User talk:Eaglizard/Alice Bailey Controversies (proposed)

First Comments
Ok, here are my own first comments to this version.
 * 1) Yeah, it's getting longer all the time, I know, but I personally don't use wordcount as any kind of guidance. Content is king, you know.
 * 2) I would like to see the section renamed back to Criticism; I think that is a more appropriate title. I doubt any furor ever over Bailey could really amount to a "controversy", except within our own small circles of contacts.
 * 3) I would like another sentence expanding on Schnirlman's critique; after all, he's our most reputable critical source.
 * 4) In a similar vein, surely Groothius accused them of being Satanists because of the original "Lucifer" name -- didn't he? If he did, that should be in there for sure. Cite for that, anyone?? The sentence now is just flatter than a flapjack.
 * 5) I have no actual cite of the supposed "defenders" who quote these passages (other than myself, perhaps, which I know doesn't count)
 * 6) Finally, there should be at least another sentence fleshing out criticism from other Theosophists.

If another (about as long) section titled "Teachings and Influence" is created (which I am working on another proposal project page for), this section would not appear over-long, I don't think.

Anyways, this version is designed to satisfy Nameless Date, Sethie, Renee, and (of course) myself. (Although I will keep trying for as long as I can, I do not hope to ever satisfy Kwork.) Everyone's merciful ministrations are desired below. Thanks. Eaglizard 08:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My first reaction is that this seems a balanced review of all her critics which captures the complexity of the situation. I support its inclusion in the article. Lumos3 09:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ...Bailey and her followers.[1] probably needs a closing " somewhere.
 * "The Jewish Problem" could use a wikilink to Jewish Question. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, good idea, I added that; but I don't really like it, because Bailey used the phrase "Jewish Problem" while the historically accurate term is "Jewish Question" (as the linked article is titled). Does renaming the link from "Question" to "Problem" seem a valid gloss? Eaglizard 19:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the criticisms of Bailey go back to her differing with and splitting from the Blavatsky Theosophists, who included many Nazis, who retaliated by distorting her writings in any way they could. She objected to their ideology, and repeatedly describes how Fascism is spiritually bankrupt and dysfunctional. Blavatasky and her entourage are the ones who need to be scrutinized, if any Theosophists are. Bailey spoke of the various ethnic and ideological groups in anthropological terms, and anthropology makes generalizations about groups of people which can often be construed as racist when that is not their intention or their essence. It is however approprate to question Bailey's assumptions and generalizations about Judaism based on her Christian upbringing, as well as culture and times she lived in. And, by the way the spelling is Buddhism, not Buddhism. And since when does anyone get their own page that can't be edited by anyone else, unless they are a Wikipedia administrator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.75.205 (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)