Talk:Alice Bailey/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 →

Contents 1 About WikiProject Occult Assesment 2 Criticism section changes 3 RFC 3.1 Brief Statements by involved parties 3.2 Statements by uninvolved parties 3.3 AN/I comment 3.4 Discussion 4 Edit 5 Antisemitic people always delete mentions of antrisemitism at Wikipedia 6 A (hopefully) brief rebuttal 7 "The Negro Problem" -- Looks like She Was She Anti-Black, Too. 8 The article and its discussion 9 Good job 10 Did She Call Jews "The Reincarnations of Spiritual Failures" or Not? 11 RfC? 12 Removal of Hitler reffernece 13 Protect article 14 Removal of Zionist quote 15 Inclusion of Christian criticism in Criticism Section 16 Jews as "residue", Bailey as anti-Zionist 17 The Watchman Fellowship / Christian Criticism 17.1 Watchman Fellowship 17.2 Sources 18 Secondary Source Books 18.1 Deletion of Further reading section 19 To James 20 Meatpuppets 21 This is a talk page, not a discussion board 22 Archiving 23 Wiki Words-to-Avoid 24 Suggestion for Discussion 25 To James, re: reading for comprehension 26 Discussion of How to Improve this Alice Bailey Biography 27 Sinister New Age Channelings, Indeed 28 About Discretion in Use of Hyperlinks 29 Another Rabbi Gershom's Quote Problem 30 Restoring more discussion BLANKED by Sethie 31 Judaism "a basic Evil" / "the evils of Judaism" 32 BAD FAITH EDITING AND UNWILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE 33 Criticism latest version by James 34 RFC/User- Kwork 35 Another source of quotes on antisemitism in Bailey's writings 36 New Thoughts 37 New Thoughts 38 Comments on a Quote 39 Critique of a note in the Referenced Shnirelman Article 40 Moving Onward 41 Thank you, AnonEMouse! 42 Moving on Again 43 Kwork 44 Lead sentence and section 45 The Gershom Paraphrase of the Bailey Passage 46 Wiki Policy Re; Self-Published Material 47 New Material Added 48 In Context: Everything Alice Bailey and DK Said on the Jewish People 49 Summary of citations and feedback 50 Proposed Antisemitic section in Controversies 51 Response to Criticisms of the Bailey Compilation on the Jews 52 Proposed outline of the Controversies section 53 New Stub on Antisemitism in the Occult 54 Question on Influence Section 55 Please Add a Teachings Section 56 Controversies Section -- Short and TRUTHFUL 57 Annie Besant... Theosophy? 58 My Proposal for 'Controversies' 59 Links 59.1 Side comment on thesis papers as sources 60 Bibliography Needs an Assist

About WikiProject Occult Assesment

I have added some comments about its assessment. Please check them in this link, and leave your comments here. It also speaks about the article's notability and about its NPOV policy violations. Thanks. --Legion fi 23:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"About Notability.- Ok, it is not the assessment objective to establish notability, and because this aspect of the article has been the object of discussion I will comment on it. From what I can see from the guidelines about notability, this person is notable. It has been the object of several published secondary sources. I must admit, that if we are to be very strict about the guidelines, there are also reasons to deny the notability. The secondary sources that talk about her may not be reliable, but I'm in no position to make a statement about that"

My argument, previously, was (and is) that the article fails to make a case for her notability....aside from in the criticism section. That is rather pathetic considering the claims for her having many followers and wide influence. It seems to me this article needs to do a better job on such a basic point. 96.224.30.180 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are you seeing NPOV and OR violations? Sethie 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you call this statement neutral?:

The worldwide activities of the Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Trust), founded by Alice and Foster Bailey, are dedicated to establishing right human relations.

Maybe it is even 'true', but calling the world wide promotion of its own teaching the way to establish global right human relations is certainly not neutral. 96.224.19.134 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of what they are doing. If there mission statement is "establishing right human relations" just put that in quotes. Sethie 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You asked a question, and I gave you a (short) answer. I had no expectation that it would receive your assent, because experience has lead me to expect the contrary. Nevertheless, that statement in the context of the article is not neutral, and quotation marks will not change that. 96.224.19.134 11:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

All we need to do is say something like the mission statement of the Lucius trust is "...." No big deal.Sethie 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it already is in quotes. Okay, any other problems? Sethie 16:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

How does putting it in quotes make it neutral? (If I were to have called you a quote nebbish unquote, then you would not have minded?) The problem remains that statement equates promoting the Alice Bailey's particular teaching with promoting world peace. It is not a neutral statement, but you do not mind it not being neutral if it says something you like. Nevertheless, your saying it is not a problem, does not change its being a problem, and if it was up to you the whole article would be an uninterrupted celebration of Alice Bailey and her teaching. 96.224.19.134 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Sethie please read WP:NOR and specially the section WP:PSTS. The hole life section is based in a primary source, without reliying to a secondary source (in the last line of the section it mentions some other author, but the content is not referenced). Therefore that section violates the No Original Research policy. About the WP:NPOV, it is clear that by having a Criticism section, the article is biased by structure. We have the "Life" section (that heavily relies in her auto-bio) and the Criticism section, where all the content against her is put. Please read the policy entirely to see that this constitute a violation. --Legion fi 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, but typical of Wikipedia (which I consider a lost cause). Why would removing the criticism section improve the article?

As far as I know, no serious, independent, study has ever been written about Alice Bailey, such as the studies of Carl Jung written by Richard Noll. Although her few followers think she is important, the fact that no critical studies of the life and teaching have ever been published suggests otherwise. Also, if she has followers, why do they not do something to improve this crummy article? I have gotten so tired of looking at it the way it is that I have tried to make a few improvements to it myself. Kwork 16:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section changes

The additions made are justified, but I doubt the effectiveness of adding a series Bailey quotes, or the helpfulness of giving a link to yet another (Evola) occult anti-semite.

For me, the most discouraging element of the long discussion on this subject with the other editors of this article, all intelligent and well meaning people, is that they really see nothing wrong with Alice Bailey's many vicious and cruel statements about the Jews. In my view, this parallels what occurred in Germany before WW2. Germany was a country with a great culture and a highly educated population. That highly educated and cultured German population, while believing that were doing good, descended into unbelievable levels of barbarism because they saw nothing wrong with such cruelty. Kwork 14:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (Last evening I discover that it is still possible to sign my user name.)

Sethie, I can certainly support my version with quotes from Bailey's books. But that will double, at least, the criticism section, and I am trying to avoid making it so large. I was not the editor who added the recent quotes, but it is clear that they are justified, and feel disinclined to remove them. Since the whole article is in bad shape I would rather avoid this argument, and reach some sort of compromise, but that can not be done via an edit war. If you are not willing to try to reach a solution through discussion, than I will do whatever is necessary to support the views I think are correct. Kwork 00:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No one said anything about giving up on discussion yet. I have posted to you here, on your talk page and asked for outside opinion. No need to whip out the big guns yet! :)

Please review WP:PSTS You need a secondary source for each of those claims, which I removed and you put back in. Bailey's own work is not a secondary source. If you find an EXACT quote from AAB which says " in her view separatism is the fundamental human problem and the main source of the world's evil," you could use her own work. The other ideas in those sentences need sources to remain.

BTW it is nice to talk with you. Other then your suggesting I look at e-prime, this feels like the first actual conversation I have had with you. Sethie 00:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "You need a secondary source for each of those claims" Sethie, why does that apply to just me? If everything in this article is removed, that is not supported by a second source, the article will be blanked. Perhaps that would not be a bad idea. Kwork 01:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does it just apply to you? It doesn't.

Sorry to disapoint you and if we rigirously apply that principle the article wouldn't be blanked.

It would just be reduced by about 87% Maybe. Or maybe not.

Personally I am a little more concerned about looking for solid sources for claims that someone said an entire race is the chief cause of humankind's trouble then looking for 2ndary sources for... I don't know where she grew up or what her favorite color was! Sethie 01:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Dispute over whether material is source properly or not, what is and isn't WP:NOR and correct use of sources, particularly WP:PSTS. Do self-published internet essays constitute a WP:RS?

Brief Statements by involved parties

User kwork's proffered version of the criticism section, reflected here [[1]] Contains blatant WP:NOR and misues of WP:PSTS "In her books, Alice Bailey frequently stereotyped Jews as separatists, and because in her view separatism is the fundamental human problem and the main source of the world's evil, Jews are presented by her as at the core of the world's problems. Here are just a few such quotes from her books:" Sethie 22:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is one such quote From Alice Bailey:

"The Jew has ever been (could he but usefully remember it) the symbol of humanity - evolving, seeking, restless, materialistic, separative and greedy....I have enlarged thus upon the Jewish conflict because it is the symbol of all past conflicts in human history, based upon universal selfishness and the greed of undeveloped humanity." A Treatise on the Seven Rays, p.635)

There are many such quotes in her books, but finding them takes more time now because the searchable texts are no longer on line. But she is clearly stereotyping Jews as exponents of separatism and greed, and at the core of humanity's problems. I am sorry if Sethie does not like my point, but to Jews (if to no one else) it is important. I will put more quotes on, to make the picture more focused, when I have time...which may not be till Monday. Kwork 01:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, she is clearly saying here that "the Jew" is the symbol of all humanity, and that their history is the symbol of "all past conflicts" -- that all humans are "evolving, seeking, restless, materialistic, separative and greedy". This particular paragraph does not stereotype anyone; rather, it "universatypes" them. Eaglizard 09:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is correct, and I think it is not, why did she choose the term "Jews" instead of 'humanity' or another term not connected to a minority that had just experienced mass murder? Kwork 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements by uninvolved parties

• Hi. Kwok dropped a note on my talk page, as I'm a Wikipedia:Administrator listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, to comment on the RFC for this article. It took me quite an effort to find the RFC (it seems to have been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, but not in the way recommended there; and, of course, this talk page is huge. Let me list it the recommended way first. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Archived for easier comprehension. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC) OK, now for the actual section -- I seem to be improving the references as I go, but I'll try not to actually change much:
  • http://www.nonduality.com/alice.htm seems to be an unorganized mess of statements attributed to people by first names only, on a web site of questionable reliability. Needs to go.
  • Yonassan Gershom seems to be a published and even acclaimed author [2][3][4] in the field of Judaism and mysticism, which seems to make him an established expert in the field, so this self published essay should be OK per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper).
  • Monica Sjöö is likewise a published author in the new age field, so she would similarly meet the above. Also her essay [5] was actually published somewhere. That mag, "From the Flames", doesn't seem to be a particularly reputable/reliable source in itself, but it's slightly better than solely self-published. However, I'm not sure why this is supposed to be from her book The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth, that's not what the link says.
  • The Lucis Trust is, well, her publisher, a house she founded. It's clearly appropriate in an article about her. More importantly, that her publisher feels the need to make a long detailed response shows that these sorts of criticisms are clearly notable enough to be included.
  • Douglas Groothuis is another recognized expert, and this is coming from a published book.
  • We don't have an article on the Watchman Fellowship or Watchman Expositor, but it seems to be linked to rather freely throughout the Wikipedia. That doesn't make it necessarily reliable, of course, so if it were the only source for such criticism, I'd be skeptical, but there seem to be a lot.
  • Fohat, the Edmonton Theosophical Society, Parker and Oliver, Protogonus, Cleather and Crump, eh... I'm not sure how reliable these sources are, but there's quite a bit of difficulty of evaluating the reliability of anything dealing with the various Theosophical Societies, as it all seems to be quite fuzzy. Clearly since Theosophy seems to be important to the article, it would be useful to know how she is viewed in Theosophy. If someone more knowledgeable tells me these aren't particularly reliable, compared to other Theosophical sources, and why, I'll be willing to strike either or both of these. Likewise if someone claims these are the pinnacle of Theosophical reliability, and can explain why, I'll be equally willing to believe that too. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AnonEMouse, What do you think of the books listed here: [6]. Also, I found this encyclopedic source that looks valid -- what do you think?

The encyclopedic sourcebook of New Age religions, edited by James R. Lewis, 2004, Publisher Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books. Thanks, Renee --Renee 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, just from looking at the titles, that first list seems to be books about her teachings, more than about her. I guess it depends on what you want to use them for; I'd be wary of using them to back something controversial. The encyclopedia seems like it would be a reliable source by our standards, we have a nice short article on Prometheus Books, and even a stub on James R. Lewis, that seems to say they would be respected sources in their fields. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I see elsewhere on this page you were planning to use them to show that she is notable - yes, they certainly do that. Having people write a dozen different books about your teachings doesn't necessarily make the substance of the books reliable, but certainly shows you've made an impact. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A general problem with editing the article is that scholarly literature evaluating Alice Bailey is, as far as I know - and I have looked (including in JSTOR), completely lacking. The biography itself is based only on primary sources, and on books that are appreciations of Bailey, or completely derived from only her writing as a source. There has been no studys of Alice Bailey such as Richard Noll's studies of Carl Jung. So the article is really without secondary, independent, sources...aside from in the criticism section.

Since scholarly studies are so lacking, I thought the Non-Duality discussion of interest because it records a discussion between people who are all very much New Agers about Bailey, and does contain both positive and negative views on what she wrote about Jews. There is just not a lot of material to choose from. If you decide against it being in the article, I will live without it.

Thanks for taking on the RfC for this article. Kwork 17:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Criticism needs to come from respected, reliable sources, and while all that is relative, a group of people known by first name only just doesn't meet that. Fortunately that link is merely sourcing the sentence that she has been criticised, and the bunch of other critics in the rest of the section clearly meets that, so the sentence itself is fine. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that Jerry Katz, who moderated and took part in that discussion, that may be removed, is a published and fairly well known author. His book is cited as a ref in the Nondualism article. [7] Kwork 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it seems he's just compiling any criticisms he likes, and since his own criticism is characterized by "... Alice Bailey has to be the most hateful and stupid" that is a rather permissive filter! :-) Removed per permission. As long as you're explaining, can you explain why the Monica Sjöö comment is said to be from a magazine article in the link, and from a book in our article text? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, My understanding is that the article was extracted from a published book. At the top of the page it says:

The article is based on an extract from a longer pamphlet by Monica, which was published in A4 format of 40 pages in 1998. Click here to read this book in its entirety on this website.

They called it a book, so I called it a book. Kwork 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that link says that pamphlet seems to be called New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, not The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The book, by Monica Sjöö , is about New Age channelers such as Alice Bailey. Is that what you are asking? Kwork 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

When I "Click here to read this book", I end up at a page that says the book or pamphlet is titled New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?. It doesn't say the book or pamphlet is titled The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth. The sentence in Alice Bailey says "Monica Sjöö, in her book The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth, spoke ..." Should it, perhaps, say "Monica Sjöö, in New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, spoke ..." ? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand what you mean, and you seem to be right. It should be changed to New Age Channelings. Kwork 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you quoted this (above):"... Alice Bailey has to be the most hateful and stupid". You need to understand the the effort in restraint this discussion costs me, and other Jews (such as Katz). The stuff Alice Bailey said about Jews, much of which was written just after a mass murder of six million, one million of them little children and babies, is more than a little painful for any Jew to discuss. Try to take that into account in thinking about this discussion. Kwork 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But Kwork, this reflects your bias, that you have a personal POV you're trying to push. I'm sympathetic to the pain and indeed the whole series of events were horrible, but because you feel personally so strongly against Bailey because of some writings it reflects a bias (so much so that above you are even linking Alice Bailey to being responsible for the holocaust). Also, it has been brought up over and over on these talk pages that you are pulling information out of context about Bailey's writings on Jews. --Renee 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks, please don't make this personal. This is about the article. Not about the editors. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do. There has been a lot of discussion on these talk pages that the quotations and claims do not match the sources from which they are cited. As well, there are complaints that quotations are pulled out of context. Can other editors please chime in here?

Also, what I have noticed is that there is a tendency to use Wiki words-to-avoid, like claims, to give a subtle negative tone to the text. This language is better in the current version. Thanks, Renee --Renee 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, you know perfectly well that I spent a lot of time last week rewriting the Biography so that it would read better. My relationship to the Alice Bailey teaching is much more complex than you depict it. I do have a dislike of antisemitism, and all human brutality [[8]]

As for my understanding of the Alice Bailey teaching, I studied it for years, and with the best teachers, and know its weak points and its strong points. I think that religious and racial bigotry is ugly and destructive in every context where it is found, and antisemitism remains a hideous ornament even in a beautiful setting. Opposition to destructiveness and ugliness is the normal manifestation of a human heart, and is not POV. Kwork 21:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, I would like to include this link in the Criticism section [9] because it has extensive discussion of Alice Bailey's antisemitic views, and it is well sourced. Kwork 15:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Kwork. This is a self-published site designed to push the author's point of view, and as such is not suitable as a citation for Wiki[10]. Further Wiki says to only use extremist sites in articles about themselves[11] and that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources,"[12] meaning you need even strong evidentiary standards.

Now, if you find a bona fide scholarly article or book (that goes through peer review) or if the encyclopedic source I posted below (which has an extensive vetting process) says things about Bailey and antisemitism, then that's a great source. Renee --Renee 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Renee. Without going so far as deciding whether or not this is an extremist, this seems to be someone with a web page, but not really a widely acknowledged expert in the field. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a study of Alice Bailey's antisemitism, done with good sourcing by a well known Israeli journalist. 96.224.100.228 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's true then maybe you can find a newspaper article in a mainstream Israeli newspaper? or something from a good quality Israeli university? These sorts of citations would be acceptable.

Also, being a well-known journalist is different than being a well-known expert in the field of esoteric science.

As this site stands, it is still self-published with the specific purpose of promoting a point-of-view. Because of this, it is not appropriate as a Wiki citation. (Someone could do the opposite and find an extremely pro-Bailey site and do their self-published analysis of all of the wonderful things about her, and this would not be allowed either.) --Renee 16:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hannah Newman? Show that she is an acknowledged expert in the field. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, I am waiting for a reply from her. I can point out the there are hundreds of sites that link to her on-line book, and that it is considered authoritative. I might also mention that you just allowed on a long list of books about Alice Bailey, and that few (if any) of those books were written by people whose level of expertise in the subject of Alice Bailey comes close to equaling my own, and whose standards of scholarship certainly do not equal that of Hannah Newman. Once again, fairness is becoming an issue. Kwork 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm asking you to do, show that it is considered authoritative. Who says? A statement by the Encyclopedia Britannica or the New York Times that this is an authoritative book would probably suffice, 1000 Google links doesn't (see Wikipedia:Search engine test). And about "allowed on": I'm honored you credit me with being the deciding voice, but please do make sure you read what I actually wrote; having followers is clearly a sign of notability, but not necessarily reliability. Many religious books of the world are very notable, but not particularly reliable. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, You know perfectly well that there are no standards for the the books published by the various New Age publishers. I could make up a book about telepathic conversations I have had with dolphins, and find a New Age publisher who would believe it. But, while you saw no reason to verify knowledgeably in all those silly books you let in the article, or any reason to verify standards of scholarship; standards have now become very important in the Hannah Newman book that discusses Bailey's antisemitism in a thorough way. I am really having trouble understanding the differing standards, and fairness seems at issue. I can live with the standards you set, they seem quite logical, but would like to see the same standards applied to everything that goes into the article.

Of course, it is pretty difficult (impossible?) to discover what the standards are in flaky stuff like this...its not Aristotelian philosophy. That is exactly why I gave up on Bailey years ago, and now actually prefer Stoic philosophy which sets standards of logic and reason. Kwork 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The same standards will be used. I suspect you misunderstand or missed my point about the difference between notability and reliability, so shan't argue in the abstract, let's see a specific use in the article that you object to. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse,my complaint was based on an apparent misunderstanding: that you had allowed to stay in the article that rather long list of books about the teaching that someone added a few days age. I should have been more careful to verify, and not rely on memory in a confusing situation. Sorry, so sorry about giving you a hard time over something that was my misunderstanding.

As far as I am concerned the much disputed criticism section is okay as it is now, and if a link the Hannah Newman book is added, or not, does not seem of major concern. Since most of the other editors are not likely to trust my edits of the more positive aspects of the Bailey material, and since I consider that something in my past, not my future, it is my hope to now go on to other things which interest me more. AnonEMouse, I think your presence has done a lot to settle the disputes here in a short time. If the other editors would focus on presenting the positive aspects of the AAB teaching, and there is a lot of such material, the criticism section will seem very small in proportion to an expanded article. Nevertheless, my guess is that what has been settled now will be undone in a few months by those who can not live with the realization that a sizable number of sane people really do have negative views of Bailey, and that there is material in Bailey's own writing that supports those views. Guys, "that's life". If you can manage to live with that there will be a lot less time wasted on unproductive arguments.

I was just looking at one of my favorite quotes from Alice Bailey's White Magic:

I seek not to repeat myself. Most of the points that concern the work of the aspirant today I have considered earlier in this treatise. It remains now for all of you to study it with care. I close with an appeal to all who read these instructions to rally their forces, to renew their vows of dedication to the service of humanity, to subordinate their own ideas and wishes to the group good, to take their eyes off themselves and fix them anew upon the vision, to guard their tongues from idle speech and criticism, from gossip and innuendo, and to read and study so that the work may go intelligently forward. Let all students make up their minds in this day of emergency and of rapid unfolding opportunity to sacrifice all they have to the helping of humanity. Now is the need alp, to join the strenuous effort of the Great Ones. They are working day and night in an effort to relieve humanity and to offset those evils and disasters which are immanent in the present situation. I offer to you opportunity and I tell you that you are needed - even the very least of you. I assure you that groups of students, working in [640] unison and with deep and unfaltering love for each other, can achieve significant results. That each of you may so work, and that each of you may lose sight of self in the realization of world need, is the earnest prayer and deepest aspiration of your brother, THE TIBETAN.

Hmmmm...I need to apply that advice better than I have. Kwork 16:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself here, but what about the encyclopedic citation I gave above, or the dissertation. Kwork -- those are good sources with fact-checking systems. These would be considered reliable and verifiable. Can you please take a look at these? --Renee 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AN/I comment

Strikes me the AN/I report was much more effective at bringing outside input to the article, SqueakBox 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean me? No, I'm here because Kwork put something on my personal talk page, I haven't looked at AN/I. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Kwork- you are welcome to come up with 1,000 quotes which you believe "make your case." But that's the problem, it's YOUR case. For the following sentneces to stay in the article, you need to find someone notable who said them.

In her books, Alice Bailey frequently stereotyped Jews as separatists,

her view separatism is the fundamental human problem and the main source of the world's evil, (for this one a very clear quote from AAB would suffice)

Jews are presented by her as at the core of the world's problems.

BTW, if you feel the inclination, and were wondering what WP:OR or WP:NOR is, THIS IS IT! :) "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"Sethie 01:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, what I am saying is completely supported by Alice Bailey's own words, and contains no original research at all. As for secondary support, that is to be found in the criticism section of the article itself:

• http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/na_jews.html#na%20views
• http://www.pinenet.com/rooster/bailey.html
• http://www.nonduality.com/alice.htm
• http://www.monicasjoo.org/artic/channelbrief/sinisterchannelings1.htm

I am not making anything up, its in the Bailey books, and discussed in sources that have been in the article for a long time. If you still think I am wrong, I encourage you to take the matter to mediation. Kwork 11:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of wrong or not. It is a question of, can you provide a WP:RS with, someone other then Bailey who says:

In her books, Alice Bailey frequently stereotyped Jews as separatists,

Jews are presented by her as at the core of the world's problems.

If not, those sentences cannot go in a wikipedia article.

Mediation is not required for this, it is a very simple clear case of WP:NOR and WP:PSTS the RFC will handle it just fine.Sethie 15:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, in my view you are misusing the RfC process because:

• 1. You never made any attempt at discussing and resolving this process in direct discussion with me, but just reverted, and then tagged, the edit you did not like. This should have been resolvable through discussion, without the RfC process.
• 2. You know that your claim of no secondary source has no validity, beyond what applies to the entire article. The the reason for lack of secondary literature is lack of notability of the subject of the article. To the best of my knowledge, no independent study (not even a thorough essay, much less a book) has been written about Bailey. The only exception is some web articles written by those who feel stung by her antisemitism, but even there her lack of notability has limited the attention given to her. What I suspect you are really trying to do is use the RfT process to control the content of the article so that it will accord with your own views of Alice Bailey, and her esoteric teaching that you personally like. Kwork 16:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to rfc re "Criticism" section. The first paragraph looks like obvious OR to me. It doesn't seem to have any reference to the statements being made. I suggest delete it.

The quotes from her books (or is it channeling) might appear anti-semitic but Wikipedia can't actually say that they are such unless a reliable secondary source has commented that they are. I'm not sure how reliable the sources linked to are. Are they self-published websites? Then probably they are not suitable. Maybe the Rabbi's comments are usable if attributed to the source.

The statement "the reason for lack of secondary literature is lack of notability of the subject of the article" sounds alarm bells. I would have thought that a lack of secondary sources to demonstrate a controversial point means it does not meet the required threshold for inclusion in the article. Period.

Regards Bksimonb 17:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look, you will see that the criticism section is the only section of the article that has sources. The lack of secondary sources in the main part of the article suggests to me that the subject of this article lacks notability. I am trying to be fair; and, in fact, I believe all the necessary sourcing is there. If you think something that should be there is not, point it out to me and if it is a genuine problem I will either supply the necessary sourcing, or remove the problematic statement. Kwork 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has been in the making since 2004 so I guess if there are still no reliable sources then it is a candidate for deletion. Of the sources you have found for the critisism section, are they reliable secondary sources (peer reviewed or been through the editing process of a reputable publication) or self published? If not then they can't be used to make any controversial claims. The lack of references in the rest of the article is a separate issue. Regards Bksimonb 09:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey's antisemitism is so widely recognized that not discussing it in an article about her would be problematic. She may be better know for that within the New Age community than for anything else. The issue is even discussed on the Lucis Trust (her foundation) site. Kwork 11:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But if Alice Bailey herself is not widely recognised enough to have secondary reliable sources then do we still have an article? As far as I can tell the sources used are,

1. Hannah Newman's self published essay. I can't find any books or other literature by Hannah Newman.
2. Rabbi Yonassan Gershom's self published essay. He has also written books so at least is a recognised author.
3. Jerry M. Katz. A brief paragraph on a web page followed by quotes of Alice Bailey and reader's comments. Looks very self published.
4. Monica Sjöö. An online transcript of a pamphlet "Originally published with help of the Green Leaf Bookshop, Bristol, 1998". Probably the closest so far to a book.
5. Reba Parker and Timothy Oliver. From what I can tell the "Watchman's Fellowship" is an online Mormon publication. The article seems to be quite well referenced and researched. Possibly there some clues for finding more secondary sources in their reference list beyond Alice Bailey herself.
6. Nicholas Weeks. Another article that looks to me to be quite well researched and referenced from the Blavatsky Study Center although it seems based on mainly primary sources (not in itself a problem but doesn't necessarily help us find new sources for the article).
7. Alice Leighton Cleather and Basil Crump. Seems to be a published paper (1989) later made available on line.

So from what I can tell the last four references are likely to be useful but the first three I think are suspect. Maybe the better references can be used as a starting point for the rest of the article too.

Regards Bksimonb 12:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Jerry Katz is a published and respected author.

[13]

• Hannah Newman is cited in this article [14] as an Israeli journalist and author. Her site is referenced in many web articles, and in at least one book (admitidly published by Lulu, but Lulu is being used now by some highly respected scholars that I correspond with).

• Rabbi Yonassan Gershom is a well known Breslover (Chassidic) rabbi who publishes regularly.

In any case there is no actual Wikipedia prohibition (to the best of my knowledge) against using self-published articles. It is a guideline, and it is well know that many articles resort to such self-published material when they supply good information. Kwork 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking you to not put in stuff about her anti-semitism. I am asking you to use reliable, solid sources.

I am asking you to read and abide by wikipedia policy. "When they suppy good information?" I have never heard that. To the contrary wikipedia has a very strict policy against self-published sources. Here is the the actual policy [[15]] [[16]] Sethie 15:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, at the top of that page, Reliable Sources, it says:

This page is considered a content guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

You know perfectly well there are exceptions made to that guideline in thousands of Wikipedia articles. If you are only concerned about the purity of sources in this article, why did you not object when JamesD put on the link to the Kheper site which is also self published?[17]; as are the two links to The Esoteric Astrologer site which is the work of Phillip Lindsay. [18][19] I suspect that a number of the other links given in the article are self published too. In fact the Alice Bailey books were self published also; although Foster Bailey, who was a lawyer, knew how to hide that by creating a foundation, the Lucis Trust.

If you take a look at the information about Jerry Katz, Hannah Newman, and Yonassan Gershom that is directly above; I think the use of all three is justified in the context of this article. However, I have noticed that you have reverted the edit again. Making a flat statement on the talk page, and then reverting without waiting for a reply is not dialog but rather edit war.

I am also concerned that Bksimonb is working with you on a disputed article (Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University); and, as a result may not be neutral. Kwork 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, I am writing this bold because I want to make sure you see it. If you continue to refuse to engage in dialog over our differences; I will, as a next step, request mediation.Kwork 17:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There are people who either don't know the rules or overlook them. People who do know the rules clean up articles, one citation at a time. Sure there are exceptions.... if we were using a self-published lame-ass source for say "Alice Bailey like bananas" I wouldn't argue that citation.

Feel free to include a non-self published RS and I won't take it out.

Your modus operandi is that when more then two editors disagree with you, you cry conspiracy, so you would have to suspect Bksimonb and I were in cahoots. I have been waiting for you to claim that from the moment he appeared here and posted something contrary to what you wanted to hear. Oddly enough, my fellow conspirator is also partially im agreement ith you on the overall state of this article.

Maybe you are in cahoots witj Sethie Kwork, you are "working with you [Sethie] on a disputed article (Alice Bailey)" Sethie 17:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely discount AAB as a self-published source given she's been dead nearly 60 years, SqueakBox 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, If you read what I wrote above, you will see that Wikipedia rules do allow self published material if the quality of the material and the circumstances of the article justify it. You know that is correct, but continue to say the contrary. I would rather that compromise of our differences would be possible, but your getting angry will not help progress. Tell me what particular word, or words, in that edit bother you the most, and I will try to adjust the wording so that we can both be satisfied with the edit. If, for example, it is the word "stereotyping" that bothers you, I will try to replace it with a word that tones it down a few degrees. But if you will not accept the edit in any form, and completely reject the sources, then mediation will be the next step necessary because this RfC is going nowhere, and you are in fact just edit warring. Kwork 18:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality of the mateiral? Nope, not even remotely. It is the quality of the author that determines whether self-publshed material can be used.

I appreciate your desire to find something that works for both of us. I have no qualms with the text you wrote IF you can provide a good source. My qualm is not with what you wrote, but with the sources behind it.

Per wikipedia guidleines, poorly sourced or unsourced material can be removed at any time. Keeping in those unsourced statements and giving you a time to find a source is my comprimise. Sethie 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rfc. Where? I suggest you 2 make your conflict clear to other readers here before embarking on dispute resolution, SqueakBox 18:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie initiated the RfC. You will need to scroll up the page to find the beginning. Not that it makes interesting reading. When I think how much has been written on this talk page, compared to how little has gone into that crummy little article, I am appalled. And I don't even know if anyone, except the editors, has ever read it. Kwork 18:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kwork. Just to say that the paragraph looks much better now. They only thing that standards out that I can see is the use of the duality.com reference which can probably safely be removed since there is also the Rabbi Yonassan Gershom reference for the same statement. FYI the reason I came here was because I could relate to and understand the issue and thought I might be able to comment. There are other issues in the rfc list where I don't yet have the wherewithal to attempt yet. So I just start with what I do know in the hope I might get a better grip on the stuff I don't yet know :-)

Regards Bksimonb 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you like it better now that the criticism section has been destroyed by Sethie. I returned the sources he removed, but no doubt he will remove them again today. But the value of the section is mostly gone. You are welcome to make any comments you want about this article, but I doubt your neutrality because you are also editing together with Sethie in another article controversy (Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University), and I see no reason why I should trust your opinions. Kwork 11:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Humph! That's what I get for trying! And I thought I was going to make some new friends too :-( Oh well. Bksimonb 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit

??! Sethie wrote: "rvt to version 13:56 reason for removing sources invalid". Sethie, I did not remove ANY information, I just made it sequential so that it would make more sense. As usual, you did not ask any questions, just made changes. Kwork 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don'r recall saying you removed any information.

I said your reason for removing sources was invald: [[20]]

and

[[21]] Sethie 17:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that I spent a lot of time trying to get the article more readable, and you undid that without any discussion. Kwork 17:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to make controversial edits amongst non-controversial edits, without YOU discussing them first... well that might not be a good strategy.

I concur that some of those edits were very good and helpful, mixed in with some very un-helpful, bad faith edits.Sethie 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You reverted the least controversial edit there, and the one I spent the most time on. As for controversial, now you have introduced INTO THE ARTICLE ITSELF a load of crap from the Lucis Trust that does not pass the smell test. I might be willing to live with that as a linked reference, but it can not stay in the article. And those claims they make are not supported by even one source, its just whitewash for their founder. At one time there was a quote in the article from AAB's Autobiography defending herself against claims of antisemitism, and if you want something to defend her that would be far better. Kwork 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie FYI, it was Foster Bailey (who was a lawyer) who founded the Lucis trust, and not AAB. The way Assagioli explained it to me was that Foster Bailey was 1st ray and very much involved with what carried the work into the world. That included Triangles, and World Goodwill. Alice Bailey was on the 2nd (teaching) ray, and the Arcane School was her work. That made a big problem when AAB died, because Foster Bailey was no teacher and there was a dispute. All the most advanced teachers that AAB had trained, left and formed the new School For Esoteric Studies. Assagioli made the only trip he ever made to the USA to try to prevent the split, but it could not be prevented and he later acted as a mentor to the SES. You should correct the change you made to the text of the article. Kwork 20:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Sethie 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitic people always delete mentions of antrisemitism at Wikipedia

This article is another of the many warzones in Wikipedia with respect to antisemitism.

