eye sight, at 63, is not what it used to be. Kwork 22:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As they say, Kwork, "if you are in a hole, quit digging". Editors here would benefit from commenting on the article rather than commenting on the editors making these edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bull shit. What is the point of my editing while you are moving and removing whatever you feel like, and even though you do not understand the subject, and do not discuss. Your recommendation that I get busy editing the article against what you are doing amounts to a suggestion for an edit war. Kwork 22:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second Kwork's request, Jossi. Making massive changes (with the keyword being "massive") to an article about whose subject you are unfamiliar has led you into trouble at least twice now.


 * The first time this happened was when you did not know that the quoted statements were indeed Bailey's "teachings" and not her "viewpoints," as you theorized. Undoing your error -- and especially undoing it while paying respect to your position as an admin, and thus disussing everything at length in order to bring you up to speed on the differences between the DK/AAB books and the AAB books -- wasted an entire day's worth of editing and discussion for several people.


 * More recently, your moving of the section "On Judaism" away from the section "On Christianity" in order to place it under the racial section "On the Jewish people" was highly improper to my way of thinking. Had you discussed your idea prior to executing it, i would have pointed out that it was the (il)logical equivalent to moving the section "On Christianity" away from the section "On Judaism" in order to place it under the section "On 'the Negro problem' in the Americas" -- because most African Americans are Christians. :-)


 * I am sure that your intentions are good -- and, of course, in the end, the outcome to the second problem was, at least to my way of thinking, quite positive, since in spending my entire moring undoing all of your work, i was able to create three distinct headings for Bailey's teachings which can no longer be confused, namely "Racial theories," "On nationalism and nations", and "On organized religions."


 * In sum, i am very glad to have you in attendance, first because you are an extremely diligent writer and editor, and second because those of us who are familiar with the material are a contentious lot who often need third-party help in order to resolve our differences -- but please understand that our strong point is that we do know the measure of the cloth from which we are cutting this article, so it would save us all some time if you would ask questions before making further "massive" changes.


 * Cordially, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In a further note to my previous note to you, Jossi, here is a concrete example of why i feel that your tendency to make "massive" changes without discussion may lead to problems in the future. You wrote the following


 *        Do you know that Wiki is not paper? As such, there is space to create as many sipinoff articles as needed, this one becoming the main article, in which summaries of the spinoff articles could be created . So, eventually, we can end up with:
 *        * Alice Bailey (main article, with bio and summaries of sub articles)
 *        * Teachings of Alice Baliey
 *        * Racial theories of Alice Baliley
 *        * Alice Bailey influences
 *        * etc.
 *        Each one of these subarticles could be developed as needed to provide a complete picture of this person's life and work.
 *        The only caveat is that editors will need to avoid creating POV forks, meaning that these subarticles cannot be divided along the lines of POVs pro or con≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, that was written just today -- which means that despite our earlier work in trying to educate you as to the fallacy of your attempt to separate the "Bailey teachings" from "Bailey's viewpoint", you still have not understood that what you are calling "Racial Theories of Alice Bailey" are a sub-set of and inseparable from what you are calling "Teachings of Alice Bailey." That's right -- what you are calling Bailey's racial theories are actually an inseparable facet of the teachings of Djwal Khul, the Tibetan and Alice Bailey. This is not OR; it was so stated by Bailey at the time and it is currently acknowledged by Bailey's publisher, the Lucis Trust. (The Lucis Trust acknowldgement that "the Tibetan" and Bailey had singled out certain racial and religious groups for special criticism was, at an earlier point in time, actually included the article, but it was deleted in order to make Bailey the focus of the article, and let the Lucis Trust have its own wiki page.) I hope you see my point: you are proposing a "massive" structual change that would, if it were to be implemented without discussion, cause a really big stink here. That's why is it essential that you, as a bold editor, should discuss your planned changes with editors who are informed about the topic. And, by the way, Kwork is far and away the topically best informed editor here.
 * cat Catherineyronwode 00:33, 13 October 2007(UTC)


 * That is what I was doing. I used the word eventually that you may have missed. I do not intend to make any such changes without discussion. Please tone-down your rhetoric, if you just could. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, and there is no need to shout. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge of the subject
"Bull shit. What is the point of my editing while you are moving and removing whatever you feel like, and even though you do not understand the subject, and do not discuss. Your recommendation that I get busy editing the article against what you are doing amounts to a suggestion for an edit war. Kwork 22:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)"


 * I'd like to second Kwork's request, Jossi. Making massive changes (with the keyword being "massive") to an article about whose subject you are unfamiliar has led you into trouble at least twice now.

The problem is that the editors here have little or no knowledge of the writings of Alice Bailey. There are no Alice Bailey scholars present here. There isn't an administrator, on Wikipedia, who is an Alice Bailey scholar. It's my understanding the Jossi isn't here to write the article but here to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. [User:Sparklecplenty|Sparklecplenty]] 01:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I take exception with Kwork and Cath's comments. I have added good material to the article, and I have engaged in discussions. I do not expect that you agree with me, we can agree to disagree and seek dispute resolution when we are stuck in disagreements. I would also say this: when a non-involved editor comes to help with a dispute, both sides of the dispute should welcome that person and use his lack of POV on the subject to bounce ideas off, as it pertains to neutrality (after a while when editing an article from a strong POV, we tend to lose perspective). Now, if active editors of this article want to editwar to their hearts content, please say so and I will go away, and let editors here have as much rope as they need to tie the proverbial knot around their own necks. Just say the word, and this article will be off my watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, why are taking this abuse? Why do you have to leave. Before you came this kind of behavior went unchecked. I was severely reprimanded for being far less insulting than this. Ownership behavior has become so severe, that not many of can edit without being deleted or reverted. Sparklecplenty 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I go away, I will most definitively make some reports at WP:ANI so that uninvolved admins can take action here. As I have edited the article, I cannot exercise admins duties (one either edits, or acts as an admin in a specific article, and I have chosen the former). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, your edits are much appreciated and very clean and balanced. It's clear that Cat and Kwork have a certain perception about the way things ought to be presented based on their understanding of Bailey, but, other people have a different understanding of Bailey within a different world view that is equally valid.


 * Your and Vassyana's eyes on the article are greatly appreciated as they add an outside neutral view on what is OR, what doesn't make sense, what needs sourcing, what is redundant. Thank you.  Renee 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, that's very interesting that admins don't wear both hats on the same article, I did not know that. It seems like a very wise policy indeed! As far as your edits here, I may not agree with all of 'em, but I DO agree with WP:BRD, and I think there's no questioning your good faith, or your experience. As I've stated recently, I think policy abuse has gone on too long here, and I really hope you'll bring it to another admin's attention if you see the need. And I refer to any editor, including myself. Eaglizard 07:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WEIRD BEHAVIOUR ALERT! The above post was not, as far as I can see, made by Vassyana. Rumiton 13:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That really IS weird. The above post was made by me, Eaglizard. I have no idea how Vassyana's name became attached to it; I signed w/ 4 tildes as always. It links to me, btw, but has had Vass's name in the second field. Eaglizard 14:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Click on history to see how it happened, but not why. (The entities are playful tonight.) Rumiton 14:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't actually have the patience, nor really the desire either. I don't care, just note that it weren't me. If you took the time to look, then do tell. It would take me 20-30 mins. Eaglizard 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your name was changed to Vassyana's by Kwork at 1148 on 13 Oct 07. This strikes me as rather important. The question is why? Rumiton 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, care to explain this unusual situation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, when did I tell you to stop editing the article? What I asked for was discussion before, not after, making important changes to the article. And the problem is that you have no way of distinguishing between what is important and what is not. Is it asking too much that you should talk, and not just in your standard monosylables? If it is; certainly, take this article off your watch list.

If I need to be abrasive to get your attention, I have a lot of reserves there that I have not yet drawn on. If you want write up a report about me, please do if you think it will do you any good. My view is that most editors, even those who are otherwise rather agressive, turn into real ass kissers when dealing with administrators. Because of that, I will not hesitate to say to an administrator what I not say otherwise. (The Cynic philosophers sometimes called speaking truth to authority "defacing the currency".) Kwork 11:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Bebasing" I think is what they said. Rumiton 01:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Racial Theories
I would post this but it would just be deleted. So hoping someone that has clout will correct these mistakes.

This section misrepresents Alice writings on the races.

"It is called "The Aryan Path" and is exceedingly fine. The word Aryan here has nothing to do with Hitler's use of the word. It concerns the Aryan method of spiritual evaluation and the way in which people belonging to the Fifth Root Race make their approach to reality." pg. 189 Autobiography

"Today in our Aryan age and race, we see the vital expression of this fifth ray energy. When I use the word "race" I deal not with man-made or pseudo-scientific differentiations of nations and races or types. I deal with a state of consciousness which is the Aryan or mental consciousness or state of thinking; this finds its exponents and its "race members" in every nation,without any distinction or omissions. Rays and Initiation p. 559

Below is how it was represented:

"Bailey upheld theories of racial differentiation that posited a division of humanity into races that are on different levels in a "ladder of evolution". For example, she said that the Aryans, as an "emerging new race", are the most evolved people on Earth. In her book Education in the New Age[111], Bailey made predictions about the use of occult racial theories in the schools of the future, which she said would be based on racial cohorts such as Lemurians (physically adept), Atlanteans (emotionally adept), Aryans (mentally adept), and the New Race with "group qualities and consciousness and idealistic vision." In her The Destiny of the Nations, Bailey described a process[112] by which the "new race" will evolve from Caucasians, after which "low grade human bodies will disappear, causing a general shift in the racial types toward a higher standard".[113]


 * I must most strongly agree with you, my friend. At least, in a certain sense. I do feel that the change, whether accidental or intentional, of some complex concepts for emotionally-loaded "codewords" like "Aryan" and "New World Order" is really my single greatest concern for the long-term NPOV of this article. The real problem is that only editors rather intimately familiar with Bailey can really appreciate the clear distinction between Bailey's use of a phrase like "Aryan Race", and Hitler's use of it. It seems more likely to me that Hitler derived his from hers, and not vice-versa; he stole a lot of phrases from a lot of good people to cloak his evil ideas. However, to a reader unfamiliar with the timeline, and the prevalence of the concept of "Aryan Race" in Blavastky and others, this will appear to say "Bailey had ideas similar to Hitler's." Which she clearly did not. But, it's really a long term issue, and can wait until more pressing concerns are dealt with. IMHO. Eaglizard 07:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To discuss this would get us deep into OR territory, but i think that neither Hitler nor Bailey is the source you are seeking for the emerging use of the term "Aryan" during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to describe blue-eyed, blond-haired, non-Jewish Europeans. I would like to point you toward a raft of earlier sources, including the Volkisch movement, V. Gordon Childe, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. and others who are mentioned in the two wikipedia sections that deal with the "Aryan Race" and with the "racial connotations" of the term Aryan, which can be found here:  and here:  . I think if you read these several pages, you will see that Bailey, far from using the term differently than Blavatsky or Hitler, was using it in essentially the same way -- as a pseudo-scientific way to divide people into "high" (Aryan means "noble" and "spiritual") and "low" (into which group Bailey put the Negroes, whom she called a "child race" and the Jews, whom she said "lowered the atmosphere" of the paces where they lived). The basic difference between Hitler on the one hand and Bailey on the other lay not in the meaning they attached to the word "Aryan" but in their suggested means for eliminating Judaism, a goal they both espoused. cat Catherineyronwode 09:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not up to us as editors to guess about whether or not certain words, as used by sources, might be misinterpreted by readers in an emotional way. The NPOV fact is that Bailey used those terms, and the use was published.  Not only did she use those terms, and other possibly emotionally-loaded words, she did not use them in passing, she used them repeatedly as an integral part of her teachings, both in explaining the evolution of humanity, and her plan for how the world religion will be structured in the future.


 * There's a whole chapter in The Externalization of the Hierarchy titled "New World Order", in a section written around 1940. She mentioned the Axis use of the term, and she chose to use the same term anyway for her version.  I am not implying that her use was the same, not at all. But she made her choice with awareness, and it's not up to us to second guess that. --Parsifal Hello 10:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just the kind of subtlety I'm talking about. Check your texts, Bailey did not write about the "New World Order", she wrote about the "new world order". There really is a difference. (She uses the capitalized version only one time that I could find.) Parsifal's comment seems to say that, as long as the quote is from the source, it will automatically be NPOV in the article. This is false, I believe. See Contextomy. Eaglizard 14:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC) ps I don't really want to argue about this right now; I think this kind of thing would be best done when (if?) there's a reasonably stable article to tweak. We're not quite there yet, I guess. :) Eaglizard 15:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

words and organization not associated with Alice Bailey
"UFO contactee orgnization Understanding, Inc.. [4]" Alice Bailey didn't mention this UFO's

"faith healing" not used by Alice Bailey

"ascended masters" Elizabeth Claire Prophet coined word

"Rosicrucian Formerly the school was structured in a series of degrees similar to Freemasonry and its early structure can be compared with the ceremonials of the Rosicrucian order.[42]" please show quote of this reference match for this, did not find it. Sparklecplenty 01:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I added that text. It is from Sutcliffe, Steven J., Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, p.237, Routledge.




 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I couldn't find it, so thought I would ask. Sparklecplenty 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkelplenty, the UFO contactee material apears in the Alice Bailey "Influence" section. She influenced them and this was acknowledged by them. This is also mentioned in the introduction as an example of her influence and historical importance. The UFO group was founded after Bailey had died, but used her writings as a religious touchstone in their meetings.


 * That's one of the interesting things about being notable (famous, well-known) -- your work influences many people whom you may neer meet and about whom you may know nothing.


 * An article on the Beatles may, for instance, mention covers of their songs and also various musicians who did not perform covers of their songs but who have cited the Beatles as an influence -- and whom the Beatles themselves may have neither met nor known about.


 * Thus is is with Alice Bailey -- her influences live on, after her death. cat Catherineyronwode 04:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think its important, though, that the the person themselves cite the subject as an influence. Otherwise the conclusion must not be drawn, by us, but by a secondary source, and attributed as such. Am I missing any other legit means that's not OR? (Oh, and yes cat, I know you have a source. Again, I'm not objecting to anything here (he said, proleptically)). Eaglizard 07:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, Eaglizard. In this case, the Bailey influence on the UFO group Understanding, Inc. was noted by a third party, the religion scholar Robert S. Ellwood, who observed that the UFO group recited an invocation from Bailey's writings, an invocation with which he was already familiar, having previously observed and described a Bailey-originated Full Moon Meditation Group meeting. cat Catherineyronwode 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, that might be a legit means I missed. If a group is using an author's actual text in their "rituals" or whatever, they probably don't need to come right out and say "the author influenced us". Still prolly OR to actually draw the conclusion; I'm glad Ellwood does that for us. Eaglizard 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkle, it does seem unlikely that Baileyites would base a system on the 10-degree style, and not on seven or twelve levels common in the Hindu and Tibetan schemes, and in AAB herself. On the other hand, the Golden Dawn types were still a big influence at the time; it might have been a deliberate attempt to siphon off students from the Hermetic orders. Who knows? In my mind, even it it's true, it doesn't really establish any Rosicrucian (or Hermetic) connection to Bailey herself. (I seriously doubt the GD themselves had any actual connection to some mythical Christian Rosenkruetz, but that's what they taught in their, what was it, the Third or Fourth degree ritual? I forget. lol) But, it's sourced, and it's not too important. Does it bother you that it's there? Eaglizard 07:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Arcane School and Freemasonry ritual structures, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch considering that Foster Bailey was a high degree Freemason, at least 32 degree per one source. And in Freemasonry, in the Scottish Rite, they have the "Chapter of Rose Croix", a term related to Rosicrucianism.


 * Also, one of the founders of the The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was a member of the Theosophical Society, as well as a Rosicrucian and a Freemason. For convenience, here's a section from the intro of that article (emphasis added):




 * So, there is some connection between the systems. We don't know for sure if it's a two-way connection that could affect the Bailey-group rituals; though Foster Bailey's involvement makes that likely. Anyway, not suggesting that this would fit in the article because without a source it would be OR.  Interesting though,... I wonder if somewhere there might be a source on this.--Parsifal Hello 09:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, Parsifal, I never knew WWW was a Theosophist. That's very interesting, I might have to pull out my copy of Golden Dawn and re-read some of his papers. And for some reason I wasn't thinking about the Freemasons when I wrote that, but I think I was saying roughly the same thing, that it wouldn't be an improbable suggestion. And, unlike our speculation, it is a sourced suggestion. :) Eaglizard 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There were really no rituals with the Arcane School. There were monthly full moon meditations, where a large group of members would meet. There would be a talk on some aspect of the teaching followed by a silent meditation and a group recitation of the Great Invocation. There were also the three linked festivals (really bigger full moon meetings) on the April (Easter) full moon, May (Wesak) full moon, and June (Festival of Humanity) full moon. There were no cermonies, secret hand shakes, etc.

Foster Bailey was heavily into the Masons, but he had little direct involvement with the Arcane School, and was never its director. When Alice Bailey was close to death after a long fight with leukemia, she appointed another woman to be director after her own death. I forget that woman's original last name, but her first name was Mary. When Foster Bailey married her, after Alice Bailey's death, she became Mary Bailey. So, to repeat, Foster Bailey was never head of the Arcane School, and that information in the article is wrong. Kwork 16:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that the answers.com encyclopedia article is unreliable. That's the second fact they got wrong, so I have removed that reference.


 * The quote above is from a published reliable source, so that one we can't kick it out even if it might not be accurate; we would need another reliable source to contest it.


 * I modified the after Alice Bailey's death section of the article and added citation-requests. Kwork, would you please take a look and see if it the remaining words are now accurate?  Thanks.  --Parsifal Hello 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

tree of life & solar/planetary hierarchies
This is a subsection - not intended for the article, but further to the Golden Dawn comments above, just for a matter of interest.

I found this diagram of the solar/planetary hierarchies on a Bailey-related website.

It seems to have much in common with the Tree of Life of Western Hermeticism, and the Hermetic Qabalah as in these examples:


 * Image:Tree-of-Life Flower-of-Life Stage.jpg
 * Image:Tree of life wk 02.jpg
 * Image:Tree of life wk 03.jpg
 * Image:Kircher Tree of Life.png

There are plenty of differences in the details, but the underlying structure seems closely related. --Parsifal Hello 05:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Book Cover Image
This falls unde acceptable use (WP:FAIR) as the book is specifically referred to in the text and is commented on both in terms of its publication and the translation of Baily's work into other languages.Lumos3 09:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Lumos3 on this. I've reviewed his statement of Fair Use Rationale on the image file page. All the bases are covered for this use of the image.  --Parsifal Hello 09:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. The practice in Wikipedia is to use cover only in articles that discuss the book itself and provides critical commentary about the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not about "referring", it is about: "only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." See WP:FAIR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the big deal. I think the present image actually looks good, and its not as though someone inserted a photo of Bailey with her finger up her nose. Kwork 15:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume the fact that we use that same book as a source throughout the article does not count as "critical commentary"? Eaglizard 15:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Look up any bio of authors in WP, and you will see that these do not contain cover art for a reason. If we had an article about Alice Bailey's autobiography (book), then yes, we could use cover art. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, I guess that would be a "no, it doesn't count". thanks. BTW, do you know the difference between talking with someone and talking at them? Eaglizard 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Meaning? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn. I was about to remove that. But. Meaning, You said "we can't use the cover in this bio, bc its not about the book." So, I looked at FAIR and it says "critical commentary". I asked if that counted. You answered: "we can't use the cover in this bio, bc its not about the book." I was hoping for simply "no, that doesn't count" (or maybe "yes, that would be ok"). An answer to my question. And, I amm getting rather thin-skinned with this page. Maybe I need a break. Sorry for sounding so pissy. Eaglizard 15:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, sometimes text exchanges in these pages are not the best form of communication, but that is what we have... We need to learn to get better at this... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Note. The photo in the infobox is up for deletion. Soon this article will have no images at all. Lumos3 23:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

correction & Zionism
It is a 110 times the "jews" came up, not 103 times. The Zionist section should include what Bailey said about Zionism, over a half a century ago. If this is to be an inflammatory article on Alice Bailey comments on the Jews, than Zionism is a central topic in today's politics, all that she said is a major complaint by the other Semitic people living the area. Here it is:

"Zionism today stands for aggression and for the use of force, and the keynote is permission to take what you want irrespective of other people or of their inalienable rights. These points of view are against the position of the spiritual leaders of humanity, and therefore the leaders of the Zionist movement, and the group of men who direct and control the policies of Russia, are against the policies of the spiritual Hierarchy and are contrary to the lasting good of mankind..." Rays & Initiation p.680 Sparklecplenty 15:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT. Eaglizard 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why not to add this source... Is there a concern about it that I may be missing? Or is this just am argumentative device to make a point? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's always so hard to tell on this page. And now I'm just babbling. Sigh... Eaglizard 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

AntiZionism is a standard part of antisemitism. Kwork 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say Anti-Zionism is a standard part of anti-Semiticism, when those who are complaining about Zionism, are Semitic people--Palestinian, Syrians, Egyptians, etc. Sparklecplenty 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case it might help if you read this Wikipedia article: Antisemitism. Kwork 17:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Arabs are semitic people. If you're anti-semitic it's logical that you're anti-Arab as well. Sparklecplenty 18:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the article. The word antisemitism has developed a use that is not based on the structure of the word. It is accepted usage. If you object, contact those who write English language dictionaries and argue with them. It is pointless to argue with the standard accepted usage of a word on this page. Also see Kwork 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kwork's dead right on this Sparkle, the "all Arabs are semitic" thing is a straw man that's been thoroughly beat to death on Talk: Antisemitism. "Antisemitic" means "anti-Jew", and nothing else, AFAIK. Eaglizard 18:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is tantamount to confess that your (and many others') usage of the terminology "antisemitism", "antisemitic" etc. is just a linguistic fraud -- an attempt to depict criticism against a specific group, based on its own criminal records, as it were criticism against a larger group, based on racial or cultural bias. As it would be if members of Sicilian Mafia would insist that anyone showing their crimes are "anti-Italian", or even "anti-European". Jews are a tiny minority of so-called Semitic peoples, and are criticized because of their own specific actions and beliefs. Therefore, calling criticism of Jews "antisemitism" is just one more Jewish (not Semitic!) fraud. [unsigned comment by Anonymous 85.5.179.233


 * Dear 85.5.179.233, your definition of the word antisemitic is based on a misconception. The word derives from "semitic" but it has a different meaning than what you think. Click the link and look it up. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are saying that the word "Jews" or "Jewish" comes up 110 times, or that there are 110 sections, chapters, etc where the word "Jew" is mentioned multiple times? In any case, what you are saying is still deceptive, because typically a section will start saying something like "it is an interesting fact that the Jews are found...." and than go on discussing the Jews at length without many re-uses of the word "Jew" even though it is a very long passage discussing nothing but the Jews. Kwork 15:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Using Win98 Find, "Jew" appears on 124 HTML pages, "Jews" on 58 and "Jewish" on 69. The figure of 110 different, separated sections of text discussing the Jews doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Eaglizard 16:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussing the Jewish people isn't unreasonable to me. But it a fact that the majority of Alice Bailey writing were not on the Jewish people. And its difficult to get pass the mainly Jewish topic, in order to discuss the majority of the topics Bailey wrote about--brotherhood, unity, and love. Since we humans are mainly focused on our personality happenings--heritage, race, religion, and country, its difficult for us to get to the spirituality of this work--whichis the bulk of the pages. Sparklecplenty 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Book Cover Image
This falls unde acceptable use (WP:FAIR) as the book is specifically referred to in the text and is commented on both in terms of its publication and the translation of Baily's work into other languages.Lumos3 09:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Lumos3 on this. I've reviewed his statement of Fair Use Rationale on the image file page. All the bases are covered for this use of the image.  --Parsifal Hello 09:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. The practice in Wikipedia is to use cover only in articles that discuss the book itself and provides critical commentary about the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not about "referring", it is about: "only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." See WP:FAIR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the big deal. I think the present image actually looks good, and its not as though someone inserted a photo of Bailey with her finger up her nose. Kwork 15:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume the fact that we use that same book as a source throughout the article does not count as "critical commentary"? Eaglizard 15:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

UFO's, ownership, not having the right to edit, deception
James was slammed pretty hard for appearing to take "ownership" of the article. I don't have the right edit the article. The Jewish members have taken ownership of this article. The present state of this article is to make Alice Bailey look "totally bad". What about fairness, proportions, and neutrality: UF0's aren't mentioned in her books; she never used the term "ascended master"; her childhood "suicide attempts" are isolated to emphasis--it makes her look like a nut case. There are no counters to the accusations that her term "Aryan Race" is to be equated with "Hitler's" twisted interpretation. We have Sjoo leading the pack of "Aryan Race" deception. Sjoo is there because she had an isolated personal experience with Bailey people that she thought were prejudice to her half-racial son. The son she only referred to as "half-racial son." Her isolated experiences with a few Bailyites could be considered the same as my being called a "meatpuppet" to someone who is thought to be anitiSemitic.

Note: Hitler didn't invent the ancient occult science, nor did he invent the ancient symbols, he misused and inverted them--"swastika".

Note: Sjoo is one of the nut cases that is used to make a case that Alice Bailey is also a nut case, because "it takes one to know one." "Note:" I complained about the photo. I take Jossi reasons for using the photo on "good faith". The photo it is far less important to me than the deception going on here. Sparklecplenty 16:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkleplenty, please! Sjoo did not refer to her son as "half-racial." She called him "bi-racial," a common term with a well-understood meaning. cat Catherineyronwode 22:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You say "The Jewish members have taken ownership of this article." By this you seem to mean it is all the fault of the Jews that the article does not look just the way you want it to look. Well, what would your version of the article look like? Kwork 16:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, I just answered this in the Zionism section on this page. Sparklecplenty 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article focuses on Jews, Judaism, and anti-semitism more than any biography should. Move the rants off of the encyclopedia. 74.53.36.132 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi 74.53.36.132. Could you expand that statement into an explanation that shows signs of intelligence? Kwork 17:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't bite the newbies, Kwork. As for anon's assertion, I do not think that the article focuses on these aspects, rather, it describes these aspects which are an interesting aspect of this person's teachings and viewpoints. The issue to discuss is one of balance, and I believe that there is a need to balance the article with additional material about this person's teachings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, 74.53.36.132. Could explain your objection? It has been suggested that the Alice Bailey teaching be moved to a separate article. But Alice Bailey's antisemitic statements are difficult to separate either from her or her teaching. Of course, if she had not made the antisemitic statements there would be no discussion of what did not exist. Kwork 17:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome 74. I tend to agree with you in that the sections on teachings are shorter than the sections on Jews and Judaism so it gives the appearance of undue weight to the topic.  We have been discussing this issue for a long time -- see history of this talk page.  (Also, please ignore nasty remarks and stay with us!).
 * Other editors -- what happened to the idea of separating out the biographical information from the teachings? Will that create double the trouble or work well?  Also, at one time someone had proposed creating a separate article on Alice Bailey and Anti-Semitism.  I think this is a good idea because (1) those who keep finding more and more quotations on the topic and hence keep expanding those sections can do so to their hearts' content, and, (2) it would make the disputes on the talk pages virtually cease because an article on the topic of Alice Bailey and Anti-Semitism (or even, Alice Bailey, Theosophy, and Anti-Semitism) would be the focus and there would (presumably) be less of a focus on balance and undue weight.  Renee 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Kwork, please do not undo good faith edits by newcomers. 74's edit still says that Bailey's writings about Jews and Judaism stirred controversy and it still has in there that her writings were viewed as racist and anti-semitic. You do not own the article. Renee 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkle, you do have the "right" to edit this article; why do you feel that you don't? Welcome to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. [emphasis mine] Eaglizard 18:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eaglizard, a smile and a thanks. hmmm, "free online encyclopedia", most of the time it feels like a free-for-all. Catherine deleted large section that had no controversy to it, she did this without discussion or reason. I reverted it and she immediately reverted in out. I changed "ascended masters" to master and she reverted it back. And she obviously went beyond her 3RR that day and no one said a word. So it's is a theory that I can edit here. That was the day that I also started to change the Mary Bailey was Alice's "daughter" to "second wife" of Foster Bailey. You got there minutes before me, anyway your correction, if I remember correctly, ruffled a feather or two. Sparklecplenty 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is any violations of 3RR, please report them at WP:AN/3RR where these will be dealt with by non-involved admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, it was editor Judith's suggestion that we balance each negative with a positive. This lead to dropping the controversy section and integrating the negative & positives. In the section called "racial theories", Alice Bailey/DK definition of the "Aryan Race" and their denouncing Hitler's twisted interpretation of the "Aryan Race" should be added to that section. And the racial negatives should have AAB/DK definitions of race. Especially since the esoteric meaning of "race" is entirely different than the physical definition of race. Sparklecplenty 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, my little research on this subject tells me that although Bailey made some quite repugnant racial comments about Jews and Judaism, her use of the term Aryan is somewhat different from the Nazi use (although it seems that her comments where more apologist that anything else...). I will dig the material I found and post here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here it is, it still sounds to me as apologetic as I originally thought, but nonetheless that is what is being said about her use of :Aryan":
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Theosophical Society
There is a long section of the article dealing with similarities to the Theosophical Society. I do not object to it if anyone considers it important, but I do not understand why this needs more than a short mention. Kwork 17:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to sound too sarcastic, but is it ok with you if the antisemitism stuff is also reduced to a "short mention"? Don't let the fact that some of us are very considerate of your concerns lead you to forget that we have our own areas of interest. I'm not being facetious; the Theosophy stuff happens to be somewhat more important than the antisemitic, for me. Although I'm not saying it doesn't need work, I'm not inclined to continue reducing some areas without reducing every area, if you understand me. Eaglizard 18:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eaglizard, your point about not reducing the Theosophical section is a good one; and as it happens, I agree with you on that. But it's not necessary to turn it around and point to the various Jewish-related sections again. There's enough emotional charge on this page, please don't feed the flames.  Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume that the information about antisemitism is not something you value, or that you want in the article. Since you have been fighting against it for months, it does not need Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. What does that have to do with the value of a Theosophical section that long? Its longer than the sections about The Constitution of Man or the Seven Rays, which are discussed at great length in the Bailey books. But if you want it just like it is, that is perfectly okay with me. Kwork 19:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * [Kwork, please excuse the intrusion - I moved your comment from below, I think you meant your reply for Eaglizard not for Jossi.   If I am wrong about that, please move it back where you want it.  --Parsifal Hello 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)]


 * The comparison with the Theosophical Society is a very important part of this article, as it provides the necessary context to understand Bailey's ideas. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jossi. I think that Kwork's deletion of the lengthy Thesophical Society comparison material diminishes the impact of the biographical / contextual thrust of the article. I rather liked it. I would like to see it reinstated. cat Catherineyronwode 20:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sjoo Double Quotations
Somehow a double quotation slipped in by Sjoo, whose credibility as a source has been questioned by many. In a compromise reached ages ago the first line was agreed to, but this second line is not appropriate for this article:
 * She found worrying that some of the New Age thinking of Bailey and the Theosophists relied on "very reactionary and pro-fascist religious views", such as the belief in a secret elite of "Masters" who control world events and human minds through occult means and attempt to bring about the evolution of an Aryan super-race.

Again, I think the whole Sjoo quotation does not meet Wiki standards but they only part of the phrase above directly attributed to Bailey is the first clause, which already appears in the article. I have deleted the second clause. Renee 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the deletion. The "second clause" contains wording not present on the first. Two sources are used, not only one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jossi's comment here. --Parsifal Hello 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, then, they should be merged into a single sentence because it's clear that she's excerpting from her book for an article and the first clause repeats itself (i.e., reactionary). Renee 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can do that... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks. Renee 20:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cat, regarding your sarcastic edit summary here, I was trying to faithfully merge the two sentences together so as not to change any meaning from whoever added the sentence originally (see original compared to my version here). I suspect the original inserter was giving a faithful paraphrase to what Sjoo said in the article, so you may be jumping to conclusions that Sjoo was not worried.

BTW, kindness is appreciated over sarcasm. Renee 00:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I think I overreacted with my statements about sarcasm above...once bruised one is sensitive until healed...I will assume you were trying to be funny...Renee 02:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How terrible for Catherine to be accused of committing a Wikipedia thoughtcrime. Kwork 00:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How terrible to suffer from lack of impulse control...(remember this?)...


 * Sooo, back to the article, I actually think that what Cat wrote sounds fine and less emotional, my only point was that I was trying to represent the sentences faithfully so no one could accuse me of changing the meaning of the sentences, and, I suspect the original article said that Sjoo worried... Renee 01:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of 74's edits
Parsifal and Kwork, Why did you revert 74's lead paragraph edits? It seems to put a negative slant on things to say Bailey criticized three topics but only "stirred controversy" on the other topics (when she criticized them too). This is where the bias creeps in -- a super sensitivity to things Jewish whereas I'm sure that Christians and other groups would say the same thing.

In addition, there's a double emphasis on the anti-semitism slant (i.e., criticized Jews... and writings racist and anti-semitic; two sentences in the lead).

I think 74's edits are good and make the sentence neutral. Renee 20:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Renee, it may be very difficult to convey to you why Kwork reverted 74's bad edits, but i am going to try.


 * Jews are people. Judaism is a religion. Israel is a nation. Zionism is a political movement.


 * Did you ever study symbolic logic? Do you know what a Venn diagram is?


 * Well, the deal is this: each of those 4 topics is a "set" that is separate from the others. They may overlap in part, but they are still four distinct sets.


 * Bailey criticized people she identified as "Jews" under four sets (despite the fact that any given Jewish person might not fall into all of these sets). She criticized Jews as a race, Judaism as an "obsolete" and "evil" religion, Israel as a nation founded by "terrorists", and Zionism working through a three-continent "triangle of evil" -- and those must be mentioned separately.


 * We cannot "streamline" these four sets together into one set. That is why we address specific terms in consecutive lists, each word separated by a comma. We are not being redundant or overwordy; we are covering aseries of sets. That is why, for instance, i undid Jossi's attempt to move "On Judaism" into a sub-set position of "On the Jewish People" -- the Religion set is not a subset of the Race set.


 * Think next of these further subsets of Race -- Genetic Theories, Phenotypal / "Physical Characteristics" Theories, "Social Characteristics" Theories, "Mental Characteristics" Theories, "Evolutionary Ladder" Theories, "Race Problem" Theories, "Solutions to Race Problems" Theories, etc. Again, each set is separate but may partially overlap the others.


 * Bailey labelled people as "Jews" and criticized them as a "race" under several, but not all, of those sub-sets. (She did not make genetic or phenotypal criticisms of Jews as her contemporary and fellow-occultist Aleister Crowley, for instance, did.)


 * Furthermore, within the set about "Race", Bailey wrote on some non-Jewish racial sub-sets -- the Negro race (which she treated as being different when found in Africa and in the Americas), children of interracial marriages, etc.


 * Yes, there is some overlap between all of these sets and subsets, as on a Venn diagram -- but in the end, none of the topics -- Race, Nation, Religion, Political Movement -- can be said to be fully contained within another or to be fully share the same borders as another.


 * Once you really, truly understand this, you will see why those of us who are familiar with Jews, African Negroes, American Negroes, Judaism, Israel, Zionism, race theories (and their multitudinour sub-sets), interracial marriage, etc. cannot support 74's attempt to "shorten" or "streamline" or "compress" these sets. It is not truthful to merely short-hand them into two sets, labelled "antisemitism" and "racism" (or, as James did at one point, into one set, labelled "Jewish").


 * It may look like we are being very stubborn, but we have good scholarship on our side, and meanwhile, we are still up against the ignorance of those editors who sincerely think (as was revealed today) that the word "antisemitic" must perforce refer to Arabs, even though that is not the meaning of the word.


 * It is difficult for me to keep an even temper in the midst of ignorance and dismissal. I try every day to come to this page with a kind heart and a confident, upbeat outlook. When i feel the article is moving into poor schiolarship, i try to write something that will educate the other editors and keep them from falling into semantic or logical errors. I continually refer to good wikipedia articles on subjects that might help other editors to understand the big picture, at least as i view it.


 * Now, looking at 74's edits from my Venn diagram perspective, i hope you see why Kwork (and i) assert that those edits were counterproductive, and why we say the Wikipedia description of Bailey's writings on race benefits from the inclusion of more words rather than fewer words, insofar as we intend to treat the subject with scholarly honesty and from an encylopedic perspective.


 * cat Catherineyronwode 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Cat, Thanks for the civil explanations. Yes, I can see how you see four sets of topics.  And when I look at 74's edit I see s/he reduced it to two.  So why not add the other two to the list of items that "stirred controversy" instead of creating two sentences to emphasize the Jewish issues?  There doesn't seem to be anything lost and you're not double-dipping to promote a negative POV by emphasizing the same point twice.  Renee 22:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding, Renee. Because Bailey tended to blur Zionism and Israel (one a political movement and the other a nation), i have blended them in the Bailey Article, as "On nations and nationalism" and i am content with that. So i am actually using three sets here. I have rewritten IP 74's rewrites again, and perhaps this will satisfy all parties. I hope so. cat Catherineyronwode 06:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not acceptable...
I read above a mention of "The Jewish members" who "have taken ownership of this article." These type of comments are absolutely inappropriate and in violation of our policy of no personal attacks (Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views). Any further mention of an editor's affiliation as an argument in these discussions will be reported in WP:AN/I and may result in the temporary loss of editing privileges if recurring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't it also unacceptable to call me a "meatpuppet" of an alleged. anti-semitic? Sparklecplenty 20:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto for calling a fellow editor "antisemitic." As for "meatpuppet", see WP:MEAT. I do not see evidence of recent meatpuppetting as that involves mainly newbies that are "recruited" to push a certain POV. It that happened in this article in the past, I do not know. I would be better for all involved to simply make an effort and avoid making comments on the contributors, and focus on improving the article instead. Bitting of the tongue is a good technique, if needed be... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, just yesterday: "Sparklecplenty, you accused me of calling opposing editors antisemetic. I will appoligize if you show me a case where I have done that. If there actually was such a case, and you can not find it, or have forgotten it, I assure you that I am sorry if I did that, and would consider that a serious mistake on my part. However, I do not think I ever said that.

I do consider you and Jamesd1 to be single purpose meatpuppets for Philip Lindsay. But I have not even mentioned that for months. In this case, you brought up the subject yourself...Kwork" 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, bitting of the tongue is much recommended to all involved. Let's move on, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I'd like to make clear, that it was not my intention to use someone's affiliation to dismiss or discredit them. Sparklecplenty 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Affliction? (lol!) Hope that was not a Paraprax.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Add that one to the list of fashionable Freudian undergarments. :) Eaglizard 22:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Laughs and good-byes
Eaglizard, thanks for helping me to laugh at myself. I made the attempt to edit, but I have been reverted. UFO's have nothing to do with Alice Bailey. Keep up the good. You're good at what you do. Sparklecplenty 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. did ya'll discuss putting the UFO's quote in, and did ya'll make a decision on that? I can't find where this occurred as reverting editor says it did.

P.S.S "Affliction": well, I was Not channeling Phillip Lindsey very well that time.


 * Sparkle, you made four edits today. I reverted two of them, because the text was appropriate and referenced, and had been discussed.  The other two of your edits were not reverted and are still in place.


 * Yes, it was discussed, on this page, above, in this section: Talk:Alice Bailey.  Eaglizard concurred about including it, in that discussion.


 * No-one is saying that Bailey wrote about UFO's. But there is a scholarly source that shows she influenced that group, later - after her death, showing the widespread nature of her influence.


 * All of us have been reverted many times, you don't need to take that personally. --Parsifal Hello 23:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is okay to include. The references are first rate and it clearly says that Bailey "was never directly involved" with the UFO organizations.  Keep up the good work Sparkle.  We need both sides to create a neutral balanced article.  Renee 01:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just read the last paragraph under the "Influence" section and it seems a real stretch to say that Bailey's writings influenced the UFO movement when all they use is her invocation prayer. (i.e., saying her work influenced the UFO movement makes it sounds like it had a huge, profound effect)  If all they use is the prayer, then we need to reflect the extent of the influence more accurately.   Renee 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Renee. At no point has the article stated that Bailey or her writings influenced the UFO movement per se. Rather, it was stated that her teachings influecned a specific nationwide group of UFO believers called Understanding, Inc. -- Ellwood reported that they used her Great Invocation as the invocation to their own meetings. That's an obvious influence, you must agree. cat Catherineyronwode 02:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a difference though between "an influence" and "influenced a specific nationwide group." The connotation of the former is rather minimal whereas the connotation of the latter is quite deep.  In any case, I'm happy with your most recent edits on the quotation, as it makes it clear what the influence was.  Renee 02:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

New Group of World Servers
That article needs secondary sources to be compliant with WP content policies. If there are editors here that are knowledgeable on the subject and can help substantiate the article with such sources, it would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Teachings" or "writings"?
The article should be consistent. Either we speak of Bailey's writings, or of her teachings. We cannot use one or another alternatively only when convenient to assert certain a viewpoint, should we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think writings is more accurate because teachings implies that several other people wrote down what she said and then disseminated "her teachings" (i.e., as in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John disseminated Jesus' teachings). In Bailey's case, we have her actual books which are used as references, hence, I think "writings" is the more appropriate term.  Renee 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above two paragraphs and their connected heading appeared twice, exactly duplicated. I have removed the second iteration. cat Catherineyronwode 02:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with using both terms alternately for copyediting variety; it doesn't seem to me to be a NPOV issue. But if a choice is needed, I would suggest "teachings, though I can see the arguments for either term;. While her teachings are embodied in her writings, she also functioned in her life as a teacher.  She set up at least two schools we know of, the Arcane School, and the (short-lived) School of Spiritual Research, plus World Goodwill and Triangles for embodying the practices. She had many people in her life, and after her life, who considered her (and/or the Tibetan, as speaking through her writings), to be their teacher.  So, if we must choose, I would choose "teachings".

On the other hand, this is not a big issue to me and if consensus goes towards "writings", I would not argue about it. --Parsifal Hello 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not mind either, but I think it should be consistent. How secondary sources refer to it: writings, or teachings? from the little I have read, they refer to her writings or viewpoints, and  don't recall the term "teachings" being used, but again, I have just read half a dozen of secondary sources ob the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer the term "Teachings" in the headings and resultant Table of Contents. I also prefer the copyediting freedom to use the term "writings" for the sake of variety. I feel strongly that editors should not suddenly be forced to select from an arbitrary two choices or to limit their writing in the way proposed, because tthis limitation, if implemented, will make the article very sorry reading indeed, inflicting an artifical "Run, Spot, run. See Spot run" vocabulary on editors. cat Catherineyronwode 04:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For clarity, per my note above, I concur with Cat's suggestion to use Teachings as the heading; and I concur with using both in the text, for good writing style. --Parsifal Hello 05:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a further note, when i find the term "Writings" in a heading / Table of Contents at Wkipedia, it appears to indicate specific reference to the bio subject's articles and books, not their contents, and not a bibliography per se. See, by way of example the William Walker Atkinson article, where we have both "Writings" as a heading for the sections that discuss his many books in an orderly and organized fashion, and a conventional Bibliography. With Bailey, by contrast, we discuss no "Writings" per se, but rather present a section of her "Teachings" to students, organized by subject, and followed by a Bibliography. I'm going to change it back to "Teachings" now. cat Catherineyronwode 06:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to go with the word teachings for now but Like Parsifal I do not have a strong opinion on this. If others do it can always be changed via further discussion. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to disagree politely but strongly with the opinion of other editors above, whose contributions to the encyclopedia I have a lot of respect for. "Teachings" implies truth, i.e. that WP endorses the content. Let's remember that many readers are not convinced that there is any value at all in esoteric writings. "Writings" is the safe and neutral term. Itsmejudith 10:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Teachings implies truth"? That's a new one on me. I have no such connotation filed in my mind for that word. To me, teachings means instructions, pedagogic texts, lectures, procedural manuals, and the like. When a cooking teacher teaches cooking, she does not teach "the truth", she just instructs how it is that she prepares food and how you should prepare food if you intend to follow in her style. When WP hosts an article on how Julia Child taught French cooking, it does not "endorse" either Child's style of teaching or her style of French cooking -- it merely reports on what she taught. cat 64.142.90.32 11:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Either "teachings" or "writings" seem okay. But I do not understand why the two words can not be alternated, which I think would be best, unless there is some rule of writing I do not know about that does not allow more than one word to describe the same thing. Kwork 12:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would sound odd, wouldn't it, to refer to Julia Child's "teachings" on cookery. "Teachings" implies a message. It also carries a positive connotation of accepting that message. For this reason I would also oppose mentions in the encyclopedia of the "teachings of Jesus" or the "teachings of Muhammad". At least this wording should be treated with great caution. Itsmejudith 17:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Important Issue Needing Clarification

 * I'm pasting in this thread below from several "page-ups" because it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed if we are to work as a community of editors assuming good faith. (See this for complete thread.)  Renee 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your and Vassyana's eyes on the article are greatly appreciated as they add an outside neutral view on what is OR, what doesn't make sense, what needs sourcing, what is redundant. Thank you. Renee 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, that's very interesting that admins don't wear both hats on the same article, I did not know that. It seems like a very wise policy indeed! As far as your edits here, I may not agree with all of 'em, but I DO agree with WP:BRD, and I think there's no questioning your good faith, or your experience. As I've stated recently, I think policy abuse has gone on too long here, and I really hope you'll bring it to another admin's attention if you see the need. And I refer to any editor, including myself. Eaglizard 07:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WEIRD BEHAVIOUR ALERT! The above post was not, as far as I can see, made by Vassyana. Rumiton 13:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That really IS weird. The above post was made by me, Eaglizard. I have no idea how Vassyana's name became attached to it; I signed w/ 4 tildes as always. It links to me, btw, but has had Vass's name in the second field. Eaglizard 14:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Click on history to see how it happened, but not why. (The entities are playful tonight.) Rumiton 14:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't actually have the patience, nor really the desire either. I don't care, just note that it weren't me. If you took the time to look, then do tell. It would take me 20-30 mins. Eaglizard 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your name was changed to Vassyana's by Kwork at 1148 on 13 Oct 07. This strikes me as rather important. The question is why? Rumiton 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, care to explain this unusual situation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is bizarre. Thank you, Rumiton, for digging that out. Unfortunately, I find it as unsurprising as it is baffling. I'd guess it's just Kwork's subconscious working to fulfill his apparent wish to be banned from WP. Eaglizard 08:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please and double Please be very sure that it is next to  impossible for some one else to have done this. Could it be the result of some sort of IP spoofing ?? I sincerely hope that there is a reasonable explanation. If he is being set up we all need to get behind him and help him. Jossi did the right thing by asking for an explanation from Kwork. I find this this whole thing to be very upsetting indeed . Danny Weintraub  Albion moonlight 10:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems they I am being accused of changing one of Eaglizard posts. I do remember that there was a post, apparently from Eaglizard above a reply I was writing yesterday morning, and I remember being puzzled that it had both Eaglizard's and Vassyana's names. I suppose that I might have unintentionally done something to cause that to happen because I was writing a message below that. But if I did, it was unintentional, and I have no idea how it could have happened. I would not have had any reason to do that intentionally, and that message was not (as far as I recall) what I was replying to, but to something above it. I would have to go back and look. I don't know what else I can say about it. If it was caused by me, I am sorry; but if it was my fault it I don't know how it happened. If it was something that could have been done only intentionally, then it was done by someone other than me. Kwork 11:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In reply to Eaglizard's comment (above) about "Kwork's subconscious working.."; obviously, if it is something I am talking about, it is not subconscious. Moreover, if I am going to make trouble, I prefer that to be my usual abrasivness that is always fully visible. Kwork 12:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at the history and here is the diff. It seems to be all part of Kwork's post that he refers to above.  If it were a separate and single Kwork post then I could see how it might be tampering, but because it's part of his total post, it seems more likely it came from Kwork.


 * I tend to believe Kwork's denial above, because given his past behaviors (which include following me around to non-Bailey pages and posting aggressive commentaries about my motives, personality, etc.) I tend to think that if he did it he'd just tell us to all go f@#$ ourselves, that he's expressing himself, and to bounce him if we don't like it.


 * The simplest explanation I can think of is that an inadvertant deletion occurred while he was typing his message and he replaced the word absent-mindedly with what he thought was accidentally deleted. (For example, when I write a message I often scroll up and down the section.  If my cursor bounces too hard it highlights a whole word or paragraph and then if I tap another key it's all erased.)  It's clear he had Jossi on his mind since the post is to him but he probably also had Vassyana on his mind because he had read my message above and I suspect was disagreeing with my post that Vassyana's edits were helpful given his earlier posts to him.  This would explain why Vassyana was on his mind if a signature was accidentally deleted and needed to be replaced.  (Disclosure: I have conducted academic research on mindful and mindless human behavior, so that's why this scenario seems plausible to me.)


 * Renee 14:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Renee, your reply surprises me. I rather expected you to use this as an occasion to go on the attack. So I certainly owe you an apology for my negative expectations: Sorry, very sorry.


 * You explination seems credible in part, but I do not know how Vassyana's name got there. I know that I did not write it in, and I could not have spelled it correctly from memory.


 * I do want to clarify one thing you said above. It is true that I follow what editors of this article are doing (and I know that others do the same), and sometimes make I comments on user talk pages without being asked for my opinion. I do not follow your editing of other articles, or involve myself in those articles. Kwork 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a look, finally, at the addition I made below the change in Eaglizard's name, and that joggled my memory a little. My recollection is that when I was writing my post, just below Eaglizard's, at some point the strange compound signature above caught my attention. I remember looking at it for a few seconds, and then going back to writing. Then the thought crossed my mind that I might have done something to make that change, so I copied as much as I had written, clicked on 'discussion', then clicked on edit a new time and pasted back what I had written. But the compound signature was still there. If it was something I had done, the signature should have returned to normal because I had not yet saved the edit.

I am puzzled that Eaglizard thinks I did that. What reason could I have? It does not accomplish a thing. Maybe he thinks I am insane. But if I am unstable how could I have been able to stay with this crummy editing situation so long? I suppose accusations are something that can not be avoided. "...we cannot name any fiery path without its carpet of calumny. Fiery World I, 35." Kwork 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you're among the predominant accusers around here, I'm sure you do believe that "accusations are something that can not be avoided". I have made no accusations in this matter; I try to avoid accusations in general. I do trust the editing history database. Claiming you don't remember doing it doesn't mean you didn't do it. As far as why you did it, I have no more idea than you apparently have. Eaglizard 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that we've all stayed with this page so long is clear evidence of our collective unstableness...just think what pro-social things we could be doing with our time?  :)   Renee 19:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the damned record. User:Kwork states he has no recollection of making the change, and that it was not deliberate. I see no reason not to accept this. In particular, I can't see how this could be designed to intentionally "damage" me or the talk page. So let's drop this, ok? I've seen similar editing accidents do serious damage to an editor's reputation. I personally think Kwork should just be glad this group of editors actually does try to assume good faith in others, but I doubt he'd acknowledge that. Eaglizard 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been two other strange editing glitches on this page. On the page currently there are two sections titled "archived through October 1". They are identical and include a comment from me and a reply from Eaglizard. Time stamps identical. However, in the history, the edit appears only once, and I looked at the ensuing edits and did not find any place where the section was duplicated. And, there is a another unrelated section between the two copies. So that one is a total mystery.

There was another duplicated section that Cat deleted yesterday, and she noted it in her edit, above, in the section called ""Teachings" or "writings"?". I looked at the edit history and it turned out that Sparkle had duplicated the whole section when she moved part of one of her own comments. Clearly she did not do that intentionally.

... just shows that strange things can happen sometimes. So it's good that we are all vigilant in case there's a glitch. But it's also good to figure that there was no possible value for Kwork by that particular strange thing that happened and that if he wanted to stir up some trouble, he would do it in a much more entertaining way. --Parsifal Hello 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for assuming good faith. It would have been so easy to blow everything out of proportion. Kudo's to everyone. : Danny Weintraub. : Albion moonlight 07:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that. Critical events can go either way, can be the end of cooperation or the beginning, with greater good faith all round. This seems to have happened here. Many congratulations. Now about that Bailey person... Rumiton 10:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The bloated "See also" list needs to go on a diet.
The "See also" list is padded with things that have little or nothing to do with Alice Bailey. I am going to list them here, with my opinions. If i write "ok-cat" i mean that the subject is mentioned in the article and has definite resonances in Bailey's writings. If i write "nix-cat" i mean that there is either no mention of the topic in the article and/or that the topic has little or nothing to do with Alice Bailey. Please add your opinions. Let's get a consensus, please:

Spirituality Portal [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
 * A Treatise on White Magic [ok-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in bibliography]
 * Anthroposophy [nix-cat][nix-parsifal]
 * Archeosophy [nix-cat][nix-parsifal-also,this page has no secondary sources]
 * Esoteric cosmology [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
 * Esotericism [ok-cat]][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
 * Initiation (Theosophy) [ok-cat][ok-parsifal-also,has no footnotes]
 * Karma [ok-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
 * List of Masonic organizations [nix-cat][nix-parsifal-page does not exist]
 * List of spirituality-related topics [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
 * List of religious, esoteric, metaphysical and mystical symbols [nix-cat][nix-parsifal]
 * Magic and religion [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
 * Merkabah [nix-cat][nix-parsifal]
 * New Age [ok-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
 * Numerology [nix-cat][nix-parsifal-also, page has no footnotes]
 * Occult [okay-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
 * Odic force [nix-cat][nix-parsifal-also, page has no references]
 * Qigong [nix-cat][nix-parsifal]
 * Planes of existence [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
 * Reincarnation [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
 * Rosicrucianism [nix-cat][nix-parsifal]
 * Spiritual evolution [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
 * Spirituality [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
 * Theosophy [ok-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
 * Western mystery tradition [nix-cat][ok-parsifall]

Two further suggestions for inclusion:
 * Age of Aquarius [ok-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
 * New World order [ok-cat][ok-parsifall]

Let's talk about these, okay? Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode 05:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added my [ok/nix] notes above. Some of the links are wikilinked in the main text; per WP:MOS, ie WP:ALSO, those should not be duplicated in the See Also section.  Also, per MOS, whatever links we do keep in "see also", we should work towards integrating them into the article.  --Parsifal Hello 05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If a linked article lacks sources, that is no reason not to have the link. If it is a dup, remove. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Parsifal, for pointing out which ones are dupes. That makes the task a lot easier. Jossi, in addition to removing dupes, i would like to remove any "See also" links that do not relate to Bailey, such as Qigong. I hope you take the time to vote too. I would like to wrap the voting up by tomorrow evening and make the changes then. Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode 07:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Prune it as needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll just vote en masse, if I may. I agree with each and every vote of Parsifal's, above. Eaglizard 08:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Same here. Renee 14:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This one is too much for me to wrap my brain around so put me down as backing all the ones that Cat and Parsifal agree on and as non commital on the rest. I will read them all closely if it becomes a contentious matter. I probably know less about it than anyone who edits this article. I am very pleased to see that there is so much co-operative editing going on : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's quite nice, isn't it? :) Eaglizard 09:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Esotericism" The problem with the wiki-link is that article describes esotericism in rather different terms than Bailey; who emphasizes it as a study if the etheric, emotional (astral), mental level, and higher level energies effecting (impacting) individual humans, societies, the planet, solar system.... Kwork 15:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you need to add some material on Bailey's understanding of esotericism to the esotericism article. Itsmejudith 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A definition of Esotericism

 * a definition that fits Alice Bailey's meaning of esotericism, she wrote a large volume called "Treatise on Cosmic Fire (1316pp.):

"I am backed by Power, vast unconquerable, irresistible Power. Suns are behind me, galaxies, whirling fire-mists. Great winds, oceans, and rivers bear me on. That which launched my personality into life's struggle is destiny. No one can resist her. She moves through the swarms of men as the elephant through the reeds of the jungle. It is not I who am coming, it is destiny advancing me, her pawn. I am... I am not a little exclusive I, but the great inclusive, allied I. It is the play of stellar electricity in my soul. It is the central heat of the planet warming my being. Behind me, bearing me on is power. This power energizes me, it is within me. It... roars dull and deep as a blast-furnace. I can hear it in the night-watches, a rumble as of distant thunder. Men, events, and death do not dismay me. Worlds mean nothing to me. Removed from this earth, dead, I shall expect new planets as footholds for my forces. I shall not be disappointed. I look into myself, and if I find in me any goodness, any nobleness, any love, any upleaping ambition to create, I laugh, for these things are fragments of supernatural radium, of everlasting outpouring power. I have taken this power...as my own. I have stripped all the rags and trappings of heathenism from it. I have discovered its shattering stellar beauty. I have found out it is what men call---God." From an essays, "THE CREED OF POWER," Frank Crane Sparklecplenty 16:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but how do you relate the above to this article? Clearly there can be as many definitions of the esoteric as there are writers on the esoteric. I'm sure many parallels can be found, but what edits do you suggest that are not OR? Itsmejudith 17:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Judith, the title alone "Cosmic Fire" implies what is written within. The quote reflects it. And the esoteric writings are the bulk of Alice Bailey's writings.

Yes, there will be many definitions of "esotericism" written here. And since no one here knows the esoteric writings of Alice Bailey, the editors will pick and choose and define Alice Bailey's meaning of "esotericism" in accordance with personal bias. This happened with section on race. The article doesn't include Bailey's definition of race--"a state of consciousness" independent of body type. Sparklecplenty 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkle, while I share the desire to elucidate for the benefit of others, I must again ask that you not do this. Wikipedia is not a forum for the discussion of our ideas about Bailey or esotericism in general. Please, let's not start abusing this talk page like we (and I do mean we) have done in the past, ok? Eaglizard 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bailey-Theosophy references
I'm not sure where we're at with the Theosophy section currently. It reads very well though shorter than before.

Without suggesting that it be expanded or not, I noticed that in the changes three references were lost, and since those have been so hard to find, it would be good to find a way to include them. The sentence that introduced these references previously was just filler, so there's no reason to reinstate it.

Instead, I'll just show the references, and if someone can find a way to work them in, that would be cool. Here they are:



Do those seem useful? ... --Parsifal Hello 09:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The first is obviously an excellent source, from one of the best scholarly publishers. The other two may be less so. Are the authors scholars? Itsmejudith 17:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know; David Frawley has written a lot of books - his Wikipedia page may offer some perspective.  "Ron Rhodes" doesn't have a wiki page; Google lists a lot of books by him, and some describe him as a "Biblical Scholar".  He appears to be a fundamentalist, but not self-published like Cumbey.


 * I'm out of time for doing research on these, but if anyone wants to check further, I think they can be viewed on Google books. --Parsifal Hello 20:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

partial wikibreak; reduced involvement
For various reasons, I need to reduce my involvement with this article. I'll keep it on my watchlist and will help out when I can, especially if I see any significant straying from NPOV, which ultimately is why I got involved in the first place.

It's been good working with you all and getting to know you as editors and as people. While there have certainly been some challenges in getting along at times, I believe that everyone means well and is doing what they feel is right in a sincere way.

Since I originally saw this page, it's much improved, through the collaborative efforts of all of us. Who knows where it will go next; but I hope that whatever people feel about the topic that it be remembered that Wikipedia articles can never be controlled, and that no-one feel bad if it doesn't look they way they want.

For the people who love Alice Bailey, you don't need to worry. I don't believe anyone is trying to "trash" her memory. And if the teachings truly have in them them beautiful inspiring value that you see there, that will shine through and those who are "meant" to see it, will find it.

I'm not leaving Wikipedia, so this is not goodbye. I'm still actively editing several other articles, though I'm reducing my involvement in general, not just on this article. So you'll still see me now and then; if anyone wants to contact me, you are welcome to leave a message on my talk page. I wish you all the best. --Parsifal Hello 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for Wikipedia that you'll be reducing your contributions. I have learned from editing with you Parisfal, thank you. I hope your leaving reduction is not for any health or other difficult reasons, and I hope it will be short-lived. Good luck to you. Eaglizard 02:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Eaglizard I appreciate your note. ... No worries, everything's OK, just too much to do and not enough time for everything.  Good luck to you as well!  --Parsifal Hello 05:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean, Parsifal -- i drift in and out of WP editing depending on my schedule with other tasks. I even sometimes use Wiki editing as a form of keeping busy while procrastinating on other writing projects. I hope to see you around -- especially around here -- so, as the saying goes, "Keep us on your watchlist, y'hear?" cat Catherineyronwode 11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive conflict-of-interest drive-by edit
Though I'm reducing involvement here, I have a little gift of something I noticed that I believe should be out in the open in the talk page record.

The WP:COI/WP:SPA editor who had been trying to control this article for months, and who gave up and left when Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS showed him he could not control the content, returned today to insert a link to his new article on Citizendium.

He made two edits: first, completely replacing the article with his version at this diff, and then self-reverting here. The intervening page, as he wrote it, is here.

For those not familiar with Citizendium, it was started by one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, but tries to fix some of the problems by requiring people to use their real names when editing. It's still in a start-up stage so is not widely read at this time. As an aside, this particular incident shows that they will have a hard time growing their content in an accurate and neutral way, since with so few editors, topics can be written without opposition, by conflict-of-interest authors. It will be interesting to see how they handle that over time.

Since it's still small, it appears no-one there has any knowledge, interest, or time, to help the Bailey article there become neutral or accurate. If any of you who use your real names anyway want to join up and fix the article there, I'm sure Citizendium would appreciate your help. As all of the content on Wikipedia is freely licensed, it can be transferred there, so the work should be quick, other than addressing any edit-warring that may come up.

They have different procedures than Wikipedia, including editorial review boards, so editors who join there can get help if there is a problem with non-neutral conflict-of-interest editing.

As I've already indicated I need to edit less, so I'm not going to join up over there and fix the article. It's probably not important anyway, since so few people read that site so far, and eventually as it grows people will come and address the issues. I guess for now, the main thing it's accomplishing is helping the editor who is doing it to feel like he won his battle. I hope he enjoys the feeling. He really put one over on us, that'll teach us to follow those silly Wikipedia policies. --Parsifal Hello 00:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What were we thinking, participating in a purely altruistic project of planetary scope, anyways? We're such losers! LOL Parsifal. I assume I know who the unnamed editor is, and I'm rather disappointed. At least he reverted himself, though. Eaglizard 02:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ps I see that James made no effort to disguise himself, thankfully, so I'm not so disappointed, after all. Bit annoying, but no damage done (except perhaps to some people's opinions, I would imagine). Eaglizard 03:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be impossible for him to disguise that edit anyway, since the Citizendium article that he linked to requires the use of real names.
 * Regarding his self-reverting, that's why I used the term "passive-aggressive" in the heading of this section; someone who didn't look at the history of the page would not even notice that the edit had been done. Maybe he did it to insert the link to his new article, in a way that would be hidden.  Maybe he hopes it will help the Google ranking, but in that case he's not aware that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags. It doesn't really matter.  My purpose in pointing it out was simply to allow that which was hidden to be brought out in the open.  --Parsifal Hello 03:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Parsifal.


 * All right, then. Jamesd1 is out of the closet. He describes himself thus on his user profile page at Citizendium:


 * User:James Davis


 * BA in Human Communication with emphasis in semantics. AA Psychology


 * US Navy training in electronics (ancient history; no current expertise in the field)


 * X-Technical writer with emphasis in documentation of computer programs.


 * Interests: Semantics, particularly General Semantics; cutting edge science, parapsychology, poetry, digital art and the tools for its creation, particularly 3D art (Carrara 5 Pro, Zbrush, Poser); metaphysics (i..e, "New Age" metaphysics--I have life time of reading in areas such as Theosophy, Rudolf Steiner, Eastern Thought, the works of Alice A. Bailey, Agni Yoga (Helen Roerich & Nicholas Roerich), Psychosynthesis, and allied schools)


 * Author of: Quick Guide to Good Writing; and a few books on astrology including one on statistical research in the field.


 * Author of a computer program Self Search, a personality inventory for ray assessment (Founded on the transpersonal psychology of Alice A. Bailey and related works)


 * Currently working as a semi-retired antiquarian bookseller


 * I write mystical poetry and metaphysical essays under the heading of "Transpersonal Semantics"


 * Now, assuming that this Citizendium bio is a factual representation of Jamesd1 -- then he is the same James Davis who wrote this astrology article at Phillip Lindsay's site  -- and, just as Kwork (Malcolm Schosha) told us months ago, he is a business associate of Phillip Lindsay. Kwork was right, and some folks here definitely owe Kwork an apology. A little digging will show everyone what Kwork was on to:


 * A google seach on the combined names < "James Davis" "Phillip Lindsay" > is here ) and, most tellingly, that search result turns up a publisher's back-cover blurb written by James Davis to promote a book by Phillip Lindsay that is for sale at amazon, here: -- and you may note that the book that James Davis was blurbing for Phillip Lindsay's publisher is called "Soul Cycles of the Seven Rays: Esoteric Astrology and Initiation" -- that is, it is a book based on Alice Bailey's "Seven Rays" teachings. In other words, Phillip Lindsay and James Davis have commercial interests in keeping Alice Bailey's name "clean and green".


 * Now, for newcomers to editing here, Phillip Lindsay is the man who, in his own Yahoo group, under his own name, called for people to come to WP to "fix" the WP Aice Bailey entry by ridding it of its then very small mention of Bailey's antisemitism. More tellingly, Lindsay's request for meatpuppetry came in response to an antisemitic posting in the Yahoo group in which it was claimed that prsent day Jews are "remnants of the Third Root Race" who should not be around anymore, and so forth. An archived discussion on that topic, with direct quotes from the Yahoo forum posts, is here.


 * James Davis' entry into Wikipedia was not only a form of meatpuppetry, it was an example of Astroturfing, that is, creating a false impression of a "grassroots" campaign in order to promote a socio-political agenda, in this case, to attempt to show widespread endorsement of the downplaying of mentions that Alice Bailey was antisemitic. (As the Wiki article on Astroturfing so coyly and self-referentially notes, "The online volunteer-edited encyclopedia Wikipedia has also become a tool for astroturfing. The creation of Wikiscanner, for example, has revealed attempts at manipulating Wikipedia's content by a large number of business, government, and special interest groups.")


 * This would all be very funny if it were just about the publishing money or a Wikipedia Conflict of Interest -- an attempt to ensure Alice Bailey's good reputation so that Davis and Lindsay could reap a pecuniary harvest by writing astrology books based on her teachings -- but there is a dark side to those teachings, and it has rubbed off on Davis and Lindsay. Davis is the one who accused Wiki editors who wished to include mention of Alice Bailey's antisemitism of being members of the terrorist Jewish Defense League and referred to them as the "pro-Jewish faction". Lindsay is the author of another Bailey-inspired book on astrology, which bears the highly suggestive title "The Destiny of the Races and Nations: Astrological and Ray Cycles in History" for sale at amazon here . -- and yes, for the morbidly curious, the publisher's blurb tells us that this book covers "themes in history such as the evolution of the Jews" -- which has a rather sinister sound to it, given what we know about Lindsay from his own web site, where he posted this: "I ask myself, 'What is the bottom line?' What is the essence of what D.K. is saying (including many strong criticisms [of Jews and Judaism] not quoted above). I think it is this. He is saying that orthodox Judaism is wrong and an obstruction to spiritual evolution of the Jews and to all humanity alike."(Full text here: .)


 * So, to make a long story short, today's "drive-by", as Parsifal so aptly called it, is more than just another bizarre episode in the ongoing soap opera around these parts. It is a self-revelation by James Davis that puts an end to a deceitful attempt to co-opt Wikipedia's open editing policy.


 * It's been hinky and ugly, and i am glad to have it out in the open at last.


 * cat Catherineyronwode 11:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Catherine. This gives some of Phillip Lindsay's thinking on the Jews on the context of the current situation of Israel. As is typical with antisemites, Lindsay uses a literal reading of selected Biblical passages to prove that Jew are violent, mean, greedy, etc. Strange that when reading the Bhagavad Gita or other Indian sacred texts, he has no difficulty understanding that the descriptions of war is symbolic of interior spiritual struggles, and the seeking of wealth and treasure is symbolic of striving for spiritual wealth. Kwork 12:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cat, not sure why your deleted my post in this section here.


 * I understand that you and others have very strong opinions about James and pro-Bailey people, but all humans deserve respect as I said in the deleted post -- even those you disagree with or don't like. But, as I write this, I realize that this is my POV and maybe others don't hold that value (i.e., maybe it's more important for some to be right (their version of right) than respectful or kind), but I would appreciate it if this post stays on the page.  Renee 11:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not delete your post knowingly. I think it was caused by an editing conflict -- i wrote, realized that i was not logged in, wanted to post, grabbed my text, logged in, dumped my text, and overwrote yours by mistake. I have reinserted it below. Sorry for the error! catherine Catherineyronwode 11:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he made a posting error, realized it, and made it right. (I looked at the Citizendium site and the syntax looks just like Wiki.)


 * We just had an incident above where someone else had an inadvertant posting and good faith was assumed.


 * James was no more COI than others on this page who've studied Bailey, interviewed contemporaries and turned against her.


 * Let's have the decency to respect all on this page. Renee 10:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are very charitable, Renee. To me, COI implies pecuniary interest. Others do not seem to have that going on. cat Catherineyronwode 11:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for re-posting it. Much appreciated.  Renee 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Kindness is very important. So let us put this all behind us ASAP and do it as a kindness to the friends of James Davis who edit this article. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 12:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Danny's comment heartily seconded. Although conflict of interest may be problematic in Wikipedia I'm sure that an article talk page is not the correct place to air it in detail. We need to focus clearly on discussing the content of the article. Itsmejudith 17:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Albion moonlight and Itsmejudith, you seem to think that rebuke (tokhehah) is contrary to kindness (chessed). In fact they are compatible. I do not think that Catherine is being mean by rebuking Jamesd1, but speaking truth. Saying the things that need to be said after such a long and difficult argument can not be avoided. Not to say the things that need to be said at this moment is contrary to both reason and virtue. Kwork 18:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Djwal Khul
The Tibetan's Wikipeida article may be of interest to some of the editors here. --Parsifal Hello 05:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Solar Temple
Another quick note... the above page is linked in the intro of the Bailey article; if anyone hasn't read the above, they might want to take a look. There's some intense stuff in that article, scroll down the page... Just thought you'd want to know, so you can decide how you want to handle the link. --Parsifal Hello 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting point, Parsifal. That article definitely needs work on the lead; you certainly shouldn't have to read 2/3 of an article to realize that 40 or 50 of the group's members have committed dramatic suicide in a number of different incidents! On the other hand, the cite in our article makes clear the connection: they used the Invocation, plus they believed they were in contact with Ascended Masters from Sirius. (BTW, I urge ppl to read the first few pages of the cited source on this subject here for an excellent example of NPOV handling of Bailey.)


 * In any case, does the reference to this and the UFO group really belong in the lead of the article? cat, I'd like your editor's-hat opinion in particular. I think it gives it undue weight. Belongs in the Influences section though, no doubt about that. Eaglizard 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who added those to the lead, and I'm not able to take the time to review further right now.


 * Sorry to differ about how the cited source from CESNUR handles Bailey - it does not seem NPOV; it's not a full treatment and she's not their topic. They discuss her only in relation to the doctrines of the Order of the Solar Temple, so they leave out all her stuff that's not about that organization. Also they put her in a section headed "Templars" that starts out by discussing Theosophy and skips quickly on to Bailey without going back to the Templars.  So even if the information it includes may be correct (that, I don't know), the paper itself does not seem well-written.  --Parsifal Hello 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See Also section fixed per consensus
I just re-did the See also section per the concensus we achieved on Sunday. Thanks for everyone's help. cat Catherineyronwode 11:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Renee 11:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Accidental clone; not to worry
I just want to put all your minds at rest about the sudden appearance of my name in a "edit" on your article. As you perhaps know, there are several smaller Wiki type sites on the net that use the same web software codes and interface as Wikipedia itself. And, as you all know, I think the current Wikipedia version of AAB's writings are off track and not a representative picture of her thought. Consequently, I was using another experimental Wiki interface to develop my own version. These smaller Wiki type sites mostly have the same look and feel as the big Wikipedia, and in fact are hard to tell apart at first glance. I had quickly clicked on what I thought was my alternate Wiki, and copied a newer version of my text over the existing one. But instead of the intended link, I had arrived at an old link stored in my browser history which was in fact the main Wikipedia. So I accidentally overwrote your project with my own version. My change lasted less than a minute as I saw my error and immediately reverted my edit. My accidental edit was and is not intended for Wikipedia at all; just ignore it. James 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jamesd1. Strange things seem to be happening here this week. (I just now tried to find the lyrics to the Red Buttons song Strange Things are Happening, but could not find it. Under copyright, I guess.)


 * Be well. Kwork 15:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noting this, James. Eaglizard 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Theosophy (history of philosophy)
Speaking of other articles, what's up with that one? I saw that "Theosophy" was linked twice in the lead, and assumed it was a redundant wikilink, but no! It's two separate articles, that one and, ofc, Theosophy. Should both these articles really exist? The first seems like it should merge into the main Theosophy article, but I don't know much about it, really. In any case, I removed the less-relevant link. On a related note, I left in the two links to Christian and Christianity, even though it seems redundant to me. It is two different articles. :/ Eaglizard 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I added "theosophy" and the link, but it was in a different context then. There was a sentence calling the Bailey teaching a "philosophy", but she is not recognized as a philosopher, so I changed that to "theosophy". Since the context is now changed, I think your change to "Theosophy" good. Kwork 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility and NPA violations by 74.53.36.132
My goodness, ya'll are hardcore aren't you? Only two days since I was here and the drama rivals Napoleon's court. What a cast of characters.

Jossi, itsmejudith, and Reneeholle, the only balanced editors here, please edit more. 74.53.36.132 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks 74. Please choose a section of the article and focus on that.  I sense a shift in civility in the last few days so please edit away.  You might be surprised.  Renee 21:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Renee's note that there has been a shift in civility here.


 * Regarding the comment above from : That is outright insulting, and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.  Here we have a person who does not reveal whether or not they have a user id or have previously been involved in this discussion, and spews insults and demands on the talk page, on other editor's pages and in edit summaries.


 * Here are some of the comments from this IP so far in addition to the insults above:
 * edit summary that went with the above comment: "(ya'll are crazier than a turnip in a strawberry field)"
 * edit summary from this IP a couple days ago: "(two-faced editors)"
 * a comment on Renee's page asking her to "focus on the Jewish bias". 
 * a comment on Jossi's talk page about the: "insincere arrogance of this group".


 * So, at very least, the IP's words should be taken with a bit more than one grain of salt.


 * Jossi, if you are reading this, I hope you will agree that this IP is either a sockpuppet or a new disruptive SPA and either issue the appropriate warning or advise the good faith editors here on how to do so.


 * For everyone, I recommend ignoring the comments from this IP until/unless they start contributing in some collaborative way and stop issuing antagonistic and inflammatory inuslts. --Parsifal Hello 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I do think s/he's right, that we all are "crazier than a turnip in a strawberry field."  Renee 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps 74.53.36.132 has the necessary qualifications to write an article on the psychological illnesses of turnips. It is one problem that Bailey, for some reason, never discussed. Kwork 16:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued pruning of quotations
A while ago people were concerned with the overabundance of quotations in the article (there was even a quotefarm template).

I think the only remaining bias in the article is the extensive use of quotations from the controversial sections, "On the Negro Race" on down. Virtually all of the quotations in the less controversial writings areas have been excised. If it's fair to excise quotations from one part of the writings, this standard should be applied to all sections of the writings. Otherwise, it looks like you're just trying to sensationalize the article with selected quotations.

I understand you love these quotes because they are outrageous, but again, we need to offer a fair and balanced presentation that is even across all sections.

Renee 23:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do understand your concern about quotes being used to such a great extent in the racial, national, and religious sections. I do not concur that i "love these quotes because they are outrageous" -- rather, i wish to see them included because they present a "fair and balanced" view of Bailey's and D.K.'s teachings on the subjects of races, nations, and religions.


 * About two months ago, we had only three paragraphs that criticized Bailey (Schnirelman, Sjoo, Gershom) and you agitated continually for the removal or abridgement of each of those paragraphs.


 * The use of Bailey's own quotes as a way of clarifying the issues was then proposed and utlized. Now you want the Bailey quotes reduced.


 * Well, in my opinion, the topics themselves are so controversial that i think using quotes from critics plus quotes from Bailey (including her own conflictd pro-and-con quotes) is the fairest way to represent her teachings.


 * It is one thing to quote Sjoo saying that Bailey was racist, but quite another for the reader to see Bailey, in her own words, calling people of African descent a "child race."


 * The result is a clear and demonstrable text. It shows the reader what she said and it tells the reader what other people have said about what she said.


 * I think it's good just the way it is.


 * cat Catherineyronwode 00:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But if these stay in, we should reinsert some of Bailey's quotations in the sections above these topics, so there is a parallel and even presentation of the work.


 * To quote, "i think using quotes from critics plus quotes from Bailey (including her own conflicted pro-and-con quotes) is the fairest way to represent her teachings."


 * I'm just asking for fairness across all sections -- good and bad.


 * Renee 00:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. Clarification: The complaint against Sjoo and Gershom was  not against what they said, but about the quality of the quotation.  Gershom in particular has no place in this article -- it is a self-published post on his personal website.  Once I found out Shnirelman was a Hebrew U source I supported, as a look through the diffs will tell you.  I keep saying this and you keep trying to make it personal (i.e., that I personally don't want anything negative, which is not true) when the real focus is whether or not a source -- regardless of what it says -- is reliable and valid.


 * Sigh. Gershom is a published author who wrote an essay on his web site. This is becoming quite common now, as many authors use their web sites for the publication of shorter works that do not merit full book treatment, out-of-print works, or works-in-progress. I myself have an enormous web site, filled with essays and articles that i have written. Some were written for the web, some are reprints of old magazine articles that have fallen out of print (and for which i hold the copyrights), and some are glimpses of my works-in-progress that will ventually appear in print book form. Wikipedian editors routinely cite web pages of mine as sources, and rightly so, as i am already a print-published author on those topics. Gershom is in the same position as me. Sorry we don't agree, but i think his material is valid for use, since he had previously established himself as an author in the fields of reincarnation and Judaism, and it was reincarnation of the Jews with which both he and Bailey were dealing when he wrote the web essay that criticized her analysis of why so many Jews were killed in Germany during WWII. cat Catherineyronwode 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. What about the point, "i think using quotes from critics plus quotes from Bailey (including her own conflicted pro-and-con quotes) is the fairest way to represent her teachings."


 * To make myself clear, I think it's okay to have the quotations in the critics section as long as the other sections are treated the same. To do otherwise reflects the POV of editors. There should be a parallel and even presentation of the writings.


 * With respect to you and your views, Renee 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The direct quotes are used in the criticisms section exactly to avoid POV. Kwork 19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record
I do not think that Cat was being mean, Not at all, I just think that we should put that nasty business behind expeditiously I made this as a response to my reading of Renee's message. It seemed like a plea for empathy. I am glad Cat exposed James in the manner that she did. I am just hoping that we can maintain the peace on this article. : Danny Weintraub Albion moonlight 00:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 00:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Organized the "Influence" section with sub-topics
Tonight i went through the "Influence" section and sorted its components into topical sub-sections. In doing this, i found two "orphan" paragraphs that had nothing at all to do with Bailey's influence. They were, in fact, critical comments -- but they did not belong under any of the extant biographical or Teachings sub-heads. I commented them out and placed them (and another paragrah, previously commented-out by Parsifal) directly under the "Influences heading," where they can sit in cold storage until someone figures out what to do with them.

I also groomed the article again for more stray tense-changes -- from past tense to present and back in the middle of a paragraph. Out-of-place present tense sentences crop up almost weekly. I'd just like to remind folks that the style we are using here is past tense all the way.

I hope this meets with everyone's approval.

cat Catherineyronwode 04:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I had been using present tense to describe a situation existing "within" her teachings, since this still exits as such. For instance, "Her vision includes yada yada", because her vision does still include whatever, "her writings feature blah blah blah" because they still do. All other cases I've used past. I have no preference at this point. If you've taken the time to change to uniform past tense, that's fine with me. Eaglizard 07:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I go with past tense to save future editors the trouble of having to rewrite. I also happen to hate that breathless "You are There!" style of writing in which everything is always in the present tense ("In 1890, Bob moves West to become a cowboy. By 1892, his mother has died back in Maine, and he is now an orphan.") And yes, wikipedia is filled with that "coninuous present tense" junk, and whenever you see it, you ought to stop and ask yourself if the text has been plagiarized from another web site, because it is not a standard encyclopedia writing style. cat Catherineyronwode 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW cat, the See also looks so much better now. Eaglizard 16:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A.R. Orage, again
Although this does not directly apply to the article, it seems that A.R. Orage was not only the source for Alice Bailey's use of the term "New Age", but probably for Roberto Assagioli's use of "Psychosynyhesis" as well.

"Beginning in 1912, The New Age devoted increasing attention to psychoanalysis and at Orage's initiative, a 'psychosynthesis' group was formed which included Havelock Ellis, David Eder, James Young, Maurice Nicoll, J.A.M. Alcock, and Rowland Kenney. This group's regular meetings, at least at the beginning, were sometimes attended by Mitrinovic. This was a rather mixed group of men who were genuinely interested in psychoanalysis and leaned, at the same time, toward the occult."

That is from D. Tryphonopoulos, The Celestial Tradition, p. 81. It gives interesting context. I think all, or almost all, the members were involved in socialism. Kwork 13:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is useful information. Note too that although Orage became the editor of The New Age magazine in 1907, it had been continually in publication sinc 1894, 13 years earlier. So Bailey may have picked the term uup from the name of the magazine before Orage's editorship. In either case, by no means should Alice Bailey be credited with the origination or early popularization of this term. See The New Age magazine article at Wikipedia for further details. cat Catherineyronwode 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The term was certainly in the zeitgeist well before she wrote anything. However, she's probably the first to put the phrase into such a firmly esoteric and occult context. In my opinion (and other's), this makes her pretty much the founder of the New Age movement as we have it today. Eaglizard 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, i'd like to thank you for affording us a place to examine the issue, especially as it relates to claims made on the Bailey page (by earlier editors and by Melton (in the Influence section).

First, The New Age magazine debuted in England when Bailey was a 14 year old child in England. So the phrase was not merely in the "zeitgeist" -- there was an actual magazine with that name on the newsstands regularly, from the time Bailey was 14. When A. R. Orage took over editorial control, in 1907, the magazine itself was 13 years old and Bailey was 27 -- which means thatThe New Age magazine had been in existence for more almost half of her life. When A. R. Orage sold The New Age magazine in 1922, Bailey was 42 years old and the magazine had been in existence for 28 years, or 2/3 of Bailey's life.

Second, this was not a minor magazine. It included writers like H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Ezra Pound, Hillaire Belloc, and G. K. Chesterton.

Third, let us look at one of those writers, H. G. Wells. Take a trip on over to the page on The New World Order and you will see a very interesting coincidence (if you wish to call it that): Two authors are cited on that page for writing books on a "benevolent" (as opposed to frightening) coming "New World Order," using the same terminology and ideas -- H. G. Wells and Alice Bailey. So now we have two "hits", as it were, on Bailey and that magazine -- she co-opted the term "The New Age" from a magazine which published the works of H. G. Wells, who wrote about the "New World Order" before she did.

I hope we at least agree that claim usually advanced, that Bailey was "the earliest" or "one of the earliest" to use the term "The New Age", is unsupportable.

I certainly agree with you that Bailey used the term "The New Age" in an esoteric way -- but was she, as you say, "probably the first to put the phrase into such a firmly esoteric and occult context"? I don't think so. The editor of the magazine from 1907 through 1922 was also a mystic, and the magazine published mystically-oriented material under his editorship.

Now, i do believe that her works were seminal doctrines within part of (if not all of) the New Age Movement -- and i am not challanging that claim. But i think it is wrong to claim (as Melton did, and as this article did until i changed it), that she was "one of the earliest to use the term 'New Age.'" She may be among the earliest to use this term with whom Americans born after 1940 are familiar -- but the world, and this encyclopedia, were not created simply to propagate the myopic ideas of Anericans born after 1940.

I took the claim that Bailey was "among the earliest" to use the term out the lead section, and i feel stronly enough about the issue that i also think some sort of refutation or side-note ought to be placed next to Melton's erroneous claim as well.

(On the subject of Melton -- i have found him to be wrong more often than i expect from a good scholar, and i rarely use him as an authority on any occult topic. See the article on tasseography for a glaring example of his ill-informed "expertise" -- and note that i am the editor who politiely pointed out that he was dead wrong on most of what he claimed while leaving his quote in the article, since my contribution was just a drive-by and i didn't want to take on a full rewrite for the article as i have my own aricle to write on the subject of tasseography at my own site.)

I hope that you understand why i felt justified in changing the lead of the article in such a radical way. The claim -- even supported by unreliable Melton -- is simply illogical, given the relative ages and shared mystical inerests of the parties involved.

cat Catherineyronwode 08:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing that she did not originate the term, nor was "among the first" to use it (that was my phrasing, btw). That's not being questioned here. All I'm saying is that it's fair to call her the "founder of the New Age movement", as does Schnirelman, for instance. Eaglizard 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey may have achieved many things. But "popularity" is not a word that is ever associated with her. How could someone that no one has ever heard of have popularized anything? If I were to go out on the street and ask a some people if they know who Spinoza is, a few people would know that he was a philosopher - even though virtually no one reads him. If I were to ask the same people if they know who Alice Bailey is, I would just get blank looks. No one has heard of her, or knows a thing about her. She is as obscure a writer as you could possibly find. Given that, just how could she have popularized the term "New Age." Kwork 14:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Popularise" may not be the right word, but somehow the phrase has survived from the early twentieth century to be widely recognisable today. Bailey seems to have been a link in that chain of causation. It all depends what the sources say and if Eaglizard can summarise Shnirelman accurately, then that is more important than our estimations as mere WP editors. Itsmejudith 14:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, if you think I am wrong, just put it back in the article. The statement as it read, however, give the impression that she is well known and influential. (The point remains that this overlong argument is over an extremely obscure writer, who is little read - and less understood - even by those who claim to be followers.) Kwork 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you or Eaglizard or someone can word it better than me. Itsmejudith 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I agree completely with Kwork's edit; it's pure OR to say she "popularized" or much less "invented" the term. I have edited the lead to reflect a cited, secondary view. I hope no one will quibble with the source I have quoted using the words "founder of". Eaglizard 21:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

claims of influence
The Introduction has this sentence:

"Her philosophy and her writings are still applied by the groups and organizations she founded, such as the Arcane School, the New Group of World Servers, and the Full Moon Meditation Groups that follow her teachings,[5] [6] and have also been utilized by groups with which she was never directly involved, such as the Order of the Solar Temple,[7] the Human Potential Movement,[8] and the UFO contactee organization Understanding, Inc..[9]"

The problem is that, while the Arcane School is an actual group, the New Group of World Servers is a concept, and full moon meditation is a practice. I would suggest removing "New Group of World Servers" and "Full Moon Meditation Groups", and replacing them with actual groups; such as (for example) The School for Esoteric Studies, and Arcana Workshops. If there is no objection I will make the change. Kwork 12:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I object.


 * First, I would not like us to lose the wiki-link to the New Group of World Servers article. You may call this a "concept" -- but the article calls these groups of people who recognize themselves as members.


 * Second, although full moon meditation is indeed a practice, the Full Moon Meditation Groups are actual groups (Robert S. Ellwood visited one!) and they should stay. The Full Moon Meditation Groups are referenced later in the material from Ellwood, and without this introductory explanation, their connection to Alice Bailey would be lost.


 * I would prefer that you rewite the material so as to include School for Esoteric Studies and the Arcana Workshops, but also retain both the New World Servers and Full Moon Meditation Groups.


 * cat Catherineyronwode 13:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Forget I said it. Kwork 13:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, wait, please... instead of forgetting it, may i add the School for Esoteric Studies and the Arcana Workshops, and make external links to them, as you provided? cat Catherineyronwode 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There was previously a bunch of such links, some of which I removed myself. The article is not for the purpose of promoting the various groups. Comes close to being spam. Kwork 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed citation
Kwork, why did you change the citation on that sentence you moved? The source I cited, Schnirleman, says "Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement)", so I felt safe paraphrasing that as "founder of the New Age movement" &mdash; a pretty accurate gloss, I'm sure. But I don't recognize the source you changed the citation to; does that source also say AAB was "the founder of the New Age movement"? Please clarify that, thanks. Eaglizard 19:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored what was there earlier. If there is a problem with it, certainly change it. I took out the Schnirleman because the criticism of Bailey it contains seems unnecessary in the introduction. Since there are a number of published sources, the statement is allowable... even if I think it is not correct. Kwork 22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

need direct quotes for scurrilous quotes about I Am
I had to put a fact-tag in the new section in which it is claimed that Bailey said a lot of mean things about the Guy Ballard I Am Activity. The only portion in quotes was "cheap comedy" -- so if she really said all the rest (and i can well believe that she did), then please set the quote marks in the proper places and get the refs adjusted accordingly. Thanks. a lot! cat Catherineyronwode 08:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sparkleplenty and Jamesd1 posting from same IP address.
Thank you Danny (Albion moonlight) for pointing me to the discussion on admin Jpgordon's talk page regarding the finding that Jamesd1 and Sparkleplenty have been posting from the same IP block within minutes of one another. The place to read about this is here. They have also posted AS once another. Kwork pointed out a post where the username Sparkleplenty was attached to a post signed James, and that is here:

I feel that this incident is pretty ugly -- and it is even uglier when seen in the context of the other deceits recently discovered about James' Conflict of Interest issues -- which strongly affected the edits he made to the Bailey page (many of which we are still living with).

Furthermore, reading Sparkleplenty's response to Jpgordon, stating that she is James' wife, i got the impression that if that is the case, then she knew exactly what she was doing, knew it was dishonest, and is now thumbing her nose at the wikipedia system.

For the record, i am quoting something i previously wrote on Jpgordon's talk page about this incident, so that folks will know where i am coming from: "I am very sentsitive to the issue, as both my husband and i edit at Wikipedia -- but due to the potential for confusion, we have always been totally outfront about our relationsip as spouses -- see my user page here: and his user page here:  -- and we have never concealed our marriage as Sparkleplenty and James did."

I am asking for consensus. Do any of you who edit here regularly think formal complaint should be made? I am generally loathe to file reports, having seen the technique used as a form of punishment against "enemy editors" -- but this incident, coupled with the earlier incident (documented here: ) has me closer to trying to use the wiki system to lodge a complaint than i ever have been before.

I also noticed more edits from Sparkleplenty when i read the page tonight. In my opinion, they are not good. They do not follow our usual citebook format and they serve no purpose beyond snowing the reader under with extensive quote-farmed text that obscures the topic. I am going to comment out those edits, pending their revision into standard format that matches the rest of the article -- a task i will leave for someone else, because, frankly, i am tired of tryin to fix up slap-dash work like that.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 04:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to wait and see what Jp gordon has to say, He said he would be responding on this talk page and that he was waiting for you to make this post. I think that Jossi's crack down forces our hand. We are being forced to walk eggs in the name of civilility and she is still making false accusations against us, ad nauseum This is disruption plain and simple. But I am waiting until we hear from JP Gordon. : Danny : Albion moonlight 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am okay with Jossi's "crackdown" in favour of civility, if it were applied fairly, but i do agree with you that Sparkleplenty has been allowed unusually free range to make uncited and disruptive accusations against her fellow editors. Time will tell where this goes next. cat Catherineyronwode 05:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's always better if we can avoid the formal dispute resolution system whenever possible. Because the conflict-of-interest issues are so serious for James and Sparklecplenty, we can easily assume good faith regarding the "puppetry" issue; it doesn't matter whether they were inadvertently or deliberately circumventing Wikipedia's policies in this regard. These editors are openly adherents, followers, devotees, or whatever the appropriate term is for Alice Bailey disciples/students/whatever (no disrespect intended, I just don't know what they'd prefer to call themselves.) They have a commercial interest as well, promoting a Alice Bailey-based shareware product. Essentially, the burden is on them to demonstrate that despite their conflict of interest, they can edit this article with a neutral point of view. I don't have any problem with them both editing the article, as long as they're up front about their relationship, and as long as they understand that they will treated as a single editor when it comes to establishing consensus. I think I can safely say that were formal action to be undertaken, the result would be at a minimum banning Sparklecplenty and Jamesd1 from editing this article. I'd be open to suggestions short of that, especially ones that minimize drama and make it easier to focus on improving our encyclopedia. The principles in Requests for arbitration/COFS are quite relevant here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, there are two problems that stand out for me at this point, and both are contained in Sparkleplenty's last reply on tour talk page.

1. The explanation given does not seem to fit the situation. If there were two users on the same IP how could messages from both have been "repeatedly edited within moments of each other on the same IPs", as you have describe it. Perhaps the problem is that I understand so little about computers, but it seems to me "within moments" implies one person who composed two massages, and then pasted them in, with an interval only to switch user names.

2. The second problem is that Sparkleplenty continues saying that I have accused other editors of antisemitism. That is incorrect, it is something I have not done, and I have offered to apologize if any example of that that is shown to me. But there has been no example produced, just continuing accusations of the same.

These two points lead me to make two conclusions

1. Jamesd1/Sparkleplenty believes that everything that he has done is justified to achieve an article as he wants it to be.

2. That he sees me, and other editors who have opposed him as the real problem, and there is the implication that I am not qualified to edit the article.

I have no difficulty with editors who have views differing from, or opposed to my own views; and, in fact, I consider a diversity of views to be a good thing. What bothers me are editors who will resort to devious means to achieve their goals. I see no indication that Jamesd1/Sparkleplenty has give up such means, nor is he willing to admit having done anything wrong. Under these circumstances, as things stand now, I think that Jamesd1/Sparkleplenty should be barred from editing this article. Kwork 14:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would encourage involved editors to carefully read JP's comment above. Sparkleplenty and Jamesd1 have been strongly cautioned and the burden will be on them to demonstrate their ability to edit this article within the constrains of our content policies, and their comments will be considered to be one when discussing consensus. Despite this, my cautioning to other editors as it pertains to civility and maintaining an environment conducive to editing still stands. The best way forward may be to put all this behind and continue collaborating in creating an excellent article that all of you can be proud of. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I did read Jpgordon's comments above.


 * The problem, as I see it, is that Jamesd1/Sparkleplenty has said everything is the fault of the other editors, and that he has done nothing wrong. I just do not see how that is a basis for improving much.


 * In any case, as I explained previously, I do not see civility as a particularly big problem in the editing of this article; because, when the editor's beliefs are invested in the subject, some friction is no surprise, and it seems no big deal if someone gets a little excited on occasion and says something excessive. I guess it is something that does not bother me as much as it bothers you. But I do hope that all editors will play by basic Wikipedia rules.


 * My particular concern over Jamesd1/Sparkleplenty saying, again and again, that other editors have called him is antisemitic is not a civility issue. I see it, rather, as an ad hominem attempt to discredit the work other editors by presenting them as people who intentionally distort the truth. Kwork 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That was great news.
Those 2 editor have been declared to have a conflict of interest by an arbitrator. And that means 2) Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles.   Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)  : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 09:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Practical consequences
I want to thank Jpgordon for clarifying his administrative opinion on this issue. As it stands, Jamesd1 has ostensibly left Wikipedia, and Sparkleplenty has been outed as both a sometime pseudonym and a fulltime spouse of Jamesd1, so i think we are over the worst of this issue. Both parties have been warned to stop their deceptive practices, and instituting formal proceedings against them can wait until we see whether this "strong warning" and outing takes effect.

As to the matter of Sparkleplenty's repeated and unsubstantiatd charges against other editors, i am willing to let those sit to one side for the time being as well. Sparkleplenty has been asked repeatedly -- and has failed repeatedly -- to cite examples of the behaviour of which we have been accused by her. All current editors on the article, including those not accused, are aware of the charges and of the lack of proofs. All of the affected editors (those whose names she specifically mentioned) have expressed their opinions that the accusations, especially when repeatd so frequently without proof, are disruptive. Some of the affected editors say that to the best of their recollection they have not acted as charged, but, in order to cover all bases, they have offered to apologize if proof that they behaved in this manner were to be brought forth -- and still no proofs have been given. Sparkleplenty knows we object to these repeated and disruptive accusations, and she must now be aware that at least two admins (Jpgordon and jossi) and perhaps a third admin (AnonEMouse) have heard our objections to her unsupported and uncited ad hominem attacks on us. So that can be set aside for now, i believe, and we will watch and see what happens next.

Next, getting back to the article itself. Last night i commented out some of Sparkleplenty's "quote farm" material, based purely what i consider "good writing standards". A day previous to that i had placed a fact-cite tag on the unsuported and un-quote-marked portion of her claims about what Alice Bailey had written about Guy Ballard and the I Am Activity. Today, basing my rationale on the fact that Sparkleplenty and James have a COI which would impel them to downgrade and ridicule the I Am Activity as a rival religious organization that was based on Bailey's works, i am going to delete the un-quote-marked portion of the paragraph that Sparkleplenty attributed to Bailey. I will leave the portion that was in quotes for which Sparkleplenty supplied a Bailey citation. In short, this: "While Bailey made no references to UFOs, she described the I Am movement as a misinterpretation, a travesty, a prostitution of facts, [citation needed] and a 'cheap comedy.' [152]" will now become this: "While Bailey made no direct references to UFOs in her books, she did describe the I Am Activity as a 'cheap comedy.' [152]"

I want to thank Parsifal, by the way, for having alerted us all to the fact that some of the cites made to quotes or conclusions presented in this article in the past have been spurious (that is, he found that the links, when followed, did not lead to anything that mentioned Bailey) -- and as a consequence of this discovery, i think it is a good idea for anyone working on the article to double check the citations in any section under their review.

Maybe things can get back to normal now. In a way this edit war has been kind of fun because i have gotten to know some great folks through the process of struggle here -- but it is also taking a lot of my time as i have been checking in twice a day to follow the "breaking news" aspct of the editing process. So here's a toast, as i raise my morning cofee in festive and celebratory mood: To more editing with less drama!

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 18:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To more editing with less drama! ... I would definitively toast to that. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * cat, that's a good edit, unless Sparkle (or someone) supplies the referenced text. Even so, that was too many adjectives. Eaglizard 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

response to Jpgordon accusations
I am a long time student and I am married to the long time student of the Alice Bailey literature (24 vols., 30 years to write and takes a lifetime to begin to understand it). We came here to help write an article on Alice Bailey, because we were the only people here that knew much about it. Now I am the only person here that knows the subject. James withdrew from this article because he isn't interested in writing for Wikipedia anymore because he considers it a fatality flawed system that breaks down for controversial subjects. You can't ban James because he is gone.

It should be clear that James and I have totally different writings styles, and it's obvious. I have mentioned that I am not a strong writer. I can write a very good paragraph, but it often takes me an hour to do it.

Yes, James put a external link to his article on the Seven Rays, a long time ago. The reason was that it had good information on the Seven Rays. The link was only there for a short time. Someone brought it to his attention, and he saw that it could be seen as a conflict of interest, so he removed it. He never made any money on the link and in fact lost thousands of dollars of his time writing on the article, most his writing was done after the link was gone.

The accusations about puppetry, multiple accounts, commercial conflicts of interest, personal attacks and criticism all of it just a smoke screen from what is really going on. I noticed that this latest attack had to be dug up from something that happened months ago. This should tell you something. Sparklecplenty 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a link to when Jamesd1 linked the article to his entire site. There are two links he added. The second of the two linked to the entire site, including his book store. Kwork 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly is not true that you were the only people who knew much about AAB editing here, nor should you presume such a wild statement. What, then, Sparkle, is, IYO, going on? SqueakBox 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Squeakbox,

Not since I have been here has there been anyone else who has much knowledge of the article. One of the editors has stated he was student of Roberto Assagioli, who was closely allied with Alice Bailey. Apart from that individual, everyone else has admitted or displayed their lack of knowledge on the subject. One editor stated that the article just sat there for a long time, and seemed pleased that James was here to move it along. I have stated my concerns on AnonEmouse's page, and my willingness to give examples. Thanks. Sparklecplenty 23:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparklecplenty, just what do you think makes your knowledge of the Bailey teaching so special? My own impression is of someone who has read the books without understanding the spirit, and does not know how to apply it in life. In other words, someone who has not yet found the beginning of the Path.


 * "...with increased esoteric teaching comes increased exoteric responsibility. Let each student with clarity therefore take stock of himself, remembering that understanding comes through application of the measure of truth grasped to the immediate problem and environment, and that the consciousness expands through use of the truth imparted. (my emphasis added) White Magic, Introduction."


 * When I read statements from you, I do not see the Teaching of Light and Love in action. What I do see is a sixth ray aspirant with a moderate knowledge of the books. But the teaching is not in the books, it is in a life lived in kindness. If all you can do is explain the books you are as far from the teaching as I am...which is very far indeed. Kwork 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility and admin
We need to take it upon ourselves to report incivility to the incident board ourselves and thereby circumvent the policing of this article by any admin who chooses to edit it. We should not be relying on Jossie to do this for us. He should be treated like any other editor. It is unfair of us to place the responsibility of policing this article on his shoulders. We must do this ourselves.

James and his wife will never be able to make significant edits to this article again. There conflict of interest prevents them from doing this If seek and find more Meat and or Sock Puppets we should not rely on Jossie to deal with this for us. We need to do these things for ourselves. We are the ones who get to decide what is neutral and what is not and or what is properly sourced or what is or original research and etc etc, Administrative power ove''r these things is not arbitrary. I have been through an Article for deletion deletion process that failed and I know that it is the community who gets to decide these things.

Civility is a different matter so be civil. Admins have a lot of power in this area and that is as it should be. So lets be civil no matter what :. Danny Weintraub; : Albion moonlight 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * James and his wife will never be able to make significant edits to this article again — I respectfully disagree with that statement. That is not the advice given by JP, or by me. They can edit this article as long as they are willing to do it within the constrains of our content policies, and respect the process by which we edit articles in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read what the arbitration committee has to say pursuant to conflict of interest. Jp Gordan has declared they have a conflict of interest. He did not come right out and say what the restrictions were but he posted an internal link to ab arb com ruling that is very significant. I have pasted the significant section below.

2) Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles. Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

'' But I am not going to make an issue out of this unless they go against consensus or continue to harass us. I think you and I are saying pretty close to the same thing ; If not we can always let the dispute process run its course. I just want to let everyone know just how empowerd they are. Danny Weintraub 
 * Albion moonlight 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I find this kind of drama rather annoying. For the record, I want to state that James' contributions to this article were extremely significant, and I was disappointed when he chose to stop. For some reason, it appears James and Sparkle are being made pariahs here, but it's my own rather informed opinion that neither of them have done anything worse than things certain other editors have done in the past. There's no current disruption to the editing here, and unless someone starts being disruptive, I recommend this subject be dropped entirely, before everyone begins dragging up old grievances, and we devolve into incivility yet again. IMHO. I invite James or Sparkle to continue editing the article; I can and will evaluate an edit on its own merits, and I urge everyone to do the same. Eaglizard 20:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

UFO material redux, especially for Kwork
Hey, Kwork, a while ago on my talk page, you said that Bailey "wrote that the Hierarchy of Masters on this planet is based on Venus, and that the Hierarchy originally came to Earth from Sirius [...] in the distant past. There is also stuff about "cosmic evil", and plenty more." In order to flesh out the UFO section i would really like you to provide a citation for the first portions of your statement (that Bailey said the Hierarchy is based on Venus and came from Sirius). The "cosmic evil" protion is not as relevant, in my opinion, but a cite to the Venus / Sirius material in Bailey's writings would help us with that section, and would help balance Sparkle's statement that Bailey never discussed UFOs. Since we are not to engage in OR, by counterposing the two fact-bits, we can let the reader draw his or her own conclusion as to why so many UFO groups have used Bailey as a source, even though she never specifically mentioned UFOs. Thanks! cat Catherineyronwode 02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Catherineyronwode. I don't have many of the AAB books here in Brooklyn. Most of them are on boxes in Oregon.


 * Monica Sjöö, not a source friendly to Bailey, wrote:


 * "Bailey taught that the Hierarchy of Masters exists in Shambhala and that Venusians founded this fabled city some 18 million years ago on the sacred Gobi island, which is now in the Mongolian desert."


 * and


 * "Already the Venusians were said to have brought the Fire of Mind that had led to to the development of the city-based cultures that heralded Patriarchy."


 * Christopher H Partridge in his book, The Re-enchantment of the West, wrote


 * "It should perhaps be noted at this point that Theosophy has several prominent branches, and, strictly speaking, the branch which has had the most important influence on the UFO religion is that developed by Alice Bailey. (p.175)"


 * You might find the article on Sanat Kumara, who brought the White Brotherhood and who is the ruler of Shambhala to Earth, helpful. It says


 * "In Theosophy, the beings that helped Sanat Kumara organize the expedition from Venus are called the 'Lords of the Flame'. In later versions, notable 'Lords of the Flame' include Gautama Buddha, and the World Teacher (the being referred to alternately as Maitreya or Christ by Benjamin Creme). The Church Universal and Triumphant teaches that Sanat Kumara and the Lords of the Flame also brought 144,000 souls with them from Venus. Alice Bailey, on the other hand, gives the number 105 only."


 * and


 * "It is maintained in some of these versions of Theosophy that Venus is the most spiritually advanced planet of our solar system. The beings living on the etheric plane of Venus are said to be millions of years ahead of us in their spiritual evolution. It is said [citation needed] that the governing council of Venus sent one of themselves, Sanat Kumara, here to guide us. It is said in Theosophy that once Sanat Kumara arrived here, he directed the construction of the city of Shamballa on the etheric plane above the Gobi Desert to serve as his headquarters."


 * Concerning Sirius, I found this in my copy The Rays and Initiations (a very old copy which is not indexed) on p. 415


 * "The energy of Sirius by-passes (to use a modern word) Shamballa and is focused in the Hierarchy.....The entire work of the Great White Lodge is controlled from Sirius..."


 * If I have time to look for more later, I will add it. I hope this helps a little. Kwork 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What you added certainly does help, Kwork. Thank you very much. As Sparkle pointed out, Bailey never wrote about UFOs per se ... but as Partridge, Ellwood, Sjoo, et all described, the outer space component of Bailey's teachings certainly opened the door for her influence on UFO religions. I think that rather than place all of what you have brought forth into the Influence section, it should go in is own new section, with a title like "Sirius, Venus, and Shamballa". Then the Influence section will have something solid to draw from instead of seeming to come "out of the blue," as it were. :-)


 * Thank you also for bringing up Benjamin Creme. I think he should be mentioned in the Influence section, don't you? Let's see if we can find a scholarly source, or, failing that, a citation within Creme's own writings.


 * cat Catherineyronwode 20:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * cat, I'm interested in what conclusion you draw from these two "fact-bits". Juxtaposing two facts to lead the reader to a conclusion is POV writing, as you certainly know. I really wish you and Kwork had not clearly stated your animosity towards AAB; unfortunately, it seriously undermines my ability to AGF sometimes. For instance, it seems patently obvious to me that, in your mind, the UFO information is derogatory, and you are so keen to include it only because it seems to paint her in a negative light. But, not being particularly clairvoyant, I admit I may be wrong. I can't immediately discount sources like Partridge or even Sjoo. So, I will just ask you to exercise caution on this, since it's getting very close to POV editing, IMO. Eaglizard 19:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eaglizard, i do not find the Bailey influence on UFO religions "derogatory." I write and edit about folk magic, spirituality, and occultism on a regular basis, and i deal routinely with denominations that believe in UFOs.


 * I have stated no "animosity" toward Bailey. My dislike of her teachings is focussed entirely on those portions that make an appeal to a religious "higher authority" to institutionalize and justify racism and antisemitism.


 * What was bothering me about the issue, from a citation / sourcing point of view, was that Sparkle was saying Bailey did not write about UFOs, yet we have a lot of sources saying she influenced at least thee separate UFO religions of the latter part of the 20th century. The question then became "why?" -- and Kwork has provided the answer.


 * My original proposal -- to counterpose the information that she wrote about a Hierarchy on Venus with the UFO religion information in the "Influence" section -- was a flawed idea, i now see. Far better, given the extent of Kwork's contribution to the subject, is my most recent proposal above, namely, the introduction of a new "Teachings" sub-section, tentatively titled "On Sirius, Venus, and Shamballah", in which the teachings will be presented as-is, with no counterposition. The Influences sub-section on UFOs will then stand in logical relation to the Teachings section with no POV pushing.


 * What do you think about that idea?


 * Finally, as i mentioned above, we definitely need to add Benjamin Creme to the influences section, so folks should be on the look-out to for a scholarly source or a mention within Creme's own writings.


 * cat Catherineyronwode 20:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * cat, I'm not saying your only reason for the UFO info is bias, but I do believe you've said it enough ways to make it clear you despise Alice Bailey and the books she wrote in on. Maybe I've just misunderstood your comments, but I'd be surprised if I were alone in doing so. Actually, I rather admire your ability to remain pretty darn NPOV in your edits about a subject you seem to dislike so much. Again, I was just asking you to apply extra caution here, and I see you have done. Groovy. :)
 * As for the section head idea, it does seem you're taking some fairly minor points of her teaching and elevating them higher than they deserve. OTH, there's about 150 mentions of Venus, so maybe not. I'd say the idea is fine, and if it seems wrong once it's done, somebody can see about reworking it some, or at least discuss here. Oh, and yes, unfortunately, as much as I myself dislike Creme's approach, if we're going to mention UFOs in Influence, then we're certainly forced to include him, too. C'est la vie. Eaglizard 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a content comment, so please continue your content discussion following this aside in regards to respect and civility.


 * Eaglizard, I don't know if you realize it, but you just now told Cat she lied in her prior comment when she wrote she has "no stated 'animosity' towards Bailey." We've had enough drama on this page, we don't need that kind of dispresect.  To be clear:  it doesn't mitigate an accusation of lying to follow it with waffling, writing "Maybe I've just misunderstood your comments", and then turning it around again, with "but I'd be surprised if I were alone in doing so" and then following it with a compliment for good measure!  After all that, the gist is still that you stated you do not believe she was truthful in what she wrote about her own feelings and prior statements.


 * I have not seen Cat say she despises Alice Bailey, the only place I've seen that said is in accusations made by others. I've only seen her say she despises some of what Alice Bailye wrote, in particular, the parts that are racist and antisemitic.


 * If you want to address what may appear to you to be bias in the writing, you can do that without making assumptions or accusations about the editors' personal views. Write about the content, not the editor. If you identify a problem, it can be handled with consensus. Whatever the editor is thinking does not matter one whit... unless the person's behavior becomes tendentious and causes disruption. As that obviously is not so with Cat, your accusation of bias in her writing, and that she lied, is out of line.


 * You also wrote, in the previous comment, that it is "patently obvious" to you, what's going on in Cat's mind, and that you're having trouble assuming good faith with regard to her. I respectfully suggest that you re-calibrate your AGF meter to the present and base your comments on what people write, rather than what you might feel about someone from the past, when your impressions may have been filtered or affected by events that have nothing to do with the actual people who are working on this article (in good faith, which I add with emphasis).


 * Please consider how your comments may be seen by others before you click "save page". --Parsifal Hello 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just absurd. If I had meant to say she "lied", I would have said it. Where did I give you the impression I'm afraid to say exactly what I think? BTW, when a person admits to their own failure, like mine re: AGF, do you always feel the need hammer it home, in case they missed their own point? Actually, don't answer that; I don't care, and it's off-topic. Eaglizard 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Parsifal.

Eaglizard, again, to clarify, i despise people who make an appeal to "higher authority" or "spiritual truth" in order to justify shoddy and sub-par treatment of othr human beings based on their race, creed, or national origin. But not all of what Alice Bailey wrote was of that character. Other aspects of her works, including the Full Moon Meditations, are quite appealing to me.

Am i a believer or follower of her teachings? No. And one reason i am not is that i, as a Jew, would not be fully welcome in her proposed "New World Order," which is, as she specifically stated, intended to be totally Jew-free.

All of that aside, though, my relationship to this article is as a volunteer editor and writer. About a year and a half ago i was adding occult writer cat tags to a number of bios, and i noticed a request on the Bailey talk page, asking us to make a note on the antisemitism in her occult and esoteric writings. I looked it up, found a cite, added the note, and that was that, until the late edit war broke out in May 2007. During the edit war, my major interest was to retain the mentions of her antisemiiitism and racism in the face of a flood of proposals that all such matters be deleted. Since James has left, and the antisemitism cites are no longer in danger of being "disappeared," i have decided to see what i can do to improve the rest of the article.

Since you have accused me of spite-editing, i would like you to please check my contributions -- you will see that my work on Bailey is part of my much larger volunteer effort at Wikipedia with respect to creating and enhancing articles on the occult, spirituality, divination, religious diversity, folk magic, stage magic, music, breaking news, history, and medical health: Wallace Wattles, faith healing, psychic surgery, Ina Coolbrith, Orison Swett Marden, Elizabeth Towne, The Nautilus, The Metaphysical Club, Yinglish, ConAgra Foods, International New Thought Alliance, Bronchiolitis obliterans, 99 Ranch Market, Law of Attraction, Samuel Smiles, Castellammarese War, Ciro Terranova, Omie Wise, Scrying, Alan Dundes, Daniel Fry, List of New Thought writers, The Zancigs, Ella Wheeler Wilcox‎, List of New Thought denominations and independent centers, Mildred Mann, Numerology, Thomas Troward, Tasseography, and Alexander the Crystal Seer are only part of what i have worked on during the past month and a half. Please, do a brief check on those articles and see if it helps you to better understand my relationship to the article on Bailey.

Frankly, it is annoying to have my desire to work on the whole Bailey article (as opposed to merely protecting the antisemitism section) treated as if i were editing out of spite.

Now, instead of pretending to be able to read my mind, why don't YOU write the proposed sub-section on Sirius, Venus, and Shamballa? You won't need to second guess your own motivations, so the outcome should be satisfactory to you.

cat Catherineyronwode 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Two things: First, I myself pointed out my own inability to read minds, admitting I may be wrong, thus trying to emphasize my statement was my opinion and nothing more. Second, I did not accuse you of anything whatsoever. I asked you to be careful with your edits, and nothing else. Nor could what I wrote be construed as maligning your edits, for "spite" or anything else, so your long defense against a nonexistent charge is just a bit baffling. The only person I chastised was myself, for my own breakdown of AGF.
 * Regarding your stated opinion of Bailey, and in response to Parsifal as well, I was forced into the tedium of the archives, but you have indeed referred to Bailey as a "bigot" who would "very likely be allied with the White Supremicist anti-Jewish hate movement" if alive today. You have also accused other editors of racism: "I feel that the antisemitic supporters of Alice Bailey have exposed their agenda fully and can now be combatted with full knowledge of their agnda.". Admittedly, this was all in August, as "Nameless date stamp", but that impression has stuck with me since. My mistake, if I made one here, was to assume that a Jew could only despise someone they've called a "Jew-hating racist".
 * In any case, my intent was not to offend, nor to question your edits. In fact, I'm now tired of repeatedly registering my extremely high opinion of your editing skills, since nobody seems to notice positive comments around here. Oh, and if you'd actually read my comments in re: your proposed new section, you'd see I don't quite agree with the idea, so that's why I don't write it. Eaglizard 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * NB When I wrote "seems patently obvious to me... that you are so keen to...", that is precisely what I meant: the appearance, the "seeming" of it, is that cat's desire to include this leaf (by Niggle) is based on her dislike of AAB. Please notice that this is my opinion of the impression her own statements have made on me, and says nothing about the quality of her actual edits to this or any article. Rather, my actual stated opinion of her edits is generally rather positive, since my stated opinion is almost always based on examining an edit on it's own merits, and does not include what I may think of the editor or their desires (to the best of my ability). Eaglizard 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now added to the article some selections from the material that Kwork contributed above. A portion can be found under the section on the spiritual hierarchy and another portion is located under the section on Influence, sub-head UFO groups. cat Catherineyronwode 08:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality, censorship, Wiki Violations
James and his wife will never be able to make significant edits to this article again — I respectfully disagree with that statement. That is not the advice given by JP, or by me. They can edit this article as long as they are willing to do it within the constrains of our content policies, and respect the process by which we edit articles in Wikipedia. ? jossi ? (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, Sparkle, the "wife" here.  I'm not an appendage.   You may call me Sparkle.


 * Like other knowledgeable people before me, I am blocked from making the article more balanced.  For instance, my last edit was mostly deleted, and the one on Zionism was complete deleted.  Most of what I put in was removed because the waring editors did not like what AAB said.  It's not about my abiding by Wiki rules.  The article is controlled by AAB critics who shape it using their personal bias.  It's this that is a violation of Wiki rules.  It's not the editors who most closely follow the rules that rules that are respected here.


 * UFOs is not a teaching of Alice Bailey. It may be verifiable that some one used that "Great Invocation" in a song or at a meeting of UFO's enthusiast, but it is a magnified minuscule bit of information that distracts from real picture of AAB and her thought. It's included exactly because it distracts.  And the article is "chuck full" minor and remotely related things.  It's a good strategy if you want to hide her actual thoughts.  Even if readers fail to get the wrong idea, maybe if we put in enough weird links that are hardly realted to her at all, people will click on those and never return.  The important thing is that the more of these links they click on, the more cloudy will be their picture of Bailey.


 * AAB didn't write about UFO's at all. And the quote that I added was strongly critical of the UFO group cited.  It's  inclusion suggests she was involved in some kind of UFO thing. The impact of her quote rejecting this UFO related group was weakened by the removal of most of what she said about it.  Because it didn't fit the  personal view of the editors, it had to go. And yet  her harsh criticism on other topics is expanded beyond proportionality, again to emphasize a personal bias of the editors.  What is that bias?  Basically, its anti-Bailey.  The editors just don't like her.  Its that simple.  The critical editors are personally outrage by certain things she wrote ( the stuff that fills 90% of the discussion history).  This personal reaction sets the agenda which is is make her look as negative as they can and any way they can and never mind rules in process.  The goal is to picture her as some new age cultists racist and flake waiting for UFOs to arrive.  Things that suggest otherwise are mostly taken out of the bio.


 * Example: It use to read: "While Bailey makes no references to UFO's, she described the "I Am" movement as a misinterpretation, a  travesty, a prostitution of facts, and a "cheap comedy."


 * Now it is:  "While Bailey made no direct references to UFOs in her books, she did describe the I Am Activity as a "cheap comedy."


 * The two editors didn't like AAB's criticism of the "I Am Movement," so they censored it by removing most of what she said on the subject. This violates Wikipedia rule of neutrality.  You can make selections and remove stuff until you get just the picture you want.


 * The article says:


 * "Some historians allege that the Solar Temple originates with French author Jacques Breyer who established a Sovereign Order of the Solar Temple in 1952. In 1968, a schismatic order was renamed the Renewed Order of the Solar Temple (ROTS) under the leadership of French right-wing political activist Julien Origas. Some reports have claimed that Origas was a Nazi SS member during World War II."


 * Here we plug in a link that associates her with Nazis. Very nice!  Now there are lots of references in AAB where she condemns Nazism.  So why would an editor plug in a link like that and fail to deal with the key points AAB actually wrote on the subject.  Gee, I wonder why?   Never mind that AAB's definition of race was about consciousness, let's throw in any thing that makes her look like a racist.  The AAB biography is an essay disguised as an encyclopedia article.


 * The article says, "For example, she said that the Aryans, as an "emerging new race", are the most evolved people on Earth."


 * The above editorial comment is opposite to: "Although she often identified groups of people by their race, nationality, or religion, she said the key matter was not race or religion per say, but the evolution of consciousness that transcends these labels."


 * And the above two items are in different sections of the bio. What mess.


 * And now get this. Here is what use to be in the biography:


 * "'… there is no new race in process of appearing, from the territorial angle; there is only a general distribution of those persons who have what have been called the sixth root race characteristics. This state of consciousness will find its expression in people as far apart racially as the Japanese and the American or the Negro and the Russian.'"


 * Gee, now why was that removed. I wonder...?


 * This is horrible and absolutely shameful thing happening here. It's very ugly.


 * Example of emphasizing a point of view. Deleting the reason why the criticism of Zionism--national separatism and and leaving quotes that only criticize Zionism without giving the reason and context for their understanding. AAB's text are just clay.  Editors scoop out a bit of this or that and shape it as they like.  This violates Wiki rules.


 * ZIONISM


 * Underlying her criticism of Zionism and Russia is a type of nationalism or separative spirit that she saw as the basis of many world problems, "We could take the nations, one by one, and observe how this nationalistic, separative or isolationist spirit, emerging out of an historical past, out of racial complexes, out of territorial position, out of revolt and out of possession of material resources, has brought about the present world crisis and cleavage and this global clash of interests and ideals." . In 1947, in listing the causes of world conflict, she she citied the fight for oil, and the fight over Palestine, "...a fight which has greed and not any love of Palestine behind it, and which is governed by financial interests and not by the humanitarian spirit which the Zionists claim....


 * Gee, I wonder why all this was deleted? Sparklecplenty 01:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of these points are actionable. I will make some edits accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkle, as I'll say in more detail on your talk page, I really wish you would learn to stop making accusations and speculations about other editor's motives. Your points about content are usually excellent, and well received. But talk about the article, and stop talking about the editors. Just look at the previous section if you need evidence that even simply stating an editor's apparent attitude can be misunderstood as accusations of some awful thing apparently called "spite-editing", in spite of my repeatedly stated fondness for cat's editing. Sigh. Eaglizard 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkleplenty, please pay attention to the discussions here and stop making accusations. You wrote:


 * Example: It use to read: "While Bailey makes no references to UFO's, she described the "I Am" movement as a misinterpretation, a  travesty, a prostitution of facts, and a "cheap comedy."


 * Now it is:  "While Bailey made no direct references to UFOs in her books, she did describe the I Am Activity as a "cheap comedy."


 * You have been reading the talk page, and i am sure you remember that i said that i had added a fact-tag on your words, "she described the "I Am" movement as a misinterpretation a travesty, a prostitution of facts." If not, please see here:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alice_Bailey#need_direct_quotes_for_scurrilous_quotes_about_I_Am].


 * The title of that section is "need direct quotes for scurrilous quotes about I Am" -- which is direct and to the point.


 * You attributed a highly inflammatory series of words to Alice Bailey in the article, and we needed proof that Bailey actually used those terms -- specifically, "a misinterpretation a travesty, a prostitution of facts."


 * You know exactly what a fact-tag is. It is a call for a citation. You had added the material, and so i added a fact-tag on the material and i also asked you on the talk page to supply a citation verifying that Bailey actually used the words "a misinterpretation, a travesty, a prostitution of facts" -- and you did not do so.


 * You did have the words "a cheap comedy" in quotes, with a book and page citation, so i believed this to be a direct quotation and i left it in. I also changed your wording of "The I am movement" to "the I Am Activity'' because the former is the actual name of the group in question.


 * If you want the words "she described the I Am Activity as a misinterpretation, a travesty, a prostitution of facts," to appear in the article, you must add quote-marks around those words -- with a properly written ref leading to a cited work, to prove she really wrote them.


