Talk:Alice Bailey/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Alice Bailey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

About WikiProject Occult Assesment

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

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

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

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

Would you call this statement neutral?:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism section changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC

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

Brief Statements by involved parties

User kwork's proffered version of the criticism section, reflected here [[1]] Contains blatant WP:NOR and misues of WP:PSTS "In her books, Alice Bailey frequently stereotyped Jews as separatists, and because in her view separatism is the fundamental human problem and the main source of the world's evil, Jews are presented by her as at the core of the world's problems. Here are just a few such quotes from her books:" Sethie 22:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is one such quote From Alice Bailey:

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

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

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

If that is correct, and I think it is not, why did she choose the term "Jews" instead of 'humanity' or another term not connected to a minority that had just experienced mass murder? Kwork 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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 [2][3][4] 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 [5] 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)

Thanks AnonEMouse, What do you think of the books listed here: [6]. Also, I found this encyclopedic source that looks valid -- what do you think?

The encyclopedic sourcebook of New Age religions, edited by James R. Lewis, 2004, Publisher Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books. Thanks, Renee --Renee 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, just from looking at the titles, that first list seems to be books about her teachings, more than about her. I guess it depends on what you want to use them for; I'd be wary of using them to back something controversial. The encyclopedia seems like it would be a reliable source by our standards, we have a nice short article on Prometheus Books, and even a stub on James R. Lewis, that seems to say they would be respected sources in their fields. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I see elsewhere on this page you were planning to use them to show that she is notable - yes, they certainly do that. Having people write a dozen different books about your teachings doesn't necessarily make the substance of the books reliable, but certainly shows you've made an impact. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A general problem with editing the article is that scholarly literature evaluating Alice Bailey is, as far as I know - and I have looked (including in JSTOR), completely lacking. The biography itself is based only on primary sources, and on books that are appreciations of Bailey, or completely derived from only her writing as a source. There has been no studys of Alice Bailey such as Richard Noll's studies of Carl Jung. So the article is really without secondary, independent, sources...aside from in the criticism section.

Since scholarly studies are so lacking, I thought the Non-Duality discussion of interest because it records a discussion between people who are all very much New Agers about Bailey, and does contain both positive and negative views on what she wrote about Jews. There is just not a lot of material to choose from. If you decide against it being in the article, I will live without it.

Thanks for taking on the RfC for this article. Kwork 17:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Criticism needs to come from respected, reliable sources, and while all that is relative, a group of people known by first name only just doesn't meet that. Fortunately that link is merely sourcing the sentence that she has been criticised, and the bunch of other critics in the rest of the section clearly meets that, so the sentence itself is fine. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that Jerry Katz, who moderated and took part in that discussion, that may be removed, is a published and fairly well known author. His book is cited as a ref in the Nondualism article. [7] Kwork 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it seems he's just compiling any criticisms he likes, and since his own criticism is characterized by "... Alice Bailey has to be the most hateful and stupid" that is a rather permissive filter! :-) Removed per permission. As long as you're explaining, can you explain why the Monica Sjöö comment is said to be from a magazine article in the link, and from a book in our article text? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, My understanding is that the article was extracted from a published book. At the top of the page it says:

The article is based on an extract from a longer pamphlet by Monica, which was published in A4 format of 40 pages in 1998. Click here to read this book in its entirety on this website.

They called it a book, so I called it a book. Kwork 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that link says that pamphlet seems to be called New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, not The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The book, by Monica Sjöö , is about New Age channelers such as Alice Bailey. Is that what you are asking? Kwork 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

When I "Click here to read this book", I end up at a page that says the book or pamphlet is titled New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?. It doesn't say the book or pamphlet is titled The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth. The sentence in Alice Bailey says "Monica Sjöö, in her book The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth, spoke ..." Should it, perhaps, say "Monica Sjöö, in New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, spoke ..." ? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand what you mean, and you seem to be right. It should be changed to New Age Channelings. Kwork 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you quoted this (above):"... Alice Bailey has to be the most hateful and stupid". You need to understand the the effort in restraint this discussion costs me, and other Jews (such as Katz). The stuff Alice Bailey said about Jews, much of which was written just after a mass murder of six million, one million of them little children and babies, is more than a little painful for any Jew to discuss. Try to take that into account in thinking about this discussion. Kwork 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But Kwork, this reflects your bias, that you have a personal POV you're trying to push. I'm sympathetic to the pain and indeed the whole series of events were horrible, but because you feel personally so strongly against Bailey because of some writings it reflects a bias (so much so that above you are even linking Alice Bailey to being responsible for the holocaust). Also, it has been brought up over and over on these talk pages that you are pulling information out of context about Bailey's writings on Jews. --Renee 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks, please don't make this personal. This is about the article. Not about the editors. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do. There has been a lot of discussion on these talk pages that the quotations and claims do not match the sources from which they are cited. As well, there are complaints that quotations are pulled out of context. Can other editors please chime in here?

Also, what I have noticed is that there is a tendency to use Wiki words-to-avoid, like claims, to give a subtle negative tone to the text. This language is better in the current version. Thanks, Renee --Renee 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, you know perfectly well that I spent a lot of time last week rewriting the Biography so that it would read better. My relationship to the Alice Bailey teaching is much more complex than you depict it. I do have a dislike of antisemitism, and all human brutality [[8]]

As for my understanding of the Alice Bailey teaching, I studied it for years, and with the best teachers, and know its weak points and its strong points. I think that religious and racial bigotry is ugly and destructive in every context where it is found, and antisemitism remains a hideous ornament even in a beautiful setting. Opposition to destructiveness and ugliness is the normal manifestation of a human heart, and is not POV. Kwork 21:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, I would like to include this link in the Criticism section [9] because it has extensive discussion of Alice Bailey's antisemitic views, and it is well sourced. Kwork 15:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Kwork. This is a self-published site designed to push the author's point of view, and as such is not suitable as a citation for Wiki[10]. Further Wiki says to only use extremist sites in articles about themselves[11] and that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources,"[12] meaning you need even strong evidentiary standards.

Now, if you find a bona fide scholarly article or book (that goes through peer review) or if the encyclopedic source I posted below (which has an extensive vetting process) says things about Bailey and antisemitism, then that's a great source. Renee --Renee 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Renee. Without going so far as deciding whether or not this is an extremist, this seems to be someone with a web page, but not really a widely acknowledged expert in the field. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a study of Alice Bailey's antisemitism, done with good sourcing by a well known Israeli journalist. 96.224.100.228 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's true then maybe you can find a newspaper article in a mainstream Israeli newspaper? or something from a good quality Israeli university? These sorts of citations would be acceptable.

Also, being a well-known journalist is different than being a well-known expert in the field of esoteric science.

As this site stands, it is still self-published with the specific purpose of promoting a point-of-view. Because of this, it is not appropriate as a Wiki citation. (Someone could do the opposite and find an extremely pro-Bailey site and do their self-published analysis of all of the wonderful things about her, and this would not be allowed either.) --Renee 16:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hannah Newman? Show that she is an acknowledged expert in the field. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, I am waiting for a reply from her. I can point out the there are hundreds of sites that link to her on-line book, and that it is considered authoritative. I might also mention that you just allowed on a long list of books about Alice Bailey, and that few (if any) of those books were written by people whose level of expertise in the subject of Alice Bailey comes close to equaling my own, and whose standards of scholarship certainly do not equal that of Hannah Newman. Once again, fairness is becoming an issue. Kwork 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm asking you to do, show that it is considered authoritative. Who says? A statement by the Encyclopedia Britannica or the New York Times that this is an authoritative book would probably suffice, 1000 Google links doesn't (see Wikipedia:Search engine test). And about "allowed on": I'm honored you credit me with being the deciding voice, but please do make sure you read what I actually wrote; having followers is clearly a sign of notability, but not necessarily reliability. Many religious books of the world are very notable, but not particularly reliable. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, You know perfectly well that there are no standards for the the books published by the various New Age publishers. I could make up a book about telepathic conversations I have had with dolphins, and find a New Age publisher who would believe it. But, while you saw no reason to verify knowledgeably in all those silly books you let in the article, or any reason to verify standards of scholarship; standards have now become very important in the Hannah Newman book that discusses Bailey's antisemitism in a thorough way. I am really having trouble understanding the differing standards, and fairness seems at issue. I can live with the standards you set, they seem quite logical, but would like to see the same standards applied to everything that goes into the article.

Of course, it is pretty difficult (impossible?) to discover what the standards are in flaky stuff like this...its not Aristotelian philosophy. That is exactly why I gave up on Bailey years ago, and now actually prefer Stoic philosophy which sets standards of logic and reason. Kwork 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The same standards will be used. I suspect you misunderstand or missed my point about the difference between notability and reliability, so shan't argue in the abstract, let's see a specific use in the article that you object to. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse,my complaint was based on an apparent misunderstanding: that you had allowed to stay in the article that rather long list of books about the teaching that someone added a few days age. I should have been more careful to verify, and not rely on memory in a confusing situation. Sorry, so sorry about giving you a hard time over something that was my misunderstanding.

As far as I am concerned the much disputed criticism section is okay as it is now, and if a link the Hannah Newman book is added, or not, does not seem of major concern. Since most of the other editors are not likely to trust my edits of the more positive aspects of the Bailey material, and since I consider that something in my past, not my future, it is my hope to now go on to other things which interest me more. AnonEMouse, I think your presence has done a lot to settle the disputes here in a short time. If the other editors would focus on presenting the positive aspects of the AAB teaching, and there is a lot of such material, the criticism section will seem very small in proportion to an expanded article. Nevertheless, my guess is that what has been settled now will be undone in a few months by those who can not live with the realization that a sizable number of sane people really do have negative views of Bailey, and that there is material in Bailey's own writing that supports those views. Guys, "that's life". If you can manage to live with that there will be a lot less time wasted on unproductive arguments.

