Talk:Alice Bailey/Archive 5

:::: * Teachings of Alice Baliey

::I'd like to second Kwork's request, Jossi. Making massive changes (with the keyword being "massive") to an article about whose subject you are unfamiliar has led you into trouble at least twice now.

The problem is that the editors here have little or no knowledge of the writings of Alice Bailey. There are no Alice Bailey scholars present here. There isn't an administrator, on Wikipedia, who is an Alice Bailey scholar. It's my understanding the Jossi isn't here to write the article but here to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. [User:Sparklecplenty|Sparklecplenty]] 01:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:: I take exception with Kwork and Cath's comments. I have added good material to the article, and I have engaged in discussions. I do not expect that you agree with me, we can agree to disagree and seek dispute resolution when we are stuck in disagreements. I would also say this: when a non-involved editor comes to help with a dispute, both sides of the dispute should welcome that person and use his lack of POV on the subject to bounce ideas off, as it pertains to neutrality (after a while when editing an article from a strong POV, we tend to lose perspective). Now, if active editors of this article want to editwar to their hearts content, please say so and I will go away, and let editors here have as much rope as they need to tie the proverbial knot around their own necks. Just say the word, and this article will be off my watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, why are taking this abuse? Why do you have to leave. Before you came this kind of behavior went unchecked. I was severely reprimanded for being far less insulting than this. Ownership behavior has become so severe, that not many of can edit without being deleted or reverted. Sparklecplenty 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

: If I go away, I will most definitively make some reports at WP:ANI so that uninvolved admins can take action here. As I have edited the article, I cannot exercise admins duties (one either edits, or acts as an admin in a specific article, and I have chosen the former). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Jossi, your edits are much appreciated and very clean and balanced. It's clear that Cat and Kwork have a certain perception about the way things ought to be presented based on their understanding of Bailey, but, other people have a different understanding of Bailey within a different world view that is equally valid.

:::Your and Vassyana's eyes on the article are greatly appreciated as they add an outside neutral view on what is OR, what doesn't make sense, what needs sourcing, what is redundant. Thank you. Renee 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Jossi, that's very interesting that admins don't wear both hats on the same article, I did not know that. It seems like a very wise policy indeed! As far as your edits here, I may not agree with all of 'em, but I DO agree with WP:BRD, and I think there's no questioning your good faith, or your experience. As I've stated recently, I think policy abuse has gone on too long here, and I really hope you'll bring it to another admin's attention if you see the need. And I refer to any editor, including myself. Eaglizard 07:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::WEIRD BEHAVIOUR ALERT! The above post was not, as far as I can see, made by Vassyana. Rumiton 13:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::That really IS weird. The above post was made by me, Eaglizard. I have no idea how Vassyana's name became attached to it; I signed w/ 4 tildes as always. It links to me, btw, but has had Vass's name in the second field. Eaglizard 14:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Click on history to see how it happened, but not why. (The entities are playful tonight.) Rumiton 14:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't actually have the patience, nor really the desire either. I don't care, just note that it weren't me. If you took the time to look, then do tell. It would take me 20-30 mins. Eaglizard 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Your name was changed to Vassyana's by Kwork at 1148 on 13 Oct 07. This strikes me as rather important. The question is why? Rumiton 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Kwork, care to explain this unusual situation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, when did I tell you to stop editing the article? What I asked for was discussion before, not after, making important changes to the article. And the problem is that you have no way of distinguishing between what is important and what is not. Is it asking too much that you should talk, and not just in your standard monosylables? If it is; certainly, take this article off your watch list.

If I need to be abrasive to get your attention, I have a lot of reserves there that I have not yet drawn on. If you want write up a report about me, please do if you think it will do you any good. My view is that most editors, even those who are otherwise rather agressive, turn into real ass kissers when dealing with administrators. Because of that, I will not hesitate to say to an administrator what I not say otherwise. (The Cynic philosophers sometimes called speaking truth to authority "defacing the currency".) Kwork 11:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:"Bebasing" I think is what they said. Rumiton 01:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This section misrepresents Alice writings on the races.

"It is called "The Aryan Path" and is exceedingly fine. The word Aryan here has nothing to do with Hitler's use of the word. It concerns the Aryan method of spiritual evaluation and the way in which people belonging to the Fifth Root Race make their approach to reality." pg. 189 Autobiography

"Today in our Aryan age and race, we see the vital expression of this fifth ray energy. When I use the word "race" I deal not with man-made or pseudo-scientific differentiations of nations and races or types. I deal with a state of consciousness which is the Aryan or mental consciousness or state of thinking; this finds its exponents and its "race members" in every nation,without any distinction or omissions. Rays and Initiation p. 559

Below is how it was represented:

"Bailey upheld theories of racial differentiation that posited a division of humanity into races that are on different levels in a "ladder of evolution". For example, she said that the Aryans, as an "emerging new race", are the most evolved people on Earth. In her book Education in the New Age[111], Bailey made predictions about the use of occult racial theories in the schools of the future, which she said would be based on racial cohorts such as Lemurians (physically adept), Atlanteans (emotionally adept), Aryans (mentally adept), and the New Race with "group qualities and consciousness and idealistic vision." In her The Destiny of the Nations, Bailey described a process[112] by which the "new race" will evolve from Caucasians, after which "low grade human bodies will disappear, causing a general shift in the racial types toward a higher standard".[113]

:I must most strongly agree with you, my friend. At least, in a certain sense. I do feel that the change, whether accidental or intentional, of some complex concepts for emotionally-loaded "codewords" like "Aryan" and "New World Order" is really my single greatest concern for the long-term NPOV of this article. The real problem is that only editors rather intimately familiar with Bailey can really appreciate the clear distinction between Bailey's use of a phrase like "Aryan Race", and Hitler's use of it. It seems more likely to me that Hitler derived his from hers, and not vice-versa; he stole a lot of phrases from a lot of good people to cloak his evil ideas. However, to a reader unfamiliar with the timeline, and the prevalence of the concept of "Aryan Race" in Blavastky and others, this will appear to say "Bailey had ideas similar to Hitler's." Which she clearly did not. But, it's really a long term issue, and can wait until more pressing concerns are dealt with. IMHO. Eaglizard 07:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::To discuss this would get us deep into OR territory, but i think that neither Hitler nor Bailey is the source you are seeking for the emerging use of the term "Aryan" during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to describe blue-eyed, blond-haired, non-Jewish Europeans. I would like to point you toward a raft of earlier sources, including the Volkisch movement, V. Gordon Childe, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. and others who are mentioned in the two wikipedia sections that deal with the "Aryan Race" and with the "racial connotations" of the term Aryan, which can be found here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race] and here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan#Racial_connotations]. I think if you read these several pages, you will see that Bailey, far from using the term differently than Blavatsky or Hitler, was using it in essentially the same way -- as a pseudo-scientific way to divide people into "high" (Aryan means "noble" and "spiritual") and "low" (into which group Bailey put the Negroes, whom she called a "child race" and the Jews, whom she said "lowered the atmosphere" of the paces where they lived). The basic difference between Hitler on the one hand and Bailey on the other lay not in the meaning they attached to the word "Aryan" but in their suggested means for eliminating Judaism, a goal they both espoused. cat Catherineyronwode 09:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::It's not up to us as editors to guess about whether or not certain words, as used by sources, might be misinterpreted by readers in an emotional way. The NPOV fact is that Bailey used those terms, and the use was published. Not only did she use those terms, and other possibly emotionally-loaded words, she did not use them in passing, she used them repeatedly as an integral part of her teachings, both in explaining the evolution of humanity, and her plan for how the world religion will be structured in the future.

:::There's a whole chapter in The Externalization of the Hierarchy titled "New World Order", in a section written around 1940. She mentioned the Axis use of the term, and she chose to use the same term anyway for her version. I am not implying that her use was the same, not at all. But she made her choice with awareness, and it's not up to us to second guess that. --Parsifal _Hello 10:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::This is just the kind of subtlety I'm talking about. Check your texts, Bailey did not write about the "New World Order", she wrote about the "new world order". There really is a difference. (She uses the capitalized version only one time that I could find.) Parsifal's comment seems to say that, as long as the quote is from the source, it will automatically be NPOV in the article. This is false, I believe. See Contextomy. Eaglizard 14:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC) ps I don't really want to argue about this right now; I think this kind of thing would be best done when (if?) there's a reasonably stable article to tweak. We're not quite there yet, I guess. :) Eaglizard 15:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"faith healing" not used by Alice Bailey

"ascended masters" Elizabeth Claire Prophet coined word

"Rosicrucian Formerly the school was structured in a series of degrees similar to Freemasonry and its early structure can be compared with the ceremonials of the Rosicrucian order.[42]" please show quote of this reference match for this, did not find it. Sparklecplenty 01:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

: I added that text. It is from Sutcliffe, Steven J., Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, p.237 , Routledge.

:{{quotation|Further on the Arcane School (See Sinclair 1984:58-61). who claims that 'formerly' the School was structured in a series of degrees analogous to Freemasonry. The mention of Rosicrucians as a significant minority among School participants encourages comparison of its early structure with the contemporary ceremonial of The Rosicrucian Order, Crotona Fellowship. }}

:≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I couldn't find it, so thought I would ask. Sparklecplenty 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Sparkelplenty, the UFO contactee material apears in the Alice Bailey "Influence" section. She influenced them and this was acknowledged by them. This is also mentioned in the introduction as an example of her influence and historical importance. The UFO group was founded after Bailey had died, but used her writings as a religious touchstone in their meetings.

::That's one of the interesting things about being notable (famous, well-known) -- your work influences many people whom you may neer meet and about whom you may know nothing.

::An article on the Beatles may, for instance, mention covers of their songs and also various musicians who did not perform covers of their songs but who have cited the Beatles as an influence -- and whom the Beatles themselves may have neither met nor known about.

::Thus is is with Alice Bailey -- her influences live on, after her death. cat Catherineyronwode 04:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I think its important, though, that the the person themselves cite the subject as an influence. Otherwise the conclusion must not be drawn, by us, but by a secondary source, and attributed as such. Am I missing any other legit means that's not OR? (Oh, and yes cat, I know you have a source. Again, I'm not objecting to anything here (he said, proleptically)). Eaglizard 07:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Of course, Eaglizard. In this case, the Bailey influence on the UFO group Understanding, Inc. was noted by a third party, the religion scholar Robert S. Ellwood, who observed that the UFO group recited an invocation from Bailey's writings, an invocation with which he was already familiar, having previously observed and described a Bailey-originated Full Moon Meditation Group meeting. cat Catherineyronwode 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Hey, that might be a legit means I missed. If a group is using an author's actual text in their "rituals" or whatever, they probably don't need to come right out and say "the author influenced us". Still prolly OR to actually draw the conclusion; I'm glad Ellwood does that for us. Eaglizard 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Sparkle, it does seem unlikely that Baileyites would base a system on the 10-degree style, and not on seven or twelve levels common in the Hindu and Tibetan schemes, and in AAB herself. On the other hand, the Golden Dawn types were still a big influence at the time; it might have been a deliberate attempt to siphon off students from the Hermetic orders. Who knows? In my mind, even it it's true, it doesn't really establish any Rosicrucian (or Hermetic) connection to Bailey herself. (I seriously doubt the GD themselves had any actual connection to some mythical Christian Rosenkruetz, but that's what they taught in their, what was it, the Third or Fourth degree ritual? I forget. lol) But, it's sourced, and it's not too important. Does it bother you that it's there? Eaglizard 07:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Regarding the Arcane School and Freemasonry ritual structures, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch considering that Foster Bailey was a high degree Freemason, at least 32 degree per one source. And in Freemasonry, in the Scottish Rite, they have the "Chapter of Rose Croix", a term related to Rosicrucianism.

::Also, one of the founders of the The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was a member of the Theosophical Society, as well as a Rosicrucian and a Freemason. For convenience, here's a section from the intro of that article (emphasis added):

::{{quotation|The three founders, Dr. William Robert Woodman, William Wynn Westcott, and Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers were Freemasons and members of Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia (S.R.I.A.), an appendant body to Freemasonry. Westcott, also a member of the Theosophical Society, appears to have been the initial driving force behind the establishment of the Golden Dawn. Influences on Golden Dawn concepts and work include: Christian mysticism, Qabalah, Hermeticism, the religion of Ancient Egypt, Theurgy, Freemasonry, Alchemy, Theosophy, Eliphas Levi, Papus, Enochian magic, and Renaissance grimoires.}}

::So, there is some connection between the systems. We don't know for sure if it's a two-way connection that could affect the Bailey-group rituals; though Foster Bailey's involvement makes that likely. Anyway, not suggesting that this would fit in the article because without a source it would be OR. Interesting though,... I wonder if somewhere there might be a source on this.--Parsifal _Hello 09:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Wow, Parsifal, I never knew WWW was a Theosophist. That's very interesting, I might have to pull out my copy of Golden Dawn and re-read some of his papers. And for some reason I wasn't thinking about the Freemasons when I wrote that, but I think I was saying roughly the same thing, that it wouldn't be an improbable suggestion. And, unlike our speculation, it is a sourced suggestion. :) Eaglizard 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There were really no rituals with the Arcane School. There were monthly full moon meditations, where a large group of members would meet. There would be a talk on some aspect of the teaching followed by a silent meditation and a group recitation of the Great Invocation. There were also the three linked festivals (really bigger full moon meetings) on the April (Easter) full moon, May (Wesak) full moon, and June (Festival of Humanity) full moon. There were no cermonies, secret hand shakes, etc.

Foster Bailey was heavily into the Masons, but he had little direct involvement with the Arcane School, and was never its director. When Alice Bailey was close to death after a long fight with leukemia, she appointed another woman to be director after her own death. I forget that woman's original last name, but her first name was Mary. When Foster Bailey married her, after Alice Bailey's death, she became Mary Bailey. So, to repeat, Foster Bailey was never head of the Arcane School, and that information in the article is wrong. Kwork 16:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:It appears that the answers.com encyclopedia article is unreliable. That's the second fact they got wrong, so I have removed that reference.

:The quote above is from a published reliable source, so that one we can't kick it out even if it might not be accurate; we would need another reliable source to contest it.

:I modified the after Alice Bailey's death section of the article and added citation-requests. Kwork, would you please take a look and see if it the remaining words are now accurate? Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I found [http://www.freeread.com/archives/hierarchial-chart-9.gif this diagram of the solar/planetary hierarchies] on a Bailey-related website.

It seems to have much in common with the Tree of Life of Western Hermeticism, and the Hermetic Qabalah as in these examples:

• :Image:Tree-of-Life Flower-of-Life Stage.jpg
• :Image:Tree of life wk 02.jpg
• :Image:Tree of life wk 03.jpg
• :Image:Kircher Tree of Life.png

There are plenty of differences in the details, but the underlying structure seems closely related. --Parsifal _Hello 05:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:I concur with Lumos3 on this. I've reviewed his statement of Fair Use Rationale on the image file page. All the bases are covered for this use of the image. --Parsifal _Hello 09:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

: No, it does not. The practice in Wikipedia is to use cover only in articles that discuss the book itself and provides critical commentary about the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

: It is not about "referring", it is about: "only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." See WP:FAIR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::I don't see the big deal. I think the present image actually looks good, and its not as though someone inserted a photo of Bailey with her finger up her nose. Kwork 15:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::I assume the fact that we use that same book as a source throughout the article does not count as "critical commentary"? Eaglizard 15:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::: Look up any bio of authors in WP, and you will see that these do not contain cover art for a reason. If we had an article about Alice Bailey's autobiography (book), then yes, we could use cover art. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Um, I guess that would be a "no, it doesn't count". thanks. BTW, do you know the difference between talking with someone and talking at them? Eaglizard 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Meaning? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Damn. I was about to remove that. But. Meaning, You said "we can't use the cover in this bio, bc its not about the book." So, I looked at FAIR and it says "critical commentary". I asked if that counted. You answered: "we can't use the cover in this bio, bc its not about the book." I was hoping for simply "no, that doesn't count" (or maybe "yes, that would be ok"). An answer to my question. And, I amm getting rather thin-skinned with this page. Maybe I need a break. Sorry for sounding so pissy. Eaglizard 15:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::: Yep, sometimes text exchanges in these pages are not the best form of communication, but that is what we have... We need to learn to get better at this... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Note. The photo in the infobox is up for deletion. Soon this article will have no images at all. Lumos3 23:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Zionism today stands for aggression and for the use of force, and the keynote is permission to take what you want irrespective of other people

or of their inalienable rights. These points of view are against the position of the spiritual leaders of humanity, and therefore the leaders of the Zionist movement, and the group of men who direct and control the policies of Russia, are against the policies of the spiritual Hierarchy and are contrary

to the lasting good of mankind..." Rays & Initiation p.680 Sparklecplenty 15:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::WP:SOFIXIT. Eaglizard 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::: I see no reason why not to add this source... Is there a concern about it that I may be missing? Or is this just am argumentative device to make a point? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::It's always so hard to tell on this page. And now I'm just babbling. Sigh... Eaglizard 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

AntiZionism is a standard part of antisemitism. Kwork 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say Anti-Zionism is a standard part of anti-Semiticism, when those who are complaining about Zionism, are Semitic people--Palestinian, Syrians, Egyptians, etc. Sparklecplenty 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:In that case it might help if you read this Wikipedia article: Antisemitism. Kwork 17:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Arabs are semitic people. If you're anti-semitic it's logical that you're anti-Arab as well. Sparklecplenty 18:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Read the article. The word antisemitism has developed a use that is not based on the structure of the word. It is accepted usage. If you object, contact those who write English language dictionaries and argue with them. It is pointless to argue with the standard accepted usage of a word on this page. Also see [http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=define%3A+antisemitism&btnG=Google+Search]Kwork 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Kwork's dead right on this Sparkle, the "all Arabs are semitic" thing is a straw man that's been thoroughly beat to death on Talk: Antisemitism. "Antisemitic" means "anti-Jew", and nothing else, AFAIK. Eaglizard 18:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is tantamount to confess that your (and many others') usage of the terminology "antisemitism", "antisemitic" etc. is just a linguistic fraud -- an attempt to depict criticism against a specific group, based on its own criminal records, as it were criticism against a larger group, based on racial or cultural bias. As it would be if members of Sicilian Mafia would insist that anyone showing their crimes are "anti-Italian", or even "anti-European". Jews are a tiny minority of so-called Semitic peoples, and are criticized because of their own specific actions and beliefs. Therefore, calling criticism of Jews "antisemitism" is just one more Jewish (not Semitic!) fraud. [unsigned comment by Anonymous 85.5.179.233

: Dear 85.5.179.233, your definition of the word antisemitic is based on a misconception. The word derives from "semitic" but it has a different meaning than what you think. Click the link and look it up. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• You are saying that the word "Jews" or "Jewish" comes up 110 times, or that there are 110 sections, chapters, etc where the word "Jew" is mentioned multiple times? In any case, what you are saying is still deceptive, because typically a section will start saying something like "it is an interesting fact that the Jews are found...." and than go on discussing the Jews at length without many re-uses of the word "Jew" even though it is a very long passage discussing nothing but the Jews. Kwork 15:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Using Win98 Find, "Jew" appears on 124 HTML pages, "Jews" on 58 and "Jewish" on 69. The figure of 110 different, separated sections of text discussing the Jews doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Eaglizard 16:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Discussing the Jewish people isn't unreasonable to me. But it a fact that the majority of Alice Bailey writing were not on the Jewish people. And its difficult to get pass the mainly Jewish topic, in order to discuss the majority of the topics Bailey wrote about--brotherhood, unity, and love. Since we humans are mainly focused on our personality happenings--heritage, race, religion, and country, its difficult for us to get to the spirituality of this work--whichis the bulk of the pages. Sparklecplenty 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:I concur with Lumos3 on this. I've reviewed his statement of Fair Use Rationale on the image file page. All the bases are covered for this use of the image. --Parsifal _Hello 09:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

: No, it does not. The practice in Wikipedia is to use cover only in articles that discuss the book itself and provides critical commentary about the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

: It is not about "referring", it is about: "only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." See WP:FAIR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::I don't see the big deal. I think the present image actually looks good, and its not as though someone inserted a photo of Bailey with her finger up her nose. Kwork 15:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::I assume the fact that we use that same book as a source throughout the article does not count as "critical commentary"? Eaglizard 15:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

UF0's aren't mentioned in her books; she never used the term "ascended master"; her childhood "suicide attempts" are isolated to emphasis--it makes her look like a nut case. There are no counters to the accusations that her term "Aryan Race" is to be equated with "Hitler's" twisted interpretation. We have Sjoo leading the pack of "Aryan Race" deception. Sjoo is there because she had an isolated personal experience with Bailey people that she thought were prejudice to her half-racial son. The son she only referred to as "half-racial son." Her isolated experiences with a few Bailyites could be considered the same as my being called a "meatpuppet" to someone who is thought to be anitiSemitic.

Note: Hitler didn't invent the ancient occult science, nor did he invent the ancient symbols, he misused and inverted them--"swastika".

Note: Sjoo is one of the nut cases that is used to make a case that Alice Bailey is also a nut case, because "it takes one to know one."

"Note:" I complained about the photo. I take Jossi reasons for using the photo on "good faith". The photo it is far less important to me than the deception going on here. Sparklecplenty 16:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Sparkleplenty, please! Sjoo did not refer to her son as "half-racial." She called him "bi-racial," a common term with a well-understood meaning. cat Catherineyronwode 22:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:You say "The Jewish members have taken ownership of this article." By this you seem to mean it is all the fault of the Jews that the article does not look just the way you want it to look. Well, what would your version of the article look like? Kwork 16:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Kwork, I just answered this in the Zionism section on this page. Sparklecplenty 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::This article focuses on Jews, Judaism, and anti-semitism more than any biography should. Move the rants off of the encyclopedia. 74.53.36.132 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Hi 74.53.36.132. Could you expand that statement into an explanation that shows signs of intelligence? Kwork 17:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::: Please don't bite the newbies, Kwork. As for anon's assertion, I do not think that the article focuses on these aspects, rather, it describes these aspects which are an interesting aspect of this person's teachings and viewpoints. The issue to discuss is one of balance, and I believe that there is a need to balance the article with additional material about this person's teachings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::Sorry, 74.53.36.132. Could explain your objection? It has been suggested that the Alice Bailey teaching be moved to a separate article. But Alice Bailey's antisemitic statements are difficult to separate either from her or her teaching. Of course, if she had not made the antisemitic statements there would be no discussion of what did not exist. Kwork 17:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Welcome 74. I tend to agree with you in that the sections on teachings are shorter than the sections on Jews and Judaism so it gives the appearance of undue weight to the topic. We have been discussing this issue for a long time -- see history of this talk page. (Also, please ignore nasty remarks and stay with us!).

:::::::Other editors -- what happened to the idea of separating out the biographical information from the teachings? Will that create double the trouble or work well? Also, at one time someone had proposed creating a separate article on Alice Bailey and Anti-Semitism. I think this is a good idea because (1) those who keep finding more and more quotations on the topic and hence keep expanding those sections can do so to their hearts' content, and, (2) it would make the disputes on the talk pages virtually cease because an article on the topic of Alice Bailey and Anti-Semitism (or even, Alice Bailey, Theosophy, and Anti-Semitism) would be the focus and there would (presumably) be less of a focus on balance and undue weight. Renee 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Kwork, please do not undo good faith edits by newcomers. 74's edit still says that Bailey's writings about Jews and Judaism stirred controversy and it still has in there that her writings were viewed as racist and anti-semitic. You do not own the article. Renee 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sparkle, you do have the "right" to edit this article; why do you feel that you don't? Welcome to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. [emphasis mine] Eaglizard 18:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Eaglizard, a smile and a thanks. hmmm, "free online encyclopedia", most of the time it feels like a free-for-all. Catherine deleted large section that had no controversy to it, she did this without discussion or reason. I reverted it and she immediately reverted in out. I changed "ascended masters" to master and she reverted it back. And she obviously went beyond her 3RR that day and no one said a word. So it's is a theory that I can edit here. That was the day that I also started to change the Mary Bailey was Alice's "daughter" to "second wife" of Foster Bailey. You got there minutes before me, anyway your correction, if I remember correctly, ruffled a feather or two. Sparklecplenty 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::: If there is any violations of 3RR, please report them at WP:AN/3RR where these will be dealt with by non-involved admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, it was editor Judith's suggestion that we balance each negative with a positive. This lead to dropping the controversy section and integrating the negative & positives. In the section called "racial theories", Alice Bailey/DK definition of the "Aryan Race" and their denouncing Hitler's twisted interpretation of the "Aryan Race" should be added to that section. And the racial negatives should have AAB/DK definitions of race. Especially since the esoteric meaning of "race" is entirely different than the physical definition of race. Sparklecplenty 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, my little research on this subject tells me that although Bailey made some quite repugnant racial comments about Jews and Judaism, her use of the term Aryan is somewhat different from the Nazi use (although it seems that her comments where more apologist that anything else...). I will dig the material I found and post here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:: Here it is, it still sounds to me as apologetic as I originally thought , but nonetheless that is what is being said about her use of :Aryan":

::{{quotation|Distinguishing herself from the Nazi theorists, Baliey said in Esoteric Psychology, "I am not using the word Aryan, as synonymous with Nordic, but as descriptive of the intellectual goal of humanity..." Pen Lee, False Dawn, p.264.}}

::≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Not to sound too sarcastic, but is it ok with you if the antisemitism stuff is also reduced to a "short mention"? Don't let the fact that some of us are very considerate of your concerns lead you to forget that we have our own areas of interest. I'm not being facetious; the Theosophy stuff happens to be somewhat more important than the antisemitic, for me. Although I'm not saying it doesn't need work, I'm not inclined to continue reducing some areas without reducing every area, if you understand me. Eaglizard 18:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Eaglizard, your point about not reducing the Theosophical section is a good one; and as it happens, I agree with you on that. But it's not necessary to turn it around and point to the various Jewish-related sections again. There's enough emotional charge on this page, please don't feed the flames. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::I assume that the information about antisemitism is not something you value, or that you want in the article. Since you have been fighting against it for months, it does not need Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. What does that have to do with the value of a Theosophical section that long? Its longer than the sections about The Constitution of Man or the Seven Rays, which are discussed at great length in the Bailey books. But if you want it just like it is, that is perfectly okay with me. Kwork 19:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::[Kwork, please excuse the intrusion - I moved your comment from below, I think you meant your reply for Eaglizard not for Jossi. If I am wrong about that, please move it back where you want it. --Parsifal _Hello 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)]

: The comparison with the Theosophical Society is a very important part of this article, as it provides the necessary context to understand Bailey's ideas. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with Jossi. I think that Kwork's deletion of the lengthy Thesophical Society comparison material diminishes the impact of the biographical / contextual thrust of the article. I rather liked it. I would like to see it reinstated. cat Catherineyronwode 20:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:She found worrying that some of the New Age thinking of Bailey and the Theosophists relied on "very reactionary and pro-fascist religious views", such as the belief in a secret elite of "Masters" who control world events and human minds through occult means and attempt to bring about the evolution of an Aryan super-race.

Again, I think the whole Sjoo quotation does not meet Wiki standards but they only part of the phrase above directly attributed to Bailey is the first clause, which already appears in the article. I have deleted the second clause. Renee 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:: I disagree with the deletion. The "second clause" contains wording not present on the first. Two sources are used, not only one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I concur with Jossi's comment here. --Parsifal _Hello 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, then, they should be merged into a single sentence because it's clear that she's excerpting from her book for an article and the first clause repeats itself (i.e., reactionary). Renee 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::: You can do that... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Will do. Thanks. Renee 20:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cat, regarding your sarcastic edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=164374069&oldid=164373189 here], I was trying to faithfully merge the two sentences together so as not to change any meaning from whoever added the sentence originally (see original compared to my version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=164350653&oldid=164334439 here]). I suspect the original inserter was giving a faithful paraphrase to what Sjoo said in the article, so you may be jumping to conclusions that Sjoo was not worried.

BTW, kindness is appreciated over sarcasm. Renee 00:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I think I overreacted with my statements about sarcasm above...once bruised one is sensitive until healed...I will assume you were trying to be funny...Renee 02:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:How terrible for Catherine to be accused of committing a Wikipedia thoughtcrime. Kwork 00:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::How terrible to suffer from lack of impulse control...(remember [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlice_Bailey&diff=164358833&oldid=164358462 this]?)...

:::Sooo, back to the article, I actually think that what Cat wrote sounds fine and less emotional, my only point was that I was trying to represent the sentences faithfully so no one could accuse me of changing the meaning of the sentences, and, I suspect the original article said that Sjoo worried... Renee 01:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition, there's a double emphasis on the anti-semitism slant (i.e., criticized Jews... and writings racist and anti-semitic; two sentences in the lead).

I think 74's edits are good and make the sentence neutral. Renee 20:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Renee, it may be very difficult to convey to you why Kwork reverted 74's bad edits, but i am going to try.

: Jews are people. Judaism is a religion. Israel is a nation. Zionism is a political movement.

:Did you ever study symbolic logic? Do you know what a Venn diagram is?

:Well, the deal is this: each of those 4 topics is a "set" that is separate from the others. They may overlap in part, but they are still four distinct sets.

:Bailey criticized people she identified as "Jews" under four sets (despite the fact that any given Jewish person might not fall into all of these sets). She criticized Jews as a race, Judaism as an "obsolete" and "evil" religion, Israel as a nation founded by "terrorists", and Zionism working through a three-continent "triangle of evil" -- and those must be mentioned separately.

:We cannot "streamline" these four sets together into one set. That is why we address specific terms in consecutive lists, each word separated by a comma. We are not being redundant or overwordy; we are covering aseries of sets. That is why, for instance, i undid Jossi's attempt to move "On Judaism" into a sub-set position of "On the Jewish People" -- the Religion set is not a subset of the Race set.

:Think next of these further subsets of Race -- Genetic Theories, Phenotypal / "Physical Characteristics" Theories, "Social Characteristics" Theories, "Mental Characteristics" Theories, "Evolutionary Ladder" Theories, "Race Problem" Theories, "Solutions to Race Problems" Theories, etc. Again, each set is separate but may partially overlap the others.

:Bailey labelled people as "Jews" and criticized them as a "race" under several, but not all, of those sub-sets. (She did not make genetic or phenotypal criticisms of Jews as her contemporary and fellow-occultist Aleister Crowley, for instance, did.)

: Furthermore, within the set about "Race", Bailey wrote on some non-Jewish racial sub-sets -- the Negro race (which she treated as being different when found in Africa and in the Americas), children of interracial marriages, etc.

:Yes, there is some overlap between all of these sets and subsets, as on a Venn diagram -- but in the end, none of the topics -- Race, Nation, Religion, Political Movement -- can be said to be fully contained within another or to be fully share the same borders as another.

:Once you really, truly understand this, you will see why those of us who are familiar with Jews, African Negroes, American Negroes, Judaism, Israel, Zionism, race theories (and their multitudinour sub-sets), interracial marriage, etc. cannot support 74's attempt to "shorten" or "streamline" or "compress" these sets. It is not truthful to merely short-hand them into two sets, labelled "antisemitism" and "racism" (or, as James did at one point, into one set, labelled "Jewish").

:It may look like we are being very stubborn, but we have good scholarship on our side, and meanwhile, we are still up against the ignorance of those editors who sincerely think (as was revealed today) that the word "antisemitic" must perforce refer to Arabs, even though that is not the meaning of the word.

:It is difficult for me to keep an even temper in the midst of ignorance and dismissal. I try every day to come to this page with a kind heart and a confident, upbeat outlook. When i feel the article is moving into poor schiolarship, i try to write something that will educate the other editors and keep them from falling into semantic or logical errors. I continually refer to good wikipedia articles on subjects that might help other editors to understand the big picture, at least as i view it.

:Now, looking at 74's edits from my Venn diagram perspective, i hope you see why Kwork (and i) assert that those edits were counterproductive, and why we say the Wikipedia description of Bailey's writings on race benefits from the inclusion of more words rather than fewer words, insofar as we intend to treat the subject with scholarly honesty and from an encylopedic perspective.

:cat Catherineyronwode 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Dear Cat, Thanks for the civil explanations. Yes, I can see how you see four sets of topics. And when I look at 74's edit I see s/he reduced it to two. So why not add the other two to the list of items that "stirred controversy" instead of creating two sentences to emphasize the Jewish issues? There doesn't seem to be anything lost and you're not double-dipping to promote a negative POV by emphasizing the same point twice. Renee 22:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks for understanding, Renee. Because Bailey tended to blur Zionism and Israel (one a political movement and the other a nation), i have blended them in the Bailey Article, as "On nations and nationalism" and i am content with that. So i am actually using three sets here. I have rewritten IP 74's rewrites again, and perhaps this will satisfy all parties. I hope so. cat Catherineyronwode 06:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::Isn't it also unacceptable to call me a "meatpuppet" of an alleged. anti-semitic? Sparklecplenty 20:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Ditto for calling a fellow editor "antisemitic." As for "meatpuppet", see WP:MEAT. I do not see evidence of recent meatpuppetting as that involves mainly newbies that are "recruited" to push a certain POV. It that happened in this article in the past, I do not know. I would be better for all involved to simply make an effort and avoid making comments on the contributors, and focus on improving the article instead. Bitting of the tongue is a good technique, if needed be... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, just yesterday: "Sparklecplenty, you accused me of calling opposing editors antisemetic. I will appoligize if you show me a case where I have done that. If there actually was such a case, and you can not find it, or have forgotten it, I assure you that I am sorry if I did that, and would consider that a serious mistake on my part. However, I do not think I ever said that.

I do consider you and Jamesd1 to be single purpose meatpuppets for Philip Lindsay. But I have not even mentioned that for months. In this case, you brought up the subject yourself...Kwork" 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

: As I said, bitting of the tongue is much recommended to all involved. Let's move on, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I'd like to make clear, that it was not my intention to use someone's affiliation to dismiss or discredit them. Sparklecplenty 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

: Affliction? (lol!) Hope that was not a Paraprax.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::LOL! Add that one to the list of fashionable Freudian undergarments. :) Eaglizard 22:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. did ya'll discuss putting the UFO's quote in, and did ya'll make a decision on that? I can't find where this occurred as reverting editor says it did.

P.S.S "Affliction": well, I was Not channeling Phillip Lindsey very well that time.

:Sparkle, you made four edits today. I reverted two of them, because the text was appropriate and referenced, and had been discussed. The other two of your edits were not reverted and are still in place.

:Yes, it was discussed, on this page, above, in this section: Talk:Alice Bailey#Bailey's influence on UFO cultists, per Ellwood. Eaglizard concurred about including it, in that discussion.

:No-one is saying that Bailey wrote about UFO's. But there is a scholarly source that shows she influenced that group, later - after her death, showing the widespread nature of her influence.

:All of us have been reverted many times, you don't need to take that personally. --Parsifal _Hello 23:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlice_Bailey&diff=164358833&oldid=164358462 this] is okay to include. The references are first rate and it clearly says that Bailey "was never directly involved" with the UFO organizations. Keep up the good work Sparkle. We need both sides to create a neutral balanced article. Renee 01:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::I just read the last paragraph under the "Influence" section and it seems a real stretch to say that Bailey's writings influenced the UFO movement when all they use is her invocation prayer. (i.e., saying her work influenced the UFO movement makes it sounds like it had a huge, profound effect) If all they use is the prayer, then we need to reflect the extent of the influence more accurately. Renee 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::Hi, Renee. At no point has the article stated that Bailey or her writings influenced the UFO movement per se. Rather, it was stated that her teachings influecned a specific nationwide group of UFO believers called Understanding, Inc. -- Ellwood reported that they used her Great Invocation as the invocation to their own meetings. That's an obvious influence, you must agree. cat Catherineyronwode 02:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, there is a difference though between "an influence" and "influenced a specific nationwide group." The connotation of the former is rather minimal whereas the connotation of the latter is quite deep. In any case, I'm happy with your most recent edits on the quotation, as it makes it clear what the influence was. Renee 02:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::I think writings is more accurate because teachings implies that several other people wrote down what she said and then disseminated "her teachings" (i.e., as in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John disseminated Jesus' teachings). In Bailey's case, we have her actual books which are used as references, hence, I think "writings" is the more appropriate term. Renee 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::The above two paragraphs and their connected heading appeared twice, exactly duplicated. I have removed the second iteration. cat Catherineyronwode 02:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with using both terms alternately for copyediting variety; it doesn't seem to me to be a NPOV issue. But if a choice is needed, I would suggest "teachings, though I can see the arguments for either term;. While her teachings are embodied in her writings, she also functioned in her life as a teacher. She set up at least two schools we know of, the Arcane School, and the (short-lived) School of Spiritual Research, plus World Goodwill and Triangles for embodying the practices. She had many people in her life, and after her life, who considered her (and/or the Tibetan, as speaking through her writings), to be their teacher. So, if we must choose, I would choose "teachings".

On the other hand, this is not a big issue to me and if consensus goes towards "writings", I would not argue about it. --Parsifal _Hello 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

: I do not mind either, but I think it should be consistent. How secondary sources refer to it: writings, or teachings? from the little I have read, they refer to her writings or viewpoints, and don't recall the term "teachings" being used, but again, I have just read half a dozen of secondary sources ob the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::I prefer the term "Teachings" in the headings and resultant Table of Contents. I also prefer the copyediting freedom to use the term "writings" for the sake of variety. I feel strongly that editors should not suddenly be forced to select from an arbitrary two choices or to limit their writing in the way proposed, because tthis limitation, if implemented, will make the article very sorry reading indeed, inflicting an artifical "Run, Spot, run. See Spot run" vocabulary on editors. cat Catherineyronwode 04:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::For clarity, per my note above, I concur with Cat's suggestion to use Teachings as the heading; and I concur with using both in the text, for good writing style. --Parsifal _Hello 05:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::::As a further note, when i find the term "Writings" in a heading / Table of Contents at Wkipedia, it appears to indicate specific reference to the bio subject's articles and books, not their contents, and not a bibliography per se. See, by way of example the William Walker Atkinson article, where we have both "Writings" as a heading for the sections that discuss his many books in an orderly and organized fashion, and a conventional Bibliography. With Bailey, by contrast, we discuss no "Writings" per se, but rather present a section of her "Teachings" to students, organized by subject, and followed by a Bibliography. I'm going to change it back to "Teachings" now. cat Catherineyronwode 06:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to go with the word teachings for now but Like Parsifal I do not have a strong opinion on this. If others do it can always be changed via further discussion . : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:I'd like to disagree politely but strongly with the opinion of other editors above, whose contributions to the encyclopedia I have a lot of respect for. "Teachings" implies truth, i.e. that WP endorses the content. Let's remember that many readers are not convinced that there is any value at all in esoteric writings. "Writings" is the safe and neutral term. Itsmejudith 10:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::"Teachings implies truth"? That's a new one on me. I have no such connotation filed in my mind for that word. To me, teachings means instructions, pedagogic texts, lectures, procedural manuals, and the like. When a cooking teacher teaches cooking, she does not teach "the truth", she just instructs how it is that she prepares food and how you should prepare food if you intend to follow in her style. When WP hosts an article on how Julia Child taught French cooking, it does not "endorse" either Child's style of teaching or her style of French cooking -- it merely reports on what she taught. cat 64.142.90.32 11:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Either "teachings" or "writings" seem okay. But I do not understand why the two words can not be alternated, which I think would be best, unless there is some rule of writing I do not know about that does not allow more than one word to describe the same thing. Kwork 12:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:It would sound odd, wouldn't it, to refer to Julia Child's "teachings" on cookery. "Teachings" implies a message. It also carries a positive connotation of accepting that message. For this reason I would also oppose mentions in the encyclopedia of the "teachings of Jesus" or the "teachings of Muhammad". At least this wording should be treated with great caution. Itsmejudith 17:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

----

Your and Vassyana's eyes on the article are greatly appreciated as they add an outside neutral view on what is OR, what doesn't make sense, what needs sourcing, what is redundant. Thank you. Renee 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Jossi, that's very interesting that admins don't wear both hats on the same article, I did not know that. It seems like a very wise policy indeed! As far as your edits here, I may not agree with all of 'em, but I DO agree with WP:BRD, and I think there's no questioning your good faith, or your experience. As I've stated recently, I think policy abuse has gone on too long here, and I really hope you'll bring it to another admin's attention if you see the need. And I refer to any editor, including myself. Eaglizard 07:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::WEIRD BEHAVIOUR ALERT! The above post was not, as far as I can see, made by Vassyana. Rumiton 13:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::That really IS weird. The above post was made by me, Eaglizard. I have no idea how Vassyana's name became attached to it; I signed w/ 4 tildes as always. It links to me, btw, but has had Vass's name in the second field. Eaglizard 14:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Click on history to see how it happened, but not why. (The entities are playful tonight.) Rumiton 14:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::I don't actually have the patience, nor really the desire either. I don't care, just note that it weren't me. If you took the time to look, then do tell. It would take me 20-30 mins. Eaglizard 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Your name was changed to Vassyana's by Kwork at 1148 on 13 Oct 07. This strikes me as rather important. The question is why? Rumiton 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::Kwork, care to explain this unusual situation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• That is bizarre. Thank you, Rumiton, for digging that out. Unfortunately, I find it as unsurprising as it is baffling. I'd guess it's just Kwork's subconscious working to fulfill his apparent wish to be banned from WP. Eaglizard 08:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please and double Please be very sure that it is next to impossible for some one else to have done this. Could it be the result of some sort of IP spoofing ?? I sincerely hope that there is a reasonable explanation. If he is being set up we all need to get behind him and help him. Jossi did the right thing by asking for an explanation from Kwork. I find this this whole thing to be very upsetting indeed . Danny Weintraub Albion moonlight 10:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• It seems they I am being accused of changing one of Eaglizard posts. I do remember that there was a post, apparently from Eaglizard above a reply I was writing yesterday morning, and I remember being puzzled that it had both Eaglizard's and Vassyana's names. I suppose that I might have unintentionally done something to cause that to happen because I was writing a message below that. But if I did, it was unintentional, and I have no idea how it could have happened. I would not have had any reason to do that intentionally, and that message was not (as far as I recall) what I was replying to, but to something above it. I would have to go back and look. I don't know what else I can say about it. If it was caused by me, I am sorry; but if it was my fault it I don't know how it happened. If it was something that could have been done only intentionally, then it was done by someone other than me. Kwork 11:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• In reply to Eaglizard's comment (above) about "Kwork's subconscious working.."; obviously, if it is something I am talking about, it is not subconscious. Moreover, if I am going to make trouble, I prefer that to be my usual abrasivness that is always fully visible. Kwork 12:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I looked at the history and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlice_Bailey&diff=164262166&oldid=164251081 here] is the diff. It seems to be all part of Kwork's post that he refers to above. If it were a separate and single Kwork post then I could see how it might be tampering, but because it's part of his total post, it seems more likely it came from Kwork.

:::I tend to believe Kwork's denial above, because given his past behaviors (which include following me around to non-Bailey pages and posting aggressive commentaries about my motives, personality, etc.) I tend to think that if he did it he'd just tell us to all go f@#$ ourselves, that he's expressing himself, and to bounce him if we don't like it.

:::The simplest explanation I can think of is that an inadvertant deletion occurred while he was typing his message and he replaced the word absent-mindedly with what he thought was accidentally deleted. (For example, when I write a message I often scroll up and down the section. If my cursor bounces too hard it highlights a whole word or paragraph and then if I tap another key it's all erased.) It's clear he had Jossi on his mind since the post is to him but he probably also had Vassyana on his mind because he had read my message above and I suspect was disagreeing with my post that Vassyana's edits were helpful given his earlier posts to him. This would explain why Vassyana was on his mind if a signature was accidentally deleted and needed to be replaced. (Disclosure: I have conducted academic research on mindful and mindless human behavior, so that's why this scenario seems plausible to me.)

:::Renee 14:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Renee, your reply surprises me. I rather expected you to use this as an occasion to go on the attack. So I certainly owe you an apology for my negative expectations: Sorry, very sorry.

::::You explination seems credible in part, but I do not know how Vassyana's name got there. I know that I did not write it in, and I could not have spelled it correctly from memory.

::::I do want to clarify one thing you said above. It is true that I follow what editors of this article are doing (and I know that others do the same), and sometimes make I comments on user talk pages without being asked for my opinion. I do not follow your editing of other articles, or involve myself in those articles. Kwork 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a look, finally, at the addition I made below the change in Eaglizard's name, and that joggled my memory a little. My recollection is that when I was writing my post, just below Eaglizard's, at some point the strange compound signature above caught my attention. I remember looking at it for a few seconds, and then going back to writing. Then the thought crossed my mind that I might have done something to make that change, so I copied as much as I had written, clicked on 'discussion', then clicked on edit a new time and pasted back what I had written. But the compound signature was still there. If it was something I had done, the signature should have returned to normal because I had not yet saved the edit.

I am puzzled that Eaglizard thinks I did that. What reason could I have? It does not accomplish a thing. Maybe he thinks I am insane. But if I am unstable how could I have been able to stay with this crummy editing situation so long? I suppose accusations are something that can not be avoided. "...we cannot name any fiery path without its carpet of calumny. Fiery World I, 35." Kwork 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:Since you're among the predominant accusers around here, I'm sure you do believe that "accusations are something that can not be avoided". I have made no accusations in this matter; I try to avoid accusations in general. I do trust the editing history database. Claiming you don't remember doing it doesn't mean you didn't do it. As far as why you did it, I have no more idea than you apparently have. Eaglizard 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I think the fact that we've all stayed with this page so long is clear evidence of our collective unstableness...just think what pro-social things we could be doing with our time? :) Renee 19:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just for the damned record. User:Kwork states he has no recollection of making the change, and that it was not deliberate. I see no reason not to accept this. In particular, I can't see how this could be designed to intentionally "damage" me or the talk page. So let's drop this, ok? I've seen similar editing accidents do serious damage to an editor's reputation. I personally think Kwork should just be glad this group of editors actually does try to assume good faith in others, but I doubt he'd acknowledge that. Eaglizard 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been two other strange editing glitches on this page. On the page currently there are two sections titled "archived through October 1". They are identical and include a comment from me and a reply from Eaglizard. Time stamps identical. However, in the history, the edit appears only once, and I looked at the ensuing edits and did not find any place where the section was duplicated. And, there is a another unrelated section between the two copies. So that one is a total mystery.

There was another duplicated section that Cat deleted yesterday, and she noted it in her edit, above, in the section called ""Teachings" or "writings"?". I looked at the edit history and it turned out that Sparkle had duplicated the whole section when she moved part of one of her own comments. Clearly she did not do that intentionally.

... just shows that strange things can happen sometimes. So it's good that we are all vigilant in case there's a glitch. But it's also good to figure that there was no possible value for Kwork by that particular strange thing that happened and that if he wanted to stir up some trouble, he would do it in a much more entertaining way. --Parsifal _Hello 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for assuming good faith. It would have been so easy to blow everything out of proportion. Kudo's to everyone. : Danny Weintraub. : Albion moonlight 07:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::I second that. Critical events can go either way, can be the end of cooperation or the beginning, with greater good faith all round. This seems to have happened here. Many congratulations. Now about that Bailey person... Rumiton 10:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Spirituality Portal [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]

• A Treatise on White Magic [ok-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in bibliography]
• Anthroposophy [nix-cat][nix-parsifal]
• Archeosophy [nix-cat][nix-parsifal-also,this page has no secondary sources]
• Esoteric cosmology [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
• Esotericism [ok-cat]][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
• Initiation (Theosophy) [ok-cat][ok-parsifal-also,has no footnotes]
• Karma [ok-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
• List of Masonic organizations [nix-cat][nix-parsifal-page does not exist]
• List of spirituality-related topics [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
• List of religious, esoteric, metaphysical and mystical symbols [nix-cat][nix-parsifal]
• Magic and religion [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
• Merkabah [nix-cat][nix-parsifal]
• New Age [ok-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
• Numerology [nix-cat][nix-parsifal-also, page has no footnotes]
• Occult [okay-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
• Odic force [nix-cat][nix-parsifal-also, page has no references]
• Qigong [nix-cat][nix-parsifal]
• Planes of existence [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
• Reincarnation [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
• Rosicrucianism [nix-cat][nix-parsifal]
• Spiritual evolution [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
• Spirituality [ok-cat][ok-parsifal]
• Theosophy [ok-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
• Western mystery tradition [nix-cat][ok-parsifall]

Two further suggestions for inclusion:

• Age of Aquarius [ok-cat][nix-parsifal-wikilinked in main text]
• New World order [ok-cat][ok-parsifall]

Let's talk about these, okay? Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode 05:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:I've added my [ok/nix] notes above. Some of the links are wikilinked in the main text; per WP:MOS, ie WP:ALSO, those should not be duplicated in the See Also section. Also, per MOS, whatever links we do keep in "see also", we should work towards integrating them into the article. --Parsifal _Hello 05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

: If a linked article lacks sources, that is no reason not to have the link. If it is a dup, remove. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks, Parsifal, for pointing out which ones are dupes. That makes the task a lot easier. Jossi, in addition to removing dupes, i would like to remove any "See also" links that do not relate to Bailey, such as Qigong. I hope you take the time to vote too. I would like to wrap the voting up by tomorrow evening and make the changes then. Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode 07:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:: Sure. Prune it as needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:I'll just vote en masse, if I may. I agree with each and every vote of Parsifal's, above. Eaglizard 08:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Same here. Renee 14:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This one is too much for me to wrap my brain around so put me down as backing all the ones that Cat and Parsifal agree on and as non commital on the rest. I will read them all closely if it becomes a contentious matter. I probably know less about it than anyone who edits this article. I am very pleased to see that there is so much co-operative editing going on : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, it's quite nice, isn't it? :) Eaglizard 09:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Esotericism" The problem with the wiki-link is that article describes esotericism in rather different terms than Bailey; who emphasizes it as a study if the etheric, emotional (astral), mental level, and higher level energies effecting (impacting) individual humans, societies, the planet, solar system.... Kwork 15:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:Sounds like you need to add some material on Bailey's understanding of esotericism to the esotericism article. Itsmejudith 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

==A definition of Esotericism==

:a definition that fits Alice Bailey's meaning of esotericism, she wrote a large volume called "Treatise on Cosmic Fire (1316pp.):

"I am backed by Power, vast unconquerable, irresistible Power. Suns are behind me, galaxies, whirling fire-mists. Great winds, oceans, and rivers bear me on. That which launched my personality into life's struggle is destiny. No one can resist her. She moves through the swarms of men as the elephant through the reeds of the jungle. It is not I who am coming, it is destiny advancing me, her pawn.

I am... I am not a little exclusive I, but the great inclusive, allied I. It is the play of stellar electricity in my soul. It is the central heat of the planet warming my being. Behind me, bearing me on is power. This power energizes me, it is within me. It... roars dull and deep as a blast-furnace. I can hear it in the night-watches, a rumble as of distant thunder.

Men, events, and death do not dismay me. Worlds mean nothing to me. Removed from this earth, dead, I shall expect new planets as footholds for my forces. I shall not be disappointed.

I look into myself, and if I find in me any goodness, any nobleness, any love, any upleaping ambition to create, I laugh, for these things are fragments of supernatural radium, of everlasting outpouring power.

I have taken this power...as my own. I have stripped all the rags and trappings of heathenism from it. I have discovered its shattering stellar beauty. I have found out it is what men call---God."

From an essays, "THE CREED OF POWER," Frank Crane

Sparklecplenty 16:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks, but how do you relate the above to this article? Clearly there can be as many definitions of the esoteric as there are writers on the esoteric. I'm sure many parallels can be found, but what edits do you suggest that are not OR? Itsmejudith 17:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Judith, the title alone "Cosmic Fire" implies what is written within. The quote reflects it. And the esoteric writings are the bulk of Alice Bailey's writings.

Yes, there will be many definitions of "esotericism" written here. And since no one here knows the esoteric writings of Alice Bailey, the editors will pick and choose and define Alice Bailey's meaning of "esotericism" in accordance with personal bias. This happened with section on race. The article doesn't include Bailey's definition of race--"a state of consciousness" independent of body type. Sparklecplenty 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:Sparkle, while I share the desire to elucidate for the benefit of others, I must again ask that you not do this. Wikipedia is not a forum for the discussion of our ideas about Bailey or esotericism in general. Please, let's not start abusing this talk page like we (and I do mean we) have done in the past, ok? Eaglizard 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Without suggesting that it be expanded or not, I noticed that in the changes three references were lost, and since those have been so hard to find, it would be good to find a way to include them. The sentence that introduced these references previously was just filler, so there's no reason to reinstate it.

Instead, I'll just show the references, and if someone can find a way to work them in, that would be cool. Here they are:

• {{cite book|title=The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements|last= Lewis |first=James R.|year= 2004 |pages=p 446|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn= 0195149866|quote=Alice Bailey, who creatively reformulated aspects of theosophy, called her own system of beliefs esoteric.}}
• {{cite book|title=Tantric Yoga and the Wisdom Goddesses: Spiritual Secrets of Ayurveda|last= Frawley |first= David |pages=. p 22|year= 1996 |publisher=Motilal Banarsidass Publications|isbn=812081357X|quote=Many of the new spiritual and occult teachings of this century...are based on Theosophy and Alice Bailey, who borrow directly from Hindu and Buddhist teachings.}}
• {{cite book|title=New Age Movement|last= Rhodes |first= Ron |coauthor=Alan W. Gomes|pages=p 26 |year= 1995 |publisher= Zondervan |isbn= 0310704316|quote=Many of the Arcane School's doctrines are similar to those of Theosophy, including their teaching about Ascended Masters. Alice Bailey believed she was the "mouthpiece" of a Master known as The Tibetan.}}

Do those seem useful? ... --Parsifal _Hello 09:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:The first is obviously an excellent source, from one of the best scholarly publishers. The other two may be less so. Are the authors scholars? Itsmejudith 17:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::I don't know; David Frawley has written a lot of books - his Wikipedia page may offer some perspective. "Ron Rhodes" doesn't have a wiki page; Google lists a lot of books by him, and some describe him as a "Biblical Scholar". He appears to be a fundamentalist, but not self-published like Cumbey.

::I'm out of time for doing research on these, but if anyone wants to check further, I think they can be viewed on Google books. --Parsifal _Hello 20:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been good working with you all and getting to know you as editors and as people. While there have certainly been some challenges in getting along at times, I believe that everyone means well and is doing what they feel is right in a sincere way.

Since I originally saw this page, it's much improved, through the collaborative efforts of all of us. Who knows where it will go next; but I hope that whatever people feel about the topic that it be remembered that Wikipedia articles can never be controlled, and that no-one feel bad if it doesn't look they way they want.

For the people who love Alice Bailey, you don't need to worry. I don't believe anyone is trying to "trash" her memory. And if the teachings truly have in them them beautiful inspiring value that you see there, that will shine through and those who are "meant" to see it, will find it.

I'm not leaving Wikipedia, so this is not goodbye. I'm still actively editing several other articles, though I'm reducing my involvement in general, not just on this article. So you'll still see me now and then; if anyone wants to contact me, you are welcome to leave a message on my talk page. I wish you all the best. --Parsifal _Hello 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:I'm sorry for Wikipedia that you'll be reducing your contributions. I have learned from editing with you Parisfal, thank you. I hope your leavingreduction is not for any health or other difficult reasons, and I hope it will be short-lived. Good luck to you. Eaglizard 02:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks Eaglizard I appreciate your note. ... No worries, everything's OK, just too much to do and not enough time for everything. Good luck to you as well! --Parsifal _Hello 05:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:I know what you mean, Parsifal -- i drift in and out of WP editing depending on my schedule with other tasks. I even sometimes use Wiki editing as a form of keeping busy while procrastinating on other writing projects. I hope to see you around -- especially around here -- so, as the saying goes, "Keep us on your watchlist, y'hear?" cat Catherineyronwode 11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The WP:COI/WP:SPA editor who had been trying to control this article for months, and who gave up and left when Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS showed him he could not control the content, returned today to insert a link to his new article on Citizendium.

He made two edits: first, completely replacing the article with his version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=prev&oldid=164586783 at this diff], and then self-reverting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=next&oldid=164586783 here]. The intervening page, as he wrote it, is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&oldid=164586783 here].

For those not familiar with Citizendium, it was started by one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, but tries to fix some of the problems by requiring people to use their real names when editing. It's still in a start-up stage so is not widely read at this time. As an aside, this particular incident shows that they will have a hard time growing their content in an accurate and neutral way, since with so few editors, topics can be written without opposition, by conflict-of-interest authors. It will be interesting to see how they handle that over time.

Since it's still small, it appears no-one there has any knowledge, interest, or time, to help the Bailey article there become neutral or accurate. If any of you who use your real names anyway want to join up and fix the article there, I'm sure Citizendium would appreciate your help. As all of the content on Wikipedia is freely licensed, it can be transferred there, so the work should be quick, other than addressing any edit-warring that may come up.

They have different procedures than Wikipedia, including editorial review boards, so editors who join there can get help if there is a problem with non-neutral conflict-of-interest editing.

As I've already indicated I need to edit less, so I'm not going to join up over there and fix the article. It's probably not important anyway, since so few people read that site so far, and eventually as it grows people will come and address the issues. I guess for now, the main thing it's accomplishing is helping the editor who is doing it to feel like he won his battle. I hope he enjoys the feeling. He really put one over on us, that'll teach us to follow those silly Wikipedia policies. --Parsifal _Hello 00:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:What were we thinking, participating in a purely altruistic project of planetary scope, anyways? We're such losers! LOL Parsifal. I assume I know who the unnamed editor is, and I'm rather disappointed. At least he reverted himself, though. Eaglizard 02:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::ps I see that James made no effort to disguise himself, thankfully, so I'm not so disappointed, after all. Bit annoying, but no damage done (except perhaps to some people's opinions, I would imagine). Eaglizard 03:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:::It would be impossible for him to disguise that edit anyway, since the Citizendium article that he linked to requires the use of real names.

:::Regarding his self-reverting, that's why I used the term "passive-aggressive" in the heading of this section; someone who didn't look at the history of the page would not even notice that the edit had been done. Maybe he did it to insert the link to his new article, in a way that would be hidden. Maybe he hopes it will help the Google ranking, but in that case he's not aware that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags. It doesn't really matter. My purpose in pointing it out was simply to allow that which was hidden to be brought out in the open. --Parsifal _Hello 03:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you, Parsifal.

::All right, then. Jamesd1 is out of the closet. He describes himself thus on his user profile page at Citizendium:

::Now, assuming that this Citizendium bio is a factual representation of Jamesd1 -- then he is the same James Davis who wrote this astrology article at Phillip Lindsay's site [http://www.esotericastrologer.org/EA%20Essays/EAessaysJD1.htm] -- and, just as Kwork (Malcolm Schosha) told us months ago, he is a business associate of Phillip Lindsay. Kwork was right, and some folks here definitely owe Kwork an apology. A little digging will show everyone what Kwork was on to:

::A google seach on the combined names < "James Davis" "Phillip Lindsay" > is here [http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=%22james+davis%22+%22phillip+lindsay%22&btnG=Search]) and, most tellingly, that search result turns up a publisher's back-cover blurb written by James Davis to promote a book by Phillip Lindsay that is for sale at amazon, here: [http://www.esotericastrologer.org/EA%20Essays/EAessaysJD1.htm] -- and you may note that the book that James Davis was blurbing for Phillip Lindsay's publisher is called "Soul Cycles of the Seven Rays: Esoteric Astrology and Initiation" -- that is, it is a book based on Alice Bailey's "Seven Rays" teachings. In other words, Phillip Lindsay and James Davis have commercial interests in keeping Alice Bailey's name "clean and green".

::Now, for newcomers to editing here, Phillip Lindsay is the man who, in his own Yahoo group, under his own name, called for people to come to WP to "fix" the WP Aice Bailey entry by ridding it of its then very small mention of Bailey's antisemitism. More tellingly, Lindsay's request for meatpuppetry came in response to an antisemitic posting in the Yahoo group in which it was claimed that prsent day Jews are "remnants of the Third Root Race" who should not be around anymore, and so forth. An archived discussion on that topic, with direct quotes from the Yahoo forum posts, is here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alice_Bailey/Archive_1#Meatpuppets].

::James Davis' entry into Wikipedia was not only a form of meatpuppetry, it was an example of Astroturfing, that is, creating a false impression of a "grassroots" campaign in order to promote a socio-political agenda, in this case, to attempt to show widespread endorsement of the downplaying of mentions that Alice Bailey was antisemitic. (As the Wiki article on Astroturfing so coyly and self-referentially notes, "The online volunteer-edited encyclopedia Wikipedia has also become a tool for astroturfing. The creation of Wikiscanner, for example, has revealed attempts at manipulating Wikipedia's content by a large number of business, government, and special interest groups.")

::This would all be very funny if it were just about the publishing money or a Wikipedia Conflict of Interest -- an attempt to ensure Alice Bailey's good reputation so that Davis and Lindsay could reap a pecuniary harvest by writing astrology books based on her teachings -- but there is a dark side to those teachings, and it has rubbed off on Davis and Lindsay. Davis is the one who accused Wiki editors who wished to include mention of Alice Bailey's antisemitism of being members of the terrorist Jewish Defense League and referred to them as the "pro-Jewish faction". Lindsay is the author of another Bailey-inspired book on astrology, which bears the highly suggestive title "The Destiny of the Races and Nations: Astrological and Ray Cycles in History" for sale at amazon here [http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Races-Nations-Astrological-History/dp/1876849045/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/104-1782004-1256741]. -- and yes, for the morbidly curious, the publisher's blurb tells us that this book covers "themes in history such as the evolution of the Jews" -- which has a rather sinister sound to it, given what we know about Lindsay from his own web site, where he posted this: "I ask myself, 'What is the bottom line?' What is the essence of what D.K. is saying (including many strong criticisms [of Jews and Judaism] not quoted above). I think it is this. He is saying that orthodox Judaism is wrong and an obstruction to spiritual evolution of the Jews and to all humanity alike."(Full text here: [http://www.esotericastrologer.org/EA%20Essays/AABHPBHR4.htm#ANTISEM].)

::So, to make a long story short, today's "drive-by", as Parsifal so aptly called it, is more than just another bizarre episode in the ongoing soap opera around these parts. It is a self-revelation by James Davis that puts an end to a deceitful attempt to co-opt Wikipedia's open editing policy.

::It's been hinky and ugly, and i am glad to have it out in the open at last.

::cat Catherineyronwode 11:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Catherine. This [http://www.esotericastrologer.org/EA%20Essays/EAessaysPGL6.htm] gives some of Phillip Lindsay's thinking on the Jews on the context of the current situation of Israel. As is typical with antisemites, Lindsay uses a literal reading of selected Biblical passages to prove that Jew are violent, mean, greedy, etc. Strange that when reading the Bhagavad Gita or other Indian sacred texts, he has no difficulty understanding that the descriptions of war is symbolic of interior spiritual struggles, and the seeking of wealth and treasure is symbolic of striving for spiritual wealth. Kwork 12:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Cat, not sure why your deleted my post in this section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alice_Bailey&curid=2899294&diff=164689201&oldid=164686289 here].

::::I understand that you and others have very strong opinions about James and pro-Bailey people, but all humans deserve respect as I said in the deleted post -- even those you disagree with or don't like. But, as I write this, I realize that this is my POV and maybe others don't hold that value (i.e., maybe it's more important for some to be right (their version of right) than respectful or kind), but I would appreciate it if this post stays on the page. Renee 11:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::I did not delete your post knowingly. I think it was caused by an editing conflict -- i wrote, realized that i was not logged in, wanted to post, grabbed my text, logged in, dumped my text, and overwrote yours by mistake. I have reinserted it below. Sorry for the error! catherine Catherineyronwode 11:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::Perhaps he made a posting error, realized it, and made it right. (I looked at the Citizendium site and the syntax looks just like Wiki.)

::::::We just had an incident above where someone else had an inadvertant posting and good faith was assumed.

::::::James was no more COI than others on this page who've studied Bailey, interviewed contemporaries and turned against her.

::::::Let's have the decency to respect all on this page. Renee 10:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::You are very charitable, Renee. To me, COI implies pecuniary interest. Others do not seem to have that going on. cat Catherineyronwode 11:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Thanks for re-posting it. Much appreciated. Renee 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Kindness is very important. So let us put this all behind us ASAP and do it as a kindness to the friends of James Davis who edit this article. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 12:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:Danny's comment heartily seconded. Although conflict of interest may be problematic in Wikipedia I'm sure that an article talk page is not the correct place to air it in detail. We need to focus clearly on discussing the content of the article. Itsmejudith 17:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Albion moonlight and Itsmejudith, you seem to think that rebuke (tokhehah) is contrary to kindness (chessed). In fact they are compatible [http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1271]. I do not think that Catherine is being mean by rebuking Jamesd1, but speaking truth. Saying the things that need to be said after such a long and difficult argument can not be avoided. Not to say the things that need to be said at this moment is contrary to both reason and virtue. Kwork 18:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:Interesting point, Parsifal. That article definitely needs work on the lead; you certainly shouldn't have to read 2/3 of an article to realize that 40 or 50 of the group's members have committed dramatic suicide in a number of different incidents! On the other hand, the cite in our article makes clear the connection: they used the Invocation, plus they believed they were in contact with Ascended Masters from Sirius. (BTW, I urge ppl to read the first few pages of the cited source on this subject [http://www.cesnur.org/2005/pa_chryssides.htm here] for an excellent example of NPOV handling of Bailey.)

:In any case, does the reference to this and the UFO group really belong in the lead of the article? cat, I'd like your editor's-hat opinion in particular. I think it gives it undue weight. Belongs in the Influences section though, no doubt about that. Eaglizard 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::I don't know who added those to the lead, and I'm not able to take the time to review further right now.

::Sorry to differ about how the cited source from CESNUR handles Bailey - it does not seem NPOV; it's not a full treatment and she's not their topic. They discuss her only in relation to the doctrines of the Order of the Solar Temple, so they leave out all her stuff that's not about that organization. Also they put her in a section headed "Templars" that starts out by discussing Theosophy and skips quickly on to Bailey without going back to the Templars. So even if the information it includes may be correct (that, I don't know), the paper itself does not seem well-written. --Parsifal _Hello 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

==See Also section fixed per consensus==

I just re-did the See also section per the concensus we achieved on Sunday. Thanks for everyone's help. cat Catherineyronwode 11:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks. Renee 11:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:Hi Jamesd1. Strange things seem to be happening here this week. (I just now tried to find the lyrics to the Red Buttons song Strange Things are Happening, but could not find it. Under copyright, I guess.)

:Be well. Kwork 15:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for noting this, James. Eaglizard 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I added "theosophy" and the link, but it was in a different context then. There was a sentence calling the Bailey teaching a "philosophy", but she is not recognized as a philosopher, so I changed that to "theosophy". Since the context is now changed, I think your change to "Theosophy" good. Kwork 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, itsmejudith, and Reneeholle, the only balanced editors here, please edit more. 74.53.36.132 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks 74. Please choose a section of the article and focus on that. I sense a shift in civility in the last few days so please edit away. You might be surprised. Renee 21:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::I appreciate Renee's note that there has been a shift in civility here.

::Regarding the comment above from {{user|74.53.36.132}}: That is outright insulting, and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Here we have a person who does not reveal whether or not they have a user id or have previously been involved in this discussion, and spews insults and demands on the talk page, on other editor's pages and in edit summaries.

::Here are some of the comments from this IP so far in addition to the insults above:

::* edit summary that went with the above comment: "(ya'll are crazier than a turnip in a strawberry field)"

::* edit summary from this IP a couple days ago: "(two-faced editors)"

::* a comment on Renee's page asking her to "focus on the Jewish bias".

::* a comment on Jossi's talk page about the: "insincere arrogance of this group".

::So, at very least, the IP's words should be taken with a bit more than one grain of salt.

::Jossi, if you are reading this, I hope you will agree that this IP is either a sockpuppet or a new disruptive SPA and either issue the appropriate warning or advise the good faith editors here on how to do so.

::For everyone, I recommend ignoring the comments from this IP until/unless they start contributing in some collaborative way and stop issuing antagonistic and inflammatory inuslts. --Parsifal _Hello 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, I do think s/he's right, that we all are "crazier than a turnip in a strawberry field." Renee 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps 74.53.36.132 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alice_Bailey&diff=164805038&oldid=164802158] has the necessary qualifications to write an article on the psychological illnesses of turnips. It is one problem that Bailey, for some reason, never discussed. Kwork 16:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the only remaining bias in the article is the extensive use of quotations from the controversial sections, "On the Negro Race" on down. Virtually all of the quotations in the less controversial writings areas have been excised. If it's fair to excise quotations from one part of the writings, this standard should be applied to all sections of the writings. Otherwise, it looks like you're just trying to sensationalize the article with selected quotations.

I understand you love these quotes because they are outrageous, but again, we need to offer a fair and balanced presentation that is even across all sections.

Renee 23:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:I do understand your concern about quotes being used to such a great extent in the racial, national, and religious sections. I do not concur that i "love these quotes because they are outrageous" -- rather, i wish to see them included because they present a "fair and balanced" view of Bailey's and D.K.'s teachings on the subjects of races, nations, and religions.

: About two months ago, we had only three paragraphs that criticized Bailey (Schnirelman, Sjoo, Gershom) and you agitated continually for the removal or abridgement of each of those paragraphs.

:The use of Bailey's own quotes as a way of clarifying the issues was then proposed and utlized. Now you want the Bailey quotes reduced.

: Well, in my opinion, the topics themselves are so controversial that i think using quotes from critics plus quotes from Bailey (including her own conflictd pro-and-con quotes) is the fairest way to represent her teachings.

: It is one thing to quote Sjoo saying that Bailey was racist, but quite another for the reader to see Bailey, in her own words, calling people of African descent a "child race."

: The result is a clear and demonstrable text. It shows the reader what she said and it tells the reader what other people have said about what she said.

:I think it's good just the way it is.

: cat Catherineyronwode 00:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::But if these stay in, we should reinsert some of Bailey's quotations in the sections above these topics, so there is a parallel and even presentation of the work.

::To quote, "i think using quotes from critics plus quotes from Bailey (including her own conflicted pro-and-con quotes) is the fairest way to represent her teachings."

::I'm just asking for fairness across all sections -- good and bad.

::Renee 00:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::p.s. Clarification: The complaint against Sjoo and Gershom was not against what they said, but about the quality of the quotation. Gershom in particular has no place in this article -- it is a self-published post on his personal website. Once I found out Shnirelman was a Hebrew U source I supported, as a look through the diffs will tell you. I keep saying this and you keep trying to make it personal (i.e., that I personally don't want anything negative, which is not true) when the real focus is whether or not a source -- regardless of what it says -- is reliable and valid.

:::Sigh. Gershom is a published author who wrote an essay on his web site. This is becoming quite common now, as many authors use their web sites for the publication of shorter works that do not merit full book treatment, out-of-print works, or works-in-progress. I myself have an enormous web site, filled with essays and articles that i have written. Some were written for the web, some are reprints of old magazine articles that have fallen out of print (and for which i hold the copyrights), and some are glimpses of my works-in-progress that will ventually appear in print book form. Wikipedian editors routinely cite web pages of mine as sources, and rightly so, as i am already a print-published author on those topics. Gershom is in the same position as me. Sorry we don't agree, but i think his material is valid for use, since he had previously established himself as an author in the fields of reincarnation and Judaism, and it was reincarnation of the Jews with which both he and Bailey were dealing when he wrote the web essay that criticized her analysis of why so many Jews were killed in Germany during WWII. cat Catherineyronwode 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Okay. What about the point, "i think using quotes from critics plus quotes from Bailey (including her own conflicted pro-and-con quotes) is the fairest way to represent her teachings."

:::::To make myself clear, I think it's okay to have the quotations in the critics section as long as the other sections are treated the same. To do otherwise reflects the POV of editors. There should be a parallel and even presentation of the writings.

:::::With respect to you and your views, Renee 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The direct quotes are used in the criticisms section exactly to avoid POV. Kwork 19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Albion moonlight 00:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 00:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I also groomed the article again for more stray tense-changes -- from past tense to present and back in the middle of a paragraph. Out-of-place present tense sentences crop up almost weekly. I'd just like to remind folks that the style we are using here is past tense all the way.

I hope this meets with everyone's approval.

cat Catherineyronwode 04:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

:Ah, I had been using present tense to describe a situation existing "within" her teachings, since this still exits as such. For instance, "Her vision includes yada yada", because her vision does still include whatever, "her writings feature blah blah blah" because they still do. All other cases I've used past. I have no preference at this point. If you've taken the time to change to uniform past tense, that's fine with me. Eaglizard 07:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

:: I go with past tense to save future editors the trouble of having to rewrite. I also happen to hate that breathless "You are There!" style of writing in which everything is always in the present tense ("In 1890, Bob moves West to become a cowboy. By 1892, his mother has died back in Maine, and he is now an orphan.") And yes, wikipedia is filled with that "coninuous present tense" junk, and whenever you see it, you ought to stop and ask yourself if the text has been plagiarized from another web site, because it is not a standard encyclopedia writing style. cat Catherineyronwode 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

:BTW cat, the See also looks so much better now. Eaglizard 16:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Beginning in 1912, The New Age devoted increasing attention to psychoanalysis and at Orage's initiative, a "psychosynthesis" group was formed which included Havelock Ellis, David Eder, James Young, Maurice Nicoll, J.A.M. Alcock, and Rowland Kenney. This group's regular meetings, at least at the beginning, were sometimes attended by Mitrinovic. This was a rather mixed group of men who were genuinely interested in psychoanalysis and leaned, at the same time, toward the occult.

That is from D. Tryphonopoulos, The Celestial Tradition, p. 81. It gives interesting context. I think all, or almost all, the members were involved in socialism. Kwork 13:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks. This is useful information. Note too that although Orage became the editor of The New Age magazine in 1907, it had been continually in publication sinc 1894, 13 years earlier. So Bailey may have picked the term uup from the name of the magazine before Orage's editorship. In either case, by no means should Alice Bailey be credited with the origination or early popularization of this term. See The New Age magazine article at Wikipedia for further details. cat Catherineyronwode 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::The term was certainly in the zeitgeist well before she wrote anything. However, she's probably the first to put the phrase into such a firmly esoteric and occult context. In my opinion (and other's), this makes her pretty much the founder of the New Age movement as we have it today. Eaglizard 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, i'd like to thank you for affording us a place to examine the issue, especially as it relates to claims made on the Bailey page (by earlier editors and by Melton (in the Influence section).

First, The New Age magazine debuted in England when Bailey was a 14 year old child in England. So the phrase was not merely in the "zeitgeist" -- there was an actual magazine with that name on the newsstands regularly, from the time Bailey was 14. When A. R. Orage took over editorial control, in 1907, the magazine itself was 13 years old and Bailey was 27 -- which means thatThe New Age magazine had been in existence for more almost half of her life. When A. R. Orage sold The New Age magazine in 1922, Bailey was 42 years old and the magazine had been in existence for 28 years, or 2/3 of Bailey's life.

Second, this was not a minor magazine. It included writers like H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Ezra Pound, Hillaire Belloc, and G. K. Chesterton.

Third, let us look at one of those writers, H. G. Wells. Take a trip on over to the page on The New World Order and you will see a very interesting coincidence (if you wish to call it that): Two authors are cited on that page for writing books on a "benevolent" (as opposed to frightening) coming "New World Order," using the same terminology and ideas -- H. G. Wells and Alice Bailey. So now we have two "hits", as it were, on Bailey and that magazine -- she co-opted the term "The New Age" from a magazine which published the works of H. G. Wells, who wrote about the "New World Order" before she did.

I hope we at least agree that claim usually advanced, that Bailey was "the earliest" or "one of the earliest" to use the term "The New Age", is unsupportable.

I certainly agree with you that Bailey used the term "The New Age" in an esoteric way -- but was she, as you say, "probably the first to put the phrase into such a firmly esoteric and occult context"? I don't think so. The editor of the magazine from 1907 through 1922 was also a mystic, and the magazine published mystically-oriented material under his editorship.

Now, i do believe that her works were seminal doctrines within part of (if not all of) the New Age Movement -- and i am not challanging that claim. But i think it is wrong to claim (as Melton did, and as this article did until i changed it), that she was "one of the earliest to use the term 'New Age.'" She may be among the earliest to use this term with whom Americans born after 1940 are familiar -- but the world, and this encyclopedia, were not created simply to propagate the myopic ideas of Anericans born after 1940.

I took the claim that Bailey was "among the earliest" to use the term out the lead section, and i feel stronly enough about the issue that i also think some sort of refutation or side-note ought to be placed next to Melton's erroneous claim as well.

(On the subject of Melton -- i have found him to be wrong more often than i expect from a good scholar, and i rarely use him as an authority on any occult topic. See the article on tasseography for a glaring example of his ill-informed "expertise" -- and note that i am the editor who politiely pointed out that he was dead wrong on most of what he claimed while leaving his quote in the article, since my contribution was just a drive-by and i didn't want to take on a full rewrite for the article as i have my own aricle to write on the subject of tasseography at my own site.)

I hope that you understand why i felt justified in changing the lead of the article in such a radical way. The claim -- even supported by unreliable Melton -- is simply illogical, given the relative ages and shared mystical inerests of the parties involved.

cat Catherineyronwode 08:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

:You seem to be arguing that she did not originate the term, nor was "among the first" to use it (that was my phrasing, btw). That's not being questioned here. All I'm saying is that it's fair to call her the "founder of the New Age movement", as does Schnirelman, for instance. Eaglizard 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey may have achieved many things. But "popularity" is not a word that is ever associated with her. How could someone that no one has ever heard of have popularized anything? If I were to go out on the street and ask a some people if they know who Spinoza is, a few people would know that he was a philosopher - even though virtually no one reads him. If I were to ask the same people if they know who Alice Bailey is, I would just get blank looks. No one has heard of her, or knows a thing about her. She is as obscure a writer as you could possibly find. Given that, just how could she have popularized the term "New Age." Kwork 14:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:"Popularise" may not be the right word, but somehow the phrase has survived from the early twentieth century to be widely recognisable today. Bailey seems to have been a link in that chain of causation. It all depends what the sources say and if Eaglizard can summarise Shnirelman accurately, then that is more important than our estimations as mere WP editors. Itsmejudith 14:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, if you think I am wrong, just put it back in the article. The statement as it read, however, give the impression that she is well known and influential. (The point remains that this overlong argument is over an extremely obscure writer, who is little read - and less understood - even by those who claim to be followers.) Kwork 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:I'm sure you or Eaglizard or someone can word it better than me. Itsmejudith 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I agree completely with Kwork's edit; it's pure OR to say she "popularized" or much less "invented" the term. I have edited the lead to reflect a cited, secondary view. I hope no one will quibble with the source I have quoted using the words "founder of". Eaglizard 21:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Her philosophy and her writings are still applied by the groups and organizations she founded, such as the Arcane School, the New Group of World Servers, and the Full Moon Meditation Groups that follow her teachings,[5] [6] and have also been utilized by groups with which she was never directly involved, such as the Order of the Solar Temple,[7] the Human Potential Movement,[8] and the UFO contactee organization Understanding, Inc..[9]

The problem is that, while the Arcane School is an actual group, the New Group of World Servers is a concept, and full moon meditation is a practice. I would suggest removing "New Group of World Servers" and "Full Moon Meditation Groups", and replacing them with actual groups; such as (for example) The School for Esoteric Studies[http://esotericstudies.net/], and Arcana Workshops[http://www.meditationtraining.org/]. If there is no objection I will make the change. Kwork 12:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

:I object.

:First, I would not like us to lose the wiki-link to the New Group of World Servers article. You may call this a "concept" -- but the article calls these groups of people who recognize themselves as members.

:Second, although full moon meditation is indeed a practice, the Full Moon Meditation Groups are actual groups (Robert S. Ellwood visited one!) and they should stay. The Full Moon Meditation Groups are referenced later in the material from Ellwood, and without this introductory explanation, their connection to Alice Bailey would be lost.

:I would prefer that you rewite the material so as to include School for Esoteric Studies and the Arcana Workshops, but also retain both the New World Servers and Full Moon Meditation Groups.

: cat Catherineyronwode 13:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Forget I said it. Kwork 13:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

:No, wait, please... instead of forgetting it, may i add the School for Esoteric Studies and the Arcana Workshops, and make external links to them, as you provided? cat Catherineyronwode 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

::There was previously a bunch of such links, some of which I removed myself. The article is not for the purpose of promoting the various groups. Comes close to being spam. Kwork 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

:I restored what was there earlier. If there is a problem with it, certainly change it. I took out the Schnirleman because the criticism of Bailey it contains seems unnecessary in the introduction. Since there are a number of published sources, the statement is allowable... even if I think it is not correct. Kwork 22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this incident is pretty ugly -- and it is even uglier when seen in the context of the other deceits recently discovered about James' Conflict of Interest issues -- which strongly affected the edits he made to the Bailey page (many of which we are still living with).

Furthermore, reading Sparkleplenty's response to Jpgordon, stating that she is James' wife, i got the impression that if that is the case, then she knew exactly what she was doing, knew it was dishonest, and is now thumbing her nose at the wikipedia system.

For the record, i am quoting something i previously wrote on Jpgordon's talk page about this incident, so that folks will know where i am coming from: "I am very sentsitive to the issue, as both my husband and i edit at Wikipedia -- but due to the potential for confusion, we have always been totally outfront about our relationsip as spouses -- see my user page here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherineyronwode] and his user page here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boboroshi] -- and we have never concealed our marriage as Sparkleplenty and James did."

I am asking for consensus. Do any of you who edit here regularly think formal complaint should be made? I am generally loathe to file reports, having seen the technique used as a form of punishment against "enemy editors" -- but this incident, coupled with the earlier incident (documented here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alice_Bailey#Passive-aggressive_conflict-of-interest_drive-by_edit]) has me closer to trying to use the wiki system to lodge a complaint than i ever have been before.

I also noticed more edits from Sparkleplenty when i read the page tonight. In my opinion, they are not good. They do not follow our usual citebook format and they serve no purpose beyond snowing the reader under with extensive quote-farmed text that obscures the topic. I am going to comment out those edits, pending their revision into standard format that matches the rest of the article -- a task i will leave for someone else, because, frankly, i am tired of tryin to fix up slap-dash work like that.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 04:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:I want to wait and see what Jp gordon has to say, He said he would be responding on this talk page and that he was waiting for you to make this post. I think that Jossi's crack down forces our hand. We are being forced to walk eggs in the name of civilility and she is still making false accusations against us, ad nauseum This is disruption plain and simple. But I am waiting until we hear from JP Gordon. : Danny : Albion moonlight 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::I am okay with Jossi's "crackdown" in favour of civility, if it were applied fairly, but i do agree with you that Sparkleplenty has been allowed unusually free range to make uncited and disruptive accusations against her fellow editors. Time will tell where this goes next. cat Catherineyronwode 05:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's always better if we can avoid the formal dispute resolution system whenever possible. Because the conflict-of-interest issues are so serious for James and Sparklecplenty, we can easily assume good faith regarding the "puppetry" issue; it doesn't matter whether they were inadvertently or deliberately circumventing Wikipedia's policies in this regard. These editors are openly adherents, followers, devotees, or whatever the appropriate term is for Alice Bailey disciples/students/whatever (no disrespect intended, I just don't know what they'd prefer to call themselves.) They have a commercial interest as well, promoting a Alice Bailey-based shareware product. Essentially, the burden is on them to demonstrate that despite their conflict of interest, they can edit this article with a neutral point of view. I don't have any problem with them both editing the article, as long as they're up front about their relationship, and as long as they understand that they will treated as a single editor when it comes to establishing consensus. I think I can safely say that were formal action to be undertaken, the result would be at a minimum banning Sparklecplenty and Jamesd1 from editing this article. I'd be open to suggestions short of that, especially ones that minimize drama and make it easier to focus on improving our encyclopedia. The principles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Principles are quite relevant here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, there are two problems that stand out for me at this point, and both are contained in Sparkleplenty's last reply on tour talk page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jpgordon&diff=166124782&oldid=166121690].

1. The explanation given does not seem to fit the situation. If there were two users on the same IP how could messages from both have been "repeatedly edited within moments of each other on the same IPs", as you have describe it. Perhaps the problem is that I understand so little about computers, but it seems to me "within moments" implies one person who composed two massages, and then pasted them in, with an interval only to switch user names.

2. The second problem is that Sparkleplenty continues saying that I have accused other editors of antisemitism. That is incorrect, it is something I have not done, and I have offered to apologize if any example of that that is shown to me. But there has been no example produced, just continuing accusations of the same.

These two points lead me to make two conclusions

1. Jamesd1/Sparkleplenty believes that everything that he has done is justified to achieve an article as he wants it to be.

2. That he sees me, and other editors who have opposed him as the real problem, and there is the implication that I am not qualified to edit the article.

I have no difficulty with editors who have views differing from, or opposed to my own views; and, in fact, I consider a diversity of views to be a good thing. What bothers me are editors who will resort to devious means to achieve their goals. I see no indication that Jamesd1/Sparkleplenty has give up such means, nor is he willing to admit having done anything wrong. Under these circumstances, as things stand now, I think that Jamesd1/Sparkleplenty should be barred from editing this article. Kwork 14:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

: I would encourage involved editors to carefully read JP's comment above. Sparkleplenty and Jamesd1 have been strongly cautioned and the burden will be on them to demonstrate their ability to edit this article within the constrains of our content policies, and their comments will be considered to be one when discussing consensus. Despite this, my cautioning to other editors as it pertains to civility and maintaining an environment conducive to editing still stands. The best way forward may be to put all this behind and continue collaborating in creating an excellent article that all of you can be proud of. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::Jossi, I did read Jpgordon's comments above.

::The problem, as I see it, is that Jamesd1/Sparkleplenty has said everything is the fault of the other editors, and that he has done nothing wrong. I just do not see how that is a basis for improving much.

::In any case, as I explained previously, I do not see civility as a particularly big problem in the editing of this article; because, when the editor's beliefs are invested in the subject, some friction is no surprise, and it seems no big deal if someone gets a little excited on occasion and says something excessive. I guess it is something that does not bother me as much as it bothers you. But I do hope that all editors will play by basic Wikipedia rules.

::My particular concern over Jamesd1/Sparkleplenty saying, again and again, that other editors have called him is antisemitic is not a civility issue. I see it, rather, as an ad hominem attempt to discredit the work other editors by presenting them as people who intentionally distort the truth. Kwork 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

2) Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles. Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the matter of Sparkleplenty's repeated and unsubstantiatd charges against other editors, i am willing to let those sit to one side for the time being as well. Sparkleplenty has been asked repeatedly -- and has failed repeatedly -- to cite examples of the behaviour of which we have been accused by her. All current editors on the article, including those not accused, are aware of the charges and of the lack of proofs. All of the affected editors (those whose names she specifically mentioned) have expressed their opinions that the accusations, especially when repeatd so frequently without proof, are disruptive. Some of the affected editors say that to the best of their recollection they have not acted as charged, but, in order to cover all bases, they have offered to apologize if proof that they behaved in this manner were to be brought forth -- and still no proofs have been given. Sparkleplenty knows we object to these repeated and disruptive accusations, and she must now be aware that at least two admins (Jpgordon and jossi) and perhaps a third admin (AnonEMouse) have heard our objections to her unsupported and uncited ad hominem attacks on us. So that can be set aside for now, i believe, and we will watch and see what happens next.

Next, getting back to the article itself. Last night i commented out some of Sparkleplenty's "quote farm" material, based purely what i consider "good writing standards". A day previous to that i had placed a fact-cite tag on the unsuported and un-quote-marked portion of her claims about what Alice Bailey had written about Guy Ballard and the I Am Activity. Today, basing my rationale on the fact that Sparkleplenty and James have a COI which would impel them to downgrade and ridicule the I Am Activity as a rival religious organization that was based on Bailey's works, i am going to delete the un-quote-marked portion of the paragraph that Sparkleplenty attributed to Bailey. I will leave the portion that was in quotes for which Sparkleplenty supplied a Bailey citation. In short, this:

While Bailey made no references to UFOs, she described the I Am movement as a misinterpretation, a travesty, a prostitution of facts, [citation needed] and a "cheap comedy." [152]

will now become this:

While Bailey made no direct references to UFOs in her books, she did describe the I Am Activity as a "cheap comedy." [152]

I want to thank Parsifal, by the way, for having alerted us all to the fact that some of the cites made to quotes or conclusions presented in this article in the past have been spurious (that is, he found that the links, when followed, did not lead to anything that mentioned Bailey) -- and as a consequence of this discovery, i think it is a good idea for anyone working on the article to double check the citations in any section under their review.

Maybe things can get back to normal now. In a way this edit war has been kind of fun because i have gotten to know some great folks through the process of struggle here -- but it is also taking a lot of my time as i have been checking in twice a day to follow the "breaking news" aspct of the editing process. So here's a toast, as i raise my morning cofee in festive and celebratory mood: To more editing with less drama!

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 18:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

: To more editing with less drama! ... I would definitively toast to that. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:cat, that's a good edit, unless Sparkle (or someone) supplies the referenced text. Even so, that was too many adjectives. Eaglizard 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear that James and I have totally different writings styles, and it's obvious. I have mentioned that I am not a strong writer. I can write a very good paragraph, but it often takes me an hour to do it.

Yes, James put a external link to his article on the Seven Rays, a long time ago. The reason was that it had good information on the Seven Rays. The link was only there for a short time. Someone brought it to his attention, and he saw that it could be seen as a conflict of interest, so he removed it. He never made any money on the link and in fact lost thousands of dollars of his time writing on the article, most his writing was done after the link was gone.

The accusations about puppetry, multiple accounts, commercial conflicts of interest, personal attacks and criticism all of it just a smoke screen from what is really going on. I noticed that this latest attack had to be dug up from something that happened months ago. This should tell you something. Sparklecplenty 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::This is a link to when Jamesd1 linked the article to his entire site[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=136442967&oldid=136420954]. There are two links he added. The second of the two linked to the entire site, including his book store. Kwork 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:It certainly is not true that you were the only people who knew much about AAB editing here, nor should you presume such a wild statement. What, then, Sparkle, is, IYO, going on? SqueakBox 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Squeakbox,

Not since I have been here has there been anyone else who has much knowledge of the article. One of the editors has stated he was student of Roberto Assagioli, who was closely allied with Alice Bailey. Apart from that individual, everyone else has admitted or displayed their lack of knowledge on the subject. One editor stated that the article just sat there for a long time, and seemed pleased that James was here to move it along. I have stated my concerns on AnonEmouse's page, and my willingness to give examples. Thanks. Sparklecplenty 23:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:Sparklecplenty, just what do you think makes your knowledge of the Bailey teaching so special? My own impression is of someone who has read the books without understanding the spirit, and does not know how to apply it in life. In other words, someone who has not yet found the beginning of the Path.

:

...with increased esoteric teaching comes increased exoteric responsibility. Let each student with clarity therefore take stock of himself, remembering that understanding comes through application of the measure of truth grasped to the immediate problem and environment, and that the consciousness expands through use of the truth imparted. (my emphasis added) White Magic, Introduction.

:When I read statements from you, I do not see the Teaching of Light and Love in action. What I do see is a sixth ray aspirant with a moderate knowledge of the books. But the teaching is not in the books, it is in a life lived in kindness. If all you can do is explain the books you are as far from the teaching as I am...which is very far indeed. Kwork 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

James and his wife will never be able to make significant edits to this article again. There conflict of interest prevents them from doing this If seek and find more Meat and or Sock Puppets we should not rely on Jossie to deal with this for us . We need to do these things for ourselves. We are the ones who get to decide what is neutral and what is not and or what is properly sourced or what is or original research and etc etc, Administrative power ove''r these things is not arbitrary. I have been through an Article for deletion deletion process that failed and I know that it is the community who gets to decide these things.

Civility is a different matter so be civil. Admins have a lot of power in this area and that is as it should be. So lets be civil no matter what : .

Danny Weintraub; : Albion moonlight 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:James and his wife will never be able to make significant edits to this article again — I respectfully disagree with that statement. That is not the advice given by JP, or by me. They can edit this article as long as they are willing to do it within the constrains of our content policies, and respect the process by which we edit articles in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read what the arbitration committee has to say pursuant to conflict of interest. Jp Gordan has declared they have a conflict of interest. He did not come right out and say what the restrictions were but he posted an internal link to ab arb com ruling that is very significant. I have pasted the significant section below.

2) Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles. Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But I am not going to make an issue out of this unless they go against consensus or continue to harass us. I think you and I are saying pretty close to the same thing ; If not we can always let the dispute process run its course. I just want to let everyone know just how empowerd they are. Danny Weintraub ''

:Albion moonlight 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:Personally, I find this kind of drama rather annoying. For the record, I want to state that James' contributions to this article were extremely significant, and I was disappointed when he chose to stop. For some reason, it appears James and Sparkle are being made pariahs here, but it's my own rather informed opinion that neither of them have done anything worse than things certain other editors have done in the past. There's no current disruption to the editing here, and unless someone starts being disruptive, I recommend this subject be dropped entirely, before everyone begins dragging up old grievances, and we devolve into incivility yet again. IMHO. I invite James or Sparkle to continue editing the article; I can and will evaluate an edit on its own merits, and I urge everyone to do the same. Eaglizard 20:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:Hi Catherineyronwode. I don't have many of the AAB books here in Brooklyn. Most of them are on boxes in Oregon.

:Monica Sjöö[https://web.archive.org/web/20140125142053/http://www.monicasjoo.org/books/naessay/newageessay4.htm], not a source friendly to Bailey, wrote:

:

Bailey taught that the Hierarchy of Masters exists in Shambhala and that Venusians founded this fabled city some 18 million years ago on the sacred Gobi island, which is now in the Mongolian desert.

:and

:

Already the Venusians were said to have brought the Fire of Mind that had led to to the development of the city-based cultures that heralded Patriarchy.

:Christopher H Partridge in his book, The Re-enchantment of the West, wrote [http://books.google.com/books?id=mPKeVWeLq1UC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=alice+bailey+hierarchy+of+masters+from+venus&source=web&ots=Q9dC4ssjeA&sig=PT4d0yuNm8REHtzO9kvtsKDTDEo]

:

It should perhaps be noted at this point that Theosophy has several prominent branches, and, strictly speaking, the branch which has had the most important influence on the UFO religion is that developed by Alice Bailey. (p.175)

:You might find the article on Sanat Kumara, who brought the White Brotherhood and who is the ruler of Shambhala to Earth, helpful. It says

:

In Theosophy, the beings that helped Sanat Kumara organize the expedition from Venus are called the "Lords of the Flame". In later versions, notable "Lords of the Flame" include Gautama Buddha, and the World Teacher (the being referred to alternately as Maitreya or Christ by Benjamin Creme). The Church Universal and Triumphant teaches that Sanat Kumara and the Lords of the Flame also brought 144,000 souls with them from Venus. Alice Bailey, on the other hand, gives the number 105 only.

:and

:

It is maintained in some of these versions of Theosophy that Venus is the most spiritually advanced planet of our solar system. The beings living on the etheric plane of Venus are said to be millions of years ahead of us in their spiritual evolution. It is said [citation needed] that the governing council of Venus sent one of themselves, Sanat Kumara, here to guide us. It is said in Theosophy that once Sanat Kumara arrived here, he directed the construction of the city of Shamballa on the etheric plane above the Gobi Desert to serve as his headquarters.

:Concerning Sirius, I found this in my copy The Rays and Initiations (a very old copy which is not indexed) on p. 415

:

The energy of Sirius by-passes (to use a modern word) Shamballa and is focused in the Hierarchy.....The entire work of the Great White Lodge is controlled from Sirius...

:If I have time to look for more later, I will add it. I hope this helps a little. Kwork 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

::What you added certainly does help, Kwork. Thank you very much. As Sparkle pointed out, Bailey never wrote about UFOs per se ... but as Partridge, Ellwood, Sjoo, et all described, the outer space component of Bailey's teachings certainly opened the door for her influence on UFO religions. I think that rather than place all of what you have brought forth into the Influence section, it should go in is own new section, with a title like "Sirius, Venus, and Shamballa". Then the Influence section will have something solid to draw from instead of seeming to come "out of the blue," as it were. :-)

::Thank you also for bringing up Benjamin Creme. I think he should be mentioned in the Influence section, don't you? Let's see if we can find a scholarly source, or, failing that, a citation within Creme's own writings.

::cat Catherineyronwode 20:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::cat, I'm interested in what conclusion you draw from these two "fact-bits". Juxtaposing two facts to lead the reader to a conclusion is POV writing, as you certainly know. I really wish you and Kwork had not clearly stated your animosity towards AAB; unfortunately, it seriously undermines my ability to AGF sometimes. For instance, it seems patently obvious to me that, in your mind, the UFO information is derogatory, and you are so keen to include it only because it seems to paint her in a negative light. But, not being particularly clairvoyant, I admit I may be wrong. I can't immediately discount sources like Partridge or even Sjoo. So, I will just ask you to exercise caution on this, since it's getting very close to POV editing, IMO. Eaglizard 19:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Eaglizard, i do not find the Bailey influence on UFO religions "derogatory." I write and edit about folk magic, spirituality, and occultism on a regular basis, and i deal routinely with denominations that believe in UFOs.

::::I have stated no "animosity" toward Bailey. My dislike of her teachings is focussed entirely on those portions that make an appeal to a religious "higher authority" to institutionalize and justify racism and antisemitism.

::::What was bothering me about the issue, from a citation / sourcing point of view, was that Sparkle was saying Bailey did not write about UFOs, yet we have a lot of sources saying she influenced at least thee separate UFO religions of the latter part of the 20th century. The question then became "why?" -- and Kwork has provided the answer.

::::My original proposal -- to counterpose the information that she wrote about a Hierarchy on Venus with the UFO religion information in the "Influence" section -- was a flawed idea, i now see. Far better, given the extent of Kwork's contribution to the subject, is my most recent proposal above, namely, the introduction of a new "Teachings" sub-section, tentatively titled "On Sirius, Venus, and Shamballah", in which the teachings will be presented as-is, with no counterposition. The Influences sub-section on UFOs will then stand in logical relation to the Teachings section with no POV pushing.

::::What do you think about that idea?

::::Finally, as i mentioned above, we definitely need to add Benjamin Creme to the influences section, so folks should be on the look-out to for a scholarly source or a mention within Creme's own writings.

:::: cat Catherineyronwode 20:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::cat, I'm not saying your only reason for the UFO info is bias, but I do believe you've said it enough ways to make it clear you despise Alice Bailey and the books she wrote in on. Maybe I've just misunderstood your comments, but I'd be surprised if I were alone in doing so. Actually, I rather admire your ability to remain pretty darn NPOV in your edits about a subject you seem to dislike so much. Again, I was just asking you to apply extra caution here, and I see you have done. Groovy. :)

:::::As for the section head idea, it does seem you're taking some fairly minor points of her teaching and elevating them higher than they deserve. OTH, there's about 150 mentions of Venus, so maybe not. I'd say the idea is fine, and if it seems wrong once it's done, somebody can see about reworking it some, or at least discuss here. Oh, and yes, unfortunately, as much as I myself dislike Creme's approach, if we're going to mention UFOs in Influence, then we're certainly forced to include him, too. C'est la vie. Eaglizard 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::This is not a content comment, so please continue your content discussion following this aside in regards to respect and civility.

::::::Eaglizard, I don't know if you realize it, but you just now told Cat she lied in her prior comment when she wrote she has "no stated 'animosity' towards Bailey." We've had enough drama on this page, we don't need that kind of dispresect. To be clear: it doesn't mitigate an accusation of lying to follow it with waffling, writing "Maybe I've just misunderstood your comments", and then turning it around again, with "but I'd be surprised if I were alone in doing so" and then following it with a compliment for good measure! After all that, the gist is still that you stated you do not believe she was truthful in what she wrote about her own feelings and prior statements.

::::::I have not seen Cat say she despises Alice Bailey, the only place I've seen that said is in accusations made by others. I've only seen her say she despises some of what Alice Bailye wrote, in particular, the parts that are racist and antisemitic.

::::::If you want to address what may appear to you to be bias in the writing, you can do that without making assumptions or accusations about the editors' personal views. Write about the content, not the editor. If you identify a problem, it can be handled with consensus. Whatever the editor is thinking does not matter one whit... unless the person's behavior becomes tendentious and causes disruption. As that obviously is not so with Cat, your accusation of bias in her writing, and that she lied, is out of line.

::::::You also wrote, in the previous comment, that it is "patently obvious" to you, what's going on in Cat's mind, and that you're having trouble assuming good faith with regard to her. I respectfully suggest that you re-calibrate your AGF meter to the present and base your comments on what people write, rather than what you might feel about someone from the past, when your impressions may have been filtered or affected by events that have nothing to do with the actual people who are working on this article (in good faith, which I add with emphasis).

::::::Please consider how your comments may be seen by others before you click "save page". --Parsifal _Hello 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::This is just absurd. If I had meant to say she "lied", I would have said it. Where did I give you the impression I'm afraid to say exactly what I think? BTW, when a person admits to their own failure, like mine re: AGF, do you always feel the need hammer it home, in case they missed their own point? Actually, don't answer that; I don't care, and it's off-topic. Eaglizard 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Parsifal.

Eaglizard, again, to clarify, i despise people who make an appeal to "higher authority" or "spiritual truth" in order to justify shoddy and sub-par treatment of othr human beings based on their race, creed, or national origin. But not all of what Alice Bailey wrote was of that character. Other aspects of her works, including the Full Moon Meditations, are quite appealing to me.

Am i a believer or follower of her teachings? No. And one reason i am not is that i, as a Jew, would not be fully welcome in her proposed "New World Order," which is, as she specifically stated, intended to be totally Jew-free.

All of that aside, though, my relationship to this article is as a volunteer editor and writer. About a year and a half ago i was adding occult writer cat tags to a number of bios, and i noticed a request on the Bailey talk page, asking us to make a note on the antisemitism in her occult and esoteric writings. I looked it up, found a cite, added the note, and that was that, until the late edit war broke out in May 2007. During the edit war, my major interest was to retain the mentions of her antisemiiitism and racism in the face of a flood of proposals that all such matters be deleted. Since James has left, and the antisemitism cites are no longer in danger of being "disappeared," i have decided to see what i can do to improve the rest of the article.

Since you have accused me of spite-editing, i would like you to please check my contributions -- you will see that my work on Bailey is part of my much larger volunteer effort at Wikipedia with respect to creating and enhancing articles on the occult, spirituality, divination, religious diversity, folk magic, stage magic, music, breaking news, history, and medical health: Wallace Wattles, faith healing, psychic surgery, Ina Coolbrith, Orison Swett Marden, Elizabeth Towne, The Nautilus, The Metaphysical Club, Yinglish, ConAgra Foods, International New Thought Alliance, Bronchiolitis obliterans, 99 Ranch Market, Law of Attraction, Samuel Smiles, Castellammarese War, Ciro Terranova, Omie Wise, Scrying, Alan Dundes, Daniel Fry, List of New Thought writers, The Zancigs, Ella Wheeler Wilcox‎, List of New Thought denominations and independent centers, Mildred Mann, Numerology, Thomas Troward, Tasseography, and Alexander the Crystal Seer are only part of what i have worked on during the past month and a half. Please, do a brief check on those articles and see if it helps you to better understand my relationship to the article on Bailey.

Frankly, it is annoying to have my desire to work on the whole Bailey article (as opposed to merely protecting the antisemitism section) treated as if i were editing out of spite.

Now, instead of pretending to be able to read my mind, why don't YOU write the proposed sub-section on Sirius, Venus, and Shamballa? You won't need to second guess your own motivations, so the outcome should be satisfactory to you.

cat Catherineyronwode 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:Two things: First, I myself pointed out my own inability to read minds, admitting I may be wrong, thus trying to emphasize my statement was my opinion and nothing more. Second, I did not accuse you of anything whatsoever. I asked you to be careful with your edits, and nothing else. Nor could what I wrote be construed as maligning your edits, for "spite" or anything else, so your long defense against a nonexistent charge is just a bit baffling. The only person I chastised was myself, for my own breakdown of AGF.

:Regarding your stated opinion of Bailey, and in response to Parsifal as well, I was forced into the tedium of the archives, but you have indeed referred to Bailey as a "bigot" who would "very likely be allied with the White Supremicist anti-Jewish hate movement" if alive today. You have also accused other editors of racism: "I feel that the antisemitic supporters of Alice Bailey have exposed their agenda fully and can now be combatted with full knowledge of their agnda.". Admittedly, this was all in August, as "Nameless date stamp", but that impression has stuck with me since. My mistake, if I made one here, was to assume that a Jew could only despise someone they've called a "Jew-hating racist".

:In any case, my intent was not to offend, nor to question your edits. In fact, I'm now tired of repeatedly registering my extremely high opinion of your editing skills, since nobody seems to notice positive comments around here. Oh, and if you'd actually read my comments in re: your proposed new section, you'd see I don't quite agree with the idea, so that's why I don't write it. Eaglizard 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:NB When I wrote "seems patently obvious to me... that you are so keen to...", that is precisely what I meant: the appearance, the "seeming" of it, is that cat's desire to include this leaf (by Niggle) is based on her dislike of AAB. Please notice that this is my opinion of the impression her own statements have made on me, and says nothing about the quality of her actual edits to this or any article. Rather, my actual stated opinion of her edits is generally rather positive, since my stated opinion is almost always based on examining an edit on it's own merits, and does not include what I may think of the editor or their desires (to the best of my ability). Eaglizard 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::I have now added to the article some selections from the material that Kwork contributed above. A portion can be found under the section on the spiritual hierarchy and another portion is located under the section on Influence, sub-head UFO groups. cat Catherineyronwode 08:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::Jossi, Sparkle, the "wife" here. I'm not an appendage. You may call me Sparkle.

::Like other knowledgeable people before me, I am blocked from making the article more balanced. For instance, my last edit was mostly deleted, and the one on Zionism was complete deleted. Most of what I put in was removed because the waring editors did not like what AAB said. It's not about my abiding by Wiki rules. The article is controlled by AAB critics who shape it using their personal bias. It's this that is a violation of Wiki rules. It's not the editors who most closely follow the rules that rules that are respected here.

::UFOs is not a teaching of Alice Bailey. It may be verifiable that some one used that "Great Invocation" in a song or at a meeting of UFO's enthusiast, but it is a magnified minuscule bit of information that distracts from real picture of AAB and her thought. It's included exactly because it distracts. And the article is "chuck full" minor and remotely related things. It's a good strategy if you want to hide her actual thoughts. Even if readers fail to get the wrong idea, maybe if we put in enough weird links that are hardly realted to her at all, people will click on those and never return. The important thing is that the more of these links they click on, the more cloudy will be their picture of Bailey.

::AAB didn't write about UFO's at all. And the quote that I added was strongly critical of the UFO group cited. It's inclusion suggests she was involved in some kind of UFO thing. The impact of her quote rejecting this UFO related group was weakened by the removal of most of what she said about it. Because it didn't fit the personal view of the editors, it had to go. And yet her harsh criticism on other topics is expanded beyond proportionality, again to emphasize a personal bias of the editors. What is that bias? Basically, its anti-Bailey. The editors just don't like her. Its that simple. The critical editors are personally outrage by certain things she wrote ( the stuff that fills 90% of the discussion history). This personal reaction sets the agenda which is is make her look as negative as they can and any way they can and never mind rules in process. The goal is to picture her as some new age cultists racist and flake waiting for UFOs to arrive. Things that suggest otherwise are mostly taken out of the bio.

::Example: It use to read: "While Bailey makes no references to UFO's, she described the "I Am" movement as a misinterpretation, a travesty, a prostitution of facts, and a "cheap comedy."

::Now it is: "While Bailey made no direct references to UFOs in her books, she did describe the I Am Activity as a "cheap comedy."

::The two editors didn't like AAB's criticism of the "I Am Movement," so they censored it by removing most of what she said on the subject. This violates Wikipedia rule of neutrality. You can make selections and remove stuff until you get just the picture you want.

::The article says:

::"Some historians allege that the Solar Temple originates with French author Jacques Breyer who established a Sovereign Order of the Solar Temple in 1952. In 1968, a schismatic order was renamed the Renewed Order of the Solar Temple (ROTS) under the leadership of French right-wing political activist Julien Origas. Some reports have claimed that Origas was a Nazi SS member during World War II."

::Here we plug in a link that associates her with Nazis. Very nice! Now there are lots of references in AAB where she condemns Nazism. So why would an editor plug in a link like that and fail to deal with the key points AAB actually wrote on the subject. Gee, I wonder why? Never mind that AAB's definition of race was about consciousness, let's throw in any thing that makes her look like a racist. The AAB biography is an essay disguised as an encyclopedia article.

::The article says, "For example, she said that the Aryans, as an "emerging new race", are the most evolved people on Earth."

::The above editorial comment is opposite to: "Although she often identified groups of people by their race, nationality, or religion, she said the key matter was not race or religion per say, but the evolution of consciousness that transcends these labels."

::And the above two items are in different sections of the bio. What mess.

::And now get this. Here is what use to be in the biography:

::

"… there is no new race in process of appearing, from the territorial angle; there is only a general distribution of those persons who have what have been called the sixth root race characteristics. This state of consciousness will find its expression in people as far apart racially as the Japanese and the American or the Negro and the Russian." Bailey, Alice A. The Rays and the Initiations, Lucis Trust. 19607. p. 593-594)

::Gee, now why was that removed. I wonder...?

::This is horrible and absolutely shameful thing happening here. It's very ugly.

::Example of emphasizing a point of view. Deleting the reason why the criticism of Zionism--national separatism and and leaving quotes that only criticize Zionism without giving the reason and context for their understanding. AAB's text are just clay. Editors scoop out a bit of this or that and shape it as they like. This violates Wiki rules.

::ZIONISM

::Underlying her criticism of Zionism and Russia is a type of nationalism or separative spirit that she saw as the basis of many world problems, "We could take the nations, one by one, and observe how this nationalistic, separative or isolationist spirit, emerging out of an historical past, out of racial complexes, out of territorial position, out of revolt and out of possession of material resources, has brought about the present world crisis and cleavage and this global clash of interests and ideals." .Bailey, Alice A. The Externalization of the Hierarchy, Lucis Trust. 1957. p. 375 In 1947, in listing the causes of world conflict, she she citied the fight for oil, and the fight over Palestine, "...a fight which has greed and not any love of Palestine behind it, and which is governed by financial interests and not by the humanitarian spirit which the Zionists claim....Bailey, Alice A. The Externalization of the Hierarchy, Lucis Trust. 1957. p 615

::Gee, I wonder why all this was deleted? Sparklecplenty 01:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::: Some of these points are actionable. I will make some edits accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:Sparkle, as I'll say in more detail on your talk page, I really wish you would learn to stop making accusations and speculations about other editor's motives. Your points about content are usually excellent, and well received. But talk about the article, and stop talking about the editors. Just look at the previous section if you need evidence that even simply stating an editor's apparent attitude can be misunderstood as accusations of some awful thing apparently called "spite-editing", in spite of my repeatedly stated fondness for cat's editing. Sigh. Eaglizard 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::Sparkleplenty, please pay attention to the discussions here and stop making accusations. You wrote:

::Example: It use to read: "While Bailey makes no references to UFO's, she described the "I Am" movement as a misinterpretation, a travesty, a prostitution of facts, and a "cheap comedy."

::Now it is: "While Bailey made no direct references to UFOs in her books, she did describe the I Am Activity as a "cheap comedy."

::You have been reading the talk page, and i am sure you remember that i said that i had added a fact-tag on your words, "she described the "I Am" movement as a misinterpretation a travesty, a prostitution of facts." If not, please see here:

::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alice_Bailey#need_direct_quotes_for_scurrilous_quotes_about_I_Am].

::The title of that section is "need direct quotes for scurrilous quotes about I Am" -- which is direct and to the point.

::You attributed a highly inflammatory series of words to Alice Bailey in the article, and we needed proof that Bailey actually used those terms -- specifically, "a misinterpretation a travesty, a prostitution of facts."

::You know exactly what a fact-tag is. It is a call for a citation. You had added the material, and so i added a fact-tag on the material and i also asked you on the talk page to supply a citation verifying that Bailey actually used the words "a misinterpretation, a travesty, a prostitution of facts" -- and you did not do so.

::You did have the words "a cheap comedy" in quotes, with a book and page citation, so i believed this to be a direct quotation and i left it in. I also changed your wording of "The I am movement" to "the I Am Activity'' because the former is the actual name of the group in question.

::If you want the words "she described the I Am Activity as a misinterpretation, a travesty, a prostitution of facts," to appear in the article, you must add quote-marks around those words -- with a properly written ref leading to a cited work, to prove she really wrote them.

::And speaking of properly written citations, when you add refs, please use the style of other refs in the article. Do not expect me or one of the other diligent editors to follow behind you like a servant and rewrite all of your badly-fomed ref-links into proper form. I am tired of doing your drudge-work for you.

::If you can support those adjectives with actual citations, do so. If you can learn how to type in the proper reference format from copying from other sections of the article, do so. And if you can do these two simple things without attacking your fellow editors, please, by all means, do so.

::Chop wood and haul water, Sparkleplenty. That's the name of the game.

::cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 06:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My first impulse was to delete it, but to minimize edit-drama in regards to the comments above, I'm placing it here for discussion and will leave it to others to either keep it, delete it, or edit it for clarity.

Sparklecplenty and/or James added the following paragraph to the article in the sub-section "On Israel, Zionism, and Russia":

Underlying her criticism of Zionism and Russia, Bailey described a type of nationalism or separative spirit that she saw as the basis of many world problems, "We could take the nations, one by one, and observe how this nationalistic, separative or isolationist spirit, emerging out of an historical past, out of racial complexes, out of territorial position, out of revolt and out of possession of material resources, has brought about the present world crisis and cleavage and this global clash of interests and ideals."Bailey, Alice A. The Externalization of the Hierarchy, Lucis Trust. 1957. p. 375 In 1947, in listing the causes of world conflict, she citied the fight for oil, and the fight over Palestine, "[...] a fight which has greed and not any love of Palestine behind it, and which is governed by financial interests and not by the humanitarian spirit which the Zionists claim [...]".Bailey, Alice A. The Externalization of the Hierarchy, Lucis Trust. 1957. p 615

Cat then commented it out, with this explanation:

I am commenting out this section, added tonight by Sparkleplenty and revised by Jossi, because it adds nothin to our understanding of the issues. It is just more quote-farming, in my opinion. If you want this one in, why not the one about "Palestine is no longer a Holy Land." As i have said before, "this could go on forelver" -- quote after quote after quote, until we reproduced her entire ouput here at wikipedia. cat yronwode:

After Sparkle complained about the removal of the content on the talk page, Jossi removed the commenting and re-added the paragraph with this edit summary: restoring material that expands on Bailesy views of Zionism.

I took a closer look and found the text confusing not quite on-topic, and possibly including some editorializing with its introductory sentence. So I checked the quoted sources and did not find a clear connection between the original paragraphs and the way they were summarized, and did not find a good reason to place that content in the Zionism and Russia section.

For clarity on this: I am not making any accusations that there is any motivation in the construction of the paragraph. I'm just saying it seems confusing, inaccurately sourced, and doesn't fit where it's located. Even if it's copyedited and the sourcing is fixed, then it should go in the main nationalism section, because that's the focus of the quoted source.

For convenience, here are the source paragraphs with the quoted parts bolded:

:Page 375: "The nationalistic spirit is not dead as yet in any country. It must be helped to die. Minorities with historical backgrounds but no territorial rights are clamoring for a place to call their own and in which to build up a nation. The small nations are full of fear, wondering what place in the family of nations they will be permitted to hold, and whether the evil plans of the Germans will spare any of their citizens eventually to form a nation. The demand for national recognition is widespread; the emphasis upon humanity as the important unit is little heard.

:Those nations impede the path of progress who live in the memory of their past history and boundaries and who look back upon what they call "a glorious past," resting upon the recollection of national or empire rule over the weak. This is a hard saying, but the nationalistic spirit constitutes a grave peril to the world; if perpetuated in any form, except as contributory to the good of humanity as a whole, it will throw the world (after the war) back into the dark ages and leave men no better off than they were, even though there have been twenty years of travail and agony.

:We could take the nations, one by one, and observe how this nationalistic, separative or isolationist spirit, emerging out of an historical past, out of racial complexes, out of territorial position, out of revolt and out of possession of material resources, has brought about the present world crisis and cleavage and this global clash of interests and ideals. But it would profit not. The intelligent student of history (who has no nationalistic bias) knows well the facts and is deeply concerned today with the processes which must be brought to bear to end the world strife."

:Page 615: "As the disciple confronts both the inner and the outer events and possibilities, he is apt to register a sense of complete frustration; he longs to help, but knows not what to do; his grasp of the menacing difficulties, his analysis of his resources and of those with whom he works, and his clarity of perception as to the forces ranged against him, make him feel inclined to sit back and say: What is the use of any effort I can make? Why not let the two forces of good and evil, of the Black Lodge and the Spiritual Hierarchy, fight it out alone? Why not permit the pressure of the evolutionary current, eventually and at long last, to bring cessation to the fight and the triumph of the good? Why attempt to do it now?

:These are natural reactions when considering the present field of conflict, the prevalent greed and the international and racial antagonisms, and the selfish motives which control so many national units, plus the dull apathy of the masses, and in particular, the growing suspicion and distrust between the United States and Russia - a situation in which both groups are almost equally to blame. This war-generating situation is fostered behind the scenes by the highly clever and strongly anti-communistic power of the Roman Catholic Church, with its organized political plans - plans which are growing notably in the United States. To these, the intelligent thinker adds the reactionary activities in every land, and the fight for oil which governs the policies of Russia, the United States and Great Britain. To these factors must be added today the struggle between Hindu and Moslem for the control of India, and the fight over Palestine - fomented by the Zionists, and not by the Jews as a whole - a fight in which the Zionists prevented the displaced Jewish persons (only 20% of the whole) from discovering how welcome they are in many countries throughout the world; a fight which has greed and not any love of Palestine behind it, and which is governed by financial interests and not by the humanitarian spirit which the Zionists claim and which would force them to accept the offers made by Great Britain, Canada, Chile, Belgium and many other lands."

It seems to me those paragraphs are about a lot more than Zionism, for example, the last part mentions, in addition to Zionism: "the United States and Russia,... Great Britain... the Roman Catholic Church, with its organized political plans,... reactionary activities in every land,... the fight for oil... the struggle between Hindu and Moslem for the control of India... the fight over Palestine... Chile, Belgium and many other lands..."

Comments welcome. --Parsifal _Hello 08:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you Parsifal. I think the wiki policy is to try and fix it without reverting it whenever possible, Fix it or revert it and enable your email if it is not enabled already.: Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 09:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:I think if is important to add a section to the article that could be called "the White Lodge and the Black Lodge", which is important in Bailey's teaching. The working between the forces of light and the forces of darkness is how she sees events in the outer, material dense, world; and the quotes above can not really be understood without that. That thinking is also hidden in the accusations of Jamesd1/Sparklecplenty, and the reason those who oppose their edits are depicted as intending to harm Alice Bailey's Teaching of Light. I will see if I can gather some information on how Bailey portrays the struggle between light and darkness (good and evil), and how that moves her discussion of world events. Kwork 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

interesting, being the 2007 calibration of Lag B'omer 2007 on Mt. Meron in Israel. Lag B'omer celebrates when the great rabbi Simeon bar Yochai (who is believe by many religious Jews to have written the Zohar in the years he was hiding in a cave from the Roman occupiers of Israel) swore to The Almighty that the Torah would never be forgotten. The day is celebrated with bon fires and dancing throughout Israel. Just a little background information for the uninformed. Kwork 15:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about Bailey's views of the Jews in writing this article. Bailey tends to talk about an abstraction of Judaism, as if it is just a bad idea that needs to go (perhaps something like doing away with pay toilets), without seeing that there are living people involved. It continues to baffle me why Bailey sees the religion of the Jews, about which she demonstrates in her writing that she knows nothing, as something so important to send to oblivion. Kwork 17:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Let's try to avoid the personal attacks; you could have made your point here without knowingly insulting her followers here, no matter how witted or not you think they are. There are, as you say, living people here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:All Jews are Zionists? That's news to me (and I bet it would surprise a few Jews, too). I guess Kwork's translations are provided by MEMRI. Eaglizard 07:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon, yes, certainly. However, you will note that (unlike Bailey calling for the end of Judaism) I have not called for the end of halfwits. Nor have I suggested that halfwits be barred from editing the article.Kwork 13:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:And I'd just like to thank Kwork for this. I'd hate to have been barred from this article simply because of my halfwit ethnicity. :D Eaglizard 14:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:If I might say so, you guys are at your best in this mode. :D Rumiton 14:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, I recall discussing this previously. If you read the antisemitism article, you will see this:

From the 1990s, some writers have identified a New antisemitism, a form of antisemitism coming simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, which tends to focus on opposition to Zionism and a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel, and which may deploy traditional antisemitism motifs.[6] Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate

My own observation is that, in a very diverse religion, there are few points that unite Jews as much as support of Zionism. Even those groups that oppose the present Israeli state (the ultra-Orthodox) because it is a secular state include a prayer for the return to Zion in their daily religious observance. Also, in the context of her lying complaints about Jews, there does not seem any reason to doubt that Bailey does equate Zionists with Jews, excepting only a very few who had converted to the Church of Bailey, or who for some other reason hate Jews. Kwork 14:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:Replacing "Zionist" with "Jew" is usually just a cheap trick to dismiss criticism of Zionism (or Israel) as simple antisemitism, which it often is not. As the WP article says, "... exploit[ing] antisemitism to silence debate." Every criticism of Zionism I have read in AAB relates to the actions of the Zionist movement: she uses words like "criminal" only in relation to Zionists, never to Jews in general, I believe. Her criticism of Zionism is not conflatable with criticism of Jewry. The charges she makes against Jews are very different from those she levels at Zionism in particular. I don't believe you can show any passage where she accuses Zionists of squalid living, or where she says Jews are criminals. In fact, in one passage quoted just above here, she says "...fomented by the Zionists, and not by the Jews as a whole...", which makes it pretty clear she saw a distinction between the two. If nothing else, I believe AAB was a very careful writer. I invite you to quote a passage or two that prove me wrong on this. Eaglizard 14:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, what a load of crap. "Criminal"? Show me what makes Zionists criminals and members of the Black Lodge. This is what Bailey said, and why I said she is a liar. There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel. I criticize, Israel, the USA, and other countries all the time, but without calling for the end of their existence. Do you see no difference? If not, refer back to what I said about halfwits and apply the duck test. Kwork 16:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::I invite both of you to consider whether this particular discussion is furthering the development of the article, or rather is expressing your own opinions of the subject of the article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::This was written pre the formation of Israel, I am sure. And at that point Zionism was an unrealised dream held by some but not all Jews, surely she is criticising Zionisim not Jews, and while even today there are those who oppose Zionism (ie Israel as a state) without being anti-semitic this was much more of a valid point before the creation of Israel. We must judge AAB by the standards of her time, not our time, otherwise we'd be condemning huge numbers of authors for holding views which were considered mainstream at the time but extreme now, and I think pre the creation of Israel it was not inappropriate and certainly not racist to be anti-zionist, particularly remebering that the main argument for a Jewish state was as a response to the holocaust, which had not happened when the great majority of what AAB wrote was being written, SqueakBox 15:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I extend the same invitation to you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::: I concur. They could take this fascinating discussion to their talk page or elsewhere, so that editors here can focus on improving this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::::I think as long as we have in the opening

and in particular regarding her criticisms of Zionism, the Jewish people and their historical actions; and the religions of Judaism and Christianity.

that the subject matter does indeed need discussing. I am unhappy to see a section entitled "this woman is a liar" and think it important to point out that this is not the case. I think the first quote was not a dsign that she was either a liar or an anti-semitic and we shouldn't go out of our way to emphasise this alleged side of her, especially in an unsourced way, SqueakBox 16:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:I will supply sources soon. It will not be a problem. Kwork 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:: As a Jew, and free thinker, I despise antisemitism and antisemits as much as you do, Kwork. But you need to learn to engage in this pages without inflammatory comments such as the ones you made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I think [http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1098625,00.html this Guardian article] is appropriate tot his discussion if not the article in that it points out the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism and that being an anti-Zionist does not make one anti-semitic, especially in the thirties and that we cannot muddle the two up when referring to AAB, SqueakBox 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::::That is a 2003 article and does not describe the present situation. In general, I am not much interested in Guardian articles about Israel because its editorial history on the subject sometimes comes close to Der Stürmer. Kwork 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:2003? Nothing much has changed since then and the article is still 100% relevant, SqueakBox 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:: No change? Israel pulled out of Gaza unilaterally. The unchanged part is the Gaza leadership still promises to destroy Israel. Kwork 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::::We can't call her either, anyway. We can report what reliable sources call her. That is all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:I do feel my comments have direct bearing on this article, since conflation of "Zionism" with "Jew" has been used before to extend AAB's criticisms very inappropriately in the article text. If ppl will pay attention to my words, and not to their idea of what they think I'm saying, it should be clear that I haven't made any statements about my opinion of Zionism, or my opinion of AAB's opinion. At least one editor seems unable to distinguish between a discussion of AAB's accusations and the accusations themselves, but I have never made, and probably will never make, any disclosure of my personal opinion of the Zionist movement. My comment is about the mis-representation of quotations as being antisemitic, when they are in fact merely anti-Zionist. Kwork stated "there does not seem any reason to doubt that Bailey does equate Zionists with Jews", which I feel required a rebuttal. The quote I offered does give clear reason to believe AAB saw "Jewish" and "Zionist" as distinct. I am discussing the interpretation of AAB's text, and this does in fact relate directly to the article, IMO. (Perhaps the opening sentence could have been different, but it was the dream police made me surrender to it. :) Eaglizard 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::But your interpretation is irrelevant; all that is relevant is interpretation by reliable sources. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:::We have to be careful both to say what a ref says and not what we want it to say but also to not give information that will confuse our readers and blurring the lines between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism could easily do that, in cases of confusion some background info is appropriate (obviously as long as the background information is sourced). It seems a reasonable assumption to me that unless we give our readers some background into the difference between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism that our readers may gain the wrong idea about AAB, SqueakBox 17:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:::: That would be OK, if we can find a source related to Bailey that makes these distinctions. Otherwise, we will be violating WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::I am not sure I agree as we have a responsibility not to confuse our readers, and indeed I would argue that confusing material should be removed even if ref'd, SqueakBox 18:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::: What do you consider to be confusing? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This "regarding her criticisms of Zionism, the Jewish people and their historical actions" it isnt really clear what we mean. Also do we have a ref for "and the religions of Judaism and Christianity." all from the opening, SqueakBox 20:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Jpgordon, I think you are incorrect to some degree. When AAB describes, for instance, her suicide attempts, we don't need a source to tell us that her description means she attempted suicide. We take her words at their face value. We also do this in discussing her teachings. While "interpretation" of the meaning subtle esoteric points is obviously speculation and out of place here, "interpretation" of her simple english is not. For instance, we don't have a V source that says "her writings contain criticism of Jews", even tho the article says exactly that. We have sources that see antisemitism or racism, which is an "interpretation" of her meaning, and not of her words. But, the fact that her words are critical of Jewry or the fact that she claimed "DK" really wrote the books are not referenced to secondary sources, they are taken directly from her writings themselves. If we were to include text that says "AAB called all Jews 'criminals'", some editors would apparently find that adequately sourced in her material. It is not (she only called "Zionists" criminals, I believe). Unless we are to stand on third parties for the meaning of every sentence of hers we quote, then our understanding of the sentences we do quote is relevant. I am, btw, not arguing purely in the abstract here; this logic (Zionist=Jew) has been tried before on this talk page to leverage some very POV insertions. Eaglizard 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm inclined to start simply removing all new posts that contain any comments about other editors; there will likely be more than a few babies thrown out in that bathwater, but if people can't resist throwing in digs at their rhetorical opponents, so be it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey is dead. Which editors have I insulted? If you think I am not good enough for Wikipedia, you know how to file a complaint about me on the administrators noticeboard. If you can get me blocked (hopefully permanently), I will consider it cause for a celebration. Kwork 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

: You are as good to Wikipedia as any other editor, just simply you need to know to play nice with others. Inflammatory comments about Bailey, her followers, or anyone else for that matter, are better kept off article talk pages. Write a blog or create a personal home page if you feel compelled to express your opinions on this subject, and keep this page to discuss improvements to the article and nothing else. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

: Kwork: Please do not restore these inflammatory comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::jossi, I have a right to my views on Bailey's antisemitism which is documented. As for the editors, which ones did I insult? I will restore my comments until you have me blocked. If that is for a day, a week, or a month, I will restore them again when I return because it is censorship. Kwork 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::: Yes, we all have a right to hold opinions on Bailey and any other subject. But we do not use these pages to make these opinions public. Please read WP:TALK and WP:NOT#FORUM. If what you are looking for is to get blocked for disruption, I will certainly oblige. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::::It would be a mistake to think I will be flexible over this point. If you think it will do you any good to have me blocked, certainly you know the procedure. I am disinclined to give in if the point seems important, and the possibility of getting blocked causes me less concern than abandoning principles. Kwork 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::::: No Kwork. This is not about me or what good it will do to me. This is about you not using Wikipedia as a soapbox for opinions. You should put Wikipedia's principles ahead of yours, and if you cannot, then do not edit. You are also disrupting Wikipedia to make a point with your re-additions of the inflammatory comments, which is by itself not a good thing to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::::: Please do not restore these comments again, and consider moving on. There is an article to be edited, which would be a better use of our time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::(ec) My principle is to put the encyclopedia first. I'll add that the header was notable on my watchlist and brought me here this morning so such a "liar" statement as a header was, IMO, counter-productive. I must say before Gordon made his most recent comment and after the lame warring I was tempted to delete the whole section myself, lets just focus on the article, SqueakBox 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:Kwork, you said "And the **** who follower her actually believe that crap. A spiritual teacher? Rather, just a ************." This is directly insulting to anyone and everyone who has ever spent time reading her books, as it implies we're halfwits too stupid to realize something so obvious. Including yourself at one time, apparently. Also, I believe some of my full-wit brethren may not be as impervious to the racial slur of "halfwit" as I am. :) Eaglizard 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• the reference to Bailey's use of the term "the Jewish Problem"
• Bailey's use of terminology that discusses the Jewish people as a "race" or collective group rather than diverse group

Those points have been discussed previously on this page and it does not seem correct to remove them from the article, as they are supported by Baileys words.

I request that we find consensus about the wording of that section. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Jews were and for the most part are considered a race, the text made it sound as if she was inventing the term which is clearly incorrect. The Jewish problem is clearly a term used by the Nazis and written here in such a way as to imply Bailey and the Nazis were referring to the same thing, strikes me as creating a misleading impression to promote a POV, ie that Bailey was anti-semitic. My edit s were made in order to improve NPOV, SqueakBox 22:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey was an anti-semetic. Cat has proved this on at least 2 occasions . I am open to a rewording as long as it does not try to cover up the facts. Albion moonlight 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:(a) that isn't true and (b) it doesn't account for that the terrible language used here. How can you refer to a race as individuals. Just because some people don't like AAB is not an excuse for a POV article, hence my tagging, SqueakBox 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the terrible language you are referring to. I think you may be of the mind that Antisemitism and Nazism are the same thing. Albion moonlight 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:The very title sounds like out of a Hitler or Goering speech, they referred to the Jewish problem and then created the Jewish solution or final solution, this latter after AAB had written about said problem. And given the FS (and its appalling application by people who had nothing to do with AAB) we should not be calling the section title On "the Jewish Problem". Especially given Kwork's feelings towards AAB it sounds like a subtle attempt to compare AAB to Nazis and her philosophy to Nazism, which is unacceptable as she clearly did not argue that the Jews were a problem in the way that Hitler, Goering et al did do. The first opening implies that AAB was calling the Jews a race whereas at the time it was a completely mainstream belief, and arguably still is, it certainly was not her that called Jewish people a race but the article as is implies that it was. And how could she refer to a race as individuals? She was very against an individualistic philosophy but it sounds as if she is putting Jewish people down from the article and I do not believe this is the case and that its a classic piece of POV pushing from someone who does believe so. Even if it is one legitimate view (a POV) it is not presented as such but as the truth and this is just not NPOV and needs rewriting. I tried and it has been rejected. Shall I try again (a different version)? SqueakBox 00:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:A lot of this could be fixed by changing the section title, it makes her sound like a Nazi which she clearly was not, SqueakBox 00:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think she was a Nazi, and I don't believe the article makes her sound like a Nazi. The problem is, much of what she wrote about the Jews was negative and disturbing. For example, she specifically called for the "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." (The Externalization of the Hierarchy, p 544). (emphasis added)... While this is discussed above on the talk page, it has not been added to the article so far, so that shows there is an effort here to keep things balanced and not just pop in every negative comment that is found in her writings.

::We need to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V. The section title you mention relates to a phrase used by Alice Bailey as chapter headings in not one, but two of her books, and she referred often to the concept. One of the books where she used that title was prior to WW II, and the other was published after WW II. It's not our job to guess at how people will interpret this. Those are her words, we are just reporting them.

::Whether or not that is an antisemitic term, readers can decide for themselves. I'm not making that characterization, just pointing out that her use of the term "the Jewish Problem" was not simply in passing. It appears over and over in her teachings as something she considered must be addressed, and in particular, changed, through "dissolution", "intermarriage", etc..

::I understand and appreciate that you are trying to make a balanced article, as am I. But that does not mean we should hide or minimize controversial elements of her teachings and her personal writings. I saw in the history that you edited this page a few months ago, so I figure you are familiar with the topic. But I'm curious - have you read her books? Have you seen the way she writes about the Jewish people and their religion? Or, for that matter, how she writes about other religions, like Orthodox Christianity, or other races such as blacks and asians, regarding for example intermarriage?

::We want an NPOV article, and one that is verifiable, for sure. But NPOV does not mean we take a person's controversial writings and smooth them out so the writings seem NPOV. Bailey was not NPOV, not a Wikipedia editor, and she made some very strong statements about these social/political topics, though she presented them through an esoteric filter.

::As I noted above, it's not our job to interpret, just to report. --Parsifal _Hello 02:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to changing the name of the section in question. But I need to hear suggestions of what that new name would be. I think I read something posted by Squeak Box in regards to how Bailey's teachings had a very positive effect on his life. This does not surprise me because I have know all sorts of intelligent people who believe in all sort of things that I find to be spurious. I think we should respect peoples beliefs at least to the point of helping them search for and or suggest new names or new wordings that we can also live with.: Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 05:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:Maybe I didn't write clearly enough. The section heading is not the main issue in this. We can change that if we find something NPOV and on-topic to use. I think when that section was first added to the article, it was "On the Jewish people". So we can consider this further. But whatever we decide about the section heading, we should not remove the mention of her use of the phrase in the text of the article, where it is sourced. --Parsifal _Hello 06:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::There appear to be three types of edits here. First, there are a few nice copyedits: removing the "as individuals" phrase that is largely OR and redundant, as well as replacing the redundant use of "problem" with "one". These are good edits, I don't see why you threw them out.

::Regarding the section heading, I have no opinion, actually.

::The major issue, to me, is the phrase "what she called the 'Jewish problem'". This really does make it sound like the phrase was her own invention. I will try to reword this somehow. Perhaps, "In sections titled "The Jewish Problem, Bailey wrote..." or something like that. SqueakBox, would that seem closer to the NPOV to you? I must agree with Parsifal, btw, she does use the phrase 10 or 15 times, and we can't pretend she didn't.

::I agree with Squeak as well, however, that extreme care will be required to avoid allowing such phrases as this and "new world order" to have undue weight simply because of their somewhat loaded connotations to the modern reader. The fact that "she wrote it" doesn't automatically justify its inclusion; if it did, James would have probably added considerably more text than he did. If presenting a bare fact is inherently going to tend to make a biased or POV impression on the reader, then its our duty to prevent that, as well, IMHO. (I have had this discussion w/ cat once already, and I remain convinced that some contextualizing is needed here, such as quick reference to the fact that "the Jewish problem" was a phrase used by many contemporary authors.) Eaglizard 07:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep for section heads "On the Jewish Problem" and "On the Negro problem." Those were Bailey's words, folks, and her terminology, repeated several times.

Squeakbox, you seem to be upset because you think that our using thse headers "makes her look like a Nazi". Hardly.

Eaglizard, thanks for remembering our previous run though this, even if you still do not seem completely convinced.

The terms The Jewish Problem and The Negro Problem are not unqiue to the Nazis and Alice Bailey. They were and still are used by a wide variety of people, including Jewish Zionists, Russian Communists (Bolsheviks), Henry Ford (the automobile manufacturer), and "Just Plain Folks."

Maybe it will help if you read some non-Nazi, easily googled web page reprints of old 20th century magazine artciles that had the words "The Jewish Problem" in their titles. The items are listed below in chronological order of publication, and i have given you some notes on the writers and the publication dates to help you understand that these articles do not relate to Nazis in any way. I have provided links; please at least skim these texts for "flavour":

:* Ahad Ha'am: The Jewish State and Jewish Problem (1897)

:[http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/jewishproblem.html] Ahad Ha'am was Jewish. The Nazi Party did not exist in 1897. Ha'am, writing about the enthusistic responses to a recent Zionist convention, argued that the establishement of a separate Jewish State would not solve the The Jewish Problem of anti-semitism, which, he believed, sprang from economic scapegoating during periods of financial downturn within various nations.

:* Anonymous Editorial: Candid Address to Jews on the Jewish Problem (1922)

:[http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Intl_Jew_full_version/ij79.htm] This editorial was filled with rabid antisemitism and it was printed in the Henry Ford controlled newspaper, the Dearborn (MI) Independent. Henry Ford hated Jews, and he was all-American. This article makes Alice Bailey look like one of the Care Bears. Best quote from it, for sheer laughable shock-value: "Behind the amazing degeneracy of the modern stage and motion picture is a solid wall of Jewish ownership and control." This was in 1922, mind you, when all films were silents and the "amazing degeneracy" that Henry Ford's mouthpiece editorialist attributed to films was intended to condemn dramatic film actors like Rudolph Valentino, Gloria Swanson, and Jackie Coogan; popular comedians like Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Laurel and Hardy; feel-good kidddie shorts featuring Our Gang; the famous documentory "Nanook of the North" (it was about the Inuit people), and the Felix the Cat animated shorts. The most "degenerate" film of thae year 1922, beyond any doubt, was "Häxan" (a.k.a. "Witchcraft Through the Ages"), directed by Benjamin Christensen -- but he was Danish, not Jewish, and his surname prclaimed his Christian religious heritage quite clearly.

:*Leon Trotsky: On The Jewish Problem (1934)

:[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/xx/jewish.htm] Leon Trotsky was Jewish. He was also a founder of the Russian Bolshevik Communist party. He was not a Nazi; in fact, the Russian Communists fought the Nazis during WW II.

:*Abram Leon: The Jewish Question: Six Contradictory Trends in the Jewish Problem During the Period of the Rise of Capitalism (circa 1939)

:[http://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/leon/ch6.htm] Abram Leon was another Communist and Jew. This article is quite filled with demograhic and statistical analyses. It's kind of fascinating, if you like demography.

:* Alfred Jay Nock: The Jewish Problem in America (June 1941)

:[http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/194106/jewish-problem] This article was published in The Atlantic magazine right before America entered WW II. The Atlantic was and still is a typically upper class American magazine aimed at the college-educated professional classes.

Okay -- i could pull up 100 more, but it's late and i have to go to bed.

So, you might ask -- if "The Jewish Problem" is not an exclusively Nazi term, and if even Jews (and Zionists) used and still use it -- what does the term really mean? What is the "Problem"?

The "problem" is that Jews are not liked by some people -- but after that sinple statement, the term "The Jewish Problem" splits into two entirely different meanings.

When Jews write about The Jewish Problem, they usually mean "antisemitism" or "pogroms" or "anti Jewish legislation" -- that is, a problem that Jews are facing.

When racists write about The Jewish Problem, they usually mean "We don't like Jews living near us, so getting rid of them is our problem."

Alice Bailey meant it in the racist sense -- she wanted to get rid of Jews. Ahad Ha'am meant it in a Jewish way -- he wanted people to stop treating Jews badly. And yet, interestingly enough, both Bailey and Ha'am reached partially similar conclusions. They both believed that assimilation of the Jews into their local cultures would help alleviate the poblem better than the establishment of a Zionist Jewish state would. After this agreement, they differered widely, however. Bailey, as we know, wanted Judaism to cease to exist. Ha'am wanted Jews to remain Jewish, but to take on greater roles in local agriculture and handicrafts (occupations from which Jews had been barred in some nations).

Ha'am's ideas have, incidentally, come to pass in America, and it seems that he was right; in a nation where Jews have been legally allowed to move into a variety of occupations, including agriculture and handicrafts, antisemitism is much less virulent than in nations where Jews have been legally restricted to fewer occupations. Ha'am's ideas, incidentally, were extremely influential on the development of the many small Jewish-owned chicken farms in Petaluma, California at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. See the book Comrades and Chicken Ranchers by Kenneth L. Kann; Cornell University Press, 1993" and the film A Home on the Range: The Jewish Chicken Ranchers of Petaluma, California [http://www.jewishchickenranchers.com/movie/].

In closing, Squeakbox, i want you to know that i am highly disappointed in the educational system of this country. You really ought to have known better than to have flown off on this tangent, but you didn't -- and that is the fault of your high school world history teachers.

However, that is in your past. Now it's up to you to learn. If Bailey's time-frame is too remote for you to feel familiar with its terminology and major events, then next time, before you propose a major editial change from an alarmist, ahistorical point of view, just do a google search and fill in the blanks that were left in your education. Being an autodidact is better than being ignorant. Thanks.

cat yronwode, who does not have a high school diploma or a GED, and knows first hand what it is to be an autodicact. Catherineyronwode 10:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::Hi Cat. I am continuing to watch this discussion in a kind of wonder but if I might say so, you appear to have didacted your auto most effectively. Rumiton 11:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:cat, I think your list of other users of the phrase makes my point for me. You saw a need to "educate" SqueakBox with examples of other, non-Nazi users of the phrase, and you place the blame on the US education system. I agree, to a degree: we can assume many Americans will suffer the same lack of knowledge. Hence, historical context in the article (similar but more concise than you provided her) would be a great service to the reader.

:On another topic, where exactly did you read Bailey saying she wants "get rid of" Jews? I read her call for "assimilation" the same way I understand your description of Ha'am: they should become an integral part of their local cultures. Where does Bailey say they should stop being Jews? She says they should stop being of the "Orthodox Jewish faith", but then again, so did Bertrand Russell, for instance. Eaglizard 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::Hmm, I fully agree that the word the Jewish problem was used by various groups and individuals before 1945, not just the Nazis and certainly not just Alice Bailey but I dispute that any other than militant Muslims and western extremists (such as white power groups) have used this term since 1945, and that it is very much associated with Nazism since 45, and that is the basis of my objection. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable in blaming the US school system for any alleged lack in my education as I have never received any education inn that country, where I have spent 17 nights of my life. High schools are for girls in the UK and while I was educated in the state system it was at a good grammar school, I got the top grade for O-level history where we studied the early 20th century till 1945, though I actually think I have been misunderstood, and I have been mis-labelled as Americvan (just read my user page as there is no excuse for such a mis-assumption, and your assumptions about my ignorance are remarkably wrong. Lets focus on the edits not on our wild opinions of the editors, please, SqueakBox 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, p. 722-725

(copyright violation removed --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

It's a freeware, anyone can down it and use. Sparklecplenty 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, has "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" gone into public domain? If so, my apologies, though we'd really rather not have text dumps on talk pages in general. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Only books published before 1923 are in the public domain, unless the copyright owner has released them.

According to [http://www.lucistrust.org/en/publications_store/copyright this statement by the copyright owner], the works are not copyright-free. According to the organization distributing the works for free [http://laluni.helloyou.ws/netnews/download/index.html at this website], they are "made available for limited non-commercial, educational and personal use only", and other conditions of use are listed [http://laluni.helloyou.ws/netnews/terms.html on their terms page]. However, Lucis Trust states on their home page that " no rights have been issued to any other publisher to produce electronic or print editions of any of the Lucis Publishing Companies' publications in English."

Also, I found this text on the [http://laluni.helloyou.ws/netnews/ home page of the free download site]:

Unfortunately - for the time being - LUCIS TRUST as the owner of the copyrights withdrew the approval to publicize the works of Alice A. Bailey in English in the Internet.

Currently, the free download link is still active. But it could disappear at any time, so anyone who wants a copy may want to download it soon.

All of the above means that short quotes can be used, easily justified under fair use, since the quotes are taken from 30 large books and as such as are a very small portion of the writings. However, full copies of entire chapters might stretching it a bit. --Parsifal _Hello 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the easiest way to deal with this is to remove the idea of "locating" the Hierarchy in any physical place. I'll see if I can find one of the quotes where AAB explicitly makes the point that the Hierarchy has no physical location, if you insist. Eaglizard 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:Bailey refers always to the physical-etheric body. They are part of one unit and have location, as does even the astral and mental bodies. Get you Baily facts straight Kwork 21:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, AAB's text explicitly states that the Hierarchy exists only on the higher mental subplanes at their lowest point, constructing and manipulating etheric vehicles as needed (although some Masters apparently take physical incarnation for certain specific purposes, mostly involving specific initiations and sometime leading of physical plane groups in the past). Since space-time is a purely physical plane phenomenon, the Hierarchy cannot be said to be "located" in any specific "place". There are certain Earth locations closely associated with the Heirarchy, such as in Tibet, and a place in the Andes mountains; but these are not the "location" of it, by any means. As I understand her, at least. Eaglizard 18:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

==freeware file search tool==

PS Can someone suggest a good, freeware file search tool that would let me do GREP or at least Boolean searches on the HTML files? I looked at cnet and a few places, but there weren't any of the old, simple tools that I could find. Everybody thinks they've got the desktop answer to Google, apparently... sigh. Eaglizard 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mozilla allows search on the html files using Ctrl F, SqueakBox 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks, but no, I mean allow me to search the whole directory of the HTML files of the books, w/ subdirs, for certain combinations of words, like "Shamballa" NEAR "Venus". :) Eaglizard 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::I use [http://www.btinternet.com/~hmillington/wingrep/resources/binaries/WindowsGrep23.exe windows grep and find it very useful, SqueakBox 00:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks, Squeak :) Eaglizard 18:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has made a massive use of framing to developed a terminology [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Glossary] that attempts to frame all discussion in a way that amounts to a form of New Speak and turns attempts to discuss meaning into a thought crime. So if, for example, I state the obvious fact that Alice Bailey is a liar and viciously antisemetic; and point out the relevant quotes that prove that, in Wikipedia New Speak, becomes translated as: "disruptive" WP:POINT.

Since, as a result of this highly framed editing process that turns all editorial discussion into Wikipedia New Speak, the articles produced are mostly bullshit. It has occurred to me, then, that as an alternative to disruptive and troublesome editors, the whole process of writing articles could be simplified by doing away with the editors and using, instead, this simple Bullshit Generator [http://dack.com/web/bullshit.html]. Kwork 21:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:This article was in good shape a few months back, it is in terrible shape now. Wikipedia does not like people who try to use the encyclopedia to promote a personal agenda. Big deal, you hate AAB but that is no excuse to insult her memory or to make the article a reflection of your own agenda. Please calm down, remain civil and stop your pattern of disruption, then we can get on with how to improve the article, SqueakBox 00:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::SqueakBox, without responding to your comments about Kwork at all, I would like to respond to your comment about the article.

::I saw it a few months ago and, I respecftully disagree, it was not in good shape. The article now is more complete, more NPOV, and better sourced. If you would like to make it even better, then I am pleased to work with you on it. But the past is in the past, and the article needs to move forward, not backwards. --Parsifal _Hello 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Fair comment (and my comment was aimed at Kwork, the only editor still here with whom I interacted then, SqueakBox 00:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The question that begs an answer, Kwork, is that if Wikipedia is the bull excrement argued above, what are you doing here rolling in it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

: Read Criticism of Wikipedia, where common complains such as yours have been made; and remember: You do not have to edit Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• When I wrote this, which deals principally with the issue of framing to control, direct, and limit editorial thinking, I tried to make some points that I think are important; and to do that without taking up a lot of space on the talk page (for reasons I do not understand, Sparklecplenty inserted three pages from an AAB book yesterday). I would not mind if it is ignored. I would enjoy thoughtful responses. So far, however, the responses, from SqueakBox and Jossi, contain nothing but speculation about my personal motivation, and about my personality defects. Kwork 11:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• SqueakBox, you said to me: "remain civil and stop your pattern of disruption". This is a little surprising coming from you because you have an approach that is every bit as abrasive as my own, an with an equally strong point of view. Also you repeated accusations against me have been very disruptive, and what you have said about me is far from civil. Kwork 13:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• This has no bearing on the article. Kwork, you're being disruptive; stop. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Jossi, you asked: "The question that begs an answer, Kwork, is that if Wikipedia is the bull excrement argued above, what are you doing here rolling in it?". Jossi, for someone who puts so much emphasis on civility, you question is phrased in a very insulting form. But it is a fair is a enough question, if I am correct in understanding your question to be "why is Kwork editing here if he has so many objections to the ambiance?" As far as this particular article is concerned, my involvement goes back to April 2007 when SqueakBox removed the entire criticism section from the article as it was then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&action=edit&oldid=120988986. He removed that section on the grounds that it was unsourced, although it was actually the only section of the article that had any sourcing. At that time I was new to Wikipedia, and had no one to help me understand the processes here, and how to get the criticism section returned to the article. At that time I did not even know how to sign my used name to a talk page edit. (The truth is, of course, that I still know next to nothing about how Wikipedia functions, and do not like the way issues are framed.) But, to me the issue was to get a fair representation of Alice Bailey, and since I do not take well to efforts to bulldoze me out of the way, I decided to stay around and fight. Although I regret I initiated the process, once begun there was no turning back. And also, Jossi, it is not just stubbornness on my part. I am sure that you, also, have read the Bhagavad Gita, and Krishna's explanation to Arjuna why he can not run away from a battle that he did not want to fight, and even thought the fight was against the members of his own family. I could expand more on the underlying principles that are involved, as I see it, but probably I have already written more than you were hoping for in a reply. Kwork 14:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

: I decided to stay around and fight, Arjuna, etc. Kowrk: WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::I've indef-blocked Kwork for disruption, per his request. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I was glad to hear that you are not an American; it is somehow very reassuring to my weary heart. I could make a snide remark about the value of getting top grades for O-level history if it leaves one unable to follow simple instructions. But i'll leave that aside and simply comment on the simple instructions postion of this issue.

Did i not ask you to go to google and do your own research? Yes, i did -- and you didn't do it.

Instead, you just came back here with a lot of new, but still totally bogus chatter in which you "dispute that any other than militant Muslims and western extremists (such as white power groups) have used this term since 1945" and you again expect me to do your research for you.

Well, i will -- one more time -- but after that i reserve the right to question more than your education.

Here you go, and then, please, get a clue!

The folowing are NON Nazi, NON Muslim uses of the "Jewish Problem" taken only from articles with the term "Jewish Problem" in their actual titles, selecting from among only articles which were published after the year 2000, and which are accessible via google. They are listed in chrnological order of publication, with my explanatory notes:

:* Michel Gurfinkiel: France's Jewish Problem (2002)

: [http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/problem.html] This article, about antisemitism in modern-day France, first appeared in Commentary magazine, a liberal Jewish magazine, and was then reprinted in abridged form in the Hebrew Post, an Israeli newspaper. in which the full article appears this month.) The writer, a French Jew, is editor-in-chief of the French weekly Valeurs Actuelles.

:* Abraham H. Foxman: Britain's Jewish Problem (May 2005)

:[http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Anti_Semitism_Global/20050518-NY+Sun.htm] This article originally appeared in The New York Sun daily newspaper on May 18, 2005. Abraham H. Foxman is the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith (a Jewish organization). The piece is about antisemitism in Britain.

:* Eli Sanders: The Jewish Problem: On Being Jewish in Un-Jewish Seattle (December 19, 2006)

:[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=122431] The Stranger is a Seattle free weekly entertainment and media newspaper (it is neither Muslim nor Nazi). The author is Jewish and says so in the article.

:* Deborah Lipstadt: Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem (January 20, 2007)

:[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html] The Washington Post newspaper, Page A23. The author's name is a common one among Ashkenazi (German) Jews, so it is reasonable to suppose that the author is Jewish. The Washington Post is a well-known liberal newspaper. It is neither Muslim nor Nazi.

There are at least 50 further post-2000 references at google. So, once again, you are barking off the track, and have only succeeded in wasting my time, not in proving your point.

Please get a clue and drop your useless idee fixee on the term "The Jewish Problem." Bailey used it, and so did -- and do -- many others. It is neither a Nazi nor a Muslim term.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 06:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

:P.S., for Eaglizard:

: You wrote that i "saw a need to 'educate' SqueakBox with examples of other, non-Nazi users of the phrase." No. I chose slowing down and providing a model of gracious didacticism as a way of burning off my anger that Wikipedia allows incompetent and ignorant people editing priveleges equal to those of competent and knowledageable people.

: You asked me, "where exactly did you read Bailey saying she wants 'get rid of' Jews?" My answer is that by calling for the destruction ("in any way possible") of Judaism, Bailey would, pragmatically speaking, be condemning millions of devout Jews to enter into forced cultural "assimilation," forced marriages with non-Jews, and/or forced religious conversions. No matter how you choose to define Jewishness -- by culture, genetics, or religion -- Bailey wanted the Jewish culture, the Jewish genetic group and the Jewish religion, to be dispersed into non-existence through absorption into European cultures, genetic groups, and religions. Her call for an end to "Jewish separativeness," means, practically speaking, an end to anything identifiable as Jewish, most especially, the "stubborn" and "obsolete" refusal of Jews to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. She wanted Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) folks to become marranos and conversos and to marry Haplogroup H (Y-DNA) folks with the result that Haplogroup J would cease to exist as a measurable Haplogroup.

: cat Catherineyronwode 06:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::Bailey was an occultist not a politician and wasn't trying to impose any political views on any people. Catherine, I am unhappy with your comment about "incompetent and ignorant people" as a description of some editors. Please be much more careful about civility in future, SqueakBox 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Dear Squeakbox, as your reply to me jammed two ideas into one parapgrah. I will repsond to each in its own paragraph:

::: 1) One does not have to be a politician to make political statements. Bailey predicited, expected, and intended Judaism to be eliminated from our world "by any means possible." Bailey's plan to force the end of Judaism as a religion "by any means possible" is a political statement. The phrase "by any means possible" includes her the broadest gamut of political, social, legislative, and other means, up to and including force. As a political plan, it removes power from Jews and vests it with Bailey's "Hierarchy." Most Jews do not want to stop being Jews. Bailey was prepared to eliminate Judaism "by any means possible" including going against the Will of Jewish people.

:::2) I am sorry for any incivility. The problem is that you have wasted my time for a second time. I asked you to do the research yourself at google. You did not. Instead, you came back with a second insupportable argument, namely that after the year 1945, the only people who use the term "The Jewish Problem" are "Muslims." I had to knock down yet another roadblock you have willfully put in place. Your refusal to conceed your errors and your continual erroneous statements, for ewhich you demand proof of rebuttal is in itself is a form of incivility, in my opinion.

::Look in the mirror. Ask yourself, "Unto whom is this served?"

::cat Catherineyronwode 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• This itself is complete bullshit cat, I'm really weary of it. There's just no way "gradual dissolution" can be revised to read "condemned" or "forced". Your bias is like a big ******* log in your eye. You're Limbaughing her text worse than Cumbey ever dreamed of. Dear. (And not to mention that every title you quote above is an obvious trope on the now-loaded phrase "Jewish Problem", ie, the titles play off of the existing connotations. You have, again, proven your opponent's point, though I'm sure you don't see that, either. Cast the mote, etc etc.) Eaglizard 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

: Dear Eaglizard, you jammed two ideas into one paragraph, and i will respond to each in turn.

::1) When the term "by any means possible" is introduced into a political plan for future development, the use of force is implicit. I personally know of no Jews who intend to give up their Jewish identity -- be that cultural, genetic, or religious. The idea that someone plans to do this "by any means possible" is a threat.

::2) You say that "every title you quote above [in the post-2000 literature section, i preseume] is an obvious trope on the now-loaded phrase "Jewish Problem", ie, the titles play off of the existing connotations." My responses:

:::A) My intention was to prove that Squeakbox's ignorant position that post-1945 the term i only used by "Muslims" is insupportable. By choosing only Jewish authors, i hoped to demolish his point as brifly as possible.

:::B) Please read all of the articles cited. While one of the post-2000 articles certainly uses the term as a trope (that being the article by Eli Sanders about being Jewish in Seattle), the others simply continue the exact same tchnical use of the term as found in the 1897 article by Ahad Ha'am, in the 1934 article by Leon Trotsky, and in the 1939 article by Abram Leon -- namely, as a desritption of the problems faced by Jews who live in nations that condone or actively endorse antisemitism. This usage -- and it is far from a trope -- is especially evident in the Michel Gurfinkel article on antisemiism in France (2002) and the Abraham H. Foxman article about antisemitism in Britain (2005).

:I would suggest that before you continue dismissing Jewish use of the term "The Jewish Problem" as a mere "trope" on what you and Squeakbox, in your ignorance and refusal to research the material, see as a primarily "Nazi" or "Muslim" term, you look more deeply into who Jews are, what Jews write about, where Jews publish, and what Jews have to say about themselves. Even a moderate amount of research discloses for your edification that your viewpoint is not based in fact but rather stems from an ignorance of world history. Ignorance of world history is not shameful and it can be remedied, but you must do some research in books (or even at google) before claiming knowledge that you do not have.

:cat Catherineyronwode 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::I would suggest, before you continue telling me what I'm doing, you do the rather more simple research of actually reading my words. I have not "dismissed" the use of any phrase; there's nothing dismissive about the word trope. The term "Jewish Problem", however, is very loaded; all your examples seem to prove this. (BTW, You will also find I have not used the words "Nazi" or "Muslim".)

::My point is simply that calling for "the gradual dissolution" of a religious faith, even if "by any means possible", could not possibly include violence, which is notoriously not gradual, rather intrinsically. In fact, as adverbs, violent is the exact opposite of gradual — they are antonyms. Just because you don't like the outcome she suggests does not give you the right to rewrite her words into whatever form your emotional reaction prefers. I do not intend this to insult you as a person or an editor, cat, but I believe your views on this are every bit as emotionally biased and "off-the-wall" as Cumbey's (for an instance). But this is just my belief about your feelings, which would be a pointless debate in which to engage, so let's just leave it, huh? The only important note is that I appreciate that you haven't been slanted in your edits to the article. You do seem able to separate your own beliefs from the the idea of the NPOV, which is really all I have a right to ask of you, here. Eaglizard 22:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• You wrote: In fact, as adverbs, "violent" is the exact opposite of "gradual" — they are antonyms. Question: Where did you get that information? What dictionary or thesaurus? This is exactly what Cat has expressed, that when facts are stated, research needs to be done. I've done the research, and what I found is: NO, those words are NOT antonyms.

:I recommend you install a bookmark in your browser toolbar for the reference.com [http://veebiarhiiv.digar.ee/a/20110328110634/http%3A//thesaurus.reference.com/ free online thesaurus], and [http://dictionary.reference.com free online dictionary].

:Here's what they told me -- Antonyms for "gradual": abrupt, sudden and antonyms for "violent":gentle, passive, peaceful, calm, gentle, mild, moderate. Notably, the two words are in separate continuums of meaning. "Violent" refers to use of force, wheras "gradual" refers to the passage of time

• You wrote: calling for "the gradual dissolution" of a religious faith, even if "by any means possible", could not possibly include violence, which is notoriously not gradual, rather intrinsically.". Please read the following two examples of "gradual" uses of "violence" to dissolve and oppress cultures and peoples. These two are just the first couple I happened to think of; study of history can provide endless more, many that are very very dark and even more gradual. After you read these, I ask that you withdraw your statement I quoted in this paragraph.

:* Recent gradual use of violence: Anschluss, the annexation of Austria by Germany prior to World War II. Years of planning and patient slow pressure from within and without, transition accomplished without a shot being fired... while in the background, in the darkness, as the process proceeded and even more so shortly after the handing over of the keys to the castle, many thousands of dissidents and Jews were rounded up, imprisoned, killed, or sent to the camps. The political decision was made with a vote, with non-secret ballots handed to officials rather than depositing into closed boxes.

:* Violence even more gradual can be seen in the story of Native Americans in the United States. The violent destruction of the culture and freedom of those peoples took over 300 years. It began when Europeans arrived in America, began to ramp up around the late 1700s, and escalated for over a hundred years, bit by bit, first with war but then later with forced relocations and slowly increasing restrictions on culture and access to land and resources. Eventually, even the spoken language of those peoples was attacked in the now infamous Indian Boarding Schools, part of the process of Americanization. This is an example of a "gradual" "violent" "dissolution" of a people, their culture, their religion, and their spoken language.

• Regarding your complaint about the use in the article of "loaded" words and phrases that Bailey used, those loaded terms make people feel upset for a reason; they name topics that are in fact highly charged. They should not be softened or hidden, quite the opposite, they should be reported so the article can be WP:NPOV. Alice Bailey used those terms. She was not speaking in a vacuum. She KNEW the terms were charged. She wrote using those words before, during, and after WWII. She KNEW of the Axis use of the terms, and even discussed it, but she CHOSE to use those words anyway. While she said that her use was different, she DID NOT STOP using those words.

:She was not naive, not a simple innocent lady philosopher peacefully discussing "world unity". She was an outspoken teacher with an agenda that she made as public as she could, and her agenda included a future world in which "the Jewish Problem" would be "solved" by the "gradual dissolution" of the Jewish faith and the absorption of the Jewish race or people into the Christian culture or people, through intermarriage, or "by any means possible." That is her phrase, not invented by POV-pushing editors. The fact that she applied the word "gradual", as we saw above, does not absolve the phrase of its sinister undertones.

:Now, I want to be very specific about something: I am NOT implying IN ANY WAY that Alice Bailey called for violent extermination of Jews. I DON'T KNOW what she meant by those disturbing words. My points, after all this extended writing, are simple:

:*Bailey used those words and phrases, often, and with informed intention

:*This article is written in a format that reports mostly what Bailey wrote about stuff, since her writings are almost the only sources available about her work.

:*Those concepts are important, notable, verifiable, and exist throughout her writings, appearing in both the esoteric parts and the parts about world religion and government.

:*Summary: it's part of her teachings, the article reports her teachings; therefore, those words and phrases must be present in the Wikipedia article. Not interpreted, just reported. And not hidden. --Parsifal _Hello 01:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::I see the two situations you describe as long, gradual events, punctuated by periods of violence. Lets not argue over semantics; if want to decide violence can be gradual, that's your prerogative. However, I recommend you do not test your theory out at a bar, unless you have very good medical coverage. And, yet again, I have to ask editors to stop putting words in my edit-box: I have not suggested the phrase be removed, interpreted, or hidden. Eaglizard 12:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I didn't intend to put words in your "edit-box". The suggestion to delete that content came from someone else and is what started this whole section, so that's why I ended with that. Sorry if it seemed that part was directed towards you, it was just directed to the general idea of including those phrases.

:::"I see the two situations you describe as long, gradual events, punctuated by periods of violence." - that's a usable explanation, and can work in this discussion. Of course, during the periods between the punctuation of violence, the looming threat is always present, so the shadow of the violence informs the entire process. That's how "gradual dissolution" can include "violence." That's contrary to your initial point, and is the issue I was addressing. So it appears now we agree on this, which is a positive result. Thanks for being willing to consider my debate points openly and fairly. --Parsifal _Hello 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Monica Sjoo is a questionable source. She is a published author, she is also by her admission at her web, a psychic or "channel" and drug user as well. I think that's why the link to her site that was in the article a whiel back was removed, because she is an embarrassment. Her lack of scholarship is reflected in the quote:

"Bailey taught that the Hierarchy of Masters exists in Shambhala…"

I can tell that you did not bothered to look up "Shambhala" in Alice Bailey. If you had searched "Shambhala" you would find that the word does not exists in AAB! She spells it "Shamballa." This is symbolic of the problem of critical editors here. Maybe this is not a surprise because the so-called scholarly sources attacking her don't seem to know much about her writings or her spelling.

Also, there is no "Hierarchy of Masters exists in Shambhala" or Shamballa because "Hierarchy" and "Shamballa" are different but related concepts. The word "Masters" is used for "Hierarchy of Masters." Shamballa is a higher center all together and stands above the "Hierarchy of Masters" in the same way that Hierarchy stands above humanity. The cosmology gives three separate but related "centers":

1. Shamballa

2. Hierarchy

3. Humanity

AAB repeats this many many times throughout so that anyone who had actually studied her would know this and know that Shamballa is not equal to Hierarchy. Sjoo does not know. "Hierarchy" is also used by AAB in two different ways, but I'll skip that now.

Hierarchy represents the divine love, and the Shamballa divine will. These basic concepts are not in the article because those with an anti-Bailey bias are not writing an article about her thought. Instead, the anti-AAB editors relate to "flaky" pseudo-scholars to make AAB look "flaky."

I gave the quote about Avatars in a context so all could see the difficulty of what they were trying to deal with. Here it is in a drop down form:

(The quote below is in line with Fair use law and anyway all DK's works can be freely downloaded from the web)

The passage above gives the context for "avatar" subject and is directly related to the writing of this part of the article.

Do not delete it. You have no right to do so. No one is an authority here who makes up the rules about our discussion and what is or is not OK to write or quote in discussion (the same goes for the article itself). There is no Wiki rule that prohibits the passage I posted in discussion and you do not have the authority to remove it. You may put longer quotes in a collapsible line like I did above if you like. But do not presume to delete my words or quotes. You do not own this forum and have no business deleting other people's postings. And don't start talking to me about "spam." First because that's a judgment call and you are not the judge, especially since you do not study AAB. Second, because this forum is full of what some would see as undeleted "spam." And third, because the quote you removed is directly related to the article and to decisions by editors about the article.

Catherine you appear know something of Ufologist but not AAB cosmology, since you don't seem able to distinguish the two. The problem with the UFO thing is it is "way out there" & has only a very remote and indirect relation to AAB. If we draw a tree picture of AAB's writings and ask where does UFOs thing fit in on the tree, the answer is they don't. It's off the chart. She wrote nothing about them or flying saucers or such things. She wrote about spiritual visitations from other worlds. Some UFO folks saw that and liked the idea cause it had a remote connection with how they see the world. The UFO thing is: remote, on periphery, indirectly connected and worst it gives false impression. If it belongs in the article at all, it belongs in a subhead under "influence" titled: "Fringe groups that borrowed from Bailey's writings." The "I am" movement goes there.

Actually, it does not belong, at least not yet. The reasons are just good sense. Build the foundations fist. We don't make up articles based on whatever we happen to stumble on, however remote it is from the main subject. We ask, "What are the main parts of her thought that we need to cover," and we go find AAB's words and scholarly people to report on that spoke of the main topics. Or, at least, that's what editors would do if they wanted to write a good article. But here we have too many critics and too many editors who have not read much of her work, and apart from the need to find critical things to say in this discussion and article, would never think of reading them and are repelled from them. Sparklecplenty 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

:Sparkelpelnty, here are my brief responses:

:The spelling of the term is usually Shambhala. Bailey was unusual in spelling it Shamballa. The Wiki entry is for Shambhala. The fact that Sjoo chose the technically more correct version of the spelling of this Tietan word is not relevant to our understanding of what she wrote. It's like Peiping, Beijing, and Peking -- we all know what is meant, despite the changes in preferred spelling over time.

:You are fighting a bizarre battle with history and truth in your disruptive, repeated, and POV attempts to delete all references to UFOs from the Bailey page. We have scholarship that presents the subject without any POV pushing. Despite some very crazy and offensive charges (i.e. that i had wanted inclusion of the UFO material in the Influence section because it was "derogatory" to Bailey), the thing is that Bailey's influence on UFO religions is obvious to all of those who deal wih her work from a scholarly and historical point of view.

:cat Catherineyronwode 22:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::I think cat is correct about the use of Shambhala, the article there clearly describes the Tibetan concept that Bailey was simply misspelling. On the other hand cat, I can't resist the urge to note that I feel you are also "fighting a bizarre battle with history and truth" (see above, although I repeat, thankfully, you do so without being disruptive). Eaglizard 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::And Sparkle is correct about Shamballa vs the Hierarchy. It's apples and oranges. I believe the one refers to a planetary chakra, where the second is a group of cooperating individuals. They are very closely associated, but not at all the "same thing". Eaglizard 12:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eaglizard, Thanks for your insightful comment on this part of AAB's writings.

It's easier for us to detach from the "touchy-feely" words when looked at from above our human consciousness. Another part of this is that Shamballa is the "Destroyer Ray" and planetary Hierarchy the "Builder Ray." We're told that members of our Planetary Hierarchy, from a historical stand point, were the Great leaders in human history that inspired humanity to "build" institutions of knowledge--religion, science, politics. And when the institutions no longer serve humanity in an evolutionary way, but imprison him, then the "Shamballa "Destroyer Ray" comes into play. Presently, "so to speak" humanity has evoked destroyer--the "development of the bomb"; continuous wars in the "holy land" of Jersulam, ancient historical artifacts from the beginning of man's civilization are gone (Babylon/Iraq). And because we humans are relative ignorant of the "soul," or heart aspect, "Destroyer force" is ignorantly and heartlessly used for personal or nationalistic gain. The worst example in modern times was Hitler who DK said misused the destroyer or Shamballa energy. Now we have lots of smaller egos with that also misuse the energy on a smaller scale. You may have seen the bumper sticker: "Frodo failed -- Bush has the ring."

DK says planetary Hierarchy is easier for us to understand because They are in closer contact with the world, They are inspiration for historical wise wo/men manifested in ancient history as our Great Teachers, Great Religions Leader, Military Leaders, Great Scientist, that are instrumental in the of "building" culture. "Shamballa" is the "destructive" force, that destroys human cultures when they become outdated and imprisoning. The new age of Science has opened the door to "Shamballa," and humans developed more powerful weapons of destruction including atomic ones, and way before humanity was ready to balance the knowledge and power with the heart and wisdom.Sparklecplenty 18:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:It is discussed in one of the above threads and the dispute concerns the reverting of my changes to the Jewish sections, SqueakBox 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to add the refs to the article, so I'll just offer this in passing:

Bailey, or rather "Djwhal Khul", used that name here:

• Discipleship in the New Age II - Talks To Disciples - Group Instruction, p 98
• Esoteric Healing - Chapter IX - The Seven Modes of Healing, p 714
• The Labors of Hercules - Labor I, p 27

Foster Bailey referred to that name here:

• Discipleship in the New Age II - Talks To Disciples - Introduction
• Autobiography of Alice A. Bailey - Appendix - The Arcane School - Its Esoteric Origins and Purposes, p 299

That's what I could find in a few minutes, there may be more, I don't know. --Parsifal _Hello 21:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

:This is one place I was stymied by the file search, since the name appears on about 4,000 pages. But that's definately an addition by Lucis to the web version; I was surprised to see his name on the top of every page like that. I'm pretty sure the initial plan was for the old man to remain completely unidentified, and even using the initials was apparently too much, and the name got out. (The direct communication letters w/ disciples also caused a serious uproar when he accidentally referred to himself as a "Master", directly contradicting his own repeated assertion that a "real Master" would never claim to be one.) But as I understand it, the association with the name didn't come about until very late in the day. Note that the books you cite were all published after her death; I believe my assertion is correct, she herself never used the name. In any case, I have amended the text further, trying to reflect your concern. Eaglizard 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured, hey, if everybody else is happy with it, let's let it rest for a while. Guess we all agreed, huh? So, I had just planned to say "Merry " to everyone, which I will: and a Happy New Annual Measurement Period, as well!! Whoohoo!

Anyways, apparently an editor decided to merge Djwal Khul into this article via redirect, a decision I'm afraid I disagree with completely. I've already asked said editor for some justification (although I was of a mind to simply revert, since he did a pretty major hack job on some text we worked pretty hard on). But, I'm generally a real "benefit of the doubt" kinda guy (you wouldn't know it from this page, would you!) so I asked him first. Anybody else think it's a good idea? My plan is still to revert, sans a really compelling reason. Comments, any of you resting souls, you Gallileos, lovers of night vision, lovers of insight? Eaglizard (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

:I'm still scratching my head head on that one. I hope that Cat or Parsifal will weigh in soon so I can hear what they have to say, : Albion moonlight (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

::The merge is not neat, but i was never of the opinion that DK needed "his/its" own page, so what the hey.

::I am on extended Wiki-partial-hiatus again due to total wiki burnout and the need to complete some of my own book projects ("Astrology for Rootworkers," co-written with Christopher Warnock, plus preparation of editorial introductions and new covers for a series of 12 reprints of classic occult texts of the early 20th century). I am only editing wiki pages about dog actors at the present time and it is really sickening to see the constant vandalism of these pages. What i like about Wiki is the simplified markup language. What i can't stand about Wiki is the vandalism, the astroturfing, and the POV pushing. I am watching the google Knol experiment cautiously -- it is structured more effectively for writers to retain control of their own words, but it will never engender the kind of editorial conversations we have had here. On the other hand, it will never lead to the kind of angry exchanges that we have seen here. All in all, i still check my watchlist sporadically, but if you want to contact me, try telephoning me. You can find my number at my shop's website.

::Happy holidays to all! cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding ClaudeReigns edits, he made very, very minor edits and the last two in particular really helped to clarify who was saying what, which is useful and less vague. I was surprised to see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AClaudeReigns&diff=196519712&oldid=196466967 this] because it made it sound like there were big, substantive changes instead of what was made. Renee (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

:Renee, what is your point? I did not revert the edits, and in fact have not even read them. Since he indicated in his edit notes that he planed to do work on the article, I asked him to discuss changes on the talk page. Is there something insulting about that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::Hi everybody.All attempts to try to make this article an apology for Ms Bailey will lead toward the path of mediation. So feel free to advise James and Sparkle the coast is far from clear. They tried to own this article last time and they did not get away with it. I will not let them or anyone else get away with it this time either. :Albion moonlight (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Amen. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::::This is why it seems like there is some ownership going on or "biting" the newbie. I ask Claude to take a look at this piece from a complete outsider standpoint, as a layperson, and it generates statements like the one above from Albion (i.e., "I will not let them..."'). This is not a way to start off editing and I hope everyone can assume good faith. I have tried to re-enter here softly and would urge us all to work together, not start out by saying we will or will not let X do Y. We're working together. Renee (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well hi guys, hopefully I'm all the mediation you will need. I am a religious disaffiliate from an evangelical NRM, one-time astrologer, ethnic Jew, and somewhat skeptical about the ethics/efficacy of Zionism. You will find me curious to learn more about this topic and see it from all sides of the discussion. For now I'll be tagging for clarification, what's thats, and who's whos. The topic may be esoteric but it is an encyclopedia's job to bring context and establish notability. Let's find out what may be learned about good ol whatshername. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

:Let me just clarify; I see the text littered with citations (Bailey pp.xxx-xxx). Do we mean to cite just one of Bailey's works, and with text citations, but not cite all other authors the same? This seems awkward. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::I hope your editing here goes peacefully, and that the acrimony is all in the past. If you ask me specific questions, I will give my view on the issues as I understand them. Otherwise, I would rather not get directly involved in further editing of this article. (There do seem to be problems with some references that may not support the statements made.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Please elaborate. I'd be happy to help look into it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::::That was something pointed out by Parsifal, and is in the discussion above -- although I can not find it now. Parsifal had checked some of the refs and found that many did not support the statements that contained the refs. That involves the editing of Jamesd1, who was a rather enthusiastic exponent of Bailey and her work. Parsifal is on extended wiki-break, but might respond to e-mail[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Parsifal]. There are so many of those refs that few editors would be inclined to wade through them all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::If the achives are easy to access then I have no problem with that. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I'll archive starting at the content discussion, "THE Alice Bailey," above. Renee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See "RfC", below [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alice_Bailey#RfC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

{{tl|RFCreli| section=NPOV dispute, WP:OWN, WP:BITE, WP:V, WP:CIVIL, did I miss one? !! reason=There is a long standing POV dispute at the page, one editor suggests other editors have ownership issues and has pointed out a less than welcoming attitude, there is also dispute as to which sources are reliable, and suggestions of incivility. !! time= 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC) }}

Comment from outside editor. For full disclosure, I've never edited this page (not that I recall), though I have edited other topics related to Theosophy.

I've temporarily disabled the RFC template because the RFC appears to be improperly formed. According to WP:RFC, article Request for Comments is for "comments on page content", not for issues with user conduct.

Reading the RFC details below, I found issues of user conduct obscuring the page content questions, so I'm not sure what comment is needed. For your RFC to get a clear result, I recommend that you collaborate to come up with a neutral statement of the core content question(s) that need wider attention so when editors respond to the RFC they will be able to review and comment without getting distracted.

It's best to completely leave out any mention of editor conduct. If there is incivility or disruptive editing, the Wikiquette alerts noticeboard or other forms of dispute resolution may be helpful. Trying to fit those other issues into an article RFC will most likely result in an ineffective RFC that doesn't bring the desired clarity.

Also, I see that in the section below #What we'd like to see from the article and how we can be bold to acheive it, you've started to discuss your goals for the RFC. That's good preparation. The result of a discussion like that can lead to a clear effective RFC statement. Or, who knows, you might end up solving the problems without needing the RFC.

There's also the comment from another editor in the next section at #RfC, regarding where the RFC should be posted. Hopefully, you'll agree on the best forum, but if not, it can be posted in more than one topic area.

I hope no-one takes this as an intrusion, I'm just trying help. You have the option of simply re-enabling the template and proceeding as you were, but I think you'll get much better results by separating user issues from content issues, per the instruction page for filing an article RFC. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Original heading of this section as initially posted:

• NPOV dispute, WP:OWN, WP:BITE, WP:V, WP:CIVIL, did I miss one?

• How so? You had made so many changes, and with no discussion, that I had no idea of what you were doing. The article has been controversial, and there is a tag on the top of the talk page asking that changes be discussed. I did not put that tag there, but I do think it a reasonable request, and one which has nothing to do with ownership but rather it is intended to avoid this sort of problem. I have not question your good faith (although your civility is an issue). In two days of editing you made about sixty edits to the Alice Bailey article. For someone as slow thinking as I am that is a lot to keep up with. But, even at that, just what have I done to you aside to ask for some explination of what you are doing? I do not see why should expect to edit without input from other editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

:I have apologized for what offense I have caused you. Do you not accept? ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

::Claude, you have just accused me of ownership. You have done this (it seems) because you think I am standing in the way of what you want for the article. But what I am doing is not ownership, it is editing, and I do not appreciate your resorting to intimidation tactics to get your own way. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

::Comment; My reaction was rather stiff and I should have been more diplomatic and I apologize for that. I sincerely doubt that even mediation will settle this matter. We can try. Consensus can only be reached if both sides either agree or agree to disagree. I do not see that ever happening but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps mediation is our best bet. This request for comment is the first step toward that end. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

:::You are already involved in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation about Peter Yarrow. I hope that this would not put an unneccessary burden on you. I also hope you can provide some commentary on the content issues and help make your goals for the article more clear. This will assist in ensuring more cooperation and less opposition. By the way I completely accept your apology. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Some of us have been through this before. Being bold on a disputed article is a bad idea. Did you read the template at the top of this talk page ? It too is cautioning you to slow down and enter into discussion before making major edits. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

:The boilerplate says substantial changes. I have not changed the substance of what the article says (except for two of those sixty edits: a Dane Rudhyar rectification and a better source for charges of anti-semitism). I have only changed the attribution and linking in ways that are consistent with policy and good for other newcomers, to save them time as well. Other editors will come by and ask why I think there are things wrong with the article yet haven't abided by the directive "so fix it"--this is why. Your comment also fails to address what you'd like to see from the article, etc. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• All I see in the list above is a series of unfounded accusations from a new editor who is angry over not getting his way in every edit he made. Beyond ClaudeReigns' touchy reaction to having some of his over sixty edits in two days reverted, the argument is simply a content dispute. All the accusations may be an attempt to disguise that, and may indicate an intent to impose his his own views. I am absolutely sure that he is editing in good faith, but he needs to learn to work with the other editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

:Could you provide some policy or diffs to back up your difference of opinion? Your comment fails to address what you'd like to see from the article. Please focus on content. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

::No, you supply the diffs that show ownership. And I don't mean diffs from the talk page. Show the relevant diffs from the article. My asking you to explain your edits, particularly in the context of a controversial article, is not ownership. The only reverts I made to your edits involved silly changes you made, such as adding a lot of red inked names, which makes the page look crummy and more difficult to read. I did not revert anything that involved actual content. Let me repeat that: I did not revert anything that involved actual content. But I would not have reverted the red names either if you had given some indication that the names would get turned blue in a reasonable amount of time. Its called communication Claude, and you need to give it a try. As it is now, I view this entire RfC as nothing more that your soapboxing. There are other editors here and it is reasonable for us to want some dialog. That is what the talk page is for. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think everyone here wants a well-sourced article that accurately reflects Bailey's views. From my perception, there seems to be a great sensitivity that nothing be buried and a corresponding fear that it will, which results in some possessiveness of the article and suspiciousness toward newcomers' edits. I should say there is good reason for this fear because in the past important points were minimized and there were frequent edit wars. But, a new editor is unaware of this bruising history and only sees reverts in response to his edits and welcomes tinged with warnings.

:I was a little surprised to see an RFC and had to admit that like the old timers, my first response was arghhhhhh, not again. I also felt that recently we had turned a corner and really started (for the first time) to make productive edits again and have a fear that this will halt that. I hope not and am committed to working with the editors here, for I think we hold the same goals in mind.

:Regarding the content, here are my questions for reviewing edits:

:*Is the tone of the article neutral?

:*Are all of the sections needed? Do some seem extraneous? Are some too long and redundant?

:*What kind of standard should we use for sources? (This, IMO, has been our biggest block. We have yet to agree on a common standard for sources which means each and every one basically is discussed, re-discused, then 6 months later, re-re-discussed.)

:My initial concern about undue weight was solved by a suggestion by Linda. She suggested that instead of deleting text to make the article more proportional in topics to Bailey's writings, add more text on points of her writings which are widely disseminated and used today to give the article more balance. I have started to do this with the esoteric astrology section. Renee (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

:It has been established that is not correct. The term predates her and was the name of a Journal published by A. R. Orage [http://www.gurdjieff.org/orage.htm] which was well known in esoteric circles at that time. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::Good, we can quickly point out that this is an incorrect attribution. To what extent, then, has she shaped New Age Movement philosophy? How is she related to the term "New World Order"? Did she coin that? ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

:::She was a player in the New Age movement through the Arcane School that still exists, and gives training in meditation based on the Bailey books. But most New Agers these days know nothing about her. I do not know about the other phrase, check New world order. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::::It appears that Woodrow Wilson had preceded her. So is the Arcane School influential to these other movements within New Age? ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Wiki-link for The New Age, the journal published by Orage. Bailey may have known it as a Christian journal even previous to Orage having bought it.

:::::If you search the Wikipedia article on the New Age, you will find her mentioned, but there is very little about her. When I mention her in conversation, most people have never heard of her....aside from those who know her reputation for antisemitism (which is mentioned in the Wikipedia New Age article). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In the groups I hang around in (being raised in California and now am in the east) she is very well known. Though people may not be serious students most every metaphysical bookstore carries at least one of her books. Also, the sheer number of books and/or periodicals she appears in speaks to her notability (she's usually in encyclopedias, etc., see the references). There have been some academic writings on her, so I think she is notable. Finally, she's notable enough to generate plenty of criticism too.

I'm wondering why [http://www.makara.us/ this] link is in here? It seems to be a self-published type of link and there are dozens of esoteric science websites based on Bailey's work that are self-promotion of one's classes, or book, or workshops.

The main problem I have with the piece is undue weight. Her writings on Jews are less than 1% of her total writings. They definitely should be in there but if there are to be as many quotations on that topic as there are currently in there, there should be an equal number of quotations for her other topics. Again, I'm not saying they should be deleted, hidden, or minimized at all -- it's just that the other topics she talks about should be given equal proportionate weight. Renee (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The discussion of Jews and races are a tiny portion of her writings and rarely the main point of the discussion when they do appear. 67.188.133.215 (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:I also just found out (rather, recalled--you know my lousy memory) she had a few things to say about Lucifer. Thus the Lucis Trust. I'm sure the schoolkids will love to have this in their book report. Is this why Michael York seems to be misattributed? It's just that I'm curious what she actually meant by it and how her critics interpreted it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Renee, the link was put on by Vicktorya, linking the article to her own site. Her intentions were perfectly good, but she does not understand anything about Wikipedia guidelines. I thought of removing it because it is all self-published material, and it does not say much about AAB either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::Malcolm, Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't think it meets the guidelines for an encyclopedic source, so it should probably be removed. Renee (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rosemary Skinner Keller encyclopedia entry... this isn't the direct source. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Lee Penn and Sophia Perennis Publishing... is this a Christian apologist source? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Mary Bailey?? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:the second wife, got it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• suspect misattribution of Michael York, seems to be a critical source from a notable publisher. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• source that quotes "Gallagher" but cites Olav Hammer. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• we're using a self-published book by Joseph E. Ross. Best to establish his expertise. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::Wow! You work fast. The edits made who said what much more clearly. Also, have to say I loved the addition of the exact time -- Leo rising with Mars conjunct her ascendant, hmmmm...

::Regarding your comments above:

::*[http://books.google.com/books?id=we2KvdT3zOsC&pg=PA762&lpg=PA762&dq=keller+rosemary+skinner+alice+bailey&source=web&ots=YVVewqow71&sig=2zTU2t4qieV8sKzaId5y06KQeEs&hl=en#PPA762,M1 Here] is the encyclopedic entry from Rosemary Skinner Keller. Offers a nice tertiary source for the major themes and contributions of Bailey's writings, as well as detailed biographical information.

::*Regarding Lee Penn and Sophia Perennis Publishing, [http://books.google.com/books?id=MXvBs2PqkUcC&pg=PA420&lpg=PA420&dq=lee+penn+and+sophia+perennis+publishing&source=web&ots=hbK98MNg6X&sig=9ODz3zacXQNJV_RVm81PKM8HJsk&hl=en#PPA5,M1 here] is the book. Read the "Author's Introduction." Here is an excerpt (p. 9): "I am a Christian, baptized and chrismated to serve Christ, who is my Lord and Savior. I am obliged to share the faith with those who might be receptive to it..."

::*Can you please provide the specific statement that you think might be mis-attributed to Michael York? I'll see if I can find it.

::Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Crux of the matter of understanding the notability of Lucis Trust and Alice Bailey is understanding why a third party (York) notes this detail. Primary sources don't stand on their own and thus the article lacks context unless we are clear what attracted York's attention and his publisher's interest in the topic. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::You want us to figure out why a publisher is interested in a topic? What wikirule is that in? If you are interested in what York's attention is about, you should look at the book. It has a sub-chapter section of several pages about Bailey and her name appears on close to a dozen more pages throughout the book with various specific details. --Linda (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Concerning Lee Penn, is there a rule I am not aware of that forbids using Christian sources in Wikipedia articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 March 2008

::::::I don't have a problem with Christian sources where they are notable or otherwise qualify for the Project. The question I'm exploring is how qualified Penn is to make an assessment. If he's considered by others to be an expert on the occult, then that'd strengthen this source's inclusion. If the publisher doesn't have a fact-checking reputation, or Penn is of little note in this area, then it would weaken it and we'd want to look for different sources to understand Bailey from a Christian perspective. Best to include the most authoritative Christian apologetics sources and never lower the bar for inclusion. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::::No, certainly not. I think the question is:

::::-> is an author writing from a neutral enclopedic or academic-type point of view,

:::: or,

::::-> is the author making a case for a certain view s/he wishes to advance?

::::(e.g., compare the text from Keller vs. Penn as an illustration)

::::Then, the question is, does one use a source solely meant to advance a certain POV for an encyclopedia and if yes, how is that source qualified to give context? Renee (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::We all have bias. If one uses such a source, and it is common practice in religious topics, the source must be qualified in such a way to make it clear their bias in an elementary way from the way the source self-identifies, if it is not questioned. If their self-identification is contentious then that wouldn't bode too well for the inclusion of their source. The category Religious Writers With No Bias would be a thin one indeed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Renee, I have no idea how many times we have discussed this subject. The problem remains that there are no scholarly sources that can be used as a basis for an Alice Bailey article (which does raise the issue of notability). Most of the sources actually used in the article, are from either Alice Bailey herself, or non-scholars who worship in the Church of Alice Bailey, or New Age advocates who think anything connected with the New Age movement must be good. Other sources focus on her racial views, on her antisemitism, or her views on Christianity. There are no books that have been written about AAB that are of the nature of the Richard Noll studies of Carl Jung, or K. Paul Johnson's scholarly studies of Theosophical Society literature. As a result one administrator who participated for a while in editing this article, Vassyana I think, thought it would be better to reduce the article to a stub rather than use unsound sources. Others, such as AnonEMouse, thought it okay to use the sources we have, and build the article on that. At this point, I am willing to live with it either way. What I am not willing to live with is including the non-scholarly AAB worshipers, and excluding those sources that question her perfection. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I think a stub sounds like a good idea. Then, we can get agreement on the kind of sources are allowed and build outwards.

:::::::I suggest tertiary (encyclopedic sources) and academic to start with, because these are fact-checked and vetted. (with academic being defined as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, a university press, or a doctoral dissertation/thesis) If I recall this will be a wide enough net to include both critics and fans (I recall a U of Hebrew source somewhere and there is a dissertation posted at the end of the current article).

:::::::Would you like to take a first stab at it Malcolm? I recall you know a lot about Bailey. You can create a sandbox by clicking this: User_talk:Malcolm_Schosha/AABstub. Renee (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Make a stab at what? Starting over from the beginning? You must be kidding. I am willing to return it to a stub and leave it like that....if there is agreement among the editors. There are no academic sources to build on anyhow, so we will just be arguing over the very same sourcing that is in the article now, and that we have already argued over ad nauseum. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::I can live with a stub too, if that's what you prefer. Isn't the dissertation posted at the end an academic source? Renee (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Renee, you wrote "Isn't the dissertation posted at the end an academic source?" You have lost me. What "dissertation"? What "academic source"? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::Malcolm, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey#External_links external links], 4th item down, [http://library.uws.edu.au/adt-NUWS/public/adt-NUWS20061004.103813/ Dissertation from the U of W. Sydney, The texts of Alice A. Bailey: An inquiry into the role of esotericism in transforming consciousness]. Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::Its worthless; and, as far as I know, not even Jamesd1 ever used it as a source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::*sigh* Why is this worthless? It's an academic source? Please describe what sources you think are valid.

:::::::::::::::So far everything I've put out there and said you just seem to want to disagree. You say you want a stub, I say fine, you say you don't want to start over and just want to leave it at a stub, I say fine, you say there are no academic sources and then when I provide one you say it's worthless. Please let's work together on this and find common ground.

:::::::::::::::We both agree the article should have quality academic sources -- I offered a definition above -- what do you think counts as a quality academic source? Renee (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::Hey Renee even a stub is going to have a mention of Baileys anti-antisemitism so you might as well expand the article instad of trying to find people to help you delete it. It did not work last time and it will not work this time. Consensus means that everyone either agrees or agrees to disagree. That includes everything including reliable sources balance You are going to need to add to the article if you want to try and balance it to your liking.: Albion moonlight (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see [WP:AGF]. Fine by me. Before you even came aboard I was the one who added a "criticism" section that led with anti-semitism and racism (seemed like 100 years ago). Renee (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Renee, your history is off. There was such a section, obviously critical, before your (or my) first edit on this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=54327986&oldid=53748825] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:Wow! So the history of going over the same ground goes back before even you and I. I was thinking of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=151479540&oldid=151478375 this] edit which prompted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AReneeholle&diff=151482977&oldid=149974403 this] response from you. This really is a Groundhog Day article. Renee (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Albion has a good point about consensus. There aren't a lot of secondary sources, but there's no doubt Bailey's notable enough for an article. There's also no wikirule not to use primary sources when they're the best info available. That happens in articles about movies all the time that people use the movie story itself as the source of the info about the plot and characters, and then they need secondary sources where there are interpretations about meaning of the stories so that way that's not original research. I think this article is pretty good. It would be a waste of a lot of people's work to start over. --Linda (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But here it seems the primary sources are pulled out to make specific points. A stub seems better because then we can just use the primary sources for undisputed points (name, birthdate, marriage,e tc.), tertiary sources and academic sources for whatever points they'll support (and again, both critics and fans fall into these categories so I think a stub will be more balanced).Renee (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:I don't agree about the stub. There's nothing wrong with illustrations of what a person wrote about them sevles when they are a notable person. If you don't think it's balanced enough, if you think it tilts in a negative direction, then go ahead and add some more stuff that you think is positive. --Linda (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::Renee, your slant on this is that a stub would be the basis of a new beginning, which I can not accept. It would just be running through the same points of disagreement a second time. I agree with Albion and Linda that building on the present article would be better than starting over. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::No, I never said that. I agreed with you that we could return to a stub with academic sources and suggested tertiary sources (like encyclopedias too). And, I said that you could do it. What more do you want? What we are doing currently is going over the same process with little end in sight. Renee (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Actually things were nice and quiet until ClaudeReigns decided to help out. I have no idea why he thinks the work is necessary, or even what work he thinks is necessary. He has not explained his reasons. If he just wants something to keep him busy, there are plenty of stub articles to pick from. Although this article is certainly not perfect, it contains many positive things about AAB, and is informative, with a lot of clearly written material.

::::By the way, Renee, I want you to know that as much as we have argued over this article, I do believe that your work on this article is completely motivated by your good intentions. (Workings of the Fourth Ray, I suppose.) If I ever implied otherwise, I regret it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::Thanks malcolm, appreciated. Renee (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you Malcolm.

:No, absolutely every place I've seen a NPOV dispute there have been problems in sourcing, and I'll be clear on what I'm editing before I add, subtract, or weigh. This is sloppy and misattributed and it will get the microscope. If you think this needs additional detail (I think it is a big fat soapbox) then add some detail about Alice Bailey and Lucifer. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:: Sorry guy but I do not take orders from anyone. Good sourcing is in the eye of the beholder. If you make an edit I do not like I will revert it or fix it to my liking. The dispute process is there for a reason. No one needs your permission to edit this article. NPOV too is in the eye of the beholder. Right now I am going to see if you have managed to piss off either Malcomn or Linda . Both of them seem know more about Bailey than I do. I often acquiesce to there opinion. If you can win them over you will likely gain my trust. But as I said I think you are taking the wrong approach. : Albion moonlight (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::ClaudeReigns, you can be sure that I will back Albion completely on this point. You are you are moving too fast on your editing; and I see no indication that you understand the issues, nor do you seem to know where you are going to take the article. I am sure you are editing in good faith, but you have not taken enough time to review the problems of this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::::I agree with Malcolm and Albion. To many changes too fast. This article has a long history of hard work and that should be respected by a more measured approach. --Linda (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::All I see are some clarifications of who said what about Bailey. How about listing the specific edits you object to and offer a compromise? Renee (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fine by me if we include it because there are dozens of others like it.

So, my question, do you want to keep links like these or not? They are are not in line with Wiki policy (self-promotional, self-published) but I'd be happy to add many more like it. Renee (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::Or forgive the village idiot when I ask, what's a Mankara and why should we include it? ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:Allow me to settle that one by re-deleting it myself. I did not see your discussion with Malcom. Sorry about that. If anyone wants to put it back for whatever reason It is Ok by me. I just generally disapprove of deletion. Sometimes it is necessary.: Albion moonlight (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you. The good faith is appreciated. Renee (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

==Good Sources==

What dispute, if any, do we have with sources published by various Universities within the article? Please elaborate if you do not believe that these conform to WP:V. Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no dispute allowing it as a source. I took a quick look a it a few times, and it appears useless. No other editor has used it as a source either, as far as I know, and I assume that is because they could not find anything in it to use. Not every allowable source has value. This is a sample of the writing (from ch.3):

A general acknowledgement that studies of esotericism require a subjective

engagement is encapsulated by Riffard (1998) in his attempt to identify an

esoteric research method. Riffard presents two approaches as the external

(objective) method of scholars of the history of esotericism and the internal

(subjective) method of esotericists themselves (1998:73). The former, he

argues, tends towards scholarly methodology, objectivity and impartiality

(1998:71), the latter tends to be a form of self-analysis, concerned with

spiritual interpretations of experiences (1998:70). Whilst Riffard argues that

both approaches are indispensable tools in the investigation of esoteric

thought, he approaches this distinction from a positivist paradigm, which

foregrounds scholarly pursuit of objective truth. A serious incongruity arises

through evaluating an internal or subjective method from an external or

objective direction. In my view, if researching esotericism is to involve the

seekerly level, then a positivist or postpositivist paradigm becomes

inappropriate.

Not every allowable source has value. See [http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/], and be sure to scroll to the bottom of the page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:*We aren't using Riffard, or the quote you've mentioned. Please use specific examples, and please use the talk page appropriately and not to make a point. Though your point is well received throughout the fullest spiritual development of solar systems. Tags for vagueness in the article are also welcome. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns, this is a warning for your incivility [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility]. Save it for were you come from. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::Oh Lord, I think there's been incivility all around toward Claude's edits (i.e., immediate reverts, failure to take his comments seriously). Let's all focus on getting agreement on sources instead of knee-jerk reverts and I think we can really move this article forward. Renee (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Show me something like "Where I come from that's called talking out your ass", and I will apologize to him. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Malcolm, please accept my apology for the offense I caused. There seems to a misunderstanding as to what I was disparaging. I was responding enthusiastically in agreement with you to the uselessness of the quote you produced, not at all to your conduct here. I want to underscore my wishes to help you weed out such empty language's influence on the article. To remedy this misunderstanding, I shall spare you the colloquialisms and my sense of humor. Wherever did you find that sterling example of postmodern exposition? It is relevant to the article, yes? ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a google search and it seems there are dozens if not hundreds of persons who have written on esoteric astrology and/or conduct workshops/reads -- all of it based on Bailey.

Here is what one site recommends as Bailey sources for esoteric astrology:

1. Esoteric Astrology.
2. Destiny of the Nations.
3. Labours of Hercules.
4. A Treatise on Cosmic Fire.
5. Treatise on White Magic.

And it recommends these as background on the 7 rays:

1. Esoteric Psychology I.
2. Esoteric Psychology II.
3. Esoteric Healing.
4. Rays and Initiations.
5. Initiation Human & Solar.
6. Light of the Soul.
7. Letters on Occult Meditation.
8. Glamour.

Here are some books on esoteric astrology that can be used as secondary sources (and also, the sheer volume indicate notability of the topic):

1. [http://www.amazon.com/Esoteric-Astrology-Alan-Astrologers-Library/dp/0892811811/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205085740&sr=8-2 Esoteric Astrology], Alan Leo
2. [http://www.amazon.com/Symbolism-Astrology-Introduction-Esoteric/dp/1596056142/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205085740&sr=8-3 Symbolism and Astrology: An Introduction to Esoteric Astrology], Alan Leo
3. [http://www.amazon.com/Esoteric-Astrology-Beginners-Torgny-Jansson/dp/1420875957/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205085740&sr=8-4 Esoteric Astrology: A Beginner's guide], Torgny Jansson
4. [http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Esoteric-Astrology-Beverly-Flynn/dp/0975858335/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205085740&sr=8-5 ABC's of Spiritual or Esoteric Astrology],Beverly Ann Flynn
5. [http://www.amazon.com/Esoteric-Handbook-Astrology-Gustav-Brugge/dp/097234716X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086317&sr=8-6 An Esoteric Handbook on Astrology], Gustav Brugge and Juliet Northrop
6. [http://www.amazon.com/Simplified-Scientific-Astrology/dp/B0012PTMNI/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086317&sr=8-9 Simplified Scientific Astrology], Max Heindel
7. [http://www.amazon.com/Esoteric-Astrology-Part-Soul%60s-Purpose/dp/0906006678/ref=pd_bbs_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086317&sr=8-7 Esoteric Astrology, Part VIII The Soul`s Purpose], Douglas M. Baker
8. [http://www.amazon.com/Shamballa-Impacts-Esoteric-Astrology-History/dp/1876849002/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086317&sr=8-13 The Shamballa Impacts: Their Esoteric Astrology in World History], Phillip Lindsay
9. [http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Esoteric-Astrology-E-Thierens/dp/0766138259/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086037&sr=8-21 Elements of Esoteric Astrology], A. E. Thierens
10. [http://www.amazon.com/Esoteric-Astrology-Millennium-Pillars-Ancient/dp/0906006015/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086037&sr=8-23 Esoteric Astrology: A New Astrology for a New Millennium, Vol. 1 (Seven Pillars of Ancient Wisdom)], Douglas M. Baker
11. [http://www.amazon.com/Astrology-Health-Esoteric-Know-How/dp/0572018223/ref=sr_1_30?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086037&sr=8-30 Astrology and Health (Esoteric Know How Series)], Sheila Geddes
12. [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-esoteric-astrology-Bepin-Behari/dp/B0007ANACI/ref=sr_1_48?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086105&sr=8-48 Introduction to esoteric astrology], Bepin Behari

Does anyone feel they have enough expertise to start tackling this? Renee (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::I studied astrology, but not Bailey's astrology. Assagioli wrote a book together with Clara Weiss[http://www.astroamerica.com/esoteric2.html]. The danger is falling into the technicalities of it all, and forgetting that the main point is becoming a better person. I have seen that happen all too often. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Yes, we'd need a broad overview and can emphasize the point you made above (i.e., spiritual development). If I recall, the moon becomes the central planet in esoteric astrology? I can see if I can find my old Alan Oken book.

::::Claude, do you have an interest/skill in this? Sounds like you've done some astrology. Renee (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::p.s. There is an Esoteric astrology site, but it's very weak. Renee (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Per a request from Malcolm, I withdraw any suggestion of ownership because I do believe he has made progress toward dialogue. I think we should start fresh, take everyone's concerns seriously and answer them (not dismiss them). I think Claude had some questions on sources that perhaps Malcolm could answer. (And, I understand Malcolm's weariness at doing this for the tenth time, but I think Claude is very reasonable and just needs an explanation.) Renee (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see below, because I have no idea what the purpose is for this RfC [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alice_Bailey#What_is_the_reason_for_this_RfC.3F] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what appears on the RFC biographies page: Please provide feedback on sources, suggestions for decision rules on which sources to include and which to exclude, and please provide feedback on balance overall and within each article section. Renee (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:I was a little surprised to see an RFC and had to admit that like the old timers, my first response was arghhhhhh, not again. I also felt that recently we had turned a corner and really started (for the first time) to make productive edits again and have a fear that this will halt that. I hope not and am committed to working with the editors here, for I think we hold the same goals in mind.

:Regarding the content, here are my questions for reviewing edits:

:*Is the tone of the article neutral?

:*Are all of the sections needed? Do some seem extraneous? Are some too long and redundant?

:*What kind of standard should we use for sources? (This, IMO, has been our biggest block. We have yet to agree on a common standard for sources which means each and every one basically is discussed, re-discused, then 6 months later, re-re-discussed.)

:My initial concern about undue weight was solved by a suggestion by Linda. She suggested that instead of deleting text to make the article more proportional in topics to Bailey's writings, add more text on points of her writings which are widely disseminated and used today to give the article more balance. I have started to do this with the esoteric astrology section. Renee (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Arguments about sourceing are very often a pretext for for deleting content. For the most part I think good sourcing is in the eye of the beholder. Malcom and Linda know a lot more about Bailey than I do. If they agree to this latest proposal I will happily go along with it Albion moonlight (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that good sourcing is in the eye of the beholder, which is why I attribute everything, so that readers can make up their mind, no matter their viewpoint. I think the suggestion is a great remedy to problems of weight and use of primary sources. I've got no problem how you want to define acceptable sources. There is already a greater community consensus at WP:RS, and eventually others will look. I mean, hopefully others will look. Wouldn't it be nice if this was a good article or a featured article? ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::: Just in case we are missing each other's point please read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_in_practice this.] Consensus is very hard to come by and I do not agree to necessarily consent to the deletion of sourced material that a majority may find to be unreliable. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC) :Albion moonlight (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Be sure to read this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Note_on_use_of_discussion_page] also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: 99.9% of the discussion that as occurred on this talk page (much of it acrimonious) has concerned the content and sources for what was formerly the "Criticisms" section of the article, and which content is now disbursed into several sections. You will, I hope, understand if I do not feel much enthusiasm for discussing it yet again. But, if Claude has specific questions on that, I will give a reply based on how I understand the issues. Otherwise, as I have previously said, I wish to absent myself from further writing of the article. I do hope the current effort will both expanded and improved the article, but without removing content. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"generously wikilinked". Claude states, as one of his goals for the article, to have it "generously wikilinked". In my view, in his his editing so far, he has been rather too generous in his wikilinking. Creating a link to virtually every possible personal name, every institutional name, every place name, every concept and profession, and every date, results in a page that is confusing visually and more difficult to read than is necessary. That is my view as a professional calligrapher with over twenty years of experience. I would suggest restraint in wikilinking. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

:Sorry for your eyes, told you it would look worse before it looked better. Criticisms of Theosophy is certainly a topic to be breached as this article indicated. Esoteric science may be a bit of jargon, I was just quickly wikilinking to see if there was an article to tell me what it meant. Which is it? A respectable field or dressed up language? If it is a respectable field it should have an article. WP:MOS indicates full dates should be wikilinked. Personal names have been wikilinked for notability. If nothing about a source blue-links, chances are it doesn't meet WP:V. That's how I discovered the lack of notability for the Penn source. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::I will continue to revert excessive wikilinking. If you need to discover if a particular individual has a Wikipedia article, try using the WP search bar. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:::No defense of "esoteric science" as a discipline? No defense of a lack of criticisms at Theosophy though an author on the portal has herself criticized it? Planning on being here to explain every time someone questions the Penn source? You've not addressed the points and weaknesses these wikilinks exposed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::One place to start is with Claude's specific questions about sources [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alice_Bailey#Questionable_sources_and_misattributions here]. Specifically i've rephrased his questions and then started a comments section after each. Please note that I'm only evaluating the sources; I purposely did not look to see how the source was used in the article:

::*The Rosemary Skinner Keller encyclopedia entry -- is this a direct source?

::::Comment. I think this is a good source. She appears to be an expert in the area of new religions and this is a good tertiary source. Renee (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Mild Support: There are actually three authors, not just one. (Demonstrating a peer review process) After having read the entry, I got the impression that A) they had done their research B) they were interested in treating all spiritual claims across the spectrum as true. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Support. A fine source, published by a mainstream university press. It's original research to judge a source based on our personal interpretations of what the author believes. NPOV says, include the source and if another reliable source expresses something else, include them both and let the reader decide. --Linda (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::The Lee Penn book appears to come from a Christian apologist publisher. Are sources like this biased? Should they be included?

::::Comment. This looks like a biased source to me, expressly written to promote a point-of-view. I don't think sources like this should be in Wiki. Renee (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Oppose Mildly Oppose. Nearly every source here could be said to have bias. The problem here is that both the author and publisher are non-notable by our standards. How can the reader possibly make an informed decision about the reliability of such a source? Without notability for either, we can neither treat this as a self-published expert opinion nor a reliably vetted source from a better Christian publisher. That being the case, we then have no basis for maintaining that it notably represents a minority viewpoint. There are stronger sources for Christian apologetics. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Sorry Claude, but that argument does not make sense. Lee Penn's bio says he graduated cum laude from Harvard, and that he is a journalist[http://www.falsedawn.us/author.htm]. Is it your POV that Christian sources are not valid when you do not agree with the source? Wikipedia articles are neutral when they balance opposing points of view. Allowing only the side of the argument you like does not achieve balance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::Recent discovery of the source's credentials add weight. An article about the author will make it easy for other newcomers to verify this, support his sourcing in other articles, and reveal criticisms of his work if well-founded. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Support. Malcolm stated this well, I don't need to repeat it. --Linda (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::The book by Joseph E. Ross appears to be self-published. What is his expertise in this topic? Are self-published sources allowable?

::::Comment. I think this is an okay source. I couldn't find evidence as to whether or not it was self-published, but it currently is in the reprint library of Sage Publications, which is a quality academic publisher (my academic library contains many of their titles). Renee (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Comment. This is a case mentioned in WP:RS about a previously published author which should be "used with caution" but a reprint from SAGE would warrant standard treatment. Can you link the entry to that publisher? ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Support. This is self-published, however, it is based on primary source documents that are printed in the book. The Huntington Library, of Pasadena, California wrote in their review: "This volume and its sequel will be indispensable sources for scholars." It has been cited in several places, including: California Civilization: Beyond the United States of America? Josef Chytry, California College of the Arts and Managing Editor of Industrial and Corporate Change, Institute of Management, Innovation and Organization, Haas School of Business, University of California; and, "A Multiplicity and Diversity of Faiths": Religion's Impact on Los Angeles and the Urban West, 1890-1940, Michael E. Engh, The Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Winter, 1997), pp. 463-492, doi:10.2307/969882. --Linda (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::Source that quotes "Gallagher" but cites Olav Hammer (not sure what the question is here...sorry).

::::Comment. Question needs to be clarified. Renee (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Mildly Oppose.: We're given no context to evaluate who _____ Gallagher is or why Hammer is quoting him. We should cite _____ Gallagher, not Hammer. This isn't an RS thing, it's a V thing. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Error - has been fixed. I checked the book. The quote is directly from Hammer, Gallagher is not mentioned. The article has been corrected. --Linda (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::I've added an extra "comment" section for the next person to add to; please be sure to add four tilda's to each comment. I hope this helps! Renee Renee (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Renee, are you saying that the goal of this RfC is to decide four minor references in the article, or do you have something else in mind?

• If sources are considered good if they have a New Age POV, and sources critical of the New Age are considered "biased", the neutrality and balance of the article will be lost. In fact the Lee Penn source has already been removed. I do not agree with that action. This gives Lee Penn's biography: http://www.falsedawn.us/author.htm. In what way is he not qualified to write on Bailey and the New Age movement? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Malcolm, I'm simply trying to bend over backwards to be responsive to your concerns. You said you wanted me to withdraw the ownership claim, I did. You said you wanted a new RFC on biography, I did, and I removed all personal comments. You said you wanted specific questions, I did, I went back and re-inserted Claude's questions. Renee (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Renee, I never wanted this RfC at all. My complaint about your accusation of ownership, aside from it being untrue, is that you gave Claude on opening to initiate an RfC that has no content. If you want to reinstate your accusation about ownership, you know how to request mediation. But why is this RfC necessary just because Claude can't decide about four minor sources in the article? Moreover, by opening up the sourcing argument you are also opening up the fundamental argument about content. I hope you enjoy the results. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

:If he is a recognized expert then let's dig in: Lee Penn. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::Claude, if it is your point of view that individuals with Wikipedia articles are notable, and usable here, that is actually okay with me, because I could then use Constance Cumbey as a source in the article. Are you agreeable with using her Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow as a source? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::She is definitely somebody. I don't see anything in the article to suggest that others think her views are fringe. Her article could use some work for verifiability, but I have seen far worse sources cited in criticism sections. Like Richard Abanes whose work comprises a hefty weight in the Criticism of Mormonism article. Why they cite him, I'll never know. Also, people like to cite Anton Hein[http://www.cultnews.com/?p=1636] and although his site is good for finding long lost critical sources, he's not to be taken seriously on matters of opinion. Cumbey is definitely major league in comparison. Are we talking about "significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources?" Then it's allowed by WP:V. Are exceptional claims involved? "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:::It looks like we're making progress. Of those who gave comments, three of four of the sources are supported. The Lee Penn source is supported by some and not others. There are questions about whether or not the source is neutral. Malcolm provided his biography [http://www.falsedawn.us/author.htm here]. The outlets he has written for according to this biography are exclusively Christian and Catholic outlets. Does this make him neutral or slanted toward these perspectives?

:::By the way, I do not support the addition of Constance Cumbey, who had been discussed previously and found to be biased by the editors on board at that time. Renee (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::::p.s. I just looked at the manner in which the Penn source is used and it's just listed as basically an "extra" source to buttress the claim that some people find her writings racist and antisemitic. I think it's fine for this purpose (assuming it's true; I haven't read the book). Even if it's a biased source, the way the statement is phrased gives people a clue that any sources supporting that statement are likely to come from people with a POV.Renee (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Of course this skirts LP's most noted observation about AB. "Penn also documents the anti-Semitism in her writing" [http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=1548] [Emphasis mine] LP has also written for the secular World Net Daily. Not sure if that's a feather in his cap or not. I look at it this way: there is cross-denominational support for Penn's alarmed take on URI, New Age, and global institutions; but to say that Alice Bailey co-founded Lucifer Publishing to help take over the world is quite the exceptional claim, and requires mucho mas support. Still seems fringe on the surface. Am I misrepresenting Penn? I think it's safe to say that a majority of Christians would view the history and scope of Lucis Trust with alarm, and that False Dawn and other works capture that way of perceiving Bailey saliently. Surely there must be calm rational counterpoints which serve to reassure on these matters. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, it's definitely a fringe source, not mainstream. The only reason I suggested leaving it in is because if I recall there's a U of Hebrew press source that says the same thing, so I didn't think it was worth arguing over this, especially since it's not quoted directly. It would be my preference to just use the U of Hebrew press citation. But, I'm willing to compromise on this as there is no direct quotation.Renee (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Robert S. Ellwood, her philosophy and her writings are still applied by the groups and organizations she founded, such as the Arcane School, the New Group of World Servers, and the Full Moon Meditation Groups that follow her teachings.

The two groups that are called "New Group of World Servers", consists of The Group for Creative Meditation (based on a series of sets of blue instruction pamphlets) and the Meditation Group for the New Age (based on the series of yellow pamphlets). They were both founded by Roberto Assagioli, and not Alice Bailey. Since Dr. Assagioli kept his name off anything associated with esotericism, I have no idea how I could document that. But, although both groups are bases on the writings of AAB, she was dead at the time Assagioli started the groups. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::I don't understand what you're asking here? Are you making a case for keeping the sentence in? I think it's fine. Renee (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I think he's saying Ellwood has made an error in attribution. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is just one example of deficiencies in the sources. The sources that much of the article is built on are in many respects problematic. Up to this point I have never challenged the sources supporting Baileys notability, while Renee has in every single case challenged sources critical of Bailey, such Lee Penn. For instance, in the section of the article called, Influence on the New Age Movement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey#Influence_on_the_New_Age_Movement], there is this sentence:

Sir John Sinclair, in his book The Alice Bailey Inheritance, commented on the seminal influence of Alice Bailey, which, he said, underlies the consciousness growth movement in the 20th century

It is completely obvious that this statement is nothing but surmise, and biased surmise at that. If there had been some sort of formal a study to establish Bailey's influence in New Age thinking, it would have been sited. In fact it is just John Sinclair's biased guess work, and I do not see why his guess work is superior to referenced sources in Lee Penn. If tough evaluation is given to sources, it must be applied equally to all the sources -- not tough evaluation for critics of Bailey, and an easy pass for everything else. So far that has not been the case. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:Malcolm, Please do not make things up -- have you forgotten so quickly that I was the one who deleted the Mankara site because it was self-published? I thought it was a great site but alas, Wiki cannot use self-published sources.

:::I checked the press the Sinclair citation and it seems it is a reputable, mainstream (albeit small) press. Do you object to the quality of the source, or are you saying that the source is misquoted. I don't have the book and it's not available on Google books. I wonder if anyone can check it? Renee (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:Renee, you wrote "Don't "make things up" (a 'nice' way of calling me a liar), but I have not made anything up, and nor have I insulted you. In fact, what I wrote acknowledged that you have followed an intelligent method of defending your POV in this article, and have been more effective than I have been. As for Sinclair, what do I care about his publisher if his book is filled with statements that are both unverifiable and biased? The book is trash disguised as scholarship, and it should not be allowed as a source in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:And, by the way, the problem with Turnstone Press [http://www.turnstonepress.com/categoryinfo.php?index=17&pageN=1&pageS=5] is not its size, but that they have no claim of academic standards at all. So in what way is it superior to any Christian publisher? Also, just a quick look at their publications list shows they have also published at least one book on Psychosynthesis [http://books.google.com/books?id=tSodAAAAMAAJ&dq=inpublisher:%22Turnstone%22&pgis=1], so they do have a bias toward the Bailey based work. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::Sorry, not a fan nor a critic. I am a fan of Wiki though and believe in its principles though.

::According to [http://www.turnstonepress.com/aboutus.php?PHPSESSID=okogl5etjgjepsd2chbp1c1al5 this] it looks like a quality publisher given many of its books have won awards, and the other publisher has not. However, if we're not confident in the vetting process of each, I'm okay with removing each. Renee (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In Skinner's book (see universal support for it above from those who responded), she says [http://books.google.com/books?id=we2KvdT3zOsC&pg=PA763&dq=alice+bailey+new+age&sig=x1S7wYW0QVKWUXXvgg1inP1l5Aw#PPA762,M1 this]:

"Bailey was good at organizing and generating income for her religious groups. In addition to the Arcane School and the Lucis Trust, she founded the New Group of World servers in 1932 and the Triangles in 1937."

Later it says, "In the mission of these two groups, the prototype for the numerous New Age groups of today can be found."

On p. 763, Skinner lists the "principal contributions of Alice Bailey and the Arcane School to the New Age Movement."

If some sources are in question and this source says the same thing (which it appears to do), we can just use this source that everyone agrees is a good source (and easily found on the internet).Renee (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:Once again, this information from Skinner is completely incorrect. It was Foster Bailey who handled financial matters, not Alice Bailey. Skinner is just making up stuff he knows nothing about. Likewise, it was Foster Bailey who initiated Triangles, and World Goodwill also. Foster Bailey was a First Ray person and very much involved in the external matters related to the Teaching; and he kept away from Arcane School matters, which because it involved teaching, was a Second Ray project. Aside from the writing of the books with DK; Alice Bailey's service project was the Arcane School. AAB was a natural teacher, and very much a Second Ray person.

:I am trying to explain what I know is true, which I was told by Roberto Assagioli and Frank Hilton (when he was director of the School for Esoteric Studies). The misinformation in Skinner's book is the result of incorrect guess work. I have nothing to gain by telling you this, and if the article is filled with such crap it is not going to make my life any worse because I separated myself from the AAB teaching years ago.

:The term "New Group of World Servers" does come from one of the AAB books, but the project was Roberto Assagioli's and was initiated after the death of Alice Bailey. Assagioli wrote the instruction booklets himself, and was still writing them at the time I was studying him. Sometimes, when I had meetings with him, he would give me the latest booklets to be published -- in the late sixties and early seventies. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:Good! Like the sourcing, like the exposition, like the attribution, like the balance between Bailey's and Oken's observations. Hmmm maybe Oken should have an article? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks, Renee. I hope that you expand your new addition on astrology. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::By the way, I just moved the new Astrology section to above the Pop Culture section. I hope there is no objection. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:::No problem. Renee (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:The instructions for tables are on this page: Help:Table - it has a section about colors etc... --Linda (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks! Renee (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's going a little too far to add this article to the anti-semitism category. This is a biography and while I understand you firmly believe Bailey is anti-semitic, others would strongly disagree. I'm not saying I agree one way or another but it is too far to add this biography article to that category. Renee (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

:It should have been there all along. It is not as though I added the antisemitism template to the article, but just a small indication as a category that appears at the bottom of the page. It is not so unusual either; and it can be seen also, for example, here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Atzmon]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

::It just seems out of place to me. That wasn't her life-purpose, to be anti-semitic. A proportion of her writings were anti-semitic out of a much larger body of literature. Does this justify a category placement? What do other people think? I'm willing to go with the consensus here -- it just seemed a bit extreme. We could probably put that template on hundreds of biographies in Wikipedia. Where is the line drawn? Thanks. Renee (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Sorry, Renee, but Alice Bailey's antisemitism has been thoroughly discussed on this talk page, and is in the content of the article. The category should have been added long ago. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Hey Malcolm, This is okay. Let's just discuss it next time first, as a courtesy. Renee (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::It seemed a very minor thing, or I would have discussed it here first. Sorry for delivering it as an unwelcome surprise. Very sorry. (By the way, I see one of the categories at the bottom of this talk page is Low-importance Religion articles ! I want you to know that category is not my fault.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::Thanks! I like this Malcolm, he's nice. There are a lot of strange categories down there I never noticed either. "Rational skepticism" articles? Take care, Renee Renee (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The Lord of Power or Will
2. The Lord of Love-Wisdom
3. The Lord of Active Intelligence
4. The Lord of Harmony, Beauty and Art
5. The Lord of Concrete Knowledge and Science
6. The Lord of Devotion and Idealism
7. The Lord of Ceremonial Order or Magic

Some of these may seem inarguable (to some), but there's no equivalent list in Bailey that I'm aware of. (If someone can point to this list, or a secondary source, then it makes a great addition to the article. But until then, it's OR, innit?) Oh and btw, welcome back, Malcolm. :) Eaglizard (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

:The Masters for rays 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are as I recall them in the Bailey books. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

::Seems there are sources forthese[http://www.amazon.com/Lords-Seven-Rays-Mark-Prophet/dp/0916766756] and that there are even whole Wiki articles on some.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Hilarion]Renee (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:::oops, see the links lead to the Wiki articles...if you look at the sources of these articles you'll see there are several. I think it's a good idea to include them in this article.Renee (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

::::None of the refs in the WP article for Hilarion, as the 5th ray master, relate to Bailey. I have not checked the other articles, but if these correspondences of rays with masters are used there should be AAB refs for them. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::Do you agree with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Rays#Qualities_of_the_seven_rays this] chart here? (Have to scroll down a bit...) It seems it is from this source: Bailey, Alice A. The Seven Rays of Life New York: 1995--Lucis Publishing Co. Compilation from all the Alice A. Bailey books of material about the Seven Rays. Renee (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::I suppose it is correct. I really wish the books could still be searched online. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a reference for the Masters of the Rays in A Treatise on Cosmic Fire - Section Three - Division A - Certain Basic Statements on page 1237. Hilarion looks correct for the Fifth Ray. I can paste in the words from that page here but I don't know how to make the wikitext format the same as in the book. --Linda (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

:OK I looked through all of these and they all match so I'm putting the wikilinks back in the article with a new footnote. --Linda (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

THE SOLAR HIERARCHY

The Solar Logos.

The Solar Trinity or Logo

I. The Father - Will.

II. The Son - Love-Wisdom.

III. The Holy Spirit - Active Intelligence.

The Seven Rays

Three Rays of Aspect.

Four Rays of Attribute.

I. Will or Power II. Love-Wisdom III. Active Intelligence.

4. Harmony or Beauty.

5. Concrete Knowledge.

6. Devotion or Idealism.

7. Ceremonial Magic.

THE PLANETARY HIERARCHY

S. Sanat Kumara, the Lord of the World.

(The Ancient of Days. The One Initiator.)

The Three Kumaras.

(The Buddhas of Activity.)

1 2 3

The reflections of the 3 major and 4 minor Rays.

The 3 Departmental Heads.

I. The Will Aspect

A. The Manu.

b. Master Jupiter.

c. Master M.

II. The Love-Wisdom Aspect.

B. The Bodhisattva.

(The Christ. The World Teacher.)

b. A European Master.

c. Master K.H.

d. Master D.K.

III. Active Intelligence.

C. The Mahachohan.

(Lord of Civilization)

c. The Venetian Master.

4. The Master Serapis.

5. Master Hilarion.

6. Master Jesus.

7. Master R.

Four grades of initiates.

Various grades of disciples.

People on the Probationary Path.

}}

Given that Bailey's best recognized work is Esoteric Astrology, I would suggest that it's vital information. 71.169.26.105 (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Dioxin Freak, not logged in.

Esotericism is an aspect of the very earliest documented records of human history, far predating the 19th century's fads, which as they don't seem to have had a serious effect on the world may not be worth the memory taken by this meme. That certain black circles seem to have attempted to commandeer the subject for themselves does not make them authorities, for that matter.

It would therefore be appreciated if a neutral authority could review the meme and reestablish objectivity, which seems to be seriously lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.142.222 (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• IRWolfie's statement that he removed "all primary sourced" is just untrue. It's clear if you read through his edit, that he changed and removed much more. This is not an edit war but standing up for the integrity of the article. Please see for yourself what under the guise of one edit much more damage was done to the entry. IRWolfie your arguements don't hold water because they're false. True there is no limit to how much text can be removed in one edit, but what IRWolfie did to the article is not justified by his edit summary. I am going to revert. Please read through his edit. ( Previous unsigned comment by {{ping|Tom2087}} -0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] )

::You are speaking of generalities. Highlight something specific and discuss it. To clarify, the specific issue is not the specific book, but that we are quoting her from her own books throughout the article. We should be using secondary sources, Second Quantization (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (formerly IRWolfie-)

:: {{ping|Tom2087}} - 1.) Please don't remove my section headers or otherwise edit me on talk pages. 2.) You started by conceding one of my arguments, the other arguments have to do with whether or not IRWolfe- justified their own edits. I was only going by your own edit summaries and addressing the arguments therein. Clearly they did, whether you disagree or not. At this point it's time to build consensus on the talk page because there's a dispute.

:: Do not revert the removal of the material. If you indeed concede that IRWolfe- would be justified in removing the large amount of primary-sourced material, then at the very least you should be adding back in only the reliably-sourced material, not simply reverting his edits. To start, can you please identify any specific material that you think was unjustly removed? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Itainteasybeingcheesy here. I completely disagree with removing the material from this entry and support putting it back in. Specific objection to removal of Esoteric Astrology and Seven Ray info which is not in the Autobiography as claimed by IRWolfie. Also apperent the wide ranging scope of his edit was malicious. —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

:: It is very clear from his above comments that his intention was not malicious. You need to assume good faith on Wikipedia, even if you disagree with the changes that have been made. Vandalism is a very specific kind of destructive editing that is distinct from good faith mistakes. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

---It's tendentious editing. How can one assume good faith when the references that he removed clearly show that they came from a variety of sources and not just from one primary source? -TOM2087

:: 1.) You should use four tildes (~) to sign your posts.

:: 2.) This is exactly why you need to assume good faith, as the edits were made in good faith. It is clear that you don't understand the meaning of a primary source - it means a source that has not been interpreted, essentially. In this case, the "primary sources" are the works written by the subject of this biography. We should be using secondary sources, i.e. people who have read her works and written about her and her work based on them. It is an important concept to understand, and now that you are on the talk page, assuming good faith, you are learning about it and we are making headway towards consensus. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

:?? The esoteric astrology and Seven Rays of energy sections are both still there. Tom, as I have already clarified the issue is the use of primary sources, especially those written by Bailey herself, rather than secondary sources from an outside perspective looking in. Second Quantization (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (Formerly IRWolfie-)

It appears that Tom2087 and Itainteasybeingcheesy were sockpuppets and have been banned, according to their respective user pages. Presumably this will not be a continuing problem. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

:* Comments by confirmed sockpuppets have been striked, Second Quantization (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)