Talk:Great Invocation

Merge
Skomorokh, don't you have anything better to do with your time advocate this pointless merge? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could scorn your incivility. The merge proposal was purely procedural, reflecting consensus in this Articles for Deletion discussion which I close. I have no opinion on the matter. Regards, Skomorokh  17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that very few took part in the AfD. It helps to let editors with a potential interest in the subject know about the AfD, otherwise its like throwing a party without inviting anyone. For instance, if I had know, I would have voted for deletion. I would vote for deletion of the entire Alice Bailey article too, but it is virtually impossible that could succeed. (Sorry I offended you with my sarcasm. Very sorry.)


 * The articles probably could be merged. I would not oppose it, but do not see any gain by doing it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I once nominated A Treatise on White Magic for deletion, but it did not succeed. I have no idea why there is an article that is "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #95,345". Anyhow, everything in the book review is also in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Malcolm, if you had had the Great Invocation page on your watchlist, you would have noticed that it had been nominated for deletion and would have been able to voice your opinion. Skomorokh  00:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support merging: The reason to merge is that it is pointless to have a very short article which few people will ever read. If there was scope for this to develop into a full scale separate article then that would be fair enough but it is hard to see that there is more than a paragraph to say on this subject. As it is only ever going to be of interest in the context of Alice Bailey it makes sense to move it there. More people will read it there and there will be one less stubby article in Wikipedia. Everybody wins. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have performed the merge. I also added some more references about the invocation, those are not in the Bailey article too. --Linda (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Newman ref
Linda, you placed this statement in the article:

"Researcher Hannah Newman described what she found to be an antisemitic element in the Great Invocation. According to Newman, 'the Plan' named in the invocation refers to the plan authored by 'the Hierarchy', that Newman states places 'high priority on removing all Jewish presence and influence from human consciousness, a goal to be achieved by eliminating Judaism.'"

To the best of my knowledge, although Hannah Newman considered Bailey antisemitic (as do I), I do not recall her particularly mentioning the Great Invocation as antisemetic. Could show a quote? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * She wrote "Among the decoded messages are two lines that directly concern the Jews" and then continued with her analysis. Too much for me to type the whole thing. You can find it on Google Books at this link.  If that doesn't go directly to the correct page, enter "great invocation" in the search box on the right hand side of the page.  The page numbers with the reference are 351-352. --Linda (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)