Talk:Alice Bailey/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents

Response to Renee and Eaglizard re: Balance" in Controversies section

Eaglizard and Renee --

Renee wrote above that the Controversies section was "unbalanced." I presume that this is because it contains no rebuttal. In the past, we have had the Lucis Trust rebuttal, but to me it seems a weak paragraph, due in large part to the Conflict of Interest in having a publishing house defending a dead author.

Would you be amenable to the following paragraph addition as a way to balance the Controversies section? It uses a part of Eaglizard's proposal, greatly condensed, and relies on Bailey's own quotations.

Please note, however, that because, this is the Controversies section, we are not going to be able to demolish the controversy. This added paragraph is simply intended to help present the section more neutrally, while also helping its readability and flow.

Proposed added rebuttal paragraph in Controversies section. Please do not interlineate responses within this proposal; please reply after it. Thanks.


Controversies (proposed revision, per Eaglizard's concerns)
Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism, as well as non-conformity to orthodox belief systems.
Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, likened Bailey's cosmology to that of the Italian fascist and occultist Julius Evola and wrote that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey and her followers.[1]
Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[2]
Although Bailey never responded directly to charges of antisemitism, in "Problems of Humanity" (1947), she did speak out against "cruelty, torture and wholesale murder," saying that "the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history [...] and right thinking people everywhere are [...] demanding that these persecutions end." As an alternative, she proposed that Jews assimilate into Christian culture, because "the Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage; that of the Negro will not." (Esoteric Healing,1949, p. 263 et. seq.)
The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," replied to Bailey's plan for a New World Order by saying that her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[3]
Bailey's works are also criticised by some Christian groups. In his book Unmasking the New Age, the Christian writer Douglas Groothuis said Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" and was later changed due to controversy.[4][5] The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship says although her texts dealt extensively with the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are actually contrary to orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.[5]
Bailey's books are criticized by Theosophists who consider her writings as borrowed from Theosophy yet including perspectives that were not part of the original teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.[6][7]

This additional paragraph makes the Controversies section longer, but it also has the good result of placing Gershom's opinion in context, as his essay was intended as a series of rebuttals to Bailey's texts and not as a stand-alone thesis.

Comments welcomed.

NOTE: I will not make this change to the page without prior wide agreement here on the talk page.

Nameless Date Stamp 19:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Frankly, that additional paragraph is not my idea of a good direction in which to take the piece; to me it seems over-wordy and tangential. I have only proposed it as a response to Renee's concerns above, as a show of good faith and a token of my sincere deire to reach consensus.

Nameless Date Stamp 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting approach, I'm not unhappy with the one condensed quote. However, I am not aware of Bailey ever proposing that Jews "assimilate" into Christian culture; the implication is subtle, yet damning. Unless you can support that with a cite. Eaglizard 03:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to Kwork on the Black List Quote

The criticism section contains, if you have not deleted it again, the following quotation from her autobiography:

“The Jewish problem has seemed to me well nigh insoluble. I, at this time see no way out, except through the slow process of evolution and a planned educational campaign. 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. I have been officially on Hitler's "blacklist" because of my defense 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.” (Unfinished Biography pp118-9)

Note that the article does not say she was on the black list. It quotes her saying she was--an important distinction. The quote does not make a claim that needs justification.

In the same way, the article does not say she was antisemitic but quotes people who said she was. Both are facts that we are simply reporting here. I can not justly remove the the critical quotes and likewise, you should not remove what she wrote on this topic. James 01:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

James, Explain Yourself

Okay. So James decided -- again without any consensus or prior discussion to revert the Controversies section.

James ought to know, from long past experience, that over-writing a carefully crafted attempt to accomodate the "bipartisan" concerns of all parties with yet one more iteration of his unacceptably POV material is incivil

James ought to know from long past experience that this autocratic move is counter to common sence (and to Wiki guidelines) because an edit/revert war has been ongoing for many weeks and people are trying to work out mutually satisfactory details on the Talk page prior to changing the article.

I am very diasappointed in James' behaviour. It appears childish, petulant, biased, petty, and uncooperaive in the extreme. And yes, that is a PERSONAL evaluation. It is personal because this latest salvo in the edit war was not started by Sethie, Renee, Eaglizard, Sparkleplenty, or any others of Bailey's devotees.


  • These statements are, to be rather obvious (to the point of condescension) a personal attack. And Nameless ought to know better. S/he claims to. S/he writes copiously in legalistic detail of policy and guidelines, in fact. S/he does not appear to connect hir understanding with hir own behavior, unfortunately. Eaglizard 04:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


James, later tonight another FACTUAL and NPOV version (the one we have all contribued to, with my neutral and FACTUAL and NPOV lead sentence and including the most recent input by Eaglizard, will again replace your biased version.


In the hours remaining until then, it is my hope that you will EXPLAIN yourself.

Why are you doing this to us all?

What can it possibly result in but more conflict?

Please, EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

Nameless Date Stamp 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

P. S. I noticed that between this morning, when my most recent call for comments on my proposal for a "bipartisan" revision of the Controversies section to include the Bailey "responses" secion (per Renee's and Eaglizard's suggestions), there were no comments at all by Renee, Eaglizard, Sethie, Kwork, AnonEMouse, or Albion -- or anyone else.
I would like to ask people of good will to comment. Do you think that what James did was acceptable? If so, will my unilateral substitution of the revised proposal be acceptable? If so, when will the edit-warring and revision-warring STOP?
Yes, in fact, I think what James did was very acceptable. For instance, see WP:BOLD. This, as you seem to have forgotten, is Wikipedia -- the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Got that? ANYONE. And that includes James. Honestly, I have grown rather tired of the separatism and selfishness shown by some rather obdurate editors. And, I am exhausted by their incessant personal attack.
I am not going away. I am going to stay here as long as it takes to get that six (or seven) paragraph section stabilized as a truthful, fair, and ACCURATE description of the controversies aurrounding the person and the teachings of Alice Bailey.
Nameless Date Stamp 02:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I began attempting to balance the POV in this article well over a year ago. Feel free to stick around as long as you like. Eaglizard 04:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Eaglizard.
My first edit to this page occurred on
  • 04:06, May 1, 2006 (hist) (diff) Alice Bailey‎ (added category Occult authors). [that caetfory is now known as category Occult writers]
My first encounter with information about her antisemitism came 16 days later, in response to a request i saw on the Talk page:
  1. 02:12, May 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Alice Bailey‎ (→Anti-Semitism)
  2. 02:09, May 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Alice Bailey‎ (→Anti-Semitism)
And that was followed (in reverse chronological order, from my contributions page) by these edits:
  1. 02:56, May 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Alice Bailey‎ (final pass through)
  2. 02:52, May 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Alice Bailey‎ (clean-up)
  3. 02:36, May 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Alice Bailey‎ (→External links - replaced ext link on anti-Semitism with a better one)
  4. 02:29, May 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Alice Bailey‎ (cite source for Bailey quotes on jews)
  5. 02:26, May 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Alice Bailey‎ (Added anti-Semitism reference and external link per request on talk pag.)
Here, for the record, is the full text of my completed and cleaned-up first attempt to mention her racism:
Racist views
Bailey's writings are marked by persistent racism and anti-Semitism. For instance, she wrote that the Nazi atrocities against the Jews had come about because "The Jewish race, who loved the possessions of the world more than they loved the service of Light, joined ranks with the rebels against God" and therefore "... the law of racial karma] is working and the Jews are paying the price, factually and symbolically, for all they have done in the past." She further claimed that "the Jews are the reincarnation of spiritual failures or residues from another planet..." and that "the word 'love' for others is lacking in Judaism... The Jew has never grasped the love of God." (Esoteric Healing, 1949)
Bailey had a "solution" to what she saw as "the Jewish problem", a solution that reveals her anti-Black bigortry as well. She wrote that only "when selfishness in business relations and the pronounced manipulative tendencies of the Hebrew people are exchanged for more selfless and honest forms of activity" would anti-Semitism cease and that "the Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage; that of the Negro will not." (Esoteric Healing, p. 263 et. seq.)
It was not great. It contained typos, it was a bit heavy on the conclusions, and worst of all, it cited as a source what we now know to have been the cobbled-together David Green version of the "residue" quote (which had turned up number 1 in a google search at that time) -- but it was a start, and a necessary one, because it got the subject matter out into the open on the Bailey page, where the requester on the talk page had asked it to be. It was, to quote you, "WP:BOLD".
So, anyway, if your point was that you have some sort of seniority of dedication here, well, that's an understandable mistake, for which i must apologize and take responsiblity, given my decision to return to the page recently without a user name, and if your point was to encourage me to edit, well, that's nice, and i will return the favour: keep on editing!
Cordially
Catherineyronwode 16:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An Aarchived version of what James wrote

Here is an archived copy of what James attempted to put into the Controversies section.

  • 1) It is biased and pushes his pro-Bailey POV.
  • 2) The convoluted and tense-lost lead sentence is a proleptic apologia for a controversy he does not even name until the 2nd sentence.
  • 3) His uncited and unsourced opinions, like:
"Suggestions of overt antisemitism seem at odds with some statements in her books"

are OR and thus violate WP:NOR guidelines.

As promised, my sad task for tonight is to revert that section to the way it was for the past day, in the hope that next time James will ask for and LISTEN TO -- opinions, as others here have done, rather than assuming he can control all content relating to controversies that surround Alice Bailey and her teachings.


Controversies {by James, August 31st, 2007; reverted by Nameless Date Satmp)

Writing during the first half of the Twentieth century, Bailey (like some contemporaries) commented extensively on what was then viewed as "The Jewish Problem". Many critics have considered her comments overtly racist and antisemitic. In addition, references to orthodox belief systems such as Christianity or Bhuddism (couched in their adopted terminology) have been criticized for non-conformity to those system's established doctrines.

Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, wrote that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey and her followers.[8] He also likened Bailey's cosmology to that of the Italian fascist and occultist Julius Evola.

Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," wrote of Bailey's plan for a New World Order, saying her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[9] Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, also wrote of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[10]

Suggestions of overt antisemitism seem at odds with some statements in her books; for instance, in Problems of Humanity (1947) she writes

The fate of the Jews in the world war is a terrible tale of cruelty, torture and wholesale murder and the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history. For it there is no excuse or condonation, and right thinking people everywhere are aware of this and are eagerly demanding that these persecutions end. (italics Bailey's)

Bailey herself addressed this issue later in life:

“The Jewish problem has seemed to me well nigh insoluble. I, at this time see no way out, except through the slow process of evolution and a planned educational campaign. 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. I have been officially on Hitler's 'blacklist' because of my defense 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.” (Unfinished Biography pp118-9)

In addition, it has been noted that her books call for the gradual elimination of all extant world religions, considering them "outmoded" presentations of the truth, to be replaced with a new "World Religion" -- Judaism is not singled out in this regard.

Bailey's works are also criticized by some Christian groups. For instance, Lucis Trust was originally incorporated as "Lucifer Trust" -- in his book Unmasking the New Age, Christian writer Douglas Groothuis states the name change was due to "controversy".[11][12] (In Bailey's termanology, "Lucifer" symbolizes Self-consciousness, the Son of the Morning and The Prodigal Son.) The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship notes that, although her texts deal extensively with the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are actually contrary to much of orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.[12]

Additionally, her books have been criticized by other Theosophists, who consider her writings as borrowed from Theosophy yet including perspectives that were not part of the original teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.[13][14]


Nameless Date Stamp 03:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone have a nice hot bath!

Now! That's an order! lol

Sorry; as it gets closer to my birthday, my 1st ray will always starts to assert itself. :) (Btw, if you're at all interested in my odd username, consider the signs coming up in the next few months. <smile>)

So, seriously. The tone is once again getting out of hand, and I think everybody needs to relax a little. Nameless, you in particular. Your last comments to James are blatant personal attacks (and they kinda pissed me off, btw). Please stop. Discuss the edits, not the editor, I always say -- but I don't think you quite grasp the difference. And I'm finished breaking my own policy, now.

I have a few notes regarding this talk page. I'm going to archive it tonite or tomorrow, using the 'move method'. I'll pick an appropriate point far enough back that we don't lose the current discussion (pointless as I think it is, I realize others are attached to it). Any problems with that? And, as far as the two (2!) active RfC's on this page: I think the older one should definitely be de-listed, and the newer one doesn't seem to have garnered much movement either.

Now. On a final note. The page Julius Evola has been held up as an example. After thinking about it for a week or so, I completely agree. Would everyone please take a good, close look at that article, right now? It's structure is very illustrative in regards to our current "impasse". Thanks so much. Eaglizard 05:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The controversies section

The controversies section is changing so much it is making my head spin. I am going to weigh in now and say that in principle I am an inclusionist when it comes to Wikipedia . Once again it seems to me as if there is a resistance to allowing anything more than a brief mention of the fact there are controversies. If it were just me I would probably just allow this and move on but it isn't just me so I intend to back the idea of inclusion until this matter is resolved. I say this because I believe that this dispute may windup going all the way to arbitration. I am assuming good faith on the part of everyone. I think that arbitration may become necessary because neutrality is sometimes almost impossible to achieve in cases such as these.

I don't see any blatant personal attacks taking place but I do think that blaming someone for their edits is undiplomatic and that diplomacy and civility often work hand in hand. Addressing the edits instead of the editor helps keep the lid on things.....Albion moonlight 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Albion moonlight. This has been going on too long without getting closer to resolution. Proceeding to arbitration now seems advisable, because it is clear that compromise over the controversies section is out of reach. What needs to be done to initiate the arbitration process? Kwork 11:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to Seek mediation from the mediation committee 1st. But before anyone does this we should wait and see what AnonEmouse has to say. She or he can advise us on how to proceed. If he or she thinks there is hope we should not jump the gun. Albion moonlight 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversies Consensus

Heya! I enjoyed my bath; how was yours?

To begin with, I'd like to point out that I have, to date, avoided editing the the controversial 'Controversies' section. Secondly, thank you to all who commented on my first proposal; I have finished a second draft. And now, I believe it is time for me to weigh in on the subject officially (ie, to make my edits). As James had already inserted some of my text (since reverted), here is a more complete version. I have decided to edit this in directly rather than discuss here first because I am WP:BOLD.

Since I fully expect the text to have been changed before most of you see it, here is the version I have created, in toto:


(Controversies)

Writing during the first half of the Twentieth century, Bailey (like some contemporaries) commented extensively on what was then viewed as "The Jewish Problem". Many critics have considered her comments overtly racist and antisemitic. In addition, references to orthodox belief systems such as Christianity or Bhuddism (couched in their adopted terminology) have been criticized for non-conformity to those system's established doctrines.
Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, wrote that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey and her followers.[1] He also likened Bailey's cosmology to that of the Italian fascist and occultist Julius Evola.
Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," wrote of Bailey's plan for a New World Order, saying her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[3] Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, also wrote of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[2]
Accusations of overt antisemitism contrast with some statements in her books; for instance, in Problems of Humanity (1947) she writes
The fate of the Jews in the world war is a terrible tale of cruelty, torture and wholesale murder and the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history. For it there is no excuse or condonation, and right thinking people everywhere are aware of this and are eagerly demanding that these persecutions end. (italics Bailey's)
Bailey addressed this issue later in life, writing in her autobiography:
“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. I have been officially on Hitler's "blacklist" because of my defense 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.” (Unfinished Biography pp118-9)
In addition, it has been noted that her books call for the gradual elimination of all extant world religions, considering them "outmoded" presentations of the truth, to be replaced with a new "World Religion" -- Judaism is not singled out in this regard.
Bailey's works are also criticized by Christian groups. Lucis Trust was originally incorporated as "Lucifer Trust"; although Bailey's followers claim the sense is "Light Bringer", the name has produced accusations of satanism from Christians (for instance, Douglas Groothuis in his book Unmasking the New Age).[4][5] The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship also notes that, although her texts often discuss the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are actually contrary to much of orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.[5]
Additionally, her books have been criticized by other Theosophists, who consider her writings to be borrowed from Theosophy, yet including perspectives that were not part of the original teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.[6][7] Bailey's books mention Blavatsky frequently, and claim to be a direct amplification of and addition to that author's major work, The Secret Doctrine.

Now, I would like to say that I feel any further POV edits should be obvious as such, both to the editor and to any outside observers. It seems to me that we have a good consensus on the previous version I suggested; this version should be even better. Unless a majority of editors disagree with some of my choices here, I suggest we take this version as consensus. Please note your disagreement or agreement below. If disruptive editing continues, I suggest we should revert. After that, we should proceed with further mediation / comment / arbitration procedures (if necessary). I (humbly) believe I have achieved near-perfect Neutral POV here; further edits that disagree with the majority of us should be obvious POV modifications, if I've done this properly.

Suggestions that it is "too long" will be referred to Julius Evola, where the discussion of his beliefs and theories is roughly 75% of the article. If anyone feels it "lacks focus", please state what you think the focus should be, and where it is being lost. As a side note: having spent the better part of a month crafting this text from everyone's suggestions and text, I expect to defend it ruthlessly (although (I hope) always within Wikipedia policy). OTOH, as I hope I have demonstrated by now, I welcome any and all input. Eaglizard 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC) PS: If you feel the critical comments are now outweighed, I encourage you to add another quote from one of the sources (or add an additional source, if you can). In particular, the paragraph beginning "Dr Victor Shnirelman..." could really use another sentence, I think. Eaglizard 10:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Eaglizard, the problem with you version is that it it, once again, it aims at giving the impression that all that criticism of Bailey's antisemitic statements result from not reading them in context. That is not a correct position. To illustrate exactly that, is the reason I had written this previously, and now am copying below now:

Much that Alice Bailey said about the Jews is also found in traditional European antisemitic stereotypes [[1]], stereotypes that she has dressed in the garb of esoteric terminology [[2]]. For example, There is this stereotype of Jews and money [[3]], as Bailey presents it:

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 this same stereotype of a Jewish special relationship with money was playing out at the very same time Alice Bailey wrote her words, and how the same views were finding expression in European, compare it 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.

This second quote, is from Der Giftpilz, an anti-Semitic children's book published by Julius Streicher, the publisher of Der Stürmer (a weekly Nazi newspaper) in 1938. 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 own thought; and, also, it is integral to the history of European antisemitism. This suggests that her views on the Jews is based in traditional European antisemitism, which brings into question the claim that these are the views of a Tibetan Master. 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 [[4]][[5]]:

The decision anent the Jews is one of hierarchical importance, owing to the karmic relation of the Christ to the Jewish race, to the fact that they repudiated Him as the Messiah and are still doing so, and of the interpretive nature of the Jewish problem as far as the whole of humanity is concerned.

The Rays and the Initiations, p.636-7

And:

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

Esoteric Healing, p267-8

What this seems to say is that the genocide that had just occurred in Europe was intended to help Jews overcome their isolation, and to help them express inclusive love. Despite the claims by Alice Bailey that the source of her books was a Tibetan Master of the Ancient Wisdom, it seems that what she wrote about the Jews was based on stereotypes common in Europe during her youth, and which she absorbed into her thinking [[6]] [[7]]. Those thoughts could not have come from a Tibetan Teacher and Master of the Inner Wisdom.

I think that the above is enough to support the view that Alice Bailey really did make antisemitic statements. (I left in the original sources, some of which may need changing) Kwork 12:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that reasoned response, Kwork, I greatly appreciate your input. I'm a bit tired to consider your point at the moment, but I do want to assure you that the text does not aim to give that impression. My intent is NPOV; I even re-read the appropriate policy pages all nite to help clarify my thinking. If that POV is in fact present (and I'll not deny it might be), I promise you I will cooperate fully in trying to rectify it. That said, I don't believe I agree with you, but allow me to present argument after sleeping. Thanks, and g'nite. :) Eaglizard 12:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
DAMNIT i'm really getting stuck on this dang article. i can't sleep, i'm busy thinking about it. sigh. anyways, just a quick note, you very well may be right Kwork, I think I see exactly what you mean; it's cause the "critical" paragraphs have been massaged too much already, they're too condensed now for the expanded "rebuttal" section. I think they do need some reworking. Specifically the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. But I did expand the "Christian" and "Theosophy" paragraphs, any comment on those? Eaglizard 13:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not consider the "Christian" and the "Theosophy" issues of much importance. My own view has always been that Bailey's teaching is really a form of esoteric Christianity. The differences between her teaching and either other Christian denominations, or the Theosophical Society, are the reason she started her own movement. When Martin Luther found he was in disagreement with the Catholic Church, he founded a new religion. The disagreement is the reason Lutheranism exists, and need not be considered a controversy.
AS for the antisemitism, why does it have to be such a big production? A short statement that there is a problem with some things she said on the issue, and the sources, is enough. A short reply in defense is okay. I never dreamed it could take so long, and so much heated discussion, to get something so simple done. Kwork 13:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Gershom, Sjoo and Watchman

After the "Further Reading" Section was several times deleted by Kwork with a false pretext, I have looked at the Sources of the contentious material.

WP:RS says that Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, esp. Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. Wikipedia should not be the original source for new research, ideas, interpretations, of analyses. Such original research has not yet been published in a reliable source, and therefore is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

The Sjöö source does not meet WP:RS. It is from a self-published website, and cites a self-published pampleth of 40 pages by Sjöö. However, she has some published books. You can look up these books for Bailey and then cite these books.

The Gershom source is a self-published website, does not meet WP:RS.

The Watchman Expositor, Watchman Fellowship is a self-published and partisan (christian) website. Not a reliable source.

Some of the other sources are also questionable, the Acta does not seem to be an academic peer-reviewed journal. But I'm willing to accept these.

Kwork and Nameless editor, I'm not doing this as revenge of the deleted Further reading section, or because I don't want to see the information there (even though it is a misrepresentation of Bailey). These are the Wikipedia rules, and they are applied as such in hundreds of other articles, where much better sources are being removed. If you don't like the rules, go to the talkpage of WP:RS and ask that the rules be changed. If someone will again add these self-published sources for contentious criticisms before the rules at WP:RS are changed, I will have to report it to an admin. These self-published sources do also not add anything new that Shnirelman and other critics don't already say, and they misrepresent Bailey, as this talkpage shows.

On another note, you're not doing anything good for your cause, by likening Bailey to Julius Evola, if you want to be taken seriously. Evola was indeed without doubt an antisemite, wrote a foreword to the Protocols, had sympathies for Hitler, and is being read by Nazis. This is not the case with Bailey. Bailey's attacks on Judaism are not of the kind of antisemitism of Evola, Hitler or Henry Ford. Though I'm not an expert on Bailey, it seems she must rather be compared with writers like Nietzsche (read The Antichrist), who with their attacks on Judaism (and Christianity) are attacking old traditional values, rather than the Jews themselves. --Voidocore 13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you entirely Voidocore. I've repeatedly posted information like this. Gershom also was shown to have cobbled together quotations. He is a published author but in a different area. Also, I agree with you about the Hebrew U article. It's not peer reviewed but at least it's by an academic on a respectable website, so it seems pretty good considering what else is out there.
Thanks, Renee --Renee 14:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)



Voidocore, your comparison to Nietzsche is perspicuous indeed! Thanks so much for looking into those sources, as well. However, I believe you are wrong, there. While I understand (and commend) your obvious desire to follow policy, I don't believe the policy in this regard is as strict as you make it out to be. Specifically, in cases where very little material is available, I don't believe "self-published" should trump the fundamental goals of Wikipedia: the representation of NPOV, in this case. We must cite such criticism; very few sources seem available to do so. However (as some of us are aware), these criticisms are quite well known in the so-called "esoteric" circles; we're essentially trying to document something that is poorly documented in the first place, without devolving into OR. Or at least, that's how I see it. I believe we are reaching a reasonable consensus, including these sources. If you really think these sources are an unacceptable violation of core policy, please do try to change my mind, here or on my talk page. However, if you would like to suggest to the community that we, as editors, are "breaking the rules", I certainly can't stop you, but I personally don't think you'll prevail. Eaglizard 13:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I can almost guarantee you that Voidocores position would not prevail. I have seen too many attempts at these sorts of claims and threats. They are almost inevitably viewed as dubious. Albion moonlight 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And I have seen too many cases where much better sources were removed from articles because of WP:RS. --Voidocore 14:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree, Albion. An even better argument (will I never sleep?): we are not citing these sources as evidence that Bailey was (or was not) racist. We are instead replacing our earlier weasel words that "some people claim Bailey was racist" with the specific, verifiable fact that (i.e.) Rabbi Gershom considers Bailey racist. His web page is cited as proof of this verifiable fact. Whether his assertions are right or wrong is irrelevant; that he considers her a racist is undeniable. Again, the "self-published" nature of the website (with it's concerns of bias and COI) would not seem to prevent it from verifying that Gershom does, indeed, "hate" Bailey. Does that make sense? Eaglizard 13:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
We would need a reliable source that says that Gershom in his self-published article hates Bailey. --Voidocore 14:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have seen too many articles, were much better sources were removed because of WP:RS. This is how Wikipedia works. Don't like it, then try to change the rules over at WP:RS.
If there is little material, then Wikipedia says that it is just not notable enough (if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.) These self-published sources do also not add anything new that the our other sources don't already say, and worse, they misrepresent Bailey, as this talkpage shows. This is a biography, and the sources are about contentious controversial and exceptional claims which need exceptional sources: WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. If no reliable sources are found, then it is OR. This is what WP:OR says: Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source.
As long as the WP:RS is applied to other articles, we simply cannot make exceptions for some article. --Voidocore 13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

On Eaglizard Proposal for Controversies section & the Issue of Balance

Above, Egalizard said:

Unless a majority of editors disagree with some of my choices here, I suggest we take this version as consensus. Please note your disagreement or agreement below. If disruptive editing continues, I suggest we should revert. After that, we should proceed with further mediation / comment / arbitration procedures (if necessary)...
I agree with the above.
About the question of whether this, the Egalizard edit of the Controversies section, gives undue weight to her critics or to Bailey's response, note the following (especially if you're experiencing loss of sleep)--I copied all of the critical portions to an editor that counts characters, and the same with the portion quoting and paraphrasing Bailey's defense. The result is:
The portion critical of Bailey contains 2026 characters.
The portion offering her response contatins 1,574 characters.
So, the bottom line is, that the critical attack quotes are given substantially more space than Bailey's defense. Despite that bias I'm content to leave Egalizard's version as is and move on. I am however, open to Voidocore's argument that the critical references are, for highly controversial material, too weak--according to Wiki standards--to be included. I will look carefully at any further details he provides.
Those keen to quote critics should note that, as things stand, the bias is on their side. However, if they insist on continuing to fight for more space to elaborate the views of critics--whether with better sources or not--then I propose an exact balance for any future versions. We simply decide upon a appropriate proportion of space for the criticisms, and then use exactly the same amount of text for a response to them.James 14:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Eaglizard, before I had time to positively respond to your making the controversy section more balanced, Kwork had already deleted it. I guess he doesn't want to see Bailey's compassionate thoughts about the Jews in the bio? Sparklecplenty 18:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


James, this seems like an effort, on your part, to take ownership of the article. Time is necessary for discussion before changes are made. Kwork 15:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Affirmative Action for the Jewish People, AAB & Related Thoughts

It occurs to that it may not be incorrect to give the critics of Bailey some leeway, as has already been done. In allowing them the space, we are being inclusive, and if not following the letter of Wiki standards, perhaps at least something of the spirit of it.

Alice Bailey was certainly "politically incorrect" by modern standards, or if you like, she/he "pulled no punches." I fear though, that because of the tragic history of the Jewish people, many defenders of the faith are over-the-top in their vigilance to ensure that no critic of Jewish people goes unpunished. Critics of the Jewish people and their history, are indiscriminately thrown into the same category as those misguided souls who really are antisemitic. IMHO, the anti-defamation league in this forum would do more for themselves if they would turn their energies to building up a true picture of all that is good and creative about their culture and less time defending it against real or imagined attacks. (In political debates, one of the tactics commonly used is get your opponent on the defensive so they have less time to present the good side of who they are and what they will do.)

Science and philosophy speak about races, and I suppose some of this creates a sense of the vast sweep of evolution that helps take our eyes off our small personal sphere with its provincial concerns. And a large history and cosmological writings may serve to give some perspective.

On the other hand, talk of the evolution of races, with its implications of more and less advanced types, can be hard to digest. Personally, I like to think toward the more subtle meaning of types. But, in people's minds, race is virtually synonymous with body. And while there is clearly a bodily aspect, it is the idea of race as consciousness and race as culture that is of real value. The modern trend of adopting the image of a rainbow is instructive.

Differences, diversity, variations of body, type, culture, heritage, they are all OK in their evolving expressions. Differences are inherent in forms, in manifestation, and theses divisions are useful for understanding the phenomenal world. Yet, emphasis on differences creates divisions, feeds egotism and discord between individuals and various subsets of the one humanity. A wrong sense of race feeds the separative sense of them and us. Groups war and fight based on narrow and ignorant identifications. Thus is mapped the egotism of history and the stupidity of bodily identifications. The only salvation is perseverance in the primary identification with humanity. James 15:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Then I will tell you a great secret, Captain. Perhaps the greatest of all time. The molecules of your body are the same molecules that make up this station, and the nebula outside, that burn inside the stars themselves. We are star stuff, we are the universe, made manifest, trying to figure itself out. As we have both learned, sometimes the universe requires a change of perspective."

-Delenn, from an episode of the science fiction series,"Babylon 5"

Comments on the Controversies Controversy

As can be seen, we are back to square one again.

I think that mediation or arbitration is necessary.

I agree with Kwork: i think that the versions of the Controversies section that Eaglizard and James are promoting are not accurate representations of the controversy itself. They consist of varying attempts to pre-diffuse the controversy with proleptic statements and then to dishonestly make it appear that Bailey made no harshly antisemitic, anti-Zionist, or anti-Judaism statements and thus cast her critics as fools who have misunderstood her "context."

I disagree with Voidcore, who now wants to roll back our previous cordial and consensual agreements to include Gershom and Sjoo and who claims that Shnirelman's article in ACTA was not peer-reviewed, even though the journal is published by Hebrew University.

I would like to further comment that the archive of "all Bailey material relating to Jews" that James put online in support of his position is grossly deficient, both for the reason that Kwork cited earlier above and because by searching only on the word "Jew" in her writings, he left out all references to "Judaism" and "Zionism" -- which include some of her most foul-mouthed statements.

Kwork and i -- and Renee, bless her heart -- have been trying to use the talk-page consensus method of developing the Controversies section as a neutral yet forthright statement of historical events.

The last version that was brought to the talk page for consensus approval (but has since been deleted from the Bailey page) is here [8]. Note that it contains at paragpraph (4) some major concessions to those who support Bailey. I will outline it below, and i suggest that in the future, since we cannot work by reversion-war, we first agree on an OUTLINE, then fill it in. Here is an outline of that once-approved version:

*(1) People have accused her of promoting X, being anti-Y, and doing Z.
*(2) Person A flat-out accused her of promoting X (cited).
*(3) Person B flat-out accused her of promoting X (cited).
*(4) While she never directly responded to accusations of promoting X in her lifetime, evidence that she wrote in an ambivalent manner on the subject of X and actually spoke out against certain aspects of X can be found here (cited) and here (cited).
*(5) Nevertheless, Person C still accused her of promoting X because he noted that she also said something here (cited) that he felt indicated she was promoting X (cited).
*(6A) She has also been criticized by people connected to Y. (6B) Person D accused her of being anti-Y because of one thing (cited). (6C)Person E accused her of being anti-Y because of something else (cited).
*(7) She has also been accused of doing Z (cited).

That's the outline of a neutral and almost balanced look at the controversies. All that it lacks is a one-sentence rebuttal to statements (6A) and (6B) (which it once had, but which was removed several weeks ago, and which could easily be reinstated) and a one-sentence rebuttal to statement (7) (which it has always lacked, but which could easily be crafted) and it would then be completely balanced ... to the point of stasis, one might hope.

Now look what Eaglizard wrote and put online "boldly" tonight. You might want to open it in a second window, as i am going to both outline it and address it as an editor [--ed.] would, were it to be submitted for professional publication:

* (1A) She wrote about something called K that is actually not a pomotion of X and it was a long time ago and other people were writing about K then too. (1B) Some people think [why the change to present tense? --ed] that she wrote overly strongly about X [there's no mention of the accusations to come that she was promoting X, only that she wrote about it in strong language--ed.]. (1C) In addition, references to Y1 and Y2 [were these "references" written by anyone in particular or are they just the usual cast of anthropomorphic talking refencerces? --ed.] have been critized. [Note: this lead paragraph is terrible. The ostensible topic sentence (1A) is proleptic and off-topic. The second sentence (1B) changes tense and is also not a topic sentence to the subject about to be broached. Sentence (1C) is digressive, ill-formed, and leads AWAY from the subject because although it mentions Y2, no reference to Y2 will appear below. There is alo no mention anywhere in this paragraph of the upcoming accusations of doing Z, which will appear below and will thus seem to come out of nowhere. --ed.]
* (2A) Person A accused her [why the change back to past tense? --ed] of promoting X (cited). (2B) Person A also compared her to another person, for reasons unstated here (UNcited). [Give reason for comparison and fix uncited sentence. --ed.]
* (3A) Person B flat-out accused her of promoting X (cited). (3B) Person B flat-out accused her of promoting X (cited).
* (4) Accusations that she promoted X contrast [why the change back to present tense? --ed.] with statements in her books:
* (5A, 5B) Long blockquote of what she wrote against certain aspects of X (cited).
* (6) She explained this ambiguity [why the change back to past tense? --ed] by denying having "feelings" that were congruous with promoting X [POV opinion; Original research; intrusion of writer's bias; she did not actually make this statement in rebuttal to accusations of promoting X; the writer merely gleaned the comment from amongst her varied writings and presents it here on her behalf. --ed.]
* (7A, 7B, 7C, 7D) Long blockquote in which she denied having feelings that are congruous with promoting X and said that some of her best friends were exactly the kind of people whom the promotion of X would hurt -- and made a very remarkable and unsupported claim vis-a-vis having been on "Hitler's Black List" because she spoke out against the violent aspects of X (cited). [An apologia by reason of her "feelings" being multifarious or dual in nature is not evidence that she did not promote X and should not be taken as evidence that she did not promote X. Rather, it should be stated for what it is, namely, evidence of her ambiguity of expression. The fact that she had friends who would have been hurt by X is not evidence that she did not promote X -- see the case of US Senator Strom Thurmon, who promoted R, thus harming his own long time lover and the daughter they had together, both of whom were directly adversely impacted by his legislative promotion of R) Next, her unsupported claim of being on Hitler's Black List" is unusable in an encyclopedia. First, we have no verified evidence that such a "Hitler's Black List" existed. Second, even if it existed, we don't know what it comprised -- was it a publication ban, an assassination list, a list of people to be sent to concentration camps or prisoner of war camps if captured, a list of persons not allowed Geran visas (which would at one point have included every citizen of the US, Canda, Britain, and Australia), or what? Third, even if it existed and it was more than a general ban on US citizens getting German visas, we don't know that her name was on it. Fourth, even if it existed and it was more than a general ban on travel by US citizens and her name was on it, we don't know that her name was included for the resaon she gave -- the inclusion of her name might have had nothing to do with the topic of X, but might have been due to E, F, or G. In short, this remarkable claim opens such a can of research worms that it simply cannot be used in its present state. Unless it is fully documented, it must go. And, i might add, even if it were to be fully documented, it STILL does not rebut the accusations that she promoted X, but only lends authority to the general consensus that some people are hypcrites (see Strom Thurmond) and that even among potential allies who all agree to promote X, there might be differences of opinion rgarding the degree of violence advocated. --ed.]
* (8) In addition, she also promoted L, M, N, O, and P, which are sort of like promoting X, thus indicating that her promotion of X was only part of a larger pattern of promotions she made. [this is uncited, it is original research, it is an opinion, and it pushes a POV. NG. -- ed.]
* (9A) Her works are [why the change back to present tense? --ed] criticized by some people onnected with Y. (9B) A group she founded orginally had another name, which her followers (uncited) claim [unverified --ed.] means something, [comma should be semicolon or period --ed.] "the name has produced accusations" [clarify your anthropomorphism of "the name"; did it "produce" in the sense of a stage magician's illusions or in the sense of a woman giving birth? --ed.] of her being anti-Y from Person D who accused her of being anti-Y because of one thing (cited). (9C)Person E accused her of being anti-Y because of something else (cited).
* (10A) Her books but not her person have been [why the change back to past tense? --ed.] criticized for Z (cited). (10B) Her books mention [why the change back to present tense? --ed.] a Z-related author frequently and claim [sic; the books make the claim, more anthropomorphism, this time with talking books! --ed.] to be an amplification of what that Z-related author wrote. [This paragraph was a surprise, because accusations of her doing Z were not covered by the topic sentence or lead paragraph. --ed.]

Yes, that's how a real editor would knock that version apart -- not to hurt the writer's feelings, but to get him or her to craft something up to the standards of an encyclopedia of worth. I know, because i am both a writer who has received such hard knocks from editors and an editor who has dealt them out to writers, in all kindness, for 40 years now.

Cordially,

The Wikipedian formerly known as Nameless Date Stamp

Catherineyronwode 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Catherine, about the ACTA. I have said I'm accepting the source. I only wanted you to show how it is done in other wikipedia articles. I have seen it enough times on wikipedia, that even a journal or other publication is rejected simply because it is not peer-reviewed enough, or because it is not in the Citation Indexes. Read this, if you don't believe me: Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict/Archive_8#further_source_discussion. I'm being nice here by only removing the really unacceptable self-published sources. Voidocore 16:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Catherineyronwode, I believe we have met before. I am very glad you've chosen to inhabit an identity; I find it much easier to respond to you this way.
Perhaps one thing you have lost sight of here is that (I assume) the writers to whom you have dealt such knocks expected renumeration (or at least credit) for their effort. I do not. Hence, I do not appreciate the "gruffness" of your tone. The lead - IMO - is not "terrible", as you put it. I do not understand your use of "proleptic" ("having been assigned too early a date"). Are you saying Bailey's books -- all but three out of twenty-six of which were published prior to 1955 -- should be assigned a later date than the "first half of the twentieth century"? Are you quite sure "have considered" would be the present tense? And, btw, the lead attempts to anticipate the criticisms to follow; I consider this a structural nicety, and not a flaw. It focuses the section, in my opinion. Some of your other points deserve closer consideration; I'll give them such later. Eaglizard 16:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
My "gruffness" is impersonal. I am sorry it rubs you the wrong way.
Are you saying that because your work here is unpaid i should hold it to a lower editorial standards than if i paid you? You hold me -- and others -- to a high standard. Turn about is fair play.
I am absolutely not saying that! I'm just saying I wish you would be nicer about it. Eaglizard 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Prolepsis has several formal meanings. I was not using it grammatically, nor with reference to a date, but in the sense of rhetoric: "Prolepsis is a rhetorical device in which an expected future event is presented as though it was already an accomplished fact." The "expected future event" in this case is the criticism that will appear in later paragraphs.
You present your conclusion ahead of the evidence. You lead by saying that these authors we are about to learn of and read snippets from are going to be stating that she wrote overly stongly, not that they are about to charge her with being a racist antisemite who promoted the destruction of Orthodox Judaism, etc, etc. You give your coulminating opinion as an accomplished inevitability before letting the evidence unfold.
That's because I'm not writing for persuasion, but for completeness. The lead sentence is intended to say "In the context of lots of people writing about Jews, Bailey did, too. The things she wrote have been called "racisist" and "antisemitic", and here's some specifics. I attempt to pre-summarize for pedagogical reason: I hope to make the coming section more transparent. That's all. If I've "buried my lead" or otherwise wound up obscuring the main point, I promise it's not intentional.Eaglizard 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
An honestly impartial reporter would phrase the lead sentence like so: "Here is what i am about to show you that some authors wrote about her." Implicit in this is the unspoken but embedded offer made by all fair and impartial journalists: "After you read the evidence, you will be able to draw your own conclusions." The reader will follow the story's flow easily because the statements cited will turn out to be exactly as described in the lead sentence, and at the end the reader would be able to draw his or her own conclusions.
What you did was to say something like this: "Hey, this topic called K was discussed a long time ago among a lot of dead people i'm not interested enough to name, but, anyway, nowadays everybody who criticises her just thinks she wrote stongly on that topic K, and they don't think she was actually advocating X." Later, the reader will come to find out that what those authors wrote turns out to be NOT what you advertised in the lead sentence. Your prolepsis will have created confusion, because your lead anticipated a conclusion -- and the conclusion is contrary to the evidence presented.
The embedment of a proleptic conclusion in the lead sentence of a non-fiction article is often seen by editors such as myself as a significant mark of biased journalism. Thus, no matter how ACCURATE it is, prolepsis is not consdidered good form in reportage or encyclopedic writing.
Prolepsis is also not good etiquette in real life: "You will be offered peas for dinner and you will eat them, so enjoy" is not anywhere near as hospitable as "I'm making peas for dinner and i would love you to join me if you wish."
Each sentence begins with a statement of fact, but one draws a premature conclusion and the other does not.
Another form of prolepsis is the proleptic apology. The proleptic apology is rarely found in journalism, but i'll bet you have heard it in real life. One of its most common forms goes something like this: "You don't remember me, but i just wanted you to know that..." or "I know you're too busy to dicuss it now, but i just wanted to tell you that ..."
That type of prolepsis is easily dismissed as a tic of excessively polite humbleness or a ditherling case of low self-esteem, and most people ignore it, but it may have the profound effect of stopping communication cold when the listener takes the words literally. In those cases, the proleptic conclusion may lead to an attempt at factual investigation ("What leads you to think i am too busy right now to discuss things with you?"...) or it may engender a digressive pre-reply ("I am rather busy now, but i could shift gears if his is an emergency, or if something temptingly unusual were to draw me away from my task, or, alternatively, i could engage in a different task that would merely require the use of my hands and motor coordination and we could talk to one another, if that is indeed what you are cryptically and indirectly asking me to do"...). In cases like these (and i have seen them, the above two being real-life examples), the conversation may never get past the prolepsis and into the actual subject matter.
So, for all these reasons -- the red flag of possible evidence of bias, poor etiquette, risk of creating an overlong conversational digression -- i receommend that writers (myself included!) try to reduce the use of prolepsis in their non-fiction and, if possible, carry that practice over into their lives.
Catherineyronwode 18:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that excellent explanation; I've learned something. As you can tell, I was unfamiliar with the term "prolepsis"; I see now what you are saying. I hope to have more response to this later.Eaglizard 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Kwork's Last Comment to Me

In the section above "On Eaglizard Proposal for Controversies section & the Issue of Balance," Kwork wrote:

"James, this seems like an effort, on your part, to take ownership of the article. Time is necessary for discussion before changes are made."

Kwork, thanks for your thoughts, but please see the official Wikipedia Editing policy[9] where it states:

"Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. In any event, whether you decide to edit very boldly or to make inquiries on the talk page first, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it is best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc. Some consideration of Etiquette would not hurt."

That said, I have sometimes discussed changes, and will likely do so in the future. I'm especially interested in listening to all those who are actually focused on developing the article as oppose to the endless debate on the Jewish issues--an avalanche of text that actually impeeds productive discussion. For instance, I've had to move your comment and my answer here as it would likely be lost in all that is above. James 16:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that quote of Wiki policy, James, especially the portion warning against "defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc." I would add "gurus" to that list. I hope we all can take that advice.
I also have been pleased to see you devoting considerable time and effort to adding to the article's length rather than to hassling over what you call "the Jewish issues." Of course there is a lot more to the controversis around Bailey than "the Jewish issues," such as her anti-Zionism, her proscription of interracial marriags, and so forth ... but i hope that we will eventually come to agree on some wording that allows for truthful, honest mention of these matters, without "defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc."
Finally, i agree that Eaglizrd's September 1st version of the Controversies section is, as you called it, "an avalanche of text that actually impeeds productive discussion." I took an hour to outline it and edit it, and found it very difficult going indeed. I really did like his attempts to provide cogent rebuttals to the Christain and Theosophical critics, however. That was a good idea. Although it was presented without citation and as strictly his POV. I would like to be able to use some part of it or the ideas behind it.
I think that each of the three accusation-families -- (1) anti-semitism, racism, anti-Zionism, anti-Judiasm); (2) (anti-Christian Satanism, Christian unorthodoxy with respect to the role and person of Jesus); and (3) (Theosophical unorthodoxy) -- requires its own rebeuttal.
The first controversy seemed to me to be adequately covered by my mos recent version of the text, with its statement about her ambiguity of expression -- a too-weak rebuttal, her followers might argue, but better than the one that the Lucis Trust mounted, with its claim that she saw Jewishness as "a state of consciousness" even though her own texts made it clear that she saw it as "a religion".
The second conroversy is really in two parts -- an accusation of crypto-Satanism and an accusation of Christian unorthodoxy by one who claims a special relaitionship with Christ. Thus it requires two rebuttals. Would you care to have a go at providing a ONE SENTENCE rebttal to each of these criticisms?
The third controversy's rebuttal was addressed by Eaglizard, and his wording can probably be rendered neutral enough for satisfactory use. What do you think?
Hoping for cooperation and, if that proves impossible, speedy mediation.
Catherineyronwode 16:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To Voidcore

Voidcore, your "disallowance" of the the Gershom and Sjoo articles is a serious matter and i hope you will reconsider. Here's why:

The request to mention Alice Bailey's antiemitism came from an anonymous Wikipedia reader, posting on the Talk page (you can see it in the archives). Thus its inclusion here was not driven by ideology. I happened to see the request, while creating the new category "Occult writers", and within 3 minutes (see the logs) i had pulled in, via a google search, some quotations supporting the reader's request for a mention.

These quotes were ostensibly made by Bailey. They were presented online by one David Green as prima facie evidence that she was racist and antisemitic.

Later, some supporters of Bailey claimed that no Bailey quotes could be used as evidence, and that only citations by third parties could be used as evidence of her racism and antisemitism.

Thus began the hunt for statements by authors who accused her of racism and antisemitism.

Meanwhile, it turned out that the quotes attributed to her by David Green had been cobbled together and were not a word-for-word transcription.

To counter this, Kwork then came up with a zillion more (and in some cases more flagrantly) racist and antisemitic quotes from her text, all of them vetted for strict accuracy.

The Bailey advocates then countered by adding zillions of counterquotes, including her statement that some of her best friends were Jewish.

Then they took ALL the quotes, both pro and con, down, saying the section was "too long."

They also added a very interesting rebuttal from the Lucis Trust, in which it was admitted that Bailey's writings "singled out" Jews for criticsm and were "anti-Zionist."

A list of articles accusing her of antisemitism and racism was eventually submitted. All but three of these were rejected as too amateur. The ones considered acceptable, after long debate, were Gershom (a publishd author with prior published expertise in antisemitism, notable at Wikipedia, and writing an essay on his own eweb site), Sjoo, a published author whose web site contained a condensed version of a printed book she had published), and Shnirelman (a professor, riting in a journal published by Hebrew University).

It then turned out that, alas for the Rabbi, he had taken as one of his sources the same cobbled-together and inaccurate David Green quotes that had earlier been used on the page. This portion of his writing was then removed.

As part of the next stage of consensus, all of the Bailey quotes (the accurate ones) proscribing racial intermarriage, calling Jews bad names, and blaming Jews for the Holocaust were removed. Only the three one-sentence charges of racism and antisemitism remained.

Then the Lucis Trust's stantement, with its refreshingly frank and somewhat damning admissions, was deleted.

With the Lucis Trust rebuttal gone, another rebuttal paragraph was created on Bailey's behalf, to counter the charges. It was allowed to use qotes from Bailey, but was accurately said to be evidence of "ambiguity" in her "expressions", and to not be exculpatory.

Then another Bailey supporter wrote a new lead sentence in shich he falsely claimed that her critics had only accused her of expressing "strongly" her opinions on "The Jewish Problem" and not of being antisemitic or racist.

A google search turns up

  • 2,410 pages for the keywords <"Alice Bailey" antisemitic>,
  • ...668 pages for <"Alice Bailey" racist>,
  • ...550 pages for <"Alice Bailey" antisemite>, and
  • ...330 pages for <"Alice Bailey" "Jewish Problem">

yet he chose to lead with -- you guessed it -- "Writing during the first half of the Twentieth century, Bailey (like some contemporaries) commented extensively on what was then viewed as 'The Jewish Problem'."

Where i come from, this is called "burying the lead". See "Burying the Lead: Democracy Denied by Jim Naureckas, 2001. [10]: "In journalism, it's called 'burying the lead': A story starts off with what everyone already knows, while the real news -- the most surprising, significant or never-been-told-before information -- gets pushed down where people are less likely to see it."

This rewrite, with its buried lead, barely mentioned charges of antisemitism and avoided all mention of her general racism, her anti-Zionism (remember, she called Zionism a "triangle of terror" run by "Zionist dictators" whose actions have made "Palestine [...] no longer a Holy Land"), made no mention of her proscription of racial intermarriage, and passed over in silence her repeated name-calling against Jews as a religion and as a race ("greedy," "selfish," etc.)

Now you come into the picture and you want to remove two of the threee sources cited on the topic of her general racism as well as her antisemitism (along with a Christian source that accuses her of claiming a special knowledge of Jesus that falls outside of orthodox and traditional Christainity).

If you remove those sources at the same time that the other Bailey supporters refuse to allow prima facie quotations by her on the topic of race (as they have done before, repeatedly), and if the weaselly lead sentence is retained -- then how exactly will Wikipedia be serving the reader who asked us to report on her anti-semitism?

This is a sincere question. Please reply.

For my part, i do believe that we have a duty to our readers. That duty is to write a biography and to report on her post-mortem notability. It is not our duty to protect Alice Bailey's reputation from her own self-revealing beliefs.

Catherineyronwode 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Some of my best friends are Jewish"

In the version of the Controversies section currently online as i write, Eaglizard has removed all quotes by Bailey in which she called Jews "greedy" or called for an end to Orthodox Judaism. In their place, he has inserted what looks on the surface like an ameliorative defense from Bailey, a friendly assurance that she is not a racist. The dear woman claims, "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."

This form of rebutting a charge of antisemitism may sound sincere to modern ears, especially to the tender ears of non-Jews who are so young that they haven't heard it before, but in truth, from the 1930s through the present day, the "some of my best friends are..." defense has been openly understood as really no defense at all. Most hardened old Jews like Kwork and myself have hard it often and know it well as a disingenuous ploy that means the opposite of what it says.

So here's a little bit of education, to bring the younguns up to speed.

A google search on the exact phrase "some of my best friends are Jews" returns 2,520 pages.

A google search on the exact phrase "some of my best friends are Jewish" returns 1,430 pages

A google search on the exact phrase "some of my best friends are black" returns 10,900 pages.

Thus we have evidence that the "some of my best friends are [X]" locution is a well-known idiomatic phrase -- and, like all idiomatic phrases, it can be expectd to have a meaning unique to itself that is greater than -- and different from -- the sum of its parsed words.

But what does it mean? And, more importantly, what did it mean during the decades that Bailey wrote her version of it?

George A. Thompson, writing on the American Dialect Society's listserv in 2000, explained that during the decades of the 1930s through 1940s, when Bailey used the phrase, the "some of my best friends are Jews" defense against charges of antisemitism (and its parellel construction, then given as "some of my best friends are colored") were "offered as the standard marker of a speaker who was at least marginally prejudiced."

Said Thompson, "Robert Gessner [...] published a book with this title ["Some of My Best Friends are Jews"] in 1936 [and] its subject is anti-semitism in Europe of the time. "

That's right, the phrase "some of my best friends are Jews" was so closely identified with antisemitic ideation that "Some of My Best Friends are Jews" was actually the title of a book about antisemitism!

Fred R. Shapiro, Associate Librarian for Public Services and Lecturer in Legal Research at Yale Law School and Coeditor (with Jane Garry) of "Trial and Error: An Oxford Anthology of Legal Stories" (Oxford University Press, 1998) helped out with another contemporary citation -- a journal article in which the "some of my best friends are Jews" gambit was said to form part of the rhetorical arsenal of "the professional anti-Semite":

"1936 _Economic Journal_ 46: 711 The initial declaration ... appears to play the same role as the professional anti-Semite's prefatory announement that some of his best friends are Jews."

Yes, folks, the defense Bailey offered -- that some of her best friends were Jews -- was AT THAT TIME a known "marker" of being "prejudiced" and a rhetorical gambit attributed by a contemporary economic journal author to "the professional anti-Semite." The phrase was so closely identified with antisemitic prejudice that a book with that title had already been published that dealt with the subject of antisemitism in Europe.

Now look again at what she wrote: "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."

See?

A "professional antisemite." NAILED.

Catherineyronwode 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section: my take

There are serious problems with the first paragraph of the version of the criticism most recently reverted to by Jamesd1.

  1. Writing during the first half of the Twentieth century,
    Why is this here? Everything she wrote after age 20 was written in the first half of the twentieth century.
  2. Bailey (like some contemporaries)
    Why the mention of "some contemporaries"? Is some assertion being made that she was unique in her attitude toward Jews?
  3. commented extensively on what was then viewed as "The Jewish Problem".
    Viewed by whom?
  4. Many critics have considered her comments overtly racist and antisemitic.
    That sentence seems OK.
  5. In addition, references to orthodox belief systems such as Christianity or Bhuddism (couched in their adopted terminology) have been criticized for non-conformity to those system's established doctrines.
    I'm not sure what that sentence means. Perhaps it could be stated less opaquely.

Now, looking at the alternate version:

  • Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism, as well as non-conformity to orthodox belief systems.

The first half is clean, and lacks any violations of NPOV or NOR. It states the facts clearly. The last clause is still puzzling; I'd think the issues of racism and antisemitism vs. "non-conformity..." are sufficiently disjoint that it's confusing to put them in the same sentence.

Careful of edit warring here, please. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Hello, and thanks for your observations. I did not write the paragraph, but I've now rewritten as follows:
"Alice Bailey severely criticized the Jews. Many critics have considered her comments overtly racist and antisemitic. In addition she criticized other orthodox belief systems such as Christianity and the many national groups. She has herself been criticized for writing about Christianity and Buddhism in ways that do not conform to those system's established doctrines."
Let us know what you think. The Christian and Buddhist reference might be shifted down toward the bottom where the issue is addressed, but I've left it as above for now. James 01:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Why "overtly"? What's wrong with the simple Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I added "overtly" in an attempt to get closer to the negative view. The intent is to show that the writings aren't just negatively biased, but contain specific, flat-out racisist remarks. Eaglizard 20:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
In general, I've never thought adding adverbs and adjectives is a useful way to do this; instead, provide examples and let the reader come to the conclusion on their own. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Her 3 suicide attempts not mentioned -- Why?

I've been drifting around the web, looking for more backgound on Alice Bailey, and have noticed that several pro-Bailey sites mention that she attempted suicide as a teen-ager -- three times, according to one site. If there is any truth to this (and at least one web page cites her own "Unfinished Autobipgraphy" as the source, so it should be easy to check), then why does the word "suicide" not appear on the Alice Bailey page at Wikipedia? Isn;t their a category of "people who have attempted suicide"? Shouldn;t she be in it?

I don't work on any portion of the Alice Bailey outside of the Controversies section, but it seems to me that if she attempted suicide three times as a teen and then ceased all such self-destructive actions when she had her first viision of the turbaned man, this should be of interest to others, and it might prove especially inspirational to teens who might read about it and realize they are not unique in their suicidal ideations or gestures and that they too may survive to enjoy life, with the help of a spirit guide (but hopefully a more generous-hearted spirit than that mean old antisemite Dhjwal Khul).

Just a suggestion, from that Great Peanut Gallery in the sky...

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


There is the additional mental health issue of schizophrenia. I think Most psychologists would daignose her hearing voices from an invisible Tibetan Master as the mental health problem of schizophrenia:

The most common type of hallucinationSeeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling something that doesn't really exist. is hearing imaginary voices that give commands, make comments, or warn of impending danger. The person experiences these voices talking to them as "he" or "she" (third-person auditory hallucinations). [11]

Also there might be needed some discussion of the very low esteem in the spiritual and esoteric communities for all "channelers" (really just mediums). I first realized this problem many years ago when having a conversation with a guy who had studied the Aurobindo teachings, and who was then taking Psychosynthesis training. He said he thought thought Assagioli (the founder of Psychosynthesis) might have also have studied Aurobindo. When I told him that Assagioli had been a coworker of Alice Bailey, he was stunned, and said "but that's channeled literature!" He was so upset that I think he might have ended his Psychosynthesis training. That is when I realized why Assagioli wanted what he called a "wall of silence" between Psychosynthesis and his Alice Bailey related writing. Kwork 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Kwork & Cath, do you think Moses insane for talking to God in a burning bush. Kwork, was Helena Roerich insane for telepathically hearing voices? Hearing voices does happen, I wish it would happen to me, I wouldn't fear mocking voices.
The phenomena at issue is Clairaudience [12]. If you want to go the pathological dismissal then in one sweep you will put Moses and a host of prophets and visionaries down the ages into the same “basket case.”
So enough! I can't believe anyone would make fun over suicide attempts. I have not tried suicide, but have much compassion for people that have. I’ve known a few that have survived it, and they say its a horrific experience. I think its cruel to make fun by suggesting that your life may be worthless if you survive. Since teen suicide attempts are very high, many of your friends and family likely attempted it. Please stop the slander and stay on topic of the biography.
I’m often puzzled why people search for gossip on the web instead of just checking first. Yes, AAB attempted suicide as a young girl. It’s no great secret that you have to dig up on the net. Bailey devotes two paragraphs to it in Chapter I of her autobiography, quoted below. About “making fun” only individual concerned can legitimacy do it as when she seem amused by it in her passage hereSparklecplenty 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Autobiography of Alice A. Bailey - Chapter I, page 20-21

"When I was a few months old I was taken to Montreal, Canada, where my father was one of the engineers engaged in building the Victoria Bridge over the St. Lawrence River. There my only sister was born. I have only two vital memories of that time. One was managing to get into serious trouble with my parents because I enticed my small sister into an enormous trunk in which our many, many toys were kept. We were lost for quite a while and nearly suffocated, for the lid shut down on us. The second was that I made my first attempt to commit suicide! I just did not find life worth living. The experience of my five years made me feel that things were futile so I decided that if I bumped down the stone kitchen steps from top to bottom (and they were very steep) I would probably be dead at the end. I did not succeed. Bridget, the cook, picked me up and carried me (battered and bruised) upstairs where I met much comforting - but no understanding.

As I went on in life, I made two other efforts to put an end to things, only to discover it is a very difficult thing to commit suicide. All of these attempts were made before I was fifteen. I tried to smother myself with sand when I was around eleven years old, but sand in one's mouth, nose and eyes is not comfortable and I decided to postpone the happy day. The last time, I tried to drown myself in a river in Scotland. But again the instinct to self-preservation was too strong. Since then I have not been very interested in suicide, though I have always understood the impulse."


Multiple attempts at suicide would be considered of some importance in virtually any biography that is not about a living person.

For your information, practicing mediumship (channeling) is forbidden by Jewish law. There is no reason that AAB should be guided by that, but my guess is that the prohibitions are similar in Christianity and Islam.


Kwork, I know you are aware that there is an external and esoteric side to all major religions and that visions and voices are part of the esoteric side of them. Of course any esoteric or "New Age" teaching, looked at through orthodox religious eyes is apt to be condemned and often attacked.
There are many aspects of Bailey's personal life that are not detailed in the biography. No one said that such things should be excluded. Maybe one reason more has not been done is that so much time is spent here in this would-be discussion of the article forum. You seem to always want more emphasis on things critical or negative about her life and thought. Some measure of criticism is correct and the bio contains a bit of it already. More might be OK, we can get some more opinions, but I believe great care is needed here: the Wiki guidelines for this relate to proportionality and balance.
Would you like to see the whole quote above included in the biography, including her five year old attempt in throwing herself down the stairs and her humorous "postpone the happy day?" Probably not. I'm guessing what you have in mind is something less contextual like a technically correct statement that, "Alice Bailey tried three times to take her own life." Remember that objectivity and neutrality relate not only to what is said and how, but to what is left out. James 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.[13]

Unfortunately a lot of New Age writing is based on that, unreliable, source. The reasons that mediumship should be avoided are numerous, but it is obvious that someone who hears voices may not easily be able to judge the reliability of the source because it is not base on their own knowledge, but on that of a spirit who they assume is knowledgable.

In addition to religious prohibitions, there is no doubt that channeling is held in very low esteem by most esoteric and spiritual leaders. Later when I have some sources organized I will expand on this point, here on the talk page, before putting it in the article. Kwork 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Sigh... I'm reminded of the Charlie Brown cartoon where Lucy sits Charlie down in a room with a slide projector and proceeds to project a series of slides detailing all his weaknesses. James 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Kwork: if you want a complete picture of Alice Bailey on his site, why do you keep deleting her compassionate words about Jews?
Yes, Jewish law doesn't apply to Alice Bailey. I have read biographies of psychic Christian children that were severely punished for talking to adults about their psychic experience. I find it regrettable that a child or an adult is punished for something they have no control over. I wonder what the punishment is for breaking this Jewish law. How was Moses punished?
I am presently reading a Jewess's biography--she and her daughter were psyhic from childhood. She was reponsible for having "a Course in Mircles" published and as well a student of this channeled teaching. She has also hosted many friends that are psychic/mediums/meditators in her home--one which is the Israeli Uri Gellar--who thought God gave him his power. How will their religion punish them?Sparklecplenty 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New Link's in the Influence Section

jpgordon, I hope you have time to weigh in on this latests:

Kwork elected to delete most of the links I added to the "Influence" section yesterday. The items I added, prior to deletions were as follows:

"Alice Bailey's influence in many groups currently disseminating her teachings. Some of these, who have an active presence on the web include:


After his deletions, the list reads:

One or two of his edits seem justified, but it looks to me as if he has zealously over done it. For instance, the link to New Group of World Servers was deleted. Bailey founded the whole concept and movement of the "New Group of World Servers" (search the phrase in in books to see). Apparently Kwork decided that, since there was not a flag on the main page that said "This site is an Alice Bailey site" then the link should be deleted. Anyone who knows her work can see this is an AAB site, and if you click on the "Plug in" link at lower right you get a list of sites doing AAB full Moon work.

Kwork deleted the Centre for Esoteric Studies with saying "removed link that says nothing about Alice." This editor is not reading before deleting or else is not sufficiently acquainted with the AAB writings to tell if a site is or is not based on her work. The "about" section of this site clearly states, "The Centre is a non-profit educational organization that fosters a deeper spiritual understanding, and its application to everyday life. Established in 1989, the Centre combines traditional Eastern and Western thought with the teachings of Alice A. Bailey." [14]

About the Russian site, I should have given the English version which is [15] However, Kowork deleted the link saying "removed Russan language link that only contains a link back to the Lucis Trust)" I don't know if Kwork reads Russian, but the statement by him is simply not true as anyone can see by reading the English portions of the site, including page one of the site which states:

"As a regional group of servers we promote the implementation of projects by The World Goodwill, an international educational organization accredited at the UN, which works to establish the right human relations between races, confession, nations, and classes through goodwill. Our activities, as well as those of the World Goodwill, are financed exclusively from contributions. Our group helps distribute the World Goodwill bulletins and the humanistic teachings of the coming Aquarian Era."

Note to Kwork: It's just a suggestion, but it seems to me that it would be more helpful to the article if you contributed to it instead of just deleting and reverting other peoples work. Of course, when I suggest contribution I'm thinking of something beyond the perpetual theme of the Jews which has obsessed this forum. Really, perhaps you might try helping us build. Cleaning, cutting, and deleting may not be your forte. James 15:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Links in the Influence Section Phase II of the Dialog

My decisions about deleting those links were based on the understanding that this is an encyclopedia article intended to give information about Alice Bailey, not promote her cult. If the link added nothing particular that is informative about Bailey, I see no point for it being there. All of that particular group of sites linked to are primarily created to promote Bailey's teaching, rather than to supply objective, scholarly, information about her and her teaching. I left a few of them (probably more than I should have) to give those interested a taste of their character. But how many links are really necessary for that? It is understandable that, if Jamesd1 is an enthusiastic follower of the Alice Bailey teaching, he would want to promote her cult. But doing that would not be in keeping with an encyclopedia article.
As for my contributions to the article, I have contributed as much as anyone except Jamesd1, and I have tried to improve the article. However, since there are others more enthusiastic about Bailey than I am, and since those editors are suspicious of everything I do in the article as intended to harm it (if necessary, I can supply diffs to support that), it seems better that they do the writing. Kwork 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Those links look like spam to me . Wiki's policy on external links are definitely open to interpretation. Albion moonlight 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight (talkcontribs) 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The links lists in the "Influence" section demonstrate her influence which is the point of that section. In addition, the links contain much information about Bailey and her work which would be useful to both critics and advocates of her writings. In addition, I've reviewed a dozen or so Wikipedia biographies of leaders in the religious and metaphysical field. The inclusion of such links is a widespread and common practice. For instance, for perspective on this please take a close look at the external links section at the bottom of Madame Blavatsky.
A few links suggests her influence is not that great and so conveys misinformation to the reader, just as would if you deleted most of the links in the HPB article. The lager number realistically reflects what is happening on the web. Also, the article does not say "here are some great AAB links, go there!" It gives the links to substantiate the fact of her widespread influence. It does not say the links are good or bad or any such thing.
Just how much do we know from those sites about her influence? Just because someone creates a site and mentions Alice Bailey, we still do not know if that person has read a complete book, much less if they actually practice the peaching. It seems to me that method to show influence is based largly on supposition.
There are a lot of articles in which cult and religious groups use Wikipedia as a free web host to promote their product. It seems that you are saying if they are doing something to violate the purpose of Wikipedia, you should be allowed to do that too. Kwork 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)



For the moment, I've restored the original links, modifying the Russian one to go to the English page. I would like to get a reality check from jpgordon, Eaglizard, Renee, and Sethie on this issue, then we can decide if this edit of the "Influence" section is in accord with Wikipedia guidelines. James 19:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
p.s. Another option is to move the links to the External Links section and have a single reference to them in the "Influence" section. James 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Stop shouting and I might pay attention. Until then, you're just making too much noise to listen to. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Jpgordeon, it was not my intention to convey a shout. I put some bold on to call attention to text that is apt to get lost in the on-going deluge here about antisemitism.James 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's kinda too bad; it comes across as shouting, and raises the heat in here rather than lowering it. An act of good faith would be to remove all your bolding. (You too, Kwork.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. It was not intended as a shout. I was trying to separate what I had said in the context of a very confusing page. But I will change it. Kwork 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How about a different option yet: that you stop putting links in the article that do not supply objective information. Those links promote her cult. This is supposed to be Alice Bailey's Wikipedia article, not the Alice Bailey web page. If you want to promote her teaching, start a web page for her, no one will stop you from saying anything you want.Kwork 19:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye to Kwork

Kwork, I've tried for a long time to dialog with you and now see that it is useless and produces nothing good. I'm done with the defensive posture. This is my last message addressed to you. I wish you well. James 20:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Baruch HaShem Kwork 22:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is in the eye of the hallucinator

Ok, yesterday I realized (I think) why I've been feeling such a great sense of 'disconnect' with catherineyrode's comments and approach. Please consider the following two statements

  1. Alice Bailey was an antisemite.
  2. Alice Bailey's books are antisemitic.

Do you consider these the same statement, or two substantially different statements? I now realize that two of our editors are trying hard to make sure the article states formulation 1; I on the other hand, have been attempting to allow it to support proposition 2. This is the reason I've been accused of trying to make it look like her antisemitism is just "quotes taken out of context". That's not what I intend. I hadn't even considered proposition 1. It just isn't relevant to me. Alice Bailey influences no one -- she's dead, in a grave. Her books, on the other hand, are both influential, and very nearly all we have to judge her by. I think we should be discussing the books' antisemitism, and not hers.

After all, I have yet to see a single citation that supports the first version. I don't know of any source writing about Alice Bailey's personal behavior -- I believe all the sources discuss antisemitism to be found in her books. Does anyone know any sources describing Bailey being antisemitic in real life? Eaglizard 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, if her books are antisemitic, and she isn't, then it's even weirder. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The above is a non-argument. It's not up to us to label either the person or the books as antisemitic (or the opposite), only to report what we know of her life and work from reliable sources. Itsmejudith 21:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
makes sense to me--depends on your perspective: if you a Jew, according to kwork, its a against Jewish Law to channel, so Alice said it; if your a materialist you would think spiritualism is whacky and Alice is delusional; if your a spiritualist you would think it's probable that Alice channeled her writings. 68.107.77.222 22:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Sparklecplenty 22:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Eaglizard, you are close, but wrong. Since July, in deference to her supporters, i have not been fighting for inclusion of the statement "Alice Bailey was antisemitic" (although i believe that she was, else why would she have written such things?).
Rather, i have been fighting simply for the statement "Critics have charged Alice Bailey with racism and antisemiticm (cites)."
In short, i have advocated a THIRD variation, neither your #1 nor your #2.
As a critic of Bailey myself, i might write #1 on one of my own web pages, but while i am here, functioning as a Wkipedia contributer, i agree to abide by the NOR rule, hence, all i am fighting for at this time is the truthful honest, clear, and factually supported topic sentence (deleted many times by James, Renee, you, and others) followed by citations, like this (and forgive me if you've seen it before, but here is is again:
Proposed added rebuttal paragraph in Controversies section. Please do not interlineate responses within this proposal; please reply after it. Thanks.
=============================================
Controversies (proposed revision of 9/2/07, per Eaglizard's concerns and jpgordon's suggestions)
Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism.
Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, likened Bailey's cosmology to that of the Italian fascist and occultist Julius Evola and wrote that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey and her followers.[1]
Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[2]
Although Bailey never responded directly to charges of antisemitism, in "Problems of Humanity" (1947), she did speak out against "cruelty, torture and wholesale murder," saying that "the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history [...] and right thinking people everywhere are [...] demanding that these persecutions end." As an alternative, she proposed that Jews, whose religion she believed was "obsolete", should assimilate into a culture that accepted Jesus Christ as the messaih, because "the Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage; that of the Negro will not." (Esoteric Healing,1949, p. 263 et. seq.)
The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," replied to Bailey's plan for a New World Order by saying that her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[3]
Bailey has also been criticised by some religious writers because as a former Christian and former Theosophist, she spoke of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Theosophical spiritual beliefs as an authoritative teacher while simultaneously demonstrating non-conformity to the orthodox belief systems of these varied religious traditions.
Bailey's works are criticised by some Christian groups for their heterodoxical approach to theology. In his book Unmasking the New Age, the Christian writer Douglas Groothuis said Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" (implying his belief that she had intended to show allegience to [[Satan[[) and that the name was later changed due to controversy.[4][5] The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship says although her texts dealt extensively with the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are actually contrary to orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.[5]
Bailey's books are also criticized by Theosophists who consider her ideas about "root races" and races and Himalayan masters to have been borrowed from Theosophy while also including perspectives that were not part of the Theosophical original teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.[6][7]
=============================================
Thanks for your patience and understanding.
catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode 01:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have had months of unending fight over what should have been a simple thing: a short statement that there are some very antisemitic statements in the books that have Alice Bailey's name on the title page. Why is getting that statement in the article such a big deal? If you have forgotten about those statements, I can refresh your memory by putting some of them right here. If you do remember, why are you still arguing with me about it? Kwork 22:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Another way to look at is that writing is a behavior and dead people do influence people by what they had to say. They speak through their books. What I do not understand is why this is such a hot issue for anyone. I think Catherine nailed it on the nose yesterday. I think the problem may be one of semantics. I see antisemitism as almost inevitable. It is like sexism in that sense. It is so embedded in our language that it commonly over looked. It would not bother me to see one my grandchildren become involved in a group that was enamored of Ms Bailey. I don't really see the problem that you seem to be having with this. Please feel free to explain this to me either here or on my talk page. Albion moonlight 22:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Technically speaking if you accept the reality of channeling from other identities it would be possible.
However, I don't think this is the case. She herself was not and her writings,in my view, are not antisemitic. It's obvious that AAB and/or her Master said many strongly "politically incorrect" things that, in eyes of those sensitive to it, are felt to be antisemitic. But this is a subjective perception. One of the most prominent leaders in the current New Age movement, a staunch advocate of AAB's writings, happens also to be Jewish and has on occasion offered a vigorous defense of her in this regards. And, as has been pointed out, so was one of her close friends and "disciples," Roberto Assagioli. Also, I again underscore that it is certain passages--I have shown objectively that it is between 1 and 2 percent--of her whole writings that reference the Jews, and some of that is very positive. Since 98% of what she wrote is unrelated to Jews then is false to generalize that "her writings" (implication--her writings as a whole). Some folks here don't seem to be able to distinguish between the encyclopedia-sized collection of her writings and this Jewish theme. I understand, that if one is hypersensitivity in this area then the occasional Jewish references loom very large in the mind. In addition, the positive references are ignored or downplayed because they do not fit the case which some are trying to make. James 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
James, you are off topic because YOUR opinion, like MY opinion, is never going to be stated on the Alice bailey Wikipdia page! The only statements there will be from published critics with print books to their credits and recognizable expertise in the fields of antisemitism, Judaism, occutism, and religion. THOSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CITED and they have variously said that "Alice Bailey was antisemitic", "Alice Bailey;s teachings are explicitely racist and antisemitic." You can talk and talk about how you think they were wrong in their assessment -- but that is OFF-TOPIC,. We have, by consensus, agreed to accept them as cited authors. They said various things. Our only duty now is to QUOTE THEM ACCURATELY. This is what i have been fighting for all along. catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode 01:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought James was answering Albion's question about "the problem he seems to be having with this". Arguing against his point because it's not valid for the Article seems off-topic, to me. Eaglizard 06:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Roberto Assagioli was only Jewish if you accept Bailey's definition of Jews as a race, which is incorrect. There are Jews from many races. Judaism is a religion, a culture, and other unifying factors....but race is not one of them. When I knew Assagioli he had adopted the Alice Bailey teaching as his new religion, and turned on Judaism. He was as anti-Jewish as Bailey herself. It is considered by the rabbis that someone who was a Jew has adopted, by choice, a new religion; then he is no longer a Jew. Kwork 22:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kwork for adding that data-point. I think that some here have taken all too much on faith Bailey's "Some of my best friends are Jews" defense by including among "her" Jews people who turned away from Judaism and became, by Jewish understanding, non-Jews. cat 01:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Continuing my comment to Jpgordon

Those who wish to brand her as antisemitic may find some cognitive dissonance in passages like the one below. James 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"The fate of the Jews in the world war is a terrible tale of cruelty, torture and wholesale murder and the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history. For it there is no excuse or condonation, and right thinking people everywhere are aware of this and are eagerly demanding that these persecutions end." (Problems of Humanity, p 102)


How do you reconcile that with this quote:

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

Esoteric Healing, p267-8

What this seems to say is that the genocide, that had just occurred in Europe when she wrote those words, was intended to help Jews overcome their isolation, and to help them express inclusive love.

Jamesd1 seems to say that I am just imagining these things, when the fact is the those antisemetic statements really exist, and there are many of them. Kwork 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

James, please understand that YOUR opinions about the nature of Bailey's fluctuating statements is not at issue, Your attempts to convince us that we should allow "wiggle room" in describing Bailey's thoughts because she often contradicted herself are off-topic. We are here to hammer out fair and auccuate wording that will concisely report on what BAILEY'S CRITICS have written about her. Please stick to the topic. cat Catherineyronwode 01:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Kwork, please understand that YOUR opinions about the nature of Bailey's fluctuating statements is not at issue, Your attempts to convince us ... well, you get the point. And cat has a good point. I only felt it needed to be said to both sides. Eaglizard 07:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Positive Passages from Alice A. Bailey on the Jews

As I have agreed, Alice Bailey severely criticized the Jews. One can cite quotations from her books that seem to suggest it. But before we decide she is anti-Jewish, I believe we need to assimilate the following quotes from her many books on the subject. James 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

All passages below this line, thought not in quotes marks, are direct quotes from Bailey’s various books.


<snipped...--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)>


James, please stop spamming this discussion board with quotes from Alice Bailey. They are off-topic. Our job is not to play tit-for-tat with duelling Bailey quotes. Our job is to accurately describe the controversies that have arisen regarding Bailey's person, teachings, and writings. Her critics had their own opportuniities to read Bailey's material and draw their own conclusions. Whether or not you agree with the conclusions they drew, they are NOT HERE IN WIKI SPACE, (and at least one of them is already dead) so your quote-posts here will not convince them to admire Ms. Bailey in the way that you admire her. Our work is to report that there has been controversy, that it has appeared in print, and that the critics have said such-and-so. That's it. Please understand that you can argue your belief that Bailey was not antisemitic on this Talk page until you turn blue in the face and fall over dead (God forbid!), but that will not change one word of what Shnirelman, Gershom, and Sjoo have written -- and it is their texts that we are reporting on in the Controversies section. Respectfully, cat yronwode, who is now going to rewrite the Controversies section of the Bailey page again, following the revised proposal of 9/2/07, incorporating the changes suggested by Eaglizard and Jpgordon. Catherineyronwode 01:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I seemed to have missed reading the changes Eaglizard and Jpgordon suggested? Is Catherine's current version what Eaglizard and Jpgordon suggested? I am a novice about wiki standards. Does it meet the wikipedia standards? Is James spamming? What does wiki consider spam. Sparklecplenty 05:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Hmmmm....I think the quotations are useful because they show the context within which Bailey is writing. Regarding the article, I don't think it's accurate to say that Sethie, James or I have ever accepted that Gershom is a good source and certainly not the Watchman group (by Wiki policy, they are self-published or anti-cult, a by-definition biased source). I think the Hebrew U source is pretty good, though probably not peer-reviewed (at least it's an academic source, and pickins' are slim).

In the current version, the linking of Lucifer to Satan seemed like OR and gratuitous, as did the link to Evola (seemed out of place; we need to focus on Bailey). I've left them in but I think the Gershom and Watchmen group sections should be cut because they are not WP:RS. Renee --Renee 03:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's please not quote a bunch of anyone here on the talk page; it doesn't help make sense of what's going on here at all to interested outside parties (like me). I know nothing about Alice Bailey, so I'm really just looking in a purely formal way. With that in mind:
  1. I'd like to see a bit stronger source to back the Lucifer thing. There are two sources listed, but the second is actually just a reference to the first (the Groothius book). It doesn't strike me as important enough to mention, though, unless the article develops the significance of the Lucifer connection; just mentioning it in passing will leave most readers uninformed.
  2. The Watchman section has a similar problem. Does the article establish somehow that Bailey's considered her teachings regarding Jesus to be orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine? Otherwise, there's no reason to include someone saying it isn't.
But see, the whole "Bailey has been criticized by some religious writers" section doesn't work well. She was non-conforming and unorthodox. That's exactly what will be criticized by some religious writers.
The Gershom one is tough; it's a self-published work not in the mainstream (as far as I can tell) of Gershom's expertise, so even if it's right we probably can't include it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • James, I have to (gently, I hope) concur with the censure here; you seem to occasionally forget that we're not here to "decide if she is anti-Jewish". Writing an encyclopedia about what everyone else thinks, remember? Kind regards :) Eaglizard 07:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I had put this into the conversation above, but it got lost in the flow (torrent) of talk. It will probably get lost again, but I might as well try:

I do not consider the "Christian" and the "Theosophy" issues of much importance. My own view has always been that Bailey's teaching is really a form of esoteric Christianity. The differences between her teaching and either other Christian denominations, or the Theosophical Society, are the reason she started her own movement. When Martin Luther found he was in disagreement with the Catholic Church, he founded a new religion. The disagreement is the reason Lutheranism exists, and need not be considered a controversy.
As for the antisemitism, why does it have to be such a big production? A short statement that there is a problem with some things she said on the issue, and the sources, is enough. A short reply in defense is okay. I never dreamed it could take so long, and so much heated discussion, to get something so simple done. Kwork 14:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Are Bailey supporters trying to squelch the critics?

Renee,

You said you think the quotes are "useful because they show the context within which Bailey is writing." But that "contextual" reading of her works is not our business here. I think that the lengthy quotes are wasting our time and posing a roadblock to our getting an agreement on the content of the page.

  • You and James might find it valuableh to compare her various passages to determine the breadth of her self-contraditictions, or place her writings in historical-political context, or compare and contrast her works with the writings of her contemporaries -- but that would be OR. What we are here to do is to write an encyclopedia article in which we mention salient biographical points, describe her literary output, and summarize the reactions, pro and con, that others have had to her and to her works. The "Influence" secion details the positive value that later commentators have placed on her and her works. The "Controversies" documents the negative value that commentators have placed on her life and her works.
  • The error in calling the Satan reference OR is that GROOTHUIS said it. No editor at Wikipedia made that up. You can say he's wrong, say he's foolish -- say whatever you want, but this section is about controversies surrounding Alice Bailey (the person and the writings), and because Groothuis engenderd controversy when he wrote that, it is our duty to report on the controvrsy.
  • The same goes for the Evola reference. Shnirelman called the ideas of these near-contemporary thinkers and writers "similar." No Wikipedia editor made that up. Shnirelman is a professor of ethnography and anthropology; he was researching Neopaganism, New Ageism, and antisemitism, and he compared Bailey to Evola and, controversially, called them "similar." We are not engaging in OR to report on that controversy.

Sometimes i get the impression that the Bailey supporters here would like the controversy to go away by censoring Bailey's critics off the page, but the truth is, the controversy will not go away. It pre-existed the creation of the Wikipedia Bailey page and it goes on outside the realm of Wikipedia. As i reported earlier, there are thousands of pages indexed by google that refer to this issue. Obviously it is a topic of some interest. As i pointed out yesterday or the day before:

A google search turns up

   * 2,410 pages for <"Alice Bailey" antisemitic>,
   * ...668 pages for <"Alice Bailey" racist>,
   * ...550 pages for <"Alice Bailey" antisemite>, and
   * ...330 pages for <"Alice Bailey" "Jewish Problem">

So folks are talking about the issue. Our role now, is not to fight each other about whether or not she was or was not racist and antisemitic, but to report that a number of prominent people have said that she and/or her teachings were racist and antiisemitic, with citations.

Sincerely, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 06:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to respond that I, for one, am not trying to squelch the critics. However, if I have accused some of you of trying to hyperbolize the issue, I must admit that I (and I think several other editors) are also guilty of being "hypersensitive" to antisemitism! It's not that any of us dismiss or minimize the evil of antisemitism; rather, we find the accusation so appalling that we resist it. Personally, I think it's a case of Godwin's Law -- you say 'antisemitism' and I hear 'Hitler' or 'Stalin'. So I have a desire (whether right or wrong) to 'soften' the accusation, to point out that she's not exactly Adolf Eichmann. I can barely restrain it, in fact. Alice Bailey's primary principle was the brotherhood of all humanity; any sort of hatred whatsoever is distinctly antithetical to every single principle of her cosmology. But I soapbox in single (italicized) sentences nowadays. You guys think whatever you want, let's write this damned article and be done with it. Eaglizard 08:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No one has compared Bailey, or you, to Hitler; nor has anyone been called a Nazi. Godwin's Law does not apply. Kwork 12:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

cat's Current Revision

Ok. Now we're getting somewhere! I like it so much, it's like a hellhound on my trail. To quote another, equally evolved contemporary of Bailey's, who has had perhaps an even greater affect on my life, and with a 'serious' <wink> to cat.

A (very) few comments:

1 Regarding the lead: as would Professor Strunk, I must bow to your perfect concision.

2 The Julius Evola reference: why can we have that particular historical context, and not the historical context of the multiplicity of contemporary writings re: The Jewish Question? I know this is widely-known to us, but it may not be to future readers. Nowadays, whenever anyone writes controversially about Jews, it will probably be seen as unique and noteworthy, and modern readers will see it in their modern context. But, in its actual context of dozens (hundreds?) of contemporary texts devoted solely to this subject, it seems less so (as it should, I submit). I mean, compare and contrast The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for god's sake. The difference in substance and tone in Bailey's writings compared to most contemporaries is obvious. When they were written, readers of her books (exposed to numerous hate-filled screeds such as the Protocols) would not have seen them the way we do now. Hence, this context is significant.

3 Re: "...a culture that accepted Jesus Christ as the messiah", I believe this is OR. Do you have a cite to either a critic or to a Bailey passage which connects her acknowledged desire that Jews "assimilate" into 'something' with specifically Christian culture? (And not just "European culture", or the fact that she elsewhere talks about her brand of Christ; still OR to me.) Citing "Christian" alongside "Jew" necessarily implies a connection; given the history of the two, I'd say it's an unsupported implicit negative POV; unless you can cite it of course, in which case I must withdraw this entire objection. If she said it, say so. If someone else said it tho, pls make sure it's carefully attributed, it being especially inflammatory, in my (long-ago fundamentalist, Southern Baptist) opinion. We all know that Christians have done a lot of bad, bad things to Jews in the name of their religion, and if you're going to imply that Bailey is continuing that particular black thread, I must insist you support this connection with rigor.

4 There is no comment number four. (And no pooftahs!)

Some of the newer text (written in part to address my own comments, I believe) could probably use some polish, but readability is about the last thing I'm worried about at this point. :) Seriously, I like this so much, I'm wondering if there's some unseen root to my change of opinion <wink, again, cat>. (At least, I hope it should be a <wink>; I mean, you wouldnt... would you? oh, i'm so just kidding btw. I'm sure you wouldn't. Would you? < /span="attempted inside joke">)

I'm not completely happy with the article as it stands, but I will reserve other comment so that we can focus on what we've got here. Eaglizard 09:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


I agree with everything you've said here Eaglizard. I think we're almost there. The Evola clause is gratuitous and needs to go.
Also, if the Gershom and Sjoo quotations stay, then James and Kwork, all of the self-published references should stay. We can't have two standards -- one for the controversies section and one for the external links. Right now the Gershom and Sjoo quotations are in, despite objections by James, myself, Sethie and others. So, the external links that James had in should be in too. --Renee 11:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Renne, the external links can absolutely be self-published (most of the Internet is selfpublished). WP:EL is for links and WP:RS for the article itself, they are not the same thing. --Voidocore 13:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Oh, I didn't know that. Then why do people keep removing the external links? We have it backwards for this article don't we? The external links are held to a higher standard than the sources! --Renee 14:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue of self-published sites is not so important to me. After Sethie removed all the links he considered self-published from the Criticism section, I went through the whole article to remove any other self-published material. What IS important to me is that links be to sites that give good information about Alice Bailey, and that they not be to sites that are just pitching the Alice Bailey cult. Kwork 14:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Cat's Revision Good Work, But Improve This

Good work. In fact, I woke up this morning with the intention of writing a version quite similar to the one we now have. And I agree with comments above by Eaglizard and Renne. The new version of the controversies section is more accurate and balanced than previous ones and represents major progress.

There are one or two things that do need repair and one which I think Eaglizard sensed above. It is the idea, attributed to Bailey, that Jews "...should assimilate into a culture that accepted Jesus Christ as the messiah." The assimilate part is correct but that it should be a culture that accepts Christ as savior is not.

There is a misunderstanding here of this particular aspect of Bailey's writings. It's correct that she believed that, in not recognizing Christ 2,000 years ago, the Jewish people missed an important opportunity. She saw this as a spiritual failure on their part--though we should note that she also saw the Christian churches as failing to to understand and live Christ's teachings and criticized them severely for it.

But my point is that she did not write or believe that the Jews of today should accept the Christ of 2,000 years ago. The Christian religion as enunciated by the Christ 2,000 years ago, and especially as distorted by church Theology, was in her mind--like orthodox Judaism--something for humanity to leave behind. She did not say that the Jews of today should accept the Christ of 2,000 years ago as their savior or that they should convert to Christianity in any conventional sense of the phrase.

In her terms, Christ simply equals Love-Consciousness as it expresses in brotherhood and right human relationships. In her mind, Christ does not belong merely to the Christian churches but is essentially the living energy of divine love that is the essence of the good in all religions. She wrote, "He will not come as the restorer of any of the ancient religions, including Christianity." The context is:

"The development of spiritual recognition is the great need today in preparation for His reappearance; no one knows in what nation He will come; He may appear as an Englishman, a Russian, a Negro, a Latin, a Turk, a Hindu, or any other nationality. Who can say which? He may be a Christian or a Hindu by faith, a Buddhist or of no particular faith at all; He will not come as the restorer of any of the ancient religions, including Christianity, but He will come to restore man's faith in the Father's love, in the fact of the livingness of the Christ and in the close, subjective and unbreakable relationship of all men everywhere." (Bailey, Alice A. The Reappearance of the Christ," p 190)

Note the phrase where she says the new age "Christ" may be 
"of no particular faith at all."   Reflect on that for a 
moment and you will see how radical her ideas of Christ and
his return were and how  remote from both Christian theology 
and Jewish concerns about being "assimilated" by some other 
religion.  

Since, in her mind, Christ is not coming to restore ancient Christianity at all, then he is obviously not coming to restore it for the Jews. In her mind, the Christian churches have fundamentally wrong concepts of Christ and his return. Her statements on this are one of the reasons orthodox Christians attack her. So the thought that the Jews should, "accepted Jesus Christ as the messiah" is off the mark and is actually part of the orthodox Christianity which AAB opposed; it is not AAB's thought. One of many passage giving some perspective on this is:

"He will not come, we may be sure, as a conquering hero, as the interpretations of the theological teachers have led man to believe, for that would certainly fail to identify Him and He would be simply classed as another military figure; of them we have had a plethora; He will not come as the Messiah of the Jews to save the so-called Holy Land and the city of Jerusalem for the Jews, because He belongs to the whole world and no Jews nor any other people have special rights or unique privileges or may claim Him as their own; He will not come to convert the "heathen" world for, in the eyes of the Christ and of His true disciples, no such world exists and the so-called heathen have demonstrated historically less of the evil of vicious conflict than has the militant Christian world. The history of the Christian nations and of the Christian church has been one of an aggressive militancy - the last thing desired by the Christ when He sought to establish the church on earth." (Bailey, Alice A. The Reappearance of the Christ," p 110)

Onward and upward. James 14:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Eaglizard's proposal?

Okay, so we'll remove the self-published Gershom & Sjoo?
Sorry, I've been out a while. What happened to Eaglizard's proposal? I thought that was pretty good, especially if we remove the self-published and biased sources. --Renee 14:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This morning I read the discussion before I read the article and was pleased to hear that everyone seemed to agreed to make the controversy section more scholarly. But found that the controversy section hasn't changed. Was it changed and then changed back? Sparklecplenty 16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotations, Context, and Forum Focus

James, I have to (gently, I hope) concur with the censure here; you seem to occasionally forget that we're not here to "decide if she is anti-Jewish". Writing an encyclopedia about what everyone else thinks, remember? Kind regards :) Eaglizard 07:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, yes your right with respect to the biographical article itself.
In an ideal world, this Discussion section would be focused on the article, on what she actually wrote, and be focused on a report of what repetuable and reliable sources have said about her and her writings. If I had introduced the Bailey compilation in a forum that was focused that way, your criticism would be entirely correct. This has not been that type of forum.
The Discussion section has obviouslly been dominated by the issue of to what extent, if at all, AAB or her writings should be considred anti-Jewish. And this Discussion frequently spilled over into the biography in the form of non-neutral text, unsuported texts, and questionable sources. I did not choose this focus, it was here when I arrived. Since people in the Discussion have talked and quoted at length to support their contention that her writings were anti-Jewish, then I believe it was correct to post the passages that contradict this. If folks here are to continue the endless discussion about the Jewish theme (not my choice), then clearly it is to everyone's advantage to know more of what she wrote on this specific topic.James 15:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Positive Passages from Alice A. Bailey on the Jews

I see the collection I posted of positive quotations from Bailey was deleted from the discussion forum.

I agree that five screens of positive quotations is long, though small compared to the 250 screens of text in this discussion forum that is mostly dedicated to the contention that her writings were anti-Jewish writings.

And I would not want to disrupt the new format of this forum, focused as I optimistically hope it will be on AAB's life, what she wrote, and what good and reliable sources have written of her life and work.

But in case my optimism proves foolish, there may be those who may still want to consult the deleted text, here is an external link to it: James 16:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Positive Passages from Alice A. Bailey on the Jews

  • Thanks! That's what we needed in the first place. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Slow down

OK, look, when I make a content suggestion here, I'm just another editor with an an opinion; the hats I wear sometimes (admin, arbitrator, etc.) are not relevant. I came here because someone mentioned it over at another talk page I watch, and often I can be more helpful than usual when I'm totally ignorant of the content of the article.

In this case, I'd like to suggest that people slow down a bit. For example, I raised my objection to the Gershom quote form the purpose of discussion, not action. Someone else might know more about his expertise in the field than I do. It's a lovely long three-day weekend here in the U.S.; perhaps people with different opinions are out enjoying the weather (or hiding from it) rather than being on Wikipedia. And even if that weren't the case, it's better to work stuff through on the talk page rather than quickly changing the article page (with the obvious exceptions of fixing blatantly incorrect material.) It doesn't hurt the world if something like the Gershom quote is included (to whoever removed it) or removed (to whoever re-inserted it) for an hour, a day, or a week.

Many of us are here on Wikipedia because we have a passion for truth. This passion shouldn't get in the way of thoughtful deliberation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


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)
I don't care. It's edit warring; it shouldn't occur. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what "I don't care" means in this context. If edit warring shouldn't occur, what are you purposing to end the edit warring that has been going on here for months, possibly years. There appeared to be a consensus and only one person warred against the majority. Sparklecplenty 18:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted when? The only thing I remember deleting today is link. If, on a previous occasion, I deleted what you said, someone should have said so because that could only been due to an error on my part.

Some of you guys have stopped only just short of depicting me as a member of the Dark Brotherhood (and then complain about me and Godwin's Law beside). I think that you are enjoying yourself, imagining yourself as defending the Teaching of Light against my evil intentions. In the teaching that psychological process is called self dramatization. You need to learn to learn how to apply in your own lives the teaching you claim you are defending.

What I actually do worry about now, is that if I did delete what you say, I must have offended Catherine. If so, Catherine, it was a mistake and I am sorry. Kwork 22:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit history Kwork that edit may have been made by Renee or someone else. Do not let them suck you into an edit war. Sparkle plenty is a newbie and may be assuming you did it. Either way don't sweat it. Count your edits before you change it back just in case it is a set up Albion moonlight 23:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Albion Moonlight, my friend, so quick to throw me under the bus! :) (and we haven't even met). Sparklecplenty may be referring to this. I'm very cautious about edits and usually wait until there is consensus or a clear trend towards it (and at that they're usually minor -- clauses here and there, spelling, punctuation), because I know with consensus they'll stick. Best, Renee --Renee 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gershom Text and Link

This morning I removed the Gershom text (quoted below) since I agreed with Jpgordon, Renee, and Eaglizard who all concluded it was not up to Wiki standards. We know Kwork's view since he restored it again. There are no less than 89 reference to Gershom in our forum above. Before I follow the consensus view and deleted it again, is there anything more to be said that hasn't already been said in the 89 forum reference.James 18:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," replied to Bailey's plan for a New World Order by saying that her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[3]

Also, please note, I have no objection to the above criticism as such. If we can find a better source that says the same thing, then fine. James 19:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
p.s. In the hope of finding a better reference for the criticism section, I spent two full hours this morning trying to find a reputable and reliable source containing a published scholarly critique that cites AAB's as anti-Jewish. So far no luck, but I will continue the search for a while and report anything I find. James 19:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of fairness and balance, I just worked patiently for another hour and a half trying to find a scholarly reference citing Bailey as anti-Jewish. I did not locate any. Such reference may be out there, but if so they are hard to find. James 20:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No one has ever produced any scholarly study Alice Bailey, similar to the studies of Carl Jung by Richard Noll. I have searched also for scholarly essays in JSTOR ans EBSCO, and can find nothing. Perhaps there is a notability problem. Kwork 22:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


There's the Australian dissertation that meets the scholarly standards (committee reviewed, good university). See external links in the article. --Renee 23:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Renee, if you know of any scholarly studies, such as Richard Noll's studies of Carl Jung, tell me. Kwork 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)



Hi Renee,

There is no shortage of information about AAB's thought and life, some from scholarly sources that I've added to bio over the last few weeks. Who knows, some of it might have survived the reverting process. It's not general material that is hard to find but scholarly sources that say the things the critics here want to say.

WorldCat gives numerous AAB sorces but none are critical in a scholarly way: [16]

ABE, the largest used book site on the web, offers only sympathetic books or nonscholarly ones: [17]

Google book search and Google scholar search have hundreds of hits on her name but none are scholarly critiques. They are either pro Bailey works or rants from folks with an ax to grind and use upon her, such as the fundamentalists Christian sources.

A general Google search of "Alice A. Bailey" gives 80,400 hits, a veritable wilderness of opinions pro and con about this much discussed notable, but good luck trying to find scholarly sources there. Narrowing the search to *.edu sites does not help and narrowing with extra keywords did not help.

There are some scholarly sources that cite and discuss Bailey, which I found in earlier sessions with the above sources, and if someone has not yet deleted them from the Bailey Biography, then anyone can follow the links given or look up the books I've listed. Remember, she is given a bit of space in Encyclopedia Britannica, and I just found a new one:

AAB has an entry in American national biography. v. 1 (1999) which someone should look up on next trip to the library: [18] James 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "cat's Current Revision" (response by cat)

Eaglizard, i shall reply as per your numbered points.

1) Lead sentence. Thanks.

2) Evola reference by Shnirelman.

  • QUESTION: "why can we have that particular historical context, and not the historical context of the multiplicity of contemporary writings re: The Jewish Question? I know this is widely-known to us, but it may not be to future readers." Also, Renee called it "gratuitous" and said it must "go".
ANSWER: If we, the editors, mention it without citation, that would be OR. But remember, we are QUOTING or SUMMARIZING Shnirelman here, and Shnirelman made the comparison. Frankly, i think it was an interesting comparison and i strongly support it. Evola went much farther than Bailey in terms of ACTIVITIES, in that he edited an Italian edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and supported the Fascisti. But Shnirelman was specifically commenting on their "IDEAS" about race and not their ACTIVITIES. So i think Shnirelman made an important point, and a valid one. As for our duuty to "future readers" this is a very good point, but it is not best handled by writing a historical side-essay here. It is best handled by Wiki-links to artcicles that discuss that issue. This is why i always add so many wiki-links in my contributions here at Wikipedia (and at my own luckymojo site, which is among the most interlinked sites i have ever seen on the web) and why i have been trying to find time to launch an Occultism and Antisemitism article. After replying to you, i will try to find some appropriate wording that can be wiki-linked to provide historical context without the side-show of adding it directly to the Bailey page.

3) "Assimilation" reference

  • QUESTIONS: "I believe this is OR. Do you have a cite to either a critic or to a Bailey passage which connects her acknowledged desire that Jews "assimilate" into 'something' with specifically Christian culture?"
ANSWERS: No, it is not OR. Yes, we have cites, both to critics and to Bailey
For a cite to a critic, see the third sentence of this paragraph by Shnirelman, and from there to a source that HE cites in his own footnotes. (i have bolded it):
"Racist and antisemitic trends are explicit, for example, in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its “Jewish inheritance” and reject the “Jewish Bible” as a prerequisite for entering the Age of Aquarius.105 In her view, the twentieth century has been a period of world catastrophe, soon to be replaced by a Golden Age. Jews were depicted as the “human product of the former Solar system,” linked with “World Evil” and justly punished for their rejection of the Messiah.106 Similar ideas are found in the philosophy of the Italian fascist Julius Evola, who held that the contemporary epoch was part of the decline which began in the 8th–6th centuries B.C. He, too, predicted a coming catastrophe to be followed by a Golden Age.107"
For a cite to a "Bailey passage" -- well, this passage has been quoted here previously:
"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..." (The Rays and the Initiations, p.636-7)
Obviously, Bailey is not asking Jews to assimilate into Buddhism or Taoism -- she says that they are suffering political violence because they repudiated JESUS CHRIST. In another passages (cited repeatedly, so i won't bring it here again) she says that their political problem with persecution in Europe ("The Jewish Problem") will be solved "through intermarriage" -- and since Europe was dominantly Christian when she wrote, it is clear that she means intermarriage with Christian (not Muslims, not Zoroastrians), in order that they may be at one with Christians -- those who accept JESUS CHRIST.
But citing Bailey is not important, because we can cite Shnirelman, you see?
An aside -- and what follows is definitely my OR and is not intended for use on the Bailey page, but i hope it will help you and others understand the issues here, and where Shnirelman is coming from:
I think that i could develop a good case for the argument that Bailey never fully abandoned the rhetoric of her early work as an Anglican Christian missionary in India, where she advocated a harshly colonialist theology that urged Hindus to convert and drew for its text upon centuries of prior Christian pleas, demands, and edicts aimed at forcing the "stubborn" and "separative" Jews to convert to Christianity.
Remember that originally Bailey was an Anglican, a member of the Church of England. Herewith, from the Wikipedia page on Deicide (the charge of murdering God, a charge made against Jews as a petext for persecution) is something that will put her Anglican religious antisemitism in very clear context:
The following, for example, is a verse from a hymn written in 1892 for use in the Church of England to call upon God to convert the Jews to Christianity:
Though the Blood betrayed and spilt, On the race entailed a doom,
Let its virtue cleanse the guilt, Melt the hardness, chase the gloom;
Lift the veil from off their heart, Make them Israelites indeed,
Meet once more for lot and part, With Thy household's genuine seed.
("Thou, the Christ Forever One", words by William Bright, from Supplemental Hymns to Hymns Ancient and Modern, 1889)
I think that Bailey's theologically ingrained religious antisemitism evolved into racial antisemitism after she adopted a belief in the racist theories of Blavatsky. I think that this is the same road that both Gershom and Shnirelman were going down in their arguments -- that she was both a religious AND a political antisemite. (Sjoo, who criticized Bailey for her "racism" was much less alert to the theological implications of Bailey's antisemitism than Gershom and Shnirelman.)
If you are interested in learning more about the history of religious antisemitism and the differences between it and racial antisemitism, see these Wikipedia pages: Deicide, Host desecration, Anusim, Converso, Marrano, Crypto-Judaism, Spanish Inquisition#Expulsion of the Jews, Alhambra Decree, History of the Jews in Spain#Edict of Expulsion, Timeline of antisemitism.

4) No one expects the Spanish Inquisition#Expulsion of the Jews -- but there it is, nonetheless. :-)

cat Catherineyronwode 00:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

3 important wiki-links added in Controversies section

As time goes on, and this discussion evolves, i am beginning to understand that some of the conflicts here may stem from the fact that some editors are less familiar with the historical development of antisemitism than others.

For this reason, and, again, mainly in response to the sincere questions posed by Eaglizard, i have added three more wiki-links to the controversies section.

I also think that anyone reading this page and working on the bio who are unfamiliar with these terms should read the wiki articles describing them:

With those articles digested, perhaps Bailey's position will be clearer.

What follows is my own brief OR, not for publication on the Bailey page, but intended to raise awareness among editors and thus foster mutual cooperation:

Bailey was brought up in a religion that promoted supercessionism as a non-persecuting or genteel form of religious antisemitism. In other words, her church did not accuse the Jews of deicide, well poisoning, desecration of the host, or blood libel, merely of being "obsolete." This it did through sermons and tracts, as well as through hymns such as the one i quoted in my previous post above.

Bailey became a missionary for her church, working in the field, amidst a vast effort by British Christians in India who were attempting to convert people from their local religions to Christianity. Supercessionist theories became supercessionist reality in the field.

During Bailey's young adulthood, racial antisemitism and other forms of race-hatred (e.g. against emancipated Negro slaves in the USA) became increasingly common and were bolstered by various pseudoscientific theories.

Bailey then happened to leave the Anglican church and to join a religion, Theosophy, that had, as one of its core-beliefs, a theory of racial evolution or advancement through reincarnation. This was supercessionism on a grand scale -- and Bailey melded the ideas of religious supercessionism and racial supercessionism into one idea -- that the Jews were the evolutionary "remnants of a former solar system" whose "repudiation" of Jesus was a symptom of their separation from God.

Meanwhile, racial antisemitism was fanned into a flame in Europe. The ancient religious lies -- deicide, blood libel, well poisoning, desecration of the host -- were replaced by new political, social, economic, and pseudoscientific racial lies -- "international Jewish bankers," Jewish "race" characteristics of greed, Jewish physical characteristics as "ugly", and so forth.

Bailey adopted some of these racial stereotypes -- she did call Jews "greedy," for instance -- but she ignored others. She did not, for example, mock their facial or body features, as did her contemporary Aleister Crowley. She was not bloodthirsty or violent like the Nazis. She simply wanted the Jews to undo their long error of "repudiating Christ" and to marry into the Christian culture and stop having separate butcher shops (why she obsessed on kosher butcher shops is beyond me, but she did!).

She never gave up her original religious supercessionist viewpoint, even as the flames of racism became a holocaust that almost wiped the Jewish presence from Europe. Her reincarnationist cosmology, which justified race inequities and cruelties as part of a great forward-moving plan, is nowadays seen as a mark of her racism, her aloofness from the suffering of others, and her white-supremacist identification of skin-colour with "light."

Complicating all of this, Bailey eventually came to see not only Judaism, but ALL religions, from a supercessionist point of view. HER religion, she believed, would be the one that triumphed in the end. But she never ceased to "single out the Jews for special criticism," as the Lucis Trust admitted.

Bailey's followers are correct when they point out that she never hurt a Jew. But by identifying antisemitism with the horrors of 20th century German RACIAL antisemitism only, they make their own error. They fail to see the complex and uncompromising nature of her RELIGIOUS antisemitism and its use as a justification for her adoption of RACIAL antisemitism.

End of OR.

I think that the best way we editors of the Bailey bio page can address these issues through the method of "enabled self-education" for the page's readers -- that is, by making wiki-links in the Controversies section to the terms "supersucessionism," "religious antisemitism". and "racial antisemitism."

Thanks for reading this, and if it opens a few eyes, it will have been worth the time it took to write it.

cat Catherineyronwode 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Wow! This is very interesting and I'm learning a lot about anti-semitism but this is really distorting the purpose of this article. What happened to the idea of an article on the Occult and Antisemitism? Again, this is interesting but really inappropriate on this talk page. (you didn't like James putting all of Bailey's quotations which were on topic, but then this is heavy WP:SOAP).
Can we please get back on topic to get a balanced and NPOV article? This is really getting off-track. --Renee 04:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This Biographical Article Has been Hijacked

I mean this in the sense of "To seize control of (a moving vehicle) by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate destination."

The Jewish defense league is here and aggressively taking over this biography. They have little or no scholarly interest in AAB's biography or teachings as such, but are prosecuting an agenda with a spirit of Wikipedia rules be damned. No amount of logic or appeals to scholarship meets with response, because it is an emotional and "faith based" initiative. I admire those who actively defend the Jewish people against actual anti-Jewish types but this is the wrong place for it. I'm sorry to say that a spirit of religious fanaticism is active in some of the editors here and it is a corrupting influence on the accuracy, objectivity and neutrality of this article. For the present, and for this article, the Wikipedia system for producing good quality content has failed. James 02:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Jpgordon, he is referring to me, and Catherine, and Albion. The line of argument being taken by Jamesd1, singling out Jews as being the cause of this article's problems, and his problems as an editor, is turning more ugly. All this could be avoided by simply compromising over the content of the Controversies section. I do not think it asking so much that there should be some recognition in the article that Alice Bailey made statements in her books that are obviously antisemitic. That is not Hijacking an article.Kwork 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Hello, perhaps you've been to busy to pay enough attention to what's going on and put the pieces together and notice the many edits that tell the story.
Please click on the history button in the article and study recent edits to the biography, then review again the nature of the discussion in this forum.
Consider how these emotions affect edits:
"Kwork, has demonstrated over and over again that he does not understand core wikipedia polices, has no interest in learning them and is here at wikipedia for one purpose, to teach the world about Alice Bailey's alledged anti-semitism. Anyone who disagrees with his very clear POV is attacked, criticized or seem as part of a conspiracy." [19]
" I will not suffer the amtisemtism of others on any talk page. I think its a good idea to leave it on there for a while and give others a chance to read and share my anger at having had to put up with it in the first place. I will in fact go to Alice Bailey page and try to fix it and perhaps ruffle some feathers over there. But please do not expect me to sit idly by while racial epithets are being hurled at us from the grave by Alice Bailey. EVENTUALLY I will revert that offensive crap myself. You should do whatever you think is best. Thanks and have a nice day. Albion moonlight" [20]
Above in this forum: "Alice Bailey was a notorious antisemnite and racist. " Nameless Date Stamp/Catherineyronwode
There's lots more, but if it's not clear after reflection on all of the above, then nothing more I can say here will help. James 04:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I totally agree with James. The two editors promoting an anti-semitism POV are Nameless Date Stamp/Catherineyronwode and Kwork. There is heavy WP:Soap (see Cat's posts as well as the RFC/User on Kwork). Further, there is canvassing, starting with a post to the antisemitism talk board here and then a lot of back-room talk (e.g., here and here) about how to position antisemitism on the page and how non-Jewish editors are all meatpuppets (when really, isn't the reverse true? e.g., [21])
I would like to point out that many editors, James, Sethie, Voidocore, Sparklecplenty, Squeakbox, Eaglizard have all been trying to get the focus on Bailey and on following Wiki policy for sources. I don't think any of us object to having sentences in the controversies section on Bailey and anti-semitism -- we just want a balanced and neutral article with good sources. Eaglizard in particular has been a positive saint for trying to get some sort of consensus from Cat and Kwork but we just keep getting the same data dump responses and reverts.
For example, everyone but Cat and Kwork agreed that Gershom was a poor source, full of errors, etc., and it was deleted but then repeatedly put back in today. If you read through the talk page you'll see this (maybe starting here: [22]).
Since I've started on this page, I have found many people trying in good faith to build a balanced and neutral article (e.g., James, Sethie, Voidocore, Sparklecplenty, Squeakbox, Bksimonb, Itsmejudith, AnonEMouse and Eaglizard). It's difficult when the focus keeps getting diverted to anti-semitism and the disregard for Wiki source policies.
Help!!! --Renee 05:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jamesd1 and Renee, thanks for all the attention; but, if you put even a fraction of the words into the article that you have put into complaining about me, and Catherineyronwode, there would be quite a substantial article (with a small controversies section). The real problem is the two of you have been stonewalling on the controversies section, and avoiding compromise on the antisemitism issue. The problem is not hijacking, but your stonewalling. Kwork 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Being taken out of context.

First of all lets put everything back into the context that it belongs. I first became aware of this article as the result of an attempt by user Sethie to censor something Catherine had put on the Antisemitim talk page. At first I thought he had erased it for honorable reasons but as it turned out he was only interested in trying to censor Catherine, It took me a while to figure out what was going on but when I did I decided to help Catherine and Kwork. I guess that makes me a member of the Jewish Defense League as well. The Racist crap I was referring to were quotes from Ms Bailey. Once I understood that I had no real objection to it being left on the antisemitism talk page.

The Bailey faction has no rightful claim to ownership of this article no one does. As I have said before this dispute will ultimately be decided by the arbitration committee or not at all. Albion moonlight 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 08:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Defense League???

The claim that the Alice Bailey page has been hijacked by members of the Jewish Defense League is pretty over-the-top.

Those unamiliar with the JDL and not inclined to click the link ought to know that the FBI calls it a "violent extremist Jewish organization", the Terrorism Knowledge Base lists it as an "active terrorist organization based in the U.S.", and the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies it as a "hate group". (References courtesy of Wikipedia!)

I recommend that the author of this conspiracy theory step away from the keyboard, take a long shower, and come back later in a clearer frame of mind, perhaps with a nice cup of tea and some digestive biscuits to comfort and sustain him.

Catherineyronwode 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Focus on Bailey

To keep the focus on Bailey and in line with earlier discussion, I have removed the Evola reference (this pushes an antisemite POV and is not related to Bailey -- on an Occult and Antisemitism page discussing Bailey it would be fine; but there the focus is on antisemitism, not here).

Also, per this yesterday and previously days, the Gershom quotation has been deleted.

Can everyone live with it as is now?

Renee --Renee 14:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Dear Jpgordon, At this point would you suggest meditation? arbitration?
It seems the section is so close yet everytime people "agree" then the editors focused on antisemitism just go ahead and put back in what they want and say that was the agreement (when it was the opposite). Not just to me but to Eaglizard, James, Sethie, etc.
The goal is a balanced and neutral article with good sourcing. Help! Renee --Renee 15:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll happily do it the easy way; the next time I see a change followed by a revert from anyone (other than clear vandalism) I can protect the page until it gets worked out here. It will probably be fairly random what state the article is in at that point. I don't care what the history between the factions is; the edit warring is affecting the article now, and must stop. It's unbecoming. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. I was away from Wikipedia for the long weekend, so apologize for not responding to earlier requests. You've clearly been busy, however. :-) I've a number of points.

  • This talk page is huge, it's impossible to take it all in. There isn't a good place to divide between the current and past discussions for archiving, but some archiving clearly needs to be done. I think this has evolved from the RfC, so that isn't relevant any more; in any case, I doubt asking for yet more participants isn't going to help, we've already got plenty of experienced ones.
  • Please stop focusing on the editors. Calling names such as "Jewish Defense League" or "Bailey faction" does not help. Please don't defend this, I don't care whether it's right or justified, I only care that it does not help. Please just don't.
  • Don't hope for Wikipedia:Arbitration. That is specifically not relevant to content disputes. The Arbcom sanctions editors for bad behavior, but they never make decisions about the content of articles. You can ask for Wikipedia:Mediation, but don't think of it as a magic bullet, a mediator will merely be just what you have here another, hopefully experienced, hopefully neutral, editor, like many that we already have participating here, and won't be making decisions, will just be trying to get you to agree, just at we are trying to do here. Don't hope for admin action to make a decision, we can use our tools to stop edit warring, or, again, to ban editors guilty of bad conduct, but not to make binding content decisions. Basically, this discussion we are having here is it, all sides have to make the best of it.
  • I hate to disagree with one of the few points James and Catherine agree upon, but we can't put Bailey's words into the Controversies section to rebut her critics unless she or others were using them that way, in other words to rebut her critics. In other words, we can't take sides in the argument, not even "to be fair". Since Bailey died in 1949, she wasn't rebutting Gershom and Sjoo with these words. Was she defending from earlier accusations of antisemitism? From whom? That would be an interesting part to add. Otherwise we can't combine her words with the criticism if no one else has done so, that's called original research, specifically synthesis.
  • Consensus has not been established to delete Gershom's criticism. His actual trustworthiness as a source as established by our original research isn't relevant, merely whether he is considered reputable. He has to meet this standard from Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." He does. It's also nice if someone else has reported the same information (namely, accusation of antisemitism). Sjoo and Shnirelman have. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Taking the liberty of archiving everything up to the start of this month, an arbitrary point. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive Editing Decisions

For those editors who do not recall, I have copied this from above:

===Statements by uninvolved parties===

  • Hi. Kwok dropped a note on my talk page, as I'm a Wikipedia:Administrator listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, to comment on the RFC for this article. It took me quite an effort to find the RFC (it seems to have been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, but not in the way recommended there; and, of course, this talk page is huge. Let me list it the recommended way first. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Archived for easier comprehension. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC) OK, now for the actual section -- I seem to be improving the references as I go, but I'll try not to actually change much:
    • http://www.nonduality.com/alice.htm seems to be an unorganized mess of statements attributed to people by first names only, on a web site of questionable reliability. Needs to go.
    • Yonassan Gershom seems to be a published and even acclaimed author [23][24][25] in the field of Judaism and mysticism, which seems to make him an established expert in the field, so this self published essay should be OK per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper).
    • Monica Sjöö is likewise a published author in the new age field, so she would similarly meet the above. Also her essay [26] was actually published somewhere. That mag, "From the Flames", doesn't seem to be a particularly reputable/reliable source in itself, but it's slightly better than solely self-published. However, I'm not sure why this is supposed to be from her book The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth, that's not what the link says.
    • The Lucis Trust is, well, her publisher, a house she founded. It's clearly appropriate in an article about her. More importantly, that her publisher feels the need to make a long detailed response shows that these sorts of criticisms are clearly notable enough to be included.
    • Douglas Groothuis is another recognized expert, and this is coming from a published book.
    • We don't have an article on the Watchman Fellowship or Watchman Expositor, but it seems to be linked to rather freely throughout the Wikipedia. That doesn't make it necessarily reliable, of course, so if it were the only source for such criticism, I'd be skeptical, but there seem to be a lot.
    • Fohat, the Edmonton Theosophical Society, Parker and Oliver, Protogonus, Cleather and Crump, eh... I'm not sure how reliable these sources are, but there's quite a bit of difficulty of evaluating the reliability of anything dealing with the various Theosophical Societies, as it all seems to be quite fuzzy. Clearly since Theosophy seems to be important to the article, it would be useful to know how she is viewed in Theosophy. If someone more knowledgeable tells me these aren't particularly reliable, compared to other Theosophical sources, and why, I'll be willing to strike either or both of these. Likewise if someone claims these are the pinnacle of Theosophical reliability, and can explain why, I'll be equally willing to believe that too. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

At that time all the sources were discussed,including Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, and there was agreement. The changes made by Renee today were preemptive [27], and without discussion, much less agreement. Kwork 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)



The post immediately above is untrue (please keep focused on the discussion, WP:APR). At least five other editors find Gershom inacceptable because (a) it is self-published and (b) he is not an Alice Bailey expert (he focuses on the Holocaust and Reincarnation).
Here is a sampling of previous discussions on Gershom specifically and other sources [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. Several active editors find the Gerhsom reference in particular (and Watchmen and Sjoo as well) poor and unacceptable (greater than 5 editors).
How about starting with Eaglizard's proposal and then moving from there?
This is one way to prevent edit wars. Feedback Renee --Renee 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read what AnonEMouse wrote about the Gershom article, just above. Kwork 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, I respect AnonEMouse's opinion but at least five other editors disagree and I've carefully read Gershom's work now and he is not a Bailey expert, which probably explains why he has not been able to publish this article anywhere but on a website. According to WP:RS self-published sites are allowed only (a) in articles about themselves or (b) if they are an expert in the article topic.
Again, there is disagreement on Gershom and other sources. One proposal for compromise is to start with Eaglizard's proposal. Feedback? Renee --Renee 21:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
p.s. Here is Jpgordon's opinion[33], which I also respect, "The Gershom one is tough; it's a self-published work not in the mainstream (as far as I can tell) of Gershom's expertise, so even if it's right we probably can't include it."

Perhaps jpgordon should be asked to have another look at what AnonEmouse has uncovered. I think he may change his mind under the circumstances. Albion moonlight 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, clearly from the way I said it, I was uncertain about the Gershom quote. I still am; I don't see where the self-published Bailey article is in the mainstream of Gershom's own work. All I know of him is from his article here on Wikipedia, which talks about his research and writing about the Holocaust, reincarnation, and nonviolence; I don't see where the his analysis of Bailey fits into that published (and referenced) expertise. This is really a subtle issue of reliable sourcing; who is this relatively obscure figure (Gershom) that we're citing him about another relatively obscure figure (Bailey)? Phrased another way, why should the reader care what Gershom's opinion is? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should the reader care about what any of the sources say then. ?? I think that the solution to all of this is allow the Gershon material in and leave the restoration of Ms Baileys reputation to those who adore her. Cathrine suggested a section on Baileys 3 suicide attempts as a teenager and how she subsequently overcame all of this. It could easily be seen as a positive thing by readers. I also think that there is a hidden agenda on the part of some of the Bailey faction who would allow no mention of of her antisemitism whatsoever.if they had their way. So it becomes a question of balance and inclusion of new material as opposed balance by method of wikilawyering and exclusion. In other words.let us concentrate on this article as a whole and allow both factions to have their say and achieve this through gathering and using new material about Bailey and not by contestion the validty of soureces that have already been accepted by the community in the past. Albion moonlight 00:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


He has some reknown as a writer on Jews reincarnating from the Holocaust, and this seems to be his area of expertise [34] [35] [36]. He has a self-published web-page that he posts personal opinions on as well as advertisements for his books.[37] I searched the web and could not find any site that said he was an expert on Alice Bailey or her work. He has not published anything on Bailey. --Renee 00:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


It is not necessary for you to like what he says. Gershom is knowledgeable on the subject of antisemitism, which is the subject in this case. Also, because he is a Kabbalist, it is impossible to say his views result from an inability to understand spirituality and esotericism. AnonEmouse has a lot of Wikipedia experience with biographies, and I think her accepting the Gershom article is based on experience. She did not allow a number of sources that I very much would like to see in the Controversies section, but I decided to live with her decisions. If I can live with what she left out why can not you live what she left in? Otherwise you are as much as saying that you will never compromise, and this argument will never be resolved. Kwork 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard's proposal?

I'm afraid this will get lost so am moving the discussion here.

How about starting with Eaglizard's proposal and then moving from there?

Here is a sampling of previous discussions on Gershom specifically and other sources [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. Several active editors find the Gerhsom reference in particular (and Watchmen and Sjoo as well) poor and unacceptable (greater than 5 editors).

Thanks, Renee --Renee 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Renee, lots of things to consider in Eaglizard's proposal and I'm in general agreement with his approach. But given the difficult nature of trying to reach agreement here--especially with our Jewish friends, I think it covers to much at one time and this makes it complicated to address with all the voices here who are likely to haggle over so much.
My suggestion would be to take one small step at a time. Take one item and let everyone focus on that and see if consensus could be reached. After success, move on to the next and so on. James 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds very reasonable. --Renee 00:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish defense league not Literal, Relax a little

When I said above that the article was being taken over by the Jewish defense league, please note that only the word "Jewish" was capitalized. The reason is that I did not know there was literally any such thing as a JDL, much less anything about its nature. I used this string of words in the ordinary dictionary sense, meaning that there is a group in this froum that is Jewish, and who are in league with each other, and are defending against what they believe is anti-Jewish statements by Bailey. "League" means they are an association for common action, official or not. This group has mission here, which is to try to define AAB as antisemitic. I think this is a clear statement of fact. I am happy the that this league exists and am grateful for it. I am certain however, that it has chosen the wrong field of battle in this forum and article.

I myself am pro-Jewish. I am pro-humanity. I am for all the underdogs and oppressed groups of the world. I approve defending the Jewish people against all actual antisemitic idiots of which there are still many out there. I am sorry to see the "league" that is here spend there considerable energy on trying to brand AAB as anti-Jewish when there is such crying need for their skills and expertise elsewhere in the world where it would really help and against targets deserving of their attention. Again I say that AAB was severely critical of the Jewish people and of many other groups as well. Yes, she was not "politically correct" in her writings. But her statements are simply tough love and there is no hatred in them. Her message was and is love. I ask you to step back a bit and reconsider. I do not expect you will hear these words and follow my suggestion, but I cast these thoughts into space anyway. Be well. Kind Regards to all, James. James 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what the "Jewish defense league" is and i know what a "hijacking" is and i consider the use of those terms in this editorial forum to be highly inappropriate. A simple apology would have been in order, but a convoluted rationalization was offered instead. cat Catherineyronwode 02:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Love and Marriage

It dawned on me just now as I was editing that one of the many clear differences between an an actual anti-Jewish type and an Alice Bailey type is this: the anti-Jewish person wants to harm, degrade, or kill the Jews. What does Bailey advise instead?: love and marriage. Some might see this love and marriage thing as a terrible vengeance of the Gods that has blurred the lines between individuals and groups throughout history. James 00:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This, above, belongs on your web site or blog. This is not a forum for you to try to re-define antisemitism. (You might find it helpful to read the wikipedia article on antisemitism, about which the only thing you seem to know is that you are unwilling to have Alice Bailey called anti-Semitic.) Kwork 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The anti-Jewish person wants Judaism to cease to exist. He may advocate violent pogrom or genteel supercessionism but the central, defining act of the anti-Jewish person is that he takes it upon himself to tell the Jews what to do, namely to DISAPPEAR. cat Catherineyronwode 02:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gershom's area of expertise

Gershom is a published author with expertise on religion, Judaism, the holocaust/shoa, antisemitism, kabbalism, reincarnation as a part of Jewish belief, etc. Because his work actively covers antisemitism and history, especially that of the World War Two era {Bailey's era), he seems an acceptable source to me.

To insist that he must also be an "expert" on Bailey is grasping at straws.

The Wikipedia guidelines about web sources and self-publishing are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. As web publishing becomes more common for authors, we find that many writers who at one time were print-only are now self-publishing on the web.

Professor Bainbridge was mentioned by me before as an example of this trend. He is currently publishing quite a lot of his own material (including reprints of his own out-of-print material) on the web.

I myself am such an author, with books on gardening and herb magic in print -- and more of the same online for free, as a gift to my readers. This trend does make it difficult to distinguish between a blog and a "real, accredited" author's web site, but some investigation will generally set the matter staight.

catherine Catherineyronwode 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bailey's rebuttal (for AnonEMouse)

AnonEMouse wrote:

I hate to disagree with one of the few points James and Catherine agree upon, but we can't put Bailey's words into the Controversies section to rebut her critics unless she or others were using them that way, in other words to rebut her critics. In other words, we can't take sides in the argument, not even "to be fair". Since Bailey died in 1949, she wasn't rebutting Gershom and Sjoo with these words. Was she defending from earlier accusations of antisemitism? From whom? That would be an interesting part to add. Otherwise we can't combine her words with the criticism if no one else has done so, that's called original research, specifically synthesis.

This is correct -- but there is ONE quote that i know of from Bailey in which she did apparently respond to what seem to have been charges of antisemiism (uncited by her, the charges appear as if from "off-panel", as it were). This is the paragraph i mentioned (and used in an earlier draft) in which she used the "Some of my best friends are Jews" defense. It begins, "I have no anti-Jewish feelings. Some of my most beloved friends..."

This "some of my best friends are Jews" defense is a very weak rebuttal, and, as i pointed out, at the time she used it, it had been known for about 15 years as a sort of coded admission of prejudice, even being called "the mark of the professional antisemite." But she did make that rebuttal.

I understand your position -- it is not scholarly to manufacture a "balanced and fair" section of the biograpy by allowing Bailey's words from the past to be used as her defence against accusations that were made after her death. Doing so appears to be a POV form of favoritism, gleaning through her texts to allow her to get in the "last word" from beyond the grave.

At an earlier point in time, a different rebuttal appeared in the form of statements from the Lucis Trust, but as they are her publishers, that seemed to smack of special interest or even conflict of interest.

So far, no published text has been located in which an expert and economically disinterested party says that her works were not antisemitic or racist.

Still, in the interests of settling the dispute, i have been willing to include that "rebeuttal from beyond the grave" as a concession to Bailey's obviously concerned followers, as long as they stop trying to clip out charges of racism and antisemitism that have been clearly stated and cited.

As i write this, no consensus has been reached. All i see is what looks like another reversion.

  • The bulk of Shnirelman's quote has been ripped apart again by the deletion of his important and meaningful comparison of the "similaties" between Bailey and Evola.
  • The distinction between religious antisemtisim and racial antisemitism has been removed.
  • The reference to supercessionism (which provides background for Bailey's "Judaism is obsolete" argument) has been removed.
  • The Bailey rebuttal is now a stand-alone with no narrative intro-link to explain its pressence in the section.
  • Someone has deleted her comments on "The Negro problem", because the sentence "the Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage..." was oiginally posted intact -- including the now-deleted ending, "that of the Negro will not."

I really don't know what to do. I spend up to two hours per day making what i consider to be salient explanations of why a program of deletions and reversion that pushes a POV is not a good idea, and why the controversy must be handled tactfully and accurately. I limit myself to one rewrite per day, and it is not a straight reversion, but a sincere attempt to attend to the concerns of all parties.

When this message is posted, i will once again try for a rewrite that satisfies as many participant editors as possible. This time i will take into account AnonEMouse's concerns about the legitimacy of a "rebuttal from beyond the grave" while still trying to grant a concession to the editors who insist that "Bailey be allowed to defend herself," since they have no yet poduced a credible defense for her from an outside author.

I hope that my work will not be considered vandalism or a hostile move.

cat Catherineyronwode 02:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Cat, Please do NOT change what James has just completed. His edits are in accord with many of the other editors. As an Olive branch, I think I can live with Gershom if you can leave out the four things you mention above, which really push a POV and are not appropriate for the article (the Negro quote, the Evola quote, etc., these are really gratuitous and pulled out of context for Bailey's whole body of works).
So, if you can live with the edits that are now in, I can live with Gershom (even though I think it sets a precedent for allowing self-published opinion pieces that have not been vetted by third party sources, and in this instance contain errors). So, can you compromise on this? I'm trying here. Renee --Renee 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Renee, courageous effort asking that there be neutrality.

I'm concerned it's a done deal, no one cares to hear that Kwork and Catherine aren’t following Wiki policy.

The scenario…

Some one calls on jpgordon, champion against anti-Semiticism. When asked to intervene with Kwork and Catherine breaking Wiki policy, jpgordon says, “I don’t care.”

Kwork and Catherine ask AnonEmouse to come and help them. He arrives almost immediately.

Afterwards Albion Moon thanked AnonEmouse for helping Kwork and Catherine.

Now James is not listened to because he strongly expressed his frustration that there are no consequences for Kwork and Catherine defiantly and repeatedly breaking Wiki policy .

James is deleted and reprimanded for filling a page or two. Catherine repeatedly fills several pages without a delete or warning.

And its very likely that its been decided on Wiki, that your anti-Semitic for asking that Wiki rules are followed in the controversy section of Alice Bailey biography.

Renee, thanks for working toward neutralitySparklecplenty 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


I made the changes before i saw your request here, Renee. As much as i appreciate your spirit of compromise, there are serious problems with what you propose.
  • You cannot negotiate for James, whose hardened posture, with its rhetoric of "hijacking" and "battle" and the "Jewish defense league" does not recommend him as a serious negotiator.
  • The page continues to be reverted and words are repeatedly deleted with no consultation or agreement.
  • The version i edited tonight was poorer than the one it replaced for the simple fact that someone took out wiki-linked words like supercessionism, racial antisemitism and religious antisemitism which are helpfully descriptive and by no stretch of the imagination can be said to push a POV.
  • By changing Bailey's advocacy of Jewish assimilation into Christian cultures into assimilation into just "any old" cultues, the version i saw tonight weaseled away from one of the major points of objection that Gershom made, namely that Bailey's attack on Judiaism was on religious, not racial or socio-economic, grounds.
  • The technique of undercutting criticism by using non-topical quotes from Bailey (that is, quotes that are not relevant to the material being criticized) has gone on quite long enough, in my opinion. In the past i have attempted to offer the olive branch by allowing repeated cuts to be made in the words of the critics, until i offered my most generous compromise of all -- an allowance of only ONE SENTENCE PER CRITIC. Even this appeasement failed, and i soon saw the one-sentence quotes whittled away to the half-sentence, to the quarter-sentence -- and simultaneously i watched the addition of more and more to the Bailey quotations, to counter the critics. Appeasement has gotten us nowhere. So tonight i decided to boldly frame out the entirety of Shnirelman's comments, giving the Evola mention its full and contextual place, and noting Shnierelman's explanation of the notability of Bailey's and Evola's works being translated into Russian, where, Shnirelman said, their teachings added a distinct note of racism and xenophobia to the development of Russian Neopaganism.
As others have pointed out, Alice Bailey is dead, and the controversy about her role as a ideological founder of the New Age mevements of several nations is ongoing now. It's news. Let's report on it.
cat Catherineyronwode 05:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section, revision by cat, september 4th, 2007

Tonight's revision contains some new attempts to incorporate the suggestions of various editors.

  • The Evola passage had been deleted as "gratuitous" (whatever that means) and "off topic," but it only seemed so because, due to compression and "sound-bite" quote usage, Shnirelman's actual topic -- contemporary Neopaganism in Russia -- was not made clear. His point was that the then-recent translations of works by Bailey and Evola into Russian had had a decided impact on the form taken by the then-developing Neopagan movement in Russia. Putting this into context gives us a glimpse of Bailey's notability and influence after death, and the Evola comparison is thus seen as obviously not "gratuitous," because both authors had recently been translated into Russian, shared what Shnirelman called "similar views", and had mutually influenced Russian Neopaganism. Please give the new version a kindly look and see if it doen't make sense now to include Evola.
  • For the record, the Shnirelman material was translated into English FROM RUSSIAN without reference to the original works by Bailey in English, so you will see a bit of translation-drift in his quotes. He says, for instance, that Bailey said that the Jews were "the products of the former solar system," which quote we know more accurately as "the residue of a former solar system." I would have changed the mis-translated Russian back into Bailey's original English, but wanted some feedback on this. Please understand that this is not a mistake on Shnirelman's part -- it is a problem of translation into Russian and then retranslation into English. It could easily be corrected with a comment on the correction added to the ref footnote. Comments?
  • I have reinstated the refrences and wiki-links to supercessionism, religious antisemitism, and racial antisemitism for two reasons: (1) they provide helpful background for a modern reader's understanding of Bailey calling Judaism "obsolete" and (2) James, who deleted them, provided an unsupported explanation for his cut (he said that the word "supercessionist" is "name calling," which it is not), and he did not have the agrement of any other editors -- there having been only complimentary comments on the pedagogic background i provided yesterday in support of my inclusion of those wiki-links.

Here, in case the page is rapidly reverted again, is my latest version. Please do not interlineate comments, but rather make them after the text. Thanks.

Controversies -- cat's rewrite of September 4th, 2007
Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism.
In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed moden Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its 'Jewish inheritance' and reject the 'Jewish Bible'..." and that "similar ideas are found in the philosophy of the Italian fascist Julius Evola." Citing a Russian translation of Bailey's works, he noted that in it, "Jews were depicted as the 'human product of the former Solar system,' linked with 'World Evil' and justly punished for their rejection of the Messiah."[1]
Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[2]
The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," replied to Bailey's plan for a New World Order by saying that her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[3]
Bailey never responded directly to charges of religious antisemitism or racial antisemitism, but in the posthumously published Unfinished Autobiography (1951) she wrote "I have no anti-Jewish feeling" and in "Problems of Humanity" (1947), she spoke out against "cruelty, torture and wholesale murder," saying that "the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history [...] and right thinking people everywhere are [...] demanding that these persecutions end." As an alternative to persecution, she offered the supercessionist viewpoint that Jews, whose religion she believed was "obsolete," should assimilate into the cultures of the nations in which they were born (those being predominantly Christian cultures). "The Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage," she wrote, "that of the Negro will not." (Esoteric Healing,1949, p. 263 et. seq.)
Bailey has been criticised by some religious writers because, as a former Christian and former Theosophist, she spoke of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Theosophical spiritual beliefs as an authoritative teacher while simultaneously demonstrating non-conformity to the orthodox belief systems of these varied religious traditions
Bailey's works are criticized by some Christian groups for their heterodox approach to theology. In his book Unmasking the New Age, the Christian writer Douglas Groothuis said Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" and that the name was later changed due to controversy.[4][5] The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship says although her texts dealt extensively with the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are contrary to orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.[5]
Bailey's books have also been criticized as a form of Neo-Theosophy by mainstream Theosophists who say that a great many of her ideas, including the concepts of "root races" and Himalayan masters, were borrowed from Theosophy while also including perspectives that were not part of the original Theosophical teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.[6][7]

Thanks for reading this, and, once again, i look forward to your comments.

cat Catherineyronwode 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Supercessionism: Complex? No.

I noticed that James, when removing the word "supercessionist" from the Controversies section today, wrote in his comment line,

"(supercessionist is complex theological concept that is in part name calling and a conclusion by the editor; use words of scholarly critics or use her words please do not draw theological conclusions)."

First of all, "supercessionist" is not "name-calling" in any way, shape, or form.

Second, the concept is not complex. It is simply the idea that Judaism has been superceded by Christianisty.

Third, to apply an adjective that points to an information page is not to "draw a theological conclusion."

Fourth, i believe that my duty is to the reader, and i believe that the reader who clicks on that link and reads the brief definition of supercessionism will better understand Bailey's use of the term "obsolete" with respect to Judiasm, as well as her "residue" quote (cited by Shnirelman).

I truly see no great difference between the wiki-link to supercessionism and links that help the reader understand, for instance, that Robert Johnson was "born out of wedlock", that his step-father, Charles Dodds, "made wicker furniture," and that his mother "picked cotton".

cat Catherineyronwode 06:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It certainly makes sense that Bailey could have been influenced by supersessionist Christianity. It can't go in the article, though, unless there's a reliable external source for it. I do despair a bit about WP when I look at this article's talk page. Really, there's no point here in arguing the substantive pros and cons of Bailey's writings. The discussion needs to switch to what sources are available, how reliable they are and how they can be summarised in a balanced way. Itsmejudith 11:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, using the term "supersessionist" is okay with me, but not if it is presented as something different than antisemitism. It does perhaps define Bailey's views more precisely that the general term antisemitism. But Jewish experience is that such views, even when expressed in the most genteel form, tend to end with the same vicious results. No one would claim that Bailey wanted violent attacks or murders of Jews. She was not that kind of person. But, by trying to invalidate the existence of the Jewish religion in esoteric terminology in her books, she provides a foundation for such things in the entire esoteric and New Age movements. She provided even a cover of respectability for esoteric antisemitism, which was a help to more vicious esoteric groups such as the Thule Society. Kwork 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I wrote this yesterday, but have gotten no response from Jamesd1 or Renee, so I will try again because I really want to know if you have any serious intention of compromising enough to settle this endless argument.

It is not necessary for you to like what he says. Gershom is knowledgeable on the subject of antisemitism, which is the subject in this case. Also, because he is a Kabbalist, it is impossible to say his views result from an inability to understand spirituality and esotericism. AnonEmouse has a lot of Wikipedia experience with biographies, and I think her accepting the Gershom article is based on experience. She did not allow a number of sources that I very much would like to see in the Controversies section, but I decided to live with her decisions. If I can live with what she left out why can not you live what she left in? Otherwise you are as much as saying that you will never compromise, and this argument will never be resolved. Kwork 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Will you compromise, or does it have to be your way or no way? Kwork 12:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Breaking rules: Putting Words in AAB's Mouth and Concepts in her Mind

The criticism section stated "She offered the supersessionist viewpoint." Inclusion of this statement violates Wiki rules. The word "supersessionist" does not occur in the Bailey writings. Attributing supersessionist as a concept or teaching to her is a judgement, assessment, or conclusion being made by the editor who inserted it. This is original research. To correctly attribute this term and/or concept to Bailey you must either show by references what she said about it or quote a Wiki-reliable source that says she was a supersessionist. The passage might read: "According to scholar X, writing in Y, Alice Bailey was a supersessionist." That would be a perfectly acceptable insertion.


Alice Bailey was not a Christian

Behind this sort of problem is a more fundamental one. There are editors here who know a lot about Judaism and not much about Alice Bailey. Since this article is about Bailey, and only peripherally related to Judaism, mistakes are made.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here of many aspects of Bailey's writings. For instance, it's correct that she believed that, in not recognizing Christ 2,000 years ago, the Jewish people missed an important opportunity. She saw this as a spiritual failure on their part (though we should note that she also saw the Christian churches as failing to to understand and live Christ's teachings and criticized them severely for it.)

But my point is that she did not write or believe that the Jews of today should accept the Christ of 2,000 years ago. The Christian religion as enunciated by the Christ 2,000 years ago, and especially as distorted by church Theology, was in her mind--like orthodox Judaism--something for humanity to leave behind. She did not say that the Jews of today should accept the Christ of 2,000 years ago as their savior or that they should convert to Christianity in any conventional sense of the phrase.

In her terms, Christ simply equals Love-Consciousness as it expresses in brotherhood and right human relationships. In her mind, Christ does not belong merely to the Christian churches but is essentially the living energy of divine love that is the essence of the good in all religions. She wrote, "He will not come as the restorer of any of the ancient religions, including Christianity." The context is:

"The development of spiritual recognition is the great need today in preparation for His reappearance; no one knows in what nation He will come; He may appear as an Englishman, a Russian, a Negro, a Latin, a Turk, a Hindu, or any other nationality. Who can say which? He may be a Christian or a Hindu by faith, a Buddhist or of no particular faith at all; He will not come as the restorer of any of the ancient religions, including Christianity, but He will come to restore man's faith in the Father's love, in the fact of the livingness of the Christ and in the close, subjective and unbreakable relationship of all men everywhere." (Bailey, Alice A. The Reappearance of the Christ," p 190)

Note the phrase where she says the new age "Christ" may be 
"of no particular faith at all."   Reflect on that for a 
moment and you will see how radical her ideas of Christ and
his return were and how  remote from both Christian theology 
and Jewish concerns about supersessionist or being "assimilated" 
by some other religion. 

Since, in her mind, Christ is not coming to restore ancient Christianity at all, then he is obviously not coming to restore it for the Jews. In her mind, the Christian churches have fundamentally wrong concepts of Christ and his return. Her statements on this are one of the reasons orthodox Christians attack her. So the thought that the Jews should, "accepted Jesus Christ as the messiah" is off the mark and is actually part of the orthodox Christianity which AAB opposed; it is not AAB's thought. One of many passage giving some perspective on this is:

"He will not come, we may be sure, as a conquering hero, as the interpretations of the theological teachers have led man to believe, for that would certainly fail to identify Him and He would be simply classed as another military figure; of them we have had a plethora; He will not come as the Messiah of the Jews to save the so-called Holy Land and the city of Jerusalem for the Jews, because He belongs to the whole world and no Jews nor any other people have special rights or unique privileges or may claim Him as their own; He will not come to convert the "heathen" world for, in the eyes of the Christ and of His true disciples, no such world exists and the so-called heathen have demonstrated historically less of the evil of vicious conflict than has the militant Christian world. The history of the Christian nations and of the Christian church has been one of an aggressive militancy - the last thing desired by the Christ when He sought to establish the church on earth." (Bailey, Alice A. The Reappearance of the Christ," p 110)

Alice Bailey embodied some of her teachings using some of the language of Christianity. She used the words figuratively and in ways different from and often radically contrary to Christianity or Churchanity.

Alice Bailey was not a Christian. She was, in fundamental way, anti-Christian which is why the church groups attack her as vigorously as done here in this forum. James 13:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

She always remained very Christian. For example the Great Invocation [43] mentions "the Christ" very prominatly , but says nothing about Buddha, Krishna, etc. The 24 books she wrote, dispite the claim of a Tibetan Master as the author, seldom say anything about Buddism. I have always considered her books a form of esoteric Christianity.
You still have not replied to my question, above, about compromise. Kwork 14:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory AAB Citations and Accusations

I notice that the criticism section now quotes Shnirelman, associating Bailey with those who "object to the 'mixture' of kinds," and at the same time it says she advocating "destruction" of the Jews through supercessionistic intermarriage. So which is it? Don't you want to go one way or the other? If you try to have it both ways, you'll undermine your effort to make the antisemitic case. In an ideal Wiki-compatible approach, you would not try to make a case by scouring the internet for facts to support preconceptions. You would, as they say, "let the facts speak for themselves."James 14:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Albion moonlight wrote, that this dispute will not be resolved until it goes through the complete dispute process. [[44]]

I am in complete agreement with this, though of course for diffent reasons. I request that jpgordon take a more agressive, though of course impartial, action in addressing the problems.

I think freezing the article would not improve the situation. The same folks will still be here making the same mistakes after it is "thawed." The problems are long-term and deep seated and require action from the highest possible levels. James 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please people let stay focused on the article. Renee You and James have quoted Excerpts from my talk page trying to prove that there was some kind of conspiracy going on. All talk pages on wikipedia are public record. Kwork has a right to be suspicious but I think that everybody needs to cool it with the accusations and stick to the task of settling this dispute. Please Kwork please James Please Renee let do as we have been asked to do by both AnonEmouse and stick to getting this thing resolved even if it takes another 2 years to do it. I no longer believe that binding arbitration will do any good because I read what AnonEmouse had to say yesterday. Some of these disputes go on for years. We must all except that and try to get along, Albion moonlight 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I guarantee you arbitration regarding content will get nowhere; ArbCom rejects such things every day. Arbitration regarding behavior might go somewhere -- though I suspect few of you would be very happy, since most of you have been edit warring here. As far as me being aggressive, the only thing I'm likely to do is protect the article, and I'm on the verge of that right now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Shnirelman text

Currently the Shnirelman text is a mouthful and repetitive. It seems that to some editors it is important to place the article in context (it's real focus is on Russian neopaganism) and to other editors have some sort of link to Evola (not sure why? to prove that Bailey's as bad as Evola?).

Can people live with the following? It represents both sides and is cleaner.

In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed modern Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement)."

Thanks, Renee --Renee 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this greatly and am uploading it now, as i think it a great imporvement on the full text and on the compressed text. It is "just right." Catherineyronwode 23:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Renee, the first sentence seems unnecessary; but, if you think it better to have it there, it is okay with me.

What I would prefer is to do the entire discussion of antisemitism with just two sentences. The first, saying she is thought by some to have made antisemetic statements in the books, and with the links for those interested to follow up. The second sentence, that others defend her from that claim, and links for that. What else is necessary?

I really feel uncomfortable with as much copy in that section as is there now, and would like to have it very short.

Sorry if I offended you. I will remove the text you object to. Kwork 17:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


I greatly appreciate the apology. I have removed my text as well.
Can you please post what you would propose? --Renee 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


At one time the ENTIRE (at that time) Criticism section consisted of this:

Some statements in Bailey's writings have been criticized for perceived racism and anti-semitism. See critical links under "External Links" below.

I do not know who wrote it, but I was happy with it then, and would be now. The links now would be different. Kwork 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No on "Conspiracy" to Albion moonlight and Associates

Please don't put words in my mouth or attribute concepts and feelings I did not express. I've said there is group (league) of folks here that are out to define Bailey as antisemitic, and I said I believed they were, with regard to this issue, trying to do edit in a way that is contrary to Wiki guidelines. I did not use the word "conspiracy." There is nothing wrong with talking to your friends and asking for their contribution to this article and there is no rule against this, and I don't see it as unethical in any way. I've no problem with the fact that a group is united for a common purpose--in this case I think your efforts are misplaced but I respect your right to try to do what you think is right, whether individually or as a group. I quoted members of the "league" to show the emotionally charged position that I think has a bad affect on an editors discrimination and wording. I do not condemn you for your efforts either individually or as a group. I simply believe the approach and perceptions are wrong and wrongly applied to the Bailey biography. It doesn't mean that you're part of some great evil "conspiracy." I don't personally dislike you or Kwork or anyone here. I sympathesize with you. I do not know you. I assume that you are all essentially good people. I do not assume that the little of you I see from the posts is all there is. I have said I think you are wrong on on your approach to this issue and I've said it vigorously and openly, and I've cited the Wiki-reasons why on numerous occasions. The quick judgments that you and your associates make about me and what I think and feel contains much error. I think you do not see, and it is the same not-seeing that leads you to take the stance you do on AAB. James 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Did I use the word conspiracy ? If I did apologize. If AAB means Alice Bailey I will gladly explain my stance on her on your talk page. I do no think you are a bad guy of any sort. Its just that we disagree . I think that the word antisemitism means something different to you than it does to me. So if you want me too I will elaborate on your talk page Albion moonlight 18:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

Kwork, in case you forgot, some time ago I said "goodbye" and vowed not to engage in further direct dialog with you having determined from long experience that it led to nowhere. I'm willing to make an exception for my self if you are actually to talk about a compromise. However, in review of much of the above, I found no clearly stated version of what you are proposing. Please post the version of the Controversy section that you want to see below and I'll give one more try at communicating with you. James 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just made a more specific suggestion above, as a response to Renee, under "Shnirelman text". Kwork 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've copied your text here:James 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What I would prefer is to do the entire discussion of antisemitism with just two sentences. The first, saying she is thought by some to have made antisemetic statements in the books, and with the links for those interested to follow up. The second sentence, that others defend her from that claim, and links for that. What else is necessary?
I really feel uncomfortable with as much copy in that section as is there now, and would like to have it very short. Kwork 17:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


How many links would you like to include on each side of the issue?

Do we keep the Christian and and Theosophical criticisms? James 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Wow, for the first time ever I feel hopeful for this page!
This is a good solution and I like the idea of people being able to read for themselves the links and make their own judgments. I support this change. Thanks, --Renee 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


I would like the links that are there now. That way anyone interested could follow up. If there is another link you think necessary, let me know.

My own view is that the other two issues, the Christian and and Theosophical criticisms, are not controversies, but just differences. The reason Alice Bailey was not part of either a traditional Christian church, or part of the Theosophical Society, was because she saw things differently. An equivalant would be Martin Luther leaving the Catholic church...he saw things differently, so he started something new. Kwork 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Specifics

Is this what you have in mind:
Alice Bailey is thought by some to have made antisemetic statements in her books. [45] [46]
Other's wirters point out positive statements and see her as constructively critical. (insert links here yet to be determined).


What other links or references, if any, are you thinking of?
Also, this would mean a relaxed standard with regard to the links, that is personal web pages are being allowed? Is this a justifable and a stable solution? If the links are not up to a high enough standard, then will they not be removed by the next wave of editors? What do you Wiki rule experts think?James 20:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


I like this better for the first:

Some statements in Bailey's writings have been criticized for perceived racism and anti-semitism.

The second is okay.

I would like all the links that are there now, I think that is three, not two, and not in the order you have. I don't have time to work on it now.

I am not thinking of this as a way to slip in extra critical links, but as a way to be fair, and to create a stable situation. If there is an agreement, it would be best, if possible, to get an administrator to protect that section only from sudden undiscussed changes, because that always precipitates a long period of chaos and argument. I don't have time for more now, so we can discuss it further tomorrow. Kwork 21:02, 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.
Renee, i like very much your shortening of the Shnirelman paragraph. I would like to consider that "done." and move on. I will upload it now, if it has not been uploaded before.
Re: supercessionias, i would like to prospose this, as a compromise. The line where we quote Bailey saying that "Judaism is obsolete" shouls be a link to the wiki article on supercessionism. This abouds putting words in her mouth or concepts in her mind, but it does provide needed infomation on the phrase "Judaism is obsolete." I will upload that now and would like folks to let me know how it reads to them.
cat Catherineyronwode 23:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)



Kwork, I had just responded to your last with "Specifics discussion part 2" below but now see that Catherine takes a different position above. You and/or others can talk with her and see if we are able to proceed or if this means we can no longer develop a simple solution. James 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Specifics discussion part 2

Here is a copy of your updated version below for you and others to consider when you have time. At the moment we have:

Some statements in Bailey's writings have been criticized for perceived racism and anti-semitism. [47] [48]
Other's writers point out positive statements and see her as constructively critical. (insert no more than 3 links here, yet to be determined).

Please insert the other link you have in mind into this current version. If you want to add brackets to cross reference to Wiki racism and anti-semitism article, then make that change to the draft. I agree, that if we reach an agreement, then asking an administrator to protect the section from undiscussed changes would be a good idea.

Also, I'm thinking that if you or your friends find a link or links that are better than the ones you choose now, then it would be OK if you want to substitute new links for existing ones following your "perceived anti-semitism" line, keeping the total equal to or less than three.

Likewise, if editors interested in addressing the positive statements sentence, find better links in future, then we can substitute those, keeping the links equal to or less than three.

We can agree that any changes or expansions to two lines should require prior discussion and agreement in the forum, but that editors working on both side of the issue should feel free to upgrade their links should better material come to their attention. I can't speak for the other editors here, but if we can agree on this simple solution and protocol for this thorny issue, then for the future I'm happy to practice a hands-off policy with respect to the antisemitic line and the links you choose to support it. James 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


How about dropping the word "perceived" from the line (it seems redundant with "criticized," which is someone's perception?
One thing we can do to prevent edit wars is to just let people add as many links as they want to to each line (this keeps us from arguing over what text/source should or should not be included; of course, blogs and talk pages should not be included in these links).
Finally, I really like the idea of Cat and Kwork coming to agreement now that we're on the same page with Kwork. It's likely he can work with her easier than we can given the history.
Thanks, Renee --Renee 23:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As a practical matter I doubt we need a lot of links after each line; certainly no more than five? But we should keep the two sets of links balanced. James 00:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section, cat's rewrite of Sept. 5, 2007

In response to Renee's excellent editing of the Shnirelman section and to James' continued chopping away at mention of racism in general (he eliminated the entire "Negro problem" text!), plus the objections to my mention of supercessionism, i went back to the Controversies section with fresh eyes. What i saw was that the tendency on the part of Renee and James to chop sentences in half has resulted in the loss of a lot of data.

For instance, with the "Negro problem" section -- by first eliminating Bailey's proscriptions against racial intermarriage, on the grounds that the section was "too long," the statement by Bailey that contrasted the solution to the Jewish prblem by intermarriage with the fact that intermarriage would not solve "the Negro problem" was left a rhetorical orphan. James then cut out the orphan, chopping the sentence in half on the grounds that we had no prior mention of Negroes in the paragraph.

So, i restored the mention of intermarriage.

I also decided to break the material into two sub-sub-heads, beacsue the two parts are not at all connected.

Here is my version of tonight, September 5th, 2007. Your comments are welcomed. Please do not interlineate comments; please reply after the text

Controversies
Charges of racism and antisemitism
Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism.
In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed moden Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its 'Jewish inheritance' and reject the 'Jewish Bible'..."[1]
Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[2]
The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," replied to Bailey's plan for a New World Order by saying that her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated that "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[3]
Bailey did not respond directly to charges of antisemitism or racism during her life, but in her postuhumously published Unfinished Autobiography (1951) she wrote "I have no anti-Jewish feeling" and in "Problems of Humanity" (1947), she spoke out against "cruelty, torture and wholesale murder," saying that "the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history [...] and right thinking people everywhere are [...] demanding that these persecutions end."
With respect to racism in general, she claimed that "the best and soundest thinkers in both the white and black races at this time deplore mixed marriages" and that "intermarriage between the white peoples and the yellow races (the Chinese and the Japanese) is equally unfortunate." [8]
Folowing on these beliefs, she proposed different solutions for various facets of what she called "The Problem of the Racial Minorities" [9]. She believed that the "orthodox Jewish faith [is an] obsolete teaching", characterized by "its hatred of the Gentiles and its failure to recognize the Christ." (The Externalization of the Hierarchy, page 545), and that Jews would find relief from persecution if they would assimilate into the cultures of the nations in which they were born (those being predominantly Christian cultures). Her opposition to race-mixing, however, led her to state that "The Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage, that of the Negro will not." (Esoteric Healing,1949, p. 263 et. seq.)
Relious criticism
Bailey has been criticized by some religious writers because she wrote of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Theosophical beliefs with authority while expressing non-conformity to the orthodox belief systems of these varied religious traditions
Bailey's works are criticized by some Christian groups for their heterodox approach to theology. In his book Unmasking the New Age, the Christian writer Douglas Groothuis said Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" and that the name was later changed due to controversy.[4][5] The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship says although her texts dealt extensively with the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are contrary to orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.[5]
Bailey's books have also been criticized as a form of Neo-Theosophy by mainstream Theosophists who say that a great many of her ideas, including the concepts of "root races" and Himalayan masters, were borrowed from Theosophy while also including perspectives that were not part of the original Theosophical teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.[6][7]

Now, once again, i would like to ask people to stop cutting material from this section. The idea of reducing it to two sentences is a bad idea, in my opinion, as it damages Wikipedia's helpfulness and goes gainst its educational responsibilities. The earlier claims that the Controversies section was "too long" have been -- and continue to be -- ably addressed by those who are actively expanding the biogrphy, teachings, and influecnes sections. I will post next a list of suggestions for those areas, as my research has uncovered a wealth of scholarly information on them that, if shared, would greatly improve this article, in my opinion.

carCatherineyronwode 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Catherine on this one. The remaining sections of this article can be and should be expanded to balance this article . Inclusion is in the spirit of wikipedia, If I have time I will try to help with the expansion of the rest of the article. But let us refrain from trying o minimalize the criticisms section. Albion moonlight 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guidelines--A Review and Reality Check

For the editor or editors here who want an expanded treatment of the contention that AAB was antisemetic, please take note of Wiki guidelines below. It states that if we are to allow any self-published source to shape the biography--including even a published expert in a field-- the contentious claim made by that self-published source must be also have been published by "relaible source" meaning, at a minimum, two other sources must confirm the claim. Otherwise, it is correct to remove it.


Reliable Sources, Official Wiki Guidelines Definition [49]

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.


Questionable sources , Official Wiki Guidelines Definition [50]

"...self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources..."

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1 (talkcontribs) 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


Cat's edits

Thanks James for the reminder.

I'm really surprised at Cat's proposal and edits after we made such progress this morning.

Her edits are way out of line with what Kwork proposed and what we all agreed on. This makes the section even longer and reads very POV. Cat, can you please work something out with Kwork first and then get back to us?

I don't see where the compromise is on this? The "negro" text is back in, and the second-to-last paragraph is especially gratuitous in that it is in context of that time period and the only reason to put it in is to push a negative POV of Bailey. And, it's longer! --Renee 01:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That so called pov can and should be balanced by expanding the rest of the article. This is a biography of a dead person. We have no duty to protect Ms Bailey. Maybe Kwork was just tired or something. Hard to say. Albion moonlight 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Renee, Kwork's proposal was no something "we all agreed on." I have no idea why he made such a proposal, after long weeks of trying to keep the article fair and balanced. He certainly did not have my agreement, nor, as can be seen, Albion moonlight's.
Length should not be a reason to cut. As Albion says, the aim of Wikipedia is to be inclusive.
The Negro quote and the mention of "yellow" people (Chinese and Japanese) grew out of the fact that both Shirnelman and Sjoo mentioned her racism, not merely her antisemitism. They were added because when James expanded a Bailey-rebuttal paragraph that focussed only on Bailey's disliking physical persecution of the Jews, and then clipping away her statements about other races, the article suddenly seemed to be hiding her opposition to the "race-mixing" concept.
I never wanted the Bailey "rebuttal" paragraph at all. I was content with the quotes from Shnirelman (as modified today by Renee, espcially), Sjoo, and Gershom, each of which addressed a different aspct of controversy. But James wanted the rebuttal, and that led to a counter-rebuttal, and on and on and on.
Cutting the entire Contoversies section down to two lines (with no mention of racism, just antisemitism) and no information given on the page is a very extreme peration. It verges on blanking, and can be seen as a form of vandalism.
I am going to restore the version that contains text, with Renee's version of the Shnirelman quote, the long-standing Sjoo and Gershom quotes, and NO rebuttal from the Bailey texts. I will follow this with the religious criticism.
Can we live with that, please?
catherine Catherineyronwode 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon Please Freeze Article Using Kwork's Proposal

Cathrine went wild making edits that violate Wiki guidelines just now. I substituted the following for her edits:

Alice Bailey is thought by some to have made antisemitic statements in her books. [51] [52]

Other's wirters point out positive statements and see her as constructively critical. [53]

Cathrine will likely overwrite the above "holding pattern" so I ask that you restore it as above and allow us time to work this out. If the controversies section is to be expanded it needs to be done carefully under your guidance, or if you really "don't care" then under guidance from another disinterested Administrator. Thanks for your help in insuring unbiased application of Wiki guidelines to this article. James 01:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Expanded Controversy: A Proposal to End This

If the critics want expansion, then let the critics write 200 words of whatever they want following Wiki guidelines for neutral language and reliable sources.

We will write 200 words in contrast to it following Wiki guidelines for neutral language and reliable sources.

Then we freeze it and move on.James 01:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Material to add to the article (suggestions)

In looking through my own occult and esoteric library, as well as that of my husband, i have found some wonderful material on Alice Bailey that has not been utilized here. I am referring to two nooks by Professor Robert S. Ellwood, Jr. of the University of Southern California:

  • "Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America" (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973)
  • "Alternative Altars: Unconventional and Eastern Spirituality in America" (University of Chicago Press, 1979)

In both of these books, but at greatest length in the former, Ellwood comments extensively on Bailey's life and teachings (using material mostly gleaned from her own works), and he describes attending a circa 1970 full moon meditation circle operated by her followers, which included the "Great Invocation."

These books are dense with information, and form the best source on Bailey i have seen that does not originate with one of her followers.

Things that Ellwood brings up and that have not yet made it to the Wikipedia Bailey page include:

  • Bailey's three youthful suicide attempts (9,730 pages returned by google on <"Alice Bailey" suicide>, of which the 2nd one is at the Lucis Trust site -- so why no mention at Wikipdia???
  • Full Moon Meditation circles and groups -- i learned from Ellwood that lectures and were presented at these circles that were tied to the astrological signs in which the lunations occur -- why nothing about this on the Bailey page??? (the closest is a bare mention on the Wiki page of "the importance of full moon cycles in relation to meditation", which is not informative at all because it does not mention that these groups continue to meet -- nor is there any link on the Bailey page to the Wiki stub on New Group of World Servers -- an orphan stub with NO links from anywhere except a couple of user pages!
  • The Great Invocation (text and usage). This absolutely should have its own page and a link to that page from the Bailey page!
  • Demographics of adherents -- in the 1970s, Ellwood met mostly elderly adherents, whom he saw as fairly conventional in dress and prosperous in income. He noted that there were only a few "long haired" people in attendence (by which he meant hippies, members of the baby boom generation). Have the demographics chaged, remained the same?

Out of deference to those who have claimed that this is THEIR page, about THEIR teacher, i have limited myself to merely working on the Controversies section until now. When i asked why the suicide attempts were not mentioned, i was chastized for seeking "scandal" (!!!) and told that i could find the information all over the web, and so it need not be at Wikipedia. But, folks, there is some great stuff here -- why not use it?

cat Catherineyronwode 02:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Suicide of Memory

"When i asked why the suicide attempts were not mentioned, i was chastized for seeking "scandal" (!!!) and told that i could find the information all over the web, and so it need not be at Wikipedia. But, folks, there is some great stuff here -- why not use it?"

cat Catherineyronwode 02:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)



Below is a part of what was actually posted in response to the topic:

Autobiography of Alice A. Bailey - Chapter I, page 20-21

"When I was a few months old I was taken to Montreal, Canada, where my father was one of the engineers engaged in building the Victoria Bridge over the St. Lawrence River. There my only sister was born. I have only two vital memories of that time. One was managing to get into serious trouble with my parents because I enticed my small sister into an enormous trunk in which our many, many toys were kept. We were lost for quite a while and nearly suffocated, for the lid shut down on us. The second was that I made my first attempt to commit suicide! I just did not find life worth living. The experience of my five years made me feel that things were futile so I decided that if I bumped down the stone kitchen steps from top to bottom (and they were very steep) I would probably be dead at the end. I did not succeed. Bridget, the cook, picked me up and carried me (battered and bruised) upstairs where I met much comforting - but no understanding.

As I went on in life, I made two other efforts to put an end to things, only to discover it is a very difficult thing to commit suicide. All of these attempts were made before I was fifteen. I tried to smother myself with sand when I was around eleven years old, but sand in one's mouth, nose and eyes is not comfortable and I decided to postpone the happy day. The last time, I tried to drown myself in a river in Scotland. But again the instinct to self-preservation was too strong. Since then I have not been very interested in suicide, though I have always understood the impulse."

In response to Kwork:

There are many aspects of Bailey's personal life that are not detailed in the biography. No one said that such things should be excluded. Maybe one reason more has not been done is that so much time is spent here in this would-be discussion of the article forum. You seem to always want more emphasis on things critical or negative about her life and thought. Some measure of criticism is correct and the bio contains a bit of it already. More might be OK, we can get some more opinions, but I believe great care is needed here: the Wiki guidelines for this relate to proportionality and balance.

Would you like to see the whole quote above included in the biography, including her five year old attempt in throwing herself down the stairs and her humorous "postpone the happy day?" Probably not. I'm guessing what you have in mind is something less contextual like a technically correct statement that, "Alice Bailey tried three times to take her own life." Remember that objectivity and neutrality relate not only to what is said and how, but to what is left out. James 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, James, that is a "a part of what was actually posted in response to the topic" -- but not the part that i was referring to. I was referring to the part where my suggestion led to my being criticized for posting "slander" and "gossip" -- here:
[...] Since teen suicide attempts are very high, many of your friends and family likely attempted it. Please stop the slander and stay on topic of the biography.
I’m often puzzled why people search for gossip on the web instead of just checking first. Yes, AAB attempted suicide as a young girl. It’s no great secret that you have to dig up on the net. Bailey devotes two paragraphs to it in Chapter I of her autobiography, quoted below. [...] Sparklecplenty 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Sparkeleplenty missed my point entirely. I did not think of her childhood and teen suicide attempts as a scandal or feel that mention of them was gossipy or slanderous. I saw her move away from mental extremity once she met "The Tibetan" as a POSITIVE thing, a move toward purpose and adulthood.
My point was that i did not understand why her suicide attempts and later change of mentality were not mentioned in her bio at Wikipedia, since they were mentioned in so many other places on the rest of the web.
I tink the suicide episodes are important, but i don't think quoting at length from her autobiography is the best way to go. I would prefer a one-sentence summary, with a footnote to her autobiographical book.
cat 64.142.90.32 09:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


"When i asked why the suicide attempts were not mentioned, i was chastized for seeking "scandal" (!!!) and told that i could find the information all over the web, and so it need not be at Wikipedia. But, folks, there is some great stuff here -- why not use it?" cat Catherineyronwode 02:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

“I don't work on any portion of the Alice Bailey outside of the Controversies section, but it seems to me that if she attempted suicide three times as a teen and then ceased all such self-destructive actions when she had her first viision of the turbaned man, this should be of interest to others, and it might prove especially inspirational to teens who might read about it and realize they are not unique in their suicidal ideations or gestures and that they too may survive to enjoy life, with the help of a spirit guide (but hopefully a more generous-hearted spirit than that mean old antisemite Dhjwal Khul.”…..

There is the additional mental health issue of schizophrenia. I think Most psychologists would daignose her hearing voices from an invisible Tibetan Master as the mental health problem of schizophrenia:

The most common type of hallucinationSeeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling something that doesn't really exist. is hearing imaginary voices that give commands, make comments, or warn of impending danger. The person experiences these voices talking to them as "he" or "she" (third-person auditory hallucinations). [11]


Renee -- it's good!

Hey, Renee, i am very hapy with your latest revision of the Controversies section, incorporating the elements we have all been discussing for so long. I feel quite comfortable with it. It is medium-length, covers all the controversies, does not reduce all of the critics to wordless footnotes, and does not embroil the reader in either a defense of Bailey or a rebuttal to that defense. In case someone comes along and changes it, this is the specific version to which i refer:

Controversies
Charges of racism and antisemitism
Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism.
In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed modern Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its 'Jewish inheritance' and reject the 'Jewish Bible'..."[1]
Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[2]
The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," replied to Bailey's plan for a New World Order by saying that her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated that "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[3]
Religious criticism
Bailey has been criticized by some religious writers because she wrote of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Theosophical beliefs with authority while expressing non-conformity to the orthodox belief systems of these varied religious traditions.[4][5]
Bailey's books have also been criticized as a form of Neo-Theosophy by mainstream Theosophists who say that a great many of her ideas, including the concepts of "root races" and Himalayan masters, were borrowed from Theosophy while also including perspectives that were not part of the original Theosophical teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.[6][7]

I am quite content to live with this. I corrected a typo and fixed some invisible coding cruft but did not alter any further words. I say YES to this version.

cat yronwode 64.142.90.32 08:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I can live with this version too, though again I'd like to caution about Gershom. If that citation is allowed it opens the door for other self-published opinion pieces. I think this is a dangerous precedent and I also think that people who click on it will be disappointed with the "reference" and will be able to see for themselves that it's self-published, so I can live with it. Renee --Renee 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This version is okay with me. Kwork 17:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Peace Barnstar 6.png The Barnstar of Peace
Wow! Peace in our time? We have a compromise acceptable to all parties? Well done, all of you, thank you very, very much. Normally Wikipedia:Barnstars are given to specific people, but I'd like to give this one to all of you participating in achieving this resolution, for working this out. Congratulations. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks James

I do remember someone dissing Catherine when she she first brought that idea up but it wasn't you. I will not name names but I will say that your response to Kwork was commendable. Perhaps now is the time to commence creating that section on her attempted suicide. I am going to wait and see what kwork does but I think that we should allow the rest of you a lot of autonomy in the non criticisms section(s). Anyway I have to go now. I should be back on line 6 to 8 hours Have a nice day and thanks again Albion moonlight 09:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. James 13:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


A Few Thoughts

First, given the more moderate size of the Controversies, I think the omission of the "other side" aspect in the controversies is OK. In essence, many aspects of the general biography itself serve to present the alternate view. So personally, I can accept the controversies section as it is, and if it doesn't morph into something very different in the future, I'm content to leave it alone and limit myself to suggestions in respect to it.

One observation about the long-debated Gershom citation. Personally, I'll leave it alone, but as I and others pointed out he made errors that undermine his credibility and the cite is not really up to Wiki standards especially with respect to such a fundamentally contentious issue. I suspect that editors will arrive here in the future who will notice the problem and insist on deleting it.

Also, as you have it now your quote "negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." This quote seems to assocaite AAB with what is expressed, a kind of "gilt by assocation" with what is essentially criticism of somone other than Bailey. The passage mostly expresses the exact opposite of what AAB wrote. In general, AAB was an advocated for muli-culturalism and "mixture" and against isolationsims, and was so specificailly with respect to the Jews which is your main theme here. She specificially advocated for an "open arms" policy among nations allowing, after the war, immigration of the Jews to other countries of their choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1 (talkcontribs) 14:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


James, thanks for your agreement to "live with" the Controversies section as it is now constituted. HURRAY.
I would like to respond to something in your comment, though: You wrote:

Also, as you have it now your quote "negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." This quote seems to assocaite AAB with what is expressed, a kind of "gilt by assocation" with what is essentially criticism of somone other than Bailey.

But:
  • The quote is not MINE. It is from the text by Shnirelman and is cited as such.
  • It is not about "guilt by association" -- rather it is Shnirelman's description of the appearance in Russia of certain racist texts by Bailey and the propagation of racist teachings among those who were the intended audience for those texts -- "her followers."
  • He is an ethnographer and anthropologist; he treats the entire subject from that perspctive, presenting evidence of what he sees as a connection between developing social trends (emergence of belief in isolationism, objections to 'mixture' of peoples, support for prohibition of immigration) with the material culture (newly published books urging non-mixing of "races") of a newly emerging sub-culture (Neopaganism in Russia).
I realize that for you, the problematic anti-Jewish and anti-race-mixing passages are only a minor theme in Bailey's works, and they certainly do not go as far as Evola's statements or activities -- but Shnirelman absolutely is "associating" Bailey with those views which she wrote and self-published. Shnirelman is not pointing to Bailey's "guilt" (your term) -- he is merely saying that the then-recent translation and publication in Russia of the racist Bailey texts forms an associative background for the development of "negative view[s] of multi-culturalism, object[ions] to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support [for] isolationism and the prohibition of immigration" among Bailey's followers in the new Neopaganism that was then spread openly in Russia in the wake of glasnost and the fall of communism.
As a scholar, with expertise in the subject of Russian cultural ethnography and specifically Russian antisemitism, Shnirelman certainly is qualified to relate the appearance of the Bailey and Evola texts among Russian Neopagans to the racially and religiously intolerant teachings that were then developing among Bailey's Russian followers.
cat Catherineyronwode 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Making White Look Black

Hi Catherine,
The quote may be exactly what Shnirelman said. But I guess you know, or perhaps you do not--if it matters, I can quote exactly what AAB wrote on these issues--that what she wrote is the exact opposite of what the Shnirelman implies and "associates" with her. You did find and select the quote, and there is certain ethical responsibility in this, is there not? I understand that you did not write it, and it may or may not correspond to your own reading (or missreading as the case may be) of AAB's writings. But anyone who reads what AAB wrote about this specific thing can easily see that the Shnirelman phrase is the exact opposite of what she taught and believed. I guess what you (or rather Shnirelman) is saying or implying is that some people in Russia used passages from her works to advocate a position that was the opposite of what she actually wrote and believed. Does this strike you as a fair way to represent someone? You do see, do you not, that it gives a false picture of Bailey. It may give a true picture (without really saying that is what is being done) of how some idiots in Russia misused passages from AAB's writings, but it conveys a false picture of her thoughts--indeed, it turns her upside down. We have here a quote about someone that we know to be false, and without qualification or explanation. Is this honest? This does not trouble you?

A. "he is merely saying that the then-recent translation and publication in Russia of the racist Bailey texts forms an associative background for the development of "negative view[s] of multi-culturalism"

B. object[ions] to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support [for] isolationism and the prohibition of immigration"


In the quote above, if A. is his actual thought why don't you just say that as it is a fair statement.

In B above, we have the part that associates, virtually attributes, to AAB the exact opposite of what she explicitly taught and believed, i.e.

  • AAB advocating a "mixture" with the Jews.
  • AAB advocated intermarriage with the Jews.
  • AAB spoke against isolationism in with respect to the Jews.

Regardless of whether you or I agree with what she wrote, I think we have the responsibility of fairly represent what she wrote. What do you think? James 21:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think i understand your points, James, but i do not agree with them.
  • I think Shnirelman is qualified to express his own viewpoint.
  • Bailey outright opposed the marriage of Europeans to East Asians.
  • Bailey said that "The Negro Problem" would NOT be solved by intermarriage -- because she opposed mixing the genetics of people with differing skin colours.
  • Her advocacy of a European "mixture" with the Jews (during which they were to abandon their socio-cultural traditions, religion, etc.) seems to have been based on the skin colour of the average Ashkenazi (German) Jew, because -- as Kwork pointed out here, weeks ago -- given her skin-colour-based racism, she could hardly have approved of Black Jews, African Jews, Lemba Jews, Ethiopian Beta Israel Jews, or Qemant Jews marrying "Aryan" British Neo-Theosophists, could she?
But, i have an idea -- let's work on the article and stop fussing over these details, okay? You will never convince me, and i will never convince you.
cat Catherineyronwode 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision of the References for Style / and a note for Renee

I just wanted to let frolks know that i have completed a complete revision of all the ref tagged items on the Bailey page so that they all use the same style of citation. There was a "many hands" problem with the refs in that they displayed about 6 or so different syles. I picked one and ran with it.

Also, Renee in restyling the refs, i realized that all of Alice Bailey's works were "self-publishd." I thought you might enjoy the irony of that.

cat Catherineyronwode 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


Here's the policy I go by:
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves...' [54]
Best wishes, Renee

Talking With Angels

Catherine, I certainly wouldn’t condemn people who “hear voices,” as schizophrenic and self destructive. There are lots of different levels to voices, both physical and psychic. Speaking of “hearing voices”: if your permitted to read literature on channeling. There is a wonderful book, true story, about two Jewish women, a Jewish man and a gentile woman who saved many Jews by creating a fake company. Together the four friends also spoke to unseen voices—“Budaliget 1943, Talking to Angels.” Although the three Jewish friends chose to sacrifice themselves, because of it many were saved.

One of my favorite quotes: “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.” (Longfellow)

Of the motivations for five-year-old and teen age suicide attempts she (Alice Bailey) said that "I just did not find life worth living" and she also attributed the impulse to the confusion brought on by the awakening of her mystical nature. After the age of 14 she was done with it and "Since then I have not been very interested in suicide, though I have always understood the impulse." She elaborates:

"At that time I did not like the "feel" of life. I did not appreciate what the world seemed to be or had to offer. I was convinced that better things lay elsewhere. I was morbid, full of self-pity, through loneliness, exceedingly introspective (which sounds better than self-centered) and convinced that no one liked me. Looking back, why on earth should they? I cannot blame them. I gave them nothing of myself. I was preoccupied all the time with my reaction to people and circumstances. I was the unhappy, self-dramatized center of my little world. This sense of better things somewhere and a capacity to "feel" into people and circumstances and to know often what they were thinking or experiencing was the beginning of the mystical phase of my life and out of it emerged much good that I later found."

"Perhaps the time will come when our adolescent boys and girls will receive some attention along the lines of capitalizing on their normal, mystical tendencies....The universality of the process should be emphasized, thus dismissing the loneliness, and the false sense of isolation and peculiarity which are such disturbing features of the experience. I believe that this method of capitalizing on the adolescent urges and dreams will later receive more attention. I regard the silly adolescent miseries through which I passed as simply the opening of the mystical phase in my life which - in time - gave place to the occult phase, with its greater assurance, its understanding and its unalterable convictions." Unfinished Autobiography pp. 21-23Sparklecplenty 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparkleplenty, you have addressed yourself to me, but i never wrote anything about Bailey "hearing voices" or being "self-destructive." I have no opinions about that, and trying to embroil me in conversation about it is useless. Let's stick to editing, shall we? Thanks. catherine Catherineyronwode 10:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Consulting oracles, and other such unseen voices, played a substantial part in the ruination of many of the greatest cultures (Egypt, Greece, and many others) of the ancient world. To see it arising again now, with its increasing popularity, is not a promising sign. Problems with it range from encouraging people to replace their own rationality with guidance from unseen voices, to the near impossibility for humans of distinguishing between voices that actually carry a higher light and the voices of spirits who are liars and fools presenting themselves as masters or angels. It is far better for people to develop their own ability to distinguish between virtue and vice, and their ability to work for good without relying on invisible voices. Kwork 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What does any of this have to do with improving the article? Let's keep the philosophical musings to a minimum; all we're interested in here, remember, is recording what other people say about the subject of the article, not our own opinions, ruminations, beliefs, or ideas. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How to Lie by Selection; then Onward if You Like

Catherineyronwode wrote, "But, i have an idea -- let's work on the article and stop fussing over these details, okay? You will never convince me, and i will never convince you."

OK, then this my final words on it, and should you choose to respond to this last, I will answer with silence.


Catherineyronwode wrote
  • Bailey outright opposed the marriage of Europeans to East Asians.
  • Bailey said that "The Negro Problem" would NOT be solved by intermarriage

Yes, and I do not subscribed to her views on this, but you're not addressing the Negro issue or an East Asian issue in the Controversies section. You are addressing the Jewish issue. So the honest thing would be to use her statments on Jews.

But the bottom line is, that if you brought togther all AAB said on the given issues, you could not use her words to support your arguments. Her words in context would disolve most of the arguments you are trying to bring against her. It is only by selecting and taking things out of context that you can support your position. Think about it.

And when certain things clash with our prejudices, we simply ignore them or expalin them away.

"I call you to no organizational loyalties, but only to love your 
fellowmen, be they German, American, Jewish, British, French, Negro 
or Asiatic."  ( The Externalization of the Hierarchy, p 208)

And in all this facny word play, interpreation and devious misinterpreation, is one cardinal error. It is this: we can lie by manipulation of context.

I have placed on my web page a picture, which sums up the probems I see in controversies wording. James 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC):

About the use of Context

James, you wrote: "You're not addressing the Negro issue or an East Asian issue in the Controversies section. You are addressing the Jewish issue. So the honest thing would be to use her statments on Jews."
Have you forgotten that as recently as a few days ago -- back when we attempting the "balanced quotes" version of the section, which has since been abandoned -- i continually fought for inclusions of her racist quotes, which you kept on snipping off, in an effort to limit the criticism to merely her antisemitism?
It was through YOUR efforts, and yours alone, that direct mention of Alice Bailey's proscription against "mixed" marriages was removed from the page.
cat Catherineyronwode 10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

All Problems, Including Editing, are Philosophical

In response to the "Talking with Angels" post above jpgordon wrote:

What does any of this have to do with improving the article? Let's keep the philosophical musings to a minimum; all we're interested in here, remember, is recording what other people say about the subject of the article, not our own opinions, ruminations, beliefs, or ideas. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that "sparkle..." addressed two main themes above: the issue of inspired communications and Bailey's suicide attempts. Both of these are relevant to the examination of Alice Bailey and her works. An editors thoughts about these one way or the other will condition their approach to editing.

This forum is filled to the brim with opinions, "ruminations, beliefs and ideas," some good some bad, some in between but all striving to understand how best to collect, arrange, and edit Bailey related material. Most of the thoughts are part of a Jewish world view. It might be argued that it is the Jewish theme that is far less relevant--addressing itself, as it does to 1 to 2 percent of her statements. But I hear no complaints from you about that. Moreover Bailey is all about philosophy and the critics and others here are conditioned by their philosophy and religion as are you.

I wish that, in this forum and article, it actually was all about "recording what other people say." But it is instead, much about opinions beliefs and ideas and these lead editors to quote fragments like the little man in cartoon [55] James 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

what suggestions do you have for improving the article?

  • What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I will further developing the "Teachings" section with a more developed outline of main themes, i.e. her philosophy of unity, evolution, her ideas on the nations, the problems and future of humanity, religion, her concept of the rays, glamour, Hierarchy, etc. James 14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


I think her most notable work was the description of the rays and would like to see a full description of this, because this is now discussed and used by a lot of new age teachers today. --Renee 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


  • I was asked by Kwow and by an unidentified poster to comment on the article, since it apparently has changed a lot since I assess it. The new section "Teachings" is a really good effort towards clearing the "Life" section, as I suggested in the comments to my assesment. But although is a good effort, it spreads one of the major downsides and policy violations of this article: the heavy use of primary sources to provide content. It directly violates WP:V and WP:NOR. To be more specific, this problem is adressed by WP:SELFPUB and WP:PSTS, which respectively are parts of the mentioned policies. Either editors find a couple of secondary sources that comply to WP:RS, or cut down the use of AAB writings as the main sources for this articles. The other problem that remains despite the edition is the violation of WP:NPOV in the structure. Please read the policy, because there is no quicklink to the specific section. Violations of NPOV in the structure of an article mean that there are some portions of texts that are segregated because they represent a POV. This is what happens with the "Controversy" section (I think it was formerly know as "Criticism", but it is the same thing), that even though is based in good secondary reliable sources, secludes the opinions. As I mentioned in the commentary to my assesment, you should incorporate those "controversies" into either the "Life" section, or the new "Teachings" section, to eliminate that tiny NPOV issue. As you can see I've tried to be a little more specific, but the problems in the article remain more or less the same as those I stated in the comment to the assesment. Hope this helps. --Legion fi 05:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You may be on to something with the PSTS thing, maybe. That's a whole issue in and of itself, that may warrant some attention.
You are completely off on the NPOV issue. Article have controversy sections all the time. Please point to a specific section of the NPOV guideline which you believe disallows having criticism and controvery sections.
As for the "assess" comment, knock it off, right now. This page, nor does any other page, need that attitude. Sethie 11:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Legion fi, thanks for taking the time to comment on the article. Sethie's response is strange since he instituted the RfC, and he need not expect that he would agree with every response. I don't agree with all you wrote either, but it is important to get views that differ. I regret that so few people did comment. Kwork 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am watching the page, as someone not involved in the disputes. I haven't been sure how to intervene because it's seldom clear what the issues are. However, I really must agree with Legion fi above that there is too much reliance on primary sources. What the article could really do with is a book that gives an overview of twentieth-century mystical writers - but I don't know if such a book exists. Itsmejudith 13:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Legion and Judith, thanks for your interest in this article. I hope you keep this article on your watch list, to help keep it up to wikipedia standards. Unknowingly you have likely opened the door to more vandalism. Kwork was tossing his biases into article. And deleting documented contributions simply because he didn't like them or there were "too many changes" really just changes he didn't like. I'm sorry I missed the opportunity to join in the Rfc. ::As I see it kwork is guilty of sneaky vandalism Wikipedia Vandalism
Under the above heading see sub-head sneaky vandalismSparklecplenty 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What vandalism? I know that there are editors who disagree with my editing goal of having some recognition of Alice Bailey's antisemitism in the article. But my editing in a way you don't like is not vandalism. To me that view seems excessively subjective. This morning you removed previous statements you had made about me from this talk page (which I reverted) and now you are adding more accusations. If you think you can support your accusation of vandalism against me, why do you not reported it to Wikipedia administrators? And if you can not support your accusations, please stop making them. Kwork 17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Kwork, you have no right to revert my writings when I chose to remove them. This is what administrator jpgordon said when Albionmoonlight changed what you wrote. “Editing other people's comments almost always causes more damage than it is attempting to prevent. It can turn people from somewhat annoyed to utterly angry, for example. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
But you actually did me a favor. You brought attention to what I think is happening here. I removed it thinking that finally the administrator and editors, that you were mostly responsible for calling here, were going to follow Wiki rules and encourage a balanced and honest biography to be written. But it appears that some want to see Alice’s words stripped, words that would make lie of the accusations made against her.
Biased acts have happened here. Words that would have created a balanced view of Alice’s philosophy were condemned as spam and deleted because they didn’t support the biases of the majority of the editors. What happened to not editing other people’s post? Why wasn’t Catherine deleted for pages and pages of spam? It’s obvious jpgordon doesn’t care if justice is done here and should recuse himself.
As a frequent user of Wiki I would like to think that there is an honest attempt to create balanced Wiki articles.
Love one another take care of one another—this is Alice’s core message. Sorry some of you aren’t willing to see the words, and choose more suffering, more suffering, more suffering. Sparklecplenty 00:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you're reading me wrong. My "I don't care" was, at that point, a "stop edit warring Right Now" sort of comment; it was part of my attempt to slow down changing the article and instead focus the quality of the discourse here. It actually maybe kinda worked, I dunno; something worked. I honestly don't care if "justice is done", you have that correct; I care if a proper Wikipedia article is created. I'm content to go now, anyway; everything seems to proceeding nicely, and my help doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated or, I guess, needed at all here anymore. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There is always the possibly that I am reading you wrong. You say, “I don’t care if justice is done”. Perhaps you have another meaning for justice than “fairness.”
Honestly and sincerely, I wish you the best in your new adventures. Sparklecplenty 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC).


The "assessment" facts aren't quite right. While I agree that a book or website from an expert in the field would be a great addition to the article, self-published websites are allowed according to Wiki policy in articles about themselves (not other persons, but themselves).
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves...' [56]
Best wishes, Renee --Renee 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Renee, please continue making this very valid point; no one seems to be listening. Citing her own autobiography, in particular is not only acceptable, it's downright inescapable in this case. Citing her other works as exemplars of her views is also acceptable, provided the quotations are unquestionably related to the alleged view. And here lies the root of so much travail... Eaglizard 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Eaglizard is Correct.  Also:

"Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways." James 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC) [57]

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources." (as above)

Also note that the article does include a substantial number of sources other than AAB's on words. I added many more the last two days while the critics were stressing here over their not being enough of them. More to come. Now that that said, there is no Wiki rule saying that a wiki article must contain a specified percentage of references from this or that source. Numerous references from the encyclopedia-sized works of the person who is the subject of this biography is entirely appropriate, as are secondary and tertiary sources related to them. Also note that it is not necessary to document every single line of non-controversial statements with a reference. The main AAB biography does not make any special claims but simply states AAB's main ideas in quote and paraphrase while also citing numerous secondary sources related to her thoughts. The main concern about references does not relate to a referenced citing of a writers thoughts. It relates to controversial material (such as in the "controversies" section, and these must be very carefully and throughly referenced (references there now are weak and highly suspect):

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.... Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended... Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues..." [58]

James 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


@Sethie... WP:NPOV#Article_structure for your answer. Stating that most wiki articles have a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section is not a valid defense. They shouldnt.
@Renee... please dont take a policy out of context. It cleary states that "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" as you mentioned, but it follows after a comma "so long as:", and then it lists some points, being one of them "the article is not based primarily on such sources".
@James... in the "Life" section there are only three wikified references, two of them being of AAB works and the other being a link to her association. The rest of the text is quoted from her autobiography. The section "Ideas" is mainly based in her works, and I could find just two wikified refs that weren't. It is until the "Influence" and "Controversies" sections where we find secondary sources.
and @Sethie again... what attitude? I posted a comentary to the assessment of the article by the Wikiproject Occult, because Im a member of it, a long time ago. Kwork asked me to check it again. That's why I commented about the article again. It is not that I'm "assesing" the article. Do you know what an assess is in the Wikiproject scope? It means rating the quality and the importance of an article UNDER THE WIKIPROJECT. Read the original commentary to the assesment to know what I mean. Jeez --Legion fi 07:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally my mistake on the "assess" it- I misread it. Of course.
As per the NPOV- article structure.... if you read the section you quote you'll notice there is NO guideline prohibiting controversy sections, just cautioning to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:FORK neither of which are currently concerns here. Sethie 09:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Legion Fi,

Only about half are Bailey and as noted by WP:SELFPUB, these are allowed so long as these are not the primary sources. As James noted below, "the article is supported by views from 24 scholarly and 'outside' sources, of which 8 are the ideal 'University' press type references..." (Actually, he's probably added more by now.) Renee --Renee 10:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

REVERT ?

Jamesd1, I had reverted you edit of yesterday, then this morning undid my own revert (because I no longer give a flying rats ass if you get every fact wrong in the article, or not.) When you undid what I had already undone, you returned to the correct version that you do not want.

But, if you can manage to read Bailey's text, she does not say she was secretary of the Theosophical Society, but editor of a magazine. namaste. Kwork 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the error about which Bailey was the secretary; the correction you did on that is still there.James 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Life from autobiog

It isn't really acceptable to be taking all Bailey's biographical details from her autobiography. And quotations should be kept to a minimum, say one quotation for the whole of the biography. It may be appropriate to quote her more in the sections about her ideas. Specifically, what does "did evangelical work" mean? Was she a missionary attached to the British Army? Itsmejudith 15:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Itsmejudith,
There is a lot of "talk" about this in the Wiki community but, to the best of my knowledge no official Wiki policy on the number of quotes, or percentage of quotes, or what should be "to many" or "to long." So I believe your expression "isn't really acceptable" is a personal viewpoint and not corresponded with any official guideline. There is certainly no "one autobiography one quote rule."
That said, to some degree, I've no real disagreement with you, but your best argument on the issue is from common sense rather an authority. Common sense and good writing practices in general suggest that we should practice a golden mean about quotes. In that spirit, I shortened a few quotes. But we need to be careful here, and in general, if a quote is removed or shortened, the editor doing that should take care that no good content is lost. That means accurately reflecting what the sources are saying and using that in place of the quote. To do that well takes both writing skill and knowledge of the subject area.James 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article now reads like a promotional piece from the Lucis Trust web site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and intended to supply objective information. It should not used as a free web host for material that promotes the Alice Bailey cult. Kwork 18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Kwork, This forum should not be used to promote an anti-Bailey bias. It is a forum for discussion of how to improve the article, a subject about which you have displayed virtually no interest except as it relates to promoting the minority view which has obsessed this forum. Above, you've resorted to bogus criticism, that is a criticism not based on the nature of the biography.


If statements by the individual themselves or those of other observers cast them in a favorable or unfavorable light, that fact itself is in no case grounds for excluding the material. For instance, by your personal criteria the following passage from the Ralph Waldo Emerson and Ramakrishna[ entries would be wrong because it "promotes" them:

"He was considered one of the great orators of the time, a man who could enrapture crowds with his deep voice, his enthusiasm, and his egalitarian respect for his audience. His outspoken, uncompromising support for abolitionism later in life caused protest and jeers from crowds when he spoke on the subject. He continued to speak on abolition without concern for his popularity and with increasing radicalism. He attempted, with difficulty, not to join the public arena as a member of any group or movement, and always retained a stringent independence that reflected his individualism. He always insisted that he wanted no followers, but sought to give man back to himself, as a self-reliant individual. Asked to sum up his work late in life, he said it was his doctrine of "the infinitude of the private man" that remained central."

"I [Ramakrishna] said to Totapuri in despair: "It's no good. I will never be able to lift my spirit to the unconditioned state and find myself face to face with the Atman." He [Totapuri] replied severely: "What do you mean you can't? You must!" Looking about him, he found a shard of glass. He took it and stuck the point between my eyes saying: "Concentrate your mind on that point." [...] The last barrier vanished and my spirit immediately precipitated itself beyond the plane of the conditioned. I lost myself in samadhi."

"It could be argued that Ramakrishna's vision of Hinduism, and its popularisation by western converts like Christopher Isherwood, have largely coloured Western notions of what Hinduism is. Some, like Andrew Harvey and Ken Wilber, see the beginning of a new planetary consciousness with Ramakrishna's life."

The Alice A. Bailey article uses neutral language in strict compliance with Wiki guidelines and with frequent use of the implicitly objective-critical words like "claims" and "asserted." You and your associates have appended severe criticism of Bailey which is still there using quotes to make her appear isolationist, antisemitic, racists, and reactionary.
The article does not make a single claim about Bailey but simply relates her positions in her own words and in paraphrase form. Half of the references are not from Bailey at all. Rather, the article is supported by views from 24 scholarly and "outside" sources, of which 8 are the ideal "University" press type references and of which this is the complete and ever-growing list:James 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Sinclair, Sir John R. The Alice Bailey Inheritance. Turnstone Press Limited. 1984.

2. Lewis, James R. and J. Gordon Melton. Perspectives on the New Age. SUNY Press. 1992. p xi

6. Sutcliffe, Steven J, Children of the New Age: A History of Spiritual Practices. Routledge, 2003, p 48

7. Hammer, Olav, Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of epistemology from theosophy to the new age." BRILL, 2001, p. 65

11. Lewis, James R., The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press. [Date?]. p 446

12. Frawley, David. Tantric Yoga and the Wisdom Goddesses: Spiritual Secrets of Ayurveda. Passage Press. 1994. p 22

13. Rhodes, Ron. New Age Movements, Zondervan. 1995. p 26

15. Keller , Rosemary Skinner. Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America. Indiana University Press. 2006. p 763

18. Roberts, Richard H., & Joanne Pearson, Geoffrey Samuel, Nature Religion Today: paganism in the modern world, p.44

20. Sutcliffe, Steven J, Children of the New Age: A History of Spiritual Practices. Routledge, 2003, p 51

24. Roberts, Richard H., & Joanne Pearson, Geoffrey Samuel, Nature Religion Today: paganism in the modern world, Edinburgh University Press, 1998,pp 34, 41-43, 203, 219

25. Kemp, Daren, New Age: A Guide, Edinburgh University Press, 2004, p. 57

37. McGuire, William. An Adventure in Collecting the Past. Princeton University Press. 1989, p 23

38. Wessinger, Catherine Lowman, Women's Leadership in Marginal Religions: Explorations Outside The Mainstream. University of Illinois, Press, 1993, p. 80

39. Woolger, Roger J. The Presence of Other Worlds In Psychotherapy and Healing from a paper delivered at the Beyond the Brain Conference held at St. John’s College, Cambridge University, England, 1999.

40. Chryssides, George D. An untitled paper presented at the CESNUR Conference held in Palermo, Sicily, 2005.

41. "New Age Movement," subsection "Origins," in Encylcopedia Britannica. 2003

42. Shnirelman,Victor A. Russian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism in Acta no. 13, Analysis of Current Trends in Antisemitism. The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1998. Retrieved August 22, 2007

43. Sjöö, Monica. The Racist Legacy of Alice Bailey in From the Flames - Radical Feminism with Spirit issue 22. Winter 1998/1999. Retrieved August 22, 44. Gershom. Yonasan. Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings. 1997, revised 2005. Retrieved August 22, 2007.

45. Groothuis, Douglas. Unmasking the New Age. InterVarsity Press. 1986; p. 120.

46. Parker, Reba and Timothy Oliver. Alice Bailey Profile in The Watchman Expositor. Watchman Fellowship. 1996. Retrieved August 22, 2007.

47. Weeks, Nicholas. Theosophy's Shadow: A Critical Look at the Claims and Teachings of Alice A. Bailey). Revised and expanded version of article that appeared in Fohat magazine. Summer 1997. Edmonton Theosophical Society. Retrieved August 22, 2007.

48. Leighton, Alice. A Comparison Between H. P. Blavatsky and Alice Bailey from Protogonus magazine. Cleather and Basil Crump. Spring 1989. Retrieved August 22, 2007.


Jamesd1, thanks for another over-long non-reply. (By the way a source that is an entirely non-critical, and written by a student or supporter of Bailey, is not a secondary source; and all you have done is include a lot of sources that say is Bailey great. That does not make a decent encyclopedia article. It reads like promotional material from the Lucis Trust promoting the Alice Bailey cult.) Kwork 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your true-to-form reply, at least you are consistent. I see again that it useless to dialog with you since you do not respond to rule or reason. So goodbye again. I will refrain from responding further to you so you can have the last word if you like. Meanwhile my attention and my eye is on the article where I will continue to support any and all who seek improvement of it in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I will also help to defend it against changes that violate Wikipedia guidelines or misinterpret them to implement a personal agenda. James 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


I actually like having all of the work James put into the article. It seems very well researched to me. Can we please discuss before removing anything? I find the quotations very valuable and it's clear James has done careful research on the topic. Best wishes, Renee --Renee 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Shorter and fewer quotes represent a loss of some detail and context. An article becomes less rich and interesting as a consequence. On the other hand, shorter and accurate paraphrase is more powerful and with the added virtue of simplicity. Hence, my earlier thought about a golden mean. But if you see a real loss somewhere as a result of recent edits, then improve it as you think best.James 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Specific sentences or paragraphs?

I just re-read it and wonder what the objections are about. Kwork, maybe you can be more specific (which sentence or paragraph). I see that James accommodated yours and others' wish that the suicide attempts be represented and her criticisms of various groups is thoroughly described (in context now, which is a nice addition). It seems that James is trying to accommodate your wishes. What do you specifically think is POV? Best wishes, Renee --Renee 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Renee, I added the information about the suicide attempts myself, aside from the unnecessary quote from Bailey's autobiography that Jamesd1 added. I do not have much time now, but eventually I will make more additions and changes to the article myself.
It would be nice if, at least, the historical facts were correct. On (worthless) source Jamesd1 uses says that "It should be noted that Assagioli was closely associated with Alice Bailey in the 1930s. He published early work in her magazine "The Beacon" and was for a time a trustee of the Lucis Trust, Bailey's umbrella organization after World War II." In fact Assagioli was closely associated with Bailey until her death in the 1950s, and he remained active as a leader in her movement until his own death in 1974. (Of course he did everything in his power to avoid having his name connected with Bailey because he knew how badly that would effect the professional standing of Psychosynthesis. I would be surprised to find out that any articles he wrote for the Beacon had his name on them.) Kwork 22:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Kwork, I'm trying to understand your concern. It seems you disagree with the accuracy of a quotation pulled from a source (with which you disagree)? I don't think we can label the source "worthless" as it's an Edinburgh University Press source which is about as good as it gets (scholarly, academic press). Do you have another source that supports what you say above? It seems pretty easy to accommodate this by just saying that he was active in her life and as a leader in the organization until his death in 1974. I think James is just trying to be accurate based on the sources he has.
In the grand scheme of things if this is the type of issue we're concerned about we're in great shape. It's just a matter of your providing sources and then summarizing the two together. Renee --Renee 00:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


I have no sources for what I say about Roberto Assagioli. Virtually everything I have said about him is based on information gathered in discussions I had with him over a period of six years (when I was living in Florence, Italy)....the last meeting being just a few months before his death in 1974. I have some notes, and some tapes of meetings, but those are in boxes three thousand miles from where I now live.
The article is in terrible shape. Kwork 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


It seems you have a lot of knowledge about people who had personal relationships with Bailey. Have you thought about writing a book yourself? It would be interesting.
Sorry to disagree but I think the article's in good shape -- well sourced, even, all POV accommodated (the suicide stuff you wanted, the anti-semitism stuff, the Gershon quotations, everything). If I understand the points you're making it's that the sources used do not jive with the personal discussions you've had. For that there's only one solution, to do your own book (I'm serious -- I think it would be interesting).
Best wishes, Renee --Renee 00:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


You disagree? I thought we had already agreed to disagree! Nothing new in that. (About the possibility of a book; once someone, with contacts in the publishing business, asked me to write such a book, but I have no interest becoming another person with a product for sale in the New Age Shuk.) Kwork 11:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


So true, we actually do agree (to disagree). Re the book, with voice recognition software you can just "speak" your book or tell your story (mine is about 97% accurate). A memoir would be cool. I might even buy it if you inscribe it to your disagreeable friend. --Renee 12:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

leukemia

The information about Bailey's death from leukemia was from Roberto Assagioli. If you leave that out makes no difference to me. Kwork 16:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotefarm

Really, there are too many quotes in the article. Also, a previous post of mine was misread. I didn't say that having too many quotes was unacceptable, but that it was unacceptable to use only the subject's autobiography to describe her life. And that is still my position. Since there may not be any other good sources for her bio, then we may be stuck with the autobiography. At least in that case we should pick out only the factual information. It is a verifiable fact that she described in her autobiography that she attempted suicide in childhood. It is not verifiable that she actually did so. And the quote about her feelings about her childhood suicide attempts adds nothing. I shall remove it again. And no, I don't need to know anything about the subject in order to contribute to writing the biography. My purpose is to help the article conform to WP guidelines. I am not even going to refer to any of her books but will take on trust that other editors have referred to them correctly and given the page numbers accurately. Itsmejudith 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Original Research

The section on channeling was completely original research. That is, the editor analyzes the topic and draws in other research to draw conclusions. Here, an editor put in outside quotations about channeling, attempted to link it to mental disorder, and then linked it to Bailey. This is your own analysis, i.e., original research. WP:SYN explains this. --Renee 23:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that that section was not relevant. You were right to remove it. Itsmejudith 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


A good point. I notice that the rule reads ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." So it would be admissible to criticize Bailey as a medium by citing a scholarly source that criticizes Bailey as a medium. If such a source is found, it would be appropriate then to point out Bailey's own statements about this which, for the record, are:
"The trance condition is undesirable" [10] and, "The trance or automatic condition is dangerous."[11]
She wrote that the majority of trance mediums are negative and usually unintelligent and that their work should rightfully come to and end. [12] [13]
She did not regard herself as a medium, did not loose consciousness or enter a trance state. She describes what she did as Clairaudience, Telepathy, and Clairvoyant vision. [14].James
Of course "Clairaudience," etc. can be interpreted as pathological as well, and the biblical prophets of old, and Joan of Arc, and all the rest become, by certain modern standards, become viewable as quite insane. It makes atheists happy, or it makes folks with a different religious ax to grind happy, though they will confer a special dispensation on their own prophets and visionaries. Renee and friend--you might find this contextually interesting:
PATHOLOGIZING THE SPIRIT James 00:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I would not have any problem with a brief statement being added about her not seeing herself as a medium, sourced to her unfinished biography (whether that means to her own writing or to her editors). It would be better not to add general discussion of the topic to this page, as in the last 2 paras. It is one of the things that has made this talk page very hard to follow for newcomers. We are not here to pass judgement on atheists or people of any religion, any more than we are here to pass judgement on Alice Bailey. Itsmejudith 00:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. I am an atheist as well as a Jew but I think that it is a big mistake to try and dismiss anyones heart felt beliefs. I don't think that their is any real evidence to support an assumption that Ms Bailey suffered from some sort pathology. Renee was right to revert it. Albion moonlight 07:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is used as a source by children. To allow a presentation of channeling (a highly problematic practice that harms those who practice it) as something wonderful, as it is in this article, without balancing that with a rational studies that have been made of channeling, is deplorable. It is a sick conception of fairness. Just the requirement for a neutral point of view makes inclusion of psychological studies necessary. As for her "heart felt beliefs", those beliefs included vicious racism and antisemitism. Kwork 11:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to the heart felt beliefs held by some of the editors of this article. Albion moonlight 10:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I suggest you have a look at the first 3 or 4 paragraphs of Brent Corrigan, as a for instance, where we learn that Brent's worthy and encyclopedic performing career "... has featured a diverse variety of sexual activity, including semen swallowing, rimming and Cobra Video's first-ever double anal penetration"! If you still think Wikipedia is for children, then I suggest you have a hell of a lot more to worry about than discussions of channeling. Channeling spirits that is, and not other fluidy things. Eaglizard 21:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I know a librarian for NYPL (the largest and most used public library system in the United States), and many of her friends are librarians also. Their experience is that children use Wikipedia more than adults. Both children and adults can get free internet access through NYPL, so librarians get a good view of what is being accessed, and much of it is porno. But children, or adults, reading enthusiastic descriptions if mediums like Bailey is not good either. (My recollection is that Helena Roerich referred to Bailey as a medium.) Kwork 14:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That may well be your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You're not permitted to insert it into articles, particularly in the fashion that you did. "Think of the children!" and related rationales are not valid reasonings. It's also not our job to warn readers. You may prefer a scientific point of view, but such requirements have been repeated proposed and rejected, as well as explicitly against NPOV. It's our job to report what is verifiable in reliable sources about the subject, in proportion to the views in those sources, without our own opinions of the subject. Vassyana 14:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Apparently some Wikipedia editors have reading comprehension problems. I added the information about channeling to article. I added it because it is important information about Bailey's writing method: channeling. That is what I put into the article. What I put in came from a scientific source, and has been peer reviewed. But it is not there now because those who could have defended its presence in the article did not. Kwork 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
... or it could be that the edit was against consensus and policy. Vassyana 14:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


......Or could it be that you are wasting time over something that is not now in the article?
As for this comment of yours, "It's also not our job to warn readers." It is my job to try to inform readers in matters relevant to the subject of the article, and that is what I try to do. I never said that any other editor is obligated to agree with my edits, and it is through discussing differing views - assuming good faith - that neutrality is achieved. It is not achieved by bad faith efforts to supress opposing views.
In regard to my writing, "Wikipedia is used as a source by children", there is no Wikipedia policy I know of that requires me to disgard my values, as long as that remains on the talk page. (By the way, you are under no obligation to write anything on the talk page if you do not actually have something to say.)Kwork 16:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope, sorry. It is not your job to "try to inform readers in matters relevant to the subject of the article," if you see that as your job, please leave, now. As a wiki editor, it is your job to inform readers of matters which WP:RS have written about and which they say are relevant. End of story. Sethie 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
BS. It is the editor's job to give correct information based on sources. Not to cherry pick the stuff you want to see in the article...as you usually try to do. Kwork 20:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Regardless of your personal opinion, consensus is clearly against your edits and your interpretation of policy in this instance. If you want to discuss the dangers of medium channeling, it has its own article. Also, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions and morals, but you are not entitled to (and indeed prohibited from) imposing them on articles. Vassyana 20:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(Parenthetical off-topic note: what makes me sad is not that Wikipedia contains material so blatantly unsuitable for children, but rather that parents allow their children to roam the utterly uncensored wilds of the internet, largely alone, unprepared and undefended. Like it were just another "harmless" computer game. Sigh. Eaglizard 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

B.S. Excuse

Renee, stop reverting the material on channeling. Channeling is discussed extensivly in the article. It is a dangerous practice, and some balance belongs in the article to achieve neutrality. I did not introduce the subject of channeling, or invent the material used. If you don't want channeling analyzed, take the subject out of the article. Kwork 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, it was the consensus of all editors above that this was OR (please see itsmejudith, albion moonlight, and James above). They all agreed that what you put in was original research because you linked various forms of previously unrelated research into an analysis of your own. (See how James explains it above.) Please review above for ideas on how to incorporate your ideas that aren't original research. --Renee 15:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not an answer. (Moreover, itsmejudith, and albion moonlight do not understand what the actual issue is, and have said that). Are you claiming that channeling is a safe practice? Kwork 15:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


The article is about Alice Bailey, not channeling. I have no opinion on channeling. Here is a good place to discuss that issue. --Renee 15:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Kwork, if you would like an "informed" opinion, Alice Bailey did not engage in "channeling". Telepathic transmission (often called "dictation" by I AM types) is emphatically not a form of channeling, according to Bailey. At least, in so far as "channeling" involves any sort of "release" of personal awareness, or conscious control. Mrs. Bailey has stated that she was fully aware of (and in control of) herself and her surroundings during reception; that the thoughts occurred in her mind as though transmitted, rather than her self being somehow "replaced" by DK's personality or soul. In fact, she mentions this in numerous books, in order to emphasize the exact dangers of "channeling" that you point out. But that's irrelevant to this article, also. My only point is that even calling it "channeling" is just Original Research on your part (and very shoddily conducted, I might add, using the worst method of science: the preconceived notion). Eaglizard 21:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is about Alice Bailey not about channelling. It should scrupulously avoid stating any POV about whether channelling is beneficial or dangerous. I'm sure we have a range of different views on the question, which we should keep to ourselves. Itsmejudith 14:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Channeling, or whatever you want to call it, was how Alice Bailey wrote over twenty books, and if it were not for those books there would not be a Wikipedia article about her. I see no reason why something as important as that, and discussed in many secondary sources, should be excluded from the article. It is also a fact that many psychologists consider the phenomena of telepathic dictation, channeling, or whatever you want to call it, a symptom of Multiple Personality Disorder, and there are good sources for that too. This should all be in the article because it is central to Bailey. Certainly, if the other editors think what I put in the article was poorly written, heavy handed, and/or unbalanced; I would concede all of that might be correct. I never claimed to be a good writer, and am open to improvements to what I wrote, or a complete change to what I wrote. But the information needs to be in the article, and it is already in the article in many different places....for instance Bailey's own description of her first contact with DK. Kwork 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improving the Article Redux

If you google channeling and advance search it with channeling you will get lots of hits. I disagree that it is bad science to call telepathic transmission, channeling but with that said why not just rename or start a section named Telepathic Transmission ? If the problem is still one of pathology I think that any inference to the fact that Ms Bailey may have been delusional should be left out for the sake of discretion. :Albion moonlight 23:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle is of course one of the 24 books published under her name. If further expansion is desired, proportional representation suggests the correct course might be to have two or three lines summarizes each book. This a common practice in Wikipedia articles.
Wikipedia already has general articles on telepathy and on mediumistic channeling, etc. It would be outside the logical and Wiki-acceptable scope of this article (or the Wiki biography of any other psychic, clarivoyant, etc.) to deal with these subjects except in so far as they relate directly to what she wrote about them or to what reliable scholarly sources, if any, may have written specifically about them--in this case Bailey--in relation to them. The branding of anyone as "pathological" in Wiki biography falls within the Wiki guidelines of "extraordinary claims," requiring "extraordinary evidence," so anyone desiring to go there will require not only the best type of sources but more than one. Moreover, if I may gently suggest, without such strong evidence, it is even off the mark to use a phrase like, "the fact that Ms Bailey may have been delusional should be left out.." I'm sure you would not like your name used in a sentence with the words "fact" and "delusional." If there were multiple reliable scholars who diagnosed Bailey as such, then your "discretion" might be warranted. As it is, we've no such evidence to even consider and, in the absence of such evidence, it is irresponsible and a waste of time to go there.James 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point James but I was referring to the fact that hearing voices that no one else hears is very often seen as delusional and or pathological. If and when I make claims that others find delusional, I would expect them to voice there opinion and point out the fact that they think many or a majority of people would. Wikipedia's policy on blp are different than their policies on biographies in general. My objection to adding in speculation of this sort is motivated by a sincere desire to help keep the peace on tn this article intact by respecting the feelings of other editors. This is not always my prime motivation but in this case it is. Albion moonlight 06:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Informally, of course, since neither "channeling" nor "telepathic transmission" are objective phenomena in their own (observable) right, the two terms are really pretty interchangeable (except to picky technician types like myself). But really, we can only discuss these alleged acts in terms of the statements and behaviors of the alleged actors. Bailey called it "telepathic transmission"; it would be inaccurate (and shoddy. I feel) to introduce the different, equally vague and subjective, and arguably loaded term "channeling". Especially since we mustn't claim it was (or wasn't) either one; we just say she called it that. As far as Bailey's possible pathology, I understand Wikipolicy to be that we let the readers decide that for themselves. If you take the time to point out that someone who claims to hear "voices" or "messages from above" is very likely delusional, it obviously implies strongly that no other conclusion is reasonable. (Which would appear, to me, to be exactly what Kwork is trying to do, but never mind that...) In any case, it's the reader's own sediment of beliefs regarding such things that will guide their reaction -- balancing info so that it makes roughly the same sense to people with wildly varying mental contexts is part of why I love articles like this. :) Eaglizard 07:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
There is this in the article: "Monica Sjöö....wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?..." The word used is "channeling", and she is talking about Alice Bailey. So the subject, and the word "channeling" are already in the article, and coming from a published source. (By the way, someone has removed the link the article she wrote, which now contains only the link the the Wikipedia article about her. Why has that been tampered with?) Kwork 16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Eaglizard is quite right. Kwork, the simple explanation is that when Bailey was writing her books the term "channelling" was not so widely used as it was later when Sjoo wrote. It is appropriate to be picky about use of terms in this article, i.e. we should summarise what Bailey said using the concepts and terminology that she used. Obviously, readers will make up their own minds. Itsmejudith 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I have the impression that no one actually read the source I gave [59] with that addition to the article. The author was not discussing a word, he was discussing a psychological phenomena with a description, some of which fit the description that Bailey herself gave of what she was doing. The point has nothing to do with words, but with a psychological process that has a description. Kwork 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Monica Sjöö Reference

I've removed the Monica Sjöö reference. A review of What is a reliable source? and a review of Monica Sjöö's site clearly shows that she does not fall into the cateogry of a reliable source, and certainly not with regard to theme she was quoted on.James 19:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove agreed upon material without discussion. Kwork 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Healer, heal thyself.[60] Vassyana 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What do people think of the M. Sjöö reference? Is it a reliable source? Do it, or the author, have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? Vassyana 20:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sjöö was a painter and a leader in the Goddess Movement. She was not a parapsychologist or a psychologist or a psychiatrist and so is not a scholarly or reliable citation for things related to these fields. It might be valid to cite her in connection with areas of her expertise: painting and the Godess Movement. But even that is questionable since she apparently has no academic credentials and I would contend that her publishers do not have an "established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight"--this can be seen by reading her published writings.James 21:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"In February 1978 I had a major initiation to the Great Mother when I visited Avebury, Silbury mound and West Kennet long barrow for the first time. I had read Michael Dames' books "Silbury Treasure, the Great Goddess rediscovered" and "Avebury circle" when they first came out a year or so before and as a result I had started doing a large painting. I found, however, that I couldn't continue with it unless I experienced the sacred site for myself. I went there with my then partner, I had left Andy who was drinking himself to death, and we ate a salad in which there were sacred mushrooms. In an altered state I fully experienced the Standing Stones of Avebury and Silbury, the pregnant womb of the Earth. " [61]

The following quotations from her website show that her orientation is psychic and not scholarly:

"Beneficio, a Rainbow village of tipis on the mountain ledges of the Alpujarras above Orgiva. There I sensed strongly the presence of the spirits of the dark Moors, who had lived in Andalusia during 700 years and turned the region into fertile land in the eighth to the fifteen centuries." [62]

"What I found however, as I traveled, was that Our Lady of Guadalupe loomed larger and larger in my mind and dreams. I had extraordinary visions of Her and felt compelled to visit her cathedral and shrines at Tepeyac on the outskirts of Mexico city." {http://www.monicasjoo.org/bio/autobiography6.htm]

"I have always felt that ancient women are speaking through me, and my paintings are gateways, where ancient women and the Goddesses are speaking to us now, and re-entering our reality." - [63]


Wow James, wow.
Up until know I supported the inclusion of the Sojoo reference. When Kwork removed it [[64]], I put back in. [[65]].
However, what you say is spot on. In wikipedia, we don't use Historians to critique art, and we don't use artists to tell or interpret history.
And to boot, she's a channelor! Oh my Sethie 21:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sethie, so much text, so little time. This is also something of a rewind, as in looking back I found this Renee post in the forum from just 10 days ago:

"

Here is a sampling of previous discussions on Gershom specifically and other sources [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. Several active editors find the Gerhsom reference in particular (and Watchmen and Sjoo as well) poor and unacceptable (greater than 5 editors). Renee 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)"

On the Sjoo question, Speaking of Alice Bailey's The Great Invocation, Sjoo wrote, "... New Agers constantly call in "the Light" , in meditations and in gatherings, but the light they are invoking is not of this world, and I fear they are preparing for a mass death while speaking of Earth healing and Earth transformations."
Mass death? From the Great Invocation? Dear me...
And here she links Alice Bailey with UFOs, though Bailey makes not a single reference to UFOs in her books. [66]

James 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


A very experienced administrator, AnonEMouse, from the Biography Section, judged that the Sjöö reference was good, and the editors agreed on that to resolve a long controversy over the Controversies section of the article. Jamesd1, by going back on that, reopens the disagreement of sources over the questions of Bailey's antisemitism. (Typically Jamesd1 goes wild with his editing on Sat. and Sun. when he knows AnonEMouse is not here to review what he is doing.) Kwork 21:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have the Hitler refference?

Bailey claims to have been on Hitlers "Black list." If anyone has the refference for that, we should put it in. Sethie 20:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sethie, the reference is in her Autobiography, p. 119. It was originally in the article but someone deleted it, I just restored it. Thanks for bringing it up. Sparklecplenty 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I will oppose that being put in unless there is a document verifying it. That is a claim that could be, and should be documented by a good secondary source...with an actual document. Kwork 20:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If it is explicitly attributed as a claim she made, as it is, what is the problem? Vassyana 20:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
A secondary, historical, source is needed. We should see that such a list, with Bailey's name on it exists. Even now, the article to too dependent on on one single primary source, her Unfinished Autobiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.23.62 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Sweetie Unsigned, there is no such Wiki rule.Sparklecplenty 21:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No Hitler reference is required. There is no Wiki rule saying that a wiki article must contain a specified percentage of references from this or that source. Numerous references from the encyclopedia-sized works of the person who is the subject of this biography is entirely appropriate, as are secondary and tertiary sources related to them. Also note that it is not necessary to document every single line of non-controversial statements with a reference. The main AAB biography does not make any special claims but simply states AAB's main ideas in quote and paraphrase while also citing numerous secondary sources related to her thoughts. The main concern about references does not relate to a referenced citing of a writers thoughts. It relates to controversial material (such as in the "controversies" section, and these must be very carefully and throughly referenced (references there now are weak and highly suspect):

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.... Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended... Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues..." [58] James 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


  • The claim that Bailey was on Hitler's blacklist is a big claim. Why would she be on such a list? Did Hitler know her? Did he read her books? What might she have said to anger him? I would think that being on Hitler's blacklist would be so prestigious that her supporters would WANT to put the documentation forward, but it is not to be found on the Lucis Trust site, nor on any other site. Lets see the document that proves her claim true, it would add real prestige to the article. Kwork 12:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless you are disputing that she claimed to be on the list, the need for discussion is over. Sethie 22:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section

Trust me when I tell you it is not a good idea to stat an edit war. I put the Sjoo reference back in. I will not assume good faith if you tamper with that section. There are many more damning references about Ms Bailey that can and perhaps should be added. I have refrained from adding such material out of respect. Please reciprocate by not deleting or tampering with that section. Thank You . : Albion moonlight 23:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 23:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 23:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This message is a bit inappropriate. (See WP:OWN). Vassyana 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Trust me when I tell you it is not a good idea to stat an edit war. I put the Sjoo reference back in. I will not assume good faith if you tamper with that section. There are many more damning references about that can be added if need be. Please stick to the other sections. Thank You . : Albion moonlight 23:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Albion Moonlight, this isn't about editing wars. Its about making your case with Wiki accepted references. Is there a reason why you disagree with Wiki rules and 5 editors? A lot of people have sited why these references shouldn't be there, over and over again. Read Sjoo and perhaps you will be embarrassed at choosing her to make your anti-semitic and channeling accusations. You cannot think that James is expected to follow Wiki rules but not you and Kwork?
The Irony is that Alice Bailey teachings are all about discovering that which keeps us humans from harmonizing. We all prisoners on this "planet of sorrow," why not work together to make it a better place. Why search for and see only those things that are hateful about each other.Sparklecplenty 00:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Once again: the reasons that the Sjoo source was removed, and should be removed are clearly stated here: What is a reliable source? Albion moonlight 00:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No one here is "starting" an edit war, rather an edit war has been in progress for many months. The war is primarily between those who want to see Wikipedia guidelines followed and those who choose to disregard the rules in order to paint a personally preferred picture of Alice Bailey.
If there are "many more damning references" from multiple and highly reliable scholarly sources, then feel free to use them, but Sjoo does not measure up to Wikipedia standards. Please reread the "What is a reliable source?" carefully and remember that citing somone as racist, antisemitic, pathological, etc. is an exceptional claim which should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources. James 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I 2nd that. I support any and all well sourced criticisms of Bailey. Sethie 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Jp gordon to put this article back on his watch list. So if you intend to start an edit war you should keep that in mind. Also Catherine will be back. She is on a brief sabbatical. Albion moonlight` —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Kwork calls on AnonEmouse and you call for Jp Gordon. Do you think they are your personal arbitrators? They will follow Wiki rules, don't you think? Edit wars are when you delete, revert and vandalize (sneakly) without following Wiki standards. James has bent over backwards to follow the rules, you and Kwork have not.Sparklecplenty 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Vassyana, with all due respect, you were not here during the previous ful-tilt edit war. I was, as was Albion moonlight. He is expressing a level of frustration that is understandable and appropriate, given the history of this article.
James has a long, long history of reverting and deleting material that describes Alice Bailey's racism; her disparagement of Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, and Negro peoples; her condemnation of inter-racial marriages between people of differing skin colours; and her specifically anti-semitic racism based on unsubstantiated disparaging claims about Jewish culture, Jewish customs, Jewish foodways, Jewish religion, and Jewish personality characteristics.
Obviously this aspect of her work is notable and it has been noticed. Therefore it is appropriate to mention in the article about her.
Earlier this month agreements were made by all here -- including James -- to allow 4 paragraphs of material relating to the charges of racism made against Bailey by other authors. The 4 paragraphs were (1) an introductory sentence, (2) Victor Shnirelman with a comparison between Bailey's writings and those of Julius Evola and a statement on the racism of her followers in Russia, (3) Yanasson Sholem on her anti-semitism, (4) Monica Sjoo on her racism as an influence in the New Age Movement.
I have been away from this page about one week, and just checked in to find that the Monica Sjoo material is again a bone of contention and that James had deleted it without consensus. This is unacceptable to me, because James, Albion, Kwork, Renee, AnonEMouse, and i were all parties to the consensus decision to use it.
The newly floated rationale for the deletion of Sjoo's material is that Sjoo, as a painter and a spokesperson for the Goddess Movement, was not qualified to talk about Alice Bailey. This is a specious argument. The Goddess Movement is a strand of the modern Neo-Pagan movement, itself a sub-set of the modern New Age movement. Sjoo, like Shnirelman, was describing first-hand the baleful effect of Bailey's racism on the modern New Age and Neo-Pagan movements, an area in which she was well authorized to speak.
catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode 00:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Your involvement with this issue is even shorter then some Catherine. I previously re-inserted the Sojo refference after KWORK removed it!
I used to be a supporter of the Sojo citation, now I am not. James is right. She is an artist and someone who channels, hardly a reputable, dependable fact checking scholar for commenting on anti-semitism and the effects of one author on an entire movement!
Would we cite Leonard Orr who specialized on breathwork to comment on the effects off the secret on the new age movement?
No- that would be absurd. Leonard Orr would be great for commenting on Stanislav Grof.
In fact Leonard Orr might have an opinion on the matter, and he may have even written something about The Secret in one of his books. But why would we look to him to comment on something outside his field of expertise?
There is only one reason. Desperation to prove a point which is not well documented by experts.Sethie 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Read what Bailey wrote on these topics. It's in the biography and is mostly the opposite of your claims.James 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to see citations from multiple reliable sources that support your contention. So far, no such sources have been provided.James 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Expertise is specific. Sjoo is not a scholar or a reliable source and has no recognized expertise outside the field of painting and the "Goddess Movement." I saw no evidence that she even had a degree in any field. Alice Bailey's writings do not fall under the heading of "painting" or the "Godess Movement." Go find University Press books for your arguments that relate directly to Bailey. [unsigned]

JAMES: Please follow wiki policy and place your comments AFTER the text to which your comments refer. Your interlineations -- especially when imporperly indented -- are invariably confusing, misleading, and RUDE. Stop it. I will continue to move your comments to BELOW the text to which you are responding until you have learned this simple lesson in cooperation. Courtesy is easy. Practice it. cat Catherineyronwode 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually cat, if you will look at other talk pages, you will find that interlineation is a de facto standard around here (imo). Interlineated comments can help prevent the need to reiterate points over and over causing a talk page to grow by 100k / month, the way this one does. I believe you are the one being discourteous in this specific instance. I realize I may be wrong; would other editors pls comment on interlineation? Eaglizard 05:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that James does not / forgets to / refuses to / can't be bothered to indent -- and he often does not / forgets to / refuses to / can't be bothered to sign his posts. The result is that his rebuttals to what others write then appear to be a part of THEIR text, so that they seem to be arguing with themselves. This confusing / maddening / sloppy posting behavior renders reasonably crafted posts into gibberish. James has done this so often to my posts that i have lost patience with indenting for him and signing for him. I now simply remove his interlineations to a place below my text. cat Catherineyronwode 10:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that, but if that's been happening, then you're right; it does suck. Eaglizard 06:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Isnt Phillip Lindsay the real reaon. ?

an author named Philip Lindsay, said that the Wikipedia article on Bailey was "off" because it mentioned her antisemitism: [67]. Meat puppetry is far worse than any allegedly, poorly sourced material. Albion moonlight 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That helps nothing, and only creates tension and hostility. Knock it off, right now. If you suspect a meat puppet, please make a formal complaint. Sethie 00:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
lol You just totally misquoted this Phillip guy.
He doesn't say the section is off for mentioning her anti-semitism! He says [68] "Zach and friends, I notice that the section on AAB in WIkipedia is slightly off. There is a �crticism�section (anti semiticism) where the author does not verify quotes and misquotes elsewhere. It needs to be cleaned up." Sethie 00:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And apparently his bidding must be done irregardless of the agreements made by the others. Correct ? You are the ones who need to knock it off right now. Albion moonlight 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The above makes no sense, doesn't belong on an article talk page.
Please file a report if you wish. Whether you do or not, stop this nonsense, now. Sethie 02:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Philip Lindsay? What in blazes are you talking about? There is no such person in this forum. I know Phillip, a good and intelligent human. I think he may have been here long ago, and if so it scrolled off into some archive. In any case, why are you not focused on the article instead criticizing Phillip who is not here? Are you trying to criticize some folks here for supposedly channeling Phillip? This is nuts!James 01:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
James, you know very well that Phillip Lindsay made a call to members of an Alice Bailey Yahoo group to come to Wikipedia to work on the Bailey page with respect to what he found "off" about it, namely the antisemiticm section. The Yahoo group was, at that time, filled with Baileyan pseudoscientific antisemitic cosmology. Lindsay posted his note in a followup to the following post to the group:


Doesn't surprise me Phillip did, but I had no such knowledge.  
How do you know what is in my mind?   Stop trying to channel me 
unless you can do a better job.  Phillip, and his views, are not 
the subject here  and neither is Zach.  Progress is not
served by quotes from other forums about Monads, rays, Jews, 
solar systems etc.   James 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


The present Jews are residue of previous solar system
I know there are some people on this list who believe the current Jews, who are all 3rd Ray Monads, are not the last of the group that came in from the previous solar system. I think the reference below explicity states that they are. I think the reason DK is so hard on them in his books, is because they really shouldn't be here at all any more, but should already be Masters. I can think of many other much worse groups on this planet who have not suffered the rath of DK's tongue.
(RI 243) The Jews, as a product of the humanity of the previous solar system, and as constituting the incarnating residue from that solar system, have run the gamut of suffering and are in the forefront of the creative arts at this time, particularly [Page 244] in group production such as certain of the great motion pictures and in the field of scientific discovery.
Zach
And, to quote myself from the last time this subject was broached:
Following out Kwork's links to Phillip Lindsay's Esoteric Astrology site, with its extensive Alice Bailey forums, it was still shocking to me to find this, from Lindsay, the man who incited the EsotericWisdomTeachings Yahoo group members to come to Wikipedia and alter the Bailey page so as to reduce mention of Alice Bailey's anitsemitism. In response to extensive quotations from Bailey and D.K. The Tibetan (Bailey's purported co-author and teacher whose existence is unverifiable) Lindsay, the meatpuppet organizer, said the following on his own public site:
"I ask myself, "What is the bottom line?" What is the essence of what D.K. is saying (including many strong criticisms [of Jews and Judaism] not quoted above). I think it is this. He is saying that orthodox Judaism is wrong and an obstruction to spiritual evolution of the Jews and to all humanity alike."
On his own site, Lindsay, a leading proponent of Bailey's, posts the opinion that Judaism is "wrong" and in a post to a Bailey Yahoo group, cited above, he asks his fellow Baileyits to come to Wikipdia to edit out references to Bailey's antisemitism.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on here.
(Nameless Date Stamp) 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (That was me -- cat yronwode)
How fleeting is the memory of those who wish us to forget or turn aside from Philip Lindsay, his own antisemitic web site, and his call for his friends to come to wikipedia and change the section that mentions Alice Bailey's antisemitism.
cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 03:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Oh... cool, this is a discussion board about... hmmm whatever I feel like talking about!
So, there was this one time at band camp when Sethie 03:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that time when somebody accused of you being a meatpuppet, so you shoved your flute up their ... yeah, that was great. I'm getting damned of tired this accusation, btw. I was, I believe, the very first editor to make a clumsy, weasel-worded attempt to soften the accusations of antisemitism, and that was well over a year ago. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing the name "Phillip Lindsay" before I saw it on this talk page. Enough with the offensive allegations already. Eaglizard 10:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and that reminds me. Does anyone have a good recipe for Baklava? I'm trying to recreate the Baklava I had in Crete a few years ago. I'm looking for one with walnuts and organic honey. --Renee 12:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Thank you both for the much needed laugh. :) Sethie 14:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Mmmm, nothing like re-Creted Baklava! :) Eaglizard 20:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Renee, and Sethie and Eaglizard does this crap have something to do with the article? I think not. It belongs on your own user talk pages, perhaps, but not here not here. This is the sort of nastiness I would expect from a high school click. It is content free, just nastiness. Kwork 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor Kwork, I'm sorry you find Baklava so nasty. I looove it! And I'm just awfully sorry for being so frivolous. I know, I just never post any serious comments. Sad, innit. Eaglizard 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the "Controversies" section to the "consensus version"

It was very disheartening indeed to see the Controversies section once again shortened and gutted, after our successful work at consensus a mere week ago.

I have rstored the section to the previously "consensed" version.

Please do not embark upon a recidivistic edit war, for it will prove a waste of time.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree whole-(dis)heartedly, cat. I had begun to believe the wars were winding down, but perhaps I was naive. Anyways, I think people are losing the plot re: Sjoo and the other references. We're not citing them as experts in antisemitism or occultism who assert that Bailey was antisemitic. We are making the claim that some thinkers have considered her to be such (which we all know is very true), and replacing the weasel words with specific examples of thinkers who have said so outright. Their expertise doesn't seem relevant when they're being used as examples of a phenomenon, not experts on it. The only thing that's important is that they are decent examples - and I'd say they all are excellent exemplars of their own lines of thought, provided the user can click to their sites and read their views for themselves (again, letting the reader decide). Eaglizard 09:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Egalizard, have you read the Sjoo biography Here? The lady, God rest her soul, is rather wonky and undermines her own credibility by what she writes (please see my quotes a few screens above on her and read her bio for yourself. I'm embarrassed for those who actually want to use her as a reliable source. Again, we are talking about supporting a very serious accusation using a bad source. I think this is obviously not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I'm not aware of any guidelines that says the rules should be relaxed in a case like this. By all means, let the critics provide some descent sources and we can all rest content on the issue. James 16:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Guys, thanks for the laughs, "comic relief" it is certainly needed here.
Eaglizard, I think you're missing a couple of points. James and others are expected to strictly follow Wiki guidelines, and he is often deleted and chided for relatively no reason (like not knowing bold letters means you're shouting). But Kwork is allowed to do outrageous things--almost everyday. Eaglizard, Kwork's edit war is endless, he sneakily deletes subject matter that fits Wikipedia guidelines. He deleted the "blacklist" reference I restored yesterday. Perhaps I should keep a journal, on this Wiki discussion pages, that documents kwork's almost daily Wikipedia rule violations.
I And I agree with Renee, many of us thought Sjoo was a poor reference for making the anti-Semitic case. Now even more since she is being used to bring up the channeling issue. Especially when some here think it's schizophrenia to hear voices. I read Sjoo's biography online, she isn't qualified to give a professional assessment of Alice Bailey as having schizophrenia.
Sparklecplenty 15:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always maintained these are very poor references and only agreed to them in the spirit of compromise.

However, consensus can change. If two new editors are weighing in, Vassyana and Sethie, I think we might need to reopen the debate.

Having said that, can't those who want these sentiments in find any good sources for them? That would solve the whole problem! --Renee 12:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In by and far the lowest and sleaziest wikipedia post I have ever seen, Albion signed his post THREE TIMES! along with threatening us with LOTS of good sources for this stuff: "Trust me when I tell you it is not a good idea to stat an edit war. I put the Sjoo reference back in. I will not assume good faith if you tamper with that section. There are many more damning references about Ms Bailey that can and perhaps should be added. I have refrained from adding such material out of respect. Please reciprocate by not deleting or tampering with that section. Thank You . : Albion moonlight 23:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 23:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 23:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I 2nd that. I for one don't give a shit about protecting Alice Bailey. If you have GOOD sources which say she gave Hitler his ideas by whispering anti-semite ideas into his ear after making sweet love to him down by the river, I'd love to see it. I care deeply about following wikipedia procedures. So Albion please follow through with your threat!
However, I can also see where Eaglizard is coming from, just saying "some thinker." Okay... then drop the whole "effected the entire New Age Movement" speal. She's not qualified for that. Just keep it simple with "author Sojo found anti-semitism in her writing." Nothing more. It's such a weak source though. It's like quoting George Bush on the Hegel, or just asking a random Joe on the street. Sure, you can do it, but it is such a low quality source, all it does is weaken the position of those who wish to use it. Sethie 14:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sparklecplenty, you say that you "thought Sjoo was a poor reference for making the anti-Semitic case." However that was NOT the "case" Sjoo was making! Sjoo said that Bailey's writings had brought a racist tinge to the New Age movement. Racism and antisemitism are different things, and the fact that you either cannot tell them apart or cannot recall which one Sjoo wrote about would seem to disqualify you as an expert on Sjoo's validity as a source. cat Catherineyronwode 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Goddess Movement & Sjoo

Indeed James, I had read some of her bio, some weeks ago when I dismissed her article completely (now somewhere in the mists of /Archive 2). And to be honest, I can't -- from a clinical, "objective" point of view -- I can't effectively assert that Sjoo is any less credible than Bailey herself. Just because Bailey is less "wiccan slangy" and "Lewellyn" in her writing style doesn't discount that she describes experiences that will be largely indistinguishable for "secular" readers (you know, having visions, guided by voices, new age channeling hooptedoodle). I think the only important question is: Has Sjoo had an arguably wide-spread influence on the "Goddess" movement? It's my understanding that she has, but I could be wrong there. Eaglizard 21:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, okay you think both aren't credible. Our opinions don't matter, only when Kwork takes advantage of our opinionated detraction to rework the article in his image. Renegade behavior is the problem. Please check it out! Sparklecplenty 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't stated my own personal opinion on either author's credibility, I don't believe. I'm saying Bailey has few, if any, better objective claims to credibilty than does Monica. And Kwork's behavior is not too interesting to me, but I will say I that both sides of the debate are flinging bad-faith and offensive accusations with abandon, and that that fact alone is causing over 90% of the problems here. Eaglizard 21:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Eglizard. Thanks for your thoughts. You may be correct that she influenced the Goddess movement. AAB's writings have very little to do with that movement, and at most is only indirectly related to it. But if we credit Sjoo with expertise in the Goddess movement then she might be seen as a person to cite in connection with that specific thing. For instance, she might be quoted as saying that AAB's emphasis was wrong because it exalted the masculine over the feminine principles or something along that line. But I think it is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines to quote her as a support for the contention that AAB was antisemitic or a bad channeler and such--Sjoo was not a scholar in relation to these subjects.James 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Another note on "channeling"

I'd like to first state publicly that Kwork has brought it to my attention that I'm way too sure of myself in my analyses of Bailey. He's absolutely right, and I'll try harder not to be. As a good case in point, I find my understanding of the term "channeling" is no longer in accord with modern usage, at least as far as the article mediumship is concerned, where the two words are largely synonymous. Now, that's something I personally will opine is just flat wrong, but I'm not sure I can support even the suggestion that Bailey saw the two as distinct (although I'm pretty sure she did use the exact terms "channeling" and "mediumship" in a deprecatory fashion, citing their immense dangers to the undeveloped personality. But that's my opinion.) The question is, does Mrs. Bailey's own description of the act trump other external descriptions? And, yes, in the absence of creditable sources making a scholarly connection between the terms...


The closest thing would be: Dr. Jon Klimo [69] book, Investigations on Receiving Information from Paranormal Sources, J. Tarcher, Inc, 1987, subsection, "What is Channeling, p 4.James 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


...which is unlikely, given their "unscholarly" nature), I think we simply must go with Bailey's own description. And I don't think you'll find a quote of her calling it "mediumistic" or "channeling". But, please do correct me, if I'm wrong. Eaglizard 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eaglizard. For the record, virtually all Bailey's references to mediums-- in the sense of spiritualism--were negative or critical, and she did not define herself as a medium in that sense. She uses the term "mediator" to point to a higher type of "channeling" which does not involve trance or loss of consciousness. In that sense, the prophets of old, Chrirst, Buddha, etc. were mediums or mediators of aspects of spiritual life.
Like most terms the meaning of "medium" depends on the context and it is, of course, used in science and other fields. In AAB's metaphysics, the word "medium" is used in a generic sense as well and often in a positive way. In that sense it is a pervasive principle in nature. So for instance, the brain is a medium for thought or mind, the personality is a medium for the soul, inspired humans are often mediums or "mediators" for some soul higher up. And the average human is the unconscious medium for the thoughts of those around them as they pickup and "channel" the psychic mess in which we all live.
Underlying this is the concept of a communal mind or community of minds with many levels from very low to very high. For instance, individuals identified with some group within the human family--religious, political, or whatever--become the mediums for the "group-think" of that group. They may even become "possessed" so to speak by the thought-forms of some group and so loose something of their individuality. So, while she saw most mediums in the spiritualistic sense as an unhealthy manifestation, the the more generic sense the concept of on thing or level being the "medium" for another is implicit in all her writings. The main distinctions in all this relates to the fidelity of the "channel" and the quality of what one is the medium for.James 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion War on Controversies section is a recipe for disaster

James, please stop the renewal of the reversion war that you have again been waging on the Controversies section. The version of September 6th was the consensus version. We -- ALL of us! -- were awarded a Barnstar of Peace by the administrator AnonEMouse for our cooperative agreement. Your decision to unmake this accord is troubling and disturbing.

Please stop tampering with a carefully crafted compromise that reported fairly and briefly on a very real phenomenon -- namely the fact that there are now THOUSANDS of web pages discussing the subject of Alice Bailey's racism and Alie Bailey's antisemitism.

The most recent reversion attempts center on charges that Monica Sjoo was not a "scholar." However, scholarship does not define her usefulness as a source. She was a published author in the New Age and Neopagan communities, a spokesperon for the Gaia-centered Goddess Movement, and a long-time observer of and commentator upon the entire Neopagan and New Age scene. She wrote, with the authority of a participant-observer journalist, that Alice Bailey's racism had affected the New Age movement as she knew it, in the Anglophone nations. Similarly, we have Victor Shnirelman presenting the same conclusion with respect to Bailey's racist followers in Russia. The Sjoo and Shnielman quotes do not duplicate one another, nor do either of them relate to Gershom's theories of Bailey's antisemitism.

To delete the existence of critics and opponents and to eliminate brief quotations that define the naional scope of their comments is a blatant pushing of a particular POV, namely that of Bailey's followers, who will brook no criticism of their leader.

cat Catherineyronwode 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Damnitalltohell cat, you were doing just great until that smarmy asininity at the end. Why do some of you editors clearly feel that any opportunity for an insult must be taken advantage of? Yet another of many many violations of WP:NPA on this talk page. Why can't you people STOP??? In all other appearances, you folks sure seem to be adults; why the persistent playground pissantry?? It's really friggen tiresome, you know. Eaglizard 06:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
NB: Seriously, can't everybody just leave your shovels in the closet, and stop getting in your little digs on each other at every opportunity? It adds nothing to the debate or to the encyclopedia of which we sing. Please. Eaglizard 08:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the Sjoo quote: a Who's Who

Here are the logs of the past two days' worth of edit warring by those who wish to undo the consensus agreement of early Septemeber:

  • 23:59, September 16, 2007 Jamesd1

(removed unreliable quote that does not match official Wikepedia guidelines)

  • 23:21, September 16, 2007 Jamesd1

(removed quote from unreliable source)

  • 14:52, September 16, 2007 Sethie

(→Charges of racism and antisemitism - removed unexpert opinion)

  • 03:32, September 16, 2007 Sethie

(undo- past concensus is... past.)

  • 23:55, September 15, 2007 Sethie

(rmvd un-expert commentary by a channeling artist)

  • 20:04, September 15, 2007 Sparklecplenty

(Undid revision 158110242 by Kwork (talk))

  • 19:38, September 15, 2007 Jamesd1

(remove Sjöö text and reference as not a reliable source)

  • 19:09, September 15, 2007 Jamesd1

(remove Sjöö text and reference as not a reliable source)

This is unseemly and unprofessional in the extreme. cat Catherineyronwode 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Flower power lady (ref to; herbal book writer), what I changed was not the original quote, the controversial "channeling" part of the quote was not part of the Sept 6th quote--but a recent add-on. Before the channeling quote was added, the majority agreed yesterday, including the one that added it "Albion", that it wasn't a good idea. 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC
Catherine, go back a little further and you find that Renee also deleted it, and Sparklecplenty and Voidcore spoke against this citation.
I have explained in great detail why the citation in question does not meet Wikipedia standards. Editors are obligated to remove such material. Wikipedia rules are specific in that a source must be creditable in relation to the particular subject. Being a writer about the Goddess Movement doesn't' cut it with things unrelated to that. About the anti-Jewish talk, large numbers of people asserting something doesn't make it true or even reportable unless reliable sources state it. There are hundreds of thousands of religious people on the web asserting and complaining about all manner of conflicting things. I don't argue that many identified with the Jewish culture believe AAB was anti-Jewish. This is already in the article in the Rabbi citation and I and others have left it. Add another if you can find a good one; its OK with me, but:
If including critical references about Alice Bailey on racial and politically charged themes, make them "good" ones according to official published Wikipedia standards. Charges of racism and antisemitism are a serious matter and require the best type of source. If you like, find a good scholarly source that is reliable according to Wikipedia standards of Verifiability and Reliable_sources and we can lay the matter to rest. James 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
James, you wrote, re: Sjoo: "Being a writer about the Goddess Movement doesn't' cut it with things unrelated to that."
Don't be daft. She wrote the following 4 books:
1. The Great Cosmic Mother, 4 editions, 1975, 1981, 1987, 1991 (the later editions co-credited with editor Barbara Mor)
2. New Age and Armegeddon: The Goddess or the Gurus?, 1992
3. "New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?", 1998; re-published in a revised edition as as "Return of the Dark/Light Mother or New Age Armageddon?", 1999
4. "The Norse Goddess", 2000.
(She had completed a 5th book at the time of her death, which is, as yet, unpublished.)
So, check it out: Of her 4 published books, TWO were on the New Age Movement.
But YOU say she is not "qualified" to write about the New Age Movement because she also wrote about goddesses of antiquity!
What kind of tripe is that?
Sjoo was an advocate of the Gooddess Movement, but ask yourself -- WHAT IS THE GODDESS MOVEMENT? It is a subset of the New Age and Neopagan movements. So, what did she write? She wrote that Alice Bailey's racism had tinged the New Age movement with racism. She was WELL QUALIFIED to write on the subject of a religious movement in which she is a recognized denominational author with two books to her credit.
What you are saying is analogous to asserting, "She was a Baptist, so she was not qualified to write about racism in Christianity."
Mmmm, a nice and tasty analogy indeed! Eaglizard 06:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
But let's take a CLOSER look, shall we?
Did you not notice, via the pictures in her autobiogaphy, that Swedish-born Monica Sjoo's younger son Lief was bi-racial -- eaxactly the kind of child that Alice Bailey thought should not be birthed? (See picture here: [70])
Did you not notice that Monica Sjoo wrote of Lief's time in school in England during the early 1980s, "My son, however, was not happy. He experienced racism at school" and that she also wrote of the same time-period in England, "I had been present at very dubious New Age events, all very patriarchal, misogynist, racist and rightwing in their assumptions." ?
Now, knowing that Monica Sjoo was a fully participant member of the New Age and Neopagan communities of England during the 1980s, and that she had a bi-racial son, can you finally see that she spoke with FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of the racism of the New Age Movement, and that her statement that Alice Bailey's teachings promoting racism had led to racism within the New Age and Neopagan communities of England during the 1980s was nothing more or less than factual, journalistic reportage based on her own certain experience?
Can't you see, James, that what you are claiming are her weaknesses as a journalistic source are, in fact, her strengths!?
She was an attendant at many varied New Age events, oranizational meetings, and social get togethers in England during the 1980s. READ THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY. She had a bi-racial son. READ THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY. She and her son encountered racism in the mainstream English school system and ALSO in the English New Age movement. READ THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY. She knew first hand that a great deal of the racism she and her son encountered among New Age and Neopagan adherents in England was engendereded by the exposure of those adherents to the teachings of Alice Bailey -- AND SHE SAID SO, naming hem by name and location (e.g. Findhorn) and describing their connection to Bailey's teachings explicitly.
Having been a participant among such a varied group of New Age and Neopagan social circles qualified her to write her TWO BOOKS on the topic of New Age and Neopagan beliefs at that time and place, but the fact that she also had a bi-racial son and saw racism dircted against him and others of his skin colour from within the New Age and Neopagan communities, by followers of Alice Bailey, is about as real as it gets.
There are some classes of knowledge for which "scholarship" is not a prerequisite. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
cat Catherineyronwode 04:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, sublimely subterranean tie-up, cat. :) But... it seems to me that her son could be as much a liability. Isn't it just as likely to make her "pre-sensitized" to a perception of racism, likely to give her a distinct bias and unreliability as a reporter? It wold certainly seem likely to make her hypersensitive on the subject of racism, at the least. Which is not necessarily bad, for a reporter to be sensitive to nuance and detail. However, neither her son's biraciality, or any racism they encountered makes her an expert on the origins or the psychology of racism. You say she "knew" this came from AAB (Findhorn, et al) but in fact, that is a conclusion of hers, not a knowledge (not, in the same sense as her direct knowledge of the sting of racism, for instance). So it's important that her claims be presented as her own conclusions. And I'm sure you know that already.
Also like to point out that, like Sethie said, past consensus is past. It is not concrete or iron. If editors stop conceding, then there is no longer a consensus. Period. Consensus is a state of affairs, never une fait accompli. Eaglizard 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Catherine, one can't miss knowing Sjoo has a bi-racial son. She refers to him as "my bi-racial son." I couldn't think of a reason why I would want to refer to my grandson as my "bi-racial grandson"--if I did, I would call myself racist. I am not denying that someone representing his/herself as a Bailyite may have been racist toward Sjoo's son, but this doesn't prove that Alice Bailey and all her followers are racist.
When I was twenty years old I had a Jewish lover, who was forced into a Nazi camp when he was eight years old. So I know from personal experience how terrible the anti-Jewish issue is. And Oh how carelessly the horrific mark of racism and Antisemitism is pinned on anyone that dares criticize, even if the criticism is that you have a weak source for your anti-Semitic claims. It's a long time before racism and Antisemitism will end--we have good reason to be vigilant. Equally, there is a need to be vigilant about our human propensity to quickly judge one another and to ignore evidence contrary to our beliefs. For me, the golden years of religions are short lived. Alice Bailey's writings were not meant to last forever, much of her writings don't apply to our current consciousness. And yet, like any religion, movement, philosophy there are hidden gold nuggets that are eternally useful. Got to go, I'm way up past my old Grannie bedtime. Sparklecplenty 08:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this is a published criticism from an author of multiple books on new age mysticism, that makes it a sufficiently reliable source to be included. No, it doesn't prove Bailey was racist. It merely proves she was criticized for it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Good, we can move on now that the Sjoo quote has been righted. Sparklecplenty 15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest Version of Sjoo

I'm OK with the latest version of the Sjoo reference since it contains no implicit claims about Sojoo's scholarly credentials but makes it's point by simply relating her experience. Fixed a minor typo in it. James 15:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a decent compromise- it makes implicit she is just recounting her first hand experience with a small group of people in one country.
It also makes explicitly clear how undocumented a phenomena Bailey's antisemitism is and how weak are her critics.
And last but certainly not least, it averts the catastrophe of Albion's threat to introduce more critical sources! Oh my! Sethie 15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Sounds good. Renee --Renee 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Theosophical Reference

Some time ago, I inserted the first two lines (see Current Version below) in the biography. Then someone added the "including the concepts of "root races" and Himalayan masters" part. I've checked the references and did not find a statement about the "root races" in the references. I've treated the TS/Bailey differences in general terms. There are dozens of minor differences so I don't know why these two are singled out here. What is the correct reference for them, if any? And unless the sources highlights these two as opposed to many others (I don't recall that this is the case) then delete the "concepts of "root races" and Himalayan masters" or give a truly representative list with references for it. James 17:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Version:

Bailey's books have also been criticized as a form of Neo-Theosophy by mainstream Theosophists who say that a great many of her ideas, including the concepts of "root races" and Himalayan masters, were borrowed from Theosophy while also including perspectives that were not part of the original Theosophical teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.[6][7]

Article assessment

Hopefully on a happier note, the article has gotten much better since I first saw it. It has been expanded with several sections, most with references. I think it's time to upgrade its assessment from Start-class to B-class, and start thinking about Wikipedia:Good article status. It probably won't make WP:GA since it's not stable yet, but it seems to meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale B-class requirements, in spades. Good work folks. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 0:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! The idea of WP:GA occurred to me too, earlier today when I was clicking thru the edit history for the last few weeks. This article is so much better than it was a few months ago, and in my opinion it's mostly due to James' efforts. For being the only person I saw who had actually gone out and researched additional decent sources rather than just sitting here picking nits with the rest of us, I salute you in particular, James! But good work, everyone, for improving this article. Eaglizard 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Bravo James. It's clear you know this literature and I'm glad there's an expert on board to put things into context. I agree with Eaglizard -- your edits are valuable! Renee --Renee 23:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Assessment Part 2

I think that one of the first things a GA assessment would pick up is the subheadings that appear to endorse Bailey's views - all the ones beginning "Her". Also, I think it would be a good idea to combine all the responses to her views, positive and negative, into one section, possibly organised chronologically. Itsmejudith 14:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Itsmejudith, I removed the "Her" part of the titles--originally these were there to distinguish the summary of her views from other headings; no longer necessary as now divisions are clear without them.

Please note that the "Ideas" section is a summary of Bailey's life and thought based on what she wrote and what others have said about it--the language of the editors (me and a few others) is neutral. It is not an endorsement and follows acceptable Wikipedia guidelines in both its form and its content. This is an article about Bailey and her thought, and I think one need make no apologizes for quoting and summarizing it as is done here and, moreover--it includes more objectivity, more neutrality, and more criticism than is commonly found in Wikipedia articles of its type.

Apart from what may perhaps be your own natural bias and history in relation to Bailey--and we all have bias, I included--I believe the reason you have the impression the article is "pro" or positive on Bailey is that Bailey herself is pro or positive on her subjects. This is no surprise and to be expected. She wrote extensively about lofty subjects using positive and affirmative metaphysical and inspirational language--love, brotherhood, light, harmony and so on. This positivity tends to be somewhat true even when she is criticizing. Bailey's writings are mostly very positive, and when people quote them or paraphrase them the result may sound positive or "pro." You can not accurately summarize the majority of her thinking without it having a rather positive ring. The only way to make it sound less "pro Bailey" is, in fact, to distort, twist or select from what she said to make it negative. This, were it done (and alas, it has been done in various incarnations of the article), would in fact be against Wikipedia rules.

Our preference becomes prejudice when we refuse to see the good in someone we're inclined to dislike. I tell you I have done this myself, so I know from experience; yet God grant that I may sedulously avoid it in future. So, with the knowledge that all of us are human and all have bias, I feel our duty is to try, as best we can, to set aside our bias and view any subject or individual without an unseemly and judgmental attitude. This means letting people and their ideas be as good as they are and as bad as they are. Kind Regards, James 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A good example of what James is saying is, I think, a reference that was disputed a while back, where a quote said the Goodwill groups promote "right human relations". Kwork (I believe) objected to this as sounding POV (which it does), but in fact, right human relations is a technical term in her books, defined "precisely" (as it were), and is the phrase the Goodwill organization itself uses to describe its aims. Its a tricky call, I think.
In any case, the section headings did make a nice improvement, good work ya'll. And as I recall it, the consensus we reached some time ago was that indeed all the criticisms would be in one section. On the other hand, much of the "con" material fits nicely where it is, so I haven't seen a good way to do that. I wonder what others think about stuffing them all into that last section? Eaglizard 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The criticisms look nice in one section. Unfortunately, the Shnirelman section of the criticism was cut in half under the false editorial comment that a full sentence by Shnirelman was being used instead of the former sentence fragment. Yes, the full sentence was used -- but the meat, heart, and guts of Shnirelman's commentary was removed at the same thime that the full sentence was inserted. I have restored the missing text, of course. Yours for full disclosure in editing comments. cat Catherineyronwode 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
cat, thanks for the first seven words, but I really feel the rest of your reply was off-topic and a tad boorish, interjecting your own grievance where it's only slightly relevant. Starting a new section rather than hijacking Judith's might have been better. In fact, I felt I had to say something here or else Judith's proposal to merge criticisms would likely get lost in sidetracking. It might still, but at least I tried :) In particular, I want to know how James and Kwork feel on the issue. Eaglizard 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Eaglizard, you make it sound as though Catherineyronwode has defiled the sacred sanctuary! Sorry, but it is difficult to think of (particularly) this talk page in those terms. And, despite some applause, the article is in bad shape. Kwork 11:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, my tone is too harsh. I'm just getting really annoyed by certain things that keep happening. Misdirecting discussions is one thing, apparently. (Discussing my motives is another thing that seems to cause me to overreact.) I'll restate. cat, would you do me a favor and consider starting a new section to discuss new concerns? I'll try to stay more focussed, myself. Eaglizard 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It is my impression that there was something she wanted to say, and she put it under this heading, instead of a new one, to save some time - because she is much more involved in writing other articles than this one. If it really bothers you, I doubt that she would your mind moving it to its own heading. Kwork 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason for my simpler Shnirelman quotation

The criticisms look nice in one section. Unfortunately, the Shnirelman section of the criticism was cut in half under the false editorial comment that a full sentence by Shnirelman was being used instead of the former sentence fragment. Yes, the full sentence was used -- but the meat, heart, and guts of Shnirelman's commentary was removed at the same thime that the full sentence was inserted. I have restored the missing text, of course. Yours for full disclosure in editing comments. cat Catherineyronwode 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Catherine, it is far more complicated and more problematic than you suggest above. Apparently, you missed my one-line explanation for the edit or did not trouble to check or reflect on it.

I've changed it back and here is the explanation as to why.

Before my last change it read:

In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed modern Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit, for example, in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its 'Jewish inheritance' and reject the 'Jewish Bible' as a prerequisite for entering the Age of Aquarius."61]

You adapted the above from a fuller passage consisting of three lines which read:

"Both Neo-paganism and the New Age movement are very amorphous; composed of many different and even opposite ideas, worldviews, and predictions about the future, some aspects of which are both questionable and alarming. Some groups, as we have seen, take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the “mixture” of kinds, support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration. 104 Racist and antisemitic trends are explicit, for example, in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its “Jewish inheritance” and reject the “Jewish Bible” as a prerequisite for entering the Age of Aquarius.105"

There are three lines above.

  • The fist two sentences relates to "some groups," and as you yourself state, "Neopaganism in Russia"
  • The third sentence relates explicity to Bailey.

Since the last sentence referencing Bailey immediately follows the first two about "some groups," and "Neopaganism in Russia," a reader may get the impression that Shnirelman is linking the whole array to Bailey. I had this impression myself until I examined it more carefully. The key is in Shnirelman' cucial footnote number 108 which reads:

 "In this respect, the Russian Neo-pagans differ radically from Bailey,
 who accused the Jews of “separatism” and treated them as the major 
 obstacle for an establishment of the uniform nationless world 
 civilization. See Bailey, Rays and Initiations, 634; Brearley, 
 “Possible Implications,” 261–62"

Again, he explicity states: '"Russian Neo-pagans differ radically from Bailey."'

There are only two ways to be honest with this. Either we quote just the portion of the text that explicitly references Bailey, or we quote the whole thing and then have to explain to the reader that Shnirelman apparently did not intend to paint Bailey with this broad of a brush, and point out the internal contradiction between what is conveyed by the apparently "accidental" (to be kind) juxtaposition of the third sentence about Bailey following so closely on the first two about Russian Neo-pagans. I do not think you will like having to elaborate his quotations and footnote in full as it will not reflect well on Shnirelman as a scholar. Also, with all this detail, balance will then require that we quote, for contrast, what Bailey wrote about "multi-culturalism," "the 'mixture' of kinds," "isolationism," and "prohibition of immigration." As you may, or may not have absorbed, she wrote about all of these in explicit terms. My suggestion is, don't go there: leave it simple as it is at the moment. James 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


About the Shnirelman quotation

Eaglizard wrote:

James, thanks for doing what cat should have done herself. And, I might add, what you should have done before you made that edit in the first place. Umm... it did occur to you that it might be a controversial edit, didn't it? I bet it did. Here nor there, however.


Sure controversial is built in. But I proceeded with the awareness that, as I think Renee reminded us earlier, there is not such thing as ownership of an article, and of course parts of an article can't be legally staked out as territory which is untouchable by others.
I also proceeded with the edit, knowing that the outcome (as reflected in the conversation started below) would not be different. So I could edit, have it reverted, then discuss. Or I could discuss, edit, then have it reverted. Unless there is actual cooperative and reasonable dialog--which the history of this form has been somewhat short of--then the time line sequence hardly seems to matter. It could be argued I'm too pessimistic. James 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, being WP:bold is (ironically) one of my favorite things. I guess in trying to keep my feet out of the mud, I stepped up onto a high horse. I'll try 'n dismount. :) Eaglizard 22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyways, as I understand what you are saying: the quote supported by cat is misrepresentative of the actual Shnirelman text, and this is because the phrase "as we have seen" (omitted from the quotation) refers these groups exclusively those already discussed, and that Alice Bailey is then presented as a separate topic. However, I think the other phrase, "for example", indicates that Bailey is being offered as an example member of the pre-juxtaposed grouping. In other words, I think Shnirleman does, indeed, mean that Bailey is a member of the "groups that take an extremely dim view etc.". If not, then what is she "for example" of? Eaglizard 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Eaglizard you wrote: "I think Shnirleman does, indeed, mean that Bailey is a member of the "groups that take an extremely dim view..." It's guess work what he meant to say, because what he said is vague. But it's obvious that he contradicted himself in the footnote. To make the quote factual the contradiction should be included.
I didn't mean to direct my concerns just to Eaglizard. What do the other editors think about the discrepancies? Please voice a Wikipedia rule that would give a good reason why Shnirleman's contradicting footnote should or should not be put in? What do you think Judith? Sparklecplenty 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


I agree that the Shnirleman paragraph is somewhat vague; the paragraph is not a clear statement. Perhaps Shnirleman did intend to throw Bailey into the whole mix and paint her with the broad "Russian neo-Pagan" brush. Or maybe he did so unconsciously or semi-consciously--perhaps emotionally--without sorting out the complex of elements and charges he listed. And perhaps he was himself not clear, or did not care, about balancing his paragraph with his contradictory footnote number 108 where "Russian Neo-pagans differ radically from Bailey." Anyway, we can take the contextual meaning of his problematic paragraph as "Bailey is bad just like those Russian Neo-pagans," but if we do so, then we're left with the cognitive dissonance of the footnote saying she was radically different from the Russian Neo-pagans. I think that, as underscored by the footnote, Bailey was as you word it somewhat of "a separate topic," but I think Shnirleman did not want her to be. James 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if you'll continue to follow the discussion in this section, but again I beg to differ. Here's what Shnirleman says, with editing for obviousness: "Some groups ... take an extremely negative view... for example, Alice Bailey and her followers ..." What could be clearer than that? As for footnote 108, he's not being contradictory at all; he's referring to a different element, the "... total rejection of Judeo-Christian ideology ...", in which way (his footnote states), Russian Neo-Pagans differ significantly from Bailey (who does not reject it totally, in his view). Eaglizard 07:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)




Discretion in Use of Hyperlinks

When editing, please do not include hyperlinks that are only remotely related to the main subjects of the article. For instance, in general the date of someone's birth or the city where they were born are not relevant links. James 16:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

On irrelevant hyperlinks, pleases see this Wikipedia article. [Overlinking] James 13:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


This for the preference to link dates of birth and death. I do agree that in general we should not link everything in sight just for the sake of it. Itsmejudith 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I favor the this view which recommends avoiding, "Links that have little information content, such as linking on specific years like 1995, or unnecessary linking of common words used in the common way, for which the reader can be expected to understand the word's full meaning in context, without any hyperlink help." [Overlinking]
Hyperlinks are the equivalent of footnotes or endnotes. A biographer does not follow a birth date with a footnote about how many other events and birth days occurred on that date.James 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, date links draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following.James 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"There is consensus among editors that month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article." [71]
  • James, putting a full date into double-brackets is not really wikilinking them; it's called auto-formatting, and it allows the dates to be formatted visually according to the user's preferences. I quote,
Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. This instructs the WikiMedia software to format the item according to the date preferences chosen by registered users[72] Eaglizard 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eaglizard,

Well, here is what use to be there:

Alice LaTrobe Bateman (June 16, 1880, Manchester, United Kingdom - December 15, 1949)

The main effect is the create six clickable links to Wikipedia entries that don't relate to AAB. James 23:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes James, I understand that. I don't particularly care for it either, but I'm not willing to buck every consensus on WP. In particular, bolding the name and any aliases is required by MoS:BIO. Also, while autoformatting dates is not strictly required (the section which I quoted above I see is disputed for inclusion), every biography I looked at used this format. Sometimes it's best to go along to get along, I reckon. Also, I rather like having Manchester linked, I'm often curious about the place someone was born, myself. UK and US abbreviations were used, to keep the lead trim and fit. Eaglizard 09:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, no big deal, but if tis' bold face that's required and not links that are required (and in fact often recommend against) why not put such dates and names in bold face like this without using the brackets method that bolds but also creates non-useful links? James 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking

Itsmejudith, you created a wiki link in the bio to "United States of America" where AAB moved. Please read again what I wrote above under "Discretion in Use of Hyperlinks." A link to the US is a good example of what not to link to. It has only the most remote relation to the subject of this article and does not serve to distinguish AAB from millions of others who moved to the US. There is no benefit to the reader in following that type of link. It draws attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following. Please try to understand the difference. We should only link to things that in some way illuminate something about Bailey, her writings, or persons and subjects that bear some significant relationship to her. Sincerely, James 19:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

James, i cannot more strongly DISAGREE with you. I think that every wiki topic shoudld be linked on first usage and that those which are essential to the topic being covered should be re-linked on first usage within each sub-head. This is the style i prefer to read, and it is the style in which i write. You never know who will be reading the page and what they may wish to learn more about. I will also further note that i have seen you use deliberate and disingenuous UNlinking in order to remove criticism from Alice Bailey in the past and i have called you on it and reinstated the links. The present case may be a matter of style, but your UNlinking is not merely about style -- it has been noted in the past that this is a tactice to discourage further reading on an "uncomfortable" topic. cat Catherineyronwode 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think accusations about someone's ulterior motives are always out of place (well, except at RfArb or RfC I guess), and I'll continue saying so as long as it keeps going on. cat, your implication might be interesting in the proper place; here it just looks like maliciousness. Unless you're accusing James of not wanting people to read about the US or about Manchester, England England (across the Atlantic Sea)? Eaglizard 10:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

talk page guideline re threading of comments

I noticed some discussion above about interruptions or inter-threading of comments during discussions.

It's an OK method, but it can be confusing. According to WP:TALK, here is a method that can help reduce the confusion when an interruption is needed:

Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.

By adding the note and user name when a prior comment is interrupted, the original commentor's signature does not get separateed from their comment.

Another method that can work well is to reply under the prior complete comment, and if replying to a particular section of it, copy a sentence from the part you are replying to, and include it in italices to introduce your reply. Below I'll include a random example as if I'm replying to my own comment.

These are just suggestions, but I think they can help keep the discussion more organized, especially since this talk page is so long and active. --Parsifal Hello 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"copy a sentence from the part you are replying to, and include it in quotes/italics to introduce your reply". This is just an example, so my reply to that would go here, if I were actually replying to it. --Parsifal Hello 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Archiving?

Hi Folks, Can we start with Parsifal's review and archive everything else? Thanks, Renee Renee 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please keep, at least, from #91 because there is still discussion involving that. Kwork 19:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


okee dokee. Anyone else want to go further back? Renee 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't been a full month an we already need another archive. :( Eaglizard 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Deja Vu, etc. Primary sources and secondary sources

Use of secondary and primary sources is allowed:

"Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways." [73]

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources." (reference as above)

There is no Wiki rule that states that an article or any portion of it must consist of X% of secondary sources and Y% of primary ones. That said, this article is full of full of both primary and secondary sources. James 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d e f "Russian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism", Victor A. Shnirelman in "Acta no. 13, Analysis of current trends in antisemitism," published by The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998] Retrieved 2007-08-22 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Shnirelman" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Shnirelman" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d e f "The Racist Legacy of Alice Bailey", Monica Sjöö, published in "From the Flames- Radical feminism with Spirit" - issue 22 - winter 98/99. Retrieved 2007-08-22. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Sjoo" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c d e f g "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings", Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, 1997, revised 2005. Retrieved 2007-08-22. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Gershom" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c d e f Groothuis, Douglas. Unmasking the New Age. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986; p. 120. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Groothuis" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Groothuis" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Groothuis" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Groothuis" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "Alice Bailey Profile", Reba Parker and Timothy Oliver, 1996, The Watchman Expositor, Watchman Fellowship. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g "Theosophy's Shadow (A Critical Look at the Claims and Teachings of Alice A. Bailey)", by Nicholas Weeks. Revised and expanded version of article that appeared in the Summer 1997 issue of Fohat, Edmonton Theosophical Society. Online at the Blavatsky Study Center. Retrieved 2007-08-22. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Weeks" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b c d e f g "A Comparison Between H. P. Blavatsky & Alice Bailey", from Protogonus, Spring 1989, by Alice Leighton Cleather and Basil Crump. Retrieved 2007-08-22. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Protogonus" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. ^ http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/OMM.GB/WomenWriters/AliceBailey/Problem/prob1047.html
  9. ^ "Problems of Humanity - Chapter IV - The Problem of the Racial Minorities"
  10. ^ Bailey, Alice A. The Destiny of the Nations. Lucis Trust. 1949. p 45
  11. ^ Bailey, Alice A. From Intellect to Intuition. Lucis Trust. 1932. p 230
  12. ^ A Treatise on the Seven Rays, Vol 3: Esoteric Astrology. Lucis Trust. 1951. p 183
  13. ^ Bailey, Alice A. Esoteric Healing. Lucis Trust. 1953 p 443
  14. ^ Bailey, Alice A. The Unfinished Autobiography. Lucis Trust. 1951. pp 9, 258)