AnonEMouse (talk | contribs) →Statements by uninvolved parties: List and encyclopedia |
|||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
:::''The encyclopedic sourcebook of New Age religions,'' edited by James R. Lewis, 2004, Publisher Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books. Thanks, Renee --[[User:Reneeholle|Renee]] 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
:::''The encyclopedic sourcebook of New Age religions,'' edited by James R. Lewis, 2004, Publisher Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books. Thanks, Renee --[[User:Reneeholle|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. --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 16:30, 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. --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 16:30, 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. [[User:Kwork|Kwork]] 17:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
===Discussion=== |
Revision as of 17:14, 22 August 2007
Occult Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
/Archive 1 (Oct 2005-Jul 2007) |
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?:
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)The worldwide activities of the Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Trust), founded by Alice and Foster Bailey, are dedicated to establishing right human relations.
- 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)
- 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)
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:
- http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/na_jews.html#na%20views
- http://www.pinenet.com/rooster/bailey.html
- http://www.nonduality.com/alice.htm
- http://www.monicasjoo.org/artic/channelbrief/sinisterchannelings1.htm
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.
- 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,
- 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.
- Hannah Newman is cited in this article [8] 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 [[9]] [[10]] 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?[11]; as are the two links to The Esoteric Astrologer site which is the work of Phillip Lindsay. [12][13] 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: [[14]]
and
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.
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.)
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 (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 (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.
- A simple google search on <"Alice bailey" antisemitism"> pulls up 1,220 web page cites.
- 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 (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 (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 (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 (UTC)
The text for all, or any, of the books can be downloaded here [16], (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)
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)
I had removed that from the article previously, and I do not think it is an issue.
If you are going to duck on the issue of Sethie's editing, you will avoid the main problem. Sethie has been engage in an edit war here, and if it were not for him, there would be no problem requirinf an RfC. I requested mediation, but found out yesterday I made a mistake in setting it up. I know plenty about the AAB books, but I am a computer incompetent in a Wikipedia world of computer specialists. Kwork 16:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Removal of Hitler reffernece
User 64. you removed a sourced reffrence to DK's views on Hitler. I'd like to know why? Sethie 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That entire article is deceptive, and the quote I left is enough to understand its intent. In fact, what I left is still very positive about AAB. The link is still there for anyone who wishes to read the whole article defending AAB from accusations of antisemitism, but the article is really just propaganda from the Lucis trust and I would rather it was not quoted in this article at all. Kwork 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do not believe that the Lucis Trust piece is a "deceptive" article, but i do think it contains a lot of pro-Bailey spin, as well it must, given the source. I strenuously urge that eliminating it is NOT the best choice we have. I am taking the time to actually quote from it, rather than to summarize it, and i think that this should satisfy all parties to the debate. We are dealing with "criticism" here, and it is fair to let those under sriticism respond in full measure. I am also expanding the Christian opposition section, as this has been repeatedly eliminated, with no explanation offered. Rather than deal with a shadowy "some," i am citing two specific Christian sources who oppose Bailey on doctrinal gounds. These Christian viewpoints are founded on solid church dogma, and are not merely not crack-pot or "conspiracry" oriented, as has been claimed. Please be respectful of these edits. Thanks.
- Nice job with the Christian citations and going for actual quotes.... except you forget to point out why DK was opposed to Zionism, an ommision which I have corrected for you.
- Just FYI, this article is not a dumping ground for anything "negative" or controversial you can find, hence I have removed the interacial marriage stuff.
Sethie: You just added to the article, "they display "an unwavering opposition to Zionism," due to it's "separative tendencies." It was just the other day you were denying that AAB called Jews separative, and removed my edit because you claimed there were no sources to support it. You have contradicted yourself because there is no real distinction between a Jew and a Zionist. Jews hold a very wide range of views on many subjects, but there is no issue on which Jews agree more than their near universal support of Zionism. Kwork 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually Jewish and Zionist are absolutely not the same thing, the latter is a belief whereas the former is more than just that, it is also in the case of non-converts what they were born as and the culture they grew up in and to say the 2 are identical is dangerous thinking, SqueakBox 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong! The prayer for the return to Zion is repeated by religious Jews every day. It is absolutely part of the Jewish religion. I have been a Jew all my life, I have lived in a lot of places, and what I have seen is that no point that unites Jews more (both religious and secular) than support of Zionism. Kwork 19:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not the same thing at all! That would assume all Jews think the same. I was brought up a Christian but that doesnt mean you can say a single thing about my beliefs based on that and because Jew is also a racial term its quite feasible to have atheist Jews let alone Jews who dont believe in Zionism; and you only need a few to make what you say not so, SqueakBox 19:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- You have no idea how tired Jews get hearing from non-Jews what they really think. This is not an area you understand. Anyhow, a lot of rabid "anti-Zionists (perhaps including some editors here) do not like to hear that it is really just a cover for hiding their antisemitism. I have plenty of experience arguing this, but this is the Alice Bailey article. Why not take your ideas to the Zionism article? I have not looked at their talk page, but I would guess that it makes the arguments here seem pretty mild, so if you go there be ready for a real argument. Kwork 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is a mute issue. The source says "Zionist... seperative tendancies." End of story. Sethie 20:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Protect article
I see there has been another problematic addition to the criticism section. Look guys, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about Alice Bailey. Editors should try to see the article as an informative whole. Anyone who wants to just subject Bailey to a roasting should have their own web page or blog. I am also critical of Baileys antisemitic statements in her books, but we can't make an encyclopedia article about just that. If this sort of problematic additions to the article keeps happening, is there a way to get protection for the article? This whole argument has gotten crazy. It would be really great if the editors could recognize some disagreement while still maintaining harmony. Even if one side should win in a winner take all approach (and I doubt that will happen) it would be a vicious victory. This argument is making everyone mean. I want the editors on the opposing side to know that I would be happy to back off, and just try to get the article right. Or, if you really want to fight it out, I am up to that also....even if I regret that its necessary. (Sorry about the stream of consciousness dialog.) Kwork 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- That is an amazing offer.
- I actually feel a connection with you purpose, just not most of the means you have used. You wish to document AAB's "antisemitism." If you can find reliable sources for it, so do I. Gershom was/is a great find for this article. And I welcome more like it. Sethie 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, this would do:
Some statements in Bailey's writings have been criticized for racism and anti-semitism[3][4] and she has been criticized for this even within the New Age community [17]. In her book The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth the author Monica Sjöö was highly critical of the philosophy expounded by Alice Bailey[5]
If it came down to it, I could live without the second, Monica Sjöö, sentence. I think the Christian part is just padding without meaning. The mention Theosophical may be of interest to some people.
But I would like that to be stable, not have to go through an argument like this once a month. The problem is that new editors show up an want to add more criticism, then the other editors react and pretty soon I wind up thinking, "its a nice day, why am I doing this?" Could something could be done to protect the article from wild edits? Kwork 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Critcized within the new age community... that source is ridiculous. It is the remenents of an online discussion between lots of no-bodies! Sure edited by someone with some credibility....
- btw Kwork, when you are not here, this article is reasonably stable. Sethie 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Removal of Zionist quote
Why on Earth would you remove a direct quote from the foundation? Sethie 19:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are trying to dilute the criticism section by expanding to with a lot of pro-Bailey stuff, and stuff from Christian groups that is not important. I have said many times I would be happy with a criticism section that was just a sentence or two, just to register the criticism. But other editors have tried either to expand it too much, or obliterate it. Kwork 19:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- One sentence or two is a great way to push a POV, without fleshing out the details, or allowing the accused to respond. We have the organization itself going on record to say, "Yup, DK is anti-zionist, here's why." Yet for some reason you don't want that in there. Oh and you want quotes from a critic (Gershom) but don't want a quote from the organization. Please review WP:NPOV Sethie 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No Sethie, it needs to go. You are trying to turn the criticism section into an attack on Jews; or, as some editors prefer to call them, Zionists. Kwork 20:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am Jewish, and i believe that the mention of Bailey's opposition to Zionism is important in understanding why both Rabbis and New Agers have called her writings antisemitic and racist. The fact that the Lucis Trust admits that the writings are opposed to Zionism is an important and generous concession on their part and lends credibility to their viewpoint, actually. Without that concession, the summary of their point looks "deceptive" as Kwork noted. I will continue to fight for inclusion of Zionism in the criticism section. Bailey used the term "Zionist Dictators" in "Rays and Initiations" and this points to the fact that she was not only opposed to Judiasm (as a religion) and to Jews (as a people), but also to Zionism, which she called an international "triangle of terror' in "Rays and Iniitiations." Deleting all mention of this is dishonest -- especially since the Lucis Trust concedes it. Adding that justification about the "separtist tendencies" of Zionism as her reason is not neutral -- and if it re-appears, one must then balance it out by citing her OTHER justification, namely the "triangle of terror" concept -- so why not compromise and just leave in the reference to Zionism unadorned by ANY justification? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Sethie, because Judaism is a religion, not a race, if you completely separate yourself from the religion and then choose to follow another teaching (as did Roberto Assaqioli also) there is nothing left aside from some fragments of the culture of the Jewish religion. As far as I am concerned, there is complete freedom to leave. But to choose to leave, and then claim to be a Jew when it helps with an argument in favor of your new belief is not logical. I am unwilling to leave the section as it is after your edit, and if it is, then, necessary to expand the argument it will expand. Kwork 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Kwork, your opinion that Judaism is a religion is valid, however, Bailey referred to Jews not only by their religion, but also as "a state of consciousness" -- and she linked "the Jewish people" with Zionism, with the "repudiation of Christ", and with a love of money. None of these things ("a state of consciousness", Zionism, the "repudiation of Christ", or a love of money) are part of Judaism or the Jewish scriptures.
- Furthermore, since Bailey was talking about "the Jewish people," we must understand that -- just like Alice Bailey -- many Jews do not consider a literal belief in Judaism (the religion) to be thir defining characteristic as Jews. Wikipedia has a wonderful aricle on this, actually, called Who is a Jew?. Check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Sethie, could you explain a little better why you think it is necessary to introduce Zionism into the text of the article? Since there is a link through the footnote, making it possible to read the entire article, why is it necessary to expend what has already been agreed to? It seems to me that you are trying to turn what is supposed to be just a reply to accusations of antisemitism into an antisemitic attack. It is my intention to remove that expansion of the text because I see no justification for it. Kwork 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion of Christian criticism in Criticism Section
The continual removal of the Christian criticism of Bailey's work is indefensible. It has been stated that the paragaph was a "promotion" of a certain web site. I would like it known that this was not the case. I did not originate mention of it, but have actively fought for its retention, albeit in sourced, verified, and referenced format. We present evidence that one Rabbi and one New Age author have called Bailey a racist and antisemitic -- and we have allowed the Lucis Trust to respond. We also have evