Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great White Brotherhood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Pigman☿ 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great White Brotherhood

Great White Brotherhood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This got speedy deleted, but that was objected to - who knows, perhaps rightly, and so I've restored the page and brought it here. Here are the main problems:

  • Largely redundant with Ascended master
  • No independent sources. Everything used is published by presses devoted to Theosophy, a small Victorian spiritualist movement that includes this concept.
  • Part of a large theosophy walled garden.

In short, notability issues, mixed with redundancy. Adam Cuerden talk 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[The above related-AfD link has been added in the interests of process transparency. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)]
  • Keep, quite strongly. This is a fairly well known concept from theosophy and turn of the century occultism; the notion of a Great White Brotherhood was shared, not only by theosophists, but also by Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn traditions; A. E. Waite (see his The Hidden Church of the Holy Grail), Aleister Crowley (see his Confessions for many references to the concept), and other associated writers all refer to the Great White Brotherhood in some form; and it fairly clearly inspired the Golden Dawn concept of the Secret Chiefs. For that matter, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Annie Besant, and C. W. Leadbeater are not exactly obscure figures in this path of intellectual history, and the given references are therefore hardly trivial, obscure, or non-notable; sometimes I think I get more than a whiff of rationalist bias. This article needs expansion, not deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The question is whether the subject meets the WP:N standard of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's possible such coverage exists, but the current sources provided in the article do not meet that standard. Fireplace (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment And two sections of it are completely redundant with Ascended master, the third is just quotes. Adam Cuerden talk 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
        • FWIW, "Ascended master" and "Great White Brotherhood" are two related but separate notions. GWB is the earlier of the two; "ascended master" is important primarily to the I AM movement and its offshoots, and one issue with the current content of the article appears to be that it relies heavily on those versions. I am going to have to do some digging on this, but I will try to add some different perspectives, assuming it is kept. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Certainly, I have no objection to keeping an improved version, and would be willing to check the procedure for a speedy keep (I don't do AfD much) if there's promises of improvement. Adam Cuerden talk 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
            • I've tried to add some very basic information to the article about the use of the term by non-I AM groups. There is surely more to be said; I will want to see if I can get hands on any books by Joscelyn Godwin or Richard Kieckhefer who discuss all of these matters from an academic perspective. The real problem with the current article seems to be to be merely undue weight to one perspective.

              I suppose I ought to disclose my conflict of interest. I am the bagman for the Great White Brotherhood. -Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - it's definitely a notable concept used by several unrelated groups as pointed out by Smerdis of Tlön. It is also distinct from Ascended master which concept is pretty much limited to Theosophy and its derivatives. I agree that any duplication should be sorted out, but of the two, Ascended master is the less notable. Curious Blue (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, that's fair enough, but it would probably help if the article actually dealt with the non-Theosophy parts in any significant way... Adam Cuerden talk 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I assume that could be suggested with appropriate templates. I've not familiar enough with the range of templates to choose the right ones for this. Also, I've prefer to keep my opinion in this AfD independent at least until the AfD closes, since I've never edited the article. Curious Blue (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Just trying to figure out what to do with it. Adam Cuerden talk 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I find myself surprised to be agreeing with the nominator here, as with such a long list of references I didn't expect to actually be able to verify the claim that none of the sources are good enough. But I can see they aren't. In most cases, the publisher's name is directly connected to this movement. Most of the rest aren't published at all. The few remaining after that are apparently obscure original publications from the early 20th century. This strikes me as parallel to WP:FICT: these are concepts specific to a world view found in a few written works. There's no outside importance to this, none presented in the article, and no sources that suggest any outside importance exists, and I think that would be needed here. Mangojuicetalk 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, unless significant, independent coverage found per WP:N.Fireplace (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Ample sources indicating adequate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is related to importance in the real world. While writing and references to these concepts may be limited to a small circle, there are those of us on the outside of that circle who want to know what the heck they are talking about in there. This has significant value because there are several extant religious organizations subscribing to these ideas. It's important that those of us who must deal with them in one way or another have access to this handy summary of their core concepts. Several of these groups are referenced in the article and their existence is readily verifiable. Fat Tommy (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep: The article seems to meet WP:N, but it also needs a considerable amount of re-writing to be up to Wikipedia standards. I recommend the editors review WP:OBVIOUS, and also be especially careful in applying NPOV and no original research. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No to any deleting, merging or redirecting
Comment about reliable sources and verifiability - An excellent point was raised by DGG who pointed out that its "just as appropriate to use Theosophical sources as a description as to describe those of any other religion from its works." I agree that is how you get an accurate description of the beliefs of a religion or a philosophical concept. The article on Jehovah's Witnesses is an example how discussions of a religious belief have references to books written by the adherents of that belief. The same is true of the Roman Catholic Church and references to the "self-published" Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church when discussing what Catholic beliefs are. Arguments that we can apply different standards to a religion that has a smaller number of members are unconvincing.
An example of the problem with using an article that someone may erroneously consider a "reliable source" is that the author of that article may know practically nothing about the actual beliefs, and may only be interested in expressing contempt and ridicule of the subject. Fireplace used such an article (which used mocking terms like "two-bit alias" and "one of the kookiest cults") from the Los Angeles Times (See WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walled_gardens_of_woo) to completely rewrite the I AM Activity article into an article written from a POV that this religious belief is a fraudulent con game, with inaccuracies such as the erroneous statement (from that Los Angeles Times hatchet job) that Guy Ballard claimed to be the reincarnation of Saint Germain or Jesus! Any review of the original sources would quickly reveal how contrary to their beliefs such a statement was. This emphasizes the problem with using outside sources to describe the religious beliefs of a church or religion. Arion (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There were factual inaccuracies placed in the "I AM" Activity article by User:Fireplace as of result of his relying on an error-riddled article from Los Angeles Magazine. I just made edits that corrected a number of factual inaccuracies in this Wikipedia article, and gave specific citations to actual source documents to verify those edits. Within one half hour these corrective edits were reverted by Adam Cuerden (a Wikipedia administrator). What kind of explanation can possibly justify such action - again without discussion nor consensus? Arion (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. - I'm not a follower of this religion and have not edited the related articles prior to this AfD. I must voice my concern that a group of articles about a significant minority religion were nominated for deletion ( AfD page for Master Hilarion, et al) following derogatory comments on the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard in a report titled "Walled gardens of woo". What is "woo" intended to convey? It reads like an insult to the believers in this religion, and to the editors who worked on the articles. There are other insults in the above linked AfD and fringe noticeboard report. Insulting characterizations of minority religious beliefs and the work of well-intentioned editors do not belong in Wikipedia.
[Some of my comment has been cross-posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, because that list of closely-related topics was nominated separately from this one. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)]
No one is arguing we should delete Theosophy or every Theosophy-related article. That's an awfully broad brush you're painting these debates with. What about this one? Mangojuicetalk 05:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
My comment included both broad brush and fine-point ink-pen, because the nomination did not specifically address only this article, it included inaccurate information about Theosophy. With my fine-point pen, I listed the exact count of Google Books and Google Scholar results on the topic of this article, and showed some non-Theosophy publishers used as references in this article. With my broad brush, I answered the nominators' complaints about the larger topic of Theosophy, and the use of a religions' publications in describing its own religious beliefs, a valid process used by Wikipedia on major religions as well, and his descriptions of Theosophy as a "small Victorian spiritualist movement" and a "walled garden", both of which are simply incorrect.
You mentioned "these debates" rather than "this debate". I assume you're referring to the other AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, to delete every one of the six or seven "Masters of Wisdom" Theosophy articles all at once. While I am not a follower of the religion, it's surprising and disappointing to me to see a nomination for mass deletion of a historically significant religion's equivalent of "Archangels". I don't understand why someone would want to do that. It's completely clear from the quantity and depth of writings about these topics for over a hundred years that they are worthy of a few kilobytes of Wikipedia storage. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the nomination, it is quite specific to this article. So are some of the other arguments being made. Do you have any reliable and clearly independent sources that talk about the "Great White Brotherhood," or is this a minor feature of an obscure belief system no one comments on from the outside? Mangojuicetalk 06:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Those questions seem to be a re-phrase of the nomination. I've already answered in detail. I'm not here to have an extended debate defending what I wrote. I did research on this article and the other ones in the related AfD before I entered my comments; the result of that work is the information I posted. It's here for use of the administrator who closes this AfD, and for anyone else who is wants to use it. I'm not an editor of the article and I have no vested interest to defend. I believe the article should be kept for the detailed reasons I listed, which, ultimately, come down to that the article satisfies WP:N and WP:V.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This appears to be a well referenced treatment of a religious subject. —Whig (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a fairly significant concept in theosophy, and the treatment here is at the very least in service to Wikipedia for detailing the history of the usage of the term. The article is in need of some cleanup and organization, but that's not an AfD criteria. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Keep, but not for the reasons given by various editors above. The typical argument above takes the form "Theosophy is notable, therefore it's concepts are notable" or "theosophical sources can be used to establish notability." Those arguments aren't supported by Wikipedia's policy or guidelines. The relevant criterion is whether the subject has been significantly covered by independent reliable sources. Having looked through some books from third-party, reliable publishers, I'm convinced of the notability here. I'm saddened by the quality of argument, however, both here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, which I think shows a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:Notability. Fireplace (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Others were convinced of the notability here before AfD speedy deletion was made without apparent consultation on the article talk. —Whig (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I favor keeping those articles in Wikipedia since they are references with reliable sources. Is there suddenly a problem with space on Wikipedia? There sure seems to be room for hundreds of articles on characters from mythology, Catholic saints, and gods of Hinduism. Yet, there's no room for a mere handful of articles on Theosophical and Ascended Master teachings? Sage 1225Sage1225 (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - Article is well referenced, and I believe the subject is notable. I read a bit of Crowley and related texts years back, and was aware of this order. Sage1225 also makes a good point. It is certainly an encyclopedic subject worthy of inclusion. - Crockspot (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The Mahatmas are the beings who Madame Blavatsky supposedly encountered personally; the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom are the beings as described in the literature of the Theosophical Society; Alice A. Bailey uses the terms Masters of the Wisdom, Spiritual Hierarchy, Elder Brothers of the Race, and Great White Brotherhood, or simply The Masters, all to refer to the same alleged beings; The term Ascended Master was introduced by Guy Ballard and its use was continued by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the two major people who are the sources of the Ascended Master Teachings, but they both also sometimes use the term Great White Brotherhood; Benjamin Creme simply uses the term Masters; and non-Theosophy occultists like Alistair Crowley use the term Great White Brotherhood (he mentioned them in his book Magick). Keraunos (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.