Talk:Alice Bailey/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.


Contents

Shnirelman simple / Shnirelman more complete and more clear

Hi Eaglizard, you suggested I should "disscuss" first, so as a test of the utility of your suggestion within the current environment, I offer the follow.James 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

First

The current version of Shnirelman of reference is misleading and not honest or balanced. It reads:


In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed modern Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "… groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "… 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."[1]

Second

I recommend a simple statment such as I had, before it was reverted. It should read:

In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, noted that "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."[1]


Third

If Catherine or others of you want to insist on the current version, then it should be expanded so as to shown the whole picture rather than a vague and deceptive portion.

In which case, a new expanded version should read as follows:


In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, wrote an article, Russian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism. In this he critisized New Age movement and connected it to Russian Neo-paganism. He states that "some groups" within this movement have a negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the " 'mixture' of kinds," support isolationism, and want to prohibit immigration. He then appears to link these views to Alice Bailey, saying:

In contrast to Shnirelman's contentions above, passages in Alice Bailey support internationalism, multi-culturalism and speak for the mixing of cultures and races. [2] [3]

Shnirelman also writes:

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.

Shnirelman's statement above is not followed by a citation of a Bailey passage but is followed by a citation to a book by Margaret Brearley [4] A search of Bailey's books, available online, shows that the phrases, “Jewish inheritance,” and “Jewish Bible,” do not occur in the Bailey writings, and she makes no use of the word "cleanse " in relation to the Jews or Christanity. The Jewish reference by Bailey, or an examplar of it, that Shnirelman and Brearley seem to be critisizing reads:

"The reorganization of the world religions - if in any way possible - so that their out-of-date theologies, their narrow-minded emphasis and their ridiculous belief that they know what is in the Mind of God may be offset, in order that the churches may eventually be the recipients of spiritual inspiration.

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." [5]

James 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Feedback

I prefer the version you call #1 (cat's version). Here are my reasons:
1) This sentence is true:
In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed modern Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "… groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration."
 There are two different meanings of "true" here.  The sentence 
 is "true" in the sense that its true that Shnirelman wrote it.  
 It is false in the sense that, as shown by the references in 
 version #3, it is the exact opposite of what Bailey 
 wrote.James 15:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
2) This sentence is true:
He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "… 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."[1]
In a nutshell you have the context of his criticism (sentence 1) and his critical statement (sentence 2)
As has been pointed out here repeatedly, by printing this criticism, we are not saying that Bailey WAS or DID that-and-such -- we are simply reporting fairly on the controversy.
cat Catherineyronwode 07:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The more I stare at that damned quote, the less I like it. I realize, as you say cat, we're just reporting fairly on Sh's views, but is it really fair to utilize a critical source which completely misquotes and mis-characterizes his subject? As James has pointed out, the ideas Victor ascribes to Bailey — cleansing Christianity of its 'Jewish Inheritance' and rejecting the 'Jewish Bible' — are, I believe completely unsupportable via reference to Bailey. I realize she said a lot of things that seem racist; but where, exactly, did she ever say that? Eaglizard 07:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to try and be neutral. You can't just leave a quote out because you do not like it. Not unless you are just hopelessly biased and just do not care to be neutral. Albion moonlight 09:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 10:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. When I say "I don't like it", what I mean is that I think it's misrepresentative and might not be fit for the article on that ground — as I assumed my ensuing exegesis would make clear. I assumed I could speak informally, among friends, as it were. Perhaps I'm wrong; how about a return to rigorous formality. then? To wit, I don't think I'm the kind of editor who deletes things "just because" I don't like them. If you think I am, then I suggest you ask yourself: "What good could it possibly do to reason with an editor who is pertinacious, yet biased and simple-minded?" (which is, I believe, roughly what your comment implies about me). On the other hand, I would much prefer you to address the actual substance of my concern, to respond to the actual points I've raised. If you would be so kind. Eaglizard 11:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this obsession some editors have with removing the Criticisms of Bailey? If Bailey was criticised that needs to be noted. A quick look indicates the criticisms section of the Gandhi article is far bigger than that for Bailey, and he was one of the most beloved figures of the 20th century. Criticism is a part of life (if you have not noticed), and the Bailey teaching will not crumble from the criticisms that are in this article. Kwork 11:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's far less strange than the obsession some other editors seem to have with ignoring the actual content of my suggestions and attacking them (and myself by proxy) on purely irrelevant, asinine (and in this case, dishonest) bases. I do not suggest the removal of anything, let alone the entire Criticism section, as you imply. I merely raise an objection for discussion (a hopeless cause, it begins to appear). Kwork, I invite you, as I have Albion, to address the actual content of my objection. Or would this be too terribly inconvenient for you? Eaglizard 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I would add that no one here is attempting to exclude all criticism as has been suggested; given the history of this forum, this is not a rational contention. Everyone here, without exception, wants to include criticism, including reference to what a minority have seen as her anti-Jewish statements. What is required is proportionate balance and honest criticism based on what she actually wrote. When folks insist on citing opinions that are the opposite of what she wrote, then comparison is made necessary which makes the criticism section to long, as well as making the cited critics look bad. Keep it simple. James 15:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Eaglizard, I have answered your point more than once in the past. You wrote:

As James has pointed out, the ideas Victor ascribes to Bailey — cleansing Christianity of its 'Jewish Inheritance' and rejecting the 'Jewish Bible' — are, I believe completely unsupportable via reference to Bailey. I realize she said a lot of things that seem racist; but where, exactly, did she ever say that?

Here are some AAB quotes:

The decision anent the Jews is one of hierarchical importance, owing to the karmic relation of the Christ to the Jewish race, to the fact that they repudiated Him as the Messiah and are still doing so, and of the interpretive nature of the Jewish problem as far as the whole of humanity is concerned.

The Rays and the Initiations, p.636-7

And:

Let me point out also that just as the Kabbalah and the Talmud are secondary lines of esoteric approach to truth, and materialistic in their technique (embodying much of the magical work of relating one grade of matter to the substance of another grade), so the Old Testament is emphatically a secondary Scripture, and spiritually does not rank with the Bhagavad-Gita, the ancient Scriptures of the East and the New Testament……The general theme of the Old Testament is the recovery of the highest expression of the divine wisdom in the first solar system; ……..The evil karma of the Jew today is intended to end his isolation, to bring him to the point of relinquishing material goals, of renouncing a nationality that has a tendency to be somewhat parasitic within the boundaries of other nations, and to express inclusive love, instead of separative unhappiness.

Esoteric Healing, p267-8

NB: What this seems to say, additionally to its Supersessionism message, is that the genocide that had just occurred in Europe was intended to help Jews overcome their isolation, and to help them express inclusive love. Kwork 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Good! Much better, thank you. From what you quote, I can see some support for "rejection of the Jewish Bible" (especially in that she singles out the New Testament for praise). But calling the Talmud "secondary" is not the same as rejecting it — she still considers it "an esoteric approach to truth". Next, where do you find her desirous of "cleansing Christianity"? The way I read her, "Christianity" as a religion is as denigrated as Judaism or Islam; although she talks frequently of the coming "Christ", this appears to be merely a collision (or perhaps appropriation) of terms. I don't think you can argue she supports orthodox Christian views of her time (or ours). Christians don't seem to think she does, either. Eaglizard 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I always regarded the Alice Bailey teaching a sort of Esoteric Christianity. Many very traditional Christian groups are actually fairly comfortable with her teaching. For instance, if you search the Vatican official site you come up with a few hits for her, and they take her seriously. Actually, I sometimes recommend the School for Esoteric Studies for Christians I meet who are looking for an esoteric teaching because from experience I have found that the heavy emphasis on Christian teaching and terminology in her books is comfortable to such people (think of the invocation of Christ in the Great Invocation). Kwork 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 Kwork, google "Alice Bailey" (in quotes) together with satan.  
 You get 19,900 hits.  To most orthodox Christians who know 
 a bit about her, she is Lucifer's disciple and I don't mean
 "Lucifer" in the luminous sense here. James 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Jamesd1, everything I have seen of such criticism comes from Evangelical Protestant groups, who I do not consider at all traditional Christian in their thinking. As I said if you search the official Vatican site[1], they do take Bailey seriously as a Christian. And so do I. Bailey's teaching is, in my view, esoteric Christianity. Kwork 11:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Note: It is correct that Bailey looked forward to the day when the Jewish religion would cease to exist in it present form. But this is part of a larger theme because she also wants the same thing for orthodox Christianity. It is really what she saw as mess that humans have made of all religious traditions that she wants to pass away. At the same time, she recognizes the elements of good behind all religious. And in her mind all world religious were founded by the spiritual hierarchy. Her indictment is not about the spirit of religious, but there forms and the crazy mess humans have made of them, and the way that they are used to divide groups and inflame wars. She does not see things in black and white terms or condemn all aspects of anything.

In this connection In From Bethlehem to Calvary, page 117 Bailey speaks of the ancient sayings of the Jewish Scriptures, calling them "beautiful." James 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)



Number 2 reads the best. It says what #1 says but is more succinct and easily understood. #3 is too long. --Renee 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Renee, Thanks for thoughts. The second version is OK and the better of the three because at least it bears a rough resemblance to some of Bailey's statements and so does not require further elaboration.

I will go with the shorter version, Number 2 Sparklecplenty 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But the first version implies a series of things that are a direct contradiction of, that is, the oppose of, what Bailey wrote. It's technically valid to quote such misinformation since it is published opinion (well, here self-published.) But, if folks insist on citing a quote of this type, then I believe scholarship requires that such an opinion be juxtaposed--as I have done above--with references to what Baily actually wrote on these specific topics. If we stay with the simpler form, then it eliminates the need for the elaboration. James 19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As it sits I am going to go with Cats version. I also wonder if it being suggested that original research be allowed if we do keep Cats version ? Albion moonlight 06:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


None of the versions are original research. The problem with the first version is that it makes it appear that AAB said the exact opposite of what she actually wrote. This is technically OK to include, since it simply reports a critical opinion, But to leave the opinion as is, without AAB's actual references for comparison, would be intellectually dishonest and bad scholarship. At the same time, to create the proportionate balance by the necessary references requires makes the criticism section much longer than it should be.James 15:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


The one or two percent Jewish references in the Alice Bailey books seems to take up about 90% of the edit discussion--why is that? It is Catherine, Kwork and Albion's main concern--why? The other editors, have repeatedly told these three that Alice Bailey critical remarks on the Jews, Christians, Theosophies, etc. should definitely be challenged. The other editors, by their words, haven't expressed any bias to having the above issues put in the article. All that the other editors are asking is that the criticism be accurate-fitting Wikipedia standards, rules, guidelines. Sparklecplenty 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OTOH, w/o the Jewish / Bailey discussion, this talk page would be nearly dormant, the way it used to be, and I mightn't have had the chance to work with any of you fine editors. :) Eaglizard 15:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, it is incorrect that Bailey's discussion of the Jews makes up only 1% of her books. There is enough discussion of Jews to make up a small book in itself. I have a booklet, with excerpts from her books about the Jews, sent to me by the School for Esoteric Studies; and that pamphlet contains enough material to form a chapter of a book. And that SES pamphlet has no quotes from her book Problems of Humanity, which contains a whole chapter called "The Jewish Problem"; and there is much more than what is in those two.

Additionally, some of what she says about Jews and Judaism is so incorrect, and so vicious, that attention to them would be needed even if her total mention of Jews made up only .005% of the books.

Moreover, if you and your associated editors would compromise on the issue this endless argument would end. Kwork 15:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new source from Kwork

  • Would this [2] be a good source, in the criticisms section, which was published in the newspaper The Forward, and written by Paul Berman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 12:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting article, at the least. It might make a very good source, but I wonder what others will think of it. I need to read it again later. On first glance, I'm not comfortable that it's third-hand; this appears to be one party quoting a second party (Berman) quoting Bailey. I'd like it better if we had Berman's article in its original form. Also, I notice that Berman (apparently) editorially inserts the name Maitreya following the word Christ in one of his Bailey quotes (from Externalization). Not only does it not appear in the actual text, the word only appears once in the book, hundreds of pages later, in the phrase Maitreya Buddha (emphasis mine). In fact, Maitreya only appears 12 times throughout her books, I don't think it fair to blanket-associate Bailey with all the various groups who invoke this name in various ways. But that's the picking of nits. I do like Berman's analysis, especially his use of the concept of chosenness. I think he's hit on a key point of disagreement between Jews and Bailey. Eaglizard 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


The article looks better than Shirnelman. Could not find the source to determine if it is an acceptable in the Wiki rules sense. Author says the subject is a "hobby."
If more references are included, the summary of them should be extremely brief in in order to not give undue weight to the Jewish aspect of the criticism. The criticism section must not be too large in proportion to the biography as a whole. 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. Also, very little of Bailey's writings is about the Jewish people (statistically 1 to 2 percent a most). . The Jewish theme is one note in a composition that is encyclopedic in size (her books occuply about three feet of shelf space) and the great majority of her writing is 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 than the Jewish critics because it is several steps closer to a majority opinion that the Jewish one. In proportion to her Jewish related criticism, much more of what Bailey wrote is anti-orthodox-Christian. James 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say it "looks better than Shnirelman"? -- Shnirelman was published by Hebrew University, an academic source! Unless, of course, you mean "Gershom." It's getting pretty obvious that you can no longer tell them apart. cat Catherineyronwode 04:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The introduction

The first half of the introduction reads like this:

Alice Ann Bailey, often known as Alice A. Bailey or AAB born as Alice LaTrobe Bateman (June 16, 1880, Manchester, United Kingdom – December 15, 1949), was a writer and lecturer on Neo-Theosophy. She moved to the United States of America in 1907, where she spent the rest of her life. She was an author on occultism and founded an international esoteric movement.

In two sentences she is described as

1. "a writer on Neo-Theosophy",

2. an "author on occultism" and

3. the founder of "international esoteric movement".

One problem I see is that the term "Neo-Theosophy" does not say anything about her and she never used the term. Another problem is that although she did use the terms "occultism" and "esotericism", the wiki-links that explain those two terms give definitions that have nothing to do with the very precise meaning Bailey gave to them. The article itself needs to give her definitions of those terms, which are important for understanding her teaching.

But definitions or not the introduction is more likely to confuse new readers right at the beginning when clarity should be established. I would suggest trying to find a completely new way to write the introduction; although at the moment I have no ideas to suggest. Kwork 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, Kwork, some very good points. The issue about occult and esoteric being defined differently has been bugging me for months. I also agree that the lead is turgid, and needs serious clarification. It's something I enjoy doing, normally, but in this instance, I've been a bit hesitant. Besides which, I don't have any good ideas either. But, if nobody else does, I've been planning to copyedit about the first 5 to 10 paragraphs pretty soon. Eaglizard 22:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Egalizard, Neo-Theosophy is the term the Wiki article uses, which article specifically mentions Bailey. The article also relates to Leadbeater and company, and Leadbeater is an author that the Theosophical criticism associates with Bailey. So others are seeing her under that term and concept which has some validity. Bailey did regard herself as in continuity with the Theosophical tradition as the article states and she quotes Leadbeater and Besant, part of the "Neo-Theosophy" of the Wiki article on that subject. Leadbeater and Besant were part of the "neo" meaning " New and different" Theosophy that came after Bailey. Also some of the things that distinguish Bailey from Blavatsky are the same as those that distinguish Bailey from her. I clarified the wording on this term. Now that the wording no longer suggests that "neo-Theosophy" was Bailey's term (no big deal either way), then it doesn't really matter. James 22:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
A substantial percentage of the concepts mentioned under "occult" and "esoteric" correspond quite well with AAB's use of the terms. Bailey's use of the terms is not radically different from some of the dictionary definitions of them. I can readily define Bailey's distinctive use of them, in so far as there is distinction. James 23:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
All that said, I took another look at the introduction. I never actually wrote this part but inherited it from the past. I've done a rewrite of the first part which bypasses the non-Bailey terminology issues. James 00:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider this my article, but I think I remember a little about the teaching. For instance, by 'esoteric' Bailey means a consideration, and study, and use, of energies and forces that move all outer form. Form can mean different things at different levels. Energy and force have different meanings, and that needs to be explained too. Esotericism, then, is a study of the inner forces that move the outer forms. If you guys can't explain the teaching, I certainly will not either. But it is annoying to see it so loused up. The changes made by Jamesd1 are no improvement. Kwork 00:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, I think you're about right on the theme of esotericism as energy though its not exclusive to Baiely but found in Theosophy as well, "Yet no psycho-physicist ever came nearer than he has to the esoteric general outline of evolution. This evolution -- viewed from its several standpoints -- i.e., as the universal and the individualized Monad; and the chief aspects of the Evolving Energy..." The Secret Doctrine
I think its true that AAB emphasized the "all is energy" theme more than was done by other schools. If you think the article will be less "loused up" with the energy theme highlighted, I will participate in the endeavor. James 01:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Virtually the entire training that a student of Alice Bailey the teaching receives is to, 1. learn to perceive all activity in the world as driven by the interplay of energies coming from various sources and levels and then, 2. to learn to actively use the energies from higher sources to bring good and healing in the life circumstances around the student. That is what Bailey means by esoteric training. A student of the teaching who misses that point has missed the entire teaching....no matter how many of the books they have read. That is why I said that a discussion of Bailey's concept of 'esotericism' needs to be in the article. Otherwise it would be like discussing Gandhi without mentioning ahimsa. Kwork 14:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe James is right, in that Bailey uses the term esoteric to mean hidden or within, essentially a synonym for occult in that sense, and matching the WP usage. She also uses it in the sense that Kwork is describing (although I disagree somewhat with his characterization of it), as she also uses occult (see the definition in White Magic). So I'm a bit confused but then, I also need sleep (again!) so maybe it'll make sense tomorrow. I would like to note that "to perceive all activity in the world as driven by the interplay of energies" is pretty much the same "training" I received in fifth-grade Physical Science class. I believe esoteric is precisely the adjective that describes the additional "various sources and levels" in Bailey's system from the somewhat smaller set recognized exoterically by science. But it's and adjective, not a noun. Oh, and your point about "esoteric training" is valid; she uses the phrase to mean a fairly specific thing. So sometimes it's a general-purpose adjective, and sometimes it modifies a noun into specificity ... gah, I give up for now. Eaglizard 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

impression about the intro from a new reader

I've been invited by both James and Kwork to take a look at this article and offer an uninvolved viewpoint towards achieving an NPOV article based in Wikipolicy. For context, I've heard of Alice Bailey and know a bit about Theosophy and related topics; but I have not previously read AAB's writings or biographical information. I've started to educate myself on this and have read the talk page, and will offer some ideas when I can. In the meantime I thought it would be useful to mention how the intro section worked for me when I first read it, as someone without prior knowledge of the details.

For clarity, I am referring to this version of the intro. It may have changed already by the time someone reads this.

I don't know who wrote the intro, and these comments are not directed towards any one person or position, it's just my first impression and my ideas about how the intro could be more helpful to a new reader desiring information on this topic.

I found the intro to be be both overly detailed and at the same time, lacking a good overview. The individual books and their summaries seemed out of place and I felt took me away from the overview I was seeking to know what the article would be about, in other words, the essence of this notable person's life.

The books could be included in the article, but would be better described elsewhere. For example, there could be another section in the article, perhaps following the biographical section and prior to the the "ideas" section, with a few paragraphs about her most important books and how they fit into her philosophy, either by topic or chronologically. Or the books could b e integrated into the ideas section - depending on if she is seen more as a philosopher or as a writer, which would be better to emphasize.

For an example of some introductions, we might refer to other articles about authors, for example these are pretty good: Robert A. Heinlein and J. R. R. Tolkien, and for comparative controversial figures that were authors but also started occult or spiritual organizations, this intro may be of use as an example: Aleister Crowley. I am not saying that the content is similar, I just suggest these as templates for good overviews that give me an understanding of the person before I dive into the article.

The other thing I noticed right off in the intro is that Alice Bailey is described as an author and a teacher or leader, but nothing is mentioned about the unusual way in which many of her books were written until later in the article. As a reader who did not know much about her previously, I was under the impression that her books were dictated by some sort of other dimensional entity, as with a Course in Miracles or the Seth Material or Crowley's The Book of the Law. I don't know much about this process and am not intending to discuss the details of it, but before coming to this page it was something I had heard about Alice Bailey and her works, so I was curious about it.

Here is my takeaway from the current intro: She was born in England, moved to the USA, wrote some philosophy books that were early versions of New Age thought, and was related to the Theosophy movement.

That does not seem to give a good overview of this interesting, outspoken, unusual, controversial, creative, and influential person.

Below is a very rough shorthand idea of how I would approach the intro. My use of words here like "spiritual" or "occult" are not technical - they are placeholders for convenience, you may have better ways of explaining these things. Someone who knows more about her could make this into a strong effective overview. The bullet points are not for the intro, just for this list, the intro should of course be a few paragraphs of prose as usual:

  • Alice Bailey - (born - date, place - died date, place) - was a philosopher, author, and teacher on topics of spirituality,the occult, religion, and ...(etc). She came up with some important new ideas, some controversial, that influenced a lot of people during and after her life and are still discussed and actively followed today.
  • She wrote books in two ways, one which is unusual. Some she wrote in the conventional manner, in her own words describing her ideas, and she also wrote many books where she took "dictation" or received "telepathic communications" from entities she called "the Masters" or "the Tibetan" (fill in the correct terms there, I'm not sure about these). The writings she produced in this manner used a different style of writing from her own words, and produced a large and complex volume of work explaining a system of philosophy and including advice for readers, or students, for improving their lives and the society in general (again, fill in the proper details here, this is just an example).
  • Her writings were related to but divergent from writings by others during the same years (?), especially in the area of Theospophy.
  • Her writing charted a new course, in many ways diverging from mainstream religious concepts and interpretations of the Bible and other scriptures,and generally focused on creating a unified society with a global religion (?).
  • Her writings were outspoken and included controversial statements on a variety of topics including criticisms of orthodox Chirstianity, nationalism, racial allegiances, and the role of the Jewish or Hebrew people in society. She has been criticized for some of these writings, that some consider to be racist or anti-semitic. Others dispute that chracterization, stating that it is a misreading of her words and that her philosophy embraces all races and creeds; the controversy is ongoing.
  • Her writings generated a lot of interest and attracted many followers who formed groups, schools and organizations to study and implement her ideas, many still active today.

Well, those are some ideas for the intro. Use them if you wish. I also think there should be at least a short section in the article explaining how her books were written. I realize some of that is included already in the "Comparison with theosophy section", but that's a different topic. If the comparison section were preceded by a section about how the books were "dictated" or "received" and the identies of the entities that dictated the amterial, then the Comparisons section would be easier to understand for a reader with no (or very little) prior knowledge of this topic. (Like me for example).

I hope you find my comments helpful. I'll continue learning about the topic so I can be more informed with my notes. --Parsifal Hello 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Wow! This is a fantastic review -- very thoughtful and constructive. I like all of your ideas and hope that James and Kwork, who seem to know the most about AAB, follow this structure. Best wishes to all, Renee Renee 19:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your suggestions on the introduction. I think they make good sense and I will participate in implementing them.
When you have time, I'd appreciate your take on the "Criticisms of Bailey" section, especially the "Racism and antisemitism" subsection" and its relation to the discussion here: Shnirelman James 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


New Introduction Development

Kwork, your recent edits to the introduction look good and are welcome improvements; thanks.

One minor point, "Master of the Ancient Wisdom" is a paraphrase as I think she never actually used that exact phrase. She used "Master of the Wisdom"and "Ancient Wisdom" as separate phrases. So "Master of the Ancient Wisdom" is a phrase that's not exactly hers, but close. It's a fine point, and I imagine that the reason she used them separately is so as not to over emphasize the "ancient" aspect in what is a new incarnation of a "new age" teaching. "Ancient" can suggest either old an venerable or dusty and out of date. I think, in Bailey's writings, the wisdom is defined as both ancient and also very new, e.g. "new age" as in the present age of Aquarius. James 22:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, v good edits, Kwork. I agree that's good call, removing metaphysics and philosophy. Maybe informally you could call it that, but I don't think they're encyclopedic when applied here. Eaglizard 10:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Albion moonlight personal stuff

Regarding the summary below, albion moonlight wrote:

Nice try in trying to leave my name out but since this article has a few (essentialy one purpose editors sent here by Phillip lindsay I sincerely doubt that any claim of consensus that you may be trying try to lay claim to, will withstand the scrutiny of either the Mediation committee or the Arbitration comittee. Arb com makes decisions on Rfc's and you may need to create an Rfc on all 3 us if you try to stuff Ms Lindsays will down our throats. My advice to Cat and Kwork is to stick to your guns and force the others to take this to an Rfc. If we stick together we can win. The worst case scenario is that Arb com will refuse hear the case and that the dispute will never be settled. I think that JP Gordon is probably just waiting for the edit wars to begin again. He has known about the suspected Meat Puppetry for 2 or 3 days now and has likely put this article back on his watch list. Oh yes and I have asked AnonEmouse to help me create an article on Ms Lindsay. They will never be able to lay a rightful claim to consensus.  : Albion (moonlight 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Albion Moonlight, are you okay? Seriously, I'm concerned. I think we're moving on from personal attacks. Can we trust that James accidentally missed your response. Anyway, thanks for correcting his overlook. Sparklecplenty 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Brother Alibion, please cool your jets. Remember below I said, "subsection above is so large that it's becoming a pain to follow." It was also a pain to comb through and find stuff in, which I did rapidly, and I've been busy today. And all you had to do was add your name to the list I created which I see you've done; no need to get worked up about it. Do seriously believe that I deliberately left out your name while expecting no one, including you, would notice? As to the other stuff about Lindsay etc., you seem to be fighting something in your mind that doesn't correspond to any reality.James 01:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Albion, you'll probably think I'm just being dishonest, but seriously. Please write an article about Phillip Lindsay; I'm really curious to know who the hell who this person is, exactly. Thanks! Eaglizard 10:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Your response to Catherineyronwode is an example of Ad Hominem, the most famous logical fallacy of trying to discredit the argument by discrediting the person who made the argument. Kwork 11:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to bet he means me, and my response in another section to another point that's completely unrelated to anything in this section, but it's not clear to me. It's just so ambiguous it makes me sneeze. Eaglizard 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominem like the character assassination of Phillip Lindsay. I've met Phillip Lindsay a few times--an intense guy. I can be a bit intense myself (Pluto conjunct by Leo rising). Between us there was tension--over our different approaches to astrological interpretation. But I'm in sync with and love Phillip's fiery spiritual poetry!!! Sparklecplenty 15:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominem is not "character assassination". But neither is anything said by me, Catherineyronwode, or Albion moonlight about Lindsay. I have had plenty of e-forum discussions with him, and exchanged e-mail too. His attitude toward Jews is abysmal. Nevertheless,I tried to arrange a meeting with him when he was in NYC this past Spring, hoping that personal contact might help matters; but he refused. (I could not possabily care less about his poetry.) Kwork 15:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Ad Hominem is attack on the man. You are attacking Phillip Lindsay, other editors and Alice Bailey. Sparklecplenty 17:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • No, I am critical of some of Lindsay's views. I have no reason to think that he does not mean well. I certainly do think that he is incorrect on many points. You need to learn to distinguish between a criticism and an insult. Kwork 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ad Hominem is trying to discredit an idea through the personality defects of the person who has the idea. It is a logical fallacy because, even if the perceived personal defects of the person were true, that still does not prove the ideas wrong. Kwork 22:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Albion moonlight, I agree that it is clearly not the intention of a certain group of editors to ever reach a compromise on the criticism section of the article (except as a temporary expedient then circumstances make it necessary). As a result of their unwillingness to compromise, the argument will certainly continue, and resolution will never come. I wonder if this sort of thing could be grounds an AfD? Kwork 11:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. You can go for mediation, but the problem with that is that consensus shifts when new players come aboard. If we can agree to have good standards for sources, then most of these disagreements will leave (because if a reliable, verifiable sources says X there's really no reason for leaving it out). Renee 14:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Kwork is absolutely right on here, although he doesn't seem to grasp that comments like this make him look like the very leader of that "certain group". I think this comment in particular displays precisely that Kwork has no intention to ever reach a compromise on the criticism section of the article. He's essentially saying, "Well, if they don't compromise, I'm just going to keep arguing forever." This obviously is not conciliatory. Compromise requires that both sides abandon confrontation. He seems to be saying he'd just as soon RfC or otherwise Wikilawyer it into submission (and that's assuming on good faith he did not mean to AfDelete this article, which would be so very much worse for him to suggest). Eaglizard 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Shnirelman simple / Shnirelman more complete and more clear PART 2

Please put any further discussion of this here, the Shnirelman subsection above is so large that it's becoming a pain to follow. James 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary of Editors positions

Editors in favor of Version #1, the current version: Catherineyronwode, Kwork, Albion Moonlight.

Editors in favor of Version #2, the smpler one shown below: Sparklecplenty, Renee, James

Eaglizard (still thinking?)

Yes, thanks. I just don't have any opinion on this right now, so go ahead with out me. :) Eaglizard 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple version (#1):

In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, noted that "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."[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Complete version (#2):

In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed modern Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "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."61]

Summary of Editors Reasons

Reasons given in support of version 1:

  • The Shnirelman sentences are "true" (i.e. that's what he wrote)

Reasons given against verions 1 and for version 2::

  • #1 misrepresents and contradicts Bailey's own statements
  • #1 mis-characterizes the subject
  • Number 2 says what #1 says but is more succinct and easily understood.
  • #1 would require expanding the criticism by contrasting references from Bailey


Above summarized by James 12:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Further Dialog on the Shnirelman Issue and Summary

Comment: "#1 misrepresents and contradicts Bailey's own statements" is NOT RELEVANT, as we are reporting on a CONTROVERSY and not on Alice Bailey's writings here. Also, it is dishonest or ignorant to say that the statement "contradicts" her own statements, since she herself argued quite strongly against racially-mixed marriages, and never once argued IN FAVOUR of racially-mixed marriages.
Comment: "Number 2 says what #1 says but is more succinct and easily understood." No, it is not "more easily understood," because it leaves out the REASON that Shnirelman was mentioning Bailey in the first place, which was that he was surveying racism and antisemitism in modern Russian Neopaganism.
Comment: "#1 would require expanding the criticism by contrasting references from Bailey" sounds more like an edit war threat than a scholarly necessity. We have been down that path before. We had two fairly interesting versions of an expansion of the section. The first brought in the Lucis Trust quotes (delightfully racist themselves!) and made Bailey look even worse than she does with this version. The second attempt, quoting Bailey at length and giving equal line-length to her self-contradicotry rantings against "obsolete" Judaism, against interracial marrgiage, and against "greedy" Jews on the one hand and he especially lovely "some of my best friends are Jews" defense on the other hand was another laff-riot. But, hey, if y'all want to take that road, i stand ready to run the track again, Bailey quotes against Bailey quotes, on into the sunset. In the immortal words of the Swamp Pop singer Rod Bernard, "This should go on forelver, this should never, never end". (Click here [3] to see and listen to a kinescope of Rod singing this 1959 hit song on the Dick Clark show!).
cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Now we know where Britney learned to lip-synch! Thanks for that one. Delightful! Lovely! A laff-riot! One thing I could admire about you cat: you don't waste a bit of energy with any silly attempts at objectivity. Are ya dripping with sarcasm — or bias? I can rarely tell the difference with you. Eaglizard 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)



Eaglizard, you positions on this are more subjective than Catherineyronwode's. You need to understand that applying argumentative reasoning after you have decided on your position is still subjective, even if the arguments appear reasonable at first glance, because the choice was made a a point before reason was brought in. NB: Your response to Catherineyronwode is an example of Ad Hominem, the most famous logical fallacy of trying to discredit the argument by discrediting the person who made the argument. Kwork 11:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Try to understand this process, Kwork: cat edits the talk page to add a comment. Then I edit the talk page to make a comment about cat's comment. Hopefully then, someone else would respond to my comment. Instead, you edit the talk page to comment on -- "my positions on this", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. My positions on what? This section has not been talking about me, or "my positions", and you are not responding to my comment in any way. Please discuss the comments we each make, or edits to the article. If you don't like some one of my "positions" then tell me that when I express that position. Stop yapping about me and my personal failings as a human being in general -- I'm already quite too aware of them, thanks so much. WP is also not some kinda daytime gabfest on cable tv, ok?
NB: You are wrong. I have not committed ad hominem, for the simple reason that I haven't tried to discredit anything. I think cat displaying her bias so forcefully is distracting - which I tried to imply (my success is certainly debatable). Again, you fantasize some threatening motive for me, and then attack me for something I did not do. Eaglizard 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Kwork is quite right Eaglizard your definition of objectivity is in need of repair. I can point you in the direction of a few very educated and fair minded wikipedians if you care to check your idea of being objective against Cats. You are being surprisingly subjective. Albion moonlight 13:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Since I apparently was too oblique: cat, when you pour on sarcasm like that, it's very distracting from the otherwise reasonable and intelligent edits you make. Must you? It also adds fuel for those who would malign your edits via ad hominem, you know. Eaglizard 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I often ask others from outside my peer group if they thin I am right about something I thought that you might be interested doing the same I did not intend to be rude. Albion moonlight 01:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode versus Alice Bailey on the subject of mixed marriage

In regard to Comment: #1 in response to the statement that the Shnirelman quote misrepresents and contradicts Bailey's own statements," Catherineyronwode offered a defense of the accuracy of the Shnirelman quote by saying of Alice Bailey:


"... she herself argued quite strongly against racially-mixed marriages
and never once argued IN FAVOUR of racially-mixed marriages. 
Catherineyronwode


The following quotes compiled by. James 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey on Marriage Between Races

"The Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage" Esoteric Healing, 267

"The drift of people to the colonies from Great Britain, the drift of the people from every nation in Europe to America, North and South, the dispersal of people within national boundaries as the result of war and expediency such as the evacuation of cities has brought about today, the removal of people out of Italy and of groups of people within Russia, and the constant moving onwards of the wandering Jews indicate a breaking down, upon a worldwide scale, of all outer boundaries and the institution of a process of blending and amalgamation such as the world has never seen before. It constitutes an educational system of untold value, leading as it does to the constant necessity to readjust viewpoints, to change modes of living, to intermarriage and so-called illicit relations." The Externalization of the Hierarchy, p 134 [above bold text mine]James 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"The only solution of this problem is the basic recognition that all men are brothers; that one blood pours through human veins; that we are all the children of the one Father and that our failure to recognize this fact is simply an indication of man's stupidity. Historical backgrounds, climatic conditions and widespread intermarriage have made the different races what they are today. Essentially, however, humanity is one - the heir of the ages, the product of many fusions, conditioned by circumstances and enriched by the processes of evolutionary development. This basic unity must now be recognized." The Externalization of the Hierarchy, p. 194

"There is no scientific and hitherto unknown mode of solving racial problems....It will come when nations can be educated to appreciate the good qualities of other nations and to comprehend the part they play in the whole picture. It will be developed when the sense of racial superiority is killed; when racial differences and racial quarrels are relegated to the unholy past and only a future of cooperation and of understanding is actively developed... it is regarded as contrary to the best interests of any nation to spread those ideas which tend to erect racial or national barriers, arouse hatreds or foster differences and separation." The Externalization of the Hierarchy , p. 195 (bold text mine) James 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

" Intermarriage between nations and races, the fusion of bloods for hundreds of years - due to migration, travel, education and mental unity - has led to there being no really pure racial types today. This is far more certainly the case than the most enlightened think, if the long, long history of mankind is considered. Sexual intercourse knows no impenetrable barriers, and people today have in them all the strains and the blood of all the races, and this (as a result of the world war, 1914-1945) will be increasingly the case. This development is definitely a part of the divine plan, no matter how undesirable it may appear to those who idealize purity of relationship..." Esoteric Healing, p. 22 (bold text mine) James 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jamesd1, the problem with all these Alice Bailey quotes is they are based on a fundamental mistakes. Judaism is a religion, not a race. The Jewish people are (and always have been) of many races, united by a religion and a culture. And the Jewish religion is not separative. If you were to convert to the Jewish religion, you would then be considered just as Jewish as someone descended from King David. Just as an example, it is believed by religious Jews that the Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David, and David was a descendant of Ruth who was a Moabite convert to Judaism.
Moreover, Bailey's accusation of separatism is particularly vicious because Jews never chose to live separate from the gentiles of the lands they have lived in since Hadrian sent them into exile. It was the gentiles themselves that forced Jews into ghettos and to live separate.
What Alice Bailey followers can not bring themselves to admit is that her views of Jews are based on false beliefs about Jews that are common European antisemitic stereotypes of Jews. Those stereotypes are untrue, have nothing to do with the real nature of Judaism, and Alice Bailey's ideas about Jews are wrong. Kwork 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Kwork, we've been over this ground before, months ago. The "Jews" as a group have some attributes of both race or "races" and relgion. Just look up "race" in any abridged dictionary and think about it. I quoted it to you before. However, the semantics of that word is not relevant to the current topic of misrepresentation in the Shnirelman quote.
The rest of your argument is not a response to the specific theme above of "Catherineyronwode versus Alice Bailey on the subject of mixed marriage" but rather a going off into various unrelated or peripherally related areas. The point under discussion is that portion of the quote by Shnirelman that attributes a series of ideas to her that are the exact opposites of what she wrote. That part of the quote is misinformation and must either be excluded or included together with contrasting references from Bailey. This is common sense, good scholarship, and in accord with the Wikipedia policy of porportional representation of differing viewpoints. James 15:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jamesd1, what I wrote is both correct and relevant. And it would not be necessary to repeat my points if you would stop repeating the same excuses for Bailey's antisemitism. Compromises were made that I would rather not have made, but it is you who wants to go back on the agreement that we reached. Kwork 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

arghhhh...will this never end? Someone says that what James says isn't true; he provides detailed evidence that it was true; then the argument switches to semantics or definition of terms. I think James is trying to be accommodating here, provide detailed evidence, and the bar keeps getting shifted. I suggest mediation on this issue as cat, albion moonlight and kwork keep making this a jewish vs other issue and the arguments are endless. Renee 17:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Renee, I know the Alice Bailey quotes are correctly quoted. But they do not prove what Jamesd1 wants them to prove because Alice Bailey's understanding of the Jews is wrong.
But, from the point of view of the article, the correctness of her views is not the issue. Because published authors have written about her misunderstanding of the Jews, that does matter, and that is why there is a Criticisms section in the article. The published criticisms exist, if you like them or not. The disagreement is not about "semantics or definition of terms", but about published writing that point out Baileys mistakes. You are entitled to think the criticisms of Bailey are misguided, but they belong in the article because they exist.
If what you really want is a glowing article about Bailey, without any criticism or negativity, you need a web site, not a Wikipedia article. Kwork 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay. This seems pretty easy to solve. You agree that Alice Bailey's quotations are correct (though you personally think her understanding is wrong), and James and others have agreed to put in the published criticisms (your goal) as long as the quotations (which you say are correct) are in there two. So, we have the criticisms as you want plus the accurate quotations of Bailey to give a fair representation of her view -- both sides represented. Can you live with that? Renee 17:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Jamesd1 has already put a lot into the article to defend Bailey against the small amount that is in the criticism section. It is improper to, additionally, add a rebuttal in the criticism section also. Kwork 22:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive note

I've archived most of the last few weeks' discussion, keeping former #91 as requested by Kwork. I also archived some minor issues like the hyperlinks and Parsifal's excellent suggestion that we take greater care when responding to posts (because they're so difficult to read otherwise).

Please let me know if any of the other sections above can be archived as this "new" talk page is still long to start fresh! Thanks, Renee --Renee 14:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Why is 'history' now captioned Revision history of "Talk:Alice Bailey" Kwork 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're referring to? Please provide link or diff. Thanks. Renee 17:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
When I am on the talk page, and click on "history" at the top of the page, I get a new page that says Revision history of "Talk:Alice Bailey" at the top. Kwork 17:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


When I click on history for any page (including my user page and yours) that's what I get. I think it's just a description of the page, that is, history of the revisions for X page. Renee 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Shnirelman issue in the light of official Wikipedia guidelines

Wiki policy applicable Shnirelman: Professional self-published sources

"Professional self-published sources "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking." [4]

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources... ...reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial..."

"Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues..." [5]

Moot point. Shnirelman was not self-published. He was published by Hebrew University! cat (shaking her head at the ridiculous extremity of this edit war) Catherineyronwode 03:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy applicable Shnirelman: Undue weight

The following form Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. ...

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

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

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some

ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."


As you know, AnonEMouse, who is a very experienced administrator in the Wikipedia Biography section, reviewed the possible sources, and disallowed some that I would have rather had in the article. But in the spirit of compromise I agreed. All that is now in the criticism of Bailey's antisemitism were judged by her as good sources. Why can you not live with that? Why do you want to remove every single criticism of Bailey from the article? Kwork 16:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, I'm OK with the criticism so long as a proportionate balance exists. All the above was for perspective on this.
When you say "balance", I hear "lame excuse to remove all criticism". You don't seem to want balance, but rather you seem to want criticism of Bailey out of the article. Kwork 17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
ahh, then this is the problem. James keeps trying to add balance and you're hearing something completely different. As demonstrated below he has not removed all criticism and if you look in the talk pages in the past he has repeatedly worked on the criticism sections (including sections you thought were unnecessary like the Christianity stuff) and whenever he makes a statement about his opinion (i.e., criticism with balance) then you interpret it as "he wants it all out," which he has not done. This talk page really reads like AA Bailey Jr. High School. Renee 17:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Kwork, this comment is nothing more than the admission that you assume bad faith. Why would you make such a statement? Are you deficient in the meanings of common english words like balance? (That word -- I do not think it means what you think it means.) Or were you frightened as a child by a clown shouting "balance is a lame excuse!" and now simply can't hear that word? Is there a synonym you would prefer for James to use? I'm sure he'd be willing accommodate your needs. Eaglizard 21:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

←Would everyone please stop insulting each other? This is helping nothing. I'm not taking sides, everyone just cool it. Focus on the content of the article, not the people doing the editing. --Parsifal Hello 21:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My New Edit of the criticism section, Balance Created

I have left all the disputed criticisms just as they were. I have added one well sourced paragraph to the criticism section that briefly addresses the issues raised by the Jewish-theme critics. The new Bailey response paragraph is the same length as the Shnirelman criticism and much shorter than the criticism section as a whole. James 16:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Jamesd1, since the following long sections of the article,

  • 1. Concept of one humanity and world religion,
  • 2. Indictment of orthodox Christianity,
  • 3. Criticism of national and racial allegiances, and,
  • 4. Criticisms of fanaticism and intolerance,

were all written with the idea of immunizing Alice Bailey against the sort criticism section that follows them; I do not see any reason for further such immunization within the criticism section. If you do not remove it, I will. Kwork 17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to keep in incorrect quotations or interpretations by third-rate critics (poor sources), then by all means we have to present the evidence for both saids to give a fair representation. Please leave in the balancing part. Again, mediation is an option. Renee 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Is Bromley's quotation in the right section? (criticisms?) It doesn't seem like a criticism, just a perspective that many new age persons back then shared. Renee 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

←It seems to me the response paragraph should be removed, for the following reasons: A criticisms section is not a debate or argument section, it's just a reporting of criticisms by others; those reported statements do not need defenses. Adding defensive comments in a criticisms section is not WP:NPOV unless those balancing comments were made by others and are simply being reported. Searching through the works of a writer to find passages that contest a critical comment being reported is WP:Original research, unless that work was done by another writer who then wrote about it, in which case it would be appropriate for us to report that.

I'm not sure that a separate criticisms section is the best way to approach the various controversies her work has generated; there may be a better way to organize the article and I will give that question some thought. But as it is organized now, to avoid original research, the criticisms section should only report what others have stated about her writings and teachings, without making the article into a debate. --Parsifal Hello 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, Thanks for your comments. They seem reasonable. Here is some history that maybe you have some advice on. Many of us believe the sources in this section are not up to Wiki standards (for example, one's a self-published essay outside the author's field of expertise; appears on his personal webpage). So, as a means of compromise because those who want it in want it in very badly James has said, okay, then we need to at least offer an accurate representation of Bailey's view. Now, I understand that can be OR, but, without the poor sources it wouldn't be needed. I keep suggesting that first, we should agree on what we allow as sources in, then the rest will follow, but there still is the persistent insistence that we keep in these sources, which then creates the cycle of further disregarding of Wiki policies (e.g., OR). So, how to get out of this vicious cycle? Renee 18:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Renee, you know perfectly well that a very experienced administrator, AnonEMouse, went over all the sources carefully, and what is in the article now was approved by her. There was a compromise agreement on that section. There were things I wanted to go into it that did not, but I agreed to compromise. Yesterday I mentioned a new source that is good, but I did not add it to the criticism section because I do not want to disturb the compromise agreement. Why would you want break an agreement that ended an edit war? Kwork 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


There was never in such compromise in leave misinformation from a highly questionable source in the article. Renee's analysis above is correct. James 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I recommend a simple statement such as I had, before it was reverted. It read:

In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, noted that "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."[1]

The above states what this self-published author's view that AAB was antisemitic without including all the misinformation that where he attributes to her the exact opposite of what she wrote. So I've restored that simpler and closer to honest statement. James 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur with using this version. I don't know that the prior version was "misinformation", but that doesn't matter. This one works. It's shorter but goes to the point and presents the authors criticism without interpreting it. --Parsifal Hello 21:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Parsifal, the controversy section is untouchable except for a few. Quotes are bullied into this section that don't meet Wiki standards. If you're not one of the few, you're threatened for making corrections. James made a compromise by leaving the incorrect quotes in but with explanation. It's the only way to to get the controversy section up to Wiki standards because the few can't be reasoned with. For those few the controversy section is the article. Sparklecplenty 19:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparklecplenty, I hope you don't mind, but I moved your comment into chronological sequence just above, because it was confusing as it was inserted between Renee's comment and Kwork's reply. Regarding your comment, I don't understand what you mean by this: "Quotes are bullied into this section that don't meet Wiki standards." Also, I don't know what you mean by "the few". Maybe I'll understand these things better after I watch this page for a while, but at this point, I'm in the dark about that. Also, I suggest that we keep our focus on the content of the article, and stay away from discussing the editors.

Renee, if you believe there is an unreliable source, please specify which one bothers you and I'll take a look at it. Regarding the policies of WP:OR and WP:V (which includes WP:RS), those are not trade-offs. Whether or not there is a questionable source or quote in the article, that does not offer license to add original research. We need to follow the spirit of the policies; they work well together, but only if they are embraced without a private agenda (on either side). The core of that is WP:NPOV. If there is a hidden, or not-so-hidden, POV being pushed one way or another, the article will lose its value.

I've downloaded the Bailey books and read some of the material and I've done some Google research. It seems from what I've read so far, that Bailey's work was largely positive, but that she did believe, and write, some ideas that appear to be racist or anti-Semitic. That doesn't make her a racist or anti-semite, but it does indicate that her teachings included those concepts in some form. That doesn't invalidate her other work, but also, we can't pretend it doesn't exist, because it is right there, in her own words (or the words that were dictated to her). Especially when other writers have seen those words and written about them, it is appropriate to report on what has been written, if the source is reliable. --Parsifal Hello 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Parsifal.
  • Here is some background on the players.
  • While I respect AnonEMouse immensely (he's really tried to get people to focus on content instead of personalities), I've repeatedly pointed out, like here, that at least 5 other editors disagree that Gershom is a valid source.
  • This was posted on September 4th (a sampling of previous discussions on Gershom specifically and other sources
Again, if we can agree on a standard for sources, then the rest should follow more smoothly. Thanks for your help. Renee 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

civility and collaboration

put your complaints about Kwork here:

Its called kvetching[11]. Kwork 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

talk page etiquette

I've refactored this little section to make room for this comment. Please note that behavior like the above is not conducive to attaining a positive result. We may be able to make some progress here, but not with that kind of approach.

I strongly suggest that whenever someone feels the need to insult someone else, or enter a cynical comment about someone else, take a break and read these articles:

Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Parsifil, Sorry wasn't meaning to be uncivil. I removed the Threats section. Threats (which there are many) sandwiched in the middle of good editing conversations muddles up clear thinking. So it seemed logical to have a section for emotional distractions, just for those who wanted to read or write them. Sparklecplenty 21:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. I didn't mean to single you out with my comment or imply that you were uncivil. Actually I thought you might have done it as a joke, but then as we could see, it became something else. The tensions are high on this page so we all need to be extra careful to respect each other. --Parsifal Hello 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't be shy Sparklecplenty. I put a complaints section, above, so list what you mean by threats, etc. Or is there anything extra beyond what Sethie put here [12]? If there is anything missing in Sethie's RfC against me, you might do even better to add it there. Kwork 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Shnirelman issue

I've copied what you said here as it's getting pretty thick above.

Renee, if you believe there is an unreliable source, please specify which one bothers you and I'll take a look at it. --Parsifal

The Shnirelman source is the problem. It is from a self-published source but he is a published author as well. But he is making a controversial claim.
FALSE Dr. Victor Shnirelman's article was not "self-published." It was published by The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Full citation:
* Shnirelman, Victor A. Russian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism in Acta no. 13, Analysis of Current Trends in Antisemitism. The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1998. Retrieved August 22, 2007
So get over it already, willya? Thanks. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 03:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Cat, you missed James point later on where he says he meant Gershom, not Shnirelman. I know a lot's been added but it might be worth it to read it all before commenting. Renee 04:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No, Renee, i did not miss that. James has been writing about Shnirelman for days. He said that Shnirelman was misrepresenting Bailey and he has been trying to get the Shnirelman quote shortened by half -- and now, to support his specious arguments, he falsely says Shnirelman was self-published. It's been about Shnirelman all along. You know and i know -- we all know -- that all Gershom did was state an OPINION (a criticism, if you will) about Bailey's desire for Orthodox Judaism to disappear, and it was hardly a "controversial" opinion. He just cited her quote and carried it to its logical conclusion -- if she wants "the Orthodox Jewish faith" to disappear "by any means possible" [her words] then "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself." That's a pretty flat "Duh," don't you think. I man, it's practically a tautology, and thus not "controversial" at all. cat Catherineyronwode 05:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

...some ideas that appear to be racist or anti-Semitic. That doesn't make her a racist or anti-semite, but it does indicate that her teachings included those concepts in some form. That doesn't invalidate her other work, but also, we can't pretend it doesn't exist, because it is right there, in her own words (or the words that were dictated to her). Especially when other writers have seen those words and written about them, it is appropriate to report on what has been written, if the source is reliable. --Parsifal Hello 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

First, no one is pretending "it does not exists." Some have criticized her has antisemitic, and the shorter Shnirelman quote I just edited says so and that's been there for a very long time. Also, the two other sources are also quoted on the subject that say the same. So we have three sources--not exactly University Press level stuff, but there they are. In addition, we have at your suggestion which I implemented an introductory section that says some saw her as "racist and anti-Semitic." That's 4 anti-Semitic references.
The problem with Shnirelman citation is that it does not just express the opinion that she was antisemitic but it attributes an array of things to her that are the opposite of what she wrote. It is misinformation, a lie. Perception and opinion that someone is anti-jewish is one thing; lies are another. And from this questionable source, I think it's over the top. It shows NPOV on the part of editors who want to quote obvious misinformation.James 21:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC) James 21:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean to say it shows POV? I assume that's a typo. Eaglizard 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a typo, I mean it shows a non-neutral point of view.James 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"no one is pretending "it does not exists."" - just to be clear, I did not intend to say that anyone is doing that, I was just using that as an expression.
The Shnirelman source is the problem. It is from a self-published source - in what way is that essay self-published? It appears to be published on the website of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and if so, that is clearly a reliable source. Am I misunderstanding something about this?
No, you're not missing anything. I'm missing part of my brain. We've been at this for so many months my synapses have fused. It's Gershom that is the self-published source.
attributes an array of things to her that are the opposite of what she wrote. It is misinformation, a lie. Regarding this, as I understand it, you've removed those other comments that you say are lies, and I concurred with your edit, so it seems this issue has been resolved by that change. Is that correct?


Alas no, someone just put it back in. James 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Aside from that particular edit, I should point out that when a published source makes a statement, it is not up to us as Wikipedia editors to include or omit the statement according to whether or not we believe it is a lie. For one thing, how do you know it's a lie, and not just a mistake by the person who wrote it?


How do I know? Well, remember all those just reverted citations that were part of Bailey passage I added under the Shnirelman quote to create "balance" which you say is original research. Well, if you go to the Bailey references I gave and read what she wrote you'll find that the part of the Shnirelman quote I tried to edit balance is contradicted by what she wrote, i.e. comparing them you must conclude that either Bailey or Shnirelman is wonky.
In case you or future archaeologists of this archive are interested, they are:
On the issue of internationalism, multi-culturalism and mixing of cultures and races. [6] [7] There are lots more, but that's just a sample.
For the part that associates her with the phrases, “Jewish inheritance,” and “Jewish Bible,” and "cleanse " in relation to the Jews or Christianity, just do a keyword search of those phrases using the texts you got from the download. [13] James 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


And, whether the statement by the published source is a lie or a mistake, or whatever... to quote from WP:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
Yes, my passion for honesty blinded me to the letter of the law. I must have subconsciously assumed that there was some balancing Wikipedia rule for filtering out such outrageously flawed arguments.
While we're in the spirit of Wiki rules, have you considered applying the one about proportionality with respect to minority views and the fact that about 1% of Bailey's writings address Jewish issues whereas the Jewish criticism is now many times larger than that. James 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If there is a source that states something an editor feels is wrong, what we can do is seek out other sources that have written rebuttals; then those rebuttals can also be included. If no-one has written a rebuttal though, then Wikipedia policy does not provide for us to do so. --Parsifal Hello 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The irony is, that (not just the flat she's antisemitic part) but all the things I reference above, well, they're so obviously wide of the mark that it might not occur to rational and honest scholars that such issues would ever need addressing. James 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the proportion of the article that mentions the anti-semitism and racism, at this point, I don't see it as excessive. While those ideas may be only a small part of what she wrote, they are very sensitive and important topics. If that element is present in the writing of a spiritual leader, it does need to be mentioned. I haven't read all of her works yet of course, but I have searched through them for mention of Jews, and what I have found so far, I must say, some of it is disturbing. For example, these from the Rays and the Initiations:

"The Jews are governed by the third Ray of Active Intelligence, the energy which permeates and controls matter or substance. They were also, during the years immediately following the war, under the control of a glamour imposed by the Zionist Dictators, who were attempting (somewhat unsuccessfully) to be to the Jewish people what Stalin and his group, and Hitler and his gang, have been to their people. They worked through the same methods - terrorising, withholding information, browbeating their opponents, making false claims and bribing and corrupting. They were and are a minority, but a powerful minority because of their great wealth and their being in positions of power."

The area of difficulty - as is well known - is the Near East and Palestine. The Jews, by their illegal and terrorist activities, have laid a foundation of great difficulty for those who are seeking to promote world peace. As a Jewish member of my Ashram pointed out (and I commend him on his soul vision), the Jews have partially again opened the door to the Forces of Evil, which worked originally through Hitler and his evil gang.

Or these from Esoteric Healing:

when selfishness in business relations and the pronounced manipulative tendencies of the Hebrew people are exchanged for more selfless and honest forms of activity.'"

The Jew, owing to his rays 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, and so better himself and his own people at the expense of others. Release from the present situation will come when the Jew forgets that he is a Jew and becomes in his inmost consciousness an Italian, an American, a Britisher, a German or a Pole. This is not so at this time. The Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage; that of the Negro will not.

(Emphasis added). As a person who knew almost nothing about Alice Bailey before starting to work on this article, I don't see how writings like that can be ignored, or considered unimportant. The article contains a lot about her philosophy and teachings; apparently, her ideas about the Jews are part of her teachings, and that needs to be included or the article would be incomplete and fail WP:NPOV. --Parsifal Hello 00:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Yes, Alice Bailey said that about the Jews. She also wrote positively about the Jews. The positive quotes were posted here, but quickly deleted as spam by the arbitrator. No one here is in denial about Alice Bailey's harsh criticism of humankind's religious, national origin, and racial boundaries as being a hindrance to universal brotherhood. And no one is trying to block another from criticizing what she wrote. Wikipedia has rules, guidelines, and standards, some of us questioned rather they were being followed in the controversy section--that's all this is about. Just asking that the same standards that were absolutely required for the article, be applied to the controversy section.
I am beginning to agree with what I recently heard a comedian say on the "Daily Show", after he confessed that his biography was made up--"Don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia." And not to forget Stephan Colbert saying "I like Wikipedia, I can make knowledge there." [User:Sparklecplenty|Sparklecplenty]] 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, thank you for this ray of sanity. All that was ever wanted is recognition of a problematic aspect in the Bailey writings. It can not be ignored, the discussion of it is small in the context of the whole article, it is at the bottom of the page, and it is below a lot of material Jamesd1 added just for the purpose of immunizing Bailey against the little criticism that is below it in the article. Kwork 12:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Regarding the lead section, James and I were debating the inclusion of date-links (also known as auto-formatted dates) in the lead sentence. As I've inserted them, and they've not been removed, should I assume we're in agreement now? For the record, my reason for including them is that each of the 25 or 30 random bio articles I checked used this format, and I contend all or most do so, making it a de facto standard. This bio should conform, I think.

I also would prefer the link to Manchester (england england) to remain; the link to US I just added for consistency; obviously it adds very little to the article.

Btw, did anyone notice that I added a claim of notability in the lead[14]? Isn't it just awful how some editors like me keep trying to remove or bury any reference to criticism of Mrs Bailey? Somebody stop me, please. Eaglizard 21:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eaglizard, the format thing is no big deal, my ongoing concern had more to do with peppering lots of low value Wiki links throughout the article, which at one time it had. If only your format concern was the most serious matter to be dealt with... James 22:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, James, if we just keep moving forward, we'll get there eventually. :) See, I spent two years putting off expanding this article because I didn't feel qualified. I kept hoping some better writer would come along and summarize Bailey's teachings, and now you have. So, I'm just trying to apply what skills I do possess, mostly in the areas of formatting and copyediting. Eaglizard 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Alice A. Bailey on the Jews

Parsifal wrote:

I haven't read all of her works yet of course, but I have searched through them for mention of Jews, and what I have found so far, I must say, some of it is disturbing. For example, these from the Rays and the Initiations: --Parsifal

"The Jews are governed by the third Ray of Active Intelligence, the energy which permeates and controls matter or substance. They were also, during the years immediately following the war, under the control of a glamour imposed by the Zionist Dictators, who were attempting (somewhat unsuccessfully) to be to the Jewish people what Stalin and his group, and Hitler and his gang, have been to their people. They worked through the same methods - terrorising, withholding information, browbeating their opponents, making false claims and bribing and corrupting. They were and are a minority, but a powerful minority because of their great wealth and their being in positions of power."

The area of difficulty - as is well known - is the Near East and Palestine. The Jews, by their illegal and terrorist activities, have laid a foundation of great difficulty for those who are seeking to promote world peace. As a Jewish member of my Ashram pointed out (and I commend him on his soul vision), the Jews have partially again opened the door to the Forces of Evil, which worked originally through Hitler and his evil gang.

Or these from Esoteric Healing:

when selfishness in business relations and the pronounced manipulative tendencies of the Hebrew people are exchanged for more selfless and honest forms of activity.'"

The Jew, owing to his rays 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, and so better himself and his own people at the expense of others. Release from the present situation will come when the Jew forgets that he is a Jew and becomes in his inmost consciousness an Italian, an American, a Britisher, a German or a Pole. This is not so at this time. The Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage; that of the Negro will not.

(Emphasis added). As a person who knew almost nothing about Alice Bailey before starting to work on this article, I don't see how writings like that can be ignored, or considered unimportant. The article contains a lot about her philosophy and teachings; apparently, her ideas about the Jews are part of her teachings, and that needs to be included or the article would be incomplete and fail WP:NPOV. --Parsifal Hello 00:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


The more and the more synthesis the better

Good that you're reading the above. A little reading of AAB, like a little knowledge, is a dangerous thing as shown by the history of this discussion group. So here are yet more to think about. If one reads the whole of what she said on the Jews, and can mange to synthesize it in your mind, without excluding or selecting toward this or that bias, then good. So here below are more passages to make your assessment easier: James 00:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for organizing and posting those many quotes. I've put them in a collapsible box to make the page easier to navigate.
Oh you are very clever. What a groovy move! :) Eaglizard 10:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
While you see a way to synthesize those quotes into something positive, to me they further reveal an anti-semitic attitude; couched in the flowery idea of world unity is a directed intention to change and dissolve the Jews and their culture, intermarry them, solve the "Jewish Problem" by their absorption. And she was aware that what she was writing would be controversial. In the first quote you listed, she wrote that her comments about the Jews "will evoke much criticism". And apparently, she was correct; it seems she wouldn't mind having the criticisms in the article.
At this point, it seems there is not much to be gained from discussing whether or not she was an anti-semite. She said she was not, and she used the classic "some of my best friends are Jews" line. For me, her writings are new; but I understand what I am reading. The anti-Jewish sentiment is present. I can see it clearly; on the other hand, you see something different. I don't believe that will change through further discussion.
The only bridge we can build is to use the Wikipedia policies and focus on the article. I came to this page at your request, and Kwork's, to help the article attain and keep a neutral viewpoint. That's what I'll try to do. --Parsifal Hello 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Wiki Rule on Proportionality

Regarding the proportion of the article that mentions the anti-semitism and racism, at this point, I don't see it as excessive. While those ideas may be only a small part of what she wrote, they are very sensitive and important topics. If that element is present in the writing of a spiritual leader, it does need to be mentioned. Parsifal Hello 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Its more than mentioned. It is stated four times with three citations and a substantial section of its own. As I read the Wiki rule on proportionality, it is too long and gives undue weight to a minority view, and referencing as it does texts which represent 1% of the total AAB writings. And never mind that we have a permanent record here with a discussion where 90% of it is preoccupied with this one issue of the Jews.
With regard to my attempt at balance by inclusion of the short list of AAB references that I laid along side the Shnirelman quotation, you insisted in apply the letter of the Wikipedia rule by classifying it as original research. Now, with regard to proportionality you cite as reason for not exactly following the rules, a personal and subjective assessment that "I don't see it as excessive," and they are "important topics." It seems you've made a value judgement here as reason for not applying the Wikipedia rules in the same rigorous way you did with my effort at honesty. Is this even handed? What am I missing here? James 01:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Wow! This is insane here. I go out to a show for a few hours and come back to an archive length page with 52 edits just in a few hours.
Anti-semitism stuff keeps getting more and more focus on the article yet James has tried to show that there is a bit of context to the statements (not to excuse them, the reference should be in the article, but different people can draw different conclusions by reading about them in context).
I do think WP:UNDUE is at play here. Alice Bailey is best known for her work in the esoteric field and her books on things like the 7 Rays and Glamour, etc. They are studied by schools all over the world and her books are sold in New Age bookstores everywhere (even in our local Barnes and Nobles). None of us non-Jews are saying anything like cut out the anti-semitism stuff and indeed, James has added info about it even in the lead introduction.
Perhaps y'all can go and start another page on AAB and anti-semitism. In proper perspective, this encyclopedic entry is about Alice Bailey, not Alice Bailey's anti-semitism. Renee 02:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about others, but I have no agenda to make the article about "Alice Bailey's anti-semitism" as you put it.
Let there be some mention of it, then move on and improve the article. I see no reason to continue discussing that topic, unless there is an attempt to keep it out of the article. You're right - mostly she is known for the esoteric teachings - and the article should reflect that, though it should reflect the controversies too because they are present, and even Alice Bailey herself wrote in one of the quotes James provided that she knew that would happen. But yes, the controversy is not the main focus and the article should be neutral. --Parsifal Hello 03:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Parsifal, Yes, This sounds like a good plan. Renee 04:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Parsifal, unless there is an attempt to keep it out, there's no reason to discuss the topic any further than it has been. Unfortunately, there has never been any such attempt, that I'm aware of. So why are we still discussing it? Wish I knew. Eaglizard 11:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Get a grip!

I dropped by today to find nine acres of argumentation that the article by Victor Shnirelman was a lie and that it was self-published. Get a grip. It was published by Hebrew University!

* Shnirelman, Victor A. Russian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism in Acta no. 13, Analysis of Current Trends in Antisemitism. The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1998. Retrieved August 22, 2007

Oh, right! It was Gershom who was self-published. But what he said wasn't a lie, because he just quoted Alice Bailey.

Gershom, Shnirelman -- i know, i know, it's so dang hard to tell all those greedy terroist Jews apart, what with their funny gutteral names and their constant davening and those NOSES. But one of them was lying and the other one was self-published ... we know that for a fact. Even if we accused the wrong one of lying and the wrong one of being self-published, it's all the same, because anyway, they're Jews, so we know that they are selfish and obsolete and they REPUDIATED CHRIST, for God's sake, so they must be married off to Aryans (but not to Chinese or Japanese, or, God forbid, Negroes, whom no one must marry) and they must immediately give up their God-fosaken KOSHER BUTCHER SHOPS which are impeding the eternal progress of humanity and the dawning of the Aquarian Age! Not that there's anything BAD about being Jewish, mind you. Why, some of Alice Bailey's best friends were Jews.

Might as well laugh, folks, because getting mad isn't worth it.

cat, as Jewish as the Prophet Miriam, as wise as King Solomon and as patient as Job. Catherineyronwode 04:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Everyone is a translator, and "translates" according to who and what they are. As I suggested earlier, we see things, not as they are, but as we are. Objectivity, impersonality, pure reason, insight, true synthesis--we try, when we are honest, to arrive at these by transcending our instinctive bias.
Your paragraph above is constructed using certain principles. They are: Take things out of context, rearrange words, substitute your own terms for the originals, fudge on the specifics, nudge this or that concept over the edge, and leave out anything that contradicts your "translation." Have a lovely day, James 15:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Did you read where James acknowledged his mistake?
No, you're not missing anything. I'm missing part of my brain. We've been at this for so many months my synapses have fused. It's Gershom that is the self-published source...James 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Please review this. Renee 04:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Hear ye, hear ye, one and all. Be it officially known throughout the land that James has admitted mistakes and that he will likely commit errors in the future and when this occurs will admit these as well. It is shocking concept i know, and not one many humans are intimate with. Paint me as I am then. If you leave out the scars and wrinkles, I will find it harder to forgive. (please note that "i" above was not capitalized as it should be). James 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


I would laugh. If it was funny. "... as Jewish as the Prophet Miriam, as wise as King Solomon and as patient as Job ...". And so modest, yet! This appears to be nothing but a diatribe, cat; it adds no content to the discussion that I can see. Personally, I think there's more than enough noise on the line already -- we don't get paid by the word here, you know. Say, I read a great little article the other day, called Alice Bailey. Why don't you read it, and tell me what you think about it? That would be cool! Eaglizard 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eaglizard, it was not Catherineyronwode who introduced controversy to this list. There was plenty of that before she arrived as an editor, and we are all editing in that over charged environment. But, leaving that aside, are you now willing to live with the criticism section of the article? Kwork 12:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"...he just quoted Alice Bailey"; Not

Above you wrote: Oh, right! It was Gershom who was self-published. But what he said wasn't a lie, because he just quoted Alice Bailey.-- Catherineyronwode

You may be confusing Gershom and Shnirelman. The lie I was citing is Shnirelman's, specifically these parts of his AAB attack:

  • "extremely negative view of multi-culturalism"
  • "object to the 'mixture' of kinds"
  • "support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration."
  • "Julius Evola"
  • "Jewish inheritance,”
  • “Jewish Bible,”
  • "cleanse " in relation to the Jews

The problem is, Shnirelman doesn't quote AAB on these issue and then attack that which would be the honest thing to do. Instead, he just makes up some things and cites words that she never used and are the opposite of what she wrote.

He associates her with the phrases, “Jewish inheritance,” and “Jewish Bible,” and "cleanse " in relation to the Jews or Christianity--just do a keyword search of those words and phrases using the texts from [15] You will find no such quotes or statements. He made them up. They are not even paraphrase and he gives no references or quotes from AAB that use them.

He associates her name with "Julius Evola" whereas she explicitly condemed fascism. Search her texts for "fascism" and see.

On the issue of internationalism, multi-culturalism and mixing of cultures and races AAB wrote the opposite of what Shnirelman states. [8] [9] There are lots more, but that's just a sample. James 15:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

James admits to what is probably another error

On further reflection and reading what I wrote above, I think Parsifal is right in that the amount of Jewish-themed critical text is not excessive. I think this is particularly the case because the part of the Shnirelman quote I've criticized as a lie is so over-the-top that it weakens his argument. Reasonable and moderated arguments are more effective in communicating their point. On looking at it, I think Shnirelman's is so radical that, in the context of the whole article, it undermines itself. Consequently, I'm no longer especially concerned about it. At best, to use a mismatched but apt phrase, his quote falls into the category of "preaching to the choir."

OK, pro Jewish brothers and sisters: if were good as is on your favorite theme, let's move on. I dare you. James 16:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

James, it's good to read that you no longer feel concerned about this issue; thanks for deciding to take a more relaxed approach.
But I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the phrase "pro Jewish brothers and sisters".
Let us meditate on the teachings of Bailey herself:

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. — A Treatise on White Magic, p. 421

... from her words that you posted on this page yesterday. --Parsifal Hello 02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)



Parsifal, please see my response below titled, "Pro Humanity" James 15:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Beauty of Unity

I'm so happy, James, that you have, for now, decided not to obsess over the fact that this article contains a few paragraphs of criticsm of Alice Bailey and will let Professor Shnirelman's comments remain, without constant reversions and attemts to chop them apart. I hope that in times to come you will see this as a good day. I am optimistic about that.

To Eagilizard, who did not appreciate my tongue-in-cheek parody, my apologies for wasting your time. Humour is a delicate flower, and its blooms are shy.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 02:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


I've probably reiterated it 10 times and I guess one more won't hurt. I have never been opposed to including elements of criticism in the article. I have myself inserted new ones. What I have advocate is a proportionate picture using reliable high quality sources and an honest and scholarly critique of AAB on the Jews and other issues as well. James 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist

This was stated by Alice Bailey:

I have been officially on Hitler's ‘blacklist’ because of my defense of the Jews whilst lecturing up and down western Europe. The Unfinished Autobiography

Because it is in the article, and makes an historically verifiable claim, I have asked many times that the truth of this claim be documented. If true it is something to be very proud of, but even the Lucus Trust had no documentation on their site concerning it. My view is that the quote should not be in the article without a document showing that it is true.

If her statement is true, how did Hitler come to know of her? Had he read her books? Bailey was not famous, but was well known only in esoteric circles. Kwork 11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


We've been over this ground already. I suggest everyone search the archives for "blacklist" and "black list"
The Bailey quote is not a "claim" that requires verification. It is a report of something she wrote. James 15:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
In the same way the quote in our article that says,"her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself." does not make a claim that requires verification. It uses words in a way that she never did and is therefore misleading, but never mind; I've learned Wiki doesn't care. It is a report of what was published. James 15:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


It is one of the weakness of Wiki rules that statements
published in certain places, places, no matter how half-baked
and unsupportable they are, can legitimately be 
included in a Wiki article.  
James 15:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


So, you are saying that no documentation exists? If it does exist, why hide it? I would think this is something, if it is true, you would want documented. It would be such a mark of distinction for Alice Bailey. Kwork 16:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


I did not say it exists or that it does not exist. I have no knowledge of it one way or the other. That, I think, is clear--except I guess to you. What exist is AAB's report about it which is sufficient for inclusion in the biography. AAB reported she attempted suicide and you are happy to include it. AAB said she was on Hitler's blacklist and you are not so happy. Sorry, you we can't exclude either one.
"Hide?" Are you serious? The only thing that seems to be hidden is the meaning of my words whenever I speak to you. James 16:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You are telling me about rules when I am asking about documentation that must exist if the Alice Bailey's claim about being on Hitler's blacklist is true. If the claim is true why are you arguing about rules instead of producing the evidence? It would be a nice addition to the article if her claim was backed up. But, I assure you, I will not pursue this any further; nor will I, again, remove the statement from the article. Kwork 18:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro Humanity

Goodmorning Parsifal, James 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You asked:

But I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the phrase "pro Jewish brothers and sisters".

There is debate here. In debate, we have pro and con positions. In this forum, the contrary positions and interests are clear. This is a realistic assessment. There is group here interested in developing the AAB article along sound lines. There is another group present who are identified with Jewish issue to the virtual exclusion of all else. I referred to this group earlier as defense "league" and then had to explain myself in detail as now. The relevant part of what I wrote earlier:

"This group has a mission here, which is to try to define AAB as anti-Semitic. I think this is a clear statement of fact. I am happy that this league exists and am grateful for it. I am certain however, that it has chosen the wrong field of battle in this forum and article.

I myself am pro-Jewish. I am pro-humanity. I am for all the underdogs and oppressed groups of the world. I approve defending the Jewish people against all actual anti-Semitic idiots of which there are still many out there. I am sorry to see the "league" that is here spend there considerable energy on trying to brand AAB as anti-Jewish when there is such crying need for their skills and expertise elsewhere in the world where it would really help and against targets deserving of their attention. Again I say that AAB was severely critical of the Jewish people and of many other groups as well. Yes, she was not "politically correct" in her writings. But her statements are simply tough love and there is no hatred in them. Her message was and is love. I ask you to step back a bit and reconsider. I do not expect you will hear these words and follow my suggestion, but I cast these thoughts into space anyway. Be well. Kind Regards to all, James. James 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)" [16]

Yes, I am pro-humanity. I am pro-Jewish because the Jews are part of humanity and so part of me. I believe I have had Jewish incarnations and black incarnations as have virtually all of humanity.

I am not "pro-Jewish" in the sense that some in this forum are. That is I am not "for" the Jews in the sense of being "against" Alice Bailey. Parsifal my friend, if friend you are in deed, do try to get a realistic sense of what is happening in this discussion. Allow me to illustrate with a statement from Nameless Date Stamp, AKA Catherine:

"you and your pro-Bailey cohorts are trying to turn a neutral piece into a big flattery-fest for a Jew-hating racist." [17] (Nameless Date Stamp) 08:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to my use of the "pro" prefix, Renee referred to a "pro-Bailey site" [18] but no one thought it remarkable. Sethie spoke of a "pro-Bailey spin" and no one thought anything of it. [19] Nameless Date Stamp (Cathrine) refered to "pro-Jewish sentences" [Nameless Date Stamp] but no time out was called on that occasion.

James, thanks for your explanation. I saw a fundamental disconnect in your use of that word, so I pointed it out. Others may have written in that way before, and you've quoted some of that. But I was not involved in those discussions, so I don't know how I would have reacted at the time.
Using the phrase "pro-Jewish" implies a division into camps where there are others who are "anti-Jewish". I don't believe you intend to project that meaning, and I don't believe you feel that way, but the use of that language creates that division. That's why I placed the Bailey quote in my comment.
I don't know about the others here, but I am not "pro-Bailey" or "anti-Bailey"; and I don't even know what you mean by "pro-Jewish" in this context; we're not having a discussion about the state of anti-semitism in the world today, we're discussing the writings of a historical figure. If what you mean by "pro-Jewish" is "anti-antisemitism", well that's would be more clear, and from what you written it seems even you would accept that label, so that would put us all in the same camp.
What I am is "pro-Accuracy". Bailey's writings include anti-Semitic and racist statements. And, they were not just made in passing, she wrote chapters about the "Jewish Problem" and the "Negro Problem", and she put forth "solutions" for those "problems." It doesn't matter what percentage of her words were on those topics; some topics only need a few words to make them important in the context of a person's life and writings. Even Bailey knew that those parts of her writings would get extra attention; she wrote that she would be criticized for those statements and she was right about that. --Parsifal Hello 19:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Parsifal, thanks for all your input. This, in particular, is precisely the kind of objectively neutral comment I admire most. It's so nice to see a genuinely critical attitude of mind on this page; I wish all editors, including me, could be more like this. (How's that for a normative bias?) :) Eaglizard 20:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The prefix "pro' in depth

About the Bailey quote you shared:

"He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. — A Treatise on White Magic, p. 421"

At the moment I wrote "pro Jewish brothers and sisters" the line you quote above came to mind. But I left phrase as is because it is realistically correct and honest. I thought someone would question it, if not attack me personally for it. You questioned; thanks.

"Pro" and "con" are debate terms and this, in its better moments, has been a debate. Three is nothing wrong with taking the affirmative, or arguing the pro and con of this or that view. This is the same "pro" as in the words "promote" and "protect." The pro-Jewish folks here are trying to promote their agenda and their view of AAB. There is a group of people here gathered for the express purpose of defending the Jewish identity by attacking AAB whom they see as " Jew-hating racist."

I think the "partisanship" as AAB refers to above relates to placing ones narrow group identifications above the good of humanity at as a whole. Consider the irony here. This is the AAB that, in the eyes of certain folks made such blatantly "anti" statements about the Jews that she must be clearly and explicitly branded in this article as a " Jew-hating racist." And fascists. Of course AAB's works are critical and take strongly "pro" and "con" positions on all manner of things. She wrote for and against many things. So this bit of advice about not using a "pro" is applicable in a certain context. It's not a biblical axiom for application to any and all circumstances. Underlying the advice in this quote it is the ideal that affirms that we are all one, and that our primary allegiance is to humanity as a whole, and that we should not be extremist or fanatics with regard to our group identifications.

For a bit of context, here is a quote to lay along side the one you shared with me above:James 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Hierarchy is not neutral. It is one with the right element in every nation and set against all separate, isolationist and materialistic attitudes." The Destiny of Nations, p. 65

Pro and Con Continued

"The Hierarchy" according to Bailey, that is. All of these messages are from beings that no person has ever seen, and the defect of channeled teaching is that it is possible for a channeler to claim an authority behind the teaching when there is really nothing to show.
In fact, in the introduction to White Magic, it is said that the students of the teaching must take the responsibility of deciding for themselves what is true and what is not true in the books. But when a student says (and I was a student of the teaching) that they have decided something in the books is not true, it is called "partisanship", or worse. Alice Bailey actually rejected the idea that the Master would be taken as an authority, because she said the Masters opposed established authority, aside from the authority of the inner voice of the students own soul. Jamesd1 hates my participation in these discussions because he knows that I actually studied with teachers who were close co-workers of Alice Bailey, and in my view he is the one that is distorting the teaching by insisting on the authority of the books....a claim that Bailey herself rejected. Kwork 16:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


James, I agree there is nothing wrong with using "pro" and "anti" as debating terms. But that's not what the Bailey quote was about, that quote was about applying those words to people, to put them in groups. What she said in that quote was quite astute; that the person who uses those terms is affected by their own use of the words, as she wrote: "Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive."
With respect, I find this comment of yours of concern:
"The pro-Jewish folks here are trying to promote their agenda and their view of AAB. There is a group of people here gathered for the express purpose of defending the Jewish identity by attacking AAB whom they see as " Jew-hating racist." And fascists. "
I recommend that you re-read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and also check out WP:COOL. --Parsifal Hello 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Which of these are four points (contrary to my statement) are you asserting:
  • There is no pro-Jewish group in the forum
  • The Jewish position is not being defended here
  • AAB is not being attacked here
  • AAB was not accused of being "Jew-hating racist" and facists
I submit to you that an objective analysis of the sentence you found "of concern" is a realistic and accurate description of the facts. You may be projecting an emotion on it which is not present.
I also think that you need to take another closer look at the whole archive and all that has been said and by whom.James 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I found your statement of concern because you are discussing editors and not the topic. Not only are you discussing them, you are accusing them of bad faith behavior. That kind of discussion does not belong here and does not do anything to further the progress with the article. I sincerely hope you do read the links I posted and take them to heart.
Regarding your question about the four points:
  • There is no pro-Jewish group in the forum
I still don't know what you mean by "pro-Jewish", so I can't reply directly about that. If what you mean is "anti-Anti-Semitism", that I can understand. So, I'll assume that's what you mean. In that case, I would say, there are some editors working on this page who believe that anti-semitism and racism are serious problems in society. Do those editors form a "group"? I don't know...
  • The Jewish position is not being defended here
Again, I don't know what you mean by "the Jewish position". There are people all over the world who deplore anti-semitism and racism and who are not Jews.
  • AAB is not being attacked here
Correct, Alice Bailey is not under attack. It is not an attack to report in an encyclopedia article what someone has said, and what others have said about their writings. If the writings include controversial material, the controversy should be reported.
  • AAB was not accused of being "Jew-hating racist" and facists
I haven't seen it, but I suppose someone might have said that. In general though, I don't see that attitude here. I believe that editors here want the article to be accurate, which means it must include information about important controversial topics in her teachings. As I pointed out previously, Bailey herself knew that her comments about "the Negro Problem" and "the Jewish Problem" and "Intermarriage" would generate extra attention and criticism, and she was right about that. --Parsifal Hello 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)



Parsifal, there is an agenda. Are you truly able to be neutral about that. About civility, did you read Catherine's last post, it sounded racist? And you keep going on about James Pro remark. Did you read all the posts on the players that Renee provided you? Non-Jewish players are character assassinated as anti-Semitic for asking that Wiki rules are followed. How many times does it have to be said, there isn't another faction against the Jewish editors, unless you call us the Wiki rule people. Sparklecplenty 21:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think its true that there is an association of persons here who desire a severe characterization of AAB with regard to the Jews. And its true some of these have been uncivil toward the individuals who took a more positive view of Bailey. But I think its OK to take a positive view or a negative view on this hot issue. I certainly am against some of the editing approaches that violated Wiki rules in order to paint her according to personal preference--there is a long history of this. The trick is to try to get our emotions out of the way so that our edits are objective, even though we may be personally positive or negative about AAB.
When I examine my feelings about the personal-feeling-painters I don't find an emotion of exasperation, and the feeling that that they sometimes drive me crazy. But I believe, that underneath their misapplied zeal, they are good people. Who knows but that I might like them a lot were we to meet in person. We can believe firmly that someone is wrong without hating them or harboring a desire to bring them harm. I'm not "against" or "anti" anyone in that way. I just call things as I see them, and try to do my best to be honest and balanced in my approach. James 21:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Again and again I have been accused of this. That I have an "agenda" to destroy the reputation and good work of Alice Bailey. It impresses me as a use of what George Lakoff calls "framing":

Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame. [20]

It seems, as it is being applied here, a form of psychological war aiming at discrediting the me, and two other editors, by describing our intentions as, essentially, bad; and by repeating that again and again. By that repeating accusations as frequently as possible Jamesd1/Sparklecplenty hope that the accusations will stick even though the accusations are unsupported.

I have tried, and I certainly have put effort into, getting the material about Bailey's antisemitism included in the article. That material has sourcing, and deserves to be there. If Jamesd1/Sparklecplenty think it does not belong, I understand; but they are wrong. Kwork 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Well there's the problem, you seem to think it's about personas--You, James, Sparkleplenty, and others. Not!!! And no matter how many times you're been told you don't believe that our motives are to write a Wiki approved biography. You still believe we're writing fiction. Fiction novels seem to be acceptable on the discussion page. I see there is one being written on Parsifal page. Will she /he take fiction as fact? Sparklecplenty 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I just said it was using framing to settle an issue. Where did I say it was personalities? Kwork 23:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall your saying "this is about personalities." But your words in the history of this forum, have made it about personalties. James 01:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


About framing, I'm not asking you nicely, just stop using my name in your framing! Sparklecplenty 01:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Jamesd1/Sparklecplenty, I don't take orders, and I will continue say what I think is the right thing. I will continue to to that, if you like it or not. (If you think I have done something wrong, put it on the Administrator's Notice Board.) Kwork 11:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


I recommend that you re-read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and also check out WP:COOL. --Parsifal Hello 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Sparklecplenty 14:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Further about the "blacklist quote"

[Please use talk page headings to identify the topic, not the name of an editor, that will help keep the discussion clearly on-topic, and not personal. Thanks. I've updated the section heading and moved your heading to the line following. --Parsifal Hello 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)]

Note to Parsifal:

I see you just inserted under the blacklist reference: "However, no third-party source has been found as of this writing to verify that claim."

I did not find the phrase "no third-party source has been found" attached to any other Wikipedia article. [21]

And "to verify that claim" occurs only on talk sites in wiki: [22]

I also found no precedent for this with similar phrases. Show me that this is a common Wiki practice and/or cite the specific Wikipedia rule your using for this edit. Otherwise, it should be removed. James 20:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think your edit here is close to original research. The right way to do it would be to use a reliable published source that says "Scholar x states that they did an exhaustive search failed to find in corroboration for Bailey's claim." James 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Wikie way is we layout what the subject has said, and what others have said and we let the reader ask the questions. The reader doesn't need us, as editors, to underscore that something is a claim that hasn't been verified. The reader can see that it is a claim by Bailey and choose to accept it or reject it or seek confirmation for it. The implication of your edit is "this is claim making and therefore suspect." This is also on the edge of non-neutral point of view. James 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I placed that there is that her statement is a claim of fact, it is not a statement of her belief. As a claim of fact, it must be supported by a third-party reference. Including her claim implies that it is "true", whereas actually, no-one knows if it's accurate. In addition, she even added to her comment that she knew the reason she was on the blacklist. How could she know that? It's just not a solid quote for Wikipedia.
When using quotes from a person's autobiography, it's a reliable source when they report facts that they actually know. But her claim of being on the blacklist is very weak as a statement from a primary source, especially since no-one actually saw his blacklist (which is why there are no secondary sources to support her claim).
As I consider this further, I think that quote should be removed. It's just conjecture on her part and we don't have any secondary sources.
If you feel that something needs to be there to who that she has defended the Jews in her lectures or teachings, I suggest that you find a different quote from her where she makes the same point without mentioning a fact that can't be supported. As you've pointed out, she was vocal in her support of the Jews, so I'm sure it will not be hard to find an equally effective quote to make that point and keep the balance you are seeking. Using a different quote to use would solve this issue cleanly. --Parsifal Hello 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I found a way to edit that section to keep the fact of what she said and avoid the question about sources. I believe the phrasing there is now WP:V and WP:NPOV. Check it out and see if you like it. --Parsifal Hello 21:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's OK. I modified it a bit and used the exact quote. Check it out and see if you like it. I'm not attached to my version; feel free to revert if you think your last was better. James 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer to revert; I've taken you up on that. I think that because this particular quote has no way to be verified, it's better to paraphrase it, and I believe I've done so fairly and accurately. There are many quotes from Bailey in the article; some prose is good too, making for smoother reading. --Parsifal Hello 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


I tweaked it again, leaving it as paraphrase, using "believe" in second part and "stated" in the first, because in her bio she didn't say "I believe" but expressed it with certainty so this more closedly reflects her actual words. Best Thoughts, James 01:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Bailey's "Hitler's Blacklist" claim has been difficult to verify

The reason no one has yet verified Alice Bailey's claim to have been on "Hitler's blacklist" is that she did not give the proper name of the book. It was called the Sonderfahndungsliste -- which means Special Search List.

There were several of these Special Search Lists created over the years.

The original German version, published in 1933-34, was intended for use in arresting German Jews, Gysies, homosexuals, and political opponents to the Nazis. As you will read below, finding their names on the original Special Search List caused many famous Jews to immediately flee from Germany.

There was a Sonderfahndungsliste G. B. prepared for the planned invasion of Great Britain and a Sonderfahndungsliste UdSSR for the invasion of Russia. As you will see below, there was also an edition for Italy, an edition for Switzerland, an edition for Australia/New Zealand, and an edition for the USA.

The Special Search List for Great Britain was made public after the war, and it is most often known as "The Black Book." This Special Search List GB has been reprinted:

The Black Book (Sonderfahndungsliste G. B.) by Reichssicherheitshauptamt [compiled by Walter Schellenberg] Binding: Paperback, Date Published: 1989, ISBN 0901627518

Thus, with a copy of the book in hand, Alice Bailey's claim could be verified -- unless she was listed in the USA edition.

At Wikipedia, the list -- but only the GB version -- is referenced as The Black Book and it is noted that "Many of the people on the list had already died, as in the case of Sigmund Freud, or had fled, as had Paul Robeson."

The following are google snippets rgarding the list and various people on the list

Detailed description

Himmler´s special search list for invasion of the Great Britain. A list of more than 2,300 persons ranging from Mr. Winston Churchill to Jewish refugees whose arrest was to be "automatic" after the Wehrmacht's victory found in the Berlin headquarters of the Reich Security Police in 1945.

Mr. Churchill and his Cabinet Ministers were carefully documented. France's present leader was listed simply as "De Gaulle, former French general." Prominent refugees included Von Starhemberg, the former Austrian Heimwehr chief; Paderewski, the pianist-statesman; Eduard Benes, Jan Masaryk, Stefan Zweig, Dr. Hermann Rauschning, the former German naval captain Franz Rintelen, and Dr. Sigmund Freud.

The list also included all available responsible officials of the exiled Governments or the National Committees of occupied France, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria, as well as large numbers of refugees from Germany.

There were two entries for Mr. Attlee - "Attlee, Clement Richard, major," and "Attlee, Clemens, leader Labour party." Lord Beaverbrook appeared as "Beaverbrook," Duncan Sandys as "Dunkan Sandys," Vic Oliver as "Olivier, Jewish actor."

From the word of arts and literature were listed Jacob Epstein, Noel Coward, David Low, Paul Robeson, Dame Sybil Thorndike, and such authors as Douglas Reed, Aldous Huxley, and Rebecca West.

Among the political entries were: Lady Astor, "enemy of Germany," George Lansbury, "rules German emigrant political circles"; Richard Acland, "anti-Fascist Liberal M.P."; Robert Vansittart, "leadership of British Intelligence Service, Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Foreign Office"; Neville Chamberlain, "political, former Prime Minister.""

Members of the peerage included Lord Baden-Powell, Strabolgi, Burnham, Dawson of Penn, Camrose, Derby, Burghley, and Simon. Other notable people were Sir Archibald Sinclair, Sir Walter Citrine, and Sir Stafford Cripps. Lord Harewood and Lord Reading were listed together with their family names, "Lascelles" and "Isaac[s]."

Education was represented by, among others, Professor Julian Huxley, Cyril Edwin Joad, Harold Laski, and Philip J. Noel-Baker. Mrs. Beatrice Webb and Dr. Chaim Weizmann were also in the list.

Mr. David Low, the cartoonist, said: "That is all right. I had them on my list too."

POLITICAL LEADERS

[Count] Otto of Habsburg's name was at the top of Hitler's blacklist

[Greville Janner, Member of the House of Lords of England, wrote] "my father [Sir Barnett Janner], who was a leading Jew in England, was near the top of Hitler's blacklist."

[Socialist, journalist (and, later, environmental conservationist) Gertrude "Trudi" Duby] Blom herself was placed on Hitler's blacklist in 1934, a “status” that forced her to change apartments every night to avoid arrest by the secret police.

David Capper (1901-1974), a founder member of the Communist Party of Britain[...] was officially registered in Hitler's blacklist

[During Hitler's raid to save Mussolini, Pietro] Badoglio [Duke of Addis Abeba] chose to take preventive measures ...[to]... make it more difficult for Skorzeny's commandos to arrest the Italians on Hitler's blacklist.

In 1938, [British politician, Foreign Secretary] Anthony Eden drew hush when he told the Club he was on Hitler's Black List. Thousands of people were turned away from his speech that evening...

CELEBRITIES, ENTERTAINERS, WRITERS, CARTOONISTS

In 1933, when Kurt Weill found his name at the top of Hitler's blacklist of modern -- and therefore degenerate -- artists, the composer left Germany

[Bertold] Brecht was number five on Hitler's blacklist.

[Photographer Francis Carl Fuerst wrote,] “When I was on the Hitler's blacklist, I worked, until it was impossible, under the maiden-name of my wife.”

She [Virginia Woolf] and [her husband] Leonard Woolf] knew they were on Hitler's blacklist, and, like many of their friends, had made suicide plans.

[Danish] Victor Borge [...] became famous in Europe as a musician and comedian, but his barbed wit aimed from the stage at the Nazi Party put him high on Hitler's blacklist

...actress... Myrna Loy who was on Hitler's blacklist for criticizing him

During the second world war [British composer Richard Allwyn]] continued to teach both flute and composition at the Royal Academy and to write film scores for the Ministry of Information and the Army Film Unit - universally famous films such as Desert Victory, The Way Ahead and The True Glory as well as many documentaries, officially "secret" and propaganda films. These so raised the wrath of the Nazis that he had the dubious distinction of being included on Hitler's "black-list"!

[re: British classical composer Vaughn Williams's 4th Symphony:] Much was made of its violence and how it reflected the state of the times (1935) and VW's anger towards Facism. Vaughan Williams denied this. Nevertheless by 1939 [Vaughan Williams]'s music was on Hitler's black list.

[Australian celebrity-author-painter-sailor Robert Carter wrote of a sailing voyage to America:] "The Yanks will give us no information about minefields and coastal stations, even though we are ‘neutral' and Oscar [Malmberg, his Swedish sailing partner, had been] on Hitler's black list since before the war!"

David Low - Kiwi [New Zealand] Cartoonist on Hitler's Blacklist

[James Newton Russell, Australian cartoonist] created two satirical strips - Adolf, Hermann and Musso and Schmidt der Sphy. According to folklore, they earned Jim a mention in Hitler's blacklist.

Soon after the war commenced, British [cartoonist Donald] Zec produced the first of a series of cartoons for the Daily Mirror, poking fun at the Dictators (putting himself on Hitler's blacklist).

SCIENTISTS

[Albert Einstein:] Was Einstein's name really on a Hitler hit list? Just months after the Nazis took power in 1933, as we've noted, the pro-Nazis press announced a price on his head. More evidence comes from an unlikely —the FBI's Einstein file. As part of an unrelated investigation, agents interviewed an Interior Department official, Thomas W. Hunter: 'Mr. Hunter stated that he personally had seen a list of names described to him as Hitler's "black list" ... of Jewish refugees wanted by the Nazis "dead or alive." ... He recalled ... this list... included Albert Einstein, the famous scientist. ..."

After the war, [Sydney] Chapman [a mathematician], H. Levy and GP Thomson were discovered to have been on Hitler's 'black list', the 'Sonderfahndungsliste GB', as among those to be arrested, and presumably executed, after Germany's planned invasion of Britain.

[Carl Gustav] Jung was on Hitler's "blacklist" and slated for capture if the Nazis invaded Switzerland.

FALSE CLAIMANTS

[British stage magician Jasper] Maskelyne's dramatic claim that he was put on Hitler's black list has never been verified. It was probably a smart publicity stunt.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I fail to see your point, cat. Why did you post all of this here? Eaglizard 20:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Black Book (Sonderfahndungsliste G. B.) by Reichssicherheitshauptamt [compiled by Walter Schellenberg] Binding: Paperback, Date Published: 1989, ISBN 0901627518. I can not find this book any place. Even the research collection of NYPL does not have it. Perhaps you have the title wrong? Schellenberg was Hitler's chief of counterintelligence. Kwork 22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Eaglizard, my point was that there were questions about Bailey's claim to have been on "Hitler's Black List" and none of the folks editing the Bailey article seemed to know anything about the list, so i spent an hour googling for references, to help us all see whether the list existed, the purpose of the list, and the kinds of names it included (scientists, politicians, military leaders, celebrities, witers, artists -- both Jews and non-Jews).
What i found was that there were several lists. Note that the original pre-war list of 1933 was for the use of troops whose instructions were to arrest Jewish German citizens within Germany. The later lists, like the GB list, were military intelligence documents that were never implemented, as Hitler never did invade Great Britain, Switzerland, Australia, etc.
My main goal was to determine if Bailey was making an "extraordinary" claim. It seems that the claim is verifiable, and even in the absense of hard verification, it now seems likely to me that Bailey WAS on the The Black Book or Sonderfahndungsliste G. B. -- the version of the Biritish list that was discovered in 1945 after the war had ended and was then published -- for she wrote of her inclusion on the list AFTER the war, presumably after she saw the publication. The extensive quotes above are from many, many googled pages, and i posted them for the simple reason that they paint us a picture of others, who, like Bailey, were variously amused and shocked to learn, after the fact, that they had been on a secret Nazi arrest-list about which nothing had previusly been known.
Kwork, all i know if what i found online. One source said that only two original copies of the Sonderfahndungsliste G. B. were found in Berlin after the war (a reasonable statement, given the list's preparation as a secret internal military intelligence document that was never disseminated to the troops, as the invasion did not occur) but that the list of 2,300 names was published shortly after the war, and that it was later reprinted in is entirety in 1989. I have no idea what the print run of the 1989 reprint was, and thus how "available" it is, nor do i know how to locate a copy.
My original questions about the claim arose because i knew that the 1933 and 1934 Sonderfahndungsliste was used against prominent Jews (e.g. Kurt Weill), and anti-Nazis (including ex-German royalty and other politial opponents) within Germany. Now that i know more about the various non-implemented military intellgince lists, i am going to assume that she WAS on some non-implemented version of list (e.g. the G.B. version or a U.S. version), until proven otherwise. My reason for thinking this is that after the war, having been on one of the non-implemented versions of the list unbeknownst to the world seems to have been a kind of badge of honour among non-Jews outside Germany who worked in the literary, scientific, and entertainment fields, and it would have been something worth promoting about oneself, by way of establishing fame.
cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 19:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to remember WP:OR. Nazi arrest lists are primary sources. It can be mentioned that Bailey said she was on this list, but the article should not comment on whether that was the case or not unless the question has been discussed by others. Itsmejudith 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this, however the research is interesting and I appreciate that Cat provided the information so we can understand the situation better. That doesn't mean we can use it directly in the article per WP:OR, but having it here on the talk page is appropriate as part of figuring out what we can or cannot include in the article. I tried to find the Hitler lists on Google when I saw the initial way the article mentioned the topic, and discovered that the published copies seem to be rare. It appears they have not been widely published, though I don't know why, considering the level of interest that they have generated.
The article currently reads as follows in this regard: "In her autobiography Bailey stated that she was on Hitler's "blacklist", and she believed it was because of her defense of the Jews during her lectures throughout Europe.". That seems OK to me accordance with WP:V, much as Itsmejudith noted. I don't think that sentence needs to be changed, though that section of the article still needs work. --Parsifal Hello 21:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Helpful clarification, thanks Parsifal. Itsmejudith 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it too, Cat does make a strong case that it might have been self promotion. But there seems to be no good reason to assume Bailey was lying. I think it is much safer to just state Baileys claim and have done with it. Thanks Parsifal. : Albion moonlight 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 07:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dialog

Parsifal wrote:

"I found your statement of concern because you are discussing editors and not the topic. Not only are you discussing them, you are accusing them of bad faith behavior. That kind of discussion does not belong here and does not do anything to further the progress with the article. I sincerely hope you do read the links I posted and take them to heart. --Parsifal"


Perhaps, in the larger picture, my criticisms, in so far as they touch personality things, are comparatively mild.James 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


I still don't know what you mean by "pro-Jewish", so I can't reply directly about that. If what you mean is "anti-Anti-Semitism".--Parsifal

Yes, that's correct. James 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

* The Jewish position is not being defended here

Again, I don't know what you mean by "the Jewish position". There are people all over the world who deplore anti-semitism and racism and who are not Jews. --Parsifal

Yes, of course, though my point was that my statement about it is factual and not intended as personally "anti" anyone. By "Jewish position" I mean, what you correctly name as the anti-Anti-Semitism contributors.


* AAB is not being attacked here

Correct, Alice Bailey is not under attack. It is not an attack to report in an encyclopedia article what someone has said, and what others have said about their writings. If the writings include controversial material, the controversy should be reported.--Parsifal

Scholary citations of criticism are not a problem. But the intense zeal of the anti-anti editors affects the edits and dominates the discussion.James 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


I haven't seen it, but I suppose someone might have said that. In general though, I don't see that attitude here.... --Parsifal Hello 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a bit too much zeal from the anti-anti-semitism people. I don't offer this as a personal attack on anyone. I just think it has affected edits and is the reason the discussion has been monopolized by this single topic.James 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


I am currently patrolling the occult and metaphysical bio articles for mentions of anti-Semitism and would write this up if some references were provided. Catherineyronwode 02:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
A "professional antisemite." NAILED. Catherineyronwode 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"Alice Bailey was a notorious antisemnite and racist. " Nameless Date Stamp/Catherineyronwode
" I will not suffer the amtisemtism of others on any talk page. I think its a good idea to leave it on there for a while and give others a chance to read and share my anger at having had to put up with it in the first place. I will in fact go to Alice Bailey page and try to fix it and perhaps ruffle some feathers over there. But please do not expect me to sit idly by while racial epithets are being hurled at us from the grave by Alice Bailey. EVENTUALLY I will revert that offensive crap myself. You should do whatever you think is best. Thanks and have a nice day. Albion moonlight"
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've about given up on this page since Parsifal joined. At first I had high hopes because I thought his original analysis was excellent, yet it seems (unfortunately) that he has chosen sides in places like this where he basically condone's Cat's incredibly rude attack post and this where he comforts Kwork about frames, and then he's taken to attacking James. At least AnonEMouse, who I didn't really agree with much, kept trying to get people on the content instead of commiserate or support them and was balanced, and jpgordon was a great, neutral, balanced contributer.

Having said all this, I still don't understand why we're still discussing this? The material about anti-semitism is in there, has been expanded to be in sections other than the criticism section, and yet Kwork is still posting things like this where he claims it's being subverted when it's not.

Let's move on to other sections. Renee --Renee 15:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Renee, do you consider yourself neutral in this discussion? If so, why this: [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Just a few points:

1. Jamesd1, and a few other editors, have spent six months trying to prevent the information in the criticism section from being there. If that is not correct, why are we still arguing about it?

2. There is no reason to think that Alice Bailey, herself, would be particularly bothered by a criticism section being in an encyclopedia article about her.

3. Bailey was against fanaticism, and would be more bothered by her (supposed) followers behaving like fanatics than the same behavior in those who opposed her.

4. Alice Bailey, and the books she wrote, have (like all teachings) been tested by criticisms from the beginning, and a small criticisms section at the bottom of a Wikipedia article is not likely to do her teaching any harm.

5. To cast this six months argument, frequently acrimonious, as a struggle between the Forces of Light and the Forces of Darkness is delusional.

6. This is a crucial quote from Bailey (White Magic), and I have thought about it many times over the years, because it is very easy to think we are doing more good than we actually are:

To all this must be added the strain of the period itself, and the general condition of unhappy humanity. This subconsciously has its effect on all disciples, and upon all who are now working in the world. Some are showing signs of physical pressure, though the inner life remains poised and normal, sane and rightly oriented. Others are breaking up emotionally and this produces two effects according to the point of development of the aspirant to service. He is either, through the strain, learning detachment, and this curiously enough is what might be called the "defense mechanism" of the soul in this present period of world unfoldment, or he is becoming increasingly nervous and is on the way to become a neurotic. Others, again, are feeling the pressure in the mental body. They become bewildered in some cases and no clear truth appears. They then work on without inspiration, and because they know it to be right and they also have the rhythm of work. Others are grasping opportunity as they see it and, to do so, fall back on innate self-assertion (which is the outstanding fault of the mental types) and build up a structure around their service, and construct a form which in reality embodies what they desire, what they think to be right, but which is separative and the child of their minds and not the child of their souls. Some, in their turn, more potent and more coordinated, feel the pressure of the entire personality; the versatile psychic nature responds both to need and to the theory of the plan; they realize their truly valuable assets and know they have somewhat to contribute. They are still, however, so full of what is called personality that their service is gradually and steadily stepped down to the level of that personality, and is consequently colored by their personality reactions, their likes and dislikes, [625] and their individual life tendencies and habits. These eventually assert themselves and there is then a worker, doing good work but spoiling it all by his unrealized separateness and individual methods. This means that such a worker gathers to himself only those whom he can subordinate and govern. His group is not colored by the impulses of the new age, but by the separate instincts of the worker at the center. The danger here is so subtle that much care must be taken by a disciple in self-analysis. It is so easy to be glamored by the beauty of one's own ideals and vision, and by the supposed rectitude of one's own position, and yet all the time be influenced subjectively by love of personal power, individual ambition, jealousy of other workers, and the many traps which catch the feet of the unwary disciple.

7. I really wish Jamesd1 would calm down enough to understand this is just an argument over a Wikipedia article, and there are more important things all us could be doing than re-arguing the same points over and over for months. Kwork 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

One more point, kwork: if you had been this calm, this rational, this clear, and this intelligent in the other 50% of your posts, kept your personal opinion about Bailey to yourself, and had avoided overt accusations about "the clique" and their motives, you would own this article. This is a masterful comment. Can you be like this more often? I wish I could. Eaglizard 20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu, and deja vu, and deja vu until the head spins

Jamesd1, and a few other editors, have spent six months trying to prevent the information in the criticism section from being there. If that is not correct, why are we still arguing about it?Kwork 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


No. It's mostly not true. James 19:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this groound already. I quote


James, please forgive my refactoring of your comments to an hide/show box, but there were so many words from past discussions it was confusing the page navigation. Also, with those long quotes from multiple people, it's hard to tell who wrote what because the signatures don't pop out as a different color. And I'm not sure who you're posting that information for - I, for one, don't have time to read lots of quotes from the past, though I am interested in current on-topic discussion.

Including a short quote from the past to illustrate a current comment works well. And if there is a particular past discussion you want to reference, that can be better done using a diff link.

Aside from those details though,... let's drop the discussion about the editors and get back to improving the article. --Parsifal Hello 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If there weren't so much generalized discussion of editors -- unattached to any specific statement or edit of the article -- there wouldn't be so much dragging up of the past. That's a great point, Parsifal. Can we stop discussing the editors and their alleged motives and agendas please? I'm asking nicely. But I'm not holding my breath, I'm afraid. Eaglizard 17:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu, etc.

To cast this six months argument, frequently acrimonious, as a struggle between the Forces of Light and the Forces of Darkness is delusional. Kwork 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It would not be delusional. It would be wrong. You've jumped to this thought form on your own.
We've been over this ground already.

"I do not condemn you for your efforts either individually or as a group. I simply believe the approach and perceptions are wrong and wrongly applied to the Bailey biography. It doesn't mean that you're part of some great evil "conspiracy." I don't personally dislike you or Kwork or anyone here. I sympathesize with you. I do not know you. I assume that you are all essentially good people. I do not assume that the little of you I see from the posts is all there is. I have said I think you are wrong on on your approach to this issue and I've said it vigorously and openly, and I've cited the Wiki-reasons why on numerous occasions. The quick judgments that you and your associates make about me and what I think and feel contains much error. I think you do not see, and it is the same not-seeing that leads you to take the stance you do on AAB. James 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)"

As I suggested above, please let's all stop talking about editors and get back to the content of the article. Who has an idea for the next improvement? --Parsifal Hello 21:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Sparklecplenty 15:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; lets move on. James 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The 7 Rays

I don't know much about Alice Bailey but like hundreds of other persons, I learned about her through work on the 7 rays. I googled the term "7 rays" and got 76,900 hits (and ALL for the pages I had the patience to scan through were on the esoteric 7 rays). Then, I googled "seven rays" and got even more hits -- 98,100. Can someone add a section on this? Thanks, Renee Renee 01:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Seven Rays come from Theosophical Society literature. What Bailey has to say about the Rays is rather different than Blavatsky, so if you are not careful to make the distinction, it can become a little confusing. (I suspect that Blavatsky took her idea of the Seven Rays from the Ten Luminous Emanations - the ten Seferot - of Kabbalah, particularly the lower seven Seferot which are called the Middot.[24][25]) Kwork 11:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
While I don't know enough about Theosophy to know where Bailey differs, I would like to see a section detailing the Seven Rays & the Seven Planes, briefly describing each one, how the Seven sub-planes of the Cosmic Physical plane are our Seven planes of consciousness, and the relationship of our make-up to the four lower planes of that ("location" of physical, astral, mental bodies, ego & monad, etc). In other words, combining two of the charts (I think one was called "the Composition of Man" or something like that, in Telepathy, and the other "The Seven Planes" or some such) with some of the tabular info about the Rays & Planes. Maybe I'll even try writing such a section -- if James doesn't beat me to it! :) Eaglizard 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I started a section for the Seven Rays today, but as I don't know anything about that topic, I borrowed some text from Seven Rays to use as a starting point.
I also added main sections to separate the spiritual and social philosophy areas, each with a variety of sub-sections. Some of the sub-sections are empty and some have the material that was already in the article - I moved some of the text around to fit the new sections, but everything is still there, I didn't remove anything substantial other than a word here and there of copyediting to fit the new structure. One of the references I found noted that Foster Bailey was a Freemason so I added that info. That seems like an interesting connection.
There are several more references and wikilinks, and indications where additional references are needed. I invite everyone to fill in the sections with new information, and if needed add more sections for parts of the philosophy I may have left out due to not knowing about it. --Parsifal Hello 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


The Article no longer gives an accurate picture of AAB's Writings

The headers and emphasis makes the reader think her writings are all about politics, races, etc. It is now way to political. This is not AAB's rendering of the ageless wisdom. It's also not about HPB or Jews and such. All these things are addressed--and a world of other uncited things as well. --but the proportion is now all wrong: It reflects what is in the mind of recent editors and not AAB's mind and writings. James 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not my intention to give the wrong idea. I just went with the topic headings that I've been noticing as I've been reading through the Alice Bailey material. There is a lot of material about world government and relationships between races and peoples, so I made room for those.
I figured you would add a bunch more headings on the spiritual topics to fill that in and that after those additional headings are added it would show an overall balance to reflect her writings.
Do you feel there are not enough additional spiritual topics available in her writings to add, to balance the impression? If so, then maybe some of the new headings may need to be combined, though the headings that were there previously were unclear.
What additional spiritual topic headings can we add? --Parsifal Hello 02:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
follow-up... After reading your comment, I moved the Theosophy section into the spiritual teachings section, to show more balance between the two parts. I think that helps the overall view.
Also, I should point out that I didn't add any details on the political stuff, I just added sub-section headings. There was not much in the article specifically on her esoteric teachings, but there is much available that can be added on that. The article is currently in an interim state. I believe we'll find that when we fill in the spiritual philosophy sections, the article will be much better than it was before and that can be done in a balanced way. --Parsifal Hello 02:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Further on this, I combined the section on nationalism into the section on world government, where the text fits the topic well, to reduce the number of sub-headings in the social / political teachings section. I hope you find this helps bring it closer to the balance you seek. --Parsifal Hello 02:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian

I strongly suggest that the introduction of this article includes the fact that Ms Bailey is considered to be a Humanitarian. We mention her racism and her antisemitism in that intro so why not something positive to balance it out. The first few lines of any article tend to paint a picture in the mind of the reader so let us make it balanced from the get go. I will try to come up with something tonight but I am not a writer so feel free to write it yourself or edit anything I may come up with. I think this will help bridge the gap that James complained about. Lets see if we can balance the tone from the onset. : Albion moonlight 07:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


I will take a crack at it too. For instance, controversial writings appears twice in the intro which is undue weight. Also, according to the Lucis Trust website her books have been translated into only 9 other languages (with three others currently in progress). I cringed using the Watchmen Tower citation for the intro since it's such a lousy source but I knew it wouldn't get any objections from the critics since they insisted on including it in the first place, but I think it's wrong (it says her works have been translated into over 50 languages). Renee --Renee 10:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
p.s. Hey James, I just noticed you deleted the Watchmen Tower citation for the same reasons I mention above. Again, the only reason I put it there is because I knew the critics wouldn't argue with it but I agree it's a lousy source. Renee 10:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a citation other than "Groothius" who says Bailey launched the new age movement? I checked several websites and they all say the same thing but some of these non-electronic citations here also must say the same thing. Renee 10:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless its been removed there were two or three good citations that said substantially that. James 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm traveling and don't have time now but will give the ref you asked about later and also some more on the book distribution so we won't need to put "Watchtower reference" on the top floor of the intro; if someone actually looked at the link they would think "say what?" AAB is connected to the Watchtower people. Fantastical!  :-) . James 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I did some drastic hacking to the lead, because I have a certain idea of what a lead should read like. I hope no one (Renee :) is offended I removed so much text. I also want to say I'm a little disappointed the ref to controversy is removed from the lead, since thats an important part of her notability, imo, but I couldn't see where to smoothly add it back in. Expect me to try to do that later, tho. Also, I think "among the first writers to use the term 'New Age'" is a pretty safe claim (Discipleship in the New Age, 1944). And, I added not only humanitarian but also the more specific humanism, which describes her philosophy to a "T", and I pity the foo' who disagree... <wink> Ok, I know I'm going to get argument on this, so I say up front that the Statement by The Tibetan is a direct confirmation that s/he "... rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or allegedly divinely revealed texts." Ah well, we'll see how that goes over... the more I think, the more I doubt anyone will allow it... sigh. Eaglizard 19:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact, after I thought about it, I decided it's OR. Eaglizard 20:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Eaglizard, I think your edits are good. Also, the controversy is highlighted in the lead -- it's the whole last paragraph, so I think it's pretty prominent. The only other suggestion I have is that several writers have said that Bailey "started" or "launched" the New Age movement, which is a bit different in connotation than what is currently written. Best, Renee Renee 21:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

the term "New Age"

Bailey may have been one of the first to use "New Age" as a religious or spiritual term, but it seems it was used as a political/social term earlier. Does anyone have a reference for Bailey's earliest uses of the term "New Age"?

I've done some research and found that the term was used as the title of a periodical published as early as 1894 as a Journal of Christian liberalism and Socialism. Around 1907 it was sold to a group of Socialist writers headed by Alfred Richard Orage. Other historical personalities were involved, including H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and either William Butler Yeats or John Butler Yeats (not sure which of the Yeats is was). His Wikipedia article also mentions connections with P. D. Ouspensky and Harry Houdini.

So, I doubt we can credit Bailey with inventing that term, though maybe we can find examples showing she changed the way it was used. Then again, her use of it is both spiritual and social, so it's possible she did continue the existing usage, as there was a well known publication during her lifetime with that title.

Here are some references I found that I added to the Orage article today:

--Parsifal Hello 22:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Groothius credits her with starting the new age movement. Renee 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting, I'd like to take a look at that, do you have a link for the reference?
There are also a variety of others who are also credited with that. My impression from doing the research is that the term was used over a long period in various ways. It's unlikely that such a wide term or idea as the "new age movement" can be traced back to just one person, especially since Bailey was involved with Theosophy in her early days and there are many who claim that Theosophy was one of the origins of the new age movement.
I'm not at all trying to say that Bailey was not important to New Age philosophies, she certainly was a major influence. I'm only addressing whether or not there are references that show clearly that she originated the term. It seems that since so many others used the term also, that's not going to be able to be strongly sourced. --Parsifal Hello 00:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[James removed his prior comments from here]

James, in reply, I truly don't know what is bothering you about this. —This is part of a comment by Parsifal , which was interrupted by the following:

About this line: "Writing on spiritual, occult, and religious themes Bailey was among the first authors to use the term New Age." I don't know who added it but or what the reference is for it. I guess is that its a bad translation of the analogous but different referenced item I gave below. This was one of the things that bothered me. I don't know who did that one, I've not looked and there are so many small changes its a pain to track; doesn't matter who, but I agree with you that things need to be referenced. A few other bothersome things I address in other sections below.

I didn't remove anything at all from the article in regards to Bailey's use of the term "new age" and I did not add the above new references either, and I'm not even suggesting that we do add them... —This is part of a comment by Parsifal , which was interrupted by the following:

OK, but someone did. I have copies of the article on my hard disk and so I know the above was not in the article a week ago. So some things are being added from somewhere and I just checked and in 30 seconds located a line that was removed or altered in a fundamental way in this period.
Beyond that, as I indicate below the most "bothersome" thing is that I think the overall emphasis of the article is wrong, and there are organizational heading problems, for example:
  • On the negro race
  • World democracy and one world religion
The above two are equal subheads. "world religion" is a major issue deserving a subhead. "Democracy" is minor or moderate, depending on how loosely or strictly we define the word. "Negro race" in terms of the text AAB devotes to, it is a very minor topic and does not rate a heading at all. A heading there gives undue weight that I think derives from the earlier preoccupation of the discussion with racial and political themes.
In the coming days, I will try to improve the headings, and give prominence to subjects and headings in a proportion that matches that which AAB gave them. James 04:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


All I did was to help out by doing some research. I provided some references I found - here on the talk page, because some other editors were discussing the question of whether or not Bailey coined the term, or first used it to describe the New Age movement, so I got curious and found those references. —This is part of a comment by Parsifal , which was interrupted by the following:

Research is good. Thanks for the help. My main concerns right now is with the overall picture, and with the details secondarily. James 05:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything has been removed from the article about this, it was not done by me. That said, it's clear Bailey did not coin the term "New Age" and that it was used by various people to mean various things earlier than she used it. As you point out, whatever the sources state about this should be reflected in the article. --Parsifal Hello 02:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But on this one, the point is that AAB was instrumental in defining the meaning of "New Age," in a particular way, so use of the term along different lines by others is not relevant.
This part may not be for you, Parsifal, but as I wrote earlier:
Also, please note again, the issue is not "truth" but the fact

that a reliable source said it (remember all the strain over this point with the criticism section?) Anyway, please understand that I did not relate AAB to the phrase "New Age," which if I had would have been original research. All those references that are in the article (and still are if they were not deleted) include more than one good source that said what I paraphrased. Virtually everything I put in the article is a quote or close paraphrase of a good source. I did not make this stuff up but followed, at great pains, the Wiki rules. You can not, while following Wiki rules, remove them. Please do not perform surgery or propose it on material from references that you have not yourself checked and found demonstrably incorrect.

Please see the section below on the "Frankenstein Effect."

James 02:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a biography about Alice Bailey, not Theosophy etc.

Friends, the AAB biography is not a place to put lists of Theosophical leaders etc., and especially toward the top. Some of these deserve mention, but only as they specifically relate to AAB. AAB and her thought must be the pivot and hub of everything that is included. For instance, there should be no mention of person X unless AAB wrote something about them, or they wrote something about her, or their lives touched in some other significant way. Also, even if any of these conditions is true, you need a reference from one or both to establish this connection, otherwise, don't go there.

This is also partly just an expansion of the common sense principles we were all taught in school about things like outlining, and writing paragraphs that are coherent and where everything flows from a set of related topic sentences.

In addition to not follow good established practices for writing any article in or outside Wikipedia, all the TS focus creates another undue weight issue. In the universe, in the last analysis, everything relates to everything--but here the focus must be on AAB.

I think another big part of the problem as the article has "evolved" is that editors who don't have a thorough knowledge of AAB's thought and life are trying to tackle a major task for which they are not, by background and study, adequately equipped. Since you have been here you have taken ownership of this article even though you state you have little knowledge of Alice Bailey teaching. There's much more to say on various issues, but I'm going to put my energy into reorganizing and rewriting the article to try to show rather than tell what I think needs to be done. James 02:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

James, maybe it's just me, but I hear a real hint of ownership and some serious condescension here. Maybe its the part where you tell the rest of us that we aren't "adequately equipped". Frankly, I see no difference between this comment and a comment by another editor that, for instance, "some editors" are an (allied) bunch of revisionist anti-semites. Like I've tried to say to Kwork, non-specific charges and insults are just divisive. Anyway, I won't argue the claim itself; but I will argue that being equipped to edit a Wikipedia article should really have little to do with in-depth knowledge of the subject. We're not writing an intro textbook for "Bailey 101", just a simple encyclopedia article for laypeople. Importantly, however, I want to stress that none of this means that I disagree with your criticism vis. the sectional divisions, btw. But your tone... wellll. Had a nice hot bath, lately? :D Eaglizard 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds more like a textbook case of ownership I sincerely hope that this does not do anything to trigger an edit war. : Albion moonlight 16:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Ownership, responsibility, knowledge, detachment, decisions

Yes, OK, I see a degree of truth in the ownership criticism, though it might be more a sense of responsibility than ego-ownership. And thanks Eaglizard for your moderate response to my willfulness, and thanks Alibion for your more textbook response.

About knowledge and writing, I disagree. For some subjects, what you said is close to right, but not for this one. And it is no longer a short simple article but is moving toward an ambitious expansion. Clearly, good writing must come from knowledge of a subject, and where that is limited, the resulting writing will be correspondingly limited. You've all made good edits, but the big picture and sense of proportion is missing because this only comes with a deep knowledge of a subject. The missing knowledge tends to undermine the overall structure. To be perfectly honest, since Kwork left, I seem to be the only one here with much knowledge of the subject. I say this not to "blow my own horn" or underscore the lack of others in an unfriendly way, but rather because it honestly seems to be how things are. If I recall correctly, virtually everyone here has admitted that they do not know that much about AAB's works. With some degree of success, I've studied and tried to live the AAB philosophy for 45 years. I've written related books and articles, taught classes, and given public lectures on the subject. Beyond that, there are certain plus factors at work in me that I won't attempt to describe.

I just returned from the Theosophical library in Ojai California with new references for the article, but perhaps it's of no use here, and progress would be better served if I apply my energy elsewhere. I've tried to do the right thing. Know that my creative identification and investment with the article is what made all the my labor possible. At the same time, I--or the most significant part of that--hold all this rather more lightly than may appear from some of my words. If my approach is unacceptable, and no one cares one way or the other, I can cheerfully withdraw now instead of waiting a week as I had planned. You can all then proceed as you like without me as an distraction. In the big scheme of things what I've written here is of no great importance. I made a friend or two and that is important.

I applied myself to the article with the intention of a final push to get it in shape, then reach a stopping point in the coming week. At that point, I pictured myself leaving and anticipated there would be a down hill slide for the article. Sorry, but months of personal experience here in the discussion have not done much for my optimism on the future of the biography. Sorry also if this sounds too ownershipish and critical, but as I said, I think there are not many folks with the needed background, perspective, and motivation to write the article in a way that measures up to the subject. Kind Regards to all, James 18:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sculpture

One more thought that illustrates what I've tried to communicate above about knowledge. Take the analogy of an artist who is sculpting a representation of the human body. In order to sculpt faithfully in a way that accurately represents the original, the artist must have a holistic grasp of the human body, and of the specific one that is the subject. He or she should know as much as possible about the overall contours of the form and be able to see it whole in the mind. Without this knowledge, this or that part will be exaggerated or reduced so that it fails to represent the subject, and the final result will be a a caricature of the subject. James 20:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A link to one final thought: Know your subject


AAB, "New Age," and the Frankenstein Effect

Another problem here is that after the radical reorganization of the biography, the editor or editors are loosing track of what they are doing. So, for instance, the wording of the intro reference to the "New Age" does not follow the referenced information that corresponds to it much later in the biography. The line I added was:

Likewise, in the book Perspectives on the New Age we find "The most important--though certainly not the only--source of this transformative metaphor, as well as the term "New Age," was Theosophy, particularly as the Theosophical perspective was mediated to the movement by the works of Alice Bailey." [10]

I afraid this is only one of many problems introduced into the article in the last week. James 02:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

James, you've really got two important points here, and they're confusing me because they're mixed up together.
  1. The term "New Age"
  2. The sectional headings / scheme of division
We really need to discuss both of these things apart. Let's resolve the New Age thing first, since time will help the second problem more. I changed the text to "among the first writers to use the term" because I thought that was true; Parsifal has showed me I'm completely wrong. However, do we have a source that we can cite that says she's the grandmother of the New Age, or whatever? Eaglizard 11:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see my section below on "New Age." James 23:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

...It's a pretty extraordinary claim, I think (much more so than the claims of telepathic reception, etc, since it is an outside opinion, and more or less subject to peer review (unlike Bailey's own claims)). So it needs a good solid cite, I would think. There's at least one other claimant, Walter Russell. To be honest, my own personal opinion is that, unless we've got a really solid source, it doesn't go in the lead; it should be a paragraph or two in "Influence". (And damn, I can't believe nobody rose to my bait of humanism... lol... j/k, please don't.) Eaglizard 11:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the two topics need to be separated. On the first one - It turns out there is a Wikipedia article about the publication I mentioned,The New Age, so it's very clear that Bailey did not invent this term. That article went back to 1907, so I added the referencesI found (to the magazine's article - not to the Bailey article), to show the term at least goes back to 1894 when the magazine was first founded. Brown University reports that "The New Age helped to shape modernism in literature and the arts from 1907 to 1922". So that tells us the term was not obscure.
Regarding philosophical or spiritual connections, according to the biography of the publisher Orage, he was a follower of Theosophy even before he purchased the magazine, then later he became involved with P. D. Ouspensky, Harry Houdini, studied the Mahabharata and eventually met G. I. Gurdjieff. So there was a connection with "The New Age" and Theosophy and some Eastern philosophies, therefore we cannot say that the magazine's use of the term is completely unrelated to the contemporary use of the term; and it shows us that when Alice Bailey used the term, there had been a publication of 20 years duration; it's unlikely she had not heard of the publication. --Parsifal Hello 20:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, we can agree she got the term from the zeitgeist, but there are (I think) a couple of sources who state she "founded" the modern New Age movement. I think James is arguing that this is reasonable, since she was one of the first to connect the "Age of Aquarius" with the phrase New Age. And again, I think this info should be in the article, but not in the lead (w/o a solid citation). Eaglizard 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "founding the new age movement", the term New Age is very broad and includes all sorts of separate concepts; I don't think it's well-defined or cohesive enough to be an actual "movement" or have a particular "founder."
On the other hand,.. I did find a reference that Bailey "popularized" the two terms you mentioned, and will add it to the article shortly. --Parsifal Hello 00:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the Theosophical family tree

About the family: "Theosophy; Founders of the T. S.; Helena Blavatsky; William Quan Judge; Henry Steel Olcott; Personalities; Theosophists; Rudolf Steiner · Alice Bailey; Mysticism; Theosophical mysticism; Organisations; Theosophical Society; TS Adyar · TS Pasadena · ULT; Theosophical texts; Isis Unveiled; The Key to Theosophy; Mahatma Letters; The Secret Doctrine; The Voice of the Silence; More...; Other topics; Agni Yoga · Anthroposophy"

If this is to be included it should be down toward the bottom of the article and should include an introduction that allows the "layman," to use Eaglizard's term, to make sense of it. As this list is used now, it's just a buckshot approach to communicating and is apt to confuse our "laymen" more than anything else. Also its an example, as it stands, of expanding the article prematurely, probably excessively.

I think also, that such a list used by itself without explanation is an example of computers unduly influencing the creative process. It's analogous to the overlinking issue. Just because a list like this is out there and can be done does not mean its a good idea. As a stand alone item, I think its not put to good use.

What would be useful is if AAB's relation to all these were clearly laid out, but again this probably goes beyond the scope of what a short biography of this type is suppose to do and so we run the risk of the AAB 101 article referenced above in another context.

But as I said earlier, some of these deserve mention, but as they specifically relate to AAB. AAB and her thought should be the pivot and hub of everything that is included. For instance, there should be no mention of person X unless AAB wrote something about them, unless it is demonstrated by references that they wrote something about her, or their lives and ideas touched in some other significant way. This is common sense and I don't know why its not obvious to all. Again, all these listed people and movements bear some relation to AAB , but most in a rather distantly and tenuous way. And in the last analysis, everything relates to everything. But focus and a sense of proportion is needed.

Just throwing up the list is like inserting such a list into a paragraph of a book and does not make good sense. It's like departing from the topical focus of a paragraph or inserting undeveloped pieces "out of the blue." It's not an integrated part of an outline and does not flow with the rest of the biography. With work, it could be made to do so but this brings up the other problem which is that the article as it now stands does not give a just picture of what AAB's life and work was about. The unintroduced list is an example of underscoring what are mostly lots of secondary and very minor relationships instead of attending to the important ones. James 23:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the Theosophy template to the references section which is more in keeping with its function which is not to act as a table of contents to the article but as links to related and remotely related names and movements. James 01:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Next to the table of contents seems to me to be the best place for it - it looks good in the empty space there, and provides context for the article as a whole. However. out of respect for your objection, I am willing to agree with placing it in a less prominent position.
On the other hand, the references section is not appropriate. That section is only for footnotes. No-one looks there for other information, and the template is designed for the text sections of articles. Regarding the content of the template, many writers consider Bailey to be part of the Theosophical tradition, and even though she broke from that tradition later when her ideas diverged, Bailey herself wrote in a letter to the Occult Review in 1935 "I have been for many years a member of the Theosophical Society", so even later she did not disavow that connection. Since there is a substantial section of text in the article regarding the comparison of Bailey's philosophy with Theosophy, that seems like a good place for the template. --Parsifal Hello 02:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your thought; you know mine. Put it where you think best.
I saw below me an island where I and children played. As a consequence of this thought, I found myself closing in on it. Yet all this time I was aware of a whole universe of music, and the breath and the scope of it made the island very small. James 04:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

New Age

All these references are in the article now:

"Likewise, in the book Perspectives on the New Age we find "The most important—though certainly not the only—source of this transformative metaphor, as well as the term "New Age," was Theosophy, particularly as the Theosophical perspective was mediated to the movement by the works of Alice Bailey." [53]"

"The books produced in this manner express a millennial view similar to that of Besant, including the expectation of the World-Teacher or Christ. The Bailey works and their focus on the 'New Age' or 'Age of Aquarius' are an important source of the contemporary New Age movement." (Wessinger, p. 80)

"After Bailey's death, former members of the Arcane School created a host of new independent theosophical groups within which hopes of a New Age flourished. …" [64]

Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[66]


Here are two more that are not in it:

"The Bailey works and their focus on the "New Age" or "Age of Aquarius" are an important source of the contemporary New Age Movement" (Steven J Sutcliffe, Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, Routledge, 2003, pp. 46-49)

"According to Bloom (1991:2), Bailey's total work contains some 285 passages refering to the 'New Age.' Three of her titles are explicit: the two volumes of Discipleship in the New Age and Education in the new age" (as above)


It doesn't matter to me who was first to use the phrase or in what sense. I'm sure AAB would not care and its not a big deal. Why worry about the emblem on the flag in the front yard when the foundation of the house is still incomplete? A more important theme would be, what did the term "New Age" mean in the AAB writings and how is that different from the way it is used by others? Do you see friends, how everything circles round to the main point I've been trying to share with you about what is major? James —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Ownership" (for James)

Hi, James -- i have been seeing where others have said that your attitude toward the Alice Bailey page at Wikipedia smacks of "ownership" -- construed as an arrogant or generally wiki-improper stance. I would like to assure you that both they and you are right: you are projecting a semblance of inappropriate possessiveness about the article and when you finish the article and leave it alone, it will start to decay, not only from your own theological-political perspective, but also in a more general, entropic sense.

Your problem describes my own struggle with Wikipedia, and if i speak of my struggle, perhaps it may help you understand why, when you asked me why i limited my contribution to this page to one sub-topic (racism), i had no ready response. The truth was, i did not wish to rag on Wikipedia, so i held back. In fact, after a long enough time here, i have learned that in a certain true sense, work for Wikipedia is work you are throwing to the wolves. And, as we learn in Grimm's fairy takes, you don't throw your baby to the wolves -- you throw a loaf of brown bread instead.

I could give you the titles of pages that i created from scratch and/or brought from stub status to respectable length and detail (with full citations, external links, and wiki-links) -- only to see the same pages abridged by people with different agendas, or added to by illiterate and uninformed would-be scholars who muddied the waters through well-meaning ignorance and boobism. But i won't bother to name them -- it's pointless.

After the third time that one of my contributions of dedicated work as a professional writer resulted in a page that soon gave way to entropic decay, i decided that the best way for me to balance my desire to write (which i can do at my own sites and in my own books) and my desire to be part of a community of writers (which i can do here) is write my own material for my own sites and books, to contribute short summaries of those pages to Wikipedia, then to walk away, and NOT LOOK BACK.

Don't look back, James, because the more Wikipedia pages in which you invest your heart and mind, the more you will find yourself "policing" those pages. And that will be a time-stealer. Don't try to stick your fingers in the dam as the page decays and erodes and crumbles, when you could be writing other things -- stable books and web sites all your own.

We all want Wikipedia to be great -- but it is not great and it will not be great under the present system of editorship. It will be broad -- broader in scope than any encyclopedia ever produced in the history of the world -- but it will be shallow, and it will be unstable.

So enjoy it for what it is -- a community first, and a writing project second -- and know it for what it is -- a place to re-work your best writing in mass-market form, for an army of young readers or for adults seeking quick date-and-fact fixes.

I know that you and i have not seen eye-to-eye on Alice Bailey, and likely never will. But perhaps now you will understand why i have pickd a few simple ideas, like "antisemitism in occultism", or "secular New Thought authors", and made bi-yearly sweeps of the relavant Wiki pages, adding complexity and fact-checking here, shoring up a sagging stub there, copyediting a well-meaning mess someplace else, but not "owning" a page, or, ultimately, caring much about it. If i care about a topic deeply, i write my OWN page. Otherwise, i give to Wikipedia as one might make a tithe: one-tenth of my words, to do with as it pleases those who come after.

Sincerely, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 03:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (for Catherine)

Thanks for the your interesting reflection on the big picture and Wiki writing. As you say, we may never see eye to eye--at least not this life--on our assessment of AAB, but your Wiki experience does resonate with my own. There is one dimension of it all you didn't touch much upon which I've found beneficial, namely that the conflict acts as a creative spur that prompts efforts we might not otherwise make. I, for instance, had more or less put AAB aside some years back because, as my personal page says, I like to keep moving and in a fundamental way do not fully identify for long with anything in the form world of human creations. For instance, I would never have written biographically about AAB were it not for this article. So something good has come from it which I will take elsewhere, including what I've learned temporarily looking through the eyes of people like yourself. As for eye to eye, I can also tell that, as someone nicely said, the unseen eye looks at the unseen, and there is a place where even eyes as different as yours and mine do see in unity in ways not apprehensible by our more formal play here. Kind Regards, James 03:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point -- being challenged gives one impetus to do more research and thus to improve the work. The community apspect of Wikipedia can stimulate one's desire for perfection, for approval, and/or for being "right."
There's another nice thing about Wikieedia i also forgot to mention -- the interface. It is so much easier to work in a wiki than with than regular html!
The Alice Bailey article looks good, James, and i mean that from the bottom of my heart.
cat Catherineyronwode 04:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

occult reticence

Occult reticence was a point of considerable importance consideration in Alice Bailey's training of her students[26]. A person who blurts out everything he/she knows to the general public is not a representative of the teaching, but a fool.

It was Assagioli's intention that the connection between him and Bailey not be made public. Moreover the assumption that Psychosynthesis is nothing more than a psychological restatement of what is in the Bailey books is incorrect. He made it clear to his students that Psychosynthesis was a separate teaching, and that it was intended to help individuals (and groups) accomplish goals that could never be accomplished by study of the Bailey books, and by meditation.

But all that aside, it was his wish keep the two teachings separate. Please respect that. I last spoke to him just a few months before he died, and his views had not changed.

Roberto Assagioli, M.D., the founder of one influential school of transpersonal psychology, psychosynthesis, was an admitted esotericist and student of Alice Bailey teachings. However, most others probably prefer to stay "in the closet," or at least keep their "esoteric" and "occult" books there. Perhaps this is the case with Ken Wilber whose transpersonal philosophy is remarkably similar to the esoteric/theosophic in structure. Even Assagioli never mentions Alice Bailey openly in his major books Psychosynthesis and The Act of Will. Assagioli, in his paper "Walls of Silence," says:

The walls of silence under consideration here are of a more specific nature and concern the recognition of when it is wise and right to maintain silence about one's occult beliefs, esoteric training, or membership in one or another of the many occult groups and schools. We are not here referring to those whose life vocation and work is lecturing on or teaching occultism, but to the average student, aspirant and server who in his work and business contacts, in his home and community, in his other group interests or chosen exoteric service, mingles largely with people who have no interest or inclination (perhaps even antagonism) towards esoteric teachings. (Collected Papers, CIIS Library, p.1) http://207.36.146.178/storm/psycsoul.htm

For those editors who claim to care about the Bailey teaching, please give some thought to the subject of occult reticence and remove the links and statements connecting Bailey to Assagioli. Kwork 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


As I said, when we covered this groud back in May:

"Yes, I know the history. This is no longer hidden and need not be. The esoteric eventually becomes exoteric, but this was never all that hidden really. Bailey herself refers to her connection with him in her biography long ago. Currently, there are two thousand or more Internet references that connect Alice Bailey with Assagioli or Psychsynthesis. There are advantages and disadvantages to both keeping information behind the scenes and revealing it. As I mentioned earlier, the Assagioli article on Wiki. also has a Bailey connection.James 15:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)"

The Roberto Assagioli biography on Wikipedia use to state the AAB connection; I'm gussing you may have censored it?

"Dr. Assagioli was as early as fifty years ago the Italian representative for the Arcane School and in the early 1930s helped Alice Bailey lead summer conferences in Ascona. More recently he was responsible for the founding of his own related organization, known in the United States as the Meditation Group for the New Age." This group has its headquarters in Ojai, California. The work it carries out is strongly rooted in one of Mrs. Bailey's books, Discipleship in the new Age. Assagioli wrote the pamphlets upon which the correspondence courses of the group--its main activity--are based." [11]

I think it is neither practical nor desirable to censor the above historical fact; the cat is "long out of the bag" in any case.

Almost all google references to "occult reticence" are rooted in AAB; are you a student of hers now? But the gist of it doesn't correspond very well to your application of the phrase to the Assagioli history. James 16:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you are violating the Assagioli's clearly stated wishes, and you are acting contrary to his intention. The harm is not to Assagioli, but to Psychosynthesis. Occult reticence is not censorship, and it is strange to hear someone who claims to be knowledgable of the teaching say that. Kwork 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Catherine's recent post helped me see your perspective. Not much different than mine but with different identifications. I was trying to protect an international movement "New Group of World Servers", (headquarted United Nations) from being associated with racism and anti-Jew stance. Difference is that I have no physical affiliation with a new age group, religion or race. I have read and applied the teachings of Alice's Seven Rays and Astrology for 37 years, but not formally. I have read most of the books, and read what she has said about the races, religions, nations, in the context.
About Assagioli, it looks to me like the world has changed from his time and there is no real need for secrecy. The history is already written. We're not revealing anything about him that's not already pretty widely known. I'm sure Bailey's "wishes" would not be that people spread her statements on the Jews, taken out of context, all over the net. But that's the reality. In addition to the Google search James cited, here's another for you: psychosynthesis + "alice bailey" gives 1,040 hits. Sparklecplenty 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I have explained Roberto Assagioli's wishes, and the reason fore them, as well as I can. It was my assumption that you would not understand, but felt I had a responsibility to Assagioli to say this another time. Kwork 18:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well... you know Assagioli's wishes aren't really a factor in how we write a neutral article of course if you have a good refference, his wishes could be mentioned in an article, if relevant, but writing an article around or based on a subjects wishes is totaly contrary to how wikipedia works. Sethie 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for, once again, sharing your attitude. (Strange that you should think that Wikipedia rules are the Rules of the Road.) Kwork 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There's probably a ton of information in the articles Josef Mengele or Fidel Castro that those guys wouldn't want published, either. If we "respect" Assagioli's wishes, how could we justify not respecting theirs, as well? Eaglizard 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys, at least some of you, are supposed to be esoterisists, or esoterisists in training. What can I say if you do not distinguish between Wikipedia rules and the esoteric Rules of the Road? I am trying to explain a principle important in the Bailey teaching (but would apply in virtually any teaching), and you are responding that I can not stop you if you want to be a blabbermouth. That is true, but misses the point of what I am saying. Kwork 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So your response is to add four quotes demonstrating that Assagioli was connected to Bailey? Well, somebody doesn't get it, that's for sure. Eaglizard 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
What quotes? I did not add any quotes. Kwork 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

=About the non-secret of Psychosynthesis & the esoteric

"Assagioli founded the Institute of Psychosynthesis in 1926. He met Alice Bailey during the early 1930s, and they became friends; their organizations have retained a working association." [27]

Even the Christian fanatics know that, ""These days psychosynthesis is completely out of the closet." [28]


"Douglas Russell, In his article, "Psychosynthesis Digest Vol. I, No. 2, Spring/Summer 1982, Seven Basic Constructs of Psychosynthesis" [29] references:

Bailey, Alice A., Discipleship in the New Age, Vol. I, New York, Lucis Publishing Co., c. 1944. Bailey, Alice A., Education in the New Age, New York, Lucis Publishing Co., 1954.

Along with Bailey, Douglas references these very esoteric writing:

13. Ferguson, Marilyn, The Aquarian Conspiracy, Los Angeles, J.P. Tarcher Inc., c. 1980. 18. Gerard, Robert, "Preface" to Saraydarian, H., Cosmos in Man, Agoura, Calif., Aquarian Educational Group, c. 1973a. 31. Leshan, Lawrence, The Medium, the Mystic and the Physicist, New York, Ballantine Books, c. 1966. 38. Rudyar, Dane, Occult Preparations for a New Age, Wheaton, Ill., The Theosophical Publishing House, c. 1975. 42. Saraydarian, H., Bhagavad Gita, Agoura, Calif., Aquarian Educational Group. 44. Satprem. Sri Aurobindo, or the Adventure of Consciousness, New York Harper and Row, c. 1968. 52. Wilber, Ken, The Atman Project, Wheaton, Ill. The Theosophical Publishing House, c. 1980. 53. Wilber, Ken, The Spectrum of Consciousness, Wheaton, Ill., the Theosophical Publishing House, c. 1977.

About Douglas:

"Douglas Russell, M.S.W. co-created and taught psychosynthesis training courses for over a decade, starting in the early 1970's. He has also worked as a psychotherapist and consultant in private practice, and as a medical social worker in traditional health care settings. In the 1980's he switched his emphasis in psychosynthesis from training, to writing and publishing. He has written several articles on psychosynthesis theory, produced an audiotape on disidentification, published 5 issues of Psychosynthesis Digest, and co-authored 3 books.

Also in the 80's he did hospice social work, and associated his private practice with a holistic health and growth center. Currently, he works full time in the Department of Clinical Social Work at UCLA Medical Center, counseling patients and families in the ER and hospital, serving on committees, writing and publishing, and doing computer projects for improving the quality of care. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The information in this link [30] is not particularly good. For instance, The Psychosynthesis Research Foundation was in New York City (not Delaware), and it was run by Frank Hilton, who was also director of the School for Esoteric Studies; but from a separate (adjoining) office next to the SES office. I was there many times. I think I have every newsletter the Psychosynthesis Research Foundation ever sent out, and Bailey was not mentioned a single time. Although it was run by the same person who was director of the SES, all the Psychosynthesis work was done from the separate office, with Hilton having a different title. It was very important to Roberto Assagioli that the two be kept separate, for reasons I have already explained, and which reasons Hilton understood and respected. The two were never mixed together.
I read the articles by Douglas Russell a number of years ago. As far as I know he had no contact with Assagioli, and I don't think he understands Psychosynthesis very well. There is, of course, nothing to stop someone from misrepresenting Psychosynthesis; and there are many such 'teachers'. Kwork 00:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Entropy--for Parsifal and other fellow creators

Entropy, especially in the sense of:

  • A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
  • Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

Parsifal, I see you made some good edits, but I noticed an example (I think there are many such) that shows the problem of the Wiki endeavor. In making an edit, you removed the following paraphrase:

"she pushed for and received a divorce." which is, as the references showsbased on her biography, p. 121 - 122.

It's a little thing, and yet, from small changes a mighty entropy develops that stadily and inevitably chips away at the structure. Earlier, I said that I was not making suff up and that my text in the Bailey biography consisted of close and faithful paraphrases of the sources. I'm guessing that you did not actually read pages 121-122 of her biography before the edit, but the gist of it is that she pushed for and received a divorce. What you added was fine, but you also removed good info in the process. James 16:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

James - First: I didn't remove the phrase with any intention to change the meaning. I removed it in service of making smoothly reading text that was based on the sources. But I think you're right, it was better with that phrase included, so I have now added it back in.
Second, I did read that part of her biography. By assuming that I did not, you imply that I'm not looking at the information fairly and am making cavalier changes rather than careful sincere edits. Your comment further implies that my edits are examples of entropy chipping away at articles. According to Wiktionary, "entropy" means: "The tendency of a system that is left to itself to descend into chaos." Entropy may happen in articles when many editors make hasty changes over time, but when applied to one editor's work as an individual, rather than a system, (me in this case)... that's a bit insulting, don't you think? --Parsifal Hello 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That you didn't read was just a "guess." No desire to single you out except that you and I are the main ones making changes right now and I happened to come across it. I complimented you on your edits also. I'm not singling you out as the cause of all edit problems. Just used this latest as a symbol of a bigger thing that's not just you or I and is more than the present moment. No desire to stir your feelings, and if I failed in harmlessness here, I'm sorry. I'm just addressing what's in the article and that necessarily leads back to us as editors.
I just noticed the quoted phrase "a being" in the article and checked the references but could find no such phrase in the works cited or in AAB's bio. Know anything about that one? Best Thoughts, James 18:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your apology. I did notice that you complimented me as well, and I appreciate that though it didn't seem to compensate for using my work as an example of entropy which is why I mentioned it.
I got the word "being" from the Stucliffe reference on page 46. The other references used the word "stranger", which would also be OK with me, though I thought that "being" fit better with the way Bailey describes it in her autobiography, since none of the servants saw the visitor in the house. --Parsifal Hello 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Since AAB's meeting with the Master is a personal account of an event when she was alone, then her biography is the only source of this from which Stucliffe is drawing, and AAB does not use "a being" which makes it sound etherial kind like the "being of light" of a near death encounter. Her actual description is quite physical and objective sounding. So I'd recommend not using Stucliffe's interpretation in this case. Best Thoughts, James 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)