Over and over again, articles which cite antisemitic staments on the part of authors are consistently sabotaged by followers of those authors, usually with the claim that quoting an author's own statements is not proof that the author held those views or a claim that the editor who mentions an author's well-known antisemitism is engaging in OR.

Both excuses are disingenuous and they speak very stirongly to an implicit desire to shield and protect antisemitic authors from criticism which they have received and are receiving in all other biographical venues on the web and in print.

Alice Bailey was a notorious antisemnite and racist. This is demonstrable throughout her works. Knowledge of this fact is to be found in many places on the world wide web and in print.

Those who continually delete references to Bailey's antisemitism are actively degrading the relaiability of Wikipedia.

I think such people should be permanently barred from editing, as their sabotage amounts to vandalism of Wikipedia.

The truth about Bailey's antisemitism has been out for decades -- since SHE first put her views in print.

We all know she was a grossly antisemitic author.

Now just say it and have done with it.

• This post was made by Nameless date Stamp quite a while ago, and it is now credited as such by --

Nameless Date Stamp 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A (hopefully) brief rebuttal

While I realize Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, so much has been stated here on the subject of AAB's antisemitism that I feel a counterbalancing argument is needed. I'll be concise (I hope). Alice Bailey's writings are not antisemitic.

I have never met anyone who understands AAB's "system" and also thinks she was "anti-semitic" or allowed herself the luxury of hatred in any way. In fine, her system is based at its core on the concept of reincarnation. If one posits (as do her books) an impervious "soul" which reincarnates eternally for the purpose of "spiritual evolution" (learning, basically), then such episodes as "the murder of six million Jews (one million of them children or babies)" quite simply are not tragic, whether they happen to "Jews", or anyone else. They are, instead, opportunities for "soul growth", and merely incidents in the infinite career of the soul. As far as her ascriptions of negative qualities to the "Jews", such as "greed" or "selfishness", I do not know of a single example of such that, taken in context, does not in fact ascribe those qualities to all humanity, merely using "Jews" as an exemplary case. I have always felt she wrote on "Jews" to try and counter some of the genuine antisemitic writings which were prevalent at the time. A close reading of any references to "Jews" in AAB's writings will always reveal stark difference to any passage from a legitimate insult- and curse-filled hate-tract of contemporary times.

Written when "The Jewish Question" was still considered a legitimate moral dilemma, and many lower-income ethnic males considered beating up a "Jew" about as valid a form of self-expression as any other, AAB's writings are considerably less "Jew-centric" than they might seem to readers today. Personally, I am struck by the similarity to a rather more famous case, the prolific use of the word nigger in some of Mark Twain's best books. Most modern readers would be positively shocked to read an unedited version of Huckleberry Finn, and could easily develop an idea that Mr Clemens was a racist, when in fact, he is (I believe) considered to have been quite "progressive" in his views, and very friendly towards the blacks of his day. Eaglizard 10:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Granted that Bailey's negative viewpoints about Jews were part of what you call a "system based at its core on the concept of reincarnation", here is how she explained their presence on Earth: "the Jews are the reincarnation of spiritual failures or residues from another planet..." (Esoteric Healing, 1949). This unusual aspect of her antisemitism probably deserves its own separate heading, as reincarnationalist antisemitsm is certainly a far cry from the typical political or religious hatred of Jews one might expect from a garden-variety racist.

Eaglizard, in recent years I have had quite a few discussions on AAB e-forums over this issue, and have often been told that I do not understand Bailey's teaching. Particularly I have heard this from Phillip Lindsay, the Esoteric Astrologer. (When I discovered Phillip was going to be in NYC, I tried to arrange a meeting with him, but he refused.) The fact is that I studied with Roberto Assagioli (AAB's most advanced and important co-worker) for about six years while living in Italy. I was also a member of The School for Esoteric Studies for many years, and at a time when all the teachers of the SES had been directly trained by Alice Bailey as staff of the Arcane School. I think I have grounds to claim that I understand the Alice Bailey teaching at least as well as anyone participating in this discussion. With that in mind, if you have not read it already, you can read a rough version on my thoughts on AAB's antisemitism above (on this talk page) under "anti-Judaism". Namaskar Kwork 14:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Negro Problem" -- Looks like She Was She Anti-Black, Too.

The current edit wars led me to seek out the history of the page, and i found that although the current topic seems to be Bailey's antisemitism, there was an earlier version of the page in which her anti-Black sentiments were also mentioned. That material was deleted long ago, and i bring it up here to ask if perhaps it should be reinstated. In the earlier version of the page, the section now called "Criticism" was called "Racist Views" -- and here is is in its entirety, as food for thought:

Racist views

Bailey's writings are marked by persistent racism and anti-Semitism. For instance, she wrote that the Nazi atrocities against the Jews had come about because "The Jewish race, who loved the possessions of the world more than they loved the service of Light, joined ranks with the rebels against God" and therefore "... the law of racial karma] is working and the Jews are paying the price, factually and symbolically, for all they have done in the past." She further claimed that "the Jews are the reincarnation of spiritual failures or residues from another planet..." and that "the word 'love' for others is lacking in Judaism... The Jew has never grasped the love of God." (Esoteric Healing, 1949)

Bailey had a "solution" to what she saw as "the Jewish problem", a solution that reveals her anti-Black bigortry as well. She wrote that only "when selfishness in business relations and the pronounced manipulative tendencies of the Hebrew people are exchanged for more selfless and honest forms of activity" would anti-Semitism cease and that "the Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage; that of the Negro will not." (Esoteric Healing, p. 263 et. seq.)

• This post was made quite a while ago by Nameless Date Stamp, who now comes by to sign it --

Nameless Date Stamp 22:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article and its discussion

For whatever reason, the Alice Bailey article has stayed rather small, and limited mostly to biographical aspects of her life. No editor has ever ventured into a discussion of the teaching in her books. Because that is the case, I have come to think that it is necessary to keep the criticism section in proportion to the amount of biographical material. Every time the criticism section has been expanded there has followed a period of chaos as editors on both sides try to impose their own views. In my opinion it is better to discuss such changes first, and try to reach compromise. I admit that I have not always followed this approach myself, although in most cases that was the result of rough editing by others that came first. (I know for a fact this process is getting attention from, and sometimes direction from, individuals who have chosen not to get involved in editing themselves.) Kwork 11:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved this recent addition to the article to the talk page for discussion. If it is included in the article, it should be in the criticism section, not the biography. The ditor who added it might want to consider a separate article on New Age antisemitism and racism (there is plenty of material) with a link to this article, because I think this article is too small to hold the additions he or she wants to make. 71.183.189.185 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

They also contain a specific instructions regarding proscribed marriages. Here is an example of the latter, from "Problems of Humanity - Chapter IV - The Problem of the Racial Minorities": "On the subject of intermarriage, the best and soundest thinkers in both the white and black races at this time deplore mixed marriages. They mean no happiness for either party. When considering this subject it should be remembered, however, that intermarriage between the white peoples and the yellow races (the Chinese and the Japanese) is equally unfortunate."^[1]

The above was moved be me. I frequently forget to log in. Sorry. Kwork 13:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job

Whoever found the ""Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings" article, good job! That is the kind of source that this section needs.

Any unpropoerly unsourced statements in that section will be removed without discussion. WP:RS, WP:PSTS, WP:V have been quoted and ignored often enough on this page.

Any properly sourced statements will be applauded, by me. Sethie 16:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

yes well that last removal of OR was spot one, SqueakBox 16:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, I do not think that is Wikipedia polocy. Being sure you are right is not grounds for reverting edits without discussion. Being sure you are right and being right are not necessarily the same thing. If there is a dispute, you do not have the authority to resolve it without discussion, or to force your own views on the article. Kwork 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Wikipedia:Verifiability

Well, since your quoting of policy support my action.... all I have to say is- thanks for quoting policy! Sethie 19:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't support your actions. By the way, have you ever contributed anything to this article aside from your reverts and deletions to the criticism section? I was thinking about it before, and can't recall anything that you have written that isn't on the talk page. Kwork 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's really very simple. I asked for a citation, you were unable to provide one. You want on a fit of randomness, first removing the material, then re-inserted it along with some new OR (not sure if that was you or not, it was an IP address).

Provide a citation for the material or leave it out. It's really very cut and dry. Sethie 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, I moved this addition to the article (not my work) to the talk page so you, or anyone, with objections could discuss it.

They also contain a specific instructions regarding proscribed marriages. Here is an example of the latter, from "Problems of Humanity - Chapter IV - The Problem of the Racial Minorities": "On the subject of intermarriage, the best and soundest thinkers in both the white and black races at this time deplore mixed marriages. They mean no happiness for either party. When considering this subject it should be remembered, however, that intermarriage between the white peoples and the yellow races (the Chinese and the Japanese) is equally unfortunate."^[2]

Since you said nothing, I returned it to the article...and then you reverted it. Is there some reason you prefer to act by revert? Is there a reason you never discuss the article when given a chance? What is the problem here? You have a 12 inch long list of talking points for the up coming mediation, but you are doing nothing to change the reason I requested mediation. Kwork 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC Response: The quotations in the criticism section give undue weight to the criticisms. They are already highlighted in the preceding and post statements and they appear as if the editor is pushing a POV and extracting quotations to prove his point. --Renee 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, thank you for your help, which is much appreciated. Also thank you for going to the effort of editing the article, which has considerably improved it. Kwork 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, there has been talk on this discussion page about what -- if any -- "notability" Alice Bailey has in this day and age. That is a very good question. It is not Wikipedia's mission to preserve a person's former good reputation, rather to explicate the person's "notability" to the public. In the case of Alice Bailey, we see an author who is rapidly becoming more notable as a racist than as a spiritual teacher, a person whose writings are cited by modern authors as prime examples of a double-dealing form of spiritualism which embeds both antisemitic and paternalistic-colonialistic principles at its core. Those trying to preserve Bailey's reputation by continually removing examples of her racism from the primary page are proving this point. The discussion page is far longer than the biography page for the very reason that Bailey's racism is so shockingly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 16 August 2007

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your claims sound like your opinion, and original research at that. Sure anybody from that era could be criticised for holding opinions relating to that era but your smear of AAB as more notable as a rascist has no sources to back it up, SqueakBox 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(whoever posted above, please sign) Dear anonymous, My intention was the opposite of what you write. I personally find Alice Bailey's work very enlightening and have several books of hers on my bookshelf. I only left in two apparently secondary-sourced criticisms and was careful to attribute them to an extraction of some of her writings. Honestly, when I read the piece I thought it was all biography and then a few criticisms to which a response was given to counteract them. If verifiable secondary sources are saying some of her writings are racist, and then the response is given that no she's not (they were against Hitler), it seems pretty balanced to me. The key is to look at the criticism sources -- are they verifiable and by sources that have a fact-checking procedure (like academic journals or mainstream newspapers/magazines)?

Again, I read this fresh and did not come away thinking that Bailey was racist or anti-semitic. Instead, I read that two people accused some of her writings as being that, and then there's a counter-point response saying no that's not true. See what you think. Renee --Renee 01:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Monica Sjoo had some interesting things to say re AAB but we arent here tot ake sides, merely to creat balanced encyclopedic articles, SqueakBox 01:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, this is the TALK or DISCUSSION page, thus your claim that my opinion that some of Alice Bailey's current notoriety centers around her racism is "original research" is not relevant to the page under discusson. It's also not true. I didn't come up with this stuff on my own. I got the idea from sources on the web, sources OUTSIDE of Wikipedia. Also, Renee, your idea that academic journals or mainstream newspapers and magazines would make good sources is theoretically true, because folks are not above fabrication. See my other post of this evening regarding the existence of the quote attributed to Bailey that Jews are the reincarnations of spiritual failures. Both people cannot be correct. Either she wrote that or she did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 August 2007

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a source which says EXACTLY the idea you wish to convery, he is correct. Please see WP:NOR.

The notability of current interest in and comments about Alice Bailey's racism are not my original research and this is demonstrable if you use a search engine. You will find mentions of her antisemitism, racism, and bigotry in various internet discussions, including even at amazon.com, among the customer reviews.

A simple google search on <"Alice Bailey" racist> pulls up 743 web page cites.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Alice+Bailey%22+racist&btnG=Google+Search

A simple google search on <"Alice bailey" antisemitism"> pulls up 1,220 web page cites.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%22Alice+Bailey%22+antisemitism&btnG=Search

743 web pages mentioning Alice Bailey and racism plus 1,220 web pages mentioning Alice Bailey and antisemitism total up to almost 2,000 internet mentions linking Alice Bailey, racism, and antisemitism. Not one of these references was written by me, therefore the idea that people are currently discussing Alice Bailey's racism and antisemitism is not my original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 16 August 2007

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, would you please sign your talk page discussion? Sethie 03:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 16 August 2007

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. If you put material into an article, without a WP:RS, it is WP:NOR. No one is saying it is YOUR OR.Sethie 05:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Did She Call Jews "The Reincarnations of Spiritual Failures" or Not?

One of the quotes from Alice Bailey that has most troubled her critics and has been most often cited is the one about Jews being "the reincarnations of spiritual failures or residues from another planet.

At one time this quote was part of the "Racism / Criticism" section of the Alice Bailey page. It was later removed, reinstated, removed, and so forth.

Earlier in this discussion page, an editor named Rbridge (posting at 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ) claimed that this specific quote should not be credited to Bailey because she had not written it:

The next quote: "the Jews are the reincarnation of spiritual failures or residues from another planet..." does not exist in AAB's writings. It should be removed immediately. I can't believe anyone would blindly publish such a quote.

However, the quote is easily sourced via Google. Just put the phrase < "reincarnation of spiritual failures"> (in quotes) into Google's search engine, and up comes this links:

http://www.theosophy.com/theos-talk/200005/tt00182.html

At that page we find an archived discussion among some Theosophists, as follows:

Re: Theos-World Bailey's love for the Jews: 
The Jews are the reincarnation of spiritual failures

From: David Green <davidgreen@hotmail.com>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:59 AM
Subject: Theos-World Bailey's love for the Jews: The Jews are the
reincarnation of spiritual failures

[snip]

>"The Jews are the reincarnation of spiritual failures or residues from
>another planet... The Jew represents materialism, cruelty and a spiritual
>conservatism, under the domination of the separative, selfish mind  [snip]
>(Bailey, 'Rays and Initiations')

So here we have a conundrum. In May of 2000, no one was disputing the quote, which was given along with a note that it originated a text titled "Rays and Initiations" -- and it was published in a Theosophy dicussion archive! But seven years later, in March of 2007, the quote was suddenly said to be non-existant and one editor thought that even to mention it was a "slander." After that barrage, folks knuckled under and the quotation has not reappeared at Wikipedia for long.

So would someone with access to the Bailey texts please confirm whether the quote is there or not?

At this point, what we have is a war of sources, with David Green (May, 2000) versus Rbridge (March, 2007), and no reputable third party to mediate.

If David Green was wrong, then the quote should not appear at Wikipedia. But if Rbridge stated a falsehood in support of deleting the quote then Rbridge is guilty of violating NPOV and of flat-out lying to his fellow editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 August 2007

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

err we all have access (cos theya re online and much easier to find individual quotes that way) but some clue as to where would be helpful, SqueakBox 02:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In October 2006, as this situation was heating up at Wikipdia, The Lucis trust pulled all of Alice Bailey's texts from netnews.org -- and netnews.org is a blocked site at the Wayback machine, so no archived versions can be found online. If you have a source for the disputed text titled "Rays and Initiations", please let us all know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 16 August 2007

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The text for all, or any, of the books can be downloaded here [22], (the link is in the article) but the texts are not searchable (as far as I can see). I think that particular quote is a composite, or fabrication. Although a Google search for that quote gets a number of hits, none give a page number, which makes it all the more doubtful. As you know I consider Alice Bailey antisemitic, but using unreferenced quotes, not to say fabricated quotes, only serves to discredit all her critics. Kwork 18:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC?

Rennee, If, as you say above, you are a devotee of Alice Bailey's teaching why did you take it upon your self to participate in a dispute over criticism of Bailey? You are obviously biased in this matter and not neutral at all. Your participating in this RfC is totally improper, and your edit is completely discredited . Kwork 12:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm...to say I'm a devotee is a stretch...I read a few of her books about 15 years ago and have respect for her (and other human beings) and believe that we all have flaws (real and perceived) so it's okay to present a balanced picture. Haven't you read some of her books? If yes, then according to what you say above you're edits are discredited.

I think it's probably useful for editors to have some knowledge of a topic, but not be invested in the topic, because then it is possible to be balanced and accurate at the same time. For example, if we were editing an article on motorcycles, I would hope that at least a few of the editors had some experience in motorcycles so they could edit intelligently. Now, if their job title was, PR director for Harley Davidson, that would be a different story. Best wishes, Renee --Renee 12:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee: You wrote (above), "I personally find Alice Bailey's work very enlightening and have several books of hers on my bookshelf. I only left in two apparently secondary-sourced criticisms and was careful to attribute them to an extraction of some of her writings." After writing that how can you now call yourself neutral in this dispute? The comparison to knowing motorcycles is an insult to logical thinking. Kwork 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All true -- I have about 4 books on my shelf, found them enlightening and interesting to read, and have probably read about 15,000 books since then in religion and philosophy, many of which I found very enlightening and helpful to me as I make my way in this world. Being widely read and finding books very enlightening and interesting does not make one biased, it makes one well-read and knowledgable on a variety of topics. --Renee 13:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, Renee. But there is an additional problem; that you have been editing, together with Sethie, another disputed article: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. In fact, you are the second person involved with this RfC, which was requested by Sethie, who is working together with Sethie in that disputed article. The other is Bksimonb. You will understand if, to me, this configuration of individuals in an RfC requested by Sethie, does not seem kosher. Kwork 15:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please point to a wikipedia policy Kwork which says finding a book "enlightening" makes one "not neutral" and "totally improper" for participation on a page or a rfc. I have never heard of such policiy and would appreciate you pointing it out to me.Sethie 15:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie: I do not know, at present, if Wikipedia rules have been broken or not. What I am primarily talking about is what is ethical behavior; and I do not think what has been done here is ethical, and it is certainly deceptive. In fact, I consider the results of Renee's edit mostly acceptable. But I, nevertheless, think what was done, and the way it was done, was also deceptive and unethical. If rules Wikipedia rules were broken seems to me a much lesser question, because most Wikipedia rules seem to be designed to allow flexibility. Kwork 15:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, You were so nice yesterday and thought the edits were fair and then suddenly you turned. I would ask that you "assume good faith" and also realize that if you post an Rfc, then editors with an interest in similar topics would naturally respond to the same Rfcs (in this case, Religion and Philosophy). In fact, when a critical mass of neutral editors responds to an Rfc then the article usually gets in good shape after a long history of tedentious editing. I notice that Sethie started on this article a good two months ago and I just came across it recently after finishing up some work on another article.

Do you really want to continue to attack people who are making good-faith efforts at editing? If yes, then let's examine your edits and motives. First, you never answered my question -- have you read any of Bailey's books? If yes, then according to your "ethics" your edits are discredited and should be removed immediately.

Second, are you/were you ever involved in the organization? If yes, then using your own words (see above), "You are obviously biased in this matter and not neutral at all." (wow, that sounds pretty nasty huh? and it came from you)

I see in the archives that you apparently were intimately involved in the organization and are now a disgruntled former member, which is a conflict of interest and prevents you from engaging positively with others on the talk page (reverting to personal attacks when we're just trying to get a neutral, sourced, balanced article). Specifically:

1. ... On the other hand, I have ended all my connections with the AAB teaching and its followers years ago.... Kwork 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
2. ...I have broken away from the AAB teaching (which I now suspect is a hoax).... Kwork 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
3. ...As you know perfectly well, I was the personal student of a person in the teaching who was second in importance only to Bailey herself, and I was his student for over five years... Kwork 14:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, Kwork, it's your decision, you can be civil and focus on the article or you can apply your own hostile words and criteria to yourself and vanish. Renee --Renee 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, all you wrote seems to indicate that you think that what I want is an article that is just a long roasting of Alice Bailey. What I want is some recognition that she was biased against Jews, and one or two sentences and the links to sources that have been in this article for a long time would do for that purpose. In other words I would be happy with less than you left in the criticism section. If Sethie would leave it alone there would be no argument. I told Sethie that yesterday, and he threw it back in my face.

There are other problems with tha AAB books, but I have no interest in arguing about them here. In fact I spent a lot of time recently correcting some factual mistakes in the article, and rewriting it so it reads easier (just look at the edit history for the last week and you will see). Because of the argument raging on with Sethie I did not have time to go back over the article to correct typos, and do necessary clean up, and I appreciate that you did a better job on that than I could have...so, thank you.

As for the ethical question about you editing this article in a RfC, when I read you statement that "I personally find Alice Bailey's work very enlightening and have several books of hers on my bookshelf", and my knowing that you are editing with Sethie in other articles, caused alarm. It was Sethie who requested the RfC, and you are working with him and are biased in favor of Bailey. I think that you not stating these things upfront was deceptive and unethical. Meaning well does not really resolve that; but, if you think I am holding a grudge against you, you are wrong.

The fact that your whole message (above) seems to be written in a way to contribute to Sethie's upcoming effort to get be banned from editing this article User:Sethie\kwork notes does make me doubtful about how neutral your intentions actually are. But tell me this: aside from what I have discussed, just what are your complaints? I accepted your edit, and even thanked you. I have offered Sethie to leave criticism as they were edited by you. I have put effort into improving the the biography. As far as I am concerned the whole conflict could be over in minutes, if Sethie would agree.

I am sorry if you feel insulted, but that could have been avoided if you stated things clearly in the beginning. Kwork 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kwork. I'm unaware of Sethie's plans and don't communicate with him so that's between you folks.

Regarding the criticisms section, I think it reads fine now except for the paragraph on the Christianity stuff. The "watchmen" site is nothing more than an anti-cult blog and is not a verifiable, reliable source by Wiki standards (there's absolutely no fact-checking, it's all opinions and analysis based on a pre-existing POV perspective). To make this a balanced article that should be cut.

When I read the talk pages it seems that most everyone agrees except for the user who fails to post his/her name (which actually makes it look like s/he's agreeing and disagreeing because his/her words run into the next user's posts). Since most want to delete that paragraph I'll do that.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

--Renee 12:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee: You wrote (above), "I personally find Alice Bailey's work very enlightening and have several books of hers on my bookshelf. I only left in two apparently secondary-sourced criticisms and was careful to attribute them to an extraction of some of her writings." After writing that how can you now call yourself neutral in this dispute? The comparison to knowing motorcycles is an insult to logical thinking. Kwork 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All true -- I have about 4 books on my shelf, found them enlightening and interesting to read, and have probably read about 15,000 books since then in religion and philosophy, many of which I found very enlightening and helpful to me as I make my way in this world. Being widely read and finding books very enlightening and interesting does not make one biased, it makes one well-read and knowledgable on a variety of topics. --Renee 13:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, Renee. But there is an additional problem; that you have been editing, together with Sethie, another disputed article: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. In fact, you are the second person involved with this RfC, which was requested by Sethie, who is working together with Sethie in that disputed article. The other is Bksimonb. You will understand if, to me, this configuration of individuals in an RfC requested by Sethie, does not seem kosher. Kwork 15:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please point to a wikipedia policy Kwork which says finding a book "enlightening" makes one "not neutral" and "totally improper" for participation on a page or a rfc. I have never heard of such policiy and would appreciate you pointing it out to me.Sethie 15:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie: I do not know, at present, if Wikipedia rules have been broken or not. What I am primarily talking about is what is ethical behavior; and I do not think what has been done here is ethical, and it is certainly deceptive. In fact, I consider the results of Renee's edit mostly acceptable. But I, nevertheless, think what was done, and the way it was done, was also deceptive and unethical. If rules Wikipedia rules were broken seems to me a much lesser question, because most Wikipedia rules seem to be designed to allow flexibility. Kwork 15:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, You were so nice yesterday and thought the edits were fair and then suddenly you turned. I would ask that you "assume good faith" and also realize that if you post an Rfc, then editors with an interest in similar topics would naturally respond to the same Rfcs (in this case, Religion and Philosophy). In fact, when a critical mass of neutral editors responds to an Rfc then the article usually gets in good shape after a long history of tedentious editing. I notice that Sethie started on this article a good two months ago and I just came across it recently after finishing up some work on another article.

Do you really want to continue to attack people who are making good-faith efforts at editing? If yes, then let's examine your edits and motives. First, you never answered my question -- have you read any of Bailey's books? If yes, then according to your "ethics" your edits are discredited and should be removed immediately.

Second, are you/were you ever involved in the organization? If yes, then using your own words (see above), "You are obviously biased in this matter and not neutral at all." (wow, that sounds pretty nasty huh? and it came from you)

I see in the archives that you apparently were intimately involved in the organization and are now a disgruntled former member, which is a conflict of interest and prevents you from engaging positively with others on the talk page (reverting to personal attacks when we're just trying to get a neutral, sourced, balanced article). Specifically:

1. ... On the other hand, I have ended all my connections with the AAB teaching and its followers years ago.... Kwork 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
2. ...I have broken away from the AAB teaching (which I now suspect is a hoax).... Kwork 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
3. ...As you know perfectly well, I was the personal student of a person in the teaching who was second in importance only to Bailey herself, and I was his student for over five years... Kwork 14:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, Kwork, it's your decision, you can be civil and focus on the article or you can apply your own hostile words and criteria to yourself and vanish. Renee --Renee 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, all you wrote seems to indicate that you think that what I want is an article that is just a long roasting of Alice Bailey. What I want is some recognition that she was biased against Jews, and one or two sentences and the links to sources that have been in this article for a long time would do for that purpose. In other words I would be happy with less than you left in the criticism section. If Sethie would leave it alone there would be no argument. I told Sethie that yesterday, and he threw it back in my face.

There are other problems with tha AAB books, but I have no interest in arguing about them here. In fact I spent a lot of time recently correcting some factual mistakes in the article, and rewriting it so it reads easier (just look at the edit history for the last week and you will see). Because of the argument raging on with Sethie I did not have time to go back over the article to correct typos, and do necessary clean up, and I appreciate that you did a better job on that than I could have...so, thank you.

As for the ethical question about you editing this article in a RfC, when I read you statement that "I personally find Alice Bailey's work very enlightening and have several books of hers on my bookshelf", and my knowing that you are editing with Sethie in other articles, caused alarm. It was Sethie who requested the RfC, and you are working with him and are biased in favor of Bailey. I think that you not stating these things upfront was deceptive and unethical. Meaning well does not really resolve that; but, if you think I am holding a grudge against you, you are wrong.

The fact that your whole message (above) seems to be written in a way to contribute to Sethie's upcoming effort to get be banned from editing this article User:Sethie\kwork notes does make me doubtful about how neutral your intentions actually are. But tell me this: aside from what I have discussed, just what are your complaints? I accepted your edit, and even thanked you. I have offered Sethie to leave criticism as they were edited by you. I have put effort into improving the the biography. As far as I am concerned the whole conflict could be over in minutes, if Sethie would agree.

I am sorry if you feel insulted, but that could have been avoided if you stated things clearly in the beginning. Kwork 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kwork. I'm unaware of Sethie's plans and don't communicate with him so that's between you folks.

Regarding the criticisms section, I think it reads fine now except for the paragraph on the Christianity stuff. The "watchmen" site is nothing more than an anti-cult blog and is not a verifiable, reliable source by Wiki standards (there's absolutely no fact-checking, it's all opinions and analysis based on a pre-existing POV perspective). To make this a balanced article that should be cut.

When I read the talk pages it seems that most everyone agrees except for the user who fails to post his/her name (which actually makes it look like s/he's agreeing and disagreeing because his/her words run into the next user's posts). Since most want to delete that paragraph I'll do that.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I had removed that from the article previously, and I do not think it is an issue.

If you are going to duck on the issue of Sethie's editing, you will avoid the main problem. Sethie has been engage in an edit war here, and if it were not for him, there would be no problem requirinf an RfC. I requested mediation, but found out yesterday I made a mistake in setting it up. I know plenty about the AAB books, but I am a computer incompetent in a Wikipedia world of computer specialists. Kwork 16:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Hitler reffernece

User 64. you removed a sourced reffrence to DK's views on Hitler. I'd like to know why? Sethie 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As seen immediately below, Kwork did this, not me, and gives his reasons. Nameless Date Stamp 22:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.32 (talk)

That entire article is deceptive, and the quote I left is enough to understand its intent. In fact, what I left is still very positive about AAB. The link is still there for anyone who wishes to read the whole article defending AAB from accusations of antisemitism, but the article is really just propaganda from the Lucis trust and I would rather it was not quoted in this article at all. Kwork 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that the Lucis Trust piece is a "deceptive" article, but i do think it contains a lot of pro-Bailey spin, as well it must, given the source. I strenuously urge that eliminating it is NOT the best choice we have. I am taking the time to actually quote from it, rather than to summarize it, and i think that this should satisfy all parties to the debate. We are dealing with "criticism" here, and it is fair to let those under sriticism respond in full measure. I am also expanding the Christian opposition section, as this has been repeatedly eliminated, with no explanation offered. Rather than deal with a shadowy "some," i am citing two specific Christian sources who oppose Bailey on doctrinal gounds. These Christian viewpoints are founded on solid church dogma, and are not merely not crack-pot or "conspiracry" oriented, as has been claimed. Please be respectful of these edits. Thanks.

Nice job with the Christian citations and going for actual quotes.... except you forget to point out why DK was opposed to Zionism, an ommision which I have corrected for you.

Just FYI, this article is not a dumping ground for anything "negative" or controversial you can find, hence I have removed the interacial marriage stuff.

I am not saying mention of it doesn't belong in the criticism section... however it does not belong mixed in with the "anti-semitic" stuff, and it's current form is messy and unclear. Find a good secondary source which makes refference of it. WP:PSTSSethie

Sethie: You just added to the article, "they display "an unwavering opposition to Zionism," due to it's "separative tendencies." It was just the other day you were denying that AAB called Jews separative, and removed my edit because you claimed there were no sources to support it. You have contradicted yourself because there is no real distinction between a Jew and a Zionist. Jews hold a very wide range of views on many subjects, but there is no issue on which Jews agree more than their near universal support of Zionism. Kwork 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Jewish and Zionist are absolutely not the same thing, the latter is a belief whereas the former is more than just that, it is also in the case of non-converts what they were born as and the culture they grew up in and to say the 2 are identical is dangerous thinking, SqueakBox 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! The prayer for the return to Zion is repeated by religious Jews every day. It is absolutely part of the Jewish religion. I have been a Jew all my life, I have lived in a lot of places, and what I have seen is that no point that unites Jews more (both religious and secular) than support of Zionism. Kwork 19:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not the same thing at all! That would assume all Jews think the same. I was brought up a Christian but that doesnt mean you can say a single thing about my beliefs based on that and because Jew is also a racial term its quite feasible to have atheist Jews let alone Jews who dont believe in Zionism; and you only need a few to make what you say not so, SqueakBox 19:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea how tired Jews get hearing from non-Jews what they really think. This is not an area you understand. Anyhow, a lot of rabid "anti-Zionists (perhaps including some editors here) do not like to hear that it is really just a cover for hiding their antisemitism. I have plenty of experience arguing this, but this is the Alice Bailey article. Why not take your ideas to the Zionism article? I have not looked at their talk page, but I would guess that it makes the arguments here seem pretty mild, so if you go there be ready for a real argument. Kwork 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a mute issue. The source says "Zionist... seperative tendancies." End of story. Sethie 20:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Protect article

I see there has been another problematic addition to the criticism section. Look guys, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about Alice Bailey. Editors should try to see the article as an informative whole. Anyone who wants to just subject Bailey to a roasting should have their own web page or blog. I am also critical of Baileys antisemitic statements in her books, but we can't make an encyclopedia article about just that. If this sort of problematic additions to the article keeps happening, is there a way to get protection for the article? This whole argument has gotten crazy. It would be really great if the editors could recognize some disagreement while still maintaining harmony. Even if one side should win in a winner take all approach (and I doubt that will happen) it would be a vicious victory. This argument is making everyone mean. I want the editors on the opposing side to know that I would be happy to back off, and just try to get the article right. Or, if you really want to fight it out, I am up to that also....even if I regret that its necessary. (Sorry about the stream of consciousness dialog.) Kwork 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an amazing offer.

I actually feel a connection with you purpose, just not most of the means you have used. You wish to document AAB's "antisemitism." If you can find reliable sources for it, so do I. Gershom was/is a great find for this article. And I welcome more like it. Sethie 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this would do:

Some statements in Bailey's writings have been criticized for racism and anti-semitism^[3][4] and she has been criticized for this even within the New Age community [23]. In her book The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth the author Monica Sjöö was highly critical of the philosophy expounded by Alice Bailey^[5]

If it came down to it, I could live without the second, Monica Sjöö, sentence. I think the Christian part is just padding without meaning. The mention Theosophical may be of interest to some people.

But I would like that to be stable, not have to go through an argument like this once a month. The problem is that new editors show up an want to add more criticism, then the other editors react and pretty soon I wind up thinking, "its a nice day, why am I doing this?" Could something could be done to protect the article from wild edits? Kwork 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Critcized within the new age community... that source is ridiculous. It is the remenents of an online discussion between lots of no-bodies! Sure edited by someone with some credibility....

btw Kwork, when you are not here, this article is reasonably stable. Sethie 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Zionist quote

Why on Earth would you remove a direct quote from the foundation? Sethie 19:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to dilute the criticism section by expanding to with a lot of pro-Bailey stuff, and stuff from Christian groups that is not important. I have said many times I would be happy with a criticism section that was just a sentence or two, just to register the criticism. But other editors have tried either to expand it too much, or obliterate it. Kwork 19:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

One sentence or two is a great way to push a POV, without fleshing out the details, or allowing the accused to respond. We have the organization itself going on record to say, "Yup, DK is anti-zionist, here's why." Yet for some reason you don't want that in there. Oh and you want quotes from a critic (Gershom) but don't want a quote from the organization. Please review WP:NPOV Sethie 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No Sethie, it needs to go. You are trying to turn the criticism section into an attack on Jews; or, as some editors prefer to call them, Zionists. Kwork 20:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am Jewish, and i believe that the mention of Bailey's opposition to Zionism is important in understanding why both Rabbis and New Agers have called her writings antisemitic and racist. The fact that the Lucis Trust admits that the writings are opposed to Zionism is an important and generous concession on their part and lends credibility to their viewpoint, actually. Without that concession, the summary of their point looks "deceptive" as Kwork noted. I will continue to fight for inclusion of Zionism in the criticism section. Bailey used the term "Zionist Dictators" in "Rays and Initiations" and this points to the fact that she was not only opposed to Judiasm (as a religion) and to Jews (as a people), but also to Zionism, which she called an international "triangle of terror' in "Rays and Iniitiations." Deleting all mention of this is dishonest -- especially since the Lucis Trust concedes it. Adding that justification about the "separtist tendencies" of Zionism as her reason is not neutral -- and if it re-appears, one must then balance it out by citing her OTHER justification, namely the "triangle of terror" concept -- so why not compromise and just leave in the reference to Zionism unadorned by ANY justification? Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 August 2007

I acknowledge the above as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, because Judaism is a religion, not a race, if you completely separate yourself from the religion and then choose to follow another teaching (as did Roberto Assaqioli also) there is nothing left aside from some fragments of the culture of the Jewish religion. As far as I am concerned, there is complete freedom to leave. But to choose to leave, and then claim to be a Jew when it helps with an argument in favor of your new belief is not logical. I am unwilling to leave the section as it is after your edit, and if it is, then, necessary to expand the argument it will expand. Kwork 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, your opinion that Judaism is a religion is valid, however, Bailey referred to Jews not only by their religion, but also as "a state of consciousness" -- and she linked "the Jewish people" with Zionism, with the "repudiation of Christ", and with a love of money. None of these things ("a state of consciousness", Zionism, the "repudiation of Christ", or a love of money) are part of Judaism or the Jewish scriptures.

Furthermore, since Bailey was talking about "the Jewish people," we must understand that -- just like Alice Bailey -- many Jews do not consider a literal belief in Judaism (the religion) to be their defining characteristic as Jews. Wikipedia has a wonderful aricle on this, actually, called Who is a Jew?. Check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 August 2007

I acknowledge the above as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, could you explain a little better why you think it is necessary to introduce Zionism into the text of the article? Since there is a link through the footnote, making it possible to read the entire article, why is it necessary to expend what has already been agreed to? It seems to me that you are trying to turn what is supposed to be just a reply to accusations of antisemitism into an antisemitic attack. It is my intention to remove that expansion of the text because I see no justification for it. Kwork 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Christian criticism in Criticism Section

The continual removal of the Christian criticism of Bailey's work is indefensible. It has been stated that the paragaph was a "promotion" of a certain web site. I would like it known that this was not the case. I did not originate mention of it, but have actively fought for its retention, albeit in sourced, verified, and referenced format. We present evidence that one Rabbi and one New Age author have called Bailey a racist and antisemitic -- and we have allowed the Lucis Trust to respond. We also have evidence that at least two Christian writers feel that Bailey supported some form of Satanism. Deleting their criticism does not refute it. It is an interesting position (not one that is endorsed by me), and since we are looking -- briefly -- at those who oppose Bailey's reliigious theories, we should include ALL of those who oppose her on religious grounds -- namely Jews, Theosophists, AND Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 August 2007

I acknowledge the above as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not refuting it, but it belongs on your site, not in a wikipedia article. Actually Helena Roerich, author of the Agni Yoga books, considered Bailey a satanist also....but she has similar problems with the Russian Orthodox Church. I could have introduced a well known letter from HR about Bailey's satanism, but chose not to confuse the argument. Kwork 21:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"MY" site? What are you talking about? I am not a Christian. I am Jewish. I have no connection whatsoever to that Christian site or to that Christian book author. I found the material to be of general interest and will continue to defend its inclusion in the Criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 August 2007

I acknowledge the above as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you would sign a name, any name, so I know which editor I am talking to. Kwork 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor that does not sign a name. :-)

I am also quite intrigued that you found other mentions of Bailey as a promoter of Satanism. I would argue for their (brief) inclusion as well, followed by a Lucis Trust refutation, as with the section on her racism and antisemitism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 August 2007

I acknowledge the above as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Jews as "residue", Bailey as anti-Zionist

THIS ENTIRE SECTION OF THE TALK PAGE WAS DELETED BY SETHIE. I have reinstated it as it relates directly to quotes that were sourced and then repudiated within the article, and it proposes a way around the current impasse by asking others to help create an article on "Occult writers and antisemitism" as a way to retain some of the material that editors have tried to include on the Bailey page. Sethie, i consider your deletion of this discussion section to be vandalism. You owe me an apology, and you need to stop engaging in this sort of disruptive behaviour. If it happens again, there will be no alternative but for me to seek redress against you as a vandal. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN.

Thanks, Kwork, for the link to the downloadable texts. Using an html editor, one can perform multi-document searches, and thus the quotation on Jews as "residue" was quite easy to find. (I use bbedit, a Macintosh html editor and recommend it highly for performing complex inter-file searches on all manner of text files, not merely html documents.)

Here is what is found in "Rays and Initiation" (rays1008.html)

The Jews, as a product of the humanity of the previous 
solar system, and as constituting the incarnating 
residue from that solar system..."

This is probably the source of the twisted quote made by David Green, which rbridge seems to have correctly identified as not occuring in Bailey's writings in that form. Therefore, that quotation, and Green as a source, should not be considered accuate.

However, in this document one can find much other interesting material that relates to the "Criticism" section.

This bit refers to Jewish Zionism as "a triangle of evil" -- a snappy phrase well worthy of quotation (rays1156.html):

These Forces of Evil work through a
triangle of evil, one point of which is to be found in the
Zionist Movement in the United States, another in central
Europe, and the third in Palestine. Palestine is no longer a
Holy Land and should not be so regarded.

Later in that section, Bailey also uses the cute term "Zionist Dictators."

Also in "Rays and Initiations" we find a direct statement by Bailey that counters the Lucis Trust's statement that she thought of Jews as "a state of consciousness" (rays1156.html):

The Jews (who are not a nation but a religious group)

Looking through the "Rays and Initians" text, i get the distinct impression that were Bailey to be alive now, she would very likely be allied with the White Supremicist anti-Jewish hate movement. Her texts are certainly fully in line with those published by modern hate-groups that promote a conspiracy theory involving the so-called Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG), and also with groups that disseminate anti-Zionist World Trade Center conspiracy theories.

I am not the one to do so, but i certainly agree with Kwork that someone should write an article for the antisemitism section on the topic of Occult writers and antisemitism, a piece including not only Alice Bailey, but also occult authors such as Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade, Carl Gustav Jung, Benjamin Creme, and others -- and that would complement the current Wikipedia articles:

Antisemitism around the world

Arabs and antisemitism

Christianity and antisemitism

Islam and antisemitism

Nation of Islam and antisemitism

Universities and antisemitism

Anti-globalization and antisemitism

After posting this message here, i will go over to the talk page there and propose this idea to the writers working on the topic of antisemitism in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 August 2007

I acknowledge the above as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"These Forces of Evil work through a triangle of evil, one point of which is to be found in the Zionist Movement in the United States, another in central Europe, and the third in Palestine. Palestine is no longer a Holy Land and should not be so regarded." This is one of the quotes that supports my statement that Alice Bailey portrays Jews as at the center of the world's evil. The statement Sethie edited out of the criticism section because he said it was unsupported.

I need to remember that Sethie has edited material out of the the talk section in the mediation when it begins. Kwork 22:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Below is a rough translation of a letter of Helena Roerich concerning Alice Bailey. It is a rough translation by someone who knows Russian better than English. Philip Lindsay has a better translation on his site, but edited to make AAB look better and HR worse. (this translation is from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agni-yoga/message/9025)

A fragment from E. I. Roerich's letter on A. Beiley:

Many naive people believe, that dark forces operate only through evil, debauch and crimes. How mistaken they are. In such a way operate only rude forces and forces of small degrees. Much dangerous are those, who are coming under the light of Teaching. You know already such an example. In America exists a numerous society, and its chief receives the doctrine from a teacher, that do not hide his name, naming himself Tibetan Brother. We know, who is hiding under this pseudonym. HIS POWER IS GREAT. And the purpose of this teacher, (through the) personification ostensibly of the Teacher of White Brotherhood, is to entice as much as possible quite good and useful people to his personnel , which otherwise could help Effectively the Great Plan of Lords, the Plan of rescue of the planet. And these Unfortunate, having no true discernment of heart's fires, are Flying as moths toward destructive black fire that is sizzling them. Ignorance and absence of intuition pushes them to the embraces of darkness and deprives them for a long time, if not for ever, of beneficial Influence and attraction of Rays of Great Citadel of Light. The Armageddon is menace, you see Forces of darkness are fighting for their own existence, the despair makes them so serried and pertinacious in the achievement of their purpose. The Prince of this world has many talented, conscious and unconscious helpers, and it is fondly to think, that they are not able to operate in a subtle manner. They are very refined and inventive and operate according to the consciousness of their victims. But all of them are deprived of heart's warmth. I have the books of this Tibetan teacher, they are extremely dry. One book refers to " WHITE MAGIC ". I was told, that the best pages are borrowed from the teaching of White Brotherhood. It is interesting to notice, that the chief of this Society for the greater prestige for himself and for enticement of followers of our books, recommends them (books) to their members and have established Classes for studying books of Agni Yoga. In such a way interlace on the Earth darkness with Light. The network of darkness is plaited by skilful hands. Many members of this Society are coming to us, asking to establish the same classes and groups for join reading and discussion of books of Teaching. Only from the present Fall and with the Higher Approval, I entrusted Mrs. Horsh to start such groups on a more wide scale. Also not without interest to note, that drivers of such wide Society are, at the same time, on service of secret police.

Many terrible things happen today in the world. A lot of disgusting witchcraft is spread in the whole world. Certainly, as always, the most large centres are also the centres of the main dark forces. All fiend (devil incarnate) has crept out on the surface of the Earth. Ignorant masses are their best weapon.

Kwork 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Watchman Fellowship / Christian Criticism

I see that yet once again the forces of incivility have preemptively deleted the portion of the Citicism section that deliver sourced statements from a published book and the large and stable web site of a book publisher.

I have noticed that some of those who have deleted the material have either assumed that my interest in seeing the material retained is due to my being a Christian (not true; my "race," as Bailey would define it, is Jewish) or that this website is somehow "mine" or associated with me (not true; it first came to my attention because another editor had cited it),

Furthermore, the site has been derogated in this discussion forum for being little more than a "conspiracy theory" site.

Today seemed like a good time to check out that claim. I began by searchin Wikipedia itself for references to the Watchman fellowship and found quite a number of them -- but no web page on the Watchman Fellowship itself. I therefore took i upon myself to write a brief (non-stub) aricle on the Watchman fellowship, for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Because t is my desire not to register at Wikipedia, any pages created by me must be submittd to the approval process. I therefore have no idea whether my Watchman fellowship page will be accepted or rejected. While waiting -- and because it is my belief that this material will e of interest to those who wish to summarily dismiss the citation and source in the Alice ailey Criticism section -- it seems to me to be a good idea to append what i wrote, along with the sources. So here it is:

---

Watchman Fellowship

The Watchman Fellowship, a self-described "independent, nondenominational Christian research and apologetics ministry" was founded in Columbus, Georgia in 1979 by David Henke. The group's current president is James K. Walker.^[6].

The group, which is in part defined by its anti-cult stance, publishes strongly worded and sometimes controversial evangelical positions criticizing various reliigious denominations - particularly Christian and para-Christian organizations and so-called "new religions" -- which it deems heretical or in violation of the basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy with respect to such commonly accepted mainstream Christian doctrines as original sin, the role of Jesus Christ as Messiah, the need for salvation, and the nature of life after death.

The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality by James K. Walker and the Watchman Staff (2007) is the Watchman Fellowship's most ambitious publishing venture to date, comprising 366 pages of encyclopedic entries describing more than 1,000 people and organizations currently active in the New Age, neo-pagan, Christian, and new religion movements. The Fellowship also distrbutes more detaied new religion Profiles on a number of prominent organizations, giving historical overviews of their development and listing how their doctrines differ from those of mainstream Christianity. Through its website, the Fellowship also publishes The Watchman Expositor, featuring topical religious articles by a variety of authors.

Not confining itself to countering he religious organizations that it opposes, the Watchman Fellowship also endorses the work of certain authors as being sympathetic to its aims.

Among the organizations and individuals opposed by the Watchman Fellowship are the Mormons^[7] (and specifically the polygamist Warren Jeffs), the Theosophists (and specifically the neo-Theosophical writer Alice Bailey and her publishing company, the Lucis Trust) ^[8], Scientology, the Seventh Day Adventists, ^[9], and the publishers of the Clear Word Bible ^[10].

Amomg those whom the Watchman Fellowship endorses are the anti-cult author Doug Groothius ^[11] and the Christian author Richard Abanes.

Sources

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Abanes
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_LDS-related_publications
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clear_Word
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_opposing_cults
• http://www.watchman.org/reltop/clearwordbible.htm
• http://www.watchman.org/profile/bailypro. htm
• http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=articles.scientology

---

In keeping with Renee's request, it will be my intention from this time forward to sign off with 5 tides, so as to show a timestampe but no other identity.

I will now go back to the Alice Bailey page and reinstate the Criticism section, in a slightly revised form. Please do not revert it again without discussion here. You all know now the reasons why it is onotable, and perhaps my write-up of the Watchman Fellowship (which seems to promote a sincere and non-inflammatory form of Chistian orthodoxy, as can best be understood by reading the site's extensive material) will convince you too that because Alice Bailey wrote extensively about the person, role, and goals of Jesus Christ, it is legitimate for orthodox Christians to critique and oppose her views, and it is notable that they continue to do so long after her death.

The sooner this edit war ends, the better off we will all be.

Thank you for reading this. (Nameless Date Stamp) 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel very enthusiasic about the addition. But JamesD1 (as pro_Bailey as it is possible to get) introduced this Morman source ( http://www.watchman.org/profile/bailypro.htm ) into the criticism section of the article. Kwork 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, the Watchman fellowship is not in any way, shape, manner, or form a "Mormon" group. You have it 180 degrees backwards, actually.

The group's current president (not the founder, by the way) is an ex-Mormon whose own special mission is to expose the undercover polygamous spin-off groups operating as denominations within the Mormon version of Christianity. His newspaper, the Watchman Expositor, was named after the Nauvoo Expositor, a journal published by disaffected Mormons in 1844 who were alarmed at the LDS's endorsement of polygamy. If anything, the Watchman Fellowship is most closely allied with the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest and most mainstream Baptist denomination in the United States. The link is not official, because the WF is nondenominational, but the endorsements on the group's web site come more from Baptists than from any other Christian denomination. See http://www.watchman.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.comments and http://www.watchman.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.more_comments

Here is a sample of the anti-Mormon material distributed by the Watchman Fellowship.

1. Product: DNA vs. The Book of Mormon

DVD (English/Spanish/English Subtitles)

SKU: 0974478741

The Book of Mormon teaches that Israelites are the main ancestors of modern-day Native Americans. New discoveries in DNA research currently allow scientists to test this historical claim and the results are staggering. DNA Vs. The Book of Mormon presents evidence from DNA researchers, including Mormon scientists, who are wrestling with the DNA dilemma that now faces Mormonism.

That certainly does not sound far-out or unreliable to me. In fact, it sounds downright interesting!

(Nameless Date Stamp) 04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear 64, thanks for using a time stamp. It helps a lot with your posts. The watchmen group is not a reliable, valid source. It is a self-proclaimed biased source promoting a certain point of view (Christian apologetics, anti-cult, see mission statement [[24]]). They do not have a vetting system for checking facts. They have pastors giving their opinions about any group that is not Christian (including Tibetan Buddhism, the book the Da Vinci Code, and even Oprah).

Read their site and tell me if you truly believe it is an accurate, balanced portrayal of the groups on it. If this citation was allowed, then you'd have to allow a citation from the opposite perspective by some equally biased pro New Age Group where they could be quoted as saying "Alice Bailey is the most enlightened person ever and everything she wrote is true and anyone who says otherwise is a blooming idiot."

If you want a balanced article is has to work both ways -- negative and positive.

Please see: WP:V[[25]], and WP:SPS [[26]] --Renee 03:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Linking the name "Lucifer Trust" to "satanism" is original research that even the watchmen group doesn't do. --Renee 03:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Renee. First, as a Jew, my inclination is to be wary of Christian "hate groups". I have read dozens of pages at the Watchman Felloship site today and found them all to be accurate, moderate in tone, and not in any way objectionable. Of couse the authors at the WF site are going to have strong opinions about ttraditional Christian orthodoxy -- their interest is in apologetics, after all -- but they seem quite rational. Their mission is not to tear down other religions so much as to doctrinally clean house within the Christian community. That is why their chief targets of opposition are para-Christian organizations who claim some sort of special dispensation within Christianity.

The groups they seem to oppose most vocally are certainly not Tibetan Buddhists, as you claim, but rather the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and other 19th and 20th century offshoots from Christianity which they perceive as unorthodox. This is a legitimate and time-honoured form of opposition and it seems to be waged from the heart. Had Alice Bailey not claimed some sort of special and unique knowledge of the nature of Jesus Christ within her writings, the Watchman Fellowship would likely never have turned an eye on her. But she did mke such claims -- and thus they are well within their mission goals when they point out that her doctrine falls away from mainstream Christianity while still claiming a special relationship with Christ.

As for accuracy, we obviously disagree. I think they do their homework. AND There are others who side with my take on the WF. I found for instance, through a google search, that the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, a very well respected multi-faith goup based in Canada, had commended the WF for their "accurate and balanced" profile of the Wicca religion, stating that "Overall, we feel that the Watchman Fellowship has written one of the most accurate and balanced descriptions of any conservative Christian group on Wicca that we have seen."^[12]

Yes, the WF authors believe the Lucis Trust to be a "dangerous" organization. But, you know what? SO DO I. The Watchman Fellowship is merely analyzing various Christian and para-Christian groups with respect to their scriptural conformity to mainstream Christianity. The Lucis Trust, on the other hand, is endosing, supporting, and justifying a decades-long hate-speech campaign that openly and flagrantly promotes white / Aryan supremacy, antisemitism, anti-Judaism, anti-Zionism, race-based marital proscriptions, and general racial prejudice under the guise of "race as a state of consciousness."

Who's the bigot here? Not the Watchman Fellowship! The bigot is Alice Bailey, who, although long dead, is still supported by her coterie of propagandistic profiteers, the Lucis Trust.

Now, as to your latest revision of the Critism section: Day after day you continue to move the Lucis Trust's response to criticisms of Alice Bailey racism and antisemitism to the BOTTOM of the section, where it falls after the very mild Christian and Theosophical critiques, instead of leaving it as it was intended to be, namely, directly after and in response to those charges of racism and antisemitism that have been laid against her. I have been a professional editor for 40 of my 60 years, and what you are doing is so obvious that it seems heartlessly deliberate: by cutting apart the flow of the narrative, you are seeking to confuse and obfuscate the matter of Bailey's racism. Because this is an obvious editorial act of sabotage, it seems likely at this point that you will keep on doing it until someone forces you to stop.

So, to bring this to a predictable close, i am now going to go back to the page, there to undo your latest attempt at spin-doctoring the section. The Lucis Trust response to charges of Bailey's antisemitism and racism will once again follow directly after those charges, and will not be buried at the end of the section. The Watchman Fellowship will be reinstated, although once more there will be an attempt at compromise on my part, effected this time by a further reduction in the number of words devoted to their charge that Bailey's take on Cristianity is unorthodox and that the Lucis Trust is a "dangerous" organization.

I ask you to please consider that your work displays exactly the kind of "separtist" mentality that Alice Bailey attributed to the Jews. I ask you to try, at least once, to work for harmony, balance, fairness, and truth. Alice bailey WAS criticised and still is being criticised, and it is legitimate, fair, and verfiable to report on that criticism.

Note also, before you dismiss the Watchman Fellowship out of hand, that in addition to the Bailey page, the following Wikipedia pages also reference the group, and thus acknowledge it a notable source, and have not fought to have it removed:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Abanes
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_LDS-related_publications
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clear_Word
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_opposing_cults

Finally, you say that "Linking the name "Lucifer Trust" to "satanism" is original research" -- well, you missed the point. We at Wikipedia are not to publish our own OR in our articles here, but we are of course encouraged to report on the OR of others that takes place outside of and prior to its description at Wikipedia. For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity was Einstein's OR and of course it is reported at Wiki. Similarly, when the author Doug Groothuis linked the Lucifer Trust name to Satanism, that is his OR, and we at Wiki are encouraged to report on it while not engaging in any OR of our own.

(Nameless Date Stamp) 04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, you wrote:

Dear 64, thanks for using a time stamp. It helps a lot with your posts. The watchmen group is not a reliable, valid source. It is a self-proclaimed biased source promoting a certain point of view (Christian apologetics, anti-cult, see mission statement 22). They do not have a vetting system for checking facts. They have pastors giving their opinions about any group that is not Christian (including Tibetan Buddhism, the book the Da Vinci Code, and even Oprah).

We have had pretty much the same discussion many times on this talk page. The problem is that, although Bailey seems prominent in the minds of the editors participating here, there are no scholarly studies such as Richard Noll's studies of Carl Jung. I have not been able to find even a scholarly essay about her. That leaves no choice but to refer to sources that would not be acceptable in many other articles. If no one can find sources good enough to satisfy you, the alternative is to concede that she is not notable and nominate the article for deletion. My view is that Wikipedia rules are intended to be flexible enough to allow a variety of sources in a situation such as this. Kwork 15:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: truly independent secondary sources for Alice Bailey seem non-existent. If an editor of this article knows of such a source, they have so far kept it a secret. (I have just discovered that there may be a little information about Bailey in K. Paul Johnson's study of the Theosophical Society, but I have not yet had time to check.) The sources included by JamesD1 are really all primary sources, because even those not written by Bailey herself are entirely based on Bailey as their only source of information.....in other words they were written by Bailey disciples, and they can not be considered independent studies. Kwork 19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, now I will be in trouble with SqueekBox, who did supply an independent source Monica Sjöö, and which source is now included in the criticism section. If her discussion of Bailey is used as a new foundation to build on, the article will certainly be very different than it is now, based as it is on primary sources only. Kwork 19:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Labeling the group a "dangerous" organization is strongly POV. Because you too view the group as a dangerous organization only proves the point that you are finding quotations to promote a POV. This phrase needs to be deleted. I can live with the rest. --Renee 02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, please don't be ridiculous. I did not "find" the source. For some reason you and others have associated me with this Christian source. I repeat: I did not find that source nor first mention it on Wikipedia. I seem, however, to have been the only one so far to have looked at the site. Kwork an another editor thought it is "Mormon" and others have branded it a "conspracy theory" site. It is neither. It is a mainstream Christian site that, although nondenominational, holds positions fairly similar to positions held by the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest Protestant denominations in the USA.

And, yes, the words the WF uses to describe the Lucis Trust are "strongly POV" -- and that's why they belong in the article's "criticism" section. Are you ignorant of the concept of a criticism section? Many, many, many Wiki bio pages have cricitism sections. OBVIIOUSLY the critics have a POV and OBVIOUSLY it is ipso facto negative with respect to the subject of the biography.

Having a criticism section is not unique to Alice Bailey's bio. See the Mircea Eliade bio. See the Papus biography. See the Julius Evola biography. In each case, first the non-neutral criticism is started, then the non-neutral supoortive responses are stated. The point of the Wikipedia NPOV rule is NOT to stifle commentary or criticism. It is to ensure that the article as a whole preserves a neutral point of view and is written in a factual tone, with as few value-laden adjectives as possible, and that if there is a controversy, both sides of the qustion are fairly represented.

Continually removing legitimate criticism from the page is NOT neutral. Frankly, it seems to me that you and your pro-Bailey cohorts are trying to turn a neutral piece into a big flattery-fest for a Jew-hating racist.

And, yes, i do have an opinion. The Lucis Trust does seem "dangerous" to me, for the simple reason that as a Jew, and the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, their position is demonstrably contributive to antisemitism and the kind of violent hatred it engenders. In the years following Bailey's death they could easily have recanted her extreme antisemitic positions and apologized -- like the Mormons did when they admitted that the anti-black prejudices in their religion were wrong and would be dropped, like the Pope did when he apologized to the Jews for thousands of years of blaming them for killing Jesus even though the gospels clearly state that the Romans (Italians) actually killed Jesus.

One would think, hope, and pray that a group as ostensibly spiritual, forward-looking, and peace-loving as the Lucis Trust claims to be could do the right thing, swallow their pride, and try to reach out and make ammends, as the Mormons and the Catholics have done. But they are not doing that. They believe that Bailey's trashing of the Jews and her proscription of interracial marriages and her blathering about "the Negro problem" is timeless, ageless Tibetan wisdom, and so they cling to it, until it stinks and rots like an albatross around their necks.

Then there is the political issue: The Lucis trust's endorsement of Bailey's proscription of interracial marriages borders on requesting their members to work to reinstate anti-miscegination laws -- hateful laws which people of my mother's and my generations worked very hard -- even under threat of death -- to overthrow so that no one would have to live under the kind of grotesque restrictions that Alice bailey and the Lucis Trust endorse. I believe that the Lucis Trust is politically endorsing marital apartheid and that is, in my opinion, "dangerous."

The fact that a mainstream Christian organization also calls the Lucis trust "dangerous" is a coincidence -- because the Watchman Fellowship's objections to them are acriptural and my objections to them are political.

(Nameless Date Stamp) 08:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not think what you added was Mormon. I was pointing out that JamesD1 had added a much more problematic, Mormon, source without anyone (but me) complaining about it. Those editors most concerned about defending the positive image of AAB do not take any of the accusations against her seriously, aside from the antisemitism criticism; as proved by the fact that is the only criticism they have responded to in the article. In my view, the other charges are trivial, and originally added by JamesD1 to dilute the more serious criticism of antisemitism and racism in the criticism section. Kwork 11:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear nameless date, Thanks for explaining your (very strong) POV. Please avoid making personal attacks and assumptions. If you went back through the logs you'll notice that as a neutral outside editor I was the one who wrote the lead sentence in the criticism section about race and antisemitism. My only goal is to make the section neutral and putting in words like "claims," "warns," "dangerous" gives undue weight to the negative side. (I would do the same if the words were on the positive side too to make the article neutral.)

With the two minor word changes I just made to make the section neutral (changed the "Wiki word-to-avoid" claims to writes; changes warns to says), I can live with the criticism section as as.

--Renee 17:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, if, instead of describing yourself as "a neutral outside editor", you had said something along the lines of 'I am trying to main neutrality in my editing of this article', I would feel more confident in this process. No human is neutral in viewpoint, and you have already stated your positive evaluation of the Alice Bailey books.

A question: Do you consider an ethical stance on an issue as necessarily being POV? Kwork 11:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, I do not think deleting statements from the talk page, as you did with my statement directly above, is a good idea. Moreover, it is not, as you claimed, a personal attack. There are important distinctions between a criticism (which it was) and a personal attack (which it was not). Kwork 12:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA, "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Also, "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters." Do you wish to escalate matters and keep the personal attacks going, or do you want to focus on content?

As I mentioned above, I think the criticism section reads fairly neutrally. Wiki's goal is getting an article to something all editors can live with, though it may not be what each person personally wants. What do all of the editors think of the Criticism section now? --Renee 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What I was discussing was not you but an ethical point, as I see it. If you think I am mistaken, the proper thing to do is to explain, rather that delete what you don't like.

It has occurred to me the "Criticism" section might be better called "Controversies". But, as it is now, it is okay with me.

There is, however, still an important problem with the biography because it is built on one single, primary source; and it does nothing to establish Alice Bailey's notability. Kwork 14:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually like Controversies better than Criticisms too. I think it's more accurate.

According to what I've read about primary versus secondary sources, it's okay to use primary sources if it's non-controversial and gives basic information. It's when someone starts selectively choosing topics and pulling quotations together to build a case about some particular issue that is not allowed (because it is anlaysis of the literature; i.e., Original research). But, if everyone agrees on her biography, that (presumably) should be fine.

I'll search Amazon for some books -- there must be something on her. --Renee 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Secondary Source Books

Here are some books available on or about Alice Bailey, written by a third party, through a search of Amazon.com. I'm sure that a university library search would probably reveal even more.

1. Esoteric Healing: a Practical Guide Based on the Teachings of the Tibetan in the Works of Alice A. Bailey, by Alan Hopking, 2005, publisher Blue Dolphin Publishing [27]

1. A Planetary Awakening: Reflections on the Teachings of the Tibetan in the Works of Alice A. Bailey, by Kathy Newburn, 2007, publisher Blue Dolphin Publishing [28]

1. Reference guide to the teachings of D.K. by Alice A. Bailey, by Aart Jurriaanse, 1978, publisher World Unity & Service [29]

1. Devotion, idealism, and abstraction: Perspectives on the religious impulse from the work of Alice A. Bailey, by Katherine L. Hendon, 2006, downloadable dissertation from ProQuest Information and Learning [30]

1. Prophecy on trial: Dated prophecies from the Djwhal Khul (the Tibetan) to Alice Bailey, transmissions of 1919-1949 (Prophetias trans-Himalayas occidentalis), by James Stephenson, publisher Trans-Himalaya [31]

1. Der Osten im Lichte des Westens, Tl.2, Die Lehre von Alice Bailey aus der Sicht der christlichen Esoterik, by Sergej O. Prokofieff, 1997, publisher Verlag am Goetheanum (in German) [32]

1. The Initiation of the World, by Vera Stanley Alder, 2000, Publisher Weiser Books [33]

1. The Seven Rays Made Visual: An Illustrated Introduction to the Teaching on the Seven Rays, by Helen S. Burmester, 1986, Publisher DeVorss & Company [34]

1. Introduction to the Seven Rays, by Kurt Abraham, 1986, Publisher Lampus Press [35]

1. Great Souls: The Seven Rays at the Soul Level, by Kurt Abraham, 2002, Publisher Lampus Press [36]

1. Psychological Types and the Seven Rays (Volume One), by Kurt B. Abraham, 1983, Publisher Lampus Press [37]

1. Threefold Method for Understanding the Seven Rays, by Kurt Abraham, 2003, Publisher Lampus Press [38]

1. The Seven Rays Made Visual: An Illustrated Introduction to the Teaching on the Seven Rays, by Helen S. Burmester, 1986, Publisher DeVorss and Co. [39]

1. Lost Star of Myth And Time, by Walter Cruttenden, 2005, Publisher St. Lynn's Press [40]

--Renee 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, I am not interested in launching another argument, and I am willing to leave things the way they are now. My understanding is that none of these books can be considered independent studies because they are written by followers of Alice Bailey, and probably should be considered primary, not secondary, sources. What I am thinking of are independent studies such as Richard Noll's studies of Carl Jung. Scholarly studies of that class have not been written about Bailey. I have looked, and if I had found something I would not have kept it a secret. If any of these book are included in the article as secondary sources it is going to launch another argument. Better to just leave things the way they are. Kwork 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gosh Kwork, you ask for secondary sources and I spend an hour looking for them and providing citations and then you say, no these don't count. Doesn't that seem a bit contrary? Have you read all of these books? Do you personally know all of these people?

According to the Wiki policy the standard is verifiability. You wanted non-primary sources. These are non-primary sources. There's even a dissertation in there which has to go through an extreme vetting and fact-checking process before it's awarded (university and committee review).

And, here's another that's an academic sourcebook.

1. The encyclopedic sourcebook of New Age religions,edited by James R. Lewis, 2004, Publisher Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books. Prometheus Books is a well-known, bona-fide publisher.

I think we need to get an outside opinion on this. --Renee 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has gone astray. It was in much better shape a few months ago. Useful links and references have been deleted, and good noncontroversal material was removed. The criticism section has been expanded and the material there selected so as to give a misleading picture of Alice Bailey's writings on the Jews. The links used to support the criticism are weak, as in the link to a talk page. The references and material deleted were better than that which replaced it. I made two relatively minor edit-improvements just now and they were deleted almost immediately with statement I come here and discuss them. There were not controversial things requiring discussion. I added a reference to a book about Alice Bailey and made a few lines in the criticism section more neutral. James 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

James, your cutting of material from the criticism section is not a "minor" thing to do. It is provocative and hurtful to the building of concensus. This page has already been the subject of a request for comments and a request for mediation. If you do not understand what that means or why the reuests were made, you should look these terms up. Guidelines clearly state that discussion should occur in situations where there are contentions. The incivility of reverting the criticism section so as to remove its text or its links is perceived as arrogant, propagandistic, and dishonest. It makes people angry, and it will lead to massive, hateful, and spiteful attacks on the entire page. I have seen this happen again and again at contended pages. A word to the wise should be sufficient. DISCUSS THESE MATTERS FIRST. (Nameless Date Stamp) 09:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.90.34 (talk)

Dear Nameless date, Remember our goal is a page you can live iwth. It may not be your ideal.

Words like "claims" push a POV (the give a subtle negative bias, for example, "User:64.142.90.34 claims to be a party animal," see how the word claims casts doubt on the sentence?). I think James edits were solid. Renee --Renee 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Further reading section

User:Fl1942 and User:Kwork [41] have been deleting the Further reading section. I find this quite hypocritical, because Kwork then goes on to claim that there is no literature about Bailey.

• The Alice Bailey Inheritance, by John Sinclair. Turnstone Press
• The Texts of Alice Bailey Witghtman, I.
• Sutcliffe, Steven J., Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, Routledge, 2003
• Foster Bailey: Vom Wandel esoterischer Werte. Lucis Trust, Genf 1990, ISBN 2-88289-071-0.
• Harold Balyoz: Three remarkable women. Altai, Flagstaff 1986, ISBN 0960971017.
• Otto-Albrecht Isbert: Yoga und der Weg des Westens, Der geistige Pfad des modernen Menschen. Günther, Stuttgart 1955.
• Annrose Künzi (Hrsg.): Meditation ist Leben, Gott meditiert, und solange Gott meditiert, bleibt das Universum in Manifestation, Beiträge zum Thema aus den Lehren von Sathya Sai Baba und Alice A. Bailey. Rosenkreis, Oberdorf 2001, ISBN 3-9522528-0-8.
• Annrose Künzi (Hrsg.): Shamballa - Hierarchie - Menschheit, Das grosse Dreieck, Aus den Büchern von Alice A. Bailey und Djwhal Khul. Rosenkreis, Oberdorf 2001, ISBN 3-9521968-7-8.
• Annrose Künzi (Hrsg.): Sathia Say Baba und Jesus, Eine vergleichende Gegenüberstellung von Aussagen des Avatars Sathya Say Baba und des tibetanischen Meisters Djwhal Kul. Rosenkreis, Oberdorf 2004, ISBN 3-9522528-2-4.
• Sergej O. Prokofieff: Der Osten im Lichte des Westens, Teil 2, Die Lehre von Alice Bailey aus der Sicht der christlichen Esoterik. Verlag am Goetheanum, Dornach 1997, ISBN 3-7235-0992-4. --Voidocore 15:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The section below is from Wikipedia Wikipedia:No original research. If you read it, you will see that what you call secondary sources are actually primary sources.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Policy shortcut: WP:PSTS

• Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

• Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.

• Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. (Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source.) Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the

encyclopedia is a high quality one.

Kwork 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

These are not primary sources. Primary sources are writings by Alice herself. The only one that could qualify as "primary source" in this further reading section is Foster Bailey, who was the husband of Alice Bailey. A Christian biographer who writes about the Pope after having met him can still write a "secondary source" biography on the Pope.

It's also not a reason to (again) delete the further reading section. WP:OR is about the article body, not about the literature section. --Voidocore 16:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you will note to the right of what you quoted Kwork, the applicable policy is WP:PSTS, WP:NOR has no bearing here- that has to do with unsourced material, not the quality of the source.

The above mentioned are most certainly not primary sources and some of them are secondary sources.

Regardless that policy has no application here- this is a further reading section not the article itself, while the policy you quoted has to do with the content of articles. Sethie 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The source is exactly what I gave, and you will find if you follow the link I gave. Those sources put in the article are not independent studies, which is what the article needs to establish notability. Implying that they are what they are not is problematic Kwork 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork however does make a good point- on an English wiki, further reading ought to be English sources. Sethie 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that only works published which examine existing works or practices, or are otherwise not directly connected to the belief system in question, can be considered 'secondary sources'. Depending on your position as to the truth of the underlying hypotheses, most of the above must fall under either "written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations" or "artistic and fictional works". Eaglizard 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To James

James, I found your edits to be a breath of fresh air. The reference you provided was a welcome addition. Also, I like how you neutralized the language. Kwork, please note that "claim" is a Wiki-word-to-avoid because it advances a POV.[42] Also, we must be fair in our tone.[43]

Thanks again James for your work on this. --Renee 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello all; and thanks. I just added some external links that were part of the article some months ago but were deleted. Also corrected the statement in the criticism about Bailey's meaning of "race" as "consciousness" which is as stated in the link referenced. But, strangely, all the rest of old line about what race was not, e.g. "nothing to do with biology" and a few other things were simply not stated in the Lucis article at all. There is no reference to biology or the other keywords inserted in the criticism. Did not look to see who added this but whoever did so "put words into the mouth" of the Lucis article that simply were not there.^p

Also, I think its not correct form to add lots of links to other Wikipedia articles unless they are in some way truly related to or illuminating of the biography we're working on here. So, for instance, the word "biology" was done as a link with brackets, i.e. "Biology" as a general head is not relevant to the biography. There are many more such which I will clean up; only those should be there which are primary and relevant. So, for instance Neo-Theosophy is relevant but "England" is not. This is common sense. Lots of irrelevant links have the effect of sabotaging the natural flow of thought in any text. It's like adding an irrelevant footnote to every other line of a book. You see here I did not put "Biology" in double brackets here because were are talking about this article and not introducing each other to biology as a general subject. James 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks James. Have you read any of the books above? I searched our university library for the dissertation but couldn't get my hands on a hard copy. Thanks, Renee --Renee 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know who first added the bits about biology, etc. but it was my work that linked those words to their various Wikipedia pages. This is specifically according to Wiipedia policy -- a word that can be defined by reference to a Wikipedia article may be thus linked to provide a definition for the ease of the reader's comprehension. Bailey dealt with the subject of race and this subject has had various definitions, one of which does include biology, so to a reader unfamiliar with either of those concepts, the definitions of those terms would be vital to an understanding of Bailey's text. Generally when a word is linked to a definition or primary entry page on its subject, the link is only made on first usage within each section. Your objection -- that the link must have relevance to the article -- makes no sense to me. because every definition of a word has ipso facto relevance. This is what the web, hyper-text, and wiki markups are all about. Removing the linking function -- or removing the links themselves -- destroys the reason for the web. Think about it: the very word web refers to interlinkage. (Nameless Date Stamp) 09:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

On Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:12 am, on an Alice Bailey e-forum [44], Plillip Lindsay, a prominent exponent of the Alice Bailey teaching [45] posted this message:

I notice that the section on AAB in WIkipedia is slightly off. There is a ´crticism´section (anti semiticism) where the author does not verify quotes and misquotes elsewhere. It needs to be cleaned up. There is also another link http://www.nonduality.com/alice.htm which purports to be a balanced perspective but is far from it. Phillip

Not long after that message SqueekBox arrived as an editor of this article for the first time and removed the criticism section of the article. He said it was unsourced. In fact (although it did need reworking) it was, at that time, the only section of the article that had any sourcing. This is the criticism section SqueekBox remove for no sourcing [[46]], with the sourcing clearly visible (it will be necessary to scroll down, I have not figured out how to to the exact line I want). It can also be seen that none of the rest of the article has any sourcing at all.

Later JamesD1 first arrived, on 21 May 2007, and has edited only in the Alice Bailey article. (Sethie first arrived to edit the article on 28 May 2007.) JamesD1 has three of his own articles on Lindsay's site, and he sells Lindsays's books on the site for his own business as a bookseller.

This is only a brief outline. I will fill it out wit more information, such as JamesD1 linking the article to his own business site, later when I have more time. Kwork 12:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the place to make these accusations is at [47]. It could be a case of great minds think alike too.

If enough editors are saying the same thing, is it possible that it could be true? --Renee 12:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! I just clicked on the sites your posted in your message above.

If I were you Kwork I would delete the personal websites you posted above. That is a big no-no in Wiki land (exposing someone's identity, true or not)[48]. It could get you banned. --Renee 12:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

JamesD1 already made that known when he linked the article to his own website. He put that on, I deleted it. He also gave out his e-mail address to another editor he tried to recruit to his own purpose. If he objected to that he should not have done what he did. He is the one who did what is wrong. If you want to try to get me banned, and I am sure you do, there is no stopping you from trying. Kwork 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, indeed, Renee. This is what is known in the fields of journalism and criminology as "a smoking gun" -- the perpetrators of this meatpuppet scam on Wikipedia are caught in the act of inciting conspiracy to swarm onto Wikipedia for the purpose of collusion in remving criticisms of Alice Bailey as a racist and antisemite. The fact that the conspiracy-initiating post came in reply to a post titled "The present Jews are residue of previous solar system" adds a real urgency to my desire to see these posters banned. Just in case the posters of this material take it down from its original place, it should be noted that the appeal by Phillip Lindsay for meatpuppets to come to the Wikipedia page on Alice Bailey to help altering it by removing references to criticism of her antisemitism and racism, can be found in the following two messages to the Yahoo group called EsotericWisdomTeachings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EsotericWisdomTeachings/messages -- retrieved August 21st, 2007 per the link provided above by Kwork. The Yahoo summaries of these messages -- readable by the public -- are as follows.

[message#] 71 The present Jews are residue of previous solar system

I know there are some people on this list who believe the current Jews, who are all 3rd Ray Monads, are not the last of the group that came in from the... Zach

zachrymill

Feb 21, 2007 2:05 am

[message#] 72 Re: The present Jews are residue of previous solar system

Zach and friends, I notice that the section on AAB in WIkipedia is slightly off. There is a �crticism�section (anti semiticism) where the author not... phillip@...

Feb 21, 2007 12:16 pm

Thank you, Kwork, for finding the smoking gun. This issue now has escalated in importance far beyond the question of NPOV reportage. 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.

(Nameless Date Stamp) 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Following out Kwork's links to Phillip Lindsay's Esoteric Astrology site, with its extensive Alice Bailey forums, it was still shocking to me to find this, from Lindsay, the man who incited the EsotericWisdomTeachings Yahoo group members to come to Wikipedia and alter the Bailey page so as to reduce mention of Alice Bailey's anitsemitism. In response to extensive quotations from Bailey and D.K. The Tibetan (Bailey's purported co-author and teacher whose existence is unverifiable] Lindsay, the meatpuppet organizer, said the following on his own public site:

"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."

On his own site, Lindsay, a leading proponent of Bailey's, posts the opinion that Judaism is "wrong" and in a post to a Bailey Yahoo group, cited above, he asks his fellow Baileyits to come to Wikipdia to edit out references to Bailey's antisemitism.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on here.

(Nameless Date Stamp) 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression from Kwork's messages here that he is planning to summarize the situation and is dealing with it through a request for mediation rather than a report of suspected sock-puppetry or an "incident" report. At this point, we are seeing multiple entities doing multiply unfriendly things, including deletions of talk page discussions, conspiratorial incitement of meatpuppets outside Wikipedia to alter the page, removal of Wiki links to definition pages of terms used in the article, daily reversions and blank-outs which have repeatedly resulted in incomplete sentences and messed up grammar, improper accusations of POV and OR as excuses for deletion of relevant sources, accusations that editors are linking in to their own sites (such an accusation was falsely made against me, and has been made against James as well), and many other messy and non Wikipedian activities. I think that at this point it would take someone 6 - 8 hours to document all of the improprieties and incivilities that have happened or for which people are being held to blame. I wish Kwork good luck in getting this matter before the mediators or administrators.

Also, because it now appears that at least some of the edits to the Criticism section have been done in BAD faith -- and evidence of that bad faith has been uncovered in the Yahoo group messages cited above -- it seemed to be a good time to add some more specific criticisms of Alice Bailey's writings to the Criticism page -- namely the utterly unassailable evidence presented by Rabbi Gershom that Bailey made a false statement about Judaism when she said that it was a religion that lacks a term for love of others. As Gershom pointed out, the Book of Leviticus, a portion of Jewish scripture, specifically does advocate love of one's neighbors.

I added this in because, unlike the more theoretical and context-laden texts of Bailey's that deal with "the Jewish race" and "the Jewish problem" and "Zionist dictators" and the Jews as "residues of a former solar system," this text is both factually wrong and it is used to support the antisemitic theories that follow it.

(Nameless Date Stamp) 01:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not a discussion board

This talk page is getting out of hand.

Any comments and posts not directly related to creating an article will be removed.

This includes speculation about who is in cahoots with who, ofline conspiracy, etc.

If anyone believes there is such a conspiracy, I support you in reporting it, I am happy to point you towards where to report it. WP:COI is the place to begin.

This talk page is not. Sethie 02:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said. --Renee 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, your heading, "This is a talk page, not a discussion board" makes no sense. This is indeed a discussion board (see tab at top of page -- "Discussion"). It is known in Wiki code as the "talk" page. The terms are used interchangeably at Wikipdia.

You have previously deleted discussions from this page and they have been reinserted. You have also previously been asked to not delete relevant discussions.

Pease do not continue to threaten to punitively delete discussions that bear directly on the editing of the Alice Bailey page. Such threats are unfriendly and incivil. They do not help the situation but only escalate it to new levels of polarization and hostility.

Renee, it is unfortunate that you support Sethie in his threats to unilaterally delete discussions about the editing of the page. Punitive deletions of this type are not the way to resolve matters. For one thing, such punitive deletions always fail because anyone can access the discussion page history, grab the deleted portions and reinsert them. For another, punitive deletions are so inimical to the Wikipedia discussion process that the repeatd use of this tactic may result in Sethie getting blocked from further participation in Wikipedia.

I suggest that both of you take a step back ad re-evaluate your threats and your advocacy of threats of punitive unilateral deletions to the Alice Bailey talk page. Time has shown that your stance is incompatible with civil discussion and the building of consensus.

The situation here is alarming, no doubt about it. But the way past this difficulty is not to threaten your fellow Wikipedians with removal of editorial discussions; rather the way forward is to assess how what appears now to be a clear case of meatpuppetry may have previously affected the editing history of the Alice Bailey page with respect to charges that Alice Bailey's writings were antisemitic -- and to move forward with the re-editing of the page iteself, in good faith.

(Nameless Date Stamp) 10:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA, "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." --Renee 10:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the Alice Bailey article is a part of WikiProject Biography, I would like someone from there to take part in this RfC. I just left a message for one of the administrators of that WikiProject, but do not know if that is the procedure to get such help. This article is a complete mess, and things continue to spin out of control. To me it appears that Renee was recruited by Sethie for this RfC, and I have seen little reason to think she is neutral. I hope someone else could see this whole problem case with better perspective and help resolve the problems. Kwork 11:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, Is it possible that neutral editors interested in "Religion and Philosophy" could peruse the RFCs for those pages and then give feedback? Maybe that's why you see some editors on similar pages? Just a thought.

If you post an RFC and get similar feedback from neutral editors, then is it possible that their points are valid and maybe the text needs adjustment? I think it's a great idea to post another RFC. --Renee 13:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, you greeted JamesD1 (who is almost certainly a single purpose meatpuppet) when he made undiscused changes to the article, as "a breath of fresh air". It is insulting for you to imply that it takes someone paranoid to question the neutrality of that. One goal of meatpuppets is to make it look (falsely) as though there is an overwhelming majority view among the editors of an article.

On the other hand, if someone I trust as truly neutral (not you) tells me that what I am trying to accomplish in my editing of this article is mistaken or problematic, then I will stop. Kwork 13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I will avoid a lengthy defense of myself, my motives and such as this is a rehash of things already covered some months ago. Let me just say that misrepresentation of others is human nature. Let's focus on the biography James 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support that last comment. Let's focus on the end product here, our article, not get hung up on the editors working on it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said! --Renee 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

You may wish to consider starting a talkpage archive for this article. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll do this later today. Feedback welcome. Renee --Renee 11:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Archived everything through July, as apparently the current kerfluffle starts then. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Words-to-Avoid

Dear Eaglizard,

I like your edits but can you please use substitutes for the word "claims" (and any variation). This word introduces a subtle negative bias that casts doubt on the whole statement, according to Wiki policy[49].

Wiki suggests using journalistic substitutes like "said," "says," or "states." If we all can agree to use these neutral words then we'll take one big step towards a balanced article.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 22:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, that is a perfectly excellent suggestion, thanks! I don't like 'claim' either, it is biased; nonetheless, I think it's ok in certain cases of extreme statements (which most ppl would consider telepathic dictation to be) - it's not overly obfuscatory, anyways. In any case, 'said' works great. :) Eaglizard 02:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, I think in some cases you made the biography better in some cases worse. In number of cases you reintroduced oblique wording that I had just eliminated, but these things are always shifting in Wikipedia articles.

If you would be so kind as to be specific, I'll bet we can come to an agreement, but I'm afraid I can't respond to an unspecific "number of cases". Eaglizard 02:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What puzzles me is that those editors who claim to be followers of Bailey's Teaching keep diddling with and fine tuning the bio, and fighting over a small criticism section; while they add nothing to the article that presents the key points of the Teaching that she would think important. What about such cornerstones of the Teaching as Discipleship as a life of Service to Humanity?, about meditation and thought form building?, about the Three Laws and Three Principles of the New Age?, about the rules of White Magic?, and many other interesting concepts presented in the AAB books? Kwork 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing I remember from her books is the rays. I don't know enough to write about them but in looking at the current books on amazon based on her work, it seems most of it is on the rays and esoteric science. Is someone knowledgable enough to add sections on these topics? --Renee 00:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an esy task. I remember her saying the most important book was a treatise on Cosmic Fire so that would be a good place to begin with its emphasis on living and ancient solar deities. trying to give this kind of stuff a reliable source is another matter but that is sthe stuff that to me is at the real heart of her work, SqueakBox 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork... which editors here "claim to be followers of Bailey's Teaching?" Sethie 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Having spent a few hours on the bio section, it has been my intention all day to amplify precisely that. Strange coincidence of thoughtforms.. lol Having thought about it all day, however, it is a daunting task. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would require it's own article if even 25% of her subjects were covered... But it did occur to me that a solid, referenced section developing at least the outlines of her concepts of 'service', 'love', and 'brotherhood' would make a fine counterpoint to the 'Criticism' section. I think it could balance out the critical discussion, which now gathers undue weight from being one of only a very few section headings. Eaglizard 02:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This would be great. (and it does look daunting to me too!)

Also, it seems that a lot of the secondary sources focus on the rays (some admittedly of dubious quality). I guess the key would be to see if the academic dissertation and the encyclopedia cited above gave a basic summary. Also, regarding the books above as secondary sources, the publisher DeVorss looks like a solid publisher (not a vanity press) [50] as does Blue Dolphin Publishing [51]. If several books say the same thing, then we've met the WP:Verifiability test. --Renee 02:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Discussion

Hi Folks,

It seems that most of the discussion is taking place under the old RFc heading for uninvolved parties. I'm wondering if we could move that discussion down here at the end, so it's easier to track and people can respond easier? (We could paste the whole RFC thing here at the end, or only the last several posts.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some specifics that need to be addressed in the form of improvements to criticism Section.

The criticism now states: "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible" - of the Orthodox Jewish faith," indicated that "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself.

Actually she wrote it "must slowly disappear" and did not advocate any kind of destruction, with it's suggestion of violet change or attack. The quote now in the biography is selected and interpreted so as to misrepresent what she actually wrote which is:

"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. In saying this I do not fail to recognize those Jews throughout the world who acknowledge the evils and who are not orthodox in their thinking; they belong to the aristocracy of spiritual belief to which the Hierarchy itself belongs. " The Externalization of the Hierarchy, page 545

The above quote should be added.

Criticsim states: Bailey stated that, "The word 'love' for others is lacking in Judaism."

I have searched through the electronic text for the above reference and it does not appear to exist. Unless someone can find the quote referenced, it should be removed.

Criticism now states: "writes that Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" and was later changed due to controversy"

Lucifer means ""light-bearer" and that was the sense in which it was used by Bailey and by H. P. Blavatsky who gave the name to her Theosophical publication. The criticism, I think, given as it is selectively and without explanation implies something devlish where we are given the impression that Bailey retreated from the word in embarrassment. Someone needs to fix this by researching and giving references that give us an undistorted picture of what she thought and wrote. James 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If the quotations are inaccurate, by all means correct them. Same goes if the Lucis Trust info is misrepresented or taken out of context. --Renee 02:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

James, responding to your attempts to take substance out of the criticism section:

1) If you wish to enter her entire quote in, that is fine with me. It is more truly indicative of her antisemitism than the short excerpt now in place. Frankly, it seems odd that you should want it there, as it appears quite harsh, what with the "hatred of the Gentiles and its failure to recognize the Christ". But if you want it there, you have my vote of approval.

I've never been against seeing accurate criticism of AAB. The problem is that it is difficult to give an accurate picture without making the criticism section larger than the main biography. My interest is accuracy and clarity.

2) Re: the quote about the "destruction" which you wish to remove:

"her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself." James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT from Bailey and is not stated to be from Bailey. Furthermore, it is fully sourced.

Actually, I think the way the text was, it was not clear who said what: I've altered it so as to make it clear; take a look. James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It was written by Rabbi Yonasson Gershom. It is from the text of his critique of Bailey's antisemitism. You cannot legitimately remove that under the spurious assumption that because BAILEY did not say it, and YOU don't agree with it, it is not worthy of note. This is what Rabbi Gershom -- a respected, publishd Rabbi, with a Wikipedia page -- wrote ABOUT Bailey. This is his criticism.

Now that it is clearly the Rabbi's statement and not a quote, I'm fine with it.

Also, although you take umbrage because Gershom uses the word "destruction," which to you has the connotation of "violence," what he is saying it that by calling for an end to the Jewish denominations known collectively as Orthodox Judaism and permitting other denominations of Judaism (Reform? Renewal? Conservative?) to survive she was still arguing for the destruction of Judaism as we know it.

I looked up the word "destruction" online just now to assist in making my point about this clear, and ironically, the dictionary offerd the following exemplar: "The Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction. --Esth. ix. 5."

It is just this sort of connotation that should be avoided. This becomes more clear, the more we read Bailey in context, e.g. "And what of the Gentile attitude? It is absolutely necessary that the nations meet the Jew more than half way when he arrives at altering - slowly and gradually - his nationalistic orthodoxy. It is essential that they cease from fear and persecution, from hatred and from placing barriers to cooperation. The growing anti-Semitic feeling in the world is inexcusable in the sight of God and man." Esoteric Healing, P. 269 James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

3) Regarding the "word love" quote; This is the full text of the relevant paragraphs from Gershom's cited web page. The portion in italics is said to be a direct quote from Bailey; his reply follows:

The word "love" for others is lacking in Judaism... The Jew has never grasped the love of God. The God of the Jews is possessive and greedy. Jehovah is not God. [Bailey]

I've looked up all the keywords and phrases above. There is no such quotation about the word "love" being missing. There are lots of quotes about the lack of love on the human scene, and particularly in relation to the Jews, but that's not the same thing. If the Rabbi quoted Bailey as above, then it is a misquote. Likely, it is based on a combination of the following passages from Bailey:

"This teaching anent hell is a remainder of the sadistic turn which was given to the thinking of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages and to the erroneous teaching to be found in the Old Testament anent Jehovah, the tribal God of the Jews. Jehovah is not God, the planetary Logos, the Eternal Heart of Love Whom Christ revealed." Esoteric Healing, Esoteric Healing

"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, 554

" Its emphasis is material and its effect is to impress a purely materialistic Jehovah upon world consciousness. The general theme of the Old Testament is the recovery of the highest expression of the divine wisdom in the first solar system; that system embodied the creative work of the third aspect of divinity - that of active intelligence, expressing itself through matter. In this solar system, the created world is intended to be the expression of the second aspect, of the love of God. This the Jew has never grasped, for the love expressed in the Old Testament is the separate, possessive love of Jehovah for a distinct unit within the fourth or human kingdom." Esoteric Healing, 268

So unless someone can locate this apparently made-up quotation, it should be removed. James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[Obviously this woman never read a Jewish prayerbook or met a Jewish philanthropist, or even read Leviticus for that matter, where it is clearly stated that: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." This supposedly "new" law of Christianity was nothing more than a re-statement of something already in the Jewish Torah, of which Leviticus is a part. Ditto for loving God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might, etc. which comes from Deuteronomy -- again in the Jewish Torah. Both of these laws are central to the Orthodox Judaism that Bailey seems to hate so much.

Again, Bailey does not state that there is no love advice in the Old testament. Her position is that the Jews, and humanity as a whole, has not lived up to the love philosophy--neither the bits buried in the Old Testament, nor the emphasis placed on it by the New Testament. James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As for Jehovah not being God, if she means the "angry god of the Old Testament" as taught in 19th-century Christian theology, then I heartily agree. Because real Jews do not worship a vengeful God -- that's antisemitic medieval propaganda invented by Christian theologians. The real God of the Jews is the same loving, forgiving Creator of the Universe that Christians know as "the Father," or the Creator in Genesis -- the One who gives life to all things.] [Gershom]

I like your optimism, though the human scene suggests that humanity under all its flags, Christian, Jewish, etc. has fallen miserably short of the best aspects of its religions.James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Gershom faked the Bailey quotes? That seems rather unlikely.

To be charitable, it appears that the Rabbi may have gotten carried away in his criticism, or else whoever quoted it in our Wiki biography did not report him accurately. Please check for us, will you?

It is excessivley burdensome for you to insist that your fellow Wiki editors must source the quotes quoted by already vetted sources! Given that the Lucis Trust has forced the removal of Bailey's material from online, this would mean that in order to quote someone quoting Bailey, the Wiki editor would have to own all of Bailey's works. Surely that is a hurdle too high for anyone to jump. It has neve been required of other biography subjects and it should not be required of this subject.

The works are back online here: [52].James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

James, have you read Rabbi Gershom's essay? It contains dozens of quotes from Bailey, wih responses to each quote. For example, here is another section, which speaks to what some folks have thought of as Bailey's "praise" for Jews as 'artists':

The Jew, owing to his rays [psychic energy] and point of development, is outstandingly creative and artistic. This he must recognize and not seek as he now does to dominate in all fields, to grasp all opportunities away from other people at the expense of others. Release from the present situation will come when the Jew forgets that he is a Jew.... The Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage; that of the Negro will not. This will mean concession and compromise on the part of the orthodox Jews -- not the concession of expediency but the concession of conviction. (Esoteric Healing, p. 267.) [Bailey]

[The Jews should all become artists? How ludicrous! Note how she always defined being Jewish as something negative -- this time as "grasping all opportunities away from other people" -- and then called for Jews to forget that they are Jews. It never seemed to occur to her that there might be something good about being Jewish. If we Jews appear to "dominate" in many fields, it is because we are, by and large, hard-working people who take education seriously. But did she see this as setting a good example? No -- she saw us as grabby.

She did not say that "all Jews should become artists." Things will be more clear if you distinguish between what she actually wrote and your interpretations and extrapolations from it.James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Note also that she felt she must specifically state that she does not see intermarriage as a solution to the "Negro problem." I suppose she didn't want to be accused of promoting "race mixing." (Was she even aware that there are black Jews?) I have no idea what these "compromises" are that she wanted from Orthodox Jews here, but elsewhere she calls for the total destruction of Orthodox Judaism and for Jews to give up all Jewish practices. Her idea of "compromise" seems to be total annihilation of my religion and the identity of my people as a distinctive culture.] [Gershom]

Of course she was aware that races intermarry and so there are black Jews. To read anyone with clarity it is necessary to credit people with some common sense. I've explained above why your phrase "total destruction" is a misinterpretation. In Bailey's concept, all human culture and religions evolve: all aspects of human culture--including Christian--will and should eventually be replaced by higher correspondences to the same. No human creation is intended to stand forever. All are transformed in the evolutionary process. Nothing good in the true spirit of Judaism or Christianity or any other is lost--it simply moves to higher turn of its evolutionary spiral. Forms are replaced; only the spiritual is eternal.James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I found that interesting. Did you?

4) James, you write:

Criticism now states: "writes that Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" and was later changed due to controversy"

Lucifer means ""light-bearer" and that was the sense in which it was used by Bailey and by H. P. Blavatsky who gave the name to her Theosophical publication. The criticism, I think, given as it is selectively and without explanation implies something devlish where we are given the impression that Bailey retreated from the word in embarrassment. Someone needs to fix this by researching and giving references that give us an undistorted picture of what she thought and wrote. James 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But, James, that bit about "was later changed due to controversy" is the statement and the belief of the CRITIC, whose name is Douglas Groothuis. He is a Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary.

The problem is not with quoting an opinion. The problem is simply quoting it without any context where "Lucifer" is a hot-button word.

You are making the same mistake here that you made with respect to Gershom above. Douglas Groothuis is a notable author with a page on Wikipedia. He wrote that. It is his criticism of Bailey's organization.

The bare statement as it is, using a word that the popular mind equates with the "devil" is not good honest scholarship.James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

One cannot legitimately fight Bailey's critics by saying that one doesn't like the "connotations" in their writing and then removing their crtical texts. If you were a reliable and notable source yourself, like Groothuis and Gershom, someone might quote you contending against what Groothuis or Gershom wrote. (The Lucis Trust, being an involved party and a notable party, may contend it, should they choose.) But making criticism "go away" by fiat of an anonymous editor is not the way Wikipedia works, especially since the section is specifically about controversy and criticism.

I am not interested in removing critical texts. I'm advocating making them clear, more full, and honest. Right now, the critical section is in a very sloppy condition.James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that there IS criticism of Bailey's writings and her work has engendered controversy, and it is in the best interests of factuality to cite that criticism by direct quotes from critics who are notable and reputable in their own rights.

If you remove those quotes, you are left with unsourced opinions. This is against everything that we have worked for so far. Thus i vote to STRONGLY KEEP the quotes by the critics Gershom, Groothuis, Sjoo, and the Watchman Fellowship authors.

The problem is not the quoting and references as such. It's how they are used, i.e. see all the criticism I just offered above.James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(Nameless Date Stamp) 03:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Gershom site, I searched it and the quotations do appear in his site.

The only thing that bothers me about this site is that it is a self-published site of original research.

As I noted above under the RFC discussion, according to Wiki policy extra caution has to be used for extreme claims (and certainly, saying that Alice Bailey wants the destruction of Judaism itself, seems to fall into that category).

If you can find another source that says the same thing, or better yet, a reliable and verifiable source (i.e., academic, encyclopedic) then it would be reasonable to include this. Otherwise, we could load the article up with lots of self-published websites pushing a POV with original research. I don't see how this site can be included if we are to follow Wiki policy of a neutral and balanced article, unless you can find a scholarly or other high quality source that supports it. --Renee 03:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is really critical that any criticisms are taken completely within context. (and that any topics are selected within context) It is very easy with spiritual/religious texts to misrepresent the text.

An example of this is the Bible, where Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than sin. Those who are critical of Christianity could use this as an example of how the Bible encourages self-mutilation, and they probably could find other quotations through analogies and parables that Jesus gave to support their view. But clearly, this is not an accurate representation of the entire passage.

Again, Gershom's site is self-published with no process for fact-checking or vetting. I question whether or not he's a reliable or verifiable source. He may need to be cut completely from the section unless others (especially scholars) support his view. --Renee 16:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lucis Trust site leaves a lot to be desired, and is not exactly a juried scholarly publication. Their explanation of Alice Baileys antisemitic statements, that the "term "race" in the context of Bailey's writings refers to "a state of consciousness ... [found] in every nation", is laughable when compared to Bailey's statements about the Jews. Many of her statements are so obviously directed at exactly the Jewish religion and the Jewish people, sometimes even referring to specific groups sub-groups, such as "Orthodox Jews", or "Zionists". Despite that "state of consciousness" being an insult to the intelligence, I did not challenge it.

Why not just leave things as they are, nether side with what they want, but balanced; and go on to say something in the article about what is good in the teaching. Kwork 16:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Gershom is a scholar, an author of multiple published books, and Sjoo supports his view. If Gershom's quote from Bailey, "The gradual dissolution ... of the Orthodox Jewish faith" is accurate, then his view that she proposes the destruction of Judaism is not extreme, but correct paraphrase of her statement. Since the publishing house she herself founded feels it necessary to address criticisms of antisemitism, criticisms of antisemitism are fairly clearly notable. Kwork has a point here, it does seem like you are obsessing over the single most carefully scrutinized and referenced section of the article when the rest of the article is written to lower standards. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm...I would have to disagree that the word "destruction" is equivalent to the word "dissolution" in a spiritual text. Usually in spiritual text dissolution means gradual removal of the ego or identification with a personality as one merges with God. I do not know enough about Bailey's works to know if that's what she meant, but from reading Jamesd1's notes, it seems plausible that Gershom is making her work more extreme than it is.

I think it's reasonable that extraordinary claims have very carefully vetted citations, and that's Wiki's policy. As long as these words are carefully attributed to Gershom's analysis, I can live with it (i.e., "According to Gershom's analysis of her work, he believes that Bailey calls for the..."). That would be an accurate portrayal of his self-published website. But, to say that "Bailey calls for..." would not be accurate, because we don't have the whole context of the whole passage.

Regarding the rest of the article, yes, that sounds great to add more there. --Renee 20:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree edit is more accurate. I've broken your long sentence into two parts and changed wording slightly because "gradual dissolution" is an actual quote from Bailey and not the Rabbi's words. I'm moving a copy of this to the bottom section because we will get lost in all this text. James 15:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems fine to me. Good luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, this is not acceptable. It was my understanding that further changes would not be made, or at least not without discussion and agreement. Now you have allowed this senseless changed that is not even good English. And you have allowed Renee to edit while I am blocked from reverting this ridiculous change. Kwork 22:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse I would like to know why this sort of converseation about me is going on hidden from view? [[53]] Every thing I have done has been in plain sight of everyone, I have hidden nothing, I have tried to decieve no one, and I have never made any secret of my intention to keep information Alice Bailey's antisemitism in the article. If you think there is something wrong in what I have done, please say it openly. Also, please do not tell me about the need to avoid personality issues as a reason for not replying, the deceptive methods used by other editors is a real issue in why this article is such a mess. Kwork 22:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

a) you're not blocked from editing (unless you forget to log in, which you do sometimes)

b) when did we agree there would be "no further changes?"

c) when did we agree there would be no further changes without discussion and agreement

d) how is it senseless?

e) where is the improper English? Sethie 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To James, re: reading for comprehension

James,

You have made a serious error in responding to my post. I specifically indented and attributed Rabbi Jonasson Gershom's and Bailey's statements, each to its author [in brackets] -- and in each case you interlineated a response to ME. This is a serious error of attribution.

I am not Rabbi Gershom.

Your failure to note the [braketed author credits] reasulted in your completely misunderstanding what was written -- both by Gershom and by myself. This sort of interlineation is also confusing to all who read the dicussion page.

It is not good ettiquette to cut up a person's message with interlineations of this sort. Making the mistakes of attribution only compounded the situation. I am therefore taking the necessary step of MOVING all of your responses to below my text, and then responding to you.

In order to help you and other readers understand your comments, i will also include portions of what you were replying to.

My reply will then follow yours.

Thanks for understanding (hopefully) why this is necessary.

21:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not confuse you with Rabbi Gershom. As I said below: "Since I was referencing the article, then I was not attributing it to you but discussing the article with you. I merely pointed out to you, that the word "destruction" expresses the Rabbi's feeling about Bailey and does not correspond to what she wrote about the Jews. It is therefore, not a scholarly criticism of Alice Bailey's though and works."

This is not about me personally. Let's talk about collaborating on making this entry a good scholarly biography James 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

---

James' material, moved out of my message by me, because of his repeated mistaken attritbutions of Rabbi Gershon's texts to me:

Actually, I think the way the text was, it was not clear who said what: I've altered it so as to make it clear; take a look. James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that it is clearly the Rabbi's statement and not a quote, I'm fine with it. [James; unsigned, 24 August 2007]

To be charitable, it appears that the Rabbi may have gotten carried away in his criticism, or else whoever quoted it in our Wiki biography did not report him accurately. Please check for us, will you? [unsigned, probably rwritten by James]

I looked up the word "destruction" online just now to assist in making my point about this clear, and ironically, the dictionary offerd the following exemplar: "The Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction. --Esth. ix. 5."

It is just this sort of connotation that should be avoided. This becomes more clear, the more we read Bailey in context, e.g. "And what of the Gentile attitude? It is absolutely necessary that the nations meet the Jew more than half way when he arrives at altering - slowly and gradually - his nationalistic orthodoxy. It is essential that they cease from fear and persecution, from hatred and from placing barriers to cooperation. The growing anti-Semitic feeling in the world is inexcusable in the sight of God and man." Esoteric Healing, P. 269 James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked up all the keywords and phrases above. There is no such quotation about the word "love" being missing. There are lots of quotes about the lack of love on the human scene, and particularly in relation to the Jews, but that's not the same thing. If the Rabbi quoted Bailey as above, then it is a misquote. Likely, it is based on a combination of the following passages from Bailey: [unsigned, probably rwritten by James]

"This teaching anent hell is a remainder of the sadistic turn which was given to the thinking of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages and to the erroneous teaching to be found in the Old Testament anent Jehovah, the tribal God of the Jews. Jehovah is not God, the planetary Logos, the Eternal Heart of Love Whom Christ revealed." Esoteric Healing, Esoteric Healing [Bailey]

"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, 554 [Bailey]

" Its emphasis is material and its effect is to impress a purely materialistic Jehovah upon world consciousness. The general theme of the Old Testament is the recovery of the highest expression of the divine wisdom in the first solar system; that system embodied the creative work of the third aspect of divinity - that of active intelligence, expressing itself through matter. In this solar system, the created world is intended to be the expression of the second aspect, of the love of God. This the Jew has never grasped, for the love expressed in the Old Testament is the separate, possessive love of Jehovah for a distinct unit within the fourth or human kingdom." Esoteric Healing, 268 [Bailey]

So unless someone can locate this apparently made-up quotation, it should be removed. James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, Bailey does not state that there is no love advice in the Old testament. Her position is that the Jews, and humanity as a whole, has not lived up to the love philosophy--neither the bits buried in the Old Testament, nor the emphasis placed on it by the New Testament. James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

She did not say that "all Jews should become artists." Things will be more clear if you distinguish between what she actually wrote and your interpretations and extrapolations from it.James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course she was aware that races intermarry and so there are black Jews. To read anyone with clarity it is necessary to credit people with some common sense. I've explained above why your phrase "total destruction" is a misinterpretation. In Bailey's concept, all human culture and religions evolve: all aspects of human culture--including Christian--will and should eventually be replaced by higher correspondences to the same. No human creation is intended to stand forever. All are transformed in the evolutionary process. Nothing good in the true spirit of Judaism or Christianity or any other is lost--it simply moves to higher turn of its evolutionary spiral. Forms are replaced; only the spiritual is eternal.James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I like your optimism, though the human scene suggests that humanity under all its flags, Christian, Jewish, etc. has fallen miserably short of the best aspects of its religions.James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not with quoting an opinion. The problem is simply quoting it without any context where "Lucifer" is a hot-button word. [unsigned, by James]

The bare statement as it is, using a word that the popular mind equates with the "devil" is not good honest scholarship.James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The works are back online here: [54].James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in removing critical texts. I'm advocating making them clear, more full, and honest. Right now, the critical section is in a very sloppy condition.James 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this concludes James' objections. My replies now follow:

Regarding the "love" quote that Gershom cited -- is this is a falsified quote or a misquotation? I have asked this before. I have received no answer.

Hello, I did answer above (see my "charitable" reference) but apparently not explicitly enough. Yes, the quote is false and does not exist. I've checked all the books and Esoteric Healing, which is cited, especially. A digital search shows no such quote. Bailey does not even use the word "Judaism" in Esoteric Healing--she makes use "Jews" 20 or so times and none of these even remotely match the quote. Same way with the word "lacking" of which none relate to the Jews at all. I also did three phrase searches using combinations of the Rabbi's quote: not such quote exists. If you care to, you can check it yourself with the link I gave to the online texts in my last response.James 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Gershom's rhetoric about Jews bcoming artists -- this is a form of sarcastic rehetoric. Do not ask ME to "distinguish between what she actually wrote and [MY] interpretations and extrapolations" -- the author you are responding to should be Rabbi Gershom, not me!

Sarcastic is often in the eye of the beholder.James 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Gershom's question as to whether Bailey knew of the existence of Black Jews: James is again attributing to ME what was clearly indented and credited as Rabbi Gershom's text. Gershom is not here. I did not write that. I quoted from his web page so that those who wished to understand his criticism could read portions of it. Following the link to his site should clarify things for you.

Doesn't much matter since it's not directly related to the biography as is. But given the intelligence and scope of the knowledge expressed in the Bailey writings, and that she specifically addressed intermarriage between races, it's not reasonable to conclude that did not believe a Jew could be black.James 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Rabbi Gershom's optimism. That is his statement to which James was responding, not mine. It was credited to him. I did not write that.

Regarding the "sort of connotation" that James believes should be "avoided" when Gershom states his opinion that Bailey is calling for the "destruction" of Judaism: Take it up with Gershom. He wrote that. I did not. His connotations are his own. His work is published. It matters not whether James agree with Gershom or not on whether "dissolution" implies "destruction" -- Gershom is a critic and he is stating his criticism. Confusing things by attruibuting Gershom's words to ME is a large mistake.

Since I was referencing the article, then I was not attributing it to you but discussing it with you. I merely pointed out to you, that the word "destruction" expresses the Rabbi's feeling about Bailey and does not correspond to what she wrote about the Jews. It is therefore, not a scholarly criticism of Alice Bailey's though and works.James 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Douglas Grootuis's mention of the "Lucifer" word. Groothuis is a Christian professor of philosophy at a Seminary. He believes that Lucifer is Satan, the Devil, in the common Christian use of the word. In HIS (not mine!) criticism of Bailey's Lucifer Trust, he states a literal belief that the Trust was named to homour Satan. But before you say, "That's too far out," remember that YOU are advocating that we all take seriously the word of a woman who claimed to be co-authoring books with an invisible Tibetan. So plase, play fair. If Bailey can call Zionism "a triangle of terror" -- a HOT BUTTON TERM if ever we saw one -- then Groothuis can mention Lucifer.

As I indicated above, the reference is out of context and so not clear and thoughtful scholarship. A writer can build a case for Alice Bailey's supposed satanism or antisemitism by inserting short quotes without adequate context. Such a tactic is, in my view, not honest scholarship.James 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the texts being back online: Fine. Now you see 'em, now you don't. This indicates to me that you are someone on the board of directors of the Lucis Trust -- since it was they who forced the removal of these public domain texts off of the internet in the first place. Do you have a Conflict of Interest (COI) in this matter, as Kwork has charged? If so, please explain why you are meddling in the creation of Wikipedia.

As I explained a few months ago when Kwork brought this up, none of it is true. I'm not on the board of directors, nor am I even a member of the Arcane etc; not a joiner or a devotee of anything formal. I've simply carefully studied Bailey's writings. James 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the critical section being in "sloppy condition": I disagreee. STRONGLY. The only error it contained as of the last version edited by AnonEMouse, in my opinion, is that the word "Healing" was not capitalized in the title of the book "Esoteric Healing."

22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The texts that are on line are the same ones you have already, and the problem with them is that they are not searchable. They used to be here [55], which allowed search of all the texts, but the Lucis Trust forced its removal. Kwork 12:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Simply download any or all texts, then use any of freely available utilities to search the html. Here is a good one: [[56]] James 14:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of How to Improve this Alice Bailey Biography

First, I suggest we remove the false quotation that states ""The word 'love' for others is lacking in Judaism." The quote appears to be a fabrication or else it was take from a secondary source that was a fabrication. If you like, substitute another criticism where the Rabbi quoted accurately. Also, it should be mentioned that the Rabbi's criticism is self published. James 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate below in response to Renee recent edit, the reference being burried in a ton of text above:

I agree Renee's edit of the first few lines of criticism is more accurate. I've broken Renee's long sentence into two parts and changed wording because "gradual dissolution" is an actual quote from Bailey and not the Rabbi's words. The "destruction of Judaism itself" which are the Rabbi's words are now clear. The earlier version made it seem as if the destruction reference was Bailey's words. James 15:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Katz, in the article Alice Bailey: a Balanced Look, wrote the following:

Note to AD: The antisemitic statements of Alice Bailey need to be published. Lucis Trust, the publisher of Bailey's books, has already scrubbed her works clean of antisemitism. I'm sure they would love it if we did the same on this web page. Take a look at their web page and enter 'Jew', and 'Judaism' in the search engine. You'll see only positive references to Jewish people and the Jewish religion. They do not acknowledge Bailey's past statements. I have written them a letter (hard copy) asking for a statement regarding Bailey's comments on Jews. I'll let you know what response I receive, if any. --Jerry Katz

Jerry Katz is a respected published author. His claim that the Lucis Trust has "scrubbed her works clean of antisemitism", deserves consideration and could explain the difficulty of locating some contested quotes. I think this situation also justifies returning Alice Bailey: a Balanced Look to the article. Kwork 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Katz, in the article Alice Bailey: a Balanced Look----- sorry- that is not an article. It is a bunch of online discussions by people identified only by their first name.

Difficulty coming up with the idea you want as a reason to use weak sources? Sorry, wikipedia doesn't work that way. Any everyone on this page, considers this a weak unacceptable source, except you. As I said before, your issue is not with this article, but with wikipedia policy, please take this concern up here WP:RS. Sethie 17:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been an effort, a continuing effort by some editors, to use Wikipedia rules to block important issues from being presented in the article in a fair way, or even from being discussed openly on the talk page. That is a misuse of rules. See: [57] and [58] Kwork 18:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork the above statement which I removed (now twice) is an attack on the good faith of editors ("bailey supporters") as well as being irrelevant to this article (without a secondary source) and just one more instance of you WP:SOAP ing.

WP:IAR does not even remotely apply here. ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is not a trump card. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." Nice try though. Sethie 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, its not your final decision, just your opinion. If you think I am in violation of Wikipedia rules why not ask for mediation? Or perhaps there is some other action against me that you could take. You have certainly fabricated a long list of items [59]. I suppose that is you way of "showing good faith in the editors". I would have refiled the mediation form, but the present situation is (from my point of view) more complex, with more editors, and the question of meatpuppets. I will try to decide soon.

The question remains about editing the criticism section. The reason I restored the Alice Bailey quote that you have (so far) twice removed, is that the issue of her antisemitism is central. If someone could have convinced me that she was not antisemitic, I would certainly have dropped the issue. Instead all you have done is argue technical points. If, as is thought by many sane people, she is antisemitic, then that needs to be discussed in the article. It is not a technical issue, it is an issue of human values. And, of course, there are sources.

Instead of more arguing this back and forth, why don't you, or Jamesd1, show what you would like the criticism section to look like? Maybe we are not really that far apart, and an agreement can be reached. One word I have not heard from you so far (to the best of mt recollection) is compromise. Kwork 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am very satisfied with the current criticism section. Everyone on the page is, except you.

Your desire to include the nonduality salon is plain silly, per wikipedia standards, however if you have other changes you'd like to make, I am open. Sethie 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite satisfied with the criticism section: the fabricated quote should be removed. The rest of it is OK. About compromise, I would not object to it being expanded a bit after we expand the main biography to keep it in proportion. I'm happy to help develop the criticism section if we do it in a scholarly and honest fashion. James 01:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The publishers have not altered or "scrubbed" the Bailey texts in any way. The critical comments on the Jewish people are still there, just the way I read them as a young man some 43 years ago--and the editions I have are considerably order than that. I have very old paper editions as well as the recent digital ones and they are the same. The "scrubbing" business is just plain false as anyone with early paper editions can confirm. If you like, I will post a here a collection of these still circulating severely critical statements by Bailey.

Please reflect a moment and you will recall that the publishers of the Bailey material consider these writings the exact words of a Master of Wisdom who is regarded as a sage, virtually a god-like being. They would consider it sacrilege to alter or remove any material from the books.James 01:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you looked up the source and the quote isn't there, remove it. Sethie 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jamesd1, it seems to me that you're one of the few editors here taking the time to really review the quotations and books. If they're not there, please remove them. Also, thanks for the edits on the sentence earlier. --Renee 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If Sethie is satisfied with the criticism section the way it is, and Jamesd1 wants only the one passage he specifically mentioned removed, then it seems we may have been arguing about nothing. I would like to have the last change by Renee reverted; but, that done, I am in agreement with Sethie and James. All I ever wanted in the criticism section was recognition that the controversy over antisemitism existed. Perhaps the unidentified editor should also put in a word. Kwork 11:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie; what Renee edit were you thinking of and what's the problem with it?James 12:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi James, it was Kwork who wanted the edit and it was an edit that all other editors thought was good, including AnonEMouse. I've pasted in the responses below:

I agree edit is more accurate. I've broken your long sentence into two parts and changed wording slightly because "gradual dissolution" is an actual quote from Bailey and not the Rabbi's words. I'm moving a copy of this to the bottom section because we will get lost in all this text. James 15:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems fine to me. Good luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this neutral edit and continue your good work. Balance and neutrality will prevail! --Renee 14:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in." The quote seems to be mostly correct, I found it or something similar enough to be merely an editing revision difference, in 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.

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sinister New Age Channelings, Indeed

Or should that be Gas Music From Jupiter? I dunno; everything I know is wrong.

In any case, Sinister New Age Channelings: Who or What is speaking? is the title of the latest allegedly scholarly peer-reviewed criticism we're discussing here, and I'd like to briefly discuss it.

Published in issue #22 (winter 98-99) of From the Flames- Radical feminism with Spirit (emphasis mine), this article mainly deals with the author's becoming "... increasingly alarmed and frightened by the right wing, racist, anti-feminist assumptions in much New Age thinking. What emerged was a hidden agenda behind the facade of Light, love and healing, an agenda that supports US corporate free market capitalism, patriarchal science and other horrors." In other words, and not surprisingly, this article is about Radical Feminism and its issues.

However, she does deal with Mrs Bailey somewhat: she makes bald and thoroughly unsupported claims that "Bailey was a racist", without providing a single citation to support herself (although she does manage to violate Godwin's Law), and that "Alice Bailey's books ... have had a reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement" - for which she gives not a single example of exactly what influence or how or where it can be seen or felt.

Her most cogent dealing with Bailey's work is the following:

Alice Bailey's "The Great Invocation" has been promoted worldwide, becoming a sort of New Age hymn. It has been translated into 75 or so languages, and is used as a sort of hypnotic mantra, repetitively invoking Light, the Will of God, and the Plan on Earth. New Agers constantly call in "the Light" , in meditations and in gatherings, but the light they are invoking is not of this world, and I fear they are preparing for a mass death while speaking of Earth healing and Earth transformations. (emphasis added)

Apparently, the idea of letting Light and Love and Power restore God's Plan on Earth is nothing short of suicidal (or even murderous) in her view. She has already herself "demonized" Light, and a debased, patriarchal society for having demonized "darkness"; but this last uniquely bizarre and insidious idea is apparently somehow "supported" by her next statement:

I experienced the white light of the Otherworld as I flew with my brain-dead son on great white wings in a kind of 'near-death' experience. (emphasis mine)

Each and every case where the author comes close to actually discussing Bailey, she does not actually do so. Instead, she discusses in each case a highly mischaracterised and out-of-context paraphrase of Bailey. There are no actual quotes.

But last, and most entertaining, is the following reworking of that tired old Elders of Zion gambit, once again shifted to a new group of baddies (bad guys, of course):

Alice Bailey's Master DK also claims that the "Secret Masters" have all along been influencing men's (and I mean men's) minds, implanting ideas and sudden inspirations that have led to inventions and scientific "break­throughs" such as the splitting of the atom, and taking an instrumental role in the creation of patriarchies, industrialism, imperialism and the birth of male science.

When I consider the way that US controlled multinational corporations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and so on wage war against the Earth, holding Third World and Eastern bloc countries to ransom, wrecking entire economies as well as the livelihoods of peasants and women everywhere, destroying whole ecosystems all around the world in the name of freemarket capitalism and the New World Order, this doesn't seem totally far-fetched. I can't help wondering what the members of Alice Bailey's organisations might be up to. Are they in fact heading capitalist corporations, wielding financial and political power?

Yup, you read it right: Alice Bailey could be responsible for current US foreign policy(!) - the evil Imperialist Patriarchal Empire, waging war against the Earth.

In fine, I do not understand how this woman's odd ramblings are to be taken at all seriously as a scholarly work, and I hereby state my position that they have no place in this article. Honestly, I should rather listen to the good Dr. Kent Hovind. Seriously. Eaglizard 12:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. At moment, the standards for scholarly criticism links are rather low and likely well below Wiki guidelines. James 13:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should be bold and do what we can to make this article conform with Wiki's encyclopedic standards. I think we have a critical mass of editors now that will support that and help get it into shape. Thanks, Renee --Renee 14:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What some editors are attempting is character assassination against two authors who are respected and published, and who both have their own Wikipedia articles.

Just an hour ago we were talking about compromise, and now discussion on the talk page has descended into this nastiness. Are you willing to compromise on the criticism section, or do you really just want to try get your own way? Kwork 14:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, perhaps you don't realize that accusing me of attempted character assassination is actually a personal attack? I won't be drawn in, but please note that I don't discuss Sjoo's character above at all -- just her article, which you introduced as 'scholarly' (I presume). So call it "article assisination", if you must. And then tell me how you can possibly defend such an agenda-riddled far-left-wing radical hodgepodge as worthy of serious consideration.

Btw, having their own Wikipedia article doesn't really lend a person any credibility in my eyes. Take, for instance, Michael Peter Woroniecki. Or, for a more telling instance, take Alice Bailey, who also is a respected & published author, with her own Wikipedia page (as you may have noticed). Why are Sjoo's and Gershom's "published" views of Bailey's alleged antisemitism any more relevant than her own far more widely published and unambiguous denunciation of all racism (see earlier comments by James above)?

In any case, I'll close by pointing out that I am more than happy to accept any reasonably-written criticism of Bailey, and to include it in the article, because I have no agenda - other than a love of balance and objectivity. Eaglizard 19:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

About Discretion in Use of Hyperlinks

About my earlier recommendation on irrelevant hyperlinks, pleases see this Wikipedia article. [60] James 13:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Another Rabbi Gershom's Quote Problem

Gershom in the article referenced in our criticism section [[61]] begins with the following which he attributes to Bailey:

"Alice Bailey wrote: 'The Jewish race, who loved the possessions of the world more than they loved the service of Light, joined ranks with the rebels against God [and against the Aryan race, whom Bailey admires] Thus the history of the wandering Jew began and the Jew since has known no lasting peace.'

I've checked carefully, and again there is no such passage in the Bailey writings. The above is construction consisting of pieces of things Bailey wrote plus some words that are not hers. The closest match to it is:

"The Masters met in conclave and decided what should be the fate of those who, having reached the Gates of Light, loved the possessions of the world more than they loved the service of the light. Again the Word went forth to the revolting three, who waited still without the gates..." Esoteric Psychology, 397

The above is in reference to the Jews from ancient times, that is before recorded history.

The "rebels against God" is fabricated. Bailey speaks of the wander Jew, but not in the above supposed quote.

I conclude that Gershom is drawing from secondary sources and perhaps confusing someones paraphrase of Bailey with an actual quote from her. James 14:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have always believed this source is questionable and have raised that issue repeatedly. Sure, Gershom's a published author in another area, which only raises the question why couldn't he get this published? (because it's a soapbox? inaccurate? who knows?) --Renee 14:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Painful as it is (to my mind) to continue to stir this senseless little frying pan, I'm afraid I must concur. Two fabricated quotes makes Gershom a completely untrustworthy source, imho. But, I thought to argue the Sjoo article first, because it is the more obviously fringe-group radicalism. Still, I fear the respected author of Jewish Themes in Star Trek may not be long for this page, either... Eaglizard 19:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Restoring more discussion BLANKED by Sethie

Once again it comes to my notice that Sethie is blanking portions of this discussion page. Our discussions have moved on since this was posted, but it was in direct response to the question of the accuracy of a quotation from Bailey cited by Rabbi Gershom in his article. There was no reason for Sethie to blank it, as it was a sincere attempt to locate the material that Gershom was citin. I therefore m reinstating it. This is the second time that Sethie has blanked out my contributions to the discussion. Sethie, you were asked once before by me to stop doing this. Now it seems that reporting your behaviour is imperative.

The resinstated material, dealing with source material:

---

If you looked up the source and the quote isn't there, remove it. Sethie 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Judaism "a basic Evil" / "the evils of Judaism"

In "The Externalization of the Heirarchy" by Alice Bailey we find this text by Alice Bailey:

"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."

and

"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."

(Nameless Date Stamp) Hope this helps. 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Sethie's comment, when deleting the above, was "No it doesn't" (that is, no, it doesn't help our discussion of the accuracy of Gershom's quotation). Yet it seemed that what Gershom cited was a cobbled together version of this material, possibly, as Renee (?) noted, gathered from a less-than-accurate secondary source.

There was no reason to blank the matrial.

(Nameless Date Stamp) 03:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BAD FAITH EDITING AND UNWILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE

We were discussing a compromise, and several editors made important changes to the article without discussion, involving topics that had not been introduced as issues. Please explain why you said you were willing to accept a discussed edit, and then proceed to do something else. This suggests bad faith editing. I have now offered compromises several times. Kwork 14:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The edits I made are, I believe, entirely valid. You erased my work so I switched it back. Lets' talk about if you like. In case you erase it again before anyone has a chance to review it, here is is for the groups reference:James 14:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

James, I believe your edits are in line with consensus from Sethie, Eaglizard, myself, and others. --Renee 14:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And enonEmouse too. Sethie 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia article on consensus. You are confusing it with majority rule. This is a common mistake. In the present case, consensus has not been achieved. 19:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk)

While it is true that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that majority agreement is not synonymous with consensus, nonetheless, WP:3RR unmistakably shifts the balance of power in favor of the larger group. Besides which, I am unwilling, yes: unwilling to allow a continuous violator of one policy (WP:NPA) to hide behind other policies. That is bad faith editing. Asserting bad faith editing, btw, is hardly following WP:AGF. Eaglizard 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism latest version by James

Some critics have interpreted passages in her writings as racist and antisemitic. In 1997, Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his self-published article article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," analyzed Bailey's Plan for the New World Order. Geroshom quotes Bailey as calling for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith." Rabbi Gershom concluded that "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[3] He also criticized what he saw as serious factual errors in her writings about Judaism. For example, in her book Esoteric healing (page 268), in reference to God-like love, Bailey wrote, "This the Jew has never grasped, for the love expressed in the Old Testament is the separate, possessive love of Jehovah for a distinct unit within the fourth or human kingdom." Gershom countered this with a quote from the Book of Leviticus in the Torah, Chapter 19, verse 18, "where it is clearly stated that: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"[3] Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[4]

The Lucis Trust has responded to such criticisms by saying that the books "seemed to single out the Jews for special criticism" and that they display "an unwavering opposition to Zionism," but that the criticism of Jews found in the writings should be read in context. They also state that term "race" in the context of Bailey's writings refers to "a state of consciousness ... [found] in every nation".[5]

Bailey's works are also criticised by some Christian groups. In his book Unmasking the New Age, the Christian writer Douglas Groothuis writes that Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" and was later changed due to controversy.[6][7] The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship says that although Alice Bailey wrote extensively about the spiritual role of Jesus, her teachings are actually contrary to orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.[7]

Some of Bailey's books are criticized by Theosophists who see certain aspects of her writings as borrowed from Theosophy yet including perspectives that were not part of the original teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.[8][9]

above version as edited by James 14:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, please see WP:NPA. Also, the consensus is opposite to what you keep proposing, so please work with us here.

To ALL editors, we have been discussing these issues (obsessing over them as AnonEMouse put it) for a long time.

As a compromise, what would you think if we simply just keep the first line in the section and add the Gershom and Monica citations (which I personally think do NOT meet Wiki standards, but am willing to compromise and let them appear so that readers can click on them and make their own conclusions about whether or not they believe the sites; also, the passages would then be in context of each writer's whole article).

Clean and simple:

Some critics have interpreted passages in her writings as racist and antisemitic (cite Gershom, Monica).

End of paragraph.

Then, there won't be edit wars or endless discussions. Readers who are interested in this can then click on these sites themselves and draw their own conclusions without interpretations offered by any of us. Also, we won't risk putting misinformation and misquotes on Wiki, which would be a great disservice. What do you think?

--Renee 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1) The above version by James is grammatic nonsense. It contains repeated words, inexplicable tense changes, and other non-standard English usage. It is not up to Wikipedia standards.

2) Renee wrote to Kwork: "the consensus is opposite to what you keep proposing" -- but consensus is different than majority rule. We have two editors here (Kwork and myself) in opposition to three editors (Sethie, James, and Renee), plus a few who are not as deeply vested. VOTING is exactly what Wikipedia is NOT about. Please familiarize yourself with the meaning and practice of consensus.

3) James's version, stating that Gershom's essay is "self-published" is a weasel-word way to derogate the essay. Most of Gershom's books are print-published by various publishing houses and, like many modern authors, he has also found the web to be a decent alternative publishing venue. Even as respected and multiply-book=published author as the 70-some-yar-old sociologist Prof. W. S. Bainbridge is now publishing essays on the web, and no one would call them "self-published" as the term is truly derogatory. I stongly recommend that the weasel-wording "self-published" be removed.

4) Proposals to obliterate the words and phrases written by the critics of Alice Bailey are not in keeping with the way such criticisms are handled in other Wikipedia articles with similar issues. See the Julius Evola article for an example. That article is a good, solid one, and was hammered out through a long series of compromises and rewrites. Note that it includes specific and detailed material on the controversy surrounding Evola's antisemitism. Since that treatment worked for the Evola article, it can work here.

5) It is my sincere opinion that the proposal to bury the controversy in a series of numbered links is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. People come to Wikipdia to read and to learn. It is our obligation and responsibility to present them with the information they seek -- and to present it HERE, not through numbered links to other sites. Imagine a student who wished to use Wikipedia as a source for a school paper on antisemitism in the New Thought, Occult, Esoteric, and New Age movements of the 20th century. Would he be able to find the material at Wikipedia? If not, why not? If he can find it on the Julius Evola page, why not on the Alice Bailey page?

Your student won't find antisemitism at Mother Teresa or Woody Allen, either. Even if there's no validly-sourced claims of antisemitism, you would still want your hypothetical student to find such claims here. Talk about having a preconceived notion... Eaglizard 20:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

6) Our responsibility is to present our readers with an accurate and neutral article describing the subject and explicating the subject's notability during life and after death. In the case of Alice Bailey, a portion of her notability after death has centered around charges of egregious and open antisemitism. This is simple fact -- and downplaying it to footnote status does the reader and user of the encyclopedia a gross disservice.

(Nameless Date Stamp) 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, if it's such a "simple fact" then -- why are you unable to provide a single neutral, objective source saying so? If it's such common knowledge, then it should certainly be commonly discussed, no? When will it dawn on you that you have been completely unable to support your assertion? Eaglizard 20:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Eaglizard has put his finger on the problem here. There are Wiki policies and standards for articles that are repeatedly ignored in this article, and finally it seems that a critical mass of editors is committed to this.

Regarding Nameless Date's comments above, I notice that whenever s/he doesn't like an edit s/he says it is grammatically incorrect when no one else thinks it is. (I've published over 100 articles/chapters/books myself and have never had an editor call or correct my work as ungrammatical, but everytime I post here Nameless Date does so.)

Regarding Gershom's entry, I think Jamesd1 was trying to offer a compromise here by calling the article self-published. He's not using weasel words; he's telling the truth; and truthfully, if we apply Wiki standards here the article would not be allowed.

Back to the article, if Nameless Date and Kwork truly want to contribute to a balanced article, then what about my proposal to simplify, without interpretation, and offer a simple sentence with citations. Then, readers can draw their own conclusions -- good or bad -- and the edit wars stop? Feedback anyone? --Renee 21:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Eagilizard and Renee, please see the citation below under "Another souce", for a citation which was published by a University Press in 1998 and itself cites further scholarly publications in its own footnotes. There is no paucity of good, scholarly sources that make mention of Alice Bailey's anitisemitism.

Also, Renee, unless you ARE James, then you have made a mistake. I said nothing about YOUR work, but rather noted that James' current revision, which you were praising on the discussion page, was ungrammatical, due to repeated words and tense changes. The only reason this was worthy of mention to me was that you said that in your opinion, what James wrote was correct and proper. Since there is a temporary block of my ability to edit the page, it seemed that the best to be done was for me to note that what you wanted us all to approve contained some errors of grammar. No personal offense was intended.

Now, please, let us discuss the Hebrew University publication. Surely THAT must be scholarly enough for you to allow it to be quoted. See below, next section.

(Nameless Date Stamp) 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nameless Date, I was thinking of this [62] and this [63] regarding the grammar issues (women have veerrrryyyy long memories....).

But, no offense taken. Thanks.

Regarding the citation, yes, this looks like a high quality citation to me, far better than the Gershom citation. Again, I don't think we should put in quotations or such, because then there will be endless arguing over which quotations. I think we should just say, Some critics have interpreted passages in her writings as racist and antisemitic (cite Gershom, Monica, the citation below) and let people click on the citations and draw their own conclusions.

Alternatively, we can even use your words in the first sentence below and say, "A paper published by the Hewbrew University of Jerusalem criticised Alice Bailey (and the New Age movement) as antisemitic (list citation), as did work by Gershom and Monica."

Yes? (please, pretty please, I want to go to bed)

Renee --Renee 03:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC/User- Kwork

I have initiated a RFC/User on Kwork based primarily around his actions on the Alice Bailey page. Please feel free to add comments.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/kwork

Sethie 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Another source of quotes on antisemitism in Bailey's writings

Here is a brief excerpt from another published article that criticises Alice Bailey (and the New Age movement) as antisemitic. PLEASE do not interlineate responses to this material within the body of the following quotations and citations. Please respond AFTER the material, after my time stamp. THANK YOU

The URL on which the journal article is archived:

---

http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/13shnir.html

---

The publisher, journal title, artcile title, author, and publication date:

---

SICSA The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

ACTA --ANALYSIS OF CURRENT TRENDS IN ANTISEMITISM: A special research unit of SICSA

Russian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism

by Victor A. Shnirelman

Acta no. 13, Analysis of current trends in antisemitism, 1998. Copyright ©

---

The quotation, with footnotes, is as follows:

---

"Racist and antisemitic trends are explicit, for example, in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its “Jewish inheritance” and reject the “Jewish Bible” as a prerequisite for entering the Age of Aquarius.105 In her view, the twentieth century has been a period of world catastrophe, soon to be replaced by a Golden Age. Jews were depicted as the “human product of the former Solar system,” linked with “World Evil” and justly punished for their rejection of the Messiah.106 Similar ideas are found in the philosophy of the Italian fascist Julius Evola, who held that the contemporary epoch was part of the decline which began in the 8th–6th centuries B.C. He, too, predicted a coming catastrophe to be followed by a Golden Age.107"

---

The footnotes to the above-cited portion of the text are as follows:

---

1. 105. Margaret Brearley, “Possible Implications of the New Age Movement for the Jewish People,” in Jewish Identities in the New Europe, ed. Jonathan Webber (London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1994), 261–65.

1. 106. Alice A. Bailey, The Rays and Initiations (New York: Lucis Publication Co., 1976). About ten of Alice Bailey’s books were translated into Russian and published in the 1990s. Among them, Alisa Beili [Alice Bailey], Sudba natsii (Moscow: C.E.T., 1994); idem., Traktat o semi luchakh. Ezotericheskiaia psikhologiia (Moscow: Dvoinaia zvezda, 1994); idem., Novoe yavlenie Khrista (Moscow: C.E.T., 1995); idem., Luchi i posviashchennye (Moscow: C.E.T., 1996).

1. 107. Thomas Sheehan, “Myth and Violence: The Fascism of Julius Evola and Alain de Benois,” Social Research 48, no. 1 (1981): 61–62. Julius Evola is admired by a number of Russian Neo-pagans.

---

I hope that this material will be integrated into the Alice Bailey page.

(Nameless Date Stamp) 22:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, to stop the edit wars, I suggest we just simplify the line to:

Some critics have interpreted passages in her writings as racist and antisemitic (cite Gershom, Monica).

and then add whatever reliable citations people want. If the citations above are good, then they can just be added to the citations.

By doing this we bypass disagreements about what quotes should be used, whether or not the analysis if valid, and so forth, and we let readers decide for themselves.

Feedback welcome! --Renee 00:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect for your opinion, Renee, your suggestion seems unfair and unworkable to me. It seems to be an example of "moving the goalposts". Here's why:

As long as this discussion has been going on there has been a faction that wishes to remove specific quotes BY Bailey (in which she speaks racist words about Jews) and specific quotes ABOUT Bailey (in which people call her writings racist or anisemitic).

Go back through the archives and read the history of this issue with a clear eye. Each critic of Bailey has been in turn derogated as unscholarly, unvetted, self-published, unknown, not authoritative, and so forth. The removal of each citation has been requested (and often unilaterally made) on the basis that the sources are "not good enough."

The list of sources turned out, however, to NOT be as weak as claimed. At least THREE of the source-authors had Wikipedia pages themselves and were multily-published authors.

Today -- only a short time after Eagilizard stated again that there were no scholarly sources calling Bailey antisemitic -- my work uncovered yet ANOTHER source, The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Here we have an srticle ("Russian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism" by Victor A. Shnirelman) published by Hebrew University, a world-class institution of learning that issues a regular journal of scholarly articles on antisemitism. And here we find Alice Bailey named as antisemitic.

So now, at this late date, you propose quoting NO ONE.

Those of us who think that the Bailey article should include neutral mention of Alice Bailey's antisemitism have bent over backwards to satisfy all parties.

We have removed the quotes made by Bailey herself, when it was argued that they were without context.

We have allowed the inclusion of exculpatory quotes by the Lucis Trust, even though their CoI (Conflict of Interest) is clear, as they earn money by publishing her books.

You have made us work for a long time to provide Wikipedia-worthy statements about Bailey's antisemitism that contain accurate quotes of Bailey which were cited in articles written by known and previously-published authors presenting their conclusions in peer-reviewed scholarly journals -- and as soon as such a completely definsible one is found, you propose that all the quoted material be dropped.

Please stick with the process. We are really almost at the end of the negotiation now. This most recent scholarly journal must surely satisfy you, Eagilizard, Sethie, and James.

Your feedback is most welcome.

(Nameless Date Stamp) 03:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect in the above; I never stated there were "no" scholarly sources, nor did I use that great vocabule "paucity". What I did say was that such sources had not been provided by Kwork. As for this new citation, I believe I will comment further below. Eaglizard 11:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Eagilizard, your response was to me, not to Kwork. This is how the texts appear, first mine, then your response:

 
     6) Our responsibility is to present our readers 
     with an accurate and neutral article describing the 
     subject and explicating the subject's notability during 
     life and after death. In the case of Alice Bailey, a 
     portion of her notability after death has centered 
     around charges of egregious and open antisemitism. 
     This is simple fact -- and downplaying it to footnote 
     status does the reader and user of the encyclopedia a 
     gross disservice.

     19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC) 

     Look, if it's such a "simple fact" then -- why are you 
     unable to provide a single neutral, objective source 
     saying so? If it's such common knowledge, then it should 
     certainly be commonly discussed, no? When will it dawn 
     on you that you have been completely unable to support 
     your assertion? Eaglizard 20:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You were throwing my own words ("simple fact") back in my face. You were not relating to Kwork at all. And that's why my reply was made to you.

It's no big deal, and there is no intent on my part to make it one, but in the present editing climate, with Sethie's desire to ban editor Kwork openly stated [64], it seems right to set the record straight: you were responding to me, and not to Kwork.

Nameless Date Stamp 13:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Again, I do not state there are "no sources". I said you haven't provided them. Eaglizard 14:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What caused me to correct you was that you had implicated Kwork, when it was actually my message to which you were responding. However, back to the facts: Between myself and others, THREE authroial sources had been provided to you at that point, two of whom were notable enough to have their own Wikipdia pages. Now there are FOUR sources. Let's keep moving onward, shall we?

Nameless Date Stamp 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nameless Date, Please see the last post under "Criticism latest version by James." --Renee 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New Thoughts

I went to the trouble clarifying the language and substituting a real Bailey quote that was the nearest match to the Bogus one offered in the original. (Otherwise, removing the old quote would have left text that made no sense and I would have had to delete the Rabbi's conclusion.) I also made two sentences out of one long one and made it crystal clear which words were Bailey's and which were the Rabbi's. But I'm not attached to the Jewish issues portion of the criticism. (Given that it is communal effort that's been pieced together over time, the English isn't bad.)

My sense is that the criticism section should be relatively brief compared to the whole biography. If it is to become large then it should be moved to a separate Wiki article where the pros and cons can be elaborated. James 03:32, 27August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this is a biography on the life and thought of Alice A. Bailey. It is not an essay about what some perceived antisemitic passages in her writings. Nor is it a place for an extensive annotated bibliography of her critics on this theme. If the critics want to talk at length about that, as they have done in this discussion, it should be moved to its own article. James 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and I think that adding in quotations is wrong because how they're selected is bound to be influenced by who selects them. Better to let people read the documents for themselves.

How about these two lines?

Some critics have interpreted passages in her writings as racist and antisemitic (cite Gershom, Monica). An example of this is a paper published by the Hewbrew University of Jerusalem criticising Alice Bailey (and the New Age movement) as antisemitic (list citation).

Nameless Date -- this last sentence uses your very own words above and it includes the two (IMO) very poor references according to Wiki standards (I've included them as a compromise).

James raises an important point -- a Wiki article is not the place to discuss whether or not, or the extent to which AAB's writings are antisemitic. Our obligation is to provide a balanced and neutral article that fairly presents the positive and negative in a parsimonious manner, with good citations so people who want to do further research can.

How does this proposal sound? Renee

p.s. Nameless Date, I notice you've posted this on the antisemitism talk board [65] and it concerns me because I fear that we'll be bogged down even further over a few lines. I hope you agree to the above. It clearly states that (1) critics interpret passages as racists, and (2) gives a simple summary (in your exact words) of the Hebrew University article. --Renee 03:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not happy with this. Allowing a mere two sentences on Bailey's antisemitism -- with no quotations and with all the relevant inforation buried in footnotes -- seems insufficient to me, given the large role that hate-speech played in her writings, and the number of comments that have been made about this in various venues since her death.

I have asked before for folks to please check out the Julius Evola page in order to view, for comparison, another article divided between straight biograpghical data and summary of teachings with criticism of the subject. My request was not taken seriously. I ask again for the comparison to be made, particularly in light of the fact that the Hebrew University article directly compares Bailey's antisemitism with Evola's antisemitism. Look at the length of the critical material on the Evola page -- not one or two sentences -- or even one or two paragraphs! The issue is dealt with full-length, by both supporters and detractors of Evola, and the result is a lively, readable, and, above all, informative biography page.

Additionally, for a look at how the subjct of charges of antisemitism are handled in a Wikipdia biogaphy dealing with a controversial racist episode in the life of a living person, pleasee see the Michael Richards page. There you will find an even longer section (proportionately speaking) dealing with criticism in the life of a notable person.

Given these and other successful Wikipedia articles, it appears both reasonable and neutral to state that the Alice Bailey article should not be restricted, limited, or hobbled in its presenation of material that deals with charges of antisemitism in her writings.

As for my post at the antisemitism talk board, which you mentioned -- that was my attempt to encouage someone associated with the topic of antisemiitism in general to write a full-treatment article on antisemitism in the occult, esoteric, and New Age meovements. Such an article is an important topic but it would not center on Alice Bailey, as she was only one of many antiisemitic occult and esoteric writers of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Finally, it was suggested at one point that the sub-head "Criticism" be changed to "Controversy". I think this is an excellent idea. Controversy is a far more neutral term. However, making that change does not mean that we have reached consensus reagrding your proposal to remove all quotations. On the contrary. I think that specific quotations should be left in, as samples of the form that the controversy around Bailey has taken.

"Nameless Date Stamp" 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nameless one, I try very hard to avoid all personal comments about an editor, but I must say this: you are far too impatient! You're wrong to think your request wasn't taken seriously; in fact, the Evola link has been on my desktop since I saw that request, waiting for me to have time to give it the consideration you say it deserves.

Could you please try to assume good faith a bit more, my friend? Eaglizard 12:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Eaglizard, Thanks for taking seriously my suggestion that looking at the Julius Evola page might provide a useful demonstration of how another group of Wikipedians have handled the biography of another occultist charged with antisemitism and racism. I cannot read minds, though, and since no one had responded to my suggestion after several days, it was impossible for me to know that anyone was still considering it.

As for assuming good faith -- that has become difficult for me since

• Sethie has twice deleted / blanked lengthy and substantive comments of mine that were posted to this discussion page, the second time after he was specifically requested not to do so again.

• I have seen evidence on their user pages which indiactes to me that Sethie and Renee have been helping one other to gather information to be used against editors whom they wish to get blocked or banned from the Alice Bailey page.

• Renee, backed by Sethie and Squeak, posted an AN/I that got me blocked from editing the Alice Bailey page for 7 days (Aug 22 - Aug 29, 2007).

• I have seen the Yahoo group messages that Kwork uncovered where Philip Lindsay made a conspiratorial call for meatpuppets to go to Wikipedia and edit the Alice Bailey page because it was, in his word, "off" in that it had a Criticism section that mentioned charges of Bailey's racism and antisemitism -- and shortly after that Yahoo group message was posted, the edit war broke out here over precisely the issue of that Criticism section.

• Sethie has made an RfC in which he stated that his "desired outcome" was the banning of Kwork from editing the Alice Bailey page [66].

• Renee repeatedly has misused the word consensus to mean majority rule, and in light of her and Sethie's open attempts to eliminate both me and Kwork as editors of the Alice Bailey page, it appears that she is trying to create a majority-by-default.

It would be very relaxing indeed to assume good faith, but the evidence is strongly otherwise.

The other day it was my pleasure to remove the copyvio stub of an article on the stage magician Alexander the Crystal Seer and to write a new short entry about him from scratch. In that article a number of controversial biographical elements were broached by me, including mention of his prsonal spiritual beliefs and one biographer's statement that he had killed four men during the course of his lifetime. I then requested help from a member of the project biography membership list -- an editor literally picked at random from the list -- and received kind, gracious, and generous help in upgrading the page from that utter stranger. THAT was an assumption of good faith.

Can an assumption of good faith happen here? I hope so. But it will take certain people backing away from and apologizing for their efforts to punitively blank, block, and ban their fellow editors merely because those editors wish to include quotations in which scholars and commentators have described a controversial aspect of the biography subject's teachings.

Nameless Date Stamp 14:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nameless Date,

Yes, I like Controversies better too. It seems you're giving undue weight to the antisemitism by trying to expand the section. The lead line says what you want (racist and antisemitic), with citations, and even an additional line. Is there no compromise here? It seems like you are trying to make the article about antisemitism (WP:UNDUE) and not even trying to compromise (when again, it's the opening sentence with questionable sources).

This will only work if you're willing to compromise, or else you'll get less than you want because people will become more fixed in their opposition and the ultimate result will be less focus on antisemitism. --Renee 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New Thoughts

I went to the trouble clarifying the language and substituting a real Bailey quote that was the nearest match to the Bogus one offered in the original. (Otherwise, removing the old quote would have left text that made no sense and I would have had to delete the Rabbi's conclusion.) I also made two sentences out of one long one and made it crystal clear which words were Bailey's and which were the Rabbi's. But I'm not attached to the Jewish issues portion of the criticism. (Given that it is communal effort that's been pieced together over time, the English isn't bad.)

My sense is that the criticism section should be relatively brief compared to the whole biography. If it is to become large then it should be moved to a separate Wiki article where the pros and cons can be elaborated. James 03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this is a biography on the life and thought of Alice A. Bailey. It is not an essay about what some perceived antisemitic passages in her writings. Nor is it a place for an extensive annotated bibliography of her critics on this theme. If the critics want to talk at length about that, as they have done in this discussion, it should be moved to its own article. James 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on a Quote

"Racist and antisemitic trends are explicit, for example, in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its “Jewish inheritance” and reject the “Jewish Bible” as a prerequisite for entering the Age of Aquarius.105 In her view, the twentieth century has been a period of world catastrophe, soon to be replaced by a Golden Age. Jews were depicted as the “human product of the former Solar system,” linked with “World Evil” and justly punished for their rejection of the Messiah.106 Similar ideas are found in the philosophy of the Italian fascist Julius Evola, who held that the contemporary epoch was part of the decline which began in the 8th–6th centuries B.C. He, too, predicted a coming catastrophe to be followed by a Golden Age.107"

About the above passage, the essence of the truth in it is: Some writers interpret certain of her passages as antisemitic.

About the details:

Golden age is not necessarily "soon" and depends on humanity, a rather unpredictable lot.

In Bailey's thought, the Jews were not "punished" for refusing to accept the Jew named "Christ." They, along with the rest of humanity--that's US--experience self-engendered karmic pains for not being more loving and non-separative. Refusal to accept the Christ is just a symptom of this, not a cause for anything. We are all linked with world evil, though it is spread rather unevenly around the globe.

Throwing the name "Bailey" and "facist" together in this way is just name calling.James 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Unfortunately, you are not a scholar. You are an anyomous Wikipedia editor. You have less credibility as an interpreter of Bailey's writings than a scholar does who writes in a world-class peer-reveiwed journal published by a well-respected university. Therefore although you are entitled to your opinion, it is unlikely that your opinion will offset or overshadow the opinions published in a verfiable, respected, scholarly journal.

Again, its not about me. But you might note, that if I am anonymous then no one here knows if I am a scholar or not.

Scholarship is specific to certain areas, and usually narrowly focused. Exoteric university degrees do not make AAB scholars. It is not "degrees" that determine knowledge of material such as the Bailey writings but a different kind of "degrees" of which Bailey writes. There are many academic scholars who know what they are talking about, and many who do not. Usually, when academics depart from the specific area in which they were given their formal education, they tread on dangerous ground. The accuracy of what is said is primary, who said it is secondary. Respect must be earned by demonstrated knowledge of honest scholarship. Without that, degrees mean very little. James 13:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, your opinion about the passage is not going to change the reliability and citability of what was written in the Sassoon Institute article, for the simple reason that you are not credentialed. You're just another unrelaible source.

Reliability is in the eye of the beholder. James 13:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your attempt to paraphrase the article is not accurate.

Thanks for your thought. James 13:11, 27 August 2007(UTC)

Note, for example, that the writer states that RACIST AND ANTISEMITIC trends are EXPLICIT in Bailey's OCCULT TEACHINGS This is not the same as your statement that the "essence" of the piece is that "some writers" happen to "interpret" a few "certain of her passages" as antisemitic but not racist. The charge is much graver and much more direct. The charge is that her TEACHINGS -- not "certain of her passages" -- are EXPLICITELY (not interpretively) both racist and antisemitic.

Nameless Date Stamp 05:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I contend, that a reasonable and fair-minded person, who reads Alice Bailey in context will come to a more benign conclusions.James 13:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the writer of the article did not, as you falsely state, "throw the name "Bailey" and "fascist" together as a form of "name-calling."

The word "fascist" was an adjective applied only to the name "Julius Evola," who, as an Italian national, was a known and open supporter of Mussolini, the leader of the Italian Fascist Party, during WWII.

The quoted paragraph clearly stated that Bailey's ideas are "similar" to fascism. James 13:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, it would be useful for you to read the page on Evola. If you knew more about him, you would see that it was not "name-calling" to label him a "fascist." He actually WAS a fascist.

Nameless Date Stamp 05:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I said it was wrong to state or imply, as the passage did, that Bailey ideas are like those of a fascist. I did say anything about Evola. James 13:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading the cited article, I find that we have here a single paragraph in a (much) longer piece dealing with antisemitic trends in Russian Neopaganism. It is clear from context that the author is simply offering tangential support for his theme ... the Bailey reference is in no way intrinsic to the argument there at all, and she isn't referred to elsewhere in the paper, only in the paragraph quoted above. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not useful.

To deal with the material as presented: Shnirelman gives us one sentence that (presumably) summarizes the findings of another source (Margaret Brearley), another sentence of his own interpretation of some bits from Rays and the Initiations, and two sentences about Julius Evola, who is, dare I mention, not Alice Bailey. Since Shnirelman isn't really arguing that Bailey is racist (just asserting it, w/o attempt to justify), that really (to my mind) only leaves the first sentence as useful.

So has anyone looked for the source used by Mr. Shnirelman:

Margaret Brearley, “Possible Implications ;of the New Age Movement for the Jewish People,” in Jewish Identities in the New Europe, ed. Jonathan Webber (London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1994)

I don't happen to have a copy, and neither does my local library. How about ya'll? Eaglizard 14:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Critique of a note in the Referenced Shnirelman Article

In a footnote, it states:

"In this respect, the Russian Neo-pagans differ radically from Bailey, who accused the Jews of 'separatism' and treated them as the major obstacle for an establishment of the uniform nationless world civilization. See Bailey, Rays and Initiations, 634; Brearley, 'Possible Implications,' 261–62."

These lines above illustrate the point I made just now about the problems that arise when scholars venture outside their area of expertise or try to relate their knowledge to a dissimilar area of writing which they do adequately understand.

The author is correct that Bailey highlighted what she saw this as a separative nature in the Jewish people, and that she/he saw this is a serious obstacle in the current world picture. However, the context of this is that she constantly also underscores the separative spirit of humanity as a whole--all the nations, the Christians, as well as the special disciples of DK to whom letters are sent in her "Discipleship in the New Age" books. The are all advised that they have a "separative" nature do not love well and widely enought. Also, virtually all the major nations and groups in the world received criticism on this underlying theme.

The author is wrong in the second line about a "nationless world civilization." That is not Bailey's concept at all. In her/his writings, the nations are seen as centers in the cosmic body that is "Earth." Each nation, as well as many subsidiary cities and groups, are important and play a role in the divine plan. That is why we have the book titled, "Destiny of the Nations." The destiny outlined there is not one of a "nationless" world but of a world where nations live in harmony, and live up to their higher natures.

As relates specifically to the Jewish people, she is both harshly critical with regard to the "separative" theme. But, in the eyes of many thoughtful readers, this is clearly "tough love" and not antisemitic:James 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"The outstanding evidence of the Law of Cause and Effect is the Jewish race. All nations prove this Law, but I choose to refer to the Hebrew peoples because their history is so well known and their future and their destiny are subjects of worldwide, universal concern. The Jews have always had a symbolic significance; they sum up in themselves - as a nation, down the ages - the depths of human evil and the heights of human divinity. Their aggressive history as narrated in the Old Testament is on a par with present-day German accomplishment; yet Christ was a Jew and it was the Hebrew race which produced Him.

If the Jewish race would recall, therefore, their high symbolic destiny, and if the rest of humanity would see themselves in the Jewish people, and if both groups would emphasize the fact of human stock and cease thinking of themselves in terms of national and racial units, the karma of humanity would radically change from the retributive karma of the present to the recompensing good karma of the future." Esoteric Healing, 226-226

James: as I have been more guilty of soapboxing than most on this talk page, I guess I'm the one who should point out to you that you're doing it. While I may agree in essence with what you say above, it simply isn't our job to decide on the accuracy of Shnirleman's interpretation. That some people have that interpretation is what is being reported in the article, and that's certainly a fact.

Believe me, friend, I know just how seductive it is to want to argue for the truth. It pains me to think people would reject an entire massive body of logical thought on purely ad hominem grounds, but that's reality. Most importantly, it's been my experience that such attempts, no matter how cogently stated, are virtually doomed to failure. And are likely to be used against you in the court of thoughtless accusations, btw. Eaglizard 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

NB: No one has yet attempted to explain how a supposedly "antisemitic" author wrote such sentences as:

It is essential that [humans] cease from fear and persecution, from hatred and from placing barriers to cooperation. The growing anti-Semitic feeling in the world is inexcusable in the sight of God and man.

So, I doubt anyone will respond to your more subtle theoretical points... lol Eaglizard 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for your reminders about human nature and the communication process. I will likely actually be influenced by your thought on it. Well, at least I cast some thoughts into space, even if they find no friendly physical ears. I'm a teacher by nature and experience, and sometimes over optimistic as well, and I've often been guilty of believing, perhaps foolishly, that people want to dialog in the old Platonic sense.James 15:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, there seems to be a misunderstanding. People, not even the best people, are fully integrated. Every person is constituted of many diverse elements. The process of synthesis is the subject of Psychosynthesis, and I hope eventually to expand that article. It is certainly possible for a very good person, such as AAB, to hold a problematic view, such as antisemitism. SqeakBox said (elsewhere) that I have compared Alice Bailey to Hitler. That is absolutely not correct. I think she held some deplorable views on Jews that came through in the books on occasion, but there is much more to her than just that. Is it really too much to admit that a good person had a flaw? Every human has flaws. From the point of view of Judaism, what counts is what people do, not what they think or say. Since she never harmed any Jews her antisemitism is not to be compared to the antisemitism of those who have done harm. All I have been trying to get in the article all this time is a short recognition that many people think Bailey had the defect of antisemitism. Those who think otherwise can also say that in the article. Then, finally, everyone could put this messy argument behind them and go on to other things. Let me know what you think. I really would like this to end. Kwork 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Kowrk, in principle, I fully agree with your thought about integration with its implications on the fallibility of individual humans. I actually wrote an essay about this, which was addressed to students of Alice Bailey and of Helen Roerich. I think I see shortcomings in certain parts of the AAB work myself, though it is not the Jewish-people theme that would receive my critique.

But about specifics: if what you would like to see in the first paragraph of the criticism section is different from what is now there, then post below a draft of what you think that paragraph should say. Who knows, perhaps we could hammer out an agreement and all get on with other things.James 15:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I could live with this:

Some critics have interpreted passages in her writings as racist and antisemitic. In 1997, Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," analyzed Bailey's Plan for the New World Order. Geroshom quotes Bailey as calling for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith." Rabbi Gershom concluded that "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."^[13] He also criticized what he saw as serious factual errors in her writings about Judaism. For example, Gershom quotes Bailey as writing "The word "love" for others is lacking in Judaism...".^[14] Gershom countered this with a quote from the Book of Leviticus in the Torah, Chapter 19, verse 18, "where it is clearly stated that: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"^[13] Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."^[15]

It has two words less that the version in place now. Kwork 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty excellent, imo, Kwork -- anyone else have an opinion? Eaglizard 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving Onward

At this point we have evidence that four previousy published, reputable, citable, verifiable authors have clearly stated in published articles that Bailey's teachings (and not merely "certain passages in her writings") are both racist and antisemitic.

Obviously only a tiny fraction of the Bailey work relates to the subject on which you are exclusively focused. That you could draw such a conclusion as the above is mind-boggling. This is my last comment to you. I wish you well. Moving on. Kind Regards. James 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop talking about me. Please understand that defaming me is pointless. We are reporting here about a number of published authors who have stated that Alice Bailey's teachings are racist and antisemitic. Those authors have published their opinions and it is now our duty to report on the controversy engendered by their publications. Trying to defame me is a case of shooting the mesenger long after the message has been delievered. Nameless Date Stamp 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

These authors are Shnirelman, Gershom, and Sjoo -- and Brearly, cited by Shnirelman. Two of the four authors who said that Bailey's teachings are racist and antisemitic (Gershom and Sjoo) are notable enough to have their own biographies at Wikipedia.

In addition, we have verified and vetted criiques of Bailey's religious writings from a Christian viewpoint, each stating a different aspect of criticism, coming from two verifiable sources (Groothuis and the Watchman Fellowship), one of whom (Groothuis) is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page.

We have firm evidence of a controversy because we have accumulated documented statments by those who oppose Bailey's teachings on various grounds.

It is now time to bring our clear evidence of those controversies before the reading public.

What is meant by "clear"? Open. Transparent. Unconcealed. The opposite of cloudy or muddied or obscured.

I propose that the terms "have interpreted" and "certain of her wriings" are obscure and that these clouded terms should be replaced by direct, clear language: The authors cited "have said that Alice Bailey's teachings are racist and antimentic."

Given that the charges of racism and antisemitism are grave, it is also my firm opinion that reducing the controversy to mere footnotes (as Renee has repeatedly proposed) will render it incomprehensible to the average reader. Therefore, in my opinion, some direct quotations must be included.

Comments welcomed.

Nameless Date Stamp 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, AnonEMouse!

Thank you, AnonEMouse, for verifying that Gershom's quote from Bailey was substantively correct and not "false" as James claimed. I know that looking through all that text took time, and it is much appreicated that you took so much time.

The fact that you had to do this extra work to vindicate Gershom was not only due to James' unsupported assertion that the material Gershom cited was not to be found in Bailey's text -- but also due to the fact that there are editors here who would rather believe the words of an anonymous Bailey apologist than the words of a notable and published Chassidic rabbi.

No, that's not what I said. What I wrote earlier was, "I've looked up all the keywords and phrases above. There is no such quotation about the word "love" being missing." That is and was basically true: ( The quotation now found is a different one.) It is sufficiently different that if you use the key phrases given in the bogus quote, you will not find it the new one, and so I did not find it. If the source had quoted accurately, I would have found the new one.

The new one--the real quote--is conceptually related but by no means the same. The original bogus quote is still wrong. I don't have a problem with the new quote. But, as I suggested earlier, adding a long critique of Bailey with reasons and quotes of why she is seen by certain eyes as anti-Jewish--that belongs in a separate Wiki article, not in this biography. Otherwise, we would have the anti-Bailey folks who would quote at length about this theme and then we would need an equal amount of response to balance it, so turning the biography into a citation and quotation battle on the pros and cons of the Jewish issue in relation to Baiely. Again, the biography is not the place for it. The discussion area of this biography has already been extensively used for that. James 18:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. But all this is something of a tempest in a tea cup, because no one here is denying that AAB said the Jews (and humanity, etc) lack love. She was highly critical of the Jews and humanity, and many other things. I had already just point this out using a quote from Bailey. So while the newly cited quote is apparently of exciting interest to at least two of you, it does not break any new ground or reveal anything about Bailey that's not already been explicitly stated here as fact.James 18:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks.

I think that it is really time to bring this matter to the fore. Here are the facts:

Gershom quoting Bailey, as brought to this discussion page by me (Nameless Date Stamp):

The word "love" for others is lacking in Judaism... 
The Jew has never grasped the love of God. The God of 
the Jews is possessive and greedy. Jehovah is not God. 
[Bailey]

James refuting Gershom and giving his credentials as a fact-checker:

I've looked up all the keywords and phrases above. 
There is no such quotation about the word "love" being 
missing.

James impugning Gershom's scholarship and at the same time accusing me ("who quoted it") with inaccurate reporting:

it appears that the Rabbi may have gotten carried 
away in his criticism, or else whoever quoted it in our 
Wiki biography did not report him accurately.

Me, asking James to clarify his contentions against Gershom and myself anent the "word love lacking" quote:

Regarding the "love" quote that Gershom cited -- 
is this is a falsified quote or a misquotation? I have 
asked this before. I have received no answer.

James, replying to me, stating clearly that Gershom made a "false" quote and adain giving his credentials as a fact-checker:

Hello, I did answer above (see my "charitable" 
reference) but apparently not explicitly enough. Yes, 
the quote is false and does not exist. I've checked 
all the books 

James, asking for the now-alleged "false" and "fabricated" quotation to be removed from the Alice Bailey bio page:

First, I suggest we remove the false quotation 
that states ""The word 'love' for others is lacking 
in Judaism." The quote appears to be a fabrication 
or else it was take from a secondary source that was 
a fabrication.

AnonEMouse, demolishing James' spurious claims:

The quote seems to be mostly correct, I found it 
or something similar enough to be merely an editing 
revision difference, in 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.

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a SERIOUS matter. First James accused me of falsely reporting Gershom's words, then he accused Gershom of fabricating a "false" Bailey quotation about "the word love" for others being "lacking" in Judaism, and finally he asked for the quotation's deletion from Wikipedia on the sole grounds of HIS supposed fact-checking -- and he was WRONG every step of the way.

This is shocking to me. In all my years at Wikipedia, such an egrgious misuse of editorial trust has never appeared on any of the discussion pages to which my contributions have been made.

I think it is time for me to ask, "How long must we 'assume good faith'?

Nameless Date Stamp, who has few assumptions left at this point 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How long must we 'Wikipedia:assume good faith'? A bit longer than this, please. James may well have done a good faith search, but merely missed this one, it wasn't the exact word for word text, after all. Please, this is not such a big deal. It's not a good idea to be spending easily 100 times more effort by getting all heated on the talk page, than actually adding useful text to the article. I am quite grateful that you like my research, but that's not a reason to turn up the heat even more, please. Calm, nice, soothing thoughts. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I assumd good faith while Renee worked to have me blocked from editing the page. I assumed good faith while James accused me of false reportage. I assumed good faith when James claimed that there was no mention that the word love for others was "lacking" in Judaism in any of Bailey's books and then REMOVED the quote, which turned out not to be "fabricated" after all. So, may my assumption of good faith extend to you as well? Will =you= reinsert the quotation that James deleted? Nameless Date Stamp 17:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this read as "can I assume in good faith that you will do what I want"? Eaglizard 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that "The word for love is lacking in Judaism" is a clearly and substantively different statement from "The word "love" as it concerns relation to other people is lacking in their religious presentation".

You are quibbling. James said -- see above -- that there was absolutely no quotation of any kind to be found in any of Bailey's works, which he claimed to have thoroughly checked, in which she said that "the word love" for others was "lacking" in the Jewish religion. Yet there is such a quote, and it does say that "the word love" is "lacking". Nameless Date Stamp 17:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Your statement that James was wrong is right. Gosh.

Please see my statement in bold at the top of this "Thank You" page. James 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that Gershom remains un-vindicated by this. Eaglizard 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my further (personal) opinion that, unless you prefer others to assume bad faith on your part, you should WP:AGF for the remainder of your earthly existence. It's called the "Golden Rule", and I find it rather compelling.

Good advice. I also find compelling the advice given in Matthew 7:15-20 [67], escpially the first verse of that section ("15: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.") Nameless Date Stamp 17:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly (to me), I have never found this advice compelling in the least; to me it is ad hominem in abstractis. (Meaning, I don't beware "false prophets" - I beware false ideas. It is my most fundamental postulate that the universe is rational; hence, all truth is discernible own its own merits, and not on the credentials of its promoters or "prophets". You will find this same assertion in every book by "the Tibetan", btw.) Eaglizard 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(I had previously stated here that Problems of Humanity was a compilation; I believe I was thinking of different book, so I have rmvd said comment.) Kudos to AnonEMouse for find this! Eaglizard 17:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

James, it is now clear that you have repeatedly substituted the word "missing" for the word "lacking" when discussing the Gershom quote of Bailey. You said the quote could not be found. I believe that a search on the keyword "lacking" would have revelead the quotation to you. How and why you made the the repeated mistake of searching for "missing" as a keyword when the keyword actually was "lacking" is only of marginal interest at this time. More central to the issue is this:

You used your inability to find the keyword "missing" -- for which you say you searched -- as an excuse to remove the quotation about love "lacking" from the bio page, saying that no such quotation could be found. The "lacking" quote has now been located by AnonEMouse. I am now asking that "lacking" quote to be reinserted.

Will you do this now, as a show of good faih?

Nameless Date Stamp 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The text that was suppose to be from Alice A. Bailey said:

"The word 'love' for others is lacking in Judaism... The Jew has never grasped the love of God. The God of the Jews is possessive and greedy. Jehovah is not God."

I tested it:

I searched for the phrase "lacking in Judaism" but it finds nothing.

A search for "grasped the love" and got nothing.

A search "God of the Jews is possessive" and got nothing.

A search "possessive and greedy" found nothing.

A search for "The word 'love' for others" finds nothing.

There are a few word combinations in the misquote that will work in finding the actual quote, but as you can see a searcher probably has less than a 50-50 chance of finding it after a few tries. Maybe James was not patient enough in his search, but the misquote is wrong enough to make finding its cousin difficult. Sparklecplenty 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not had time to do the necessary searching. But I clearly recall reading the much disputed quote, exactly as it was given in Rabbi G.'s article, many years ago. Kwork 12:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving on Again

Added three new links in the "External Links" section: a dissertation; a reference in the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Big Religion Chart James 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Added a line and a link to the Seven Rays Wikipedia article.James 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! Sethie 23:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sethie; thanks; check out the latest:

Added an interesting illumination of Baiely's character in the form of a new paragraph/quote taken from the a book by William McGuire--a Princeton University publication.James 00:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I move to remove it- it is one person's opinion of her and I don't feel like the section adds much to the article... lots of extra details... all there just to say "One person said she was nice." Sethie 05:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, this reference is a University Press source, the holy grail of reputable sources as defined in Wiki guidelines. Also, it's not the only reference to Bailey in the book. Also, it seems to me, that in an article that purports to be a biography, it's appropriate to cite a description of character as seen by one who met her. As to it being "only one person," we don't have statistical summaries of people's characters is biographies about them--it's done, one piece at at time. In addition, The "Bollingen Foundation" is a history of "American intellectual life," and Nancy Wilson Ross who described Bailey was a noted and respected author (see the link following her name). The quote, in addition to confirming certain details of Bailey's life related in her autobiography, shows Bailey's intellectual influence at the time. Seems to be to be a passage of real interest to me, so please reconsider. James 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But if the antisemite group is putting in citations and quotations that only obliquely refer to Bailey to give undue weight to some of Bailey's writings, then I think this is perfectly acceptably. We have to decide on standards and because Kwork and Nameless date continue to push for self-published sites or references that only obliquely refer to Bailey, then I think we can counterbalance that.

Again, I 've said it before, we have clearly stated that some passages of Bailey's are viewed as racist and anti-semitic, but it seems some editors are trying to expand this one point beyond the vast volume of Bailey's work. I think it certainly should be in the article, but not given undue weight. --Renee 14:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should not be given undue weight. Even as it is now the criticism section is large in proportion to the biography as a whole, the more so since it was necessary to add the actual quote from Bailey to provide context for the misquote which was both a paraphrase and a fragment. According to Wiki guidelines, an article should reflect a proportionate picture and not give undue weight to a minority view. Those who think Bailey was anti-Jewish are understandably vocal and intense about it, as reflected in this discussion page which is mostly about this one theme. The critics may be a majority opinion within the Jewish community, but they do not reflect an overall scholarly evaluation of her work as a whole which. Also, very little of Bailey's writings is about the Jewish people. The Jewish theme is one note in a composition that is encyclopedic in size and largely unrelated to the Jewish people. Moreover, there is a much larger community of Christians who attack Bailey because her philosophy is contrary to theirs. This group actually deserves more attention since it is several steps closer to a majority opinion that the Jewish one. In addition, in proportion to her Jewish related criticism, much more of what Bailey wrote is anti-orthodox-Christian. James 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving on. Good plan! The following (Kwork's) excellent attempt at consensus seems to have gotten lost among the hubub:

I could live with this:

Some critics have interpreted passages in her writings as racist and antisemitic. In 1997, Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," analyzed Bailey's Plan for the New World Order. Geroshom quotes Bailey as calling for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith." Rabbi Gershom concluded that "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[13] He also criticized what he saw as serious factual errors in her writings about Judaism. For example, Gershom quotes Bailey as writing "The word "love" for others is lacking in Judaism...".[14] Gershom countered this with a quote from the Book of Leviticus in the Torah, Chapter 19, verse 18, "where it is clearly stated that: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"[13] Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[15]

It has two words less that the version in place now. Kwork 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone else care to comment on this suggestion? I like it, in fact, I think it's too short. But working forward from here is good.

An unrelated note: we need to archive this talk page yet again already (sigh). What would be a good point to so? I propose we archive all above the section titled 'RFC/Kwork', but I fear others may think I'm trying to hide something. Eaglizard 08:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think archiving is a good idea. Regarding the reference above, we have to first decide if we're going to allow self-published sites. If yes, then the above is fine. If no, then it has to be deleted and only references in line with Wiki policy (verifiable, reliable) should be used). Thanks for your work at consensus Eaglizard. --Renee 14:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Jamesd1, to the best of my knowledge, The Seven Rays institute is self published, by Michael Robbins. It is a big site, with content by many writers, but as far as I know everything is on his say-so. My recollection is that you have done a lot of complaining about such sources, at least when they contain views contrary to your own. Kwork 12:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, that site has none of Bailey's writing, and no information about her life. It has only the writing of others based on her work, most of it rather loosely based on supposition about her work. Kwork 13:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The writing of others, based on her work, is I believe good, in that it departs from primary source and, in this case, shows a little about the wide scope of her influence. It amounts to a large number of citations, which is one of the criteria for measuring the influence of an author's work. Also, the material is published, not by the author personally, but by The Seven Ray Institute. "Seven Ray Institute is a Non-Profit, Tax-Exempt, Educational Institute. University of the Seven Rays is a division of the Seven Ray Institute. Member of the Center for Non-Profit Corporations" Also note that the site includes a huge number of links both directly and indirectly related to Bailey.[68] The links constitute a bibliography of her influence and allied groups and teachings. James 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We have to decide if we're going to follow Wiki policy. If yes, then no self-published sites and I'd expect Kwork or Nameless Date to delete Gershom. If no, then by all means let's add in information from the many sites on Alice Bailey that are self-published.

If Gershom is still on the site this time tomorrow, I'll take that as a signal that we're going to allow self-published sites. If Gershom is deleted (as self-published) then we shouldn't allow other self-published sites. --Renee 14:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to cite the policy you're referencing; Wikis make it easy to do that. In this case, this seems to be Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper):

... self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that you want to link to what seems a personal site that does not even discuss Alice Bailey. It might appear that you are trying to transition from an article about Alice Bailey, to an article that promotes her teaching. Rabbi Gershom's article is about Bailey. The mission of the Seven Ray Institute is to promote her teaching. I see an important difference there. Kwork 14:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a double stsandard. Gershom's article is writing about her writings, as is the seven ray institute. Again, the evidentiary standard is the key here -- shall we go with wiki policy or not? --Renee 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" [69] and extremist sources ("Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist") should only be used in articles about themselves and not elsewhere [70]. Also, regarding self-published sources, [71] "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as source." Finally, here is the standard for evidence [72]:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

--Renee 14:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I had added that link, to the Seven Rays Institute, myself months ago (as well as to The Meditation Group for the New Age, and the Arcana School), but then took them off again because they are not DESCRIBING the Alice Bailey teaching; but, rather, PROMOTING it. There is a big difference. On the other hand the link to the School for Esoteric Studies is good, because it links directly to a series of Alice Bailey lectures that are archived there. The problem is that you assume that anything I say is motivated by my evil intention to damage Alice Bailey's reputation and to harm her Wikipedia article. Kwork 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork

Kwork brought this article over to the Talk antisemitism article. There was a significant misunderstanding due to the fact that some of the posts were unsigned. If you are going to follow Kwork over to that article please keep in mind that many of us are unlikely to have much sympathy for Ms. Bailey. If you insist on taking the discussion over there then please make sure you sign your posts. I wound up thinking that some of the quotes that were allegedly the words of Ms Bailey were being defended by User Eaglizard. That of course did not turn out to be the case.

This matter has since been straightened out but if you insist on following Kwork over there you may wind up helping his cause and swaying the consensus heavily back to his side on this article. Antisemitism is a very volatile subject. Assuming good faith is often very difficult. Ms. Bailey is not a living person and therefor is not covered by wiki BLP rules. Thanks for your time Albion moonlight 10:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was not the one who brought that information over to the antisemitism article's talk page. That was done by an editor of this article who does not sign her name, which can make things confusing on occasion. All I added to the antisemitism talk page was the one comment, below Eaglizard's, yesterday. Kwork 12:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Quark. I thought it was you who brought it over there. I am going to make a massive attempt to be neutral if I come over here to join in either the discussion or editing. I am putting this article on my watch list, Albion moonlight 18:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

James again has made a mistake. Kwork did not address the Talk:Antisemitism page. I did. My interest, as noted there and in this talk page, was not specifically about Bailey.

I would like to see if there is any interest in the development of a wide-ranging article on the generality of antisemitism in occultism and esotericism -- intended as a complement to a long series of articles already at Wikipedia that deal with antisemitism in certain places and during certain historical priods. My specific interest is antisemitism among 19th, 20th, and 21st century occultists.

As background to this topic, it helps if you know that there have been mentions made by biographers and scholars who deal with occultists and esotericists of the open antisemitism to be found in the works of Alice Bailey, Papus (Gerard Encausse), Aleister Crowley, Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade, Dennis Wheatley, and a number of other such authors, particularly during the pre World War Two period of the 20th century. Some of these occultists and esotericists ultimately opposed Nazi policies, others did not. (Evola and Eliade actually participated in pro-fascist political activites.) Regardless of where they stood once the hostilities of World War Two broke out, these writers had obviously added fuel to the fire of antisemiticm by continually distinguishing Jews from other people in a negative and critical way. Bailey was unusual among these writers in that she continued to speak cruelly and critically about the Jews even after the fall of Hitler and the founding of the nation of Israel, referring to Jewish hopes for a national identity as "a triangle of terror" and using other inflammatory hate-speech against them. As several scholars have since pointed out, Bailey's writings against the Jews tinged and coloured a great deal of subsequent New Age and Neopagan thinking. References to her influence on both the latent and open antisemitism of the Neopagan and New Age movements have appeared in discussions on the Talk:Alice Bailey page, notably in citations from the writings of Dr. Victor Shnirelman, Monica Sjoo, and Rabbi Jonasson Gershom.

I feel that if an article on "Antisemitism and Occultism" were to be developed in conjunction with the other antisemitism articles already at Wikipedia, a great deal of pressure would be taken off of the Bailey biography page, reducing edit-war conflicts among the editors there. For instance, were that article to be established, we could then create a "main article" tag under the Criticism heading that would direct readers to the "Antisemitism and Occultism" article, where longer quotes (from Baily and her critics) could be presented without distaction from the biographical material on the Bailey page.

I hope that someone will undertake to start such an article, but since my work is not generally in the Judaism or antisemism sections, it seems like an imposition for me to begin the piece. The Judaism and antisemitism section is well-attended by its own membership and although the proposed article could surely use help from editors who work daily in the fields of occultism and esotericism, my thought is that it would best be started under their editorial direction, using one of their templates.

For starters, and to bring people up to speed on the subject, here are a few sub-heads already within Wikipedia that deal with this topic in the biographies of occultists and esotericists:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papus#1901:_Antisemitic_writings
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade#Controversy:_anti-Semitism_and_links_with_the_Iron_Guard
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola#Racism
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley#Racism
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Wheatley#Politics
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey#Criticism

As before, this message is being copied to the Talk:Antisemitism page, and also may be passed to a few of the members of that section.

Nameless Date Stamp 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. I think you named the crux of the problem -- the non-Jewish editors are concerned that the page is becoming focused on antisemitism instead of Alice Bailey and the Jewish editors want to make sure that antisemitism is in the article.

Honestly, this is what I don't understand -- antisemitism is in the article but it seems that those who are focused on this want more, more, more. Also, it appears there are some good sources (not Gershom, but others), where we could simply discuss those, drop the sources that don't conform with Wiki policy, highlight a link to antisemitism and the Occult/Esoteric where these issues and quotations could be discussed in depth, and move on.

Why don't you start a stub of this nature and let's clean up this Controversies section? --Renee 20:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, this is a major misrepresentation of the situation here. I offered many times to compromise on the dispute about the criticism section. I have never gotten any response. Instead, you, and a few other editors have been trying to force out virtually all the content on antisemitism by attacking the sources used in that section. All I want is recognition that the books contain some very problematic statements about Jews; and, since Alice Bailey's name is on the title page of those books, she must be in agreement with the content of her books. If that recognition is given, then this argument will be over quickly. I said this just a day or two ago. James asked what I wanted, and when I told him there was no reply, not from him, or anyone else. If you are serious about resolving this, it could be done in a day. Kwork 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, this is not true. I made bold edits to acknowledge the antisemitism and racism. Remember way back when when I made this edit [73], to which you responded like this [74].

How about proposing some text that uses some of the citations Nameless Date found? We can keep the lead sentence and just use the solid citations? That'd be great if you'd take a crack at that. --Renee 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see what you want that section to look like, and if we are close enough to agree. But I need the nameless editor to be able to return to editing. The fact that you got her blocked makes me doubt that you are serious about compromise. Not to mention that you signed that ridiculous Rfd directed against me. These things don't make for goodwill. Kwork 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Kwork, for the support. The block on my editing will end sometime on August 29th.

It is impossible for me to assume good faith from Renee and others with respect to editing the portions of the biography that mention racism and antisemitism, knowing that they have worked behind the scenes to get the only Jewish editors here blocked and banned.

Renee could step back and ask an admin for an end to the block she initiated against me at any time, and we could go on in good faith, but she has chosen not to do this. I find that a telling point.

Nameless Date Stamp 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nameless Date Stamp. I don't know much about the circumstances in which you were blocked so won't comment. Could I just venture, though, that having a nameless editor makes the talk page hard to interpret and may be acting as a restriction on previously-uninvolved editors helping resolve the dispute. Would it be possible for you to set up an account, using a pseudonym or part-name as most of us do, and edit from that? Itsmejudith 21:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, ItsmeJudith,

I am sorry to have caused any confusion. That was never my intent, as it did not seem that my presence here would be of long standing. I do indeed have an account, but have not used my user name for about a year now, as part of a personal choice to limit public involvement with my private life. I typically simply work on edits to biography pages without becoming vested in personality issues. I rarely participate in talk pages. I would not have stayed at this page long, simply dropping by to check on it, but seeing Kwork subjected to what looked like a gang-attack edit-war bothered me, so remaining here was my choice. After my first few posts on the talk page, at Renee's request, my posts were signed with a five-tilde date stamp. I then, after a few more days of being here, took on the pseudonym Nameless Date Stamp. I realize that this is not to some people's liking, and if it were to help, and you were to request it, the time could be taken by me to go back through all my posts here and sign them "Nameless Date Stamp." It would not be any trouble. Just say the word.

Nameless Date Stamp 22:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nameless Date, Sethie explained it best here [75]. I've never heard of editor asking an admin to unblock an editor after a complaint but I can do so if you like. But truthfully, have we made any progress toward consensus? It doesn't seem so. Why don't you propose a paragraph with good citations on the talk page first? (like Kwork did; that was a good idea and showed good faith efforts at trying to gain consensus first) Maybe you and he can work on it in a sandbox together? --Renee 22:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I do think Kwork is trying to make good faith efforts at gaining consensus and appreciate that. --Renee 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence and section

Should she be called an English-born American writer...? I was trying to clean up just the lead sentence per wp:mosbio. Also it says that she "founded an international esoteric movement". What was it called? Sorry for my ignorance on this subject. Thanks in advance. --Tom 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The movement name is "World Goodwill." James 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey had virtually nothing to do with World Goodwill, which was a Foster Bailey's service project. Alice Bailey's service project was the Arcane School, which gave training in her approach to esoteric living via correspondence course world wide.Kwork 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Gershom Paraphrase of the Bailey Passage

The Gershom quote about missing "love" is obviously a paraphrase by someone of the actual Bailey passage; perhaps he borrowed the line from somewhere thinking it was Bailey's exact words. Since the misquote is back in the criticism, and it is a fact that Gershom did attribute the words to her (and wer're reporting what was said regardless of whether it is true or a misquote), I've appended the actual quote of which Gershom's is a summary or paraphrase. James 15:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Policy Re; Self-Published Material

As clearly stated, Wiki policy allows for the inclusion of self-published material from "rcognized experts" in their fields.

Since Rabbi Gershom has been published in print from at least two different book publishers on the subject of Judaism and antisemitism, he is obviously a recognized expert on the subject. Thus his own self-published web essay definitely meets the Wiki acceptability standard for self-published material by a recognized expert.

Quoting Gershom's essay in the Bailey page does not violate Wiki policy.

Nameless Date Stamp 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is saying that it can't be used because it's self-published?

People are (rightly) beginning to complain because we have found 2 errors in his work- and those 2 errors made it into THIS article, furthering the spread of misinformation. Sethie 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee made mention of it. See above.

Why has the Shnirelman material not been used on the page? It is more scholarly, given the author's credentials (do a google search) and it is not self-published.

I am still blocked from editing the page, due to the punitive edit-warring of Renee, Squeak, and Sethie or it would be my pleasure to add it, thereby also reducing the Gershom portion as well.

Nameless Date Stamp 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think people are waiting to gain consensus before they make a move. If you agree that we should use Shnirelman and cut Gershom, then I can work on it. --Renee 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee,

Since it was you who initiated the punitive and unfair AN/I report that got me blocked from editing the page for 7 days, it is impossible for me to agree to your offer.

I believe that consesus will only be achieved when ALL editors are again free to work on the page and when all of the current punitive attempts to ban or block the only (two) Jewish editors present are halted. An apology would be appreciated too, but is not expected.

For the record, my intent is not to "cut" Gershom's material, but to reduce its length and place it after Shnirelman's.

Nameless Date Stamp 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Wiki policy states that self-published sources might be allowed if used cautiously if from a recognized expert in the field relevant to the article. This article is not about Judaism and antisemitism (which is what Nameless date stamp) says is Gershom's expertise; it's on Alice Bailey! So, if you were doing an article on Judaism and antisemitism then Gershom might be okay; but he's not an expert on Alice Bailey. This is the problem (above and beyond the errors).

Add to this that extreme claims need extra careful, verifiable (i.e., multiple) sources. Thanks, Renee --Renee 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Renee,

Gershom is a published and recognized expert on Judaism and antisemitism and he states that Bailey is wrong about the content of Judaism and that she is an antisemite. When he does this, he is speaking in the area of his own recognized expertise. He need not be an expert on Bailey because he is not writing about her as a person. He is writing about what she wrote.

Bailey's writings enter into Gershom's area of expertise because she attempts to describe Judaism to her public and because she calls Jews -- as a "race" -- by bad names ("evil", "greedy", etc.) and also advocates an end to the Orthodox Jewish religion on Earth.

Therefore, since Bailey writes about Judaism and demonstrates antisemitism in her cosmological and spiritual teachings, Gershm's expert opinion of the content of her writings is Wiki-worthy.

Nameless Date Stamp 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nameless Date, This is WP:OR. I searched Gershom's sites myself and it seems his books are on Judaism and Reincarnation.

Again, this is not an antisemitic site; the focus is off. Let's create a standard of meeting Wiki policies and use some of the good sites you've found. --Renee 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee,

Once again you demonstrate either a lack of understanding of WP:OR or an attempt to misuse the policy to delete material that points out Alice Bailey's racism and antiemitism.

As noted by me on this page before -- and it is tedious to have to to this again -- the WP:OR guideline is aimed at WIkipedia editors. We are not to use Wikipedia to publish our own original research. However, we are free to write about and to cite the original research of published authors, and the self-publications of published authors who are reputable in their fields.

If WP:OR forbade mention of original reasearch, we would be unable to have a Wikipdia page on Einstein's Theory of Relativity -- because obviously that was Einstein's original reasearch. The fact that there is such a page argues strongly that WP:OR does not apply in that case.

You might argue that Einstein's research is not applicable to WP:OR because so many other authors have come to agree with Einstein that his original research is supported by a group consensus. I would then easily counter that Gershom's opinion is supported by other published authors (Shnirelman and Sjoo, for starters) and thus it too is supported by a group consensus.

Please do not invoke WP:OR as an excuse to derogate or eliminate the writings of those whose ideas you oppose or would like to see removed from the Wikipedia page on Alicve Bailey.

Nameless Date Stamp 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nameless- that is such a misunderstanding of OR that it does not warrant a reply. Sethie 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nameless, Original Research is when you yourself analyse a situation or body of text, linking together two or more claims (sentences) with analysis (like you did above in your analysis of Gershom and Bailey). You were linking them together through your own analysis -- that's original research. We shouldn't have to work so hard!

So, how about proposing a paragraph here on the talk page? --Renee 22:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, much as it would please me to create a revised version of the "controversy" section for review here, that will not happen soon. Here's why:

As you are aware, all of the wiki-links already in the section can only be accessed by using the "edit this page" function and then copy-and-pasting them into one's proposed new version. Your punitive action against me has eliminated my ability to grab the text in wiki-fied code form by using the "edit this page" function. It is a pointless and stupid waste of my time to click on each link from the "reader" version of the page to see where it leads, so as to recapture the code, piece by piece.

My patience may be great, and my forebearance long, but neither are great or long enough for me to undertake that ridiculous task at your behest.

If you genuinely wish to see my potential contributiions to the piece, you will either have to apologize and ask the admin who you got to block me to reinstate me ... or wait until the block that you put on me finally expires.

Nameless Date Stamp 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm.....I think you have it backwards my friend. A neutral admin blocked you (not me) based on a list of actions you engaged. It's not productive to hold a grudge for behaviors you did yourself.

Frankly, I don't understand why you can't create text without editing. I'll go ahead and try some myself and post it here. --Renee 01:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, refresh my memory. Just what are your accusations? I would be happy to go over this another time.

My recollection is that when Jamesd1 recently returned to editing this article (after a long absence) he made major additions to the article, without any discussion, and which all needed to be removed. But, instead of your asking that he be blocked from editing, you thanked him for adding "a breath of fresh air". Hows can you get the nerve to accuse other people of POV after saying something like that? Kwork 14:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

New Material Added

Sethie, I've moved the passage you questioned out of the "Life" section to a new section titled "Influence" and added a second entry to it. Let me know your thoughts. "Teach me, my ears are pits." James 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In Context: Everything Alice Bailey and DK Said on the Jewish People

It is evident from the history of this discussion section that the Jewish issue has been the dominant theme. A few participants seem intent on it and are likely to keep it going indefinitely. Since talk on the subject will go on for a long time, it would be good if everyone knows more clearly and fully exactly what it is they are talking about. So, I have placed on my web page an html file containing all references to "Jews" and "Jewish" in the Bailey books. Click on this link to read it: [Everything Alice Bailey and DK ]

Please note that each reference to "Jews" and "Jewish" shows in blue text with seven lines of contextual text above and seven below the key word.

I suggest that all of us who plan to participate in further discussion of the subject, actually take the time to read the whole of it. Read the positive and critical and all in between. Read it in context. Read it with a critical eye and read it with a sympathetic eye. If you've got one active, read it with your third eye. But why not put some thought and reflection into your reading?

A side note of some interest. When the html file on the Jews is reduced to a text file and loaded into MS Word, we find that the file is 120 pages long. Since there are seven lines above and seven below, the files includes an array of topics unrelated to Jews, so I estimate that the text related to them is about 80 MS Word pages.

So, just how many MS Word pages are there in all of Bailey/DK's works. I loaded them into MS Word, and the answer is 6,303 pages. If we do the math, we find that, of the 6,303 pages Bailey wrote, somewhere between 1 and 2 percent relates directly to the Jewish people and 98 to 99 percent is about other things.

Keep this mind when you read my little compilation: you are not reading Alice Bailey, but only that 1 percent of it that relates to the Jews. You are not reading all she wrote about brotherhood, about there being only one human family, nor about the essential unity of all life and all human life in particular. You are not reading all she said about inclusive love, and the crying need for all of us to identify with each other, and to live a life of harmlessness. You will miss most of that. Let us read well, and pray we all find in ourselves the wisdom to think and talk from a serene place where things are most clear.

Kind Regards to all. James 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that the criticism section of the article is simply too large in proportion to the biography section. I agree that reading the material James has pointed us to will help everyone put things into proper context. Arion 02:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism section is now too long, thanks to the clumsy rewrite by Jamesd1. Be careful with this putting "things in proper context", as how context is presented tends to be subjective, and with hidden motives. One persons "proper context" can be another persons lie. (It was nice of Jamesd1 to invite you to join this discussion, I assume because he expects you to be a neutral factor.) Kwork 11:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason it is longer than earlier is because it was necessary to clarify the misquote by the the Rabbi by ading the real one. If we eliminate the misquote, we can reduce by another 30%. For now the misquote is still present but I've just shortened the first paragraph by about 20%. James 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary of citations and feedback

Hi folks, in preparation for proposing a new write-up on the antisemitism issue, I've looked through the talk pages and gathered people's responses to the new sources provided by Nameless Date.

Regarding the Shnirelman article from Hebrew U, Eaglizard read it and said this:

After reading the cited article, I find that we have here a single paragraph in a (much) longer piece dealing with antisemitic trends in Russian Neopaganism. It is clear from context that the author is simply offering tangential support for his theme ... the Bailey reference is in no way intrinsic to the argument there at all, and she isn't referred to elsewhere in the paper, only in the paragraph quoted above. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not useful...To deal with the material as presented: Shnirelman gives us one sentence that (presumably) summarizes the findings of another source (Margaret Brearley), another sentence of his own interpretation of some bits from Rays and the Initiations...Since Shnirelman isn't really arguing that Bailey is racist (just asserting it, w/o attempt to justify), that really (to my mind) only leaves the first sentence as useful. Eaglizard 14:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So then, James looked up the Brearley source and here it is (appears in a footnote):

"In this respect, the Russian Neo-pagans differ radically from Bailey, who accused the Jews of 'separatism' and treated them as the major obstacle for an establishment of the uniform nationless world civilization. See Bailey, Rays and Initiations, 634; Brearley, 'Possible Implications,' 261–62."

The Shnirelman article devoted only three sentences out of an entire article and the second article devoted only a footnote to this topic. That's important to remember to avoid giving it undue weight in an article focusing on Alice Bailey.

James thanks for the source above for all works on Bailey and Judaism. I've repasted the link here so it doesn't get lost [Everything Alice Bailey and DK ]. I will read it. --Renee 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Antisemitic section in Controversies

Hi Folks,

Following is an attempt to merge all editors' comments and perspectives (includes Nameless Date's sources and quotations, James's full quotations for context, and Kwork's quotations). If we are to allow self-published sources (like Gershom, who apparently has factual errors in his text) then I propose the following text:

Some critics have interpreted passages in Alice Bailey's writings as racist and antisemitic (cite Gershom, Sjoo, Shnirelman, Brearly). The criticism focuses on passages such as the following:

"The outstanding evidence of the Law of Cause and Effect is the Jewish race. All nations prove this Law, but I choose to refer to the Hebrew peoples because their history is so well known and their future and their destiny are subjects of worldwide, universal concern. The Jews have always had a symbolic significance; they sum up in themselves - as a nation, down the ages - the depths of human evil and the heights of human divinity. Their aggressive history as narrated in the Old Testament is on a par with present-day German accomplishment; yet Christ was a Jew and it was the Hebrew race which produced Him.

"If the Jewish race would recall, therefore, their high symbolic destiny, and if the rest of humanity would see themselves in the Jewish people, and if both groups would emphasize the fact of human stock and cease thinking of themselves in terms of national and racial units, the karma of humanity would radically change from the retributive karma of the present to the recompensing good karma of the future." Esoteric Healing, 226-226

Critics interpret these passages as calling for the destruction of Judaism (cite Gershom), saying that Bailey "accused the Jews of 'separatism' and treated them as the major obstacle for an establishment of the uniform nationless world civilization"(cite Brearly, 261-62), and saying that Bailey's books have had a "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement" (cite Sjoo).

Feedback welcome. --Renee 03:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion --

1) It is overlong, inaccurate, boring, and expresses a pro-Bailey POV.

1A It is overlong and boring because you quote so extensively from Bailey, using one of her least inflammatory pasages. You have selected space-filling mediocre Bailey quotes that soft-pdal her take on the "evil" and "greedy" Jews and the "triangle of terror" of Zionism.

1B It is POV because you quote extensively from Bailey but relegate the critics to footnotes with no quotes.

2) It does not include Shnirelman. This is a major oversight.

3) The last sentence, with its two clauses that both begin "and saying" is awkward. The fact that two paragraphs contain the mirror-phrases "Some critics have interpreted passages" and "Critics interpret these passages" is awkward as well.

4) Most importantly. your lead sentence is so POV that it actually presents a falsehood about the two critics who are cited, because neither of the cited sources say that "certain passages" among Bailey's texts are being "interpreted". On the contrary:

• 4A) Shnirelman calls Bailey's "occult teachings" -- taken as a whole -- "explicit" in their racist and antisemitic trends ("Racist and antisemitic trends are explicit, for example, in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey").

• 4B) Gershom calls Bailey's entire corpus of "writings" -- not "certain passages" -- antisemitic ("Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings").

• 4C) Sjoo calls Alice Bailey (the person, not "certain passages") antisemitic ("like Blavatsky, Alice Bailey was also anti-semitic"), calls her cosmological "concept" racist ("She adopted from Madame Blavatsky the thoroughly racist concept of Root Races...") and calls her "legacy" racist ("The Racist Legacy of Alice Bailey").

I believe that this article will improve only when we can openly present the opinions of these critics without your NPOV slant.

Thank you.

Nameless Date Stamp 05:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, the way this is written you are verging on turning a discussion of Alice Bailey's antisemitism into an Alice Bailey based antisemitic attack on Jews. Kwork 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, this is a biography. It is not an article or essay on what some have interpreted as her anti-Jewish passages. You have that already in this discussion area. As I have shown above, passages related to the Jews are 1 to 2 percent of her work, and not all of them are critical but some are positive, and when viewed as "tough love" all are positive. All that aside, what you propose is against the Wiki guidelines.James 15:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to get a neutral editor's opinion of what I proposed, as it was drawn from what's currently in the article (the first sentence which Kwork liked originally and Nameless Date now calls POV), from the quotation from James' research (which addresses my, Sethie and James' concern that these quotations are being taken out of context; put the quote in and let readers decide for themselves), and including Nameless dates sources, as well as the self-published Gershom source. I will ask for a review. --Renee 16:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. This page is really at great risk of becoming focused on antisemitism instead of Alice Bailey. What happened to the idea of doing an article on antisemitism in the occult? as well as taking advice from outside reviewers like the one just above who said the criticism section as too long? --Renee 16:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this proposal. I wouldn't call it "boring", but I think Nameless's objections are reasonable. This is the criticism section, it should probably be devoted mostly to the criticisms, rather than to quoting Bailey. Also the Bailey passage quoted doesn't really back the "Critics interpret these passages" statement, which implies the critics are making things up, when they are actually referring to different passages. I am not an expert on phrasing, so can't speak to the awkwardnesses Nameless mentions. As for "this page" being overly focused on antisemitism - that depends on what you mean by "this page". :-) The talk page certainly is! The Alice Bailey article, however, merely has about half of one section, 2 or 3 paragraphs, on antisemitism, out of 19 paragraphs in the article, that doesn't over weigh the article. Feel free to expand the rest of the article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, could you live with this shorter version?

Some critics have interpreted certain passages in Alice Bailey's writings as racist and antisemitic. In 1997, Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in an article titled "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings", wrote that in Bailey's Plan for the New World Order her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith," indicated that "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."^[13] He also cited serious factual errors in her writings about Judaism. ^[13]

Monica Sjöö, in her book The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth, spoke of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement".^[15]

The Lucis Trust has responded these criticisms by admitting that the books "seemed to single out the Jews for special criticism" and that they display "an unwavering opposition to Zionism". However, they state that the severe criticism of the Jews to be found in the writings must be read in context. They also state that term "race" in the context of Bailey's writings refers to "a state of consciousness ... [found] in every nation".^[16]

Personally, I would rather have the criticism short. I took out a quote by Rabbi Gershom that is generating much argument. Readers who are interested can refer to the sources.

Renee, sorry about being excessively blunt earlier. This protracted argument is not improving my disposition. Kwork 17:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened the first paragraph pretty much in line with Kwork's suggestion above, and also tightened up the section as a whole. James 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Criticisms of the Bailey Compilation on the Jews

Jamesd1, you are misrepresenting the presence of antisemitic statements in the books. For instance, in Problems of Humanity, an entire chapter is called "The Jewish Problem", and it is filled with problematic statements about Jews. I can quote some here if you would like to see examples. That book is given to too all early students in training in the Arcane School, and The School for Esoteric Studies, so this is emphasised and it is considered foundational. Kwork 15:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's evident, and understandable, that you did not take time to read the compilation I put on the web, [76] and you did not actually look carefully at the book Problems of Humanity. The section in that book on the Jews is, in terms of MS Word file pages, 7 pages long. The file I put on the web for you includes 42 MS Word pages from Problems of Humanity, so it includes all that you seek to "reveal" to us above. The reason, is that many of the references are scattered through that book. So my compilation includes all in that chapter and much more as well. So my html is a more complete reference, as should have been apparent to all.

The 7-MS-Word-page chapter in Problems of Humanity is small in comparison to the book as a whole. Somewhere between 15 and 20% of Problems of Humanity addresses the Jewish theme. Since Bailey did see Jews as center stage in an important ongoing crisis for humanity, it is understandable that the book Problems of Humanity would address it in more detail there than in her other books.James 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, you are incorrect in your comment about the curriculum of the Arcane School. The following is from the Lucis site.[77]James 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Arcane School provides a practical training which will help the aspirant in his self-initiated efforts to “know himself” and his place of service in relation to those ahead of him in evolution to whom he may look for help, and to those whom he in turn can serve. Essentially, the Arcane School puts into the hands of the student tools and methods successfully applied by others, and leaves it to them to experiment with application in their own lives.

"The work of the School falls basically into three interdependent parts, no one of which can be carried forward successfully without the other. They are: meditation, study and service. The nature and form of individual service is left entirely to the student to decide on the basis of motivations and inclinations, and of personal circumstance.

The role of the headquarters group and those who act as secretaries in handling the work of students, is to help them do their own thinking, and to make available to them the pooled experience of the worldwide group, in the form of a steadying and guiding influence.

The formal courses of study extend over several years. The first, or preparatory, course normally spans six months’ work. It includes a study of the Constitution of Man and of certain basic occult facts relating to the life of discipleship. A rhythm of meditation and the process of reorientation and evaluation of the daily life are established.

The second course of work concentrates on the means whereby the personality is integrated and aligned and the emotional nature brought under the control of the mind by the use of “the magical powers of the soul”. At this time also a study of the “Problems of Humanity” is introduced complementing the occult work. This study continues in varying form throughout the School training programme. All disciples are in training for service to humanity.

The purpose of the next course of study and meditation is the integration of soul and personality, thereby creating a sensitive instrument of service for the Masters’ use.

During the following years further instruction and guidance are given on the building of the Antahkarana—the bridge of consciousness between the soul-infused personality and the Spiritual Triad. Related courses of study accompany this work and emphasis is placed on a recognition of the right sphere of discipleship service appropriate to each student’s ray and equipment.

The training offered throughout the School in the different courses of study and meditation is, therefore, eliminative of the unready and of those unwilling to make the needed effort and adjustments. The Arcane School is a place for hard work and is a long-term course of study. Depending upon one’s application to the work, the training can take between 8-13 years or more to complete. Students are sent regular study sets that they work with. Each month students are asked to send in a report on their meditation work and regular study papers as well."

Additional references: [78] [79] [80] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1 (talk • contribs) 18:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Jamesd1, I was a student of the School for Esoteric Studies, which followed the same course of study as the Arcane School, and I know what was included in the reading. Where, in the excessive amount of copy you included above, does it say I am wrong?

To be specific, an important part of the training was directed at developing in students an ability to see esoteric forces at work in the events of the world; and reading of Problems of Humanity was given to students to guide them in developing an ability to see those trends (as presented by Bailey) resulting from esoteric forces. Nice idea, but the book consists of a collection of Alice Bailey's preconceptions and prejudices....including her antisemitism.

I was told by Roberto Assagioli (when I was studying with him) that after Alice Bailey's death the new director, Mary Bailey, simplified the study work and meditations (a change which resulted in her best teachers leaving for the School for Esoteric Studies), and it is possible that Problems of Humanity was dropped from the course of study - but it doubt it. In the SES, after a certain point in the studies, students were expected to include observations on esoteric forces observed at work in world and local events on their report forms, which was sent in to the school every month. Problems of Humanity was considered extremely important for the course of study. Kwork 19:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, the article is written, the criticism is written. So what is left for you to do here? Do you want only a critical bio of Alice Bailey, or larger section of criticism than the biography? I agree with Renee’s or someone’s suggestion that you write an article separate from this one, especially if you only want to be critical of Alice Bailey and the world teaching associated with her.

I got the memo--there are problems of humanity? It’s not “anti” to ask that any human be non-separative and practice unconditional love.

From the prospective of the teaching evolution by way karma and reincarnation which is World Teaching that Alice Bailey is associated with, the ancientness of Judaism makes it a slam dunk, that we have all incarnated into Judaism over and over. So it follows from this perspective that the problems and goodness of the Jewish heritage was created by all of humanity. Sparklecplenty 22:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed outline of the Controversies section

PLEASE DO NOT INTERLINEATE REPLIES. Please reply after the FULL text of this proposal. THANK YOU.

1) I propose changing the subhead from "Criticism" to "Controversy"

2) I propose leaving the Christian and Theosophical criticisms of the section as-is. They have been carefully worked out and represent our most successful collaboration to date.

3) I propose a "7-sentence solution" to the matter of racism and antisemitism. Here is that outline, in a nushell:

3A) At present there is still a lot of stonewalling going on by the Baileyites. I believe that they are using weasel words to downplay direct accusations of Bailey's antisemitism and are also choosing selected "mild" quotations from Bailey to make her seem less racist than she was in print.

3B) The way they have it worded now, they are using these "soft" Bailey quotes and then claiming falsely that Bailey's critics are "interpreting certain passages" incorrectly, when, in fact, the critics are calling the woman herself a racist and an antisemite, and are citing entirely different passages of her texts as well (which the Baileyites will not allow to be seen on the page).

3C) I think that they should drop this ploy and, first, let the critics speak for themselves -- not in footnotes. Three sentences would cover that -- one each from Shnirelman, Gershom, and Sjoo.

3D) I think they should then allow some of Bailey's most racist statements to be published, in brief -- two sentences should suffice. These quotations from Bailey should be fully and accurately footnoted. I think that Kwork should be allowed to pick the quotations included in those two antisemitic sentences, for he has fought long and hard for their inclusion.

3E) They could then note in rebuttal that Bailey herself appeared to be ambiguous and often said praising or ameliorating things about Jews as well, which could also be quoted, briefly -- another two sentences. These quotations from Bailey should be fully and accurately footnoted. I think that James should be allowed to pick those two pro-Jewish sentences, for he has fought long and hard for their inclusion.

3F) I think the Lucis Trust rebuttal should be scrapped, as it screams of special pleading from a Conflict of Interest source that claims copyright to Bailey's works and survives economically by promoting Bailey's publications.

Thus, in a total of seven sentences, the entire matter of antisemitism and racism could be wrapped up and dealt with honestly, fairly, and from a NPOV.

Here is the actual proposal. Note that the numbered footnote links will not work on this Talk page because there is to reference section here, and that the sub-head is here shown only as bold type, for ease of reading.

---

Controversy

Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism, as well as non-conformity to orthodox belief systems.

Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, who likened Bailey's cosmology to that of the Italian fascist and occultist Julius Evola, wrote that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its 'Jewish inheritance' and reject the 'Jewish Bible'", and that in her cosmology, "Jews were depicted as the 'human product of the former Solar system,' linked with 'World Evil' and justly punished for their rejection of the Messiah".^[17]

The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," wrote of Bailey's plan for a New World Order, saying her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."^[13]

Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled? of "the racist legacy of Alice Bailey", stating that her "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement" included the belief that "when the atomic bombs were exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, her 'Master DK' welcomed this as a great spiritual event." ^[15]

These critics have drawn attention to passages in Bailey's books in which she made divisive and inflammatory statements like "XXX Bad about Jews" with footnote, "YYY Bad about Zionism" with footnote, and "ZZZ Bad about Negroes or Race-Mixing" with footnote.

To be fair, there is an ambiguity or ambivalence to her works with regard to racial matters, and in some significant texts she clearly praised Jews and Negroes, stating "XXX Nice about Jews" with footnote, "YYY Another Nice Thing about Jews" with footnote, and "ZZZ Nice about Negroes" with footnote. The Lucis Trust, which publishes Bailey's books, has also responded to her critics by acknowledging that Bailey's texts "seemed to single out the Jews for special criticism," and displayed "an unwavering opposition to Zionism," but that these passages should be read in context, because the term "race" in Bailey's writings refers to "a state of consciousness ... [found] in every nation".^[16]

Bailey's works are also criticised by some Christian groups. In his book Unmasking the New Age, the Christian writer Douglas Groothuis said Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" and was later changed due to controversy.^[18][19] The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship says although her texts dealt extensively with the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are actually contrary to orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.^[19]

Some of Bailey's books are criticized by Theosophists who see certain aspects of her writings as borrowed from Theosophy yet including perspectives that were not part of the original teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.^[20][21]

---

Feedback welcomed.

Nameless Date Stamp 20:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. (In response to my initial suggestion Jamesd1 made changes to the article in a way that makes me continue to doubt his good faith. I thought the whole idea was to discuss things here first.) Kwork 20:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This type of elaboration belongs in another article dedicated to anti-semitic topic. Criticism section is good as is. Sparklecplenty 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I can live with the criticism section as is. However, Please note that we are setting a standard of allowing self-published sources (i.e., Gershom). Therefore, when self-published sources are added to the biography portion it's because of the standard that was set by Kwork and Nameless Date (everyone else wanted to delete Gershom).

Nameless Date, I think you should take all of what you wrote above, which is very detailed and focused on antisemitism, and have be the stub for the antisemitism and the occult page. I can tell you put a lot of work into it. If you want, we can provide a link from the criticism section in this page to that page. In fact, I'll set it up for you!

Best, Renee --Renee 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, see below for my serious problems with your creation of the stub page. I appreciate your attempt to help, but you actually created a bit of a mss that will need recification by you before it can be used. This is explained below, and should not take you too long, and it is my sincere hope that you will attend to it.

Again, as Kwork says, Jams is still playing "rogue edior" on us. He changes and tinkers with the page continually but never brings his suggestions here for preview and consensus. It's like a "page of the day cliub" as we hit the refresh button and see what he's changed next.

I am willing to clip the quotations from the three cited authors to a bare minimum, but leaving out Shnirelman is unworkable for me.

Also, there is still the matter of the weasel intro sentence about "certain passages" being "interpreted" when in fact the authors cited did not do that -- and one (Sjoo) called the woman herself "antisemitic". It is rank misrepresentation and not NPOV to "interpret" what these authors were commenting on as "certain passages" of writing when in fact that was not what they were doing.

Until James learns not to continually remake the page without the consensus of his fellow-editors, he leaves those of us who prefer consensus with no choice but to respond in like manner. We ask and ask for discussion, but James continues to ignore us and to rewrite the page. Therefore, tonight will see my first attempt to rectify the lead-sentence error that James has made and to also add Shnirelman's citation.

I sincerely hope that Renee and Sethie will not use this as an excuse to make another AN/I report on me.

Assuming good faith is damnably difficult at times.

Nameless Date Stamp 03:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

New Stub on Antisemitism in the Occult

Hi folks,

Per discussion here and encouragement from various editors and admins, I have started a page using Nameless Date's text on Antisemitism in the Occult. I have put a stub template on it as well as the antisemitism template.

I used Nameless Date's original rationale as the intro, and then pasted in his analysis of Alice Bailey and antisemitism.

On the discussion page of this new article, I've pasted in Nameless Date's original idea for this page, as well as his/her Alice Bailey text to get the ball rolling.

Good luck with this article!

--Renee 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, there is no desire on my part to look a gift horse in the mouth, but what you have done is not helpful. If you truly wish to help, PLEASE DO NOT CREATE PAGES WITHOUT CONSULTING THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY ANNOUNCED THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON THE TOPIC.

As an indication of your lack of familiarity with the subject, you have inadvertently given your stub article a "backwards" title. All of the titles in this series, as shown on the antisemitism template infobox, have the formal structure "X and Antisemitism", not "Antisemitism and X". See here: [81]

If you wish to really be OF SERVICE, please create a new stub (with the same contents) with the proper form of title, redirect your own stub's name to that properly titled stub, and add the properly titled stub to the Antisemitism infobox template, so we can work within it. If you cannot do that, then, please, DELETE the page that you started.

By the way, your stub was created without any consultation with the editors of the Judaism, Jewish History, Antisemitism, and related pages. These pages are hotly contested (often due to antisemitic vandalism) and they have their own long-standing watchers, editors, and protectors. For the best results, these editors have been and are being invited to participate in the new page project. This has gone on without your knowledge, as you were not involved in the outlining of the topic. Presenting these long-time editors with an incorrectly-named stub was not my intention, to say the least!

You may see an actual FIRST DRAFT OUTLINE of the as-yet-to-be-created page here: [82]

I ask you to cooperate and rectify the problems you have inadvertently caused, in the spirit of kindness, mutual aid, and assumption of good faith,

Nameless Date Stamp 03:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nameless Date, I would appreciate a show of civility and kindness. I did this is good faith using your words, trying to meet what you want, using your words, and instead of ANY sense of appreciation for trying to work together, you just continue to slam those who are trying to work in good faith. I'll mark it for speedy deletion. --Renee 13:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Question on Influence Section

Who removed the "Influence" section, see below, and why? Note that an "Influence" section is typical in Wikipedia biographies [83] Note also that the material included was based on good academic sources. James 01:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Influence

In a book on history of the Bollingen Foundation and its pervasive influence on American intellectual life, William McGuire wrote:

"In 1928 Olga[84] Olga Fröbe-Kapteyn built a lecture hall on her grounds, overlooking the lake, for a purpose not yet revealed to her, and a guest house which she named Casa Shanti in a Hindu ceremony. A year or two later, she went to the United States and sought out Alice A. Bailey, in Stamford, Connecticut, a former Theosophists who led a movement called the Arcane School. Mrs Bailey, whom Nancy Wilson Ross[[85]] has described as a woman of great dignity, kindness, and integrity, aimed like Olga Froebe at the raising of consciousness and the bridging of the East and West. She lived with a mystic presence, ‘the Tibetan,’ presumably one of the Theosophical Masters, who used her as an instrument to write a number of books devoted to Higher Truth…” ^[22]

McGuire wrote that lga Fröbe-Kapteynand and Alice Bailey clashed and that the plan for her participation in the school did not materialize.

Bailey's thought has had an infuence in the field of Psychotherapy and Healing:

"In Tansley as in Brennan you will find descriptions of a hierarchy of subtle bodies called the etheric, emotional, mental and spiritual that surround the physical body. (Interestingly Tansley attributed the source of his model to Alice Bailey’s theosophical commentary on The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the locus classicus of Hindu teaching.)"^[23] PDF

I don't know who took it out, but, someone -- PLEASE add it back in. It is precisely the kind of thing this page needs! See also my suggestion for a "Teachings" section to be added.

Nameless Date Stamp 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Add a Teachings Section

What this page needs is not less data in the controversies section -- it needs an entire "Techings" section, summarizing the major points of what she believed and taught.

I have lerned, for instance, through interaction on this discussion page, that there is an actual course of study in her works that is still available. Surely someone who knows about that could write about it.

She actually did teach a system of philosophy and spirituality, right?

PLEASE, tell us about it!

Cordially,

Nameless Date Stamp 04:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree; however, having been contemplating what would compose a "Teachings" section for a week or two now, I'm no closer to a small list of topics; one problem is that there really isn't a "summary" work, another is the sheer volume of material - its really vast, actually. I wish there were a scholarly source that had made a decent overview, but I don't know of one. So, I'm just trying to decide how to approach it. "Themes that are stressed often throughout the books include yada yada yada" I guess; but defining a (small) list for the yada yadas is rather non-trivial, I think. But I'm working on it; perhaps I'll make a project page. Eaglizard 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies Section -- Short and TRUTHFUL

As promised, here is my brief "seven sentence" revision of the Controversies section.

My chages were as follows:

1) Changed the lead sentence to be (A) truthful and (B) a topic sentence covering ALL THREE of the forms of controversy

2) Added Shnirelman.

3) Reverted back to the very brief descriptions of the critics Gershom and Sjoo to place them in context, using adjectives and adjectival phrases, as they once had, and as has always been the case with the Crhistian and Theosophical critics.

4) Resinserted the deleted "role and person of Jesus" reference to explain WHY the Watchman Fellowship bothered to mention her, as they only critique Christian groups or those that claim a relationship to Jesus. Without that short clause, the WF critique looks like mere gabbling; with it, their criticism is given a full contextual reading.

5) Wiki-linked a number of words which James had UN-linked. I strongly support these wiki-links and can find no support for James removing them. They are to specific terms like "New World Order" and "Judaism" which need to be defined.

Here is the revision, SIX short paragraphs in total (comprising eight sentences, not seven, as promised), of which only THREE paragraph-sentences deal specifically with the subject of antisemitism:

---

Controversies

Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism, as well as non-conformity to orthodox belief systems.

Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, likened Bailey's cosmology to that of the Italian fascist and occultist Julius Evola and wrote that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey and her followers.^[17]

The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," wrote of Bailey's plan for a New World Order, saying her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."^[13]

Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."^[15]

Bailey's works are also criticised by some Christian groups. In his book Unmasking the New Age, the Christian writer Douglas Groothuis said Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" and was later changed due to controversy.^[18][19] The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship says although her texts dealt extensively with the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are actually contrary to orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.^[19]

Bailey's books are criticized by Theosophists who consider her writings as borrowed from Theosophy yet including perspectives that were not part of the original teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.^[20][21]

---

Your comments are solicited.

Nameless Date Stamp 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Annie Besant... Theosophy?

I am not a Theosophist, so forgive these questions if they are old hat. They are new to me, and replies would be appreciated:

1) If Bailey was in India and was a student of Blavatsky, did she know Annie Besant? If so, it seems to me that at least a sentence describing their connections would be very useful.

2) A look at the scope of the Annie Besant page should give Renee, James, and others something to aim for. THAT is a lengthy and interesting article. The Besant article contains an infobox on Theosophy. I know that the term "Neo-Theosophy" is applied to the teachings of Alice Bailey, so this is asked in all kindness, as an outsider: Would it be a good idea to add Bailey and Neo-Theosophy to the Theosophy infobox and to place that (revised) infobox on the Bailey page?

RSVP

Nameless Date Stamp 05:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see that mentioned, as well. As far as Besant's article tho, she was much more active in the public sphere than Bailey was -- there are many references to Besant (often with her buddy CW Ledbeater, ofc) in newspapers and such, and literally thousands of references in the specialist journals like The Beacon. There's really very little comparable material about Bailey (although her books are certainly discussed widely in those "industry mags"). We'll certainly never have that much material on her. But the proposal about the Theosophy infobox is interesting; have you perhaps brought that up at Talk: Theosophy (where some editors are likely to be very concerned with such changes lol)? It would be great to have an infobox in this article; not sure Theosophy would be acceptable to most, tho. Eaglizard 08:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Egalizard, yes Besant was very active in the public field and did work outside the Theosophical sphere as well. With Bailey, there is much more material about her teachings than about her life in the biographical sense. This is one reason why the "Influence" section I just restored makes good sense. Her life is her philosophy and thought and it's influence on the world. To understand a philosopher or a theologian or a scientists we elaborate the nature of their thought and its impact on the culture of her time. Of course, if people insist on removing Bailey related material such as I just restored (with quotes from a University of Princeton book and another from a Beyond the Brain Conference, held at St. John’s College, Cambridge University) as was recently done, then we shall never get anywhere with this article. James 14:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On your other point, there are many liberal Theosophists who are happy with Bailey and embrace her teachings as part of the same stream of ageless wisdom of which Blavatsky was an exponent. Another type of old school Theosophist are critical and reject her work. James 14:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of any contact between Bailey and Besant. When Bailey was in India she was very young, and was there as a Christian missionary. They had no interests in common at that time. My recollection is that Besant was the secretary of Gandhi for years, and active politicly in other areas (such as women's rights) also. But she wrecked the Theosophical Society with the issue of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Kwork 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My Proposal for 'Controversies'

Hiya folx, I've been working on my own proposal for this contentious section, which (I believe) includes all the material lobbied for as showing antisemitism (and everything else that's currently in there). It also includes a two or three paragraph apologia using quotes from Problems of Humanity.

I don't know where to set my expectations as to how ya'll will respond; perhaps you don't give a tinker's elbow what I think. Nonetheless, my proposal is at User: Eaglizard\Alice Bailey Controversies (proposed). Please do not edit my proposal -- but please do comment on it's talk page. Thank you very much, for all your work, everyone. :) Eaglizard 08:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This sounds much more balanced and gives both sides of the dispute than Nameless's version. We need to represent the responses to the charges too for a balanced presentation which Nameless does not do. --Renee 13:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and Renee that your version is much better than any previous ones. The only disadvantage is the length but I can live with that since I'd rather have the clarity of context and the pro and con of it than just bare quotes claiming she was racist, fascists, follower of Lucifer, etc. (The only think left out such lists so far was her role as a terrorists in the 9/11 disaster!). Seriously, I think it is fair and I suggest you go ahead and replace the current version with your new one. Then we can turn attention to developing the biography to make it more proportional to what will now be a longer criticism section.

I suggest one minor addition.

Currently you have:

For instance, Lucis Trust was originally incorporated as "Lucifer Trust" -- in his book Unmasking the New Age, Christian writer Douglas Groothuis states the name change was due to "controversy"

I suggest appending:

(Note that "Lucifer" means "light-bearer" in Bailey's terminology). James 15:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Defining the word Lucifer is off-topic and not necessary, James, as (1) this is not exclusively "Bailey's terminology" and (2) there is a wiki-link on the word Lucifer which, if followed, already explains that meaning of the word for those who are in need of education on the subject. You previously removed the explanation that Groothuis was identifying the word Lucifer with Satan, because THAT common usage of the word was also covered in general terms on the Lucifer-link page, so please do not ask for "light bearer" to be added here, or there will be a move to re-add the "Satanism" explanation. I think we have achieved a carefully-crafted consensus and that twiddling with these words will provoke further edit-wars.

I suggest you stop wrangling over simple words and continue to do what you are already doing very well, which is adding to the content and detailed structure of the entire page.

Nameless Date Stamp 23:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Its too long, and lacks focus. Kwork 17:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposal is way too long for the Bailey article, but portions of it would be quite useful on the proposed "Occultism and Antisemitism" page because you do make some important points.

Alas, although using that material would be great, it cannot be done by me. You see, Renee created the "Occultism and Antisemitism" page as a mis-named stub, then when asked to rename it preperly, she deleted it completely -- and now she is on a wiki-break due to her father undergoing surgery. As an unlogged-in user, it is not one of my privileges to create a stub page.

If someone with page-creation privileges would see fit to create the "Occultism and Antisemitism" stub under that proper name, it would be my great pleasure to make use of your text and my various texts (mostly published here and on Albion moonlight's talk page) by migrating them to the new and more general "Occultism and Antisemitism" page.

On September 9th my prior committment to another project (teaching a class in folkloric magic) will require a wiki-break from me for exactly three weeks, until September 30th -- so it is my sincere hope that the stub can be created today or tomorrow in order for me to block the article out before my planned absence. As soon as the properly-named stub exists, my work on it will begin, and it is my hope that Kwork, Albion moonlight, and others with an interest in Judaism and Antisemitism will join me in the work of that page and will continue to add to it during my break.

P.S. I was pleasantly surprised to come to the Bailey article this morning and to see that my latest "8 sentence" version of the Controversies section had been left intact and unchanged for 12 hours! That may be a sign that things are settling down here, as the Bailey biographers move on to improving the Bailey article in general, and others of us move on to the creation and development of the "Occultism and Antisemitism" page.

Cordially, Namelsss Date Stamp 19:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI -- I would appreciate if you drop the grudge Nameless Date. You said that if I didn't know how to redirect, then to, quote "please, DELETE the page that you started." So, within minutes of reading your request I marked the page for deletion. I searched this morning and it is deleted, so you can create a stub under whatever name you want.

Eaglizard -- the controversies section is still unbalanced containing only one side -- can you continue to work on that? I think you were on the right track here.--Renee 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee -- Again, please don't worry about the "Occultism and Antisemitism" article. It will get on the road soon enough. I stated earlier, and will repeat, it was obviously not your intention to confuse the issue, and your attempt to create a workable stub was appreciated. On a side-note: the so-called "grudge" you attribute to me (mentioned twice by you on this page) exists only in your mind. I do not hold a grudge against you. I have said that my "assumption of good faith" is low. This describes a different emotional state than a grudge -- and your twisting of my acknowledged wariness into repeated public charges of my holding a "grudge" is exactly the sort of behaviour that keeps me wary. Please consider decompresssing your rhetoric. I would appreciate it.

Nameless Date Stamp 19:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Links

Someone keeps adding external links that are not about Bailey, are links to sites that are promotional of Bailey's teaching rather than informative, or just have no important information. Please stop. Kwork 12:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, This would be a pretty easy thing for you to compromise on. I notice that James just restored the links you keep taking out. We've allowed in all sorts of really questionable sources (like Gershom, with errors) in the controversies section so we could move forward in good faith. Can't we keep a few links that other editors want? There needs to be more give and take and right now it feels like just take, take, take. --Renee 14:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, I restored the links you removed. All the links are about Bailey and her philosophy. Apart from the Lucis link, the only link there that could be considered explicitly promotional is the The School for Esoteric Studies, and someone already pointed out the value of it because of some informative material there, so for the time being I left it. That one could be removed if others agree James 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, I restored the "Influence" section. If you remove it without providing reasonable and Wiki-standards-based reasons for doing so, I will continue to restore it.James 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Do not try to use Wikipedia as a free web host to promote various Alice Bailey derived organizations. If you think that it is something important to understand about her teaching, why not write about it, and link though the article? But, even so, it needs to be descriptive, not promotional. If you insist on your current changes I may tag the article for POV. For instance, the reason I made the change to the School for Esoteric Studies link was so it went directly to the Alice Bailey lectures archived there; instead of to their main page which is pitching the Alice Bailey teaching. Kwork 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, I think you do not have realistic perspective of how things are generally done in a Wikipedia article and you're making up imaginary standards in what seems to be your on-going effort to impeded the development of this article. For instance, look at the links list at the bottom of Theosophy or [Blavatsky] and a host of similar articles and biographies.

Not to worry. I fully intend to write about her teaching, but I've been very busy with you and associates over other issues. Standby. James 15:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've been asked to weigh in. I gather this is the diff to the list of links in question? The policy or guideline involved is going to be Wikipedia:External links, also called WP:EL. Let's take the points of contention one at a time.

1. Alice Bailey lectures or The School for Esoteric Studies, New Age training based on the teaching of Alice Bailey - I like the first one, since it's a direct link to a lot of her actual words, as opposed to just a link to a school based on her teaching. But we should probably explain that they are hosted at the School for Esoteric Studies. See, unlike Lucis, which seems to have been fairly clearly founded by Bailey, this is, apparently, merely a school by students or followers. If this were the only school or other group which claimed to follow or be influenced by Bailey, that could be a reason to put it in an external link, but I get the impression there are at least several such schools, and see no particular reason to favor this one over the others. The lectures are however quite valuable.
2. Compilation of her Quotes on Forgiveness - I don't like this one. First, it's not really a page of her quotes, it's a page of many people's quotes, Pope, Roerich, Cousins, Tutu, hers only make up about half of it. Second, she wrote a lot of books, I'd imagine it would be fairly easy to make ten or twenty pages like this of her quotes on various subjects. This doesn't seem to be a very high value link.
3. Bailey on Immortality - aha, I was right just above, here is one of those 10-20 pages of her quotes on a subject now! :-) Same thing; this is restricted to only quotes from her, but we have no lack of these. It's not really worth the link space in the article.
4. Thesis by Dr. I I Wightman: The texts of Alice A. Bailey: an inquiry into the role of esotericism in transforming consciousness. This isn't in contention in the diff above, but it seems to be the same thing as Dissertation from the U of W. Sydney, The texts of Alice A. Bailey: An inquiry into the role of esotericism in transforming consciousness. and I prefer the second link, linking to the presumed original PDF, rather than a Google automated PDF-to-HTML translation. At least put them all on one line and explain that one is a {{PDFlink}} and the other is a Google automated PDF-to-HTML translation. Specify it's by Wightman, Isobel, University of Western Sydney, 2006.
5. Alice Bailey Reference in the Encyclopedia Britannica - The Britannica is a highly respected source, but the part of this that we can see is is a pitiful stub, one and a half sentences out of a different "New age" article that can't been seen without a subscription. Not a good external link, per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided "6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.", but it could be a fine reference, there is nothing wrong with references that require payment. May I suggest that someone activate their Britannica "Free trial", see what that whole article says, pull the important facts out, stick them in our article, and use the Britannica article as a reference, rather than external link?
6. Thesis: Researching the Work of Alice A. Bailey - er... thesis by whom? This seems to be a link to an internal section of the thesis, that doesn't include the author's name. I don't think it's complete. Can we get some kind of link to the whole thing to evaluate it properly? If not, we shouldn't just throw our readers into the middle of an unattributed work.

   Ah, I've figured out what this is, this is the first chapter of that Wightman thesis, #4 above. We don't need separate links to each chapter. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

7. Devotion, idealism, and abstraction: Perspectives on the religious impulse from the work of Alice A. Bailey, a Dissertation - first add that it's by Hendon, Katherine L., PhD, California Institute of Integral Studies, 2005. Second, it's another of those WP:EL links to be avoided #6, requires registration. It's a paper by someone with a PhD from a school focusing on such things, so it's probably a reasonable reference for statements about Bailey that aren't too controversial, but not a good external link per se. Dig some facts out of it, put them in our article, use this as a reference. The difference between a reference and an external link can seem like a fine point at times, but there is such a difference for purposes of our policies and guidelines.
8. A Summary of AAB concepts: The Big Religion Chart - this is a huge page on basically everything, that mentions Bailey in one small space. Not appropriate. If you want chapter and verse, that's WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided "13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject."
9. Soul, Psychology, and Consciousness: Psychosynthetic and Esoteric Perspectives "philosophy, and the thought of Roberto Assagioli and Alice Bailey" - This is another article from the California Institute of Integral Studies, but it doesn't claim to be a thesis, the author doesn't claim a doctorate, and the title doesn't actually mention Bailey, that statement in quotes there that looks like part of the title is actually an excerpt from the first paragraph of the text. If there were a lack of scholarly papers on Bailey, that might be an argument to include this, it does focus on Bailey for maybe half of it, but the several theses linked to above show there is no problem finding more targeted and more in depth papers by more respected authors.

So that's all of them. In short my recommendation is to get rid of the short quotes pages, table of everything, and the unattributed or student papers, and turn the more respected works that require registration into references. The successful doctoral thesis from the respected school can stay as an external link (unless it claims something radical - I haven't really read it, just glanced at the attribution), but feel free to make it a reference as well. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn you're good. Thanks very much, AnonE. Eaglizard 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Side comment on thesis papers as sources

This is just a little background on the use of doctoral theses as sources; you won't find them definitively one way or the other in Wikipedia:Reliable sources as it's been debated. Here's one place where: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#PhD_Thesis, it refers to others. The arguments for treating them as reliable are that they are:

• usually written quite carefully (since years of the writer's life are either successful or wasted based on how it is received)
• reviewed thoroughly by at least one highly qualified person, the adviser, and at least somewhat, and sometimes equally thoroughly by the other highly qualified persons of the board
• and often made available by the university afterwards, so they're Wikipedia:verifiable.
• In many fields it's fairly common that the first published work of a professional is based on their doctoral thesis.

The arguments against are that:

• few copies are usually printed, so it's not widely distributed, and can be an effort requiring traveling to the Uni to verify, and that
• even though this may be the pinnacle of a student's work, it's still a student's work, not that of an accredited professional
• so we should wait for it to become really published by a respected press before we cite it.

Anyway, I think allowing successful doctoral theses as reliable sources if they don't say highly controversial things is probably the best compromise between these views. Just in case someone wanted to know. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For me, the "reviewed" part goes a long way, provided the thesis was presented to a good, respected school. You can usually count on such things as a real effort to identify opposing ideas, and a balanced examination of the real data. Usually, anyways. I'd caveat this however: only if said thesis is available for review, and by this I generally mean online. If I can read it, I can asses it's balance and depth for myself.

Like, for instance, this Wightman thesis we have here, which looks to be exactly what I've been looking for as a genuinely critical (in the scholastic sense) examination of Bailey & her work. Crap, I wish I weren't too broke to pay attention; it's been sitting under my nose the whole time. But, I just hadn't wanted to wade into the links issue yet... So glad master Mouse has done that for us. :) Eaglizard 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography Needs an Assist

Can someone fix the bibliography, which is currently broken into two sections -- "Alice Bailey" and "Alice A. Bailey alone"?

I know why it is like that -- the section that formerly credited "Alice Bailey and D.K." was revised by Kwork as every one of the books was actually credited to "Alice Bailey" on the title page. I agree with Kwork's revision 100%, because when cataloguing books, the title page is considered authoritative.

However, now we have two lists, and it looks bad -- so will one of you please integrate the two lists into a single list? I would do it, but my contributions to this page are strictly limited to the Controversies section, by choice.

THANKS!!!

Nameless Date Stamp 20:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Great suggestion; I have edited the section. Is that approach satisfactory? (Btw, I do not support the merger of the two lists; this would reduce the amount of information in the article. It's important to note that the distinction is entirely Bailey's, however.) Eaglizard 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I like your elegant solution, Eaglizard. Very well done.

Nameless Date Stamp 23:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.