I was just looking at one of my favorite quotes from Alice Bailey's White Magic:

I seek not to repeat myself. Most of the points that concern the work of the aspirant today I have considered earlier in this treatise. It remains now for all of you to study it with care. I close with an appeal to all who read these instructions to rally their forces, to renew their vows of dedication to the service of humanity, to subordinate their own ideas and wishes to the group good, to take their eyes off themselves and fix them anew upon the vision, to guard their tongues from idle speech and criticism, from gossip and innuendo, and to read and study so that the work may go intelligently forward. Let all students make up their minds in this day of emergency and of rapid unfolding opportunity to sacrifice all they have to the helping of humanity. Now is the need alp, to join the strenuous effort of the Great Ones. They are working day and night in an effort to relieve humanity and to offset those evils and disasters which are immanent in the present situation. I offer to you opportunity and I tell you that you are needed - even the very least of you. I assure you that groups of students, working in [640] unison and with deep and unfaltering love for each other, can achieve significant results. That each of you may so work, and that each of you may lose sight of self in the realization of world need, is the earnest prayer and deepest aspiration of your brother, THE TIBETAN.

Hmmmm...I need to apply that advice better than I have. Kwork 16:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself here, but what about the encyclopedic citation I gave above, or the dissertation. Kwork -- those are good sources with fact-checking systems. These would be considered reliable and verifiable. Can you please take a look at these? --Renee 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AN/I comment

Strikes me the AN/I report was much more effective at bringing outside input to the article, SqueakBox 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean me? No, I'm here because Kwork put something on my personal talk page, I haven't looked at AN/I. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry Katz is a published and respected author.

[13]

Hannah Newman is cited in this article [14] as an Israeli journalist and author. Her site is referenced in many web articles, and in at least one book (admitidly published by Lulu, but Lulu is being used now by some highly respected scholars that I correspond with).

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

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

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

I am asking you to read and abide by wikipedia policy. "When they suppy good information?" I have never heard that. To the contrary wikipedia has a very strict policy against self-published sources. Here is the the actual policy [[15]] [[16]] Sethie 15:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

You know perfectly well there are exceptions made to that guideline in thousands of Wikipedia articles. If you are only concerned about the purity of sources in this article, why did you not object when JamesD put on the link to the Kheper site which is also self published?[17]; as are the two links to The Esoteric Astrologer site which is the work of Phillip Lindsay. [18][19] I suspect that a number of the other links given in the article are self published too. In fact the Alice Bailey books were self published also; although Foster Bailey, who was a lawyer, knew how to hide that by creating a foundation, the Lucis Trust.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit

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

I don'r recall saying you removed any information.

I said your reason for removing sources was invald: [[20]]

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antisemitic people always delete mentions of antrisemitism at Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all know she was a grossly antisemitic author.

Now just say it and have done with it.

This post was made by Nameless date Stamp quite a while ago, and it is now credited as such by --

Nameless Date Stamp 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A (hopefully) brief rebuttal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racist views

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

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

This post was made quite a while ago by Nameless Date Stamp, who now comes by to sign it --

Nameless Date Stamp 22:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article and its discussion

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

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

They also contain a specific instructions regarding proscribed marriages. Here is an example of the latter, from "Problems of Humanity - Chapter IV - The Problem of the Racial Minorities": "On the subject of intermarriage, the best and soundest thinkers in both the white and black races at this time deplore mixed marriages. They mean no happiness for either party. When considering this subject it should be remembered, however, that intermarriage between the white peoples and the yellow races (the Chinese and the Japanese) is equally unfortunate."^[1]

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

Good job

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They also contain a specific instructions regarding proscribed marriages. Here is an example of the latter, from "Problems of Humanity - Chapter IV - The Problem of the Racial Minorities": "On the subject of intermarriage, the best and soundest thinkers in both the white and black races at this time deplore mixed marriages. They mean no happiness for either party. When considering this subject it should be remembered, however, that intermarriage between the white peoples and the yellow races (the Chinese and the Japanese) is equally unfortunate."^[2]

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

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

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

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

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Re: Theos-World Bailey's love for the Jews: 
The Jews are the reincarnation of spiritual failures

From: David Green <davidgreen@hotmail.com>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:59 AM
Subject: Theos-World Bailey's love for the Jews: The Jews are the
reincarnation of spiritual failures

[snip]

>"The Jews are the reincarnation of spiritual failures or residues from
>another planet... The Jew represents materialism, cruelty and a spiritual
>conservatism, under the domination of the separative, selfish mind  [snip]
>(Bailey, 'Rays and Initiations')

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

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

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

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

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The above is acknowledged as my writing. Nameless Date Stamp 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The text for all, or any, of the books can be downloaded here [22], (the link is in the article) but the texts are not searchable (as far as I can see). I think that particular quote is a composite, or fabrication. Although a Google search for that quote gets a number of hits, none give a page number, which makes it all the more doubtful. As you know I consider Alice Bailey antisemitic, but using unreferenced quotes, not to say fabricated quotes, only serves to discredit all her critics. Kwork 18:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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