User talk:Catherineyronwode

Wilma Lee and Stoney Cooper

I've been listening to a lot of Wilma Lee and Stoney Cooper songs tonight. My one-time partner Tom Hall used to know 'em all, and taught most of 'em to me -- and 44 years later they still unfold from my memory, melodies and intonations intact and lyrics pretty much so, when i play even a snippet of them at itunes. The mind is an interesting device. Mine has been used to store a temendous number of Wilma Lee and Stoney Cooper songs i didn't even knew i knew.

Hmmmm.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 04:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Catherine, I've decided to step back from the article for a while, since I don't have the time to research Bailey. I think quotes from her work would be much better than self-published websites as a source. They also are more accetable, I think (see [1]) Anyways, Kwork himself is also deleting Bailey quotes from the article. And at least for Christian criticism, it would be rather easy to find better sources, i.e. one of those books that describe everything New-Agey, and especially her, as the incarnation of the devil :) --Voidocore 14:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

Catherine, is this correct?:

Kwork deleted and replaced Catherine's new version with the old version that was the center of much conflict in the forum. Most agreed that Catherine's last version was on track and in the middle of our talk about it, Kwork deleted it. We were starting to talk about how to improve on it. It is good to have Catherine's new version in front of us as we talk about it. And were moving toward a consensus, having escaped the problems and disagreements of the old version. I'm glad James restored the new version of that we were focused on.Sparklecplenty 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If so, it was a mistake and not intentional and I am sorry. Kwork 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's just get it finished

I dunno anything about removals of texts, mistakes, etc. -- i missed all that apparently while doing other things away from the computer -- and i am not focussed on the details of it. I just hope we are making progress, that's all. Catherineyronwode 00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting article: [2] Kwork 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have found this academic site [3] that lists Hannah Newman (author of Rainbow Swastika); which makes it possible to use her book as a ref. in the article! Kwork 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I have suggested a major change, and simplification, to the criticism section. You might want to take a look. It they will agree, I think it would be best to be done with it. If they do not accept, I could not imagine what more could be done but to continue the process as it has been until one side drops from fatigue with the process. (The motto of the famous Rebbe Nachman was "Never give up".) Kwork 21:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, i disagree very strongly with your proposal to reduce the entire Controversies section to two sentences. The goal of Wikipedia is to educate by being readable. Saying, "Some people we won't name said something interesting about Alice Bailey, but we don't have any information about that here, so go to these other places to read that" is totally unacceptable to me, for this or ANY article. cat Catherineyronwode 23:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just asked Kwork to help me help them.

If we can get them to help us initiate the expansion of the Bailey article we can perhaps do ourselves and the article a whole lot of good. Although I can scrap in the spirit of Saul Alinsky, I think the task is to lead by example. If some admin protects the article there are still ways to continue with the writing and the discussion. You are obviously by far the best writer and editor currently working on that article. They may never come to appreciate that fact but if we can take them by the hand and assist them in the expansion until they get the hang of it we can win this in a communal spirit. Anyway it seems worth a try. What do you think ? Albion moonlight 07:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Catherine's discussion of Alice Bailey's antisemitism. But I think, realistically, it will have to go into another article; perhaps to pending Occultism and Antisemitism article, which could be linked to the Alice Bailey article.

I have doubts even abouts about the fairness of trying to put to much antisemitism discussion into the Bailey article. So, Albion and Catherine, if you want to fight to get more of that in the Bailey article, it is okay with me....but I will have to withdraw for now from the discussions. It is an issue of what I think is the right thing to do. Kwork 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AAB bio

Catherine, I don't know if you noticed, but I did add two sentences about her suicide attempts to the article; in the first paragraph under "Life". Although I read her autobiography several times, I had no recollection of that until you pointed it out. Kwork 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Material to add to the article (suggestions)

As I have said on a number of occasions, those who are defending Bailey and her teaching know nothing about it. They misunderstand, and will not listen to views differing from their own. If this was the older generation of Bailey followers, none of this argument would have been necessary. The newer generation of followers are much more cultists (6th ray), and as a result distort the better aspects of the teaching to the point that it is the inverse of what Bailey would have wanted. Virtually every statement in the article describing the teaching is actually completely wrong.

In the late 60s and early 70s I was at many full moon (and not a few new moon) meditations in Florence Italy, and NYC. I knew many of the people who had been Bailey's coworkers.

But although I know these things; what I know is, in the context of Wikipedia, only original research. I think it important to find better sources, and get things better organized, so as to avoid the endless quibbling encountered so far.

I do hope you get more involve in the writing of the main section of the article, it would be a real help. Don't pay attention to the editors who say you don't know enough about Bailey. Their own knowledge of the subject is problematic. Kwork 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Source for AAB

This link [4] (through an e-forum) for an article printed in the Forward is by Paul Berman, who is a fellow at the World Policy Institute [5]. Do you think it might be helpful in the article? Kwork 13:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thank you for restoring the bronchiolitis obliterans page. The same vandal deleted your "undo"...I just undid it again but it looks like we have a problem on our hands. Do you know how to handle this? I'm not an expert in Wiki's vandalism policy. Thanks! Chrissy385 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cat- thanks for your note on my talk page. I was trying to forge a compromise mainly because, as you saw, up until that point, it was an all out war-- and those anonymous users were just deleting EVERYTHING on the relationship between this disease and popcorn, and I was hoping a compromise might get them to at least leave SOMETHING until we could get this to the attention of an admin. (Thank you for doing that by the way!) Clearly, people are threatened by the highly publicized link between popcorn fumes and this lung disease. Even if we changed the redirect from "popcorn workers lung" and "popcorn lung" to bronchiolitis oblitrans, I think it was ridiculous to suggest creating a new page on popcorn workers lung when popcorn workers lung *IS* bronchiolitis obliterans. People are turning to Wikipedia to get important information about this hazard and it is unbelievable how hurried people are to deprive Wikiusers access to important information. I will fill in some of those orphaned refs tomorrow that you mentioned on your talk page. Thank you again for all of your hard work and attention to this issue! Chrissy385 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A quote from jp gordon

*"ArbCom has had to hear cases regarding meat puppetry, yeah. Often it comes up in the course of cases brought forth for other reasons. It's rarely the primary cause.":Jpgordon

I take this to mean that there is a lot to be hopeful about. I asked him if arb com ever hears cases regarding Meat Puppetry. I did so shortly after he told us all that arb com turns down cases pursuant to content disputes. This is different but it is probably best to proceed with caution, Albion moonlight 08:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How about an article on Philip Lindsay ?

Even if it was nominated for speedy deletion by either him or his supporters It is very unlikely that the rest of the wiki community would tolerate such an article being deleted. Speedy deletion is a process similar to the rfc made against Kwork and once it became clear that Lindsay is a racist who is on the record for trying to unduly influence a wiki article, The whole mess would be out in the open and arb com would be almost forced to hear our case pursuant to the Bailey article.

It is hard to imagine a downside here. The worse case scenario would seem to be that the article would spark little to no reaction whatsoever. Either way an antisemetic a blog bigot would be exposed. Feel free to take this idea and run with it. Racism on the internet is a growing phenomenon that deserves a good kick in the butt, : Albion moonlight 08:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)+=

New Thought

The word secular was not used in either artical. I have never in my fifty years in NT referred to New thought teaching as secular or religious it's new thought. very confu.sed about this. There are different schools of NT.

New Thought Fact tags

I believe that you are in the position of having to do original research (See WP:OR) in order to bring the article up to date. Your last possibly neutral source has a date of 1980, I believe. I often find that WP standards don't really allow me to write what is probably true and even demonstrably true, or rather, they allow any editor passing by to call me out for violating the standards. I am sorry if my calling you out is inconvenient. I certainly encourage you to do what you can to make the article good. DCDuring 03:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear cat

Maybe I was a little harsh. I try hard to see your jokes -- I do appreciate you as a person. I thought the Rob Berman link was really funny; when I said 'LOL' I meant it literally. But I just couldn't find the funny in your diatribe there. And I want you to understand why. So here's some more personal, opinionated comments, of the variety I usually try to avoid.

Frankly, it's demeaning. It's ... it's really antigentilism, in fact (to cheaply coin a phrase). It made me very uncomfortable, and for what I believe are the same reasons you might not like jokes about "red sea pedestrians" coming from me. I.e., it feels "racist", for lack of a better word. Or maybe "bigoted". In fact, a lot of comments on that page feel that way to me. Sometimes I think some editors there believe that, if it's not the red blood of David in one's veins, then it must be the hateful green blood of the Deceiver. Gentiles don't all hate everyone, you know. That's a ... whaddyacallit .. a stereotype. You may not know this, but being stereotyped really sucks. (Yes, that is sarcasm.)

For instance, take me. I think Jason's has the best rueben ever made by a chain, and a schmeer from Einstein's is to die for. Speaking of Einstein, I can never decide whether he or Lenny Bruce was the smartest man of the 20th century. Of the (I think) 3 different Jewish girls I've had love affairs with, I loved every one of their completely different noses. And I don't even know what davening is. So, can you explain to me what I'm supposed to find funny about that stuff? I don't see it. I just feel insulted. Eaglizard 05:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, it doesn't seem to matter what approach I take with you, your responses to me always leave me feeling insulted. Maybe it's just me. But... whatever. One thing tho, defending bad behavior on the grounds that you've had to suffer the same thing, only worse... Well, doesn't make much sense to me. Eaglizard 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Black Book

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

Catherineyronwode, I can not find this book anyplace. Even the research collection of NYPL does not have it. Perhaps the title wrong? Walter Schellenberg was Hitler's chief of counterintelligence, and he did write a book or two [6]. Kwork 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, see the Alice Bailey talk page for my comments on this, as well as a reply to Eaglizard's question. cat Catherineyronwode 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for gathering all that information. Interesting, and I appreciate your effort. I had hoped that, if I pushed them enough, the Bailey enthusiasts among the editors would put some work into it and come up with documentation for the article. Strangely, they did not. Kwork 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed for Buddha

Please, re-add the stuff you removed. A.Z. 07:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i got your message asking me to add back that which i had removed in the Law of Attraction article, but i am still working on it. Please check later and add whatever fact tags you deem necessary at that time. I am trying to work with what was there and to tighten up the article to reflect actual English language use of the term, with less emphasis on what ancient people might have meant. cat 07:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove it in the first place? Were you distracted? Why don't you add it back yourself? This is all very strange to me. What if I hadn't seen your changes? I had partially fixed the problem with that sentence, but someone reverted my changes and didn't add them back. I think it's not good to remove tags that require citation; at least not without mentioning on the talk page that you've done so. A.Z. 07:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was rewriting and i wanted a clear field. Like i said, please be patient -- i was not simply fixing bad grammar or spelling, i was rewriting the section with new sentences and did not want fragments of old material in my way. When i completed the section, i added fact tags as i thought fit. Please look it over now and feel free to add as many more citation tags as you wush. Please assume good faith. cat Catherineyronwode 08:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Law of Attraction

Hi Catherineyronwode, I noticed that you are working on an article called the Law of Attraction. I you might (or might not) be interested to know that this was a key concept in the Alice Bailey books, for example: [7]. Since the idea is present in Theosophical literature also [8], I assume that Bailey took it from there. Kwork 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your progress on the New Tought and Law of Attraction articles. I'll give them a close read. I am interested in how you have been able it handle the lack of high-quality sources problem. DCDuring 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Faith Healing

Thanks for adding refrernces and details to the New Thought section. I wrote it one night it needed some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG59 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reported by Renee

Hi Catherine. There is a possibility that I might get bounced, thanks to the tireless efforts of Renee and Eaglizard at achieving "neutrality". I want to thank you for your help improving the article, and I regret that my own failings may have frequently made your work more difficult. Kwork 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

When did that happen.

Please tell me when you were blocked from editing the Bailey article for 7 days. If Renee has done this recently I think the time may have come to fight back hard. I am not about to fly off the handle or anything like that but I do think that we have the upper hand now. The report she filed on Kwork was pursuant to his alleged lack of civility. If he gets sanctioned for more than 24 hours I intend to let them know that 2 can play at that kind of game.

Meanwhile please fill me in on the details I asked for. I suspect that this did not happen recently and I am actually hoping that they are gradually coming around so I do not want to do anything to trigger further polarization. But........ : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 06:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind I got my answer by looking at the recent editing history of the Bailey article. Albion moonlight 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I remember that now but I had not realized that Renee was involved or the ramifications of her actions. I was following AnonEMouses talk page at the time. She or he is a very kind Human being. When you reestablished your user the tables started turning against Renee and that bunch. So in that sense she shot herself and her allies in their collective foot. I remember being very relieved at the time. I sensed that it was the beginning of the end of their proclaimed hegemony over the article. I think I was right. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah and thanks for the info. It helped me keep a clear head. Albion moonlight 08:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Laughing out loud.

Intellectual Opacity, Thats hilarious Cat. I am basically an inclusionist when it comes to Wiki articles. I say this because I see Wiki as a social experiment. I still intend to back you for the most part because I trust your intellectual judgement. But I am not going to get excited unless they start deleting and wikilawyering as they did in the recent past. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 10:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reading.

I am now fully aware of why you are concerned about Jossi. As you know Parsifal defended you. I am going to assume that Jossi has concentration problems. Please be careful Cat. You may be dealing with a loose cannon. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)