Talk:Lucis Trust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Mid-importance).

I would suggest that the references 1-6 are unreliable. They seem to be works of conspiracy theory. For the sake of the credibility of the article, perhaps an outside source could be found to validate this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Kissinger and Rockefeller[edit]

"Some people belonging to it have included Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller"

I have heard these, and other well known names, connected with the Lucis Trust; but I have move this to the talk page because there should be sourcing to include it in the article. Kwork 11:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose that it is a cult. Would some one further this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Calling something a cult is a value judgment; it is POV. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It may not be appropriate to call it a cult but the extension of your argument is that nothing should be called a cult on wikipedia because it is a value judgment. I have not dug into this organization but it seems that they work to further some belief system. It is not necessarily enough to call it a cult for that reason. If high profile individuals were part of this organization, is it known what they did there? Esperion (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Lucifer trust[edit]

I have removed the portion of the article that said Lucis Trust was formerly called Lucifer Trust. The information was erroneous. The link that was included with this information ( as the source for the info goes to the Lucis Trust web site. That link opens a page that states: 'There are comments on the World Wide Web claiming that the Lucis Trust was once called the Lucifer Trust. Such was never the case. However, for a brief period of two or three years in the early 1920’s, when Alice and Foster Bailey were beginning to publish the books published under her name, they named their fledgling publishing company “Lucifer Publishing Company”' So, Lucis Trust itself states that it was never called Lucifer Trust. Thank you. (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying "Lucifer Trust" or "Lucifer Publishing Company" is exactly the same thing, if you wanted to do a good thing you had simply to correct my lack of precision instead of deleting everything. So now I'm gonna re-add the information PRECISELY! Btw it's evident you didn't look at the whole site because they explain even WHY Lucifer is their reference, as it was in Blavatksy's and Bailey's philosophy. Winged Zephiro (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Winged, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! BTW, you might want to be more careful around articles like this one; without looking at your editing history, I would guess you're not used to the kind of vitriol that can flow. Have a look at the archives on Talk:Alice Bailey to make sure you know what you could be getting yourself into here. :D At the very least, I suggest you try to cultivate more patience. You will need LOTS of it. Anyways.
Its not clear to me why a temporary name used only for a couple of years in the very beginning is of particular importance in the first place. Obviously, it's that hot-button word Lucifer, now innit? If the original name had been "Esoteric Publishing Company", it would have been pretty much forgotten. In any case, how does this minor trivia belong as part of the lead sentence? Answer: it doesn't. (Unless you're going to assert that using the name "Lucifer" is inherently important in some way... like, maybe you believe it affirms the organization's link with Satanism? I doubt you can make a WP:V claim on that, however.) Any case, I'm doing a tad of copyedit (this thing REALLY needs it!) and I'll prolly move that around, or even remove it, if I can't find someplace to fit it properly. But pls, lets dont fight over this - I've already had all the Wikibattles I wanted in this lifetime on dear Alice's own page. Eaglizard (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
How is the controversial origins of a source for the name Lucis Trust (which the Theosophical "Lucifer" can be directly linked to the character of Satan by quotes from HPB and other members own mouths) a mere piece of trivial information? especially considering it's close relation to global politics? Sometimes it is not the information that is presented that creates perception, but the withholding of information. Your use of a term of affection "dear" makes me wonder if your loyalties really lie on the side of verifiable information, or creating a nice PR image for Bailey and her cohorts.

Yes, I agree. I strongly urge that we should add mention of the “Lucifer Publishing Company” somewhere. Neurolanis (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most articles about companies and organizations have a "History" section that includes and names any seedlings that evolved into the present organization. The Lucifer Publishing Company will be relevant if anyone decides to wikify this article in the future. (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If this was formerly publicly known as the Lucifer Publishing Company I see no reason why this should be hidden for wikipedia readers. The name has certainly some background story that can further enlighten the reader and provide context. Esperion (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

United Nations and abortion[edit]

It would be interesting if any of the editors were able to find a correlation between the existence of the Lucis Trust and the widespread support for abortion legislation within the United Nations. ADM (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Why the hell not? Margaret Snager was a student of Madame Blavatsky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


Given this body's frequent appearance in conspiracy theories, this should at least get a mention.-- (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

True. Conspirasee1 (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source or no?[edit]

Is the link in the article a good source or is it related too closely to the article? Conspirasee1 (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ABOUTSELF. Under the conditions listed there, we can use information that organizations and individuals publish about themselves. This is an exception to the usual reliable source rules. The article needs additional sources as well.--Srleffler (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I changed the cleanup tag to "refimprove" since the bigger problem with this article is that the bulk of the material is not supported by any citations, rather than that there is overuse of citations to Lucis' website.--Srleffler (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


I reverted today's edits, which appear to be an attempt to censor the article. Responding to the edit comments:

  • Lucis Publishing Company is in bold because this article is the one that covers that term, and the term redirects here.
  • Lucifer Publishing Company is in bold for the same reason. The redirect was missing. I have created it.
  • Heartcentre777's third edit damaged the reference by removing the "work=" and "accessdate=" parameters.
  • The quote was added to the reference yesterday in response to Heartcentre777's complaint that the source did not say what the article claimed it says. Per WP:V: "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." In this case, adding the quote to the reference documents the information in case other editors have the same concern, and preserves it in case the website's contents change in the future.
  • The statement Heartcentre777 removed is not "editorilizing" [sic], redundant, nor original research. It is a paraphrase of what the organization has themselves said. No opinion is expressed.

Given today's edits, I do have to wonder whether Heartcentre777 has a conflict of interest in regard to this article. I advise him or her to be aware of our conflict of interest guideline (linked).--Srleffler (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)