Talk:Alice Bailey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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, [Page 637] 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 [Page 268] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.”

[from the Unfinished Autobiography, Alice A. Bailey.pp.119]

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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-Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article as it is disordered and without reliable sources or authority. We can't build a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia biography, perhaps you could clarify your understanding of the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia definition Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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,

[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 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:

“ In the last sentence of the quote above Alice Bailey seems to say that the genocide that had just occurred in Europe was intended to help Jews overcome their isolation, and to help them express inclusive love. ”

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 [[1]]."

I have added a {{Fact|date=March 2008}} 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, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your expansion does not have the right tone for Wikipedia 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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia standards. Please see these articles below for the standards, and thhe key links they lead to:

Wikipedia:About Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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. [[2]]! 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.[2] 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 — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: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

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 [3] 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 [[4]] 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.[2] 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? [[5]] or you can file a formal complaint here: [6]].

The reason Sethie suggests this, is that you, Kwork, with 250 edits, over a two month period, with nearly 200 on this page [[7]] aren't willing to take feedback from Sethie [[8]] or SqueakBox [[9]], 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 Wikipedia edits, who have little knowledge of the subject matter they are dealing with; but who know a lot about Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia: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.

• Wikipedia: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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alice Bailey/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Well, first of all I want to state that I didn't originally assessed the article. But i do agree with the assessment, so I will make a few comments about it. About Quality.- I have no doubt that this is a start class article. It has a relevant picture, a largely discussed section ("Life" although I will may comments about it later) and also has a good amount of start section to divide the article. It does remain at start class because a lot of things. The "Life" section is a complete mess, it heavily relies in primary sources and self-published ones, containing only two secondary sources, which unfortunately cannot be checked to comply with WP:RS guideline. It also mixes her life with her way of thinking, so it is not a proper "Life" section, maybe it could be broken into an "Ideology" section. In a more technical criticisim, most of the sources in the "Life" section are not Wikified. Maybe the "Criticism" section is better balanced than the former, having published sources (FYI, published doesn't mean printed) as well as keeping the criticism short and factual. The only problem I see in it is that it does not comply with WP:NPOV because it tends to bias a part of the article. I suggest that its content be merged into the already proposed new section "Ideology". About Importance.- I had little trouble assesing this article as Mid-level class. As this is a bio, it does not fall in the low-level class. Many readers are familiar with what White Magic and Teosophy are, but may have not heard about Alice Bailey. Also, this article is not needed to the broad understanding of the occult. 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 Before, I have explained my reasons to assess this article as a Start-class quality mid-level importance article in the scope of the Wikiproject Occult. As this article has been the target of a lot of controversy I would like to make some comments as a form of conclusion. If we strictly compell to the three main policies of Wikipedia, this article violates some aspect of each one (WP:V,WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). But lets face it, Wikipedia is full with this kind of articles, and it is our job to either better them or delete them. So to take some serious actions in pro of the Wikipedia spirit I suggest that all sources be checked troughly against the WP:RS guideline, in order to determine which content is admisible to be in the article, and further more, if the article itself sustains notability. Please, read the hole text of the policies mentioned above and then try to applicate them into the sources. If not, this article is doomed to stay this way, and maybe fall into a stub, which may in the long term result in a speedy deletion. --Legion fi 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)