Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:49, 21 August 2007

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this page.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page

Occult Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Statement of Tibetan's philosophy

I am currently attempting to develop a coherent statement of the Tibetan's ideas expressed in AAB's books. Obviously this could be approached from many angles, but I believe the most representative is as follows:

1. The belief of man that he is separate from and independent of his fellow man is an illusion (maya).
2. When this illusion has been conquered among humans, the current 'evils of society' will all disappear.
3. Life is a reincarnational series of lessons that inevitably overcome this illusion of separateness, leading to an eventual 'at-one-ment' of the entire planet.

Purists may argue, but I feel that the elimination of maya & glamour (aka at-one-ment) was the primary goal of DK's publicly disseminated writings. However, this is just a formulation, and leaves out quite a bit of interesting ideas, such as the unique formulations of the planes and rays, the 12 'departments' of the Heirarchy, and in fact, the particular characterization of the Heirarchy as an 'invisible brotherhood' of ascended masters. In fact, I'm not even sure this belongs here under AAB, but I'm not convinced DK deserves a separate page (some will argue there is/was no such person), and putting it under 'neo-theosophy' or (my preference) 'trans-Himalayan' would both be neologisms, afaik. Any comments from interested parties will be welcomed. Eaglizard 17:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There is already an extensive page on Djwal Khul but this covers mostly Theosophical sourced descriptions. You could add a section on his teachings as revealed through Alice Bailey. Lumos3 19:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason, I didn't think to look under the name. I wonder why? Eaglizard 22:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Something definitely needs to be added about her constant anti-Semitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.147.48 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

Could you cite a source? I am currently patrolling the occult and metaphysical bio articles for mentions of anti-Semitism and would write this up if some references were provided. Catherineyronwode 02:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, i found it. I shall write it up now. Thanks for th tip. Catherineyronwode 02:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read 50-75% of her work, I would not characterize mention of Jews as 'constant', nor as 'anti-', but that is my opinion. This section's criticims are valid, but I do wish to reword them slighty. I have added a rebuttal of sorts, and removed the sentence referencing a "solution" to the "problem", as this formulation deliberately flirts at triggering Godwin's Law.Eaglizard 18:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

She was not anti-semitic! This is a slander. I have studied her books extensively over a period of more than forty years. She has said that the Jews are 'agents of karma.' That puts them in an interesting position which makes a lot of sense to me. Taking America alone, what would our political life be without the Jewish contributors, or what would Hollywood, or American literature, be? Her criticisms of what the Jewish people have done at some points in their history exactly parallel what their own prophets have said. Was Jeremiah anti-Semitic? Hardly! His writings are enshrined in the Tenach, Jewish scriptures, or 'old Testament' as the Christians call it. Yet he continually leveled even worse accusations at them than Alice Bailey did! They had departed from God's plan, they had totally lost their way, and on and on. This is superficial thinking, the accusation of anti-Semitism. It is thoroughly discredited by the fact that her writings, or those of "The Tibetan," were totally anti-Nazi during World War II. Read The Externalization of the Hierarchy. It consists largely of her wartime messages to her students. From the beginning she insisted that the war against Germany must be fought in order to root out a deep evil. She suggested that her students visualize light and harmony between the Germans and the Jews. But she did not compromise on the war and contradicted the pacifists in her group, at great length. She mentioned Gandhi directly, and disagreed with him about the war; he did not want India to get involved, while she thought that the war was a worldwide Kurukshetra parallel to the fight of Arjuna and Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. --VividHugh 07:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotes supporting AAB's anti-semitism are so far from accurate that I have to wonder if they were put there to encourage a negative view. It is entirely irresponsible to post quotes without references, without verification, that antagonize those already sensitive to the issue and deceive those who are trying to understand such important writings.

The first quote, "The Jewish race, who loved the possessions of the world more than they loved the service of Light, joined ranks with the rebels against God" is an incorrect re-structure of the following text from from Esoteric Psychology I, p. 397, which itself is a quote from an ancient teaching: "The Masters met in conclave and decided what should be the fate of those who, having reached the Gates of Light, loved the possessions of the world more than they loved the service of the light." It needs to be read in context to see who it is really about, which is not the "Jewish race".

The second quote, "... the law of racial karma is working and the Jews are paying the price, factually and symbolically, for all they have done in the past." is incorrect. It should be "Today the law is working, and the Jews are paying the price, factually and symbolically, for all they have done in the past.", Esoteric Healing, p 264.

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

The next quote is entirely incorrect and inflammatory, and should also be removed immediately: "the word 'love' for others is lacking in Judaism... The Jew has never grasped the love of God." It looks like a twisted paraphrase of the following: "In this solar system, the created world is intended to be the expression of the second aspect, of the love of God. This the Jew has never grasped, for the love expressed in the Old Testament is the separative, possessive love of Jehovah for a distinct unit within the fourth or human kingdom." Esoteric Healing, p 268.

The quote starting with "when selfishness..." is correct, but needs the reference. It is Esoteric Healing, p 267.

The last quote is p. 267 of Esoteric Healing, not p. 263. The reference link there points to something only vaguely related to the quotes, and should be removed.

I appeal to the author to fix these immediately. I will replace them myself and re-write the section if they are not fixed within a week. Rbridge 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some thoughts on Alice Bailey's anti-Judaism that I put on the discussion page yesterday. You might want to read that. I think that what I wrote indicates her anti-Jewish views pretty clearly. (Some of the quotes I used were taken from a paper intended to defend her against claims of being anti-Jewish.)

I am rather concerned about Rbridge's claims of inaccurate quoting of Bailey. I have heard that the publisher, Lucus Trust, has in recent years removed, or changed, the most offensive statements about Jews from the Bailey books. If that is correct, establishing what Alice Bailey actually wrote about the Jews could now only be established by a very time consuming process of comparing with earlier editions of her books.

I've not seen any evidence of this. I've collected all the Jewish issue quotes that sound harsh to many ears as well as her benevolent and sympathetic sounding passages about the Jews. I've have all the works in both paper and digital form and it's not hard to find things. And whole work, as originally published, is available on CDROM. The publishers, as you might imagine, would consider it sacrilege to alter what they regard as a Masters exact words.

James 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems clear that the two sides in this dispute will never agree. The books are considered by her followers to be written by Alice Bailey as dictated to her by a Master of the Ancient Wisdom, DK. Since Masters are considered to be super-human, and to have knowledge and wisdom far beyond the human; followers of the Bailey teaching regard the books as perfect, and they are disinclined to question any content of the books. That includes statements about Jews that can be proved wrong. For instance, Bailey in one of her books indicated what she considered the vengeful spirit of Judaism with the well know quote, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." What Baily did not know (proving a less than perfect source for her books) is that the rabbis always understood this to as need for restitution, and so the punishment for assault never involved any physical punishment. The punishment given by a Beit Din would always be a monetary settlement....which to me does not seem vengeful. I have tried to convince Bailey followers that most of what is said about the Jews is wrong, and given examples; but they always believed the books over factual information. They continue to believe that Jews are vengeful, that Jews have a special relationship with money (if so why am I always broke?), that the continuation of Judaism is a mistake because the Jews should have converted to Christianity, and many other mistaken ideas Alice Bailey included in her books. kwork —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Interestingly, in that regard, the books themselves contain rather constant reminders that they, as works of human hands, are quite fallible, that the teaching contained therein is subject to flaws and imperfection, and that dogmaticism is an evil to be strenuously avoided in any case. To regard the books as perfect or be disinclined to question their content is diametrically opposed to the express instructions of their author. </ot> Eaglizard 10:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New Age

Alice Bailey definitely did NOT coin the term New Age. It was in common use well before her time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekacameron (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Why aren't there any articles specifically about the Lucis Trust and affiliates? I've tried to find more verifiable information, but usually I just find conspiracy pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.231.187 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

What is it? Wjhonson 18:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lucis Trust is the organization that publishes Alice Baily's books, operates the training school she founded, The Arcane School, and maintains such Foster Bailey projects such as World Goodwill. Kwork 13:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey's anti-Judaism

Alice Bailey's original followers, particularly those who had extended personal contact with her and were trained by her, understood that what she said about Jews did make a problem; and they seldom put much emphasis on that aspect of her books. The current followers of Bailey's teaching tend to be much more rigid in their views, they insist that her, provably wrong, views about Jews should be accepted as central parts of her teaching; and these current teachers seem genuinely surprised that anyone would object to anything ever written by her. This is based on many conversations I had with Baily's students (who were my teachers), that I had from 1968 to 1976; and as compared with conversations on list serves in recent years. She seems to have been somewhat obsessed with the subject of Judaism, and there is so many comments on the Jews in her many books that they could be collected into an entire separate book, and such a book would not make pretty reading.

Alice Baily considered the Jewish people a race. As a typical example: "The outstanding evidence of the Law of Cause and Effect is the Jewish race" Esoteric Healing, p.263. But Judaism NOT a race, it is a religion and it comprises many different racial groups. A trip to Israel is all that is needed to confirm this because there one will see Jews who look Polish and Russian who come from Russia and Poland, Jews who look Italian who come from Italy, Jews who look Ethiopian who come from Ethiopia, Jews who look Moroccan who come from Morocco, Jews who look Indian who come from India, etc.

On that non-existent foundation, of what she calls the Jewish race, Alice Bailey builds an esoteric history of Jews that goes back millions of years. Much of that history, as she imagines it, goes back to a time before Jews arrived on this planet!

You have often been told how, at the close of this solar system, a certain percentage of the human family will fail to make the grade and will then be held in pralaya, or in solution, until the time for the manifestation of the next and third solar system comes around.....The same thing occurred in the system before this one, and those whom we now call the Jews......are the descendants of that earlier group that was held in pralaya between the first and second solar systems.

The Externalization of the Hierarchy, p.71.

Obviously, no human could possibly verify such statements. I have had some of Alice Bailey's current followers tell me that such statements do not have anything to do with what is now called Judaism. Perhaps, but if that is so why did she choose to call not-Jews Jews? Bailey seems to have been a very intelligent person, and I think it is safe to assume if she said "Jews" she really meant Jews.

A lot of what Alice Bailey discusses as Jews, and which her followers insist is all true, is contrary to what Jews know as their own story. Jews regard Abraham as the first Jew. Baily can discuss, if she so chooses, an imaginary history of Jews going back millions of years before Abraham; but this is a flight of imagination that distorts Judaism beyond recognition. In itself, that does not disqualify what she wrote. But a lot of those of statements of supposed Jewish history are then used to support demeaning stereotypes about Jews that are all too present in the modern world. As a result it is difficult not to see it all as Jew-hating in esoteric garb.

This brings us, first of all, to the question of Jews and money, as Baily presents this very old, and insulting cliche about the supposed Jewish special relationship with money:

It is an interesting fact that the Jews are found in every land without exception, that their influence is potent and widespread (far more so than they themselves are willing to recognize), and that they wield most potently that peculiar concretization of energy that we call money.

Externalisation of the Hierarchy, p.76 (1939)

To give an idea how horrific this stereotype was playing out at the very time Alice Bailey wrote these words, how ingrained it was (and remains) in the very worst of European hate of its Jewish minority:

Yes, my child, that's the Jew! The God of the Jews is gold. There is no crime he would not commit to get it. He has no rest till he can sit on the top of a gold-sack. He has no rest till he has become King Money. And with this money he would make us all into slaves and destroy us. With this money he seeks to dominate the whole world.>

This is from Der Giftpilz, an anti-Semitic children's book published by Julius Streicher, the publisher of Der Stürmer (1938)

There is no point in being subtle about this: Alice Bailey's equating of Jews and money, and their use of money to secretly control the world, is an integral part of both her thought, and also is integral to traditional European anti-Judaism. I think this makes clear both her anti-Jewish bias, and how her thought ties in with traditional anti-Judaism.

Another view held by Alice Baily's, and common in traditional European anti-Jewish belief is that Jews are now condemned as a group because of their refusal to convert to Christianity.

More I will not say; the symbolic nature of this basic world problem and its dynamic importance to humanity have led me thus to enlarge. The decision anent the Jews is one of hierarchical importance, owing to the karmic relation of the Christ to the Jewish race, to the fact that they repudiated Him as the Messiah and are still doing so, and of the interpretive nature of the Jewish problem as far as the whole of humanity is concerned.>

The Rays and the Initiations, p.636

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

Esoteric Healing, p267-8

Baily's language makes much use of her particular form of New Age and esoteric terminology; but, in essence, what she is saying in these quotes is that God has abandoned the Jews because of their refusal to become Christian, and they must either convert or be eliminated as a religious group, and as a people:

I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us.... .With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience.