 * And speaking of properly written citations, when you add refs, please use the style of other refs in the article. Do not expect me or one of the other diligent editors to follow behind you like a servant and rewrite all of your badly-fomed ref-links into proper form. I am tired of doing your drudge-work for you.


 * If you can support those adjectives with actual citations, do so. If you can learn how to type in the proper reference format from copying from other sections of the article, do so. And if you can do these two simple things without attacking your fellow editors, please, by all means, do so.


 * Chop wood and haul water, Sparkleplenty. That's the name of the game.


 * cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 06:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

regarding the "Zionism" paragraph discussed in the prior section
This comment regards a paragraph that seems questionable to me. I tried to fix it with edits, but it still didn't work, so I reverted my edits, leaving it unchanged.

My first impulse was to delete it, but to minimize edit-drama in regards to the comments above, I'm placing it here for discussion and will leave it to others to either keep it, delete it, or edit it for clarity.

Sparklecplenty and/or James added the following paragraph to the article in the sub-section "On Israel, Zionism, and Russia":

"Underlying her criticism of Zionism and Russia, Bailey described a type of nationalism or separative spirit that she saw as the basis of many world problems, 'We could take the nations, one by one, and observe how this nationalistic, separative or isolationist spirit, emerging out of an historical past, out of racial complexes, out of territorial position, out of revolt and out of possession of material resources, has brought about the present world crisis and cleavage and this global clash of interests and ideals.' In 1947, in listing the causes of world conflict, she citied the fight for oil, and the fight over Palestine, '[...] a fight which has greed and not any love of Palestine behind it, and which is governed by financial interests and not by the humanitarian spirit which the Zionists claim [...]'."

Cat then commented it out, with this explanation:

"I am commenting out this section, added tonight by Sparkleplenty and revised by Jossi, because it adds nothin to our understanding of the issues. It is just more quote-farming, in my opinion. If you want this one in, why not the one about 'Palestine is no longer a Holy Land.' As i have said before, 'this could go on forelver' -- quote after quote after quote, until we reproduced her entire ouput here at wikipedia. cat yronwode:"

After Sparkle complained about the removal of the content on the talk page, Jossi removed the commenting and re-added the paragraph with this edit summary: restoring material that expands on Bailesy views of Zionism.

I took a closer look and found the text confusing not quite on-topic, and possibly including some editorializing with its introductory sentence. So I checked the quoted sources and did not find a clear connection between the original paragraphs and the way they were summarized, and did not find a good reason to place that content in the Zionism and Russia section.

For clarity on this: I am not making any accusations that there is any motivation in the construction of the paragraph. I'm just saying it seems confusing, inaccurately sourced, and doesn't fit where it's located. Even if it's copyedited and the sourcing is fixed, then it should go in the main nationalism section, because that's the focus of the quoted source.

For convenience, here are the source paragraphs with the quoted parts bolded:


 * Page 375: "The nationalistic spirit is not dead as yet in any country. It must be helped to die. Minorities with historical backgrounds but no territorial rights are clamoring for a place to call their own and in which to build up a nation. The small nations are full of fear, wondering what place in the family of nations they will be permitted to hold, and whether the evil plans of the Germans will spare any of their citizens eventually to form a nation. The demand for national recognition is widespread; the emphasis upon humanity as the important unit is little heard.


 * Those nations impede the path of progress who live in the memory of their past history and boundaries and who look back upon what they call "a glorious past," resting upon the recollection of national or empire rule over the weak. This is a hard saying, but the nationalistic spirit constitutes a grave peril to the world; if perpetuated in any form, except as contributory to the good of humanity as a whole, it will throw the world (after the war) back into the dark ages and leave men no better off than they were, even though there have been twenty years of travail and agony.


 * We could take the nations, one by one, and observe how this nationalistic, separative or isolationist spirit, emerging out of an historical past, out of racial complexes, out of territorial position, out of revolt and out of possession of material resources, has brought about the present world crisis and cleavage and this global clash of interests and ideals. But it would profit not. The intelligent student of history (who has no nationalistic bias) knows well the facts and is deeply concerned today with the processes which must be brought to bear to end the world strife."


 * Page 615: "As the disciple confronts both the inner and the outer events and possibilities, he is apt to register a sense of complete frustration; he longs to help, but knows not what to do; his grasp of the menacing difficulties, his analysis of his resources and of those with whom he works, and his clarity of perception as to the forces ranged against him, make him feel inclined to sit back and say: What is the use of any effort I can make? Why not let the two forces of good and evil, of the Black Lodge and the Spiritual Hierarchy, fight it out alone? Why not permit the pressure of the evolutionary current, eventually and at long last, to bring cessation to the fight and the triumph of the good? Why attempt to do it now?


 * These are natural reactions when considering the present field of conflict, the prevalent greed and the international and racial antagonisms, and the selfish motives which control so many national units, plus the dull apathy of the masses, and in particular, the growing suspicion and distrust between the United States and Russia - a situation in which both groups are almost equally to blame. This war-generating situation is fostered behind the scenes by the highly clever and strongly anti-communistic power of the Roman Catholic Church, with its organized political plans - plans which are growing notably in the United States. To these, the intelligent thinker adds the reactionary activities in every land, and the fight for oil which governs the policies of Russia, the United States and Great Britain. To these factors must be added today the struggle between Hindu and Moslem for the control of India, and the fight over Palestine - fomented by the Zionists, and not by the Jews as a whole - a fight in which the Zionists prevented the displaced Jewish persons (only 20% of the whole) from discovering how welcome they are in many countries throughout the world; a fight which has greed and not any love of Palestine behind it, and which is governed by financial interests and not by the humanitarian spirit which the Zionists claim and which would force them to accept the offers made by Great Britain, Canada, Chile, Belgium and many other lands."

It seems to me those paragraphs are about a lot more than Zionism, for example, the last part mentions, in addition to Zionism: "the United States and Russia,... Great Britain... the Roman Catholic Church, with its organized political plans,... reactionary activities in every land,... the fight for oil... the struggle between Hindu and Moslem for the control of India... the fight over Palestine... Chile, Belgium and many other lands..."

Comments welcome. --Parsifal Hello 08:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you Parsifal. I think the wiki policy is to try and fix it without reverting it whenever possible, Fix it or revert it and enable your email if it is not enabled already.: Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 09:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if is important to add a section to the article that could be called "the White Lodge and the Black Lodge", which is important in Bailey's teaching. The working between the forces of light and the forces of darkness is how she sees events in the outer, material dense, world; and the quotes above can not really be understood without that. That thinking is also hidden in the accusations of Jamesd1/Sparklecplenty, and the reason those who oppose their edits are depicted as intending to harm Alice Bailey's Teaching of Light. I will see if I can gather some information on how Bailey portrays the struggle between light and darkness (good and evil), and how that moves her discussion of world events. Kwork 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

interlude
This does not, I suppose, have much directly to have to do with this article; but with Bailey portraying Zionists as members of the Black Lodge, and her comment about disorderly Jewish neighborhoods (as though that were a crime); I thought Jamesd1/Sparklecplenty might find this interesting, being the 2007 calibration of Lag B'omer 2007 on Mt. Meron in Israel. Lag B'omer celebrates when the great rabbi Simeon bar Yochai (who is believe by many religious Jews to have written the Zohar in the years he was hiding in a cave from the Roman occupiers of Israel) swore to The Almighty that the Torah would never be forgotten. The day is celebrated with bon fires and dancing throughout Israel. Just a little background information for the uninformed. Kwork 15:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about Bailey's views of the Jews in writing this article. Bailey tends to talk about an abstraction of Judaism, as if it is just a bad idea that needs to go (perhaps something like doing away with pay toilets), without seeing that there are living people involved. It continues to baffle me why Bailey sees the religion of the Jews, about which she demonstrates in her writing that she knows nothing, as something so important to send to oblivion. Kwork 17:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

this woman is a l***
Bailey wrote: "The menace to world freedom today lies in the known policies of the rulers of the U.S.S.R. and in the devious and lying machinations of the Zionists", (The Rays and the Initiations, p 680). She made this sort of statement about Zionists a number of times. She never supplied a single supporting piece of evidence, just repeated lies about Zionists (otherwise known as Jews). And the [refactored] who follower her actually believe that crap. A spiritual teacher? Rather, just a [refactored]. [User:Kwork|Kwork]] 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's try to avoid the personal attacks; you could have made your point here without knowingly insulting her followers here, no matter how witted or not you think they are. There are, as you say, living people here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All Jews are Zionists? That's news to me (and I bet it would surprise a few Jews, too). I guess Kwork's translations are provided by MEMRI. Eaglizard 07:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon, yes, certainly. However, you will note that (unlike Bailey calling for the end of Judaism) I have not called for the end of halfwits. Nor have I suggested that halfwits be barred from editing the article.Kwork 13:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'd just like to thank Kwork for this. I'd hate to have been barred from this article simply because of my halfwit ethnicity. :D Eaglizard 14:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I might say so, you guys are at your best in this mode. :D  Rumiton 14:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, I recall discussing this previously. If you read the antisemitism article, you will see this:

"From the 1990s, some writers have identified a New antisemitism, a form of antisemitism coming simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, which tends to focus on opposition to Zionism and a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel, and which may deploy traditional antisemitism motifs.[6] Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate"

My own observation is that, in a very diverse religion, there are few points that unite Jews as much as support of Zionism. Even those groups that oppose the present Israeli state (the ultra-Orthodox) because it is a secular state include a prayer for the return to Zion in their daily religious observance. Also, in the context of her lying complaints about Jews, there does not seem any reason to doubt that Bailey does equate Zionists with Jews, excepting only a very few who had converted to the Church of Bailey, or who for some other reason hate Jews. Kwork 14:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Replacing "Zionist" with "Jew" is usually just a cheap trick to dismiss criticism of Zionism (or Israel) as simple antisemitism, which it often is not. As the WP article says, "... exploit[ing] antisemitism to silence debate." Every criticism of Zionism I have read in AAB relates to the actions of the Zionist movement: she uses words like "criminal" only in relation to Zionists, never to Jews in general, I believe. Her criticism of Zionism is not conflatable with criticism of Jewry. The charges she makes against Jews are very different from those she levels at Zionism in particular. I don't believe you can show any passage where she accuses Zionists of squalid living, or where she says Jews are criminals. In fact, in one passage quoted just above here, she says "...fomented by the Zionists, and not by the Jews as a whole...", which makes it pretty clear she saw a distinction between the two. If nothing else, I believe AAB was a very careful writer. I invite you to quote a passage or two that prove me wrong on this. Eaglizard 14:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, what a load of crap. "Criminal"? Show me what makes Zionists criminals and members of the Black Lodge. This is what Bailey said, and why I said she is a liar. There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel. I criticize, Israel, the USA, and other countries all the time, but without calling for the end of their existence. Do you see no difference? If not, refer back to what I said about halfwits and apply the duck test. Kwork 16:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I invite both of you to consider whether this particular discussion is furthering the development of the article, or rather is expressing your own opinions of the subject of the article. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This was written pre the formation of Israel, I am sure. And at that point Zionism was an unrealised dream held by some but not all Jews, surely she is criticising Zionisim not Jews, and while even today there are those who oppose Zionism (ie Israel as a state) without being anti-semitic this was much more of a valid point before the creation of Israel. We must judge AAB by the standards of her time, not our time, otherwise we'd be condemning huge numbers of authors for holding views which were considered mainstream at the time but extreme now, and I think pre the creation of Israel it was not inappropriate and certainly not racist to be anti-zionist, particularly remebering that the main argument for a Jewish state was as a response to the holocaust, which had not happened when the great majority of what AAB wrote was being written, SqueakBox 15:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I extend the same invitation to you. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. They could take this fascinating discussion to their talk page or elsewhere, so that editors here can focus on improving this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think as long as we have in the opening

"and in particular regarding her criticisms of Zionism, the Jewish people and their historical actions; and the religions of Judaism and Christianity."

that the subject matter does indeed need discussing. I am unhappy to see a section entitled "this woman is a liar" and think it important to point out that this is not the case. I think the first quote was not a dsign that she was either a liar or an anti-semitic and we shouldn't go out of our way to emphasise this alleged side of her, especially in an unsourced way, SqueakBox 16:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will supply sources soon. It will not be a problem. Kwork 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As a Jew, and free thinker, I despise antisemitism and antisemits as much as you do, Kwork. But you need to learn to engage in this pages without inflammatory comments such as the ones you made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this Guardian article is appropriate tot his discussion if not the article in that it points out the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism and that being an anti-Zionist does not make one anti-semitic, especially in the thirties and that we cannot muddle the two up when referring to AAB, SqueakBox 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a 2003 article and does not describe the present situation. In general, I am not much interested in Guardian articles about Israel because its editorial history on the subject sometimes comes close to Der Stürmer. Kwork 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 2003? Nothing much has changed since then and the article is still 100% relevant, SqueakBox 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No change? Israel pulled out of Gaza unilaterally. The unchanged part is the Gaza leadership still promises to destroy Israel. Kwork 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't call her either, anyway. We can report what reliable sources call her. That is all. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do feel my comments have direct bearing on this article, since conflation of "Zionism" with "Jew" has been used before to extend AAB's criticisms very inappropriately in the article text. If ppl will pay attention to my words, and not to their idea of what they think I'm saying, it should be clear that I haven't made any statements about my opinion of Zionism, or my opinion of AAB's opinion. At least one editor seems unable to distinguish between a discussion of AAB's accusations and the accusations themselves, but I have never made, and probably will never make, any disclosure of my personal opinion of the Zionist movement. My comment is about the mis-representation of quotations as being antisemitic, when they are in fact merely anti-Zionist. Kwork stated "there does not seem any reason to doubt that Bailey does equate Zionists with Jews", which I feel required a rebuttal. The quote I offered does give clear reason to believe AAB saw "Jewish" and "Zionist" as distinct. I am discussing the interpretation of AAB's text, and this does in fact relate directly to the article, IMO. (Perhaps the opening sentence could have been different, but it was the dream police made me surrender to it. :) Eaglizard 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But your interpretation is irrelevant; all that is relevant is interpretation by reliable sources. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We have to be careful both to say what a ref says and not what we want it to say but also to not give information that will confuse our readers and blurring the lines between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism could easily do that, in cases of confusion some background info is appropriate (obviously as long as the background information is sourced). It seems a reasonable assumption to me that unless we give our readers some background into the difference between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism that our readers may gain the wrong idea about AAB, SqueakBox 17:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be OK, if we can find a source related to Bailey that makes these distinctions. Otherwise, we will be violating WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I agree as we have a responsibility not to confuse our readers, and indeed I would argue that confusing material should be removed even if ref'd, SqueakBox 18:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you consider to be confusing? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This "regarding her criticisms of Zionism, the Jewish people and their historical actions" it isnt really clear what we mean. Also do we have a ref for "and the religions of Judaism and Christianity." all from the opening, SqueakBox 20:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jpgordon, I think you are incorrect to some degree. When AAB describes, for instance, her suicide attempts, we don't need a source to tell us that her description means she attempted suicide. We take her words at their face value. We also do this in discussing her teachings. While "interpretation" of the meaning subtle esoteric points is obviously speculation and out of place here, "interpretation" of her simple english is not. For instance, we don't have a V source that says "her writings contain criticism of Jews", even tho the article says exactly that. We have sources that see antisemitism or racism, which is an "interpretation" of her meaning, and not of her words. But, the fact that her words are critical of Jewry or the fact that she claimed "DK" really wrote the books are not referenced to secondary sources, they are taken directly from her writings themselves. If we were to include text that says "AAB called all Jews 'criminals'", some editors would apparently find that adequately sourced in her material. It is not (she only called "Zionists" criminals, I believe). Unless we are to stand on third parties for the meaning of every sentence of hers we quote, then our understanding of the sentences we do quote is relevant. I am, btw, not arguing purely in the abstract here; this logic (Zionist=Jew) has been tried before on this talk page to leverage some very POV insertions. Eaglizard 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Can Kwork please stop making personal attacks against editors and AAB, I simply will ignore him and anything he says if he doesn't comply as edit warring to re-introduce his personal attacks is unacceptable as is calling people liars, half-wits and anti-semitic (the last is especially unhelpful when directed at fellow editors). This is a disgrace, SqueakBox 18:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm inclined to start simply removing all new posts that contain any comments about other editors; there will likely be more than a few babies thrown out in that bathwater, but if people can't resist throwing in digs at their rhetorical opponents, so be it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey is dead. Which editors have I insulted? If you think I am not good enough for Wikipedia, you know how to file a complaint about me on the administrators noticeboard. If you can get me blocked (hopefully permanently), I will consider it cause for a celebration. Kwork 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are as good to Wikipedia as any other editor, just simply you need to know to play nice with others. Inflammatory comments about Bailey, her followers, or anyone else for that matter, are better kept off article talk pages. Write a blog or create a personal home page if you feel compelled to express your opinions on this subject, and keep this page to discuss improvements to the article and nothing else. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * Kwork: Please do not restore these inflammatory comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * jossi, I have a right to my views on Bailey's antisemitism which is documented. As for the editors, which ones did I insult? I will restore my comments until you have me blocked. If that is for a day, a week, or a month, I will restore them again when I return because it is censorship. Kwork 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we all have a right to hold opinions on Bailey and any other subject. But we do not use these pages to make these opinions public. Please read WP:TALK and WP:NOT. If what you are looking for is to get blocked for disruption, I will certainly oblige. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be a mistake to think I will be flexible over this point. If you think it will do you any good to have me blocked, certainly you know the procedure. I am disinclined to give in if the point seems important, and the possibility of getting blocked causes me less concern than abandoning principles. Kwork 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No Kwork. This is not about me or what good it will do to me. This is about you not using Wikipedia as a soapbox for opinions. You should put Wikipedia's principles ahead of yours, and if you cannot, then do not edit. You are also disrupting Wikipedia to make a point with your re-additions of the inflammatory comments, which is by itself not a good thing to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not restore these comments again, and consider moving on. There is an article to be edited, which would be a better use of our time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) My principle is to put the encyclopedia first. I'll add that the header was notable on my watchlist and brought me here this morning so such a "liar" statement as a header was, IMO, counter-productive. I must say before Gordon made his most recent comment and after the lame warring I was tempted to delete the whole section myself, lets just focus on the article, SqueakBox 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, you said "And the **** who follower her actually believe that crap. A spiritual teacher? Rather, just a ************." This is directly insulting to anyone and everyone who has ever spent time reading her books, as it implies we're halfwits too stupid to realize something so obvious. Including yourself at one time, apparently. Also, I believe some of my full-wit brethren may not be as impervious to the racial slur of "halfwit" as I am. :) Eaglizard 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

comments request, re use of the phrase "the Jewish Problem"
I request that editors please discuss this change, in particular to two points:
 * the reference to Bailey's use of the term "the Jewish Problem"
 * Bailey's use of terminology that discusses the Jewish people as a "race" or collective group rather than diverse group

Those points have been discussed previously on this page and it does not seem correct to remove them from the article, as they are supported by Baileys words.

I request that we find consensus about the wording of that section. Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Jews were and for the most part are considered a race, the text made it sound as if she was inventing the term which is clearly incorrect. The Jewish problem is clearly a term used by the Nazis and written here in such a way as to imply Bailey and the Nazis were referring to the same thing, strikes me as creating a misleading impression to promote a POV, ie that Bailey was anti-semitic. My edit s were made in order to improve NPOV, SqueakBox 22:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey was an anti-semetic. Cat has proved this on at least 2 occasions. I am open to a rewording as long as it does not try to cover up the facts. Albion moonlight 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (a) that isn't true and (b) it doesn't account for that the terrible language used here. How can you refer to a race as individuals. Just because some people don't like AAB is not an excuse for a POV article, hence my tagging, SqueakBox 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the terrible language you are referring to. I think you may be of the mind that Antisemitism and Nazism are the same thing. Albion moonlight 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The very title sounds like out of a Hitler or Goering speech, they referred to the Jewish problem and then created the Jewish solution or final solution, this latter after AAB had written about said problem. And given the FS (and its appalling application by people who had nothing to do with AAB) we should not be calling the section title On "the Jewish Problem". Especially given Kwork's feelings towards AAB it sounds like a subtle attempt to compare AAB to Nazis and her philosophy to Nazism, which is unacceptable as she clearly did not argue that the Jews were a problem in the way that Hitler, Goering et al did do. The first opening implies that AAB was calling the Jews a race whereas at the time it was a completely mainstream belief, and arguably still is, it certainly was not her that called Jewish people a race but the article as is implies that it was. And how could she refer to a race as individuals? She was very against an individualistic philosophy but it sounds as if she is putting Jewish people down from the article and I do not believe this is the case and that its a classic piece of POV pushing from someone who does believe so. Even if it is one legitimate view (a POV) it is not presented as such but as the truth and this is just not NPOV and needs rewriting. I tried and it has been rejected. Shall I try again (a different version)? SqueakBox 00:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of this could be fixed by changing the section title, it makes her sound like a Nazi which she clearly was not, SqueakBox 00:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think she was a Nazi, and I don't believe the article makes her sound like a Nazi.  The problem is, much of what she wrote about the Jews was  negative and disturbing. For example, she specifically called for the  "The gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the orthodox Jewish faith, with its obsolete teaching, its separative emphasis, its hatred of the Gentiles and its failure to recognize the Christ." (The Externalization of the Hierarchy, p 544). (emphasis added)...   While this is discussed above on the talk page, it has not been added to the article so far, so that shows there is an effort here to keep things balanced and not just pop in every negative comment that is found in her writings.


 * We need to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V. The section title you mention relates to a phrase used by Alice Bailey as chapter headings in not one, but two of her books, and she referred often to the concept.  One of the books where she used that title was prior to WW II, and the other was published after WW II.  It's not our job to guess at how people will interpret this.  Those are her words, we are just reporting them.


 * Whether or not that is an antisemitic term, readers can decide for themselves. I'm not making that characterization, just pointing out that her use of the term "the Jewish Problem" was not simply in passing. It appears over and over in her teachings as something she considered must be addressed, and in particular, changed, through "dissolution", "intermarriage", etc..


 * I understand and appreciate that you are trying to make a balanced article, as am I. But that does not mean we should hide or minimize controversial elements of her teachings and her personal writings.   I saw in the history that you edited this page a few months ago, so I figure you are familiar with the topic.  But I'm curious - have you read her books?  Have you seen the way she writes about the Jewish people and their religion?  Or, for that matter, how she writes about other religions, like Orthodox Christianity, or other races such as blacks and asians, regarding for example intermarriage?


 * We want an NPOV article, and one that is verifiable, for sure. But NPOV does not mean we take a person's controversial writings and smooth them out so the writings seem NPOV.  Bailey was not NPOV, not a Wikipedia editor, and she made some very strong statements about these social/political topics, though she presented them through an esoteric filter.


 * As I noted above, it's not our job to interpret, just to report. --Parsifal Hello 02:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to changing the name of the section in question. But I need to hear suggestions of what that new name would be. I think I read something posted by Squeak Box in regards to how Bailey's teachings had a very positive effect on his life. This does not surprise me because I have know all sorts of intelligent people who believe in all sort of things that I find to be spurious. I think we should respect peoples beliefs at least to the point of helping them search for and or suggest new names or new wordings that we can also live with.:  Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 05:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I didn't write clearly enough. The section heading is not the main issue in this. We can change that if we find something NPOV and on-topic to use. I think when that section was first added to the article, it was "On the Jewish people".   So we can consider this further.  But whatever we decide about the section heading, we should not remove the mention of her use of the phrase in the text of the article, where it is sourced.  --Parsifal Hello 06:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There appear to be three types of edits here. First, there are a few nice copyedits: removing the "as individuals" phrase that is largely OR and redundant, as well as replacing the redundant use of "problem" with "one". These are good edits, I don't see why you threw them out.


 * Regarding the section heading, I have no opinion, actually.


 * The major issue, to me, is the phrase "what she called the 'Jewish problem'". This really does make it sound like the phrase was her own invention. I will try to reword this somehow. Perhaps, "In sections titled "The Jewish Problem, Bailey wrote..." or something like that. SqueakBox, would that seem closer to the NPOV to you? I must agree with Parsifal, btw, she does use the phrase 10 or 15 times, and we can't pretend she didn't.


 * I agree with Squeak as well, however, that extreme care will be required to avoid allowing such phrases as this and "new world order" to have undue weight simply because of their somewhat loaded connotations to the modern reader. The fact that "she wrote it" doesn't automatically justify its inclusion; if it did, James would have probably added considerably more text than he did. If presenting a bare fact is inherently going to tend to make a biased or POV impression on the reader, then its our duty to prevent that, as well, IMHO. (I have had this discussion w/ cat once already, and I remain convinced that some contextualizing is needed here, such as quick reference to the fact that "the Jewish problem" was a phrase used by many contemporary authors.) Eaglizard 07:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "the Jewish Problem": Basic World History
Yikes. I took the day off to celebrate my husand's birthday with him and came home to find ... this? Dear me.

Strong Keep for section heads "On the Jewish Problem" and "On the Negro problem." Those were Bailey's words, folks, and her terminology, repeated several times.

Squeakbox, you seem to be upset because you think that our using thse headers "makes her look like a Nazi". Hardly.

Eaglizard, thanks for remembering our previous run though this, even if you still do not seem completely convinced.

The terms The Jewish Problem and The Negro Problem are not unqiue to the Nazis and Alice Bailey. They were and still are used by a wide variety of people, including Jewish Zionists, Russian Communists (Bolsheviks), Henry Ford (the automobile manufacturer), and "Just Plain Folks."

Maybe it will help if you read some non-Nazi, easily googled web page reprints of old 20th century magazine artciles that had the words "The Jewish Problem" in their titles. The items are listed below in chronological order of publication, and i have given you some notes on the writers and the publication dates to help you understand that these articles do not relate to Nazis in any way. I have provided links; please at least skim these texts for "flavour":


 * Ahad Ha'am: The Jewish State and Jewish Problem (1897)
 * Ahad Ha'am was Jewish. The Nazi Party did not exist in 1897. Ha'am, writing about the enthusistic responses to a recent Zionist convention, argued that the establishement of a separate Jewish State would not solve the The Jewish Problem of anti-semitism, which, he believed, sprang from economic scapegoating during periods of financial downturn within various nations.


 * Anonymous Editorial: Candid Address to Jews on the Jewish Problem (1922)
 * This editorial was filled with rabid antisemitism and it was printed in the Henry Ford controlled newspaper, the Dearborn (MI) Independent. Henry Ford hated Jews, and he was all-American. This article makes Alice Bailey look like one of the Care Bears. Best quote from it, for sheer laughable shock-value: "Behind the amazing degeneracy of the modern stage and motion picture is a solid wall of Jewish ownership and control." This was in 1922, mind you, when all films were silents and the "amazing degeneracy" that Henry Ford's mouthpiece editorialist attributed to films was intended to condemn dramatic film actors like Rudolph Valentino, Gloria Swanson, and Jackie Coogan; popular comedians like Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Laurel and Hardy; feel-good kidddie shorts featuring Our Gang; the famous documentory "Nanook of the North" (it was about the Inuit people), and the Felix the Cat animated shorts. The most "degenerate" film of thae year 1922, beyond any doubt, was "Häxan" (a.k.a. "Witchcraft Through the Ages"), directed by Benjamin Christensen -- but he was Danish, not Jewish, and his surname prclaimed his Christian religious heritage quite clearly.


 * Leon Trotsky: On The Jewish Problem (1934)
 * Leon Trotsky was Jewish. He was also a founder of the Russian Bolshevik Communist party. He was not a Nazi; in fact, the Russian Communists fought the Nazis during WW II.


 * Abram Leon: The Jewish Question: Six Contradictory Trends in the Jewish Problem During the Period of the Rise of Capitalism (circa 1939)
 * Abram Leon was another Communist and Jew. This article is quite filled with demograhic and statistical analyses. It's kind of fascinating, if you like demography.


 * Alfred Jay Nock: The Jewish Problem in America (June 1941) 
 * This article was published in The Atlantic magazine right before America entered WW II. The Atlantic was and still is a typically upper class American magazine aimed at the college-educated professional classes.

Okay -- i could pull up 100 more, but it's late and i have to go to bed.

So, you might ask -- if "The Jewish Problem" is not an exclusively Nazi term, and if even Jews (and Zionists) used and still use it -- what does the term really mean? What is the "Problem"?

The "problem" is that Jews are not liked by some people -- but after that sinple statement, the term "The Jewish Problem" splits into two entirely different meanings.

When Jews write about The Jewish Problem, they usually mean "antisemitism" or "pogroms" or "anti Jewish legislation" -- that is, a problem that Jews are facing.

When racists write about The Jewish Problem, they usually mean "We don't like Jews living near us, so getting rid of them is our problem."

Alice Bailey meant it in the racist sense -- she wanted to get rid of Jews. Ahad Ha'am meant it in a Jewish way -- he wanted people to stop treating Jews badly. And yet, interestingly enough, both Bailey and Ha'am reached partially similar conclusions. They both believed that assimilation of the Jews into their local cultures would help alleviate the poblem better than the establishment of a Zionist Jewish state would. After this agreement, they differered widely, however. Bailey, as we know, wanted Judaism to cease to exist. Ha'am wanted Jews to remain Jewish, but to take on greater roles in local agriculture and handicrafts (occupations from which Jews had been barred in some nations).

Ha'am's ideas have, incidentally, come to pass in America, and it seems that he was right; in a nation where Jews have been legally allowed to move into a variety of occupations, including agriculture and handicrafts, antisemitism is much less virulent than in nations where Jews have been legally restricted to fewer occupations. Ha'am's ideas, incidentally, were extremely influential on the development of the many small Jewish-owned chicken farms in Petaluma, California at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. See the book Comrades and Chicken Ranchers by Kenneth L. Kann; Cornell University Press, 1993" and the film A Home on the Range: The Jewish Chicken Ranchers of Petaluma, California.

In closing, Squeakbox, i want you to know that i am highly disappointed in the educational system of this country. You really ought to have known better than to have flown off on this tangent, but you didn't -- and that is the fault of your high school world history teachers.

However, that is in your past. Now it's up to you to learn. If Bailey's time-frame is too remote for you to feel familiar with its terminology and major events, then next time, before you propose a major editial change from an alarmist, ahistorical point of view, just do a google search and fill in the blanks that were left in your education. Being an autodidact is better than being ignorant. Thanks.

cat yronwode, who does not have a high school diploma or a GED, and knows first hand what it is to be an autodicact. Catherineyronwode 10:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Cat. I am continuing to watch this discussion in a kind of wonder but if I might say so, you appear to have didacted your auto most effectively. Rumiton 11:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * cat, I think your list of other users of the phrase makes my point for me. You saw a need to "educate" SqueakBox with examples of other, non-Nazi users of the phrase, and you place the blame on the US education system. I agree, to a degree: we can assume many Americans will suffer the same lack of knowledge. Hence, historical context in the article (similar but more concise than you provided her) would be a great service to the reader.


 * On another topic, where exactly did you read Bailey saying she wants "get rid of" Jews? I read her call for "assimilation" the same way I understand your description of Ha'am: they should become an integral part of their local cultures. Where does Bailey say they should stop being Jews? She says they should stop being of the "Orthodox Jewish faith", but then again, so did Bertrand Russell, for instance. Eaglizard 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I fully agree that the word the Jewish problem was used by various groups and individuals before 1945, not just the Nazis and certainly not just Alice Bailey but I dispute that any other than militant Muslims and western extremists (such as white power groups) have used this term since 1945, and that it is very much associated with Nazism since 45, and that is the basis of my objection. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable in blaming the US school system for any alleged lack in my education as I have never received any education inn that country, where I have spent 17 nights of my life. High schools are for girls in the UK and while I was educated in the state system it was at a good grammar school, I got the top grade for O-level history where we studied the early 20th century till 1945, though I actually think I have been misunderstood, and I have been mis-labelled as Americvan (just read my user page as there is no excuse for such a mis-assumption, and your assumptions about my ignorance are remarkably wrong. Lets focus on the edits not on our wild opinions of the editors, please, SqueakBox 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Location of quote, Wilber
Wilbur, a free program you can use it to locate anything in the AAB or other text or html files.

A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, p. 722-725

(copyright violation removed --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

It's a freeware, anyone can down it and use. Sparklecplenty 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, has "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" gone into public domain? If so, my apologies, though we'd really rather not have text dumps on talk pages in general. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

copyright status of Bailey books
Background: see Public domain.

Only books published before 1923 are in the public domain, unless the copyright owner has released them.

According to this statement by the copyright owner, the works are not copyright-free. According to the organization distributing the works for free at this website, they are "made available for limited non-commercial, educational and personal use only", and other conditions of use are listed on their terms page. However, Lucis Trust states on their home page that " no rights have been issued to any other publisher to produce electronic or print editions of any of the Lucis Publishing Companies' publications in English."

Also, I found this text on the home page of the free download site:

"Unfortunately - for the time being - LUCIS TRUST as the owner of the copyrights withdrew the approval to publicize the works of Alice A. Bailey in English in the Internet."

Currently, the free download link is still active. But it could disappear at any time, so anyone who wants a copy may want to download it soon.

All of the above means that short quotes can be used, easily justified under fair use, since the quotes are taken from 30 large books and as such as are a very small portion of the writings. However, full copies of entire chapters might stretching it a bit. --Parsifal Hello 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Location" of the Hierarchy
Look, I could go into lots of AAB's technical details of "etheric" matter, and how a spiritual center has no physical location, etc, etc, and I will if it becomes necessary. But, it's easier to explain it this way: the AAB quote in the article itself makes it clear that the Hierarchy is not "located" at Sirius: "The energy of Sirius by-passes (to use a modern word) Shamballa and is focused in the Hierarchy." If the Hierarchy were at Sirius, the energy wouldn't need to be transmitted from there. The same goes for Venus, btw. The Hierarchy is "located" here on Earth; it is our "private" group of Masters. It derives from Sirius, and Venus, but is not "located" there. Venus (apparently) has their own set of Ascended individualities.

I suggest the easiest way to deal with this is to remove the idea of "locating" the Hierarchy in any physical place. I'll see if I can find one of the quotes where AAB explicitly makes the point that the Hierarchy has no physical location, if you insist. Eaglizard 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bailey refers always to the physical-etheric body. They are part of one unit and have location, as does even the astral and mental bodies. Get you Baily facts straight Kwork 21:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, AAB's text explicitly states that the Hierarchy exists only on the higher mental subplanes at their lowest point, constructing and manipulating etheric vehicles as needed (although some Masters apparently take physical incarnation for certain specific purposes, mostly involving specific initiations and sometime leading of physical plane groups in the past). Since space-time is a purely physical plane phenomenon, the Hierarchy cannot be said to be "located" in any specific "place". There are certain Earth locations closely associated with the Heirarchy, such as in Tibet, and a place in the Andes mountains; but these are not the "location" of it, by any means. As I understand her, at least. Eaglizard 18:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

freeware file search tool
PS Can someone suggest a good, freeware file search tool that would let me do GREP or at least Boolean searches on the HTML files? I looked at cnet and a few places, but there weren't any of the old, simple tools that I could find. Everybody thinks they've got the desktop answer to Google, apparently... sigh. Eaglizard 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mozilla allows search on the html files using Ctrl F, SqueakBox 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no, I mean allow me to search the whole directory of the HTML files of the books, w/ subdirs, for certain combinations of words, like "Shamballa" NEAR "Venus". :) Eaglizard 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I use windows grep and find it very useful, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox] 00:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Squeak :) Eaglizard 18:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

creating Wikipedia bullshit
"the term framing refers to an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Framing defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others."

Wikipedia has made a massive use of framing to developed a terminology that attempts to frame all discussion in a way that amounts to a form of New Speak and turns attempts to discuss meaning into a thought crime. So if, for example, I state the obvious fact that Alice Bailey is a liar and viciously antisemetic; and point out the relevant quotes that prove that, in Wikipedia New Speak, becomes translated as: "disruptive" WP:POINT.

Since, as a result of this highly framed editing process that turns all editorial discussion into Wikipedia New Speak, the articles produced are mostly bullshit. It has occurred to me, then, that as an alternative to disruptive and troublesome editors, the whole process of writing articles could be simplified by doing away with the editors and using, instead, this simple Bullshit Generator. Kwork 21:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article was in good shape a few months back, it is in terrible shape now. Wikipedia does not like people who try to use the encyclopedia to promote a personal agenda. Big deal, you hate AAB but that is no excuse to insult her memory or to make the article a reflection of your own agenda. Please calm down, remain civil and stop your pattern of disruption, then we can get on with how to improve the article, SqueakBox 00:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, without responding to your comments about Kwork at all, I would like to respond to your comment about the article.


 * I saw it a few months ago and, I respecftully disagree, it was not in good shape. The article now is more complete, more NPOV, and better sourced. If you would like to make it even better, then I am pleased to work with you on it.  But the past is in the past, and the article needs to move forward, not backwards.  --Parsifal Hello 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair comment (and my comment was aimed at Kwork, the only editor still here with whom I interacted then, SqueakBox 00:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The question that begs an answer, Kwork, is that if Wikipedia is the bull excrement argued above, what are you doing here rolling in it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read Criticism of Wikipedia, where common complains such as yours have been made; and remember: You do not have to edit Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When I wrote this, which deals principally with the issue of framing to control, direct, and limit editorial thinking, I tried to make some points that I think are important; and to do that without taking up a lot of space on the talk page (for reasons I do not understand, Sparklecplenty inserted three pages from an AAB book yesterday). I would not mind if it is ignored. I would enjoy thoughtful responses. So far, however, the responses, from SqueakBox and Jossi, contain nothing but speculation about my personal motivation, and about my personality defects. Kwork 11:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, you said to me: "remain civil and stop your pattern of disruption". This is a little surprising coming from you because you have an approach that is every bit as abrasive as my own, an with an equally strong point of view. Also you repeated accusations against me have been very disruptive, and what you have said about me is far from civil. Kwork 13:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This has no bearing on the article. Kwork, you're being disruptive; stop. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you asked: "The question that begs an answer, Kwork, is that if Wikipedia is the bull excrement argued above, what are you doing here rolling in it?". Jossi, for someone who puts so much emphasis on civility, you question is phrased in a very insulting form. But it is a fair is a enough question, if I am correct in understanding your question to be "why is Kwork editing here if he has so many objections to the ambiance?" As far as this particular article is concerned, my involvement goes back to April 2007 when SqueakBox removed the entire criticism section from the article as it was then []. He removed that section on the grounds that it was unsourced, although it was actually the only section of the article that had any sourcing. At that time I was new to Wikipedia, and had no one to help me understand the processes here, and how to get the criticism section returned to the article. At that time I did not even know how to sign my used name to a talk page edit. (The truth is, of course, that I still know next to nothing about how Wikipedia functions, and do not like the way issues are framed.) But, to me the issue was to get a fair representation of Alice Bailey, and since I do not take well to efforts to bulldoze me out of the way, I decided to stay around and fight. Although I regret I initiated the process, once begun there was no turning back. And also, Jossi, it is not just stubbornness on my part. I am sure that you, also, have read the Bhagavad Gita, and Krishna's explanation to Arjuna why he can not run away from a battle that he did not want to fight, and even thought the fight was against the members of his own family. I could expand more on the underlying principles that are involved, as I see it, but probably I have already written more than you were hoping for in a reply. Kwork 14:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided to stay around and fight, Arjuna, etc. Kowrk: WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've indef-blocked Kwork for disruption, per his request. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Problem in post-2000 literature, for Squeakbox
Squeakbox, your proposal that we delete the term "On the Jewish problem" and "On the Negro Problem" from the artcile's sub-heads because "it makes Alice Bailey look like a Nazi" and (in your most recent iteration) because only "Muslims" have used the phrase since 1945 is becoming a real time-waster.

I was glad to hear that you are not an American; it is somehow very reassuring to my weary heart. I could make a snide remark about the value of getting top grades for O-level history if it leaves one unable to follow simple instructions. But i'll leave that aside and simply comment on the simple instructions postion of this issue.

Did i not ask you to go to google and do your own research? Yes, i did -- and you didn't do it.

Instead, you just came back here with a lot of new, but still totally bogus chatter in which you "dispute that any other than militant Muslims and western extremists (such as white power groups) have used this term since 1945" and you again expect me to do your research for you.

Well, i will -- one more time -- but after that i reserve the right to question more than your education.

Here you go, and then, please, get a clue!

The folowing are NON Nazi, NON Muslim uses of the "Jewish Problem" taken only from articles with the term "Jewish Problem" in their actual titles, selecting from among only articles which were published after the year 2000, and which are accessible via google. They are listed in chrnological order of publication, with my explanatory notes:


 *  Michel Gurfinkiel: France's Jewish Problem (2002)
 * This article, about antisemitism in modern-day France, first appeared in Commentary magazine, a liberal Jewish magazine, and was then reprinted in abridged form in the Hebrew Post, an Israeli newspaper. in which the full article appears this month.) The writer, a French Jew, is editor-in-chief of the French weekly Valeurs Actuelles.


 * Abraham H. Foxman: Britain's Jewish Problem (May 2005)
 * This article originally appeared in The New York Sun daily newspaper on May 18, 2005. Abraham H. Foxman is the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith (a Jewish organization). The piece is about antisemitism in Britain.


 * Eli Sanders: The Jewish Problem: On Being Jewish in Un-Jewish Seattle (December 19, 2006)
 * The Stranger is a Seattle free weekly entertainment and media newspaper (it is neither Muslim nor Nazi). The author is Jewish and says so in the article.


 * Deborah Lipstadt: Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem (January 20, 2007)
 * The Washington Post newspaper, Page A23. The author's name is a common one among Ashkenazi (German) Jews, so it is reasonable to suppose that the author is Jewish. The Washington Post is a well-known liberal newspaper. It is neither Muslim nor Nazi.

There are at least 50 further post-2000 references at google. So, once again, you are barking off the track, and have only succeeded in wasting my time, not in proving your point.

Please get a clue and drop your useless idee fixee on the term "The Jewish Problem." Bailey used it, and so did -- and do -- many others. It is neither a Nazi nor a Muslim term.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 06:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S., for Eaglizard:


 * You wrote that i "saw a need to 'educate' SqueakBox with examples of other, non-Nazi users of the phrase." No. I chose slowing down and providing a model of gracious didacticism as a way of burning off my anger that Wikipedia allows incompetent and ignorant people editing priveleges equal to those of competent and knowledageable people.


 * You asked me, "where exactly did you read Bailey saying she wants 'get rid of' Jews?" My answer is that by calling for the destruction ("in any way possible") of Judaism, Bailey would, pragmatically speaking, be condemning millions of devout Jews to enter into forced cultural "assimilation," forced marriages with non-Jews, and/or forced religious conversions. No matter how you choose to define Jewishness -- by culture, genetics, or religion -- Bailey wanted the Jewish culture, the Jewish genetic group and the Jewish religion, to be dispersed into non-existence through absorption into European cultures, genetic groups, and religions. Her call for an end to "Jewish separativeness," means, practically speaking, an end to anything identifiable as Jewish, most especially, the "stubborn" and "obsolete" refusal of Jews to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. She wanted Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) folks to become marranos and conversos and to marry Haplogroup H (Y-DNA) folks with the result that Haplogroup J would cease to exist as a measurable Haplogroup.


 * cat Catherineyronwode 06:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bailey was an occultist not a politician and wasn't trying to impose any political views on any people. Catherine, I am unhappy with your comment about "incompetent and ignorant people" as a description of some editors. Please be much more careful about civility in future, SqueakBox 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Squeakbox, as your reply to me jammed two ideas into one parapgrah. I will repsond to each in its own paragraph:


 * 1) One does not have to be a politician to make political statements. Bailey predicited, expected, and intended Judaism to be eliminated from our world "by any means possible." Bailey's plan to force the end of Judaism as a religion "by any means possible" is a political statement. The phrase "by any means possible" includes her the broadest gamut of political, social, legislative, and other means, up to and including force. As a political plan, it removes power from Jews and vests it with Bailey's "Hierarchy." Most Jews do not want to stop being Jews. Bailey was prepared to eliminate Judaism "by any means possible" including going against the Will of Jewish people.


 * 2) I am sorry for any incivility. The problem is that you have wasted my time for a second time. I asked you to do the research yourself at google. You did not. Instead, you came back with a second insupportable argument, namely that after the year 1945, the only people who use the term "The Jewish Problem" are "Muslims." I had to knock down yet another roadblock you have willfully put in place. Your refusal to conceed your errors and your continual erroneous statements, for ewhich you demand proof of rebuttal is in itself is a form of incivility, in my opinion.


 * Look in the mirror. Ask yourself, "Unto whom is this served?"


 * cat Catherineyronwode 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This itself is complete bullshit cat, I'm really weary of it. There's just no way "gradual dissolution" can be revised to read "condemned" or "forced". Your bias is like a big ******* log in your eye. You're Limbaughing her text worse than Cumbey ever dreamed of. Dear. (And not to mention that every title you quote above is an obvious trope on the now-loaded phrase "Jewish Problem", ie, the titles play off of the existing connotations. You have, again, proven your opponent's point, though I'm sure you don't see that, either. Cast the mote, etc etc.) Eaglizard 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Eaglizard, you jammed two ideas into one paragraph, and i will respond to each in turn.


 * 1) When the term "by any means possible" is introduced into a political plan for future development, the use of force is implicit. I personally know of no Jews who intend to give up their Jewish identity -- be that cultural, genetic, or religious. The idea that someone plans to do this "by any means possible" is a threat.


 * 2) You say that "every title you quote above [in the post-2000 literature section, i preseume] is an obvious trope on the now-loaded phrase "Jewish Problem", ie, the titles play off of the existing connotations." My responses:


 * A) My intention was to prove that Squeakbox's ignorant position that post-1945 the term i only used by "Muslims" is insupportable. By choosing only Jewish authors, i hoped to demolish his point as brifly as possible.


 * B) Please read all of the articles cited. While one of the post-2000 articles certainly uses the term as a trope (that being the article by Eli Sanders about being Jewish in Seattle), the others simply continue the exact same tchnical use of the term as found in the 1897 article by Ahad Ha'am, in the 1934 article by Leon Trotsky, and in the 1939 article by Abram Leon -- namely, as a desritption of the problems faced by Jews who live in nations that condone or actively endorse antisemitism. This usage -- and it is far from a trope -- is especially evident in the Michel Gurfinkel article on antisemiism in France (2002) and the Abraham H. Foxman article about antisemitism in Britain (2005).


 * I would suggest that before you continue dismissing Jewish use of the term "The Jewish Problem" as a mere "trope" on what you and Squeakbox, in your ignorance and refusal to research the material, see as a primarily "Nazi" or "Muslim" term, you look more deeply into who Jews are, what Jews write about, where Jews publish, and what Jews have to say about themselves. Even a moderate amount of research discloses for your edification that your viewpoint is not based in fact but rather stems from an ignorance of world history. Ignorance of world history is not shameful and it can be remedied, but you must do some research in books (or even at google) before claiming knowledge that you do not have.


 * cat Catherineyronwode 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest, before you continue telling me what I'm doing, you do the rather more simple research of actually reading my words. I have not "dismissed" the use of any phrase; there's nothing dismissive about the word trope. The term "Jewish Problem", however, is very loaded; all your examples seem to prove this. (BTW, You will also find I have not used the words "Nazi" or "Muslim".)


 * My point is simply that calling for "the gradual dissolution" of a religious faith, even if "by any means possible", could not possibly include violence, which is notoriously not gradual, rather intrinsically. In fact, as adverbs, violent is the exact opposite of gradual &mdash; they are antonyms. Just because you don't like the outcome she suggests does not give you the right to rewrite her words into whatever form your emotional reaction prefers. I do not intend this to insult you as a person or an editor, cat, but I believe your views on this are every bit as emotionally biased and "off-the-wall" as Cumbey's (for an instance). But this is just my belief about your feelings, which would be a pointless debate in which to engage, so let's just leave it, huh? The only important note is that I appreciate that you haven't been slanted in your edits to the article. You do seem able to separate your own beliefs from the the idea of the NPOV, which is really all I have a right to ask of you, here. Eaglizard 22:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"violence" can be "gradual"
←Eaglizard, I've been trying to stay away due to time constraints, but when I read what you wrote here, I decided I needed to postpone that Wikibreak another hour to enter a response. I've typed a lot in response to what seems like a little, but there are important ideas here, so here goes.


 * You wrote: In fact, as adverbs, "violent" is the exact opposite of "gradual" — they are antonyms.  Question:  Where did you get that information?  What dictionary or thesaurus?  This is exactly what Cat has expressed, that when facts are stated, research needs to be done.  I've done the research, and what I found is: NO, those words are NOT antonyms.


 * I recommend you install a bookmark in your browser toolbar for the reference.com free online thesaurus, and free online dictionary.


 * Here's what they told me -- Antonyms for "gradual": abrupt, sudden and antonyms for "violent":gentle, passive, peaceful, calm, gentle, mild, moderate.  Notably, the two words are in separate continuums of meaning.  "Violent" refers to use of force, wheras "gradual" refers to the passage of time


 * You wrote:  calling for "the gradual dissolution" of a religious faith, even if "by any means possible", could not possibly include violence, which is notoriously not gradual, rather intrinsically.".   Please read the following two examples of "gradual" uses of "violence" to dissolve and oppress cultures and peoples.   These two are just the first couple I happened to think of; study of history can provide endless more, many that are very very dark and even more gradual.  After you read these, I ask that you withdraw your statement I quoted in this paragraph.


 * Recent gradual use of violence: Anschluss, the annexation of Austria by Germany prior to World War II. Years of planning and patient slow pressure from within and without, transition accomplished without a shot being fired... while in the background, in the darkness, as the process proceeded and even more so shortly after the handing over of the keys to the castle, many thousands of dissidents and Jews were rounded up, imprisoned, killed, or sent to the camps. The political decision was made with a vote, with non-secret ballots handed to officials rather than depositing into closed boxes.


 * Violence even more gradual can be seen in the story of Native Americans in the United States. The violent destruction of the culture and freedom of those peoples took over 300 years. It began when Europeans arrived in America, began to ramp up around the late 1700s, and escalated for over a hundred years, bit by bit, first with war but then later with forced relocations and slowly increasing restrictions on culture and access to land and resources.  Eventually, even the spoken language of those peoples was attacked in the now infamous Indian Boarding Schools, part of the process of  Americanization.  This is an example of a "gradual" "violent" "dissolution" of a people, their culture, their religion, and their spoken language.


 * Regarding your complaint about the use in the article of "loaded" words and phrases that Bailey used, those loaded terms make people feel upset for a reason; they name topics that are in fact highly charged. They should not be softened or hidden, quite the opposite, they should be reported so the article can be WP:NPOV.  Alice Bailey used those terms.  She was not speaking in a vacuum.  She KNEW the terms were charged.  She wrote using those words before, during, and after WWII.  She KNEW of the Axis use of the terms, and even discussed it, but she CHOSE to use those words anyway.  While she said that her use was different, she DID NOT STOP using those words.


 * She was not naive, not a simple innocent lady philosopher peacefully discussing "world unity". She was an outspoken teacher with an agenda that she made as public as she could, and her agenda included a future world in which "the Jewish Problem" would be "solved" by the "gradual dissolution" of the Jewish faith and the absorption of the Jewish race or people into the Christian culture or people, through intermarriage, or "by any means possible."  That is her phrase, not invented by POV-pushing editors.  The fact that she applied the word "gradual", as we saw above, does not absolve the phrase of its sinister undertones.


 * Now, I want to be very specific about something: I am NOT implying IN ANY WAY that Alice Bailey called for violent extermination of Jews.  I DON'T KNOW what she meant by those disturbing words.  My points, after all this extended writing, are simple:
 * Bailey used those words and phrases, often, and with informed intention
 * This article is written in a format that reports mostly what Bailey wrote about stuff, since her writings are almost the only sources available about her work.
 * Those concepts are important, notable, verifiable, and exist throughout her writings, appearing in both the esoteric parts and the parts about world religion and government.
 * Summary: it's part of her teachings, the article reports her teachings; therefore, those words and phrases must be present in the Wikipedia article. Not interpreted, just reported.  And not hidden. --Parsifal Hello 01:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the two situations you describe as long, gradual events, punctuated by periods of violence. Lets not argue over semantics; if want to decide violence can be gradual, that's your prerogative. However, I recommend you do not test your theory out at a bar, unless you have very good medical coverage. And, yet again, I have to ask editors to stop putting words in my edit-box: I have not suggested the phrase be removed, interpreted, or hidden. Eaglizard 12:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to put words in your "edit-box". The suggestion to delete that content came from someone else and is what started this whole section, so that's why I ended with that.  Sorry if it seemed that part was directed towards you, it was just directed to the general idea of including those phrases.
 * "I see the two situations you describe as long, gradual events, punctuated by periods of violence." - that's a usable explanation, and can work in this discussion. Of course, during the periods between the punctuation of violence, the looming threat is always present, so the shadow of the violence informs the entire process.  That's how "gradual dissolution" can include "violence."  That's contrary to your initial point, and is the issue I was addressing.  So it appears now we agree on this, which is a positive result.  Thanks for being willing to consider my debate points openly and fairly.  --Parsifal Hello 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

About distances between Sjoo, Shamballa, UFOs, Avatars
Catherine and all,

I think Monica Sjoo is a questionable source. She is a published author, she is also by her admission at her web, a psychic or "channel" and  drug user as well. I think that's why the link to her site that was in the article a whiel back was removed, because she is an embarrassment. Her lack of scholarship is reflected in the quote:

"Bailey taught that the Hierarchy of Masters exists in Shambhala…"

I can tell that you did not bothered to look up "Shambhala" in Alice Bailey. If you had searched "Shambhala" you would find that the word does not exists in AAB! She spells it "Shamballa." This is symbolic of the problem of critical editors here. Maybe this is not a surprise because the so-called scholarly sources attacking her don't seem to know much about her writings or her spelling.

Also, there is no "Hierarchy of Masters exists in Shambhala" or Shamballa because "Hierarchy" and "Shamballa" are different but related concepts. The word "Masters" is used for "Hierarchy of Masters." Shamballa is a higher center all together and stands above the "Hierarchy of Masters" in the same way that Hierarchy stands above humanity. The cosmology gives three separate but related "centers":

1.	Shamballa

2.	Hierarchy

3.	Humanity

AAB repeats this many many times throughout so that anyone who had actually studied her would know this and know that Shamballa is not equal to Hierarchy. Sjoo does not know. "Hierarchy" is also used by AAB in two different ways, but I'll skip that now.

Hierarchy represents the divine love, and the Shamballa divine will. These basic concepts are not in the article because those with an anti-Bailey bias are not writing an article about her thought. Instead, the anti-AAB editors relate to "flaky" pseudo-scholars to make AAB look "flaky."

I gave the quote about Avatars in a context so all could see the difficulty of what they were trying to deal with. Here it is in a drop down form:

(The quote below is in line with Fair use law and anyway all DK's works can be freely downloaded from the web)

The passage above gives the context for "avatar" subject and is directly related to the writing of this part of the article.

Do not delete it. You have no right to do so. No one is an authority here who makes up the rules about our discussion and what is or is not OK to write or quote in discussion (the same goes for the article itself). There is no Wiki rule that prohibits the passage I posted in discussion and you do not have the authority to remove it. You may put longer quotes in a collapsible line like I did above if you like. But do not presume to delete my words or quotes. You do not own this forum and have no business deleting other people's postings. And don't start talking to me about "spam." First because that's a judgment call and you are not the judge, especially since you do not study AAB. Second, because this forum is full of what some would see as undeleted "spam." And third, because the quote you removed is directly related to the article and to decisions by editors about the article.

Catherine you appear know something of Ufologist but not AAB cosmology, since you don't seem able to distinguish the two. The problem with the UFO thing is it is "way out there" & has only a very remote and indirect relation to AAB. If we draw a tree picture of AAB's writings and ask where does UFOs thing fit in on the tree, the answer is they don't. It's off the chart. She wrote nothing about them or flying saucers or such things. She wrote about spiritual visitations from other worlds. Some UFO folks saw that and liked the idea cause it had a remote connection with how they see the world. The UFO thing is: remote, on periphery, indirectly connected and worst it gives false impression. If it belongs in the article at all, it belongs in a subhead under "influence" titled: "Fringe groups that borrowed from Bailey's writings." The "I am" movement goes there.

Actually, it does not belong, at least not yet. The reasons are just good sense. Build the foundations fist. We don't make up articles based on whatever we happen to stumble on, however remote it is from the main subject. We ask, "What are the main parts of her thought that we need to cover," and we go find AAB's words and scholarly people to report on that spoke of the main topics. Or, at least, that's what editors would do if they wanted to write a good article. But here we have too many critics and too many editors who have not read much of her work, and apart from the need to find critical things to say in this discussion and article, would never think of reading them and are repelled from them. Sparklecplenty 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkelpelnty, here are my brief responses:


 * The spelling of the term is usually Shambhala. Bailey was unusual in spelling it Shamballa. The Wiki entry is for Shambhala. The fact that Sjoo chose the technically more correct version of the spelling of this Tietan word is not relevant to our understanding of what she wrote. It's like Peiping, Beijing, and Peking -- we all know what is meant, despite the changes in preferred spelling over time.


 * You are fighting a bizarre battle with history and truth in your disruptive, repeated, and POV attempts to delete all references to UFOs from the Bailey page. We have scholarship that presents the subject without any POV pushing. Despite some very crazy and offensive charges (i.e. that i had wanted inclusion of the UFO material in the Influence section because it was "derogatory" to Bailey), the thing is that Bailey's influence on UFO religions is obvious to all of those who deal wih her work from a scholarly and historical point of view.


 * cat Catherineyronwode 22:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think cat is correct about the use of Shambhala, the article there clearly describes the Tibetan concept that Bailey was simply misspelling. On the other hand cat, I can't resist the urge to note that I feel you are also "fighting a bizarre battle with history and truth" (see above, although I repeat, thankfully, you do so without being disruptive). Eaglizard 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And Sparkle is correct about Shamballa vs the Hierarchy. It's apples and oranges. I believe the one refers to a planetary chakra, where the second is a group of cooperating individuals. They are very closely associated, but not at all the "same thing". Eaglizard 12:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Detroyer and Builder Rays
And Sparkle is correct about Shamballa vs the Hierarchy. It's apples and oranges. I believe the one refers to a planetary chakra, where the second is a group of cooperating individuals. They are very closely associated, but not at all the "same thing". Eaglizard 12:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eaglizard, Thanks for your insightful comment on this part of AAB's writings.

It's easier for us to detach from the "touchy-feely" words when looked at from above our human consciousness. Another part of this is that Shamballa is the "Destroyer Ray" and planetary Hierarchy the "Builder Ray." We're told that members of our Planetary Hierarchy, from a historical stand point, were the Great leaders in human history that inspired humanity to "build" institutions of knowledge--religion, science, politics. And when the institutions no longer serve humanity in an evolutionary way, but imprison him, then the "Shamballa "Destroyer Ray" comes into play. Presently, "so to speak" humanity has evoked destroyer--the "development of the bomb"; continuous wars in the  "holy land" of Jersulam, ancient historical artifacts from the beginning of man's civilization are gone (Babylon/Iraq). And because we humans are relative ignorant of the "soul," or heart aspect, "Destroyer force" is ignorantly and heartlessly used for personal or nationalistic gain.  The worst example in modern times was Hitler who DK said misused the destroyer or Shamballa energy.  Now we have lots of smaller egos with that also misuse the energy on a smaller scale. You may have seen the bumper sticker: "Frodo failed -- Bush has the ring."

DK says planetary Hierarchy is easier for us to understand because They are in closer contact with the world, They are inspiration for historical wise wo/men manifested in ancient history as our Great Teachers, Great Religions Leader, Military Leaders, Great Scientist, that are instrumental in the of "building" culture. "Shamballa" is the "destructive" force, that destroys human cultures when they become outdated and imprisoning. The new age of Science has opened the door to "Shamballa," and humans developed more powerful weapons of destruction including atomic ones, and way before humanity was ready to balance the knowledge and power with the heart and wisdom.Sparklecplenty 18:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality nag tag
I forget who added it, I think maybe SqueakBox, but would whoever it was please remove the Neutrality dispute tag from the article? I really don't think it helps us in any way right now. If you really think the article is non-neutral enough that the readers need to be warned, please take the time to specify below how it is non-neutral, or to change the article yourself. I don't think its helpful to slap a nag tag on an article without at least discussing it some on the talk page. Eaglizard 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is discussed in one of the above threads and the dispute concerns the reverting of my changes to the Jewish sections, SqueakBox 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the name of the Tibetan
20:05, 30 October 2007 Eaglizard (Talk | contribs) (75,363 bytes) (don't think Bailey herself ever used the name, did she?)

I don't have time to add the refs to the article, so I'll just offer this in passing:

Bailey, or rather "Djwhal Khul", used that name here:


 * Discipleship in the New Age II - Talks To Disciples - Group Instruction, p 98
 * Esoteric Healing - Chapter IX - The Seven Modes of Healing, p 714
 * The Labors of Hercules - Labor I, p 27

Foster Bailey referred to that name here:


 * Discipleship in the New Age II - Talks To Disciples - Introduction
 * Autobiography of Alice A. Bailey - Appendix - The Arcane School - Its Esoteric Origins and Purposes, p 299

That's what I could find in a few minutes, there may be more, I don't know. --Parsifal Hello 21:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is one place I was stymied by the file search, since the name appears on about 4,000 pages. But that's definately an addition by Lucis to the web version; I was surprised to see his name on the top of every page like that. I'm pretty sure the initial plan was for the old man to remain completely unidentified, and even using the initials was apparently too much, and the name got out. (The direct communication letters w/ disciples also caused a serious uproar when he accidentally referred to himself as a "Master", directly contradicting his own repeated assertion that a "real Master" would never claim to be one.) But as I understand it, the association with the name didn't come about until very late in the day. Note that the books you cite were all published after her death; I believe my assertion is correct, she herself never used the name. In any case, I have amended the text further, trying to reflect your concern. Eaglizard 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Generic Happy Holidays, everyone. :D
Isn't it amazing how sudden consensus can be?

I figured, hey, if everybody else is happy with it, let's let it rest for a while. Guess we all agreed, huh? So, I had just planned to say "Merry " to everyone, which I will: and a Happy New Annual Measurement Period, as well!! Whoohoo!

Anyways, apparently an editor decided to merge Djwal Khul into this article via redirect, a decision I'm afraid I disagree with completely. I've already asked said editor for some justification (although I was of a mind to simply revert, since he did a pretty major hack job on some text we worked pretty hard on). But, I'm generally a real "benefit of the doubt" kinda guy (you wouldn't know it from this page, would you!) so I asked him first. Anybody else think it's a good idea? My plan is still to revert, sans a really compelling reason. Comments, any of you resting souls, you Gallileos, lovers of night vision, lovers of insight? Eaglizard (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still scratching my head head on that one. I hope that Cat or Parsifal will weigh in soon so I can hear what they have to say, : Albion moonlight (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The merge is not neat, but i was never of the opinion that DK needed "his/its" own page, so what the hey.
 * I am on extended Wiki-partial-hiatus again due to total wiki burnout and the need to complete some of my own book projects ("Astrology for Rootworkers," co-written with Christopher Warnock, plus preparation of editorial introductions and new covers for a series of 12 reprints of classic occult texts of the early 20th century). I am only editing wiki pages about dog actors at the present time and it is really sickening to see the constant vandalism of these pages. What i like about Wiki is the simplified markup language. What i can't stand about Wiki is the vandalism, the astroturfing, and the POV pushing. I am watching the google Knol experiment cautiously -- it is structured more effectively for writers to retain control of their own words, but it will never engender the kind of editorial conversations we have had here. On the other hand, it will never lead to the kind of angry exchanges that we have seen here. All in all, i still check my watchlist sporadically, but if you want to contact me, try telephoning me. You can find my number at my shop's website.


 * Happy holidays to all! cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

recent edits
Dear Malcolm/Kwork,

Regarding ClaudeReigns edits, he made very, very minor edits and the last two in particular really helped to clarify who was saying what, which is useful and less vague. I was surprised to see this because it made it sound like there were big, substantive changes instead of what was made. Renee (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Renee, what is your point? I did not revert the edits, and in fact have not even read them. Since he indicated in his edit notes that he planed to do work on the article, I asked him to discuss changes on the talk page. Is there something insulting about that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi everybody.All attempts to try to make this article an apology for Ms Bailey will lead toward the path of mediation. So feel free to advise James and Sparkle the coast is far from clear. They tried to own this article last time and they did not get away with it. I will not let them or anyone else get away with it this time either. :Albion moonlight (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Amen. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is why it seems like there is some ownership going on or "biting" the newbie. I ask Claude to take a look at this piece from a complete outsider standpoint, as a layperson, and it generates statements like the one above from Albion (i.e., "I will not let them..."').  This is not a way to start off editing and I hope everyone can assume good faith.  I have tried to re-enter here softly and would urge us all to work together, not start out by saying we will or will not let X do Y.  We're working together.  Renee (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well hi guys, hopefully I'm all the mediation you will need. I am a religious disaffiliate from an evangelical NRM, one-time astrologer, ethnic Jew, and somewhat skeptical about the ethics/efficacy of Zionism. You will find me curious to learn more about this topic and see it from all sides of the discussion. For now I'll be tagging for clarification, what's thats, and who's whos. The topic may be esoteric but it is an encyclopedia's job to bring context and establish notability. Let's find out what may be learned about good ol whatshername. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me just clarify; I see the text littered with citations (Bailey pp.xxx-xxx). Do we mean to cite just one of Bailey's works, and with text citations, but not cite all other authors the same? This seems awkward. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope your editing here goes peacefully, and that the acrimony is all in the past. If you ask me specific questions, I will give my view on the issues as I understand them. Otherwise, I would rather not get directly involved in further editing of this article. (There do seem to be problems with some references that may not support the statements made.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate. I'd be happy to help look into it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That was something pointed out by Parsifal, and is in the discussion above -- although I can not find it now. Parsifal had checked some of the refs and found that many did not support the statements that contained the refs. That involves the editing of Jamesd1, who was a rather enthusiastic exponent of Bailey and her work. Parsifal is on extended wiki-break, but might respond to e-mail. There are so many of those refs that few editors would be inclined to wade through them all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Could we please start one? This talk page is ginormous. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
 * If the achives are easy to access then I have no problem with that. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll archive starting at the content discussion, "THE Alice Bailey," above. Renee (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 12:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See "RfC", below   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RFCreli

Comment from outside editor. For full disclosure, I've never edited this page (not that I recall), though I have edited other topics related to Theosophy.

I've temporarily disabled the RFC template because the RFC appears to be improperly formed. According to WP:RFC, article Request for Comments is for "comments on page content", not for issues with user conduct.

Reading the RFC details below, I found issues of user conduct obscuring the page content questions, so I'm not sure what comment is needed. For your RFC to get a clear result, I recommend that you collaborate to come up with a neutral statement of the core content question(s) that need wider attention so when editors respond to the RFC they will be able to review and comment without getting distracted.

It's best to completely leave out any mention of editor conduct. If there is incivility or disruptive editing, the Wikiquette alerts noticeboard or other forms of dispute resolution may be helpful. Trying to fit those other issues into an article RFC will most likely result in an ineffective RFC that doesn't bring the desired clarity.

Also, I see that in the section below, you've started to discuss your goals for the RFC. That's good preparation. The result of a discussion like that can lead to a clear effective RFC statement. Or, who knows, you might end up solving the problems without needing the RFC.

There's also the comment from another editor in the next section at, regarding where the RFC should be posted. Hopefully, you'll agree on the best forum, but if not, it can be posted in more than one topic area.

I hope no-one takes this as an intrusion, I'm just trying help. You have the option of simply re-enabling the template and proceeding as you were, but I think you'll get much better results by separating user issues from content issues, per the instruction page for filing an article RFC. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Original heading of this section as initially posted:


 * NPOV dispute, WP:OWN, WP:BITE, WP:V, WP:CIVIL, did I miss one?

Abstract
There is a long standing POV dispute at the page, one editor suggests other editors have ownership issues and has pointed out a less than welcoming attitude, there is also dispute as to which sources are reliable, and suggestions of incivility. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
It is suggested the article gives Undue Weight to Alice Bailey's racial views. I have also suggested that there is undue weight given to primary sources which far outweigh the observations the secondary sources have made, to a ratio of two sentences to a paragraph. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability
There seems to be an unusual dichotomy between common complaints about the sourcing here and my efforts to examine them with detailed attribution and wikilinks to explore the notability of sources and their connection to the subject. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability
There are also complaints about the reliability of academic sources without too much specificity about which sources are unreliable and why. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ownership
Comments like "You are you are moving too fast on your editing; and I see no indication that you understand the issues" and "To many changes too fast." are nearly direct quotes from WP:OWN ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How so? You had made so many changes, and with no discussion, that I had no idea of what you were doing. The article has been controversial, and there is a tag on the top of the talk page asking that changes be discussed. I did not put that tag there, but I do think it a reasonable request, and one which has nothing to do with ownership but rather it is intended to avoid this sort of problem. I have not question your good faith (although your civility is an issue). In two days of editing you made about sixty edits to the Alice Bailey article. For someone as slow thinking as I am that is a lot to keep up with. But, even at that, just what have I done to you aside to ask for some explination of what you are doing? I do not see why should expect to edit without input from other editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have apologized for what offense I have caused you. Do you not accept? ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Claude, you have just accused me of ownership. You have done this (it seems) because you think I am standing in the way of what you want for the article. But what I am doing is not ownership, it is editing, and I do not appreciate your resorting to intimidation tactics to get your own way. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bite
Reneeholle noted an unwelcoming attitude and I concur. Even the best welcome I received was prefaced by a contention about Reneeholle ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility and failure to focus on content
I have made comments which have been or seemed to be taken as uncivil. This counterproposal met a stiff reaction  as did this attempt at humor to agree and ease tensions.. I think this may be related to a failure to focus on content. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment; My reaction was rather stiff and I should have been more diplomatic and I apologize for that. I sincerely doubt that even mediation will settle this matter. We can try. Consensus can only be reached if both sides either agree or agree to disagree. I do not see that ever happening but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps mediation is our best bet. This request for comment is the first step toward that end. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are already involved in Requests for mediation about Peter Yarrow. I hope that this would not put an unneccessary burden on you. I also hope you can provide some commentary on the content issues and help make your goals for the article more clear. This will assist in ensuring more cooperation and less opposition. By the way I completely accept your apology. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What we'd like to see from the article and how we can be bold to acheive it

 * Comment:I want the article to be properly attributed, fully sourced, generously wikilinked, and contain quotes in the citations so as to aid the verifiability of the article and assist in discerning the reliability of sources. I am half satisfied with the reception of my edits sofar, and welcome guidance to pursue this goal. I am willing to work with all other editors to help acheive their goals as well. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC


 * Comment Some of us have been through  this before. Being bold on a disputed article is a bad idea. Did you read the template at the top of this talk page ? It too is cautioning you to slow down and enter into discussion before making major edits. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The boilerplate says substantial changes. I have not changed the substance of what the article says (except for two of those sixty edits: a Dane Rudhyar rectification and a better source for charges of anti-semitism). I have only changed the attribution and linking in ways that are consistent with policy and good for other newcomers, to save them time as well. Other editors will come by and ask why I think there are things wrong with the article yet haven't abided by the directive "so fix it"--this is why. Your comment also fails to address what you'd like to see from the article, etc. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All I see in the list above is a series of unfounded accusations from a new editor who is angry over not getting his way in every edit he made. Beyond ClaudeReigns' touchy reaction to having some of his over sixty edits in two days reverted, the argument is simply a content dispute. All the accusations may be an attempt to disguise that, and may indicate an intent to impose his his own views. I am absolutely sure that he is editing in good faith, but he needs to learn to work with the other editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you provide some policy or diffs to back up your difference of opinion? Your comment fails to address what you'd like to see from the article. Please focus on content. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you supply the diffs that show ownership. And I don't mean diffs from the talk page. Show the relevant diffs from the article. My asking you to explain your edits, particularly in the context of a controversial article, is not ownership. The only reverts I made to your edits involved silly changes you made, such as adding a lot of red inked names, which makes the page look crummy and more difficult to read. I did not revert anything that involved actual content. Let me repeat that: I did not revert anything that involved actual content. But I would not have reverted the red names either if you had given some indication that the names would get turned blue in a reasonable amount of time. Its called communication Claude, and you need to give it a try. As it is now, I view this entire RfC as nothing more that your soapboxing. There are other editors here and it is reasonable for us to want some dialog. That is what the talk page is for. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think everyone here wants a well-sourced article that accurately reflects Bailey's views. From my perception, there seems to be a great sensitivity that nothing be buried and a corresponding fear that it will, which results in some possessiveness of the article and suspiciousness toward newcomers' edits. I should say there is good reason for this fear because in the past important points were minimized and there were frequent edit wars.  But, a new editor is unaware of this bruising history and only sees reverts in response to his edits and welcomes tinged with warnings.
 * I was a little surprised to see an RFC and had to admit that like the old timers, my first response was arghhhhhh, not again. I also felt that recently we had turned a corner and really started (for the first time) to make productive edits again and have a fear that this will halt that.  I hope not and am committed to working with the editors here, for I think we hold the same goals in mind.
 * Regarding the content, here are my questions for reviewing edits:
 * Is the tone of the article neutral?
 * Are all of the sections needed? Do some seem extraneous? Are some too long and redundant?
 * What kind of standard should we use for sources? (This, IMO, has been our biggest block.  We have yet to agree on a common standard for sources which means each and every one basically is discussed, re-discused, then 6 months later, re-re-discussed.)
 * My initial concern about undue weight was solved by a suggestion by Linda. She suggested that instead of deleting text to make the article more proportional in topics to Bailey's writings, add more text on points of her writings which are widely disseminated and used today to give the article more balance.  I have started to do this with the esoteric astrology section. Renee (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)