1543 letter of Martin Luther

Still another theme of Alice Bailey, is that the Jews are separative:

The Jew, down the ages, has insisted upon being separated from all other races but he brought over from the previous system the knowledge (necessary then but obsolete now) that his race was the "chosen people." The "Wandering Jew" has wandered from System One to this where he must learn the lesson of absorption and cease his wandering. He has insisted upon racial purity, for that was his major problem in early Lemurian times when the race came into a world that had in it no human beings, for it was before the coming of the Lords of Flame; this insistence has been carried down the ages and has governed the rules of marriage...>

Externalisation of the Hierarchy, p77

The mistake in this is that, in their years of exile, the Christian communities in which Jews lived, forced Jews to live separate. It was called ghettos. Any attempts at teaching the Jewish philosophy and religion to the Christians around them would have resulted in rioting against them or banishment. As for the accusation that Jews wanted to maintain racial purity: there is no Jewish race, and the Jews never taught racial purity. When the forced separation ended, Jews quickly integrated into the surrounding communities.

I could go on a lot further to make my point, and will if the discussion requires it. It is possible that Alice Bailey, and her present followers, mean no harm. But the words carry the potential for harm. Perhaps they just fail to understand how painful such statements are to Jews, and how much damage has been caused to Jews. If that is so, or not, the books factually wrong time and again in the statements made about Jews, and they present falsehoods about Jews as truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Kwork 11:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(Fine but you must source the criticism section. It is unsourced and thus unacceptable. Do not restore unsopurced amterial without sourcing it, there is no excuse for putting unsourced material into a biography, ie source it or leave it be. The areticle made serious and probably untrue allegations against her and this will not stand unless properly sourced, SqueakBox 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

I have no intention of putting this into the article at this time, in this form. This is the discussion page, and I am trying to discuss some things about Alice Bailey that I consider important to understand. The sources for the above information are private conversations with Roberto Assagioli MD (one of Bailey's closest co-workers, who I studied with for over five years), Frank Hilton (a student of AAB, and later director of the School for Esoteric Studies), and Lee Wells (who was my mentor at the SES until his death. You seem to be assuming that I am an enemy of the Alice Bailey teaching. Not so. I do deeply regret that in recent years the current leaders of this spiritual movement have become so rigid in their views that any expression of doubts, much less exceptions, is not possible. I know this is so because I have lived it. That is not documentation, but I have no intention of ever putting the above section in the article. Nevertheless, for discussion and understanding of the subject, it is important.)

You havent referenced yourself and this wholoe section is likely to be removed if you dont do so pronto. Original research is unacceptable in this encyclopedia, SqueakBox 15:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(:There are reference sources for every Alice Bailey quote, and they are correct. Anyhow, this is the discussion page, and I have no intention of adding any this to the article; although something on the subject is needed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Most likely an entirely new, and separate, article on New Age and Esoteric Antisemitism might be the best solution. But there is no doubt that Alice Bailey would be a major topic in such an article. Not that I think she was actually more antisemitic than many other New Age leaders, such as Rudolf Steiner; she just wrote more about the Jews, while others understood that it is not necessary to write everything you think, nor to publish everything you write. kwork) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.149.110.109 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Without sources this is so much original research by you. Please desist. Yopu must add reliabnle sources whereas what you are doing is drawing your own conclusions based on what she wrote and this is not acceptable in this encyclopedia. Go and publish your original research in a blog or something but dont do it here. What we would need is some established reliable 3rd party source that claims she is anti-semitic, you doing so is unacceptable, SqueakBox 15:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source." Thus its your responsibility to provide the sources and my right to remove your unsourced material at any time, SqueakBox 15:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(::Well, give me the challenge you want to make, and we will see if I can answer you. So far you have said nothing beyond that you don't like what I say. That's a challenge? Also, I have some doubts about your statements of the Criticism section, that you say are not from Bailey. I will do some of my own checking on that when I get a chance. In any case, that Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources quote you give refers to articles, and NOT to the talk page. Your distorting of that quote does not seem truthful. NB: There are items on this talk page that say nothing more than that the writer feels insulted over Alice Bailey getting accused of antisemitism. Where is the documentation and factual support in that? Its just emotion. But certainly you have said nothing about removing that, or about removing anything that defends Bailey against charges of antisemitism, no matter how absent of content. kwork) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 16:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the argument is over the article page, we are not talking about the talk page where, of course, none of your comments have been reverted. In order to add material to the article that material must be properly sourced, ie not just your idea. Failure to source any added material means the material may be deleted. If you can find a reputable author who accuses Bailey of anti-semitism we can add that material and if you are unable to provide such a source said material will be deleted. So your challenge is to find some reputable sources for any criticism section. I hope this is clear, SqueakBox 18:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(:: But I have not added any material to the article page. I only returned material that you removed; but that was not written by me. In any case, I have noticed that in the article itself, the "Nature of Works" section has no sourcing, and I will remove it if that is not corrected. kwork) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.55.219 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Its fine to remove any unsourced material. And whether you actually added it yourself or merely reverted to it makes no difference, unsourced material should be removed. I dont remove any unsourced material from wikipedia, just that which I believe is inaccurate and the criticisms was somebody's original research, IMO; sorry if I implied it was your original research, SqueakBox 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If I remove ALL the unsourced material there will be nothing left. Even the biographical section gives no sources. Nothing. I suppose it draws on, her unfinished autobiography, or maybe it was just a summery of a summery taken off the Web. Since I plan on returning the Criticisms section, with different quotes and sources, the criticism will be the only thing in the whole article. As for your threat to remove anything of mine that does not come from a published source, you have no right to do that. You may have a right to insert a dispute neutrality into the article, and request extra supporting material, but not more than that. You certainly do not have a right to remove everything you think original. kwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We cant have just a criticism section as that would be against our POV policy. if you want to rewrite the article only using sourced material make sure it is not a POV job, see WP:NPOV, SqueakBox 15:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 15:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said it would not be fair to include a criticism with so little article remaining, and that little no good. On the other hand, I have ended all my connections with the AAB teaching and its followers years ago. I certainly am not going to write the Alice Bailey article if her followers are too incompetent, or to lazy, to do the work for themselves. Kwork 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

a question

Block quote

I have been officially on Hitler's "blacklist" because of my defence of the Jews whilst lecturing up and down western Europe. In spite, however, of knowing full well the wonderful qualities of the Jew, his contribution to western culture and learning and his wonderful assets and gifts along the line of the creative arts I still fail to see any immediate solution of their crucial and appalling problem.”

Since this quote is included in the article about Alice Bailey, I would like to know if her claim to have been placed "offically on Hitler's blacklist" can be documented. I have read the Unfinished Autobiography several times and there is no documentation of this there.

kwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this edit war

Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Misplaced Pages's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Please try to come up with a wording that the other party might consider acceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Edit war. Lumos3 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me this has been no edit war but the removing of unsourced critical material which, as it is unsourced, policy empowers me to delete at any time. To characterise it as edit warring is plain wrong and to claim that my actions reflect badly on me or the project ios to misunderstand how important it is to source material in biographies. You might help instead of criticising a nec essary work from the sidelines which is decidedly unhelpful, SqueakBox 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if it were possible to return all the deleted material, and give people who might be interested time to correct any problems in the article; that would be the more attractive solution. That is the solution I would rather see. kwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 17:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Our policies prohibit the inclusion of unsourced material so that isnt a possibility. If you can source the material I would be happy to see it included. I have read that Bailey was an alleged anti-semite (not that I believe it) but I cant remeber in which book as it was years ago and I dont own any books right now, but it should be possible to source with a little hard work, SqueakBox 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I could probably put something on about her anti-Jewish views today. It is written, and it is short; although I still do need time to figure out using the editing commands for links, etc. But it would be unfair of me to put on a criticism of Alice Bailey while everything else has been removed. I do not understand your the rush to remove material. Even if the light turns green, I still wait before moving forward if safety, or decency, require it. Kwork 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use <ref></ref> in order to place refs putting the refences between the opening and closing bracketed ref commands (if you mess up I will fix it). The rush to remove material is to ensdure that derogatory or defamatory material is not included in wikipedia and is how this encyclopedia works, SqueakBox 17:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no need for the rush. What you removed may have had some minor mistakes in the quotes but it was not derogatory because none of it distorted Alice Bailey's views. To verify that, read through the quotes (with my comments) that are above on this page under the heading of Anti-Judaism. Those are accurate quotes with accurate sourcing. I would like to know: do your beliefs require the elimination another's religion? That is what Alice Bailey was saying. She believed whatever pain it took to force the Jews to abandon their religion was justified for world unity, although there still would be no unity if the Jews are gone. That view of Alice Bailey's is not spirituality, because it is is vicious. Kwork 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just build it up from its one liner slowly, slowly, referencing everything, and we could end up with a good article (which IMO Bailey deserves), SqueakBox 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you really think Alice Bailey deserves a good article, why don't you write it yourself? As this discussion has continued, it has become increasingly clear that you are not the disinterested party you have presented yourself to be; but that you are, in fact, an Alice Bailey partisan. There is nothing wrong with that in itself. But your removal of the Criticisms section of the article is unjustified. True it had some flaws, but it was essentially correct, and it was the ONLY section of the whole Alice Bailey article that had sourcing. Everything else had none at all. Will you agree to replacing that Criticisms section? Kwork 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I ma happy to see the inclusiion of any sourced criticism. While I like some of what is in the Bailey books I am certainly not a fan let alone a follower. I have worked a lot at wikipedia and I am particularly concerned that we get our bios right. There is a Scandinavian women who wrote a cogent criticism but I can t remember her name (she also had a son who died during rebirthing and without sources I am reluctant to add anything, SqueakBox 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The single sentence you added under Criticism is, as far as I am concerned, a good solution, and all that is needed. It registers the fact that there is a controversy over racism and antisemitism, without there being any need to argue endlessly over those accusations. Thanks for your patience. Kwork 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has suffered

I agree with Lumos3; please stop this edit war. The article itself has been the only actual victim, and it is now merely a shadow of it's former self. In my personal opinion, both kwork and SqueakBox should simply stop working on this article. If you are unwilling to do that, as I assume you both will be, at the very least please re-examine your motivates. Are you sure that the article itself, and the encyclopedic experience of anyone who comes looking for it, are your top priorities? As opposed to, for instance, ensuring that your own personal views of Mrs. Bailey's work are promulgated? Remember, Misplaced Pages, like all spiritual organizations, works on the principle of consensus, not argument. If you cannot reach consensus, you would better serve the group by not editing. (Hiding behind the removal of "un-sourced" material here is disingenous, and I believe you both know it.) Eaglizard 10:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously, I would be happy to return the entire article to its previous state, and then do some work to improve it. I really do not understand why SqueakBox wanted to remove the Criticism section because it was the only part of the entire article that had actually any sourcing, and it was it was rather mild too. As for my withdrawing from editing of this article, I do not see why I should. Alice Bailey is a very controversial figure, and those who know much about her are never neutral. I know that there are many of her followers who are very devoted to her teaching; but I would like there to be some consideration of the problematic aspects of the teaching, but without being rough or mean. What puzzles me is that there has been no further reaction till this protest from you. Kwork 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither of us have edited it for ages. I wanted unsourced criticism removed, I didnt and dont wish to see criticism removed, and I am absolutely keeping our readers in mind in my edit pattern here. See WP:Verifiability, SqueakBox 21:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 21:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems is that those who could write a good article about Alice Bailey have not come forward. I do not understand why. I could do the work of writing the article; but, I have broken away from the AAB teaching (which I now suspect is a hoax). It seems to me that someone who is still positively engaged with the teaching should write the article. Kwork 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I could help turn it into a good article, and made a start the last two days. I'm hesitant about the Wiki process though as it seems rather like writing in beach sand where the next wave will erase your labors. I've studied the Bailey work for 42 years or so, yet maintain some objectivity and critical distance from it (and form any writing for that matter). I've had opportunity to give considerable attention to the Jewish issue, and have all the essential quotes on it at hand including the many passages, ignored by critics, that show Alice Bailey's vision of the Jews as an integral part of one humanity. But really, this should not be blown up as so big as people do. The lady transcribed a collection the size of an encyclopedia and probably 1/10 of one percent of her writings relates to the Jews. James 01:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey wrote enough on the Jews to comprise a whole separate book. The subject seems to have obsessed her. I do not know of any other respected esoteric writer who has shared that obsession. But the problem is that the statements about Jews are incorrect; such as discussions of the Jewish religion as though it was a race, or her fictional history of Jews that goes back hundreds of millions of years even though the first Jew as Abraham (less than five thousand years). And many of her statements about Jews are little more than old European stereotypes dressed in theosophical terminology. Kwork 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised though I agree expertise would be welcome. I havent touched AAB myself in the best part of 15 years, I dont think it is a hoax but it is somewwhat dated and her followers arent, IMO, the most inspiring folk, SqueakBox 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of it is dated as the world moves very fast. Yet a lot of it is amazingly relevant to our times and the ongoing problems of humanity. I've met a few inspiring ones.  :-} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey claims that the books were dictated to her telepathically by the Tibetan Master DK. Further she claims that DK is/was closely associated with a lamastery near the border of India. That would mean he was educated in Buddhist exoteric and esoteric practice. But there is virtually nothing Buddhist in the whole long series of books. How can that be explained other than that the books were actually written by Alice Bailey, but using the name of DK for its prestige? And how to explain the endless criticism of Jews which builds on traditional European stereotypes (wrapped in theosophical terminology)? How would a Tibetan come by those European origin stereotypes, or even have much interest in the subject? To me the logical conclusion is that the books are a hoax. Kwork 14:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually she stated all but four were dictated. Four of them, or 3.5 she wrote herself. There are noticeable differences between her own work and those she attributed to her teacher. James 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the books should be judged ont heir content rather than on the type of practical issues you bring up. Yes I am sure AAB was the author (though she may not have believed that herself) but there is a certain value to some of the material and while I havent touched it in years I am much more sympathetic to certain ideas of her's than before such as the importance of groups over individuals, SqueakBox 22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"a certain value" is perhaps an understatement. I'm inclined to think people don't realize the major influence her work, and that of H. P. Blavatsky, had in the metaphysical world. James 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many who agree about the importance of AAB's influence, but all of them are her followers. Roberto Assagioli (who was a follower) understood how controversial a figure she was, and he went to considerable effort to hide his connection with her out of concern that a known connection would discredit his work in Psychosynthesis. He call that separation maintaining a "wall of silence". In fact, I know many cases of people, interested in Psychosynthesis, who dropped the subject as soon as they discovered the connection between him and AAB. User:Kwork 16:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know about Assagioli's preference for veiling his sources. But I dont' think we should, at this date, omit the connection in an article about AAB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mankoff went against Assagioli's firm and clearly stated wishes that a wall of silence remain between his work in Psychosynthesis and the esoteric work. I might as well add here that, because Judaism is a religion (not a race), it is not accurate to call Assagioli a Jew. After he had completely rejected Judaism (and I know that he had) and embraced the practices of Alice Bailey, he was not then a Jew. The fact that Alice Bailey considered him a Jew would not matter to any person who is Jewish. It is a question of who gets to decide who is a Jew. Is it Alice Bailey who decides, or the Jews who decide? Kwork 14:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh indeed. Not just the metaphysical world either. My family looked on me with bemusement when in '87 I said "the planet is living" based on AAB but that idea has really become so much more mainstream in these last 2 decades. Yet there is an old fashionedness to her atyle which, as someone born more than a decade after she died, and reading her works as a young man, always seemed anachronistic to me, SqueakBox 01:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see some work has been done on the article, which is good. However the information added about Roberto Assagioli is, to the best of my knowledge, incorrect; and it may not belong in this article in any case. It is my understanding (from conversations with him) that Assagioli studied only in Italy (at University of Florence), and he only met Carl Jung a few times. (He did write a monograph comparing his Psychosynthesis with Jung's thinking.) Please remove that information. Kwork 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What a strange thing to say that Assagioli studied "only in Italy" He studied lots of places and with lots of people (don't we all) as indicated in his book Psychosynthesis (see the Google version) if you don't have it handy. But the issue was not about these details. The link/reference you erased addressed the relationship between Alice Bailey and Assagioli, which given that Assagioli was Jew, and given the space allowed to that issue here and in your minds, it is a most relevant link.

"I have no anti-Jewish feeling; some of my most beloved friends such as Dr. Assagioli, Regina Keller and Victor Fox I love devotedly, and they know it. There are few people in the world as close to me as they are, and I depend upon them for counsel and understanding and they do not fail me." Alice Bailey, Unfinished Autiobiography, page 119

Apparently, you are going on your personal impressions of Assagioli rather than researching it; which as I understand, is not the the recommend Misplaced Pages way to approach such decisions. But if you like dialog about impressions, I can put you in touch with a Jew who was an intimate friend of the last living disciple of Bailey. James 02:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The source for the information about Assagioli is from a website that has no reliability. I removed the section of the article about Roberto Assagioli, inserted by Jamesd1, because it contains incorrect information, and in any case does not belong in the Alice Bailey article. For your information, I studied with Assagioli for over five years while living in Florence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He also wrote, as you may know, a book on the seven rays without calling them "rays." Psychosynthesis is rooted in AAB's work, hence the importance of highlighting the relationship in an article on AABs life. On what do you base your conclusion that the Assagioli information on Mankoff site is has no reliability? Mankoff is certainly more of a known source than many other links allowed the the article, and it would seem he was in as position to know:

"After retiring from state service, Al and his wife, Audrey, moved to Ojai, California, where Al served as a vice-president and board member of Meditation Mount, the mountaintop headquarters of Meditation Groups, Inc. At that time he also served as a vice-president and board member of Psychosynthesis International. In 1987, Al founded the Institute of American Historical Technology and is president of that organization. He is listed in "Who's Who In America", "Who's Who in the West", and "Who's Who In the South". He lives in High Point, North Carolina, with his wife, Audrey."

It seems quite bizarre to me that folks here would consider the Mankoff reference as a bad source (apparently without checking?) yet are happy to allow the disordered collection of personal opinions to be found at the "Alice Bailey: a balanced look" site. This is the site that offers us "Alice Bailey has to be the most hateful and stupid." A balanced look? Are you guys and ladies (?) serious?

But if you're intent on erasing Mankoff then you best hurry over to the "Alice Bailey" article which also referenced him as a disciple of Alice Bailey.

If you folks want to write a debunking article on Alice Bailey, then why don't you do that under a separate and carefully documented heading. Seems to me the personal biography of any soul should be done primarily by persons with more sympathy and less skeptical dismissal than I'm seeing in this discussion. But if the consensus here is a link that says "Alice Bailey has to be the most hateful and stupid" is a better link than a link to Mankoff, a noted person, with official ties and history to both Alice Bailey and Pyschosynthesis, then this is all a waist of time and misdirection of energy. James 02:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In my view, your time will be better spent on saying something about Alice Bailey's teaching. Kwork 12:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Be happy to do that if we can reach a reasonable consensus on quality of links. James 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

...(meditation as service to humanity, the meditation cycles of the day, month and year, the teaching of the seven rays, etc, etc), and about her accomplishments teaching students world wide through the Arcane School. If you want to talk about Assagioli (and there is no human I hold in higher regard) there is a separate article for him that also needs work. You best approach to my criticism of AAB will be to apply the Arabic saying, "dogs bark, but the caravan travels on." Since I have no plan to expand the criticism section of the article beyond what it is now, why should you worry? All my criticism of AAB has been kept to the discussion section, and that because I think it important to understand that there is reasoned thought to justify the criticism. But I have not put any of that into the article. Try not to act like a fanatic. Kwork 12:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to get to know me a little better before suggesting my comments are fanatical. Fanatical is often in the eye of the beholder and at the moment I'm making an effort to blind my own eyes to the judgment that you might be a fanatic for your opinions about what is and is not an appropriate as reference/links in the AAB article. Give a little here, and lets try to work together. James 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

When I removed the removed the "Alice Bailey has to be the most hateful and stupid" link that you restored--the one full of unsubstantiated personal opinions--I added another critical link that was better. I have no problem with including some criticism of AAB but it should not be of the type given on the "Alice Bailey has to be the most hateful and stupid" link. Seems to me this link is a prime example of the type of thing that is very anti-Misplaced Pages in spirit and form. Let's remove it.

You are exaggerating, are you not? I did not "talk about Assagioli" but inserted one line about his relationship to her, complete with a substantiating link--a link you dismissed as a bad one whereas I showed by research it was a good one. Let's put the line back, OK? James 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I should add that the problematic link was the one to the Manchester Reform Synagogue. The rabbi, although well meaning, clearly has no knowledge of either Roberto Assagioli, or of Psychosynthesis. Moreover, it appears to me that with so little information about Alice Bailey in the article about her, the only reason you inserted the information about Assagioli was to act as a buffer against criticism that she was anti-semitic. Instead of that, how about some substantial information about the women herself? Kwork 14:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a "buffer" but one significant bit of evidence contrary to the anti-semitic assessment. And this was part of the reason, and a perfectly valid one. However, the more fundamental reason is to begin to show in what ways Alice Bailey's work was influential in the world--that's the main point and a theme highly relevant to any biography. It seems to me that you are trying to over-supervise things. Where is the logic of your decision, and where the vote and censuses of opinion on this? Why did you not ask me and others for views before erasing my work? Seems that you like Assagioli far more than Bailey, and for personal reasons, do not which to see them associated. No?

At least the other link I left in was from a Rabbi who, by virtue of that fact, may be presumed to have some training in his area. And he is a know entity and we know "where he's comming from." The same can not be said of the anonymous collection of disorganized opinions in the incorrectly titled "Alice Bailey: a balanced look." James 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you will need to help me here. It seems that Jamesd1 removed a link that should be returned: Alice Bailey: a balanced look. I don't understand how to add a link to a site. It is on this site that the claim is made that many anti-semitic statements have been removed form the AAB books. Kwork 16:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you okay now? Experiment and use the review button but if you are really stuck let me know, giving specifics like urls etc, SqueakBox 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But only because I was able to copy the link from the "history" section, not because I understand the process. Thanks. Kwork 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It took me a long time to understand wikiepdia and I am still not technically an expert. Getting a fix sounds good! SqueakBox 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

LUCUS TRUST? Jamesd1, It is spelled Lucis (not Lucus) Trust. I will probably correct that myself. The Trust was the work of Foster Bailey (who was lawyer) and not Alice Bailey. It acted as an umbrella foundation for Alice Bailey's teaching through the Arcane School (2nd ray), and Foster Bailey's (1st ray) projects, such as World Goodwill, and Triangles, and publication of the books. You can incorporate this information in the article if you want (this is as Assagioli explained it to me in private conversation many years ago). If you are going to say something in the article, please try to have your facts correct. Kwork 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make any statement in the article about who founded Lucis Trust or anything about the structure of this organization. So what facts are you speaking of?

You did not address by basic question of why you think the article with "Alice Bailey: a balanced look" containing things like "Alice Bailey has to be the most hateful and stupid" is in line with the letter and spirit of Misplaced Pages. This link seems be nothing more than a unorganized collection of unsourced and unsubstantiated opinions about Bailey. So on what basis should this link be included?

I gave you my reasons why the Mankoff link should be restored. I suggest we restore it. What do you think? James 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you DID have Lucis spelled correctly. Kwork 13:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A Fresh Start

I already explained that the problem was not the Mankoff link but rather the link to the article from the Manchester Reform Synagogue. (You also had a link to a Masonic site that did not even mention Alice Bailey. What was the point of that?) But the REAL problem is that you want to start discussing Assagioli at a point when there is virtually nothing in the article about Alice Bailey herself, and what she taught. Why don't you try writing something that would explain to readers what her teaching was all about, and then see if I don't keep my hands off. Despite what you think, I would be happy to see a good article about Alice Bailey. At this point there is just one sentence of criticism of AAB. My understanding is that Misplaced Pages expects different viewpoints to achieve balance, and I do not think that one sentence of criticism and a few links will outweigh a good article. Kwork 20:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think the Manchester Reform Synagogue is not a very good link, I've not attachment to it; I was just trying for balance (not the Fox News kind). The Masonic site did not mention Bailey in the same way that Assagioli did not, but if you ask the owner, my friend Keith Baiely you will find that he inherited personal papers of Alice Baily which are the basis of his Masonic Movement.

My edits so far were just a few touches here and there, but if your open to the Assagioli link in the context of more complete biography, I'll consider that. I might get past the feeling that it's all writing in sand by mirroring my work in a more stable location.

I think the one sentence of criticism is entirely appropriate. But if you want links to the perceived anti-semitism then I think we could find a much better link than the "Alice Bailey: a balanced look." We need something with references that at least make some attempt at scholarship--not just a talk site with a chaos of opinions pro and con with the con given top billing. James 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I read a book years ago by a Scandinavian feminist who was heavily critical of AAB re these issues but cant for the life of me remember her name, SqueakBox 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just took another look at "Alice Bailey: a balanced look", and I think it serves the purpose of making an important point, that point being that a lot of people find AAB's statements about the Jews very problematic. If you would rather, I will agree to remove that link, and instead I will insert into the article what I wrote called "Alice Bailey's anti-Judaism" (which you can read, above). It will need some cleaning up for the article, but it says what I think is necessary, and it has accurate sources. But you will note that statement of mine is longer than the entire article that now exists. My own preference would be that you stop the bargaining, leave the criticism as it now is, and start to work writing a good article about Alice Bailey. Kwork 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously if you're motived toward an article on "Alice Bailey's anti-Judaism" it should be a separate article and not laid over the existing minor, or even somewhat expanded and improved, biography of the lady. If you want to create a separate heading for that in Misplaced Pages then a link to that article would be all that's needed for criticism in the Bailey biography (assuming the article was done according to Wiki. standards). Given the trend of the conversation here, perhaps you and like minded folks need that outlet and should seriously consider it.

Anyone can find, with a Google search, lots anti-Bailey talk sites as related to the Jews. I think the point is to bring together for Misplaced Pages the best of what is available in links, and those that are more reliable. That lots of people feel a certain thing is not good evidence of its validity. Seems to me that "Alice Bailey: a balanced look" is the opposite in spirit and from from a Misplaced Pages article as it is disordered and without reliable sources or authority. We can't build a Misplaced Pages style article with this type of building block.

"Stop the barganing? You mean terminate a two day old attempt to reach consensus? Well, perhaps I should, and find more kindred spirits; even though the "bargaining" you mention may be the recommenced consensus building that is the Misplaced Pages standard? But never mind, I feel that the spirit of criticism and debunking toward Bailey that's expressed here regarding the Jews, looms so large that it monopolizes the conversation and takes all the joy out of what should be a labor of love in writing a good bio. James 00:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I really do not understand your complaint that, "I feel that the spirit of criticism and debunking toward Bailey that's expressed here regarding the Jews, looms so large..." The criticism of Alice Bailey's views on the Jews has been reduced to ONE sentence in the article and two links (which few people read). If you expanded the article to several times its current size, that criticism will still be one sentence and two links. Why is that too much for you to deal with? As for your problem finding "joy" in the writing process, all that you have written so far is three sentences, and that not about Alice Bailey. If, after an article is actually written, you want to add a list of people influenced by Alice Bailey (Roberto Assagioli, Vera Adler, Robert Muller, etc.) that is fine with me. But the should come later. Kwork 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant that it looms large here in the talk section, not in the article.

On the "Alice Bailey: a balanced look" which I've criticized as an inappropriate link for a Misplaced Pages biography, perhaps you could clarify your understanding of the Misplaced Pages standards for links. My understanding, and I may be wrong about this, is that links should be to relatively reliable sources that may be presumed to have some knowledge, expertise relative to the subject. While links need not measure up to Misplaced Pages standards, they should not be its exact opposite in spirit and form. Links should have at least a semblance of scholarship about them and, if the writer or writers are not authorities in their own right, should ideally cite some sources and not be a collection of anonymous personal opinions--especially when these personal opinions relate to such hot topic as antisemitism. I believe--correct me if I'm wrong--that this type of link does not measure up to Misplaced Pages standards. So why don't we find a replacement link that will communicate your message that "a lot of people find AAB's statements about the Jews very problematic" (The link in question does not speak in the reasonable way you've expressed it here, but instead engages in name calling and contains much many reasonable persons, and especially those knowledgeable about Bailey, would regard as slander.) I've not written much yet (and you erased half of it) so I want to try for consensus with you before working on it. James 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That link records an exchange of views on the subject of Alice Bailey, some of which supported her and others opposed her. It is far from being one sided. The people involved in the discussion had read her books, and knew her teaching. I see nothing wrong with that link and want it to stay. So, at this point, what has been achieved? The length of the discussion section for this article has about doubled in the few days you have been involved, but nothing interesting has happened to improve the article. As the natives of North America used to describe this sort of situation, "Much thunder, little rain".Kwork 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You've apparently hung around this article and associated discussions for a while. Given the Jewish issue about which you have strong feelings and yet your enthusiasm for prompting me to expand the bio, I was moved to look back at all you've written here in hope of understanding you better. At one point you wrote in a way that suggested that what you wanted to see is a substantial biography that would bear the weight of more critical text from you? But then you expressed the contrary to me in saying "Why don't you try writing something that would explain to readers what her teaching was all about, and then see if I don't keep my hands off." Are you evolving views or conflicted or am I misreading you? Since the world belongs to those who show up, and for the moment, it seems to be just you and I, I'd like to know a little more about where you're coming from on all this. Apparently you were a student of AAB's works and became disillusioned with them because of her stance on the Jews? Do you, my partner here, actually care or wish to see a good expanded bio? I'm a little puzzled as to the nature of your interest in Bailey article. Is it that you simply wish to stand guard over the text to make sure no one erases the critical parts. Or is it that you admire certain parts of the Bailey works such that you'd like to see the bio in spite of her statements on the Jews which you found offensive? By the way, my name really is James. How should I address you? I hesitate to call you "Kwork" as it sound a little too much like some entity from StarWars. James 21:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an Alice Baily discussion forum. The purpose here is to write an article for Misplaced Pages. Is that so hard to understand? I have no intention of explaining to you why I do what I do; and I do not care what, if anything, you call me. Please, either write something for the Alice Bailey article, or go away. Kwork 22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have gotten tired of waiting for you, and added two links. I may start to add some material to the main body of the article too if there are no Alice Bailey enthusiasts around who can manage to get their ass in gear and do something. I find this situation incredible. If you look at some of the AAB sites (Esoteric Astrologer, Seven Rays Institute, etc.), there are articles that go on for page after page. So why can you guys not manage to write a few paragraphs for Misplaced Pages? Kwork 22:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The statment "All of Alice Bailey's books are available online in their entirety" may no longer be true as the site that use to have them no longer does. We should change this for the time being unless you know where they can now be found. They are, I believe, still available on CD.

Make any changes and/or additions that seem necessary or helpful. If there are any differences over the changes, we will try to come to an agreement. Kwork 23:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Arcane School" is coded so to go to a Wiki article but does not do so since there isn't one.

Please be patient with me; I'll contribute to the article which, oddly, you seem to identify with even more than I.

I added one more link. Kwork 11:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed again the standards for Misplaced Pages articles and the links that support them. My conclusion, which I expressed to you before, is that the collection of links you've appended to the article regarding Bailey's supposed antisemitism are largely collections of personal and highly controversial opinions that are without scholarly authority. Such material is the opposite of the stated Misplaced Pages standards. No scholar would write a good article and then append that type of material to it as it would undermine his credibility as a writer and researcher. I'm not averse to including critical material about Bailey, including the issue of what some see as antisemitism, but what you give in the links does not do the job. You might be able to present a more reliable set of critical links but the existing ones do not measure up. So, I again strongly suggest that you remove these links or provide a justification for them that is in based on Misplaced Pages standards. James 23:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a critical link which has more of a scholarly approach which I titled "A criticism of Bailey from a orthodox Christian Standpoint" A valid critical link with respect to the supposed antisemitism should closer to this type.James 00:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the dozens of date references which are to the almanac of dates in Wiki. None appear directly relevant to her biography and they just serve to give the appearance of sources and in fact they are not and of no direct significance.James 00:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the link you just added to the Al Mankoff article, you should read the article on "Esoteric Reticence", in a link I added earlier to the Arcana Workshops. Minkoff knows that information was not to be made public, but the man is a blabbermouth. If you want that link in the article, despite knowing that it contains information not intended for the public, its okay with me. Kwork 11:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Really? Who told you there is no longer any need? To me it is just blabbermouths who want to show off that they know something esoteric. But, as I said, I will leave that choice, and the karma, to you. Kwork 15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the link you object to, I consider it a good link because it gives a balanced view (pro and con) of Alice Bailey's writing on the Jews from people who are all part of the New Age community and who had read her books. I am sorry if you (and Phillip) don't like it. Kwork 11:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the link you added to "critical links" up to "positive links", because that is where it seems to belong. By the way, if you object to any of the links I have added to "positive links", I will not object to your removing any, or all, of them. Kwork 13:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to the article. If there are objections, I am sure I will hear. Kwork 15:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link you wanted removed: Alice Bailey: A Balanced Look. With that gone, I added a section under "Criticism", in which ALL the quotes are accurately sourced. Kwork 18:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

To whoever posted the plea on Misplaced Pages:Third opinion: The third opinion dispute resolution mechanism is intended to provide a tiebreaking opinion between two editors. More than two editors see to be involved here, so a third opinion may not be the best way to bring in more comments. You might try RFC or mediation.

If this disagreement primarily exists between Kwork and James, I'm having difficulty finding an unresolvable conflict here. The disagreement seems to be about the validity of sources, no? The quantity of sources isn't important, if you can find a small selection that seems to represent the viewpoints of the sources out there. I'm not sure what else to say. Please clarify if you need me to form a more solid opinion coming down on one side or the other. -Amatulic 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Upgrading the Criticism Section

Kwork, the first two links you had in the first paragraph were not specific to the point you were making but were a blanket blast, a critical attack on all manner of things. Linking there as if to tie all this to Bailey is not valid. Besides that, you don't need the first two links, as the third link was fine and did the job well enough.

"stereotypes that she has dressed in the garb of esoteric terminology" was not a neutral statement but a personal assessment appropriate to an essay but not a Wiki bio.James 21:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

NB: I am, of course, willing to accept editing....but I would rather discuss the issues first. In the circumstances that are as hostile as this, it is inappropriate for you to make changes without any discussion. Please discuss your objections BEFORE making changes. Kwork 21:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that the editing is continuing without any discussion. When you finish, I will consider returning the entire addition to its original state. Kwork 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've received many edits and deletes from you already without discussion so followed in your foot steps. Earlier you expressed reluctance to continue discussion with me here. But fine, lets' talk. Let the rule be no major edits to each others work without discussion; works for me.

Happy to discuss them with you. Wiki. is one long mutual editing process. All that I did on your latest was be more objective, more specific, keeping only the links that directly related to what you said. I did delete entirely one line that was a personal conclusion where you went overboard so to speak. Let's work together, try to understand each other. If you add critical links, please try to target them specifically to your statements and not point to a whole world of anti-semitic things where there might or might not be a source for your specific statement. I don't have any problem with the basic core of your critique.James 22:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say I was unwilling to discuss the article? What I am unwilling to discuss is personal issues. In any case, I returned the article to its previous state. If you want to discuss what you want changed, say what you have in mind and we will try to iron things out. Kwork 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"I returned the article to its previous state" and in the process erased all my work. You make rules ask me to follow them but follow when it suits you?

"Much that Alice Bailey said about the Jews is found in traditional European antisemitic stereotypes 4, stereotypes that she has dressed in the garb of esoteric terminology 5. For instance, There is this stereotype of Jews and money 6, as Bailey presents it:"

Already explained the problem with first two links; they don't relate specifically to your statement but serve to associate Bailey in a wholesale broad-brush fashion, without justification, to a whole world of anti-semitic things. Be good.

"To give an idea how this stereotype of a Jewish special relationship with money was playing out at the very time Alice Bailey wrote her words, and how ingrained it was (and remains) in the very worst manifestations of European hate of its Jewish minority, compare with this:

"Yes, my child, that's the Jew! The God of the Jews is gold. There is no crime he would not commit to get it. He has no rest till he can sit on the top of a gold-sack. He has no rest till he has become King Money. And with this money he would make us all into slaves and destroy us. With this money he seeks to dominate the whole world."

The above associates Bailey with hate; my restatement did not. You're attributing motives. To think of someone or group as materialistic does not mean you hate them. Remember also, that in Bailey's understanding, the Jews are just humanity magnified. All humanity is materialistic and all humanity suffers.

"This alone makes clear how her anti-Jewish bias is based on traditional European antisemitism, and that they are not esoteric truths conveyed to her telepathically by a Tibetan Master"

Not objectively stated but you express your own bias here. See my version you deleted and compare. Be balanced; be fair; be even-handed.

"Another view held by Alice Bailey, and common in traditional European antisemitism, is the belief that Jews are now condemned as a group because of their refusal to convert to Christianity 78::"

This is misleading because most will assume orthodox church-type Christianity is meant. Bailey's esoteric Christianity is Love and spirit of unity.

"What this seems to say is that the murder of six million Jews (one million of them children or babies) was to help them overcome their isolation, and to help them express inclusive love."

What this seems to say is in the eye of the beholder. Find for us then, a benign eye. Here is what the passage says to me:

The ground shakes and a thousand deaths mark the violence. It has been so since the beginning. Now, we take each tremor as the first, not marking the long history of Earth, or the longer history of exploding stars. Floods, bombs, plagues, wars, cycle in history. And finally the burning questions, and wonder at the vast solemn array of nature's austere visitations. I think in this the crucible of pain and time is laid mysterious compassionate lessons of life and death.

We have always been free to die and free to live, and die we have down the ages by the thousands and millions--but not alone, rather in waves of life and death. We die at home and in far places, in good company and bad; we have died well and poorly. Our deaths and life are personal and cosmic; it is our way.

We live beneath a canopy of life and death. Our sky is adorned with ancient records; luminous ghosts that ceased shining long before humans peopled Earth. We may wonder what civilizations rose and fell around those lost points of light. Yet, life being one, it is our sky, our record, and our life. And I see that no point is lost, for every point of seeming loss is ours, is beginning also, and every bloom of new life is ours.

Life, near and far touches us, rouses to action, and death rouses to action. The old dark holds of tears and death have been ours, and will be ours yet with more open eyes. Tomorrow's life and light are also ours, and close upon us today. Looking up, all the lost points are gathered in wondrous constellations; future patterns warm with promise, laid out beyond the beauty of today's best dreams. Are we then from the night only, from the dark womb of time, of tears and pain? I say we are as well from bright beginnings and unspeakable joy. History shows and will show dark, yet further back still, back through creation to the first bright blooms of universes, we were infinite then as now.James 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

All you have said is what you don't like about my addition to the article. What I would rather hear are the changes you want made, one of them at a time. My sense is that many of the things that you want to say about Alice Bailey should be said in the part of the article that presents her and her teaching. I never said there was nothing good about her, in fact I added a paragraph lauding her; it is at the top of the article, and I will add more yet if you can't manage to do that. You seem too focused on preventing anything negative being said; and not enough focused of presenting the best of her teaching, and her mitzvot. There is a lot of good stuff about her that could be added to the article. Kwork 00:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I said I was fine with basic core of your criticism.

FIRST ONE: With regard to:

"Much that Alice Bailey said about the Jews is found in traditional European antisemitic stereotypes 4, stereotypes that she has dressed in the garb of esoteric terminology 5. For instance, There is this stereotype of Jews and money 6, as Bailey presents it:"

The first two links you had in the first paragraph are not specific to the point you are making but are a blanket blast, a critical attack on all manner of anti-semitic things. Linking there as if to tie all this to Bailey is not valid. Besides that, you don't need the first two links, as the third link was fine and did the job well enough. I suggest removing the first two links and keep the third link which specific and relevant to your point and more than adequately justifies it.

The phrase "dressed in the garb of esoteric terminology" is loaded; its not something you can document as a fact as it relates to her intentions and motives and to what degree she was kind or hateful, etc. She uses esoteric terminology. She uses it in relation to the Jews. You think she is wrong about this because, etc. (that's fine); but "dressed in garb of" implies deception or trickery by Bailey like a wolf in sheep's clothing type of thing. It is not justified to accuse her of that with such emphatic wording. It is your personal interpretation. Better, don't you think, to just stick to the facts and use phrases that also show you understand the other side of the coin. Let's criticize what she wrote, not so much our interpretation of what she wrote. Your criticism will have more weight if you don't overdo it and sound quite so emotionally involved (no doubt we both are in our own ways but the scientists in us should keep our enthusiasm for our personal views under moderation). Let's criticize with scholarly detachment and not with obvious ax-to-grind sounding wording. Let the facts speak for themselves without over interpreting them. You might take a look back at my version of passage, the one you deleted, and see if it makes sense in terms of what I've expressed above. I'm OK with you're including what you see as the negative. I just think there is a more benign and scholarly way to word it.James 01:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Below is a useful section (for us both) from the Wiki. article on Critical Thinking.

"Overcoming bias

There is no simple way to reduce one's bias. There are, however, a network of ways that one can begin to do so. The most important require developing one's intellectual empathy and intellectual humility. The first requires extensive experience in entering and accurately constructing points of view toward which one has negative feelings. The second requires extensive experience in identifying the extent of one's own ignorance in a wide variety of subjects (ignorance whose admission leads one to say, "I thought I knew, but I merely believed"). One becomes less biased and more broad-minded when one becomes more intellectually empathic and intellectually humble, and that involves time, deliberate practice and commitment. It involves considerable personal and intellectual development.

To develop one's critical thinking abilities, one should learn the art of suspending judgment (for example, when reading a novel, watching a movie, engaging in dialogical or dialectical reasoning). Ways of doing this include adopting a perceptive rather than judgmental orientation; that is, avoiding moving from perception to judgment as one applies critical thinking to an issue.

One should become aware of one's own fallibility by:

1. accepting that everyone has subconscious biases, and accordingly questioning any reflexive judgments

2. adopting an egoless and, indeed, humble stance

3. recalling previous beliefs that one once held strongly but now rejects

4. realizing one still has numerous blind spots, despite the foregoing"

The references are there because there will be people who come to this article who may know little or nothing about the issues and history of antisemitism. I will tone down the wording used, as you want; but do not underestimate how important this issue is. You may think this is just words involved, but a lot of Jews have died because of the poison spread by words. Kwork 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section is necessary but it adopts the tone of a personal essay explaining an argument. Misplaced Pages should report arguments made elsewhere and not try to take a position itself as this trys to do. I have tagged the section as Inappropriate tone. Lumos3 11:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will remove that section. Also, since this entire article has been without sourcing for over a year, and since it has been tagged to that effect with no improvement, I am also removing the unsourced sections. I think it will be better to have a new beginning. Kwork 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NB, In regard to the "tone" of that section, the sourcing was there exactly support what was in the article. Truthfully; I am, at this point, disillusioned with Misplaced Pages, although perhaps the process worked better for other articles. What is in the "Discussion" section for this article exceeds what was in the article itself by over 50/1, and (aside from what you did not like) it was all worthless unsourced material. Kwork 12:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Development of a Well Sourced Neutral Biography

In removing the entire biography saying that it was unsourced you also removed all the material that was correctly sourced. You "threw out the baby with the bath water." In the last several versions of the article there was a substantial amount of good biography that was nicely sourced and correctly written. Please restore all of the biography of her life sections of the that were reasonably sourced in the last several versions. This respects the good work that has been done and I can build on that. I will let you do this; if you elect not to do so, I will return later and restore all the sourced material that is in line with Misplaced Pages standards.James 15:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The only material that had any sourcing was what I had added to "Criticism", and it is not possible to have the criticism alone. It is better to make a new beginning. The article had been tagged for its complete lack of sourcing (the tag is still at the top of the article). Kwork 16:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not focused on the criticism aspect now but on the biography. Some of this that was righlty sourced has been deleted. I myself added some things in the last week that were correctly source. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. I will pull together some of the best that's been done so far by myself and others.

Also, most of the biographical material was fine as it was taken from Alice Bailey's autobiography and a few sites on the net that draw from it. It either had sourcing or can easily be tied to the biography without much difficulty. Also, this material is not controversial in terms of its sourcing.

It's when we deal with a hot button topic and controversial issues that we especially need to based anything we include on specific sources that are reliable in the Misplaced Pages definition Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources.James 16:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, you can include anything that has proper sourcing. However, I would appreciate it if you not return to the article anything that was written by me. Kwork 20:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will try not to include your work if you wish.

Earlier, you changed my link "Profile of Alice Baily and a critical analysis of her from Biblical/Mormon viewpoint" to simply "Profile of Alice Bailey" and moved it to positive category. This is a Mormon link and the main point of it is the second half dealing with critique of AAB's thoughts from Mormon-Christian-Bible standpoint. Please do not alter the title so that is is only half-correct. It should be obvious that Mormons do not generally write pro-Bailey articles. Read the last half carefully. Thanks! James 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as it was not written by me, you can put anything in the article any place you want, and call it whatever you want. That will be the problem of someone else. Kwork 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In resurrecting the Bailey biography, I've used some of the information framework that went before and went and found exact sources for it (will likely do more in next few days). I've used a fresh approach and fresh wording to a substantial degree. I've no desire to incorporate your work verbatim but technically, as I understand it, I'm free to do so according to Wiki rules--please be aware that according to the rules Misplaced Pages:Copyrights what you write here can be freely used and developed by others; that's the design of Wiki. Again, I've no desire to use your words, but Misplaced Pages does not appear to be a place where we can be very possessive or ownership oriented toward what we create. Kind Regards, James 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is always the hope of protecting our intellectual children, even after they have gone out into the world, from being defiled by the hands of the world's intellectual goons and incompetents. However, unlike the rules that apply in the rest of the world, Misplaced Pages institutionalizes the practice of intellectual rape. Kwork 09:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey and Antisemitism

I will be returning a revised version of the section I earlier removed. Kwork 11:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now added the revised version of the criticism section that I had previously remove. If there is anything that seems problematic or incorrect let me know. Kwork 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Its sourced but some of it is WP:Original research, which isnt enough reason to remove it but is enough reason to tag the section, SqueakBox 22:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to stay away from anything that could be called original research. If you give me some particulars of where you think I went wrong, I will see if I can fix the problem(s). Kwork 23:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Where it is for me is in the 3 statements though I'd welcome a second opinion,

] 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Addhoc, some of your rewrite was helpful, and I think you for that. But I would rather risk having that whole section removed rather than go along with the pieces you removed. But I will think about it first, and I might feel differently tomorrow. Kwork 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE. The question of Alice Bailey's antisemitism is of importance for two reasons. The first is that bias and animosity against a religious group calls into question the claims for the spirituality and the basic goodness of her teaching. The second is that, if it can be established that the statements about the Jews in her books are actually based on European stereotypes, it will call into question her claims that the books were dictated to her by a Tibetan Master of the Ancient Wisdom and would indicate, instead, that it was the product of her own mind. The purpose of my presenting the issue in the form that I have, by comparing her statements with typical antisemitic European stereotypes, was to highlight the second as well as the first issue. I think that SqueakBox and Addhoc are incorrect to call this original research. However, I would not deny that it represents a point of view. Because Addhoc's editing eliminated the comparisons that I think are essential to my point, I am restoring that section of the article to its original form. Nevertheless, I am certainly willing to make changes to resolve any problems that are pointed out to me. Kwork 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Personally, I would consider this sentence to possibly be original research, for example:

Addhoc 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Addhoc that the above is an interpretation that is unnecessary and probably original research. That policy states, in part, that we may not engage in interpretation of this kind. Wjhonson 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not original search to explain the meaning of a sentence that may not be obvious from one reading to a person unfamiliar with Bailey's writing style. It might be a point of view, but points of view can be balanced in an article. I realize the sentence I wrote is heated, but less than it was previously. You really need to consider the situation. We are not dealing with someone saying that blonds are dumb (which would be bad enough); but what Bailey said is that six million murdered Jews (over one million of them children and babies) was helpful to them, necessary for their their own good, and their education, so that they could develop more inclusive thinking and be less separative. It is heinous to say such a thing. That quote was written just a few years after the war, and what had happened to the Jews was well known. And it is not the only time she said such a thing either. Kwork 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes in fact, explanations are original research. If you have a source who has commented on what she said, you can use the source. But as Wikipedians, we cannot use *ourselves* as the source. That is what you're doing here when you "explain" what Bailey meant. Wjhonson 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You certainly have a right to think that, and we will eventually find out if that is correct. For now, I would appreciate it if you do not again remove anything on your own. If it proves necessary, I will remove that sentence. Is there anything else you consider problematic? Kwork 22:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Race

The article states "One of the most controversial aspects of Alice Bailey's texts are the many statements she made about the Jews. In her discussions of Judaism and the Jewish ethnic group she refers to Jews as the Jewish "race"; which, itself, is an incorrect stereotype ]."

I have added a {{fact}} tag to the end, because after reading the referenced weblink I cannot see that it supports the contention that it's used to bolster. If anyone believes otherwise, I would appreciate a direct quote from that link, perhaps added as a footnote or something. Wjhonson 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the relavent quote:

Nazism was “applied biology,” stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess. During the Third Reich, a politically extreme, antisemitic variation of eugenics determined the course of state policy. Hitler’s regime touted the “Nordic race” as its eugenic ideal and attempted to mold Germany into a cohesive national community that excluded anyone deemed hereditarily “less valuable” or “racially foreign.”Block quote

It was the Nazi's who defined the Jews (and themselves too) as a race. Jews consider themselves a religion, and any person, of any race, who choses to, may become a Jew. I have added a second source. There are a number of sources that I think need improving, and I replace or add new links as I find them. I am trying to do something that I think is of some importance, but I do not claim to have the perfect skills for the job, and I am learning as I go. I understand that adds to your difficulties, and I appreciate your patience. Kwork 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your new source is better as it directly addresses the question of "race". It doesn't exactly state that it's an "incorrect stereotype", so I've toned that down a bit. It does however give a good analysis of the issue. They do note that the US Supreme Court stated that Jews are a race, at least for the purposes of the non-discrimination statutes, which sort of speaks against the claim that it's incorrect. Wjhonson 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the source, and the sentence. Kwork 10:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence that has bothered you, and removed the tag. If you are still unhappy about it, I assume you will replace the tag. Kwork 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, you should not turn the Alice Bailey biography, or the even the discussion, into an article about race and perceived antisemitism. As clearly stated in the Wiki. guidelines, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Your expansion does not have the right tone for Misplaced Pages bio. Your expansion appears, not to contribute to the the creation of a balanced and relatively objective biography of Alice Bailey, but prosecution of a personal mission--namely the expression of your opinion that AAB was antisemitic. Doubling the size of the bio entry with antisemitic thesis is not appropriate. James 00:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not my personal opinion, as you well know. Even inside the New Age movement itself she is far more famous for her views on the Jews than for her writing on the seven rays: http://www.nonduality.com/alice.htm (By the way, I am puzzled that you wrote an article about Alice Bailey with no discussion of her teaching....leaving the most interesting thing unsaid.) Kwork 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the inclusion of a quote from an extreme Nazi. Is anyone claiming Bailey was a Nazi? Putting it there seems like propaganda. I have removed the polemic. This is an encyclopaedia. We present accurately the views as stated by others whom we cite as sources, we do not try to preach. I have added Bailey’s own defence against the accusations. Lumos3 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am recopying my explanation of for this quote being there from above: "THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE. The question of Alice Bailey's antisemitism is of importance for two reasons. The first is that bias and animosity against a religious group calls into question the claims for the spirituality and the basic goodness of her teaching. The second is that, if it can be established that the statements about the Jews in her books are actually based on European stereotypes, it will leave in question her claims that the books were dictated to her by a Tibetan Master of the Ancient Wisdom and would indicate, instead, that it was the product of her own mind. The purpose of my presenting the issue in the form that I have, by comparing her statements with typical antisemitic European stereotypes, was to highlight the second as well as the first issue." I will restore that quote when I get a chance, probably later today. Kwork 11:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to go over a little of the history of this discussion. At one point (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=133395748&oldid=133391621) the entire criticism section consisted of only one sentence and four external links. I made it clear that I would be satisfied to keep the criticism of Alice Bailey to that small proportion. But since you were arguing for the removal of one of the links, it was clear to me your goal was to eventually remove ALL criticism. It was at that point that I added an expanded criticism section to the article in the hope of maintaining balance. I am still willing to remove the section I added and return to the previous one sentence criticism and the four critical external links, because my intention is only to have a balanced article.

I am getting pretty tired of having you try to present me as an enemy of Alice Bailey. As you know perfectly well, I was the personal student of a person in the teaching who was second in importance only to Bailey herself, and I was his student for over five years. It is you who misrepresent the teaching by making that sort of personal accusation, and because Bailey herself always emphasized the need for students to distinguish the good from the bad in all teachings....even in her own teaching. Alice Bailey had a wonderful point of view toward accepting criticism, and I wish that more of her followers would adopt it. Kwork 14:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In the quote, added by Lumos3, to the criticism section, I removed the last part of the statement. In it, Bailey claims to have been put on Hitler's blacklist because of her defense of Jews. She makes this claim in her Unfinished Autobiography, which I have read several times; but I have never seen a source to confirm it. Kwork 17:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not trying to convince a reader of this article of the nature of anti-Semitism in Europe but that Bailey made some statements which are anti-Semitic. That is all that is needed the rest becomes a personal essay. I don’t doubt your sincerity in arguing it but this is not the place for it. I suggest we link to History of antisemitism. The quote from the autobiography is an accurate quote of what Bailey wrote. You go to far in removing it because you personally cannot verify it. Neither are we trying to debunk Bailey's beliefs but provide an accurate representaion of them, warts and all. Also I took a lot of trouble to put the references into citation style please do not revert them back again. Lumos3 20:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

When I added this section to the article, I INVITED comments and suggestions, exactly because I wanted to be fair and make the article better. And I did, in fact, make changes in response to suggestions, and I think it actually did become better and more fair. I am certainly willing to make more changes. However, you were never a participant in that process; and you chose, instead, to just go into the article and make the changes you wanted. I have asked you to stop doing that, and engage in discussion. Kwork 21:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Honesty?

Jamesd1, I found this message from you on the User page for Lumos3:

Kwork has appended a criticism of Alice-Bailey-as-antisemitic to the biography I last worked on--the criticism is equal to the size of the biography itself and now focused almost exclusively on the antisemitic thing. Seems like more of a setup for a debate than a valid expansion of the bio; does not seem to be in right perspective. I've given up trying to speak with him myself. Seems to have an agenda, a mission to brand Bailey as antisemitic. Please advise. If you wish to email me directly, you can use this link: http://www.bookreader.org/email.html Thanks, James 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to organize your plans for this article, with others, out of sight of the normal discussion for this article? I consider what you and Lumos3 are doing, by hiding your discussion outside of Misplaced Pages, to be deceptive, conspiratorial, and dishonest. Kwork 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Lumos3 personally. I followed the Wikikpedia guidelines for the first step in resolving conflicts about articles by posting to Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. This is an anonymous system for bringing experienced Wiki. users with new and generally impartial eyes to problem articles such as this. Nothing on Wiki. is hidden. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the whole Wiki. guidelines, procedures, and philosophy. It appears to me that you do not understand certain fundamentals, e.g. the objective or neutral tone (especially for controversial material) and that people edit other people's work and that's the way it is suppose to work. Also that certain things may and should be deleted (by one's self or others) when they do not match the Misplaced Pages standards. Please see these articles below for the standards, and thhe key links they lead to:

Misplaced Pages:About Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputesJames 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You give Lumos3 your e-mail address so you could discuss strategy for dealing with me. That does give the impression of hiding your intentions. I urge you to take a more straightforward and less deceptive approach.Kwork 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive Changes to the Article

Lumos3, since you know there is disagreement about the criticism section of the article, it will be easier to come to an agreement if you stop just blowing away whatever parts of the article you don't like. Perhaps you would be interested in trying something you have not tried so far: dialog. Thank you.Kwork 21:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

All the changes I made incorporated parts of your material. I have been trying to find a form that is acceptable to everyone. Plus I have had no contact with James outside of this page. Even if I had that would be a normal part of the Misplaced Pages community and it’s your attack which is inappropriate. Lumos3 12:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your changes kept some of my material but changed all of my intent, so what you are saying is deceptive. Since you have James' e-mail address, I have no way of knowing what you say is true about contacting him. It looks bad, and I have no reason to trust you based on your repeated ill intentioned edits of the criticism section of this article.Kwork 12:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Contining Effort to Make Cirticism Section More Objective and Neutral

Following the Misplaced Pages guidelines cited above, I removed many personal parts of Kwork text on antisemeticism that he had inserted again and expanded on in essay fashion. These contained assumptions, conclusions, and thesis-affirming implications and did not have a good Misplaced Pages tone. Left just the core of the ideas expressed in relatively objective and neutral language. More work is needed.James 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You have never engaged in any discussion about this, just made changes. In any cases there is nothing personal in what I added, it is not about me. Kwork 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to engage you in discussion as can be seen by reading all my entries here the last two weeks. I'm not able to communicate with you and everything significant I say is just ignored. About the article, you make the same Misplaced Pages standards violations over and over and my efforts to talk to you did not alter this.

I have decided to, temporally, remove all of the criticism section that I added. It needs rewriting, and it is difficult to do that while arguing about revisions. Kwork 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Unfinished Autobiography

I would like to have all the biographical information in the article that is based on Alice Bailey's unfinished Autobiography removed, and replaced with other sources. Basing a Misplaced Pages biography on such biased information as that would be like basing an article about a politician on the official biography from his campaign headquarters. Her Autobiography, alone, is not a suitable source, and it is not neutral. Kwork 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you don't make this a war. Wiki. is full of autobiographical references and, to the best of my knowledge, using an autobiography in a bio about a person is entirely appropriate. Sure, it would be helpful to have more diverse 3d partly sources. So instead of a destructive approach, go buy some other books about Alice Bailey and improve what is there. James 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to to that, then let's go to mediation Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Committee

Do you agree to that?James 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If the article stays as it is, I will nominate it for deletion. Kwork 00:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Neutrality of this Article is Disputed (any comments are welcome)

The biographical content of this article uses only one source, and that source is not neutral. It seems to me that, if this problem can not be resolved, the article should be nominated for deletion. Kwork 14:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Life" section of the biographical content of this article uses mainly one primary source at the moment--the autobiography of Alice Bailey herself which is the subject of the article and hence entirely appropriate. The material is not controversial; only the criticism section is controversial. Simply add references to the life section to verify what is there if you want them, but again, it is not controversial but simply chronicles objective events of her life and shows something of what she thought in her own words. I will add more; its not a big deal. If you delete without just cause I will bring it back. You do not have justification for removing what is there now in the "life" section. The goal is to build and improve on each other's work using objective and neutral wording and the best available sources. James 17:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

About the "Neutrality" question you raise. Exactly what part of the Bailey "Life" section do you find not neutral in tone? I read it again just now and do not see any non-neutral statements nor any controversial information--the history of her life as expressed in her biography, and the key thoughts quoted showing what she wrote are, to the best of my knowledge not controversial or disputable.James 18:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Misplaced Pages biography of Richard Nixon was sourced from his own autobiography only, would you take it seriously? How can there be a balanced biography of Alice Bailey, or anyone, using an autobiography as the only source? Kwork 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First, it was never the only source but just the main one, and links, and today, several more references, so your criticism is out of date and will likely be more so by the tomorrow. Second, politics is controversial in a way that this biography is not so the standard and context is different. Reference wise, this biography is on a par with and in some cases superior to numerous others of its type to be found in Misplaced Pages, e.g. Joan Grant Patience Worth Roberto Assagioli Third, most of the major points of the biography are common knowledge, used and confirmed by other sources, including one I've just added e.g. (Steven J Sutcliffe, Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, Routledge, 2003, pp. 46-49)

The only source of information about her life that I know (and which is used as sourcing by everyone who writes about her) is her own, self-published, autobiography. Of course, it may all be true, but I would like to hear that someone did research. Her claims, of being in telepathic communication with the Masters of the the Ancient Wisdom and that her books were dictated telepathically to her by a Tibetan Master, are extraordinary. If it can be shown that the statements about her external life are true, that would give some reason for confidence in her claims of telepathic ability (that can not be either proven or disproven by anyone). Kwork 14:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie believes you are misusing the term "self-published." In wikispeak, "self-published" reffers to websites and blogs! :)

The claim of being in contact with the Tibetan are NOT extraordinary in any way shape or form, again in terms of wikispeak. They would extraordinary if this article said she was actually was in contact... but all that is being said is that she claimed to be. Whether or not she actually was in contact is beyond the scope of a wiki article.Sethie 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you do not understand "controversial" or "neutrality" in this context. Bailey's "Life" section contains several generally known and not contested facts, e.g. where she was born, that she wrote prodigiously etc. These are not topics for dispute or in need of special corroboration (even though I've added some anyway). Second the "Life" relates a few key events from her biography showing something of what she believed and did. The bio. does not say these are true or false. It simply says Bailey said this about her life and thought. No great army of corroborative references are needed for this elementary stuff.James 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I do know what controversial means. See what I wrote above. Kwork 14:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The situation is entirely different where we get into criticism and antisemitic theme. There, very careful and reliable corroboration is needed, and this is made clear in the Wiki. standards. I think you are confusing the serious issues of a criticism section with the relatively modest reference needs of the bio that gives date of birth, says what the subject of the bio believed, etc.James 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie concurs with James. WP:REDFLAG agrees too. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and hum-drum stuff- why wouldn't a biography do? Sure Nixion's biography wouldn't suffice alone for details about watergate, but where he grew up, who he fell in love with, his hopes, his wishes, any spiritual experiences he had... how would an autobiography not suffice? Sethie 00:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

hum-drum stuff? Hmmmm... Well lets see: Bailey said that a Tibetan Master of the Ancient Wisdom dictated (from his Monastery in Tibet), telepathically, twenty books to her. In addition to a lot of interesting stuff in the books about the occult history of the solar system, of this planet, of the working and influence of the Seven Cosmic Rays, etc.; she also heaped praise on Hitler in his early years, and said that the Jews are going to have to give up their religion for the good of humanity. Additionally, her former coworkers at the Theosophical Society said she was a liar, and Helena Roerich, who one might assume to be an ally, instead said Bailey was possessed by the Black Lodge. Perhaps you consider this hum-drum stuff; but not everyone would. For instance, to read a discussion involving people who had read her books, see: http://www.nonduality.com/alice.htm Kwork 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please slow down! Your comments don't really apply to what Sethie wrote. Sethie said, "Sure Nixion's biography wouldn't suffice alone for details about watergate, but where he grew up, who he fell in love with, his hopes, his wishes, any spiritual experiences he had... how would an autobiography not suffice?" i.e. An autobiography is fine for non-controversial things. However, you have now raised a bunch of controversial things, most of which are probably not mentioned in her autobiography!Sethie 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What I said applies exactly to what you wrote. They are a lot of controversial things said About Alice Bailey. The point I am trying to make is that these things are said about her. To establish that controversial things are said about her, just take a look at the link I gave. I am not trying to prove all these thing are true. Alice Bailey was one of the most controversial personalities of the New Age movement, and to have a Misplaced Pages biography sourced only on her self-published Unfinished Autobiography is not balanced. (What I am currently trying to decide is if any of the matters much; and if anyone ever has, or ever will read this article...that is aside from its editors.) Kwork 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie agrees that controversial things have been said about AAB. The wikipedia article on AAB even lists a few. ]! If you can find reputable sources for more criticisms and controvery, include them.

My ex-girl-friend's father considered the teaching Satanic, however, Sethie isn't going to try to enter that into the article. WP has clear guidelines about what is considered a WP:RS and what isn't.... so why would Sethie look at a link which does not meet WP:RS to help him work on a wikipedia article?

It is not Sethie, or anyone's intention to only use her autobiography.

Sethie counts 15 refferences on this page other then AAB's autobiography.Sethie 17:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank Sethie for his input. Let me know if he has anything intelligent to say; or, perhaps, Sethie could contribute something to the article, rather than to the talk page. Kwork 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, about the link, tell Sethie that James asked for a neutral opinion on the use of that link in the article, and the person who responded saw no problem with using it. I thought that Sethie might want to know that. Kwork 18:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not counted the references in the footnotes, but if Sethie takes a look at the biography in the Article itself, he might notice that there is now one sentence (added yesterday or today) that is not from a Bailey source, and that sentence serves no useful function (aside from the function of being a non-Bailey sentence). Sethie might want to think about that problem. Kwork 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie is aware that the biography section is made up of only citations from the Baily autobiography and is unclear why that is a problem? Kwork 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell Sethie That I alread explained that.Kwork 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

lol Sethie will tell Sethie that Kwork explained that. Sethie 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie would be willing to review the persons arguement for using the link. Sethie 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I was asking for comments on this article's neutrality problem , but Sethie can review whatever he wants whenever he wants. Kwork 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So far no one who has dropped by the talk page seems to see it as a problem except for you.

Sethie wanted to track the conversation about the link and couldn't find any refference to it on this page. Would you point to where "James asked for a neutral opinion on the use of that link in the article, and the person who responded saw no problem with using it." happened? Sethie 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please return the tag, which has now been removed for a second time. Kwork 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, and no. Thus far, you have not pointed to a single sentnece which you believe violates WP:NPOV. Your arguement "The biographical content of this article uses only one source, and that source is not neutral" is not what the policy is about, at all: "This page in a nutshell: All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." Sethie 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hum-drum discussion

(Most of what you have written feels like a seperate discussion from the issue of her autobiography and Sethie would like to continue it in a new section)

hum-drum stuff?! Hmmmm... Well lets see: Bailey said that a Tibetan Master of the Ancient Wisdom dictated (from his Monastery in Tibet), telepathically, twenty books to her. In addition to a lot of interesting stuff in the books about the occult history of the solar system, of this planet, of the working and influence of the Seven Cosmic Rays, etc.; she also heaped praise on Hitler in his early years, and said that the Jews are going to have to give up their religion for the good of humanity. Additionally, her former coworkers at the Theosophical Society said she was a liar, and Helena Roerich, who one might assume to be an ally, instead said Bailey was possessed by the Black Lodge. Perhaps you consider this hum-drum stuff; but not everyone would. For instance, to read a discussion involving people who had read her books, see: http://www.nonduality.com/alice.htm Kwork 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1)"Discussions about her books" doesn't count for anything on wikipedia.

2)The CLAIM of her contact is not "extrordinary" in terms of wikispeak, are you, or anyone denying that she make the claim she was in contact and that the books were dictated?

3)The content of the books is not "extraordinary" in wikispeak. People write ALL sorts of books saying all sorts of things. For example, see Bible. All a wiki article is here for is to describe and summarize what the teachings are, not whether they are true or not! See flat earth. A neutral article just describes things, not passes judgment on them.

4)No Sethie doesn't consider all of the above hum-drum stuff, not sure why you would think he would.

5)If you have a Source for any of this: "she also heaped praise on Hitler in his early years, and said that the Jews are going to have to give up their religion for the good of humanity. Additionally, her former coworkers at the Theosophical Society said she was a liar, and Helena Roerich, who one might assume to be an ally, instead said Bailey was possessed by the Black Lodge." include it!Sethie 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

The page is now listed as an RFD, when it is not a WP:REDIRECT page.

Even if it was a redirect page, the RFD was done improperly.... so Sethie is reverting it.

Sethie's hunch is you want to do an WP:AFD. Sethie 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to have an afd as subject is very notable, SqueakBox 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie concurs. WP:AFD also clearly says that POV disputes and content disputes are not valid reasons for deletion, and Kwork (please correct Sethie if he is wrong) has been saying it is his intention to delete the article if it does not undergo some changes. Sethie 01:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell Sethie that it is not my intention to delete the article, as that is something that is not in my power. I will nominate it for deletion if it does not improve, and (if it does come to that) I will live with the decision. But my interest is in improving the article. Instead of telling everyone what I intend, Sethie might do better to ask for clarification. Otherwise, it might sound as though Serthie is lieing, God forbid.Kwork 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification... If you read WP:AFD you will see that content is not considered a valid reason for, yes, nomiatiion for deletion. Sethie 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The linked article says:"For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." You may recall that tags I added were quickly removed, and additions I made to the article were emasculated. If a further step is needed, I will attempt that. Kwork 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well all that would be fine, though subject to normal edit rules. Afding the article would not be fine, esp as I am sure you dont think Alice Bailey lacks notability yourself, SqueakBox 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do that I would argue it would be WP:POINT and disruptive, thus subject to revert. If you want to delete this article you would have to argue that Alice Bailey is not notable and with over 30 books still being published and the abundance of refs about her available she is clearly notable which is why the article was created early on in Jan 04 and nobody has subjected it to deletion. In a word, dont, SqueakBox 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I really feel good knowing that all you guys are so concerned about keeping me safe from making a mistake. (By the way, what is the punishment inflicted here for making a mistake?) The problem for me is this: since there is not one of you guys that I trust, I am unwilling to trust your advice, and I must (as a result) try to get to what I think is right by trying things out. I will assume that the system at Misplaced Pages will not fall apart because of this. Kwork 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. *If* the objection is that the main source used for the biography is herself, then a good suggestion would be that the objector get himself to a library and find another source. IMHO, we don't delete articles simply because *one section* of them is based on a single source. Wjhonson 01:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no basis for deletion. In addition, there is now a new line and reference in the bio: "A corroborative version of main events in Bailey's life, her ideas, meeting with her teacher, relation to Theosophy, etc. may be found in Sutcliffe (Sutcliffe, Steven J., Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, Routledge, 2003, pp. 46-49)" Contrary to Kwork's assertion that all that is written on Bailey is from her autobiography, the section of the the book dealing with Bailey in this work draws from other sources as well and includes material not found in her autobiography.James 01:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite this discussion Kwork deleted the biography and substituted his old version which is 50% about his view that AAB was antisemitic. I restored the origianl, but he will no doubt deleted it again, if he has not already done so by the time you read this. "Last resort Arbitration" anyone?James 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What I deleted from the article was unsourced material. When you returned the material with sourcing, I never removed a single word of it. I did not add the expanded criticism section until after you had returned the biographical material, with sourcing. As for my criticism being fifty percent of the article, it was your choice to have written such a short biography, when it really should be longer. What is with you, and the other Alice Bailey enthusiasts writing this article? Why is the article still just a stub? If you really care about her teaching so much, why not put more words into the article, and fewer words here on the talk page complaining about me?...as though it is my fault you wrote such a short article. Kwork 11:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION: Is Jamesd1 talking about something deleted today? If so, I have not deleted anything , not a single word, since I deleted my own criticism section days ago. When I first read this I assumed he was just misrepresenting what had happened previously. Is this something today, or past? Kwork 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting to get a reply from Jamesd1 explaining his bizarre accusation that I reverted the article to an earlier version. Anyone who looks at the "History" for the article can see that it did not happen. Kwork 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC, SqueakBox 01:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Supporting the Development of this Bio Versus Sabotage of It

Kwork, in reading over all that you have written here in the discussion, and the now substantial history of your article edits, it seems that you are not hear to help develop the Alice Bailey Biography. Instead, it seems you have set yourself a mission to disrupt the article based on your strong personal feelings about what you perceive as Alice Bailey's antisemitism. You have used the discussion section to vent your feelings and attempted to do the same in the article itself where such tone is a violation of Wiki standards. Now if you can not weigh down the article with quotes emphasizing the antisemitism theme, or criticize it based on misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages standards, then you try other methods. While your personal feelings are understandable, this biography is not the place for your catharsis, and in the discussion as well, your personal agenda has replaced what should have been a friendly ongoing talk about how to continue to improve and develop the article in accordance with Misplaced Pages standards. The Internet is full of places for discussion about the things you want to vent on, but this is not one of them. You are fighting a loosing battle here--not because either of us is right or wrong about the antisemitism or the facts of Bailey's life--but because the Misplaced Pages process is designed to prevent exactly the sort of thing you are trying to do. You may win some small battles but it's all for nothing. Why waist your time and the time of others pushing the rock up the hill only to have it roll down again upon you? I bear you no ill feelings and wish you well; but please find something constructive to do. Sincerely, James 01:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What Sethie would add to this is a suggestion to go edit some other unrelated articles, get more familair with how things function and flow here and then come back. Participate in some dialogues where you have no vested interest. From personal experience, Sethie can say it is NIGHT and DAY and it is quite a learning experience.Sethie 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You really manage to write the silliest sounding stuff. I do think that AAB let her personal prejudices into the otherwise good books. But DK told his students that it was their job to differentiate between what is correct and what false in the books (see, for instance, the introduction to White Magic). My real problem is with the 6th Ray types, such as yourself, who distort and harm the teaching while genuinely believing that they are protecting it. I know that you mean well, but it is clear that you just never had proper training. It is quite sad to see that the teaching represented by people such as you, because I can remember how little AAB's own students were bothered by these criticisms, and to what extent they would go to maintain unity in diversity. Kwork 21:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kwork, for so generously offering your personal insights into my ray type and the level of my training, or lack thereof, in relation to AAB/DK writings. You are obviously a person who has broken free of all form identifications, so providing yourself with that unfettered and instantaneous insight that allows you to paint even the hidden characters of distant and anonymous interlocutors with such infallible touch as would bring the gods themselves to jealousy.James 01:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Students of the teaching, normally, over the time of many years, develop an ability to recognize ray influence. It does not take a god, or a Master, or even a disciple. It is sad to see how little training current students, particularly those who speak publicly for the teaching, have gotten. Kwork 12:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

For a number of days I have been wondering to what extent it is a conflict of interest for Jamesd1 to be active in editing the Alice Bailey article when he is making an income from selling her books. I am not sure how this fits with Misplaced Pages policy, but it may bring his impartiality into question. Kwork 17:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie doesn't believe this falls under WP:COI, and feel free to investigate that for yourself. Sethie 17:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that Jamesd1 is writing the article to promote his business interests. But his business interests would certainly make him more inclined to defend Alice Bailey against criticisms that might tarnish her reputation. At the minimum, it would have been better if he had informed the other editors of his financial stake in Alice Bailey. But instead, he kept it hidden. Kwork 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI says (in part)

Close relationships

Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx. Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Attribution — when editing in that area.

The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.

Kwork 11:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also

How to avoid COI edits

Misplaced Pages is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, 2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors, 3. Linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam);

and you must always:

4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.

Action Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page, or to file a request for comment.

By these standards, all the editors of this article may be close to violating of Misplaced Pages guidelines, and Jamesd1 probably is in violation. Kwork 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You will need a good microscope to evaluate my "financial stake" in Alice Bailey books. Even though, as Sethie rightly points out, there's no real conflict of interest, I will clarify for the record. (Kwork's presumptions about me have reached a ridiculous stage in an apparent desperate attempt to tear down what's been built in the Bailey bio.) I've not "hidden" or "revealed" my current profession as an antiquarian bookseller because it has next to nothing to do with Alice Bailey. I am a general used bookseller and buy and sell whatever comes my way that is marketable--mostly history, scholarly works in various fields, children's books, art book etc. Such books are the bulk of my income. I buy metaphysical books of all types when I can, and on rare occasions may come across a few Alice Bailey titles which--which I did recently--and so I list them. At the moment, I've about a thousand used books online, of which 5 are Alice Bailey related. Over the last five years or so I've made perhaps $35. a year on Alice Bailey books. I give these details so any interested readers my realize the absurdity of Kwork's latest attempt to discredit the article under his newly invented guise of "conflict of interest." James 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I never thought that Jamesd1 stood to get rich from selling Alice Bailey books. But that does not eliminate the question of conflict of interest. (It should be noted that he maintains a web address exclusively for the sale of Bailey's books) Certainly there is no doubt about his closeness to the subject, or else he would not bother to sell what stands to make no profit. I don't think there is anything bad about his closeness to the subject, but it does suggest that he should be more cautious and reserved about his editing, and less inclined to go aggressively on the attack against criticism of Alice Bailey. If that result is not forthcoming I might pursue the issue further. Kwork 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that Jamesd1 has included two links from the External Links section of the Alice Bailey article to his own site.

• Seven Rays as a Character Assessment Tool
• Alice Bailey's Rays in Astrology--Statistical Studies

This does not look at all good, and is even more of a problem for Conflict of Interest because he selling his own products on that site. Kwork 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the two links you complained about. Are you happy now? Can we talk about the Alice Bailey biography now?

Here, I've created an empty space below for you to begin discussion about how best to develop the existing biography into well balanced, objective, neutral, accurate, well referenced article. Let's begin using the same advice given by Bailey and other like thinkers with the good of humanity at heart: Let construction replace destruction; let peace replace war, let universal brotherhood replace all sectarian divisions. James 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to have an explanation for your accusation that I reverted the article to an earlier version. I have no idea of what you are talking about:

Despite this discussion Kwork deleted the biography and substituted his old version which is 50% about his view that AAB was antisemitic. I restored the origianl, but he will no doubt deleted it again, if he has not already done so by the time you read this. "Last resort Arbitration" anyone?James 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just what do you mean by that? Anyone who looks at the article's "History" can see that I made no such change. Kwork 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

By Sethie's reading of WP:COI a used bookseller is not prohibited from editing articles that have to do with... well books. Kwork if you can see a portion of COI policy which clearly applies here, please point it out.

However, per WP:EL, specifically ] linking to your own website is strongly discouraged, so James thank you for taking your links down.

Selling AAB books is not COI and indeed shows an expertise int he subject which is very welcome. If AAB was his mothjer or some such thing or if he wanted to include himself as a bookseller in the article that would be COI, SqueakBox 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention, at this time, for trying to get Jamesd1 removed from editing the article. I was not concerned with his being a bookseller. The section from WP:COI (below) may apply:

Close relationships Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx. Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

It is a question of "closeness" to the Alice Bailey teaching. That is a consideration. Kwork 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said we actually need expertise and COI certainly doesnt discourage that. He clearly has no personal relationship with AAB, SqueakBox 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not have to be a personal relationship. "Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal." In this case the devotion to the Alice Bailey teaching would be called religious, and it is problematic. And it is not problematic just for Jamesd1, but virtually every editor of this article....including, perhaps, SqueakBox.Kwork 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, instead of sharing your understanding of this policy, one Sethie has never seen before, why not go and get some expert feedback on it? ] or you can file a formal complaint here: ].

The reason Sethie suggests this, is that you, Kwork, with 250 edits, over a two month period, with nearly 200 on this page ] aren't willing to take feedback from Sethie ] or SqueakBox ], who seem to have a bit more experience then you and have a lot more experience on a variety of pages. Sethie 00:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell Sethie that, if I ever need any of his opinions, I will be sure to ask him. As for what I do now, that will depend on what seems best to me as circumstances develop. (Your way of speaking in the third person makes me think I am getting messages from Gollum. But whatever makes you happy.) Kwork 00:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, take #2.

You reading of WP:COI is novel and wrong. Republicans are allowed to edit pages on George Bush. Christians are allowed to edit articles on Christianity. People who think highly of AAB are allowed to edit articles on her.

What you are trying to do is to debate and change a core wiki policy. This talk page is not the place to do it. Sethie 06:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The word that comes to mind when I read this sort of stuff from Sethie is "nebbish". I see, for instance, that on the TM article (like here) Sethie engaged in an editing war, and on its talk page a psychological war; but, when it came to arbitration, Sethie did not have the guts to fight. Kwork 13:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In terms of an edit war here- Sethie most certainly removed a tag, placed by a user for reasons that have absolutely NO refference or connection to wikipedia policy, without that users agreement to do so. Sethie 15:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kwork, I thought the 3rd person in this context was a kind enjoyable relief of variety. Sure would be nice if we could get more beyond person, whether 1st, 3rd, or whatever. Why don't we all talk friendly wise about how to make the article better using the Wiki. rules and the skills and experiences available to us. What ideas do you have about how to make the article better? What would you like to see happen? See the nice empty heading below.James 00:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting to get a reply from Jamesd1 explaining his bizarre accusation (00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)) that I reverted the article to an earlier version. Anyone who looks at the "History" for the article can see that it did not happen. Kwork 11:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Brother Kwork, you had expressed your strong interest in seeing the article deleted and then I saw the original article was missing--that's what my browser showed me, though perhaps it was an incorrect display as it drew from a cash. I thought you deleted it since you've shown such enthusiasm for shaping the article. If you did not delete then fine, and I apologize for my incorrect conclusions. Now, at long last, can we get on with positive suggests for the future of the article. Please see question for you under new heading below.James 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a good idea to check the article's "history" to see what changes have been made and who made them. Sometimes I do forget to sign in before making changes, as I did yesterday when I corrected a spelling mistake in the article. But the changes always show, even if the user name does not. There is little, if anything, I ever removed from the article - aside from what was unsourced.

It had been my intention to stay out of the writing process itself because I felt that my negative assessment of AAB could add an unfairly negative tone to the article. Looking back, my biggest mistake here was entering the writing process, and adding my own criticism section to the article; because when I did that I went against my own principles to achieve an end I wanted. Since I no longer have a connection to the AAB teaching, and it is in my past, and not in my present or future; I will just put this project aside now and not worry myself about the results. I have other things that need my attention.

There are a lot of people, participating in Misplaced Pages edits, who have little knowledge of the subject matter they are dealing with; but who know a lot about Misplaced Pages's strange governing system. I consider that to be a rather worthless and pathetic specialty. These people divert themselves by endlessly making changes to the work of others; and in arguing about what Misplaced Pages allows them to do, and what it prevents others from doing. As a result, even if the article becomes exactly as you want it, by next year it will be unrecognizable to you. It is building castles on the sand. Savlanoot. Kwork 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to the Alice Bailey Biography--A call for constructive thinking

Kwork, as I asked earlier: What ideas do you have about how to make the article better? What would you like to see happen?James 16:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

One last thing. In the article, under LIFE, it begins: "Alice Bailey had a Christianity education..." That phrase needs changing. Kwork 18:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the type you cited above.James 23:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Theosophy?

...writer and lecturer on Neo-Theosophy...

This term, Neo-Theosophy, was never used by AAB, or by RA either. In fact, I don't recall hearing anyone use this term. But, if that is how you want to classify her, it is okay with me.....even though it makes no sense. Kwork 13:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Notibility

Could someone tell me how Alice Bailey meets any of these Criteria for notability of people, in this article? Kwork 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

• Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)
  • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
  • Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
  • Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
• The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
• The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
• The person has demonstrable wide name recognition
• The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
• Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products

She has been the subject of many secondary publications, she has demonstrable wide name recognition, she has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field so notability is simply not an issue in her case, SqueakBox 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the criteria for secondary publications: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." But all the secondary publications have been written by her own followers, and they are by no means intellectually independent of Bailey. She simply is not in the same league for notability with writers such as Carl Jung, Rudolf Steiner, or Sri Aurobindo. That is not to say she is inferior, but the notability does not seem to be there. I am thinking about putting a tag on this article, but will think about it for a few days. Kwork 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Squeakbox, notability is not an issue. She has been mentioned in every scholarly history of the New Age movement I've come across. Lumos3 22:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there have been many other sources for her, including people critical of her, she may not be as notable as Steiner, Jung or Blavatsky for that matter but that doesnt mean she fails our own notability guidelines, SqueakBox 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why is that not established in the article? The virtually the only significant source used in the article is her autobiography. Personally I do not know of any published critical studies, but I would be happy to see those sources. The point is to get what is needed in the article, not just assertions on the talk page. Kwork 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree though I also think the lack of them, while making for a worse article, doesnt imply lack of notability, SqueakBox 22:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The lady I mentioned before and couldnt find her name who criticised AAB is callaed Monica Sjöö, SqueakBox 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen those articles, but as far as I know they are not a published source. Kwork 22:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The book she wrote is clearly a published source (I did own it once) though this page is also clearly perfectly acceptable as a reference and shows online that she wrote the book and that it was published so its 100% fine for our purposes and useful as a different criticism, SqueakBox 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But what I would really like to see is something as thorough as the studies Richard Noll did of Carl Jung....and that is not to be found. Kwork 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if they are not to be found there is nothing we can do about it but she is still notable. We just have to do the best we can, SqueakBox 01:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that we disagree over that. I do not think she meets the notability guidelines, but I will not put a tag on the article without thinking about it more. By the way, I am as doubtful of writers who see nothing good in AAB as of those who see her as perfect; but the issue, at this point, is not her goodness but her notability. Kwork 11:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to add something to what I wrote directly above. What is at issue is the article. In my view the article, as it now is, does not make the case that Alice Bailey is notable. If that is changed, I will have to accept the proof, no matter what my personal opinion of Bailey. Kwork 13:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You simply wont get this article deleted through lack of notability, she is far too notable for that, SqueakBox 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she was notable, and I don't see anything in the article that proves me wrong. Kwork 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wel that is your POV but we dont judge notability solely based on what the article says, AAB is more notable than tens of thousands of other bios we have, and the article is a reasonable length and good qquality. We cant remove people on the basis of I DONT LIKE and this discussion is going nowhere and beginning to be a complete waste of time. If you dont thinkl she is notable I think you are not grasping notability for this encyclopedia, SqueakBox 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I said clearly that the problem is the article, not Alice Bailey. The article fails to make any case for her notability. If nothing is done to correct that, I will put a tag on the article. The problem is the article. Kwork 11:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, I suppose it might be possible to argue that the "Criticism" section of the article does establish AAB's notability in a negative way. That seems pathetic, but perhaps justified. Kwork 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Lucis Trust?

I am looking for a page dedicated to the subject of the Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Trust) that Alice Bailey created. However, when I search for 'Lucis Trust' I am immediately redirected here. There is very limited information about the Trust on this page. I would like to know if whether there is a seperate page about the 'Trust' and this is a glitch, or if not, if someone is willing to create one? Thanks.

About WikiProject Occult Assesment

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

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

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

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

Would you call this statement neutral?:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism section changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC

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

Brief Statements by involved parties

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

Here is one such quote From Alice Bailey:

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

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

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

Statements by uninvolved parties

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Jerry Katz is a published and respected author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit

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

I don'r recall saying you removed any information.

I said your reason for removing sources was invald: ]

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antisemitic people always delete mentions of antrisemitism at Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all know she was a grossly antisemitic author.

Now just say it and have done with it.

A (hopefully) brief rebuttal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racist views

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

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

The article and its discussion

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

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

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

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

Good job

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Theos-World Bailey's love for the Jews: 
The Jews are the reincarnation of spiritual failures
From: David Green <davidgreen@hotmail.com>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:59 AM
Subject: Theos-World Bailey's love for the Jews: The Jews are the
reincarnation of spiritual failures
>"The Jews are the reincarnation of spiritual failures or residues from
>another planet... The Jew represents materialism, cruelty and a spiritual
>conservatism, under the domination of the separative, selfish mind  
>(Bailey, 'Rays and Initiations')

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Hitler reffernece

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protect article

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

That is an amazing offer.

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

As far as I am concerned, this would do:

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Zionist quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusion of Christian criticism in Criticism Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jews as "residue", Bailey as anti-Zionist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antisemitism around the world

Arabs and antisemitism

Christianity and antisemitism

Islam and antisemitism

Nation of Islam and antisemitism

Universities and antisemitism

Anti-globalization and antisemitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kwork 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Watchman Fellowship / Christian Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

Watchman Fellowship

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Product: DNA vs. The Book of Mormon

DVD (English/Spanish/English Subtitles)

SKU: 0974478741

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

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

04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, you wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

08:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondary Source Books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To James

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/OMM.GB/WomenWriters/AliceBailey/Problem/prob1047.html
2. http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/OMM.GB/WomenWriters/AliceBailey/Problem/prob1047.html
3. http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/na_jews.html#na%20views
4. http://www.pinenet.com/rooster/bailey.html
5. http://www.monicasjoo.org/artic/channelbrief/sinisterchannelings1.htm
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/Richard_Abanes
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_controversial_LDS-related_publications
8. http://www.watchman.org/profile/bailypro. htm
9. http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=articles.scientology
10. http://www.watchman.org/reltop/clearwordbible.htm
11. http://www.watchman.org/profile/bailypro. htm
12. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrw_pos.htm

• Start-Class Occult articles
• Mid-importance Occult articles
• WikiProject Occult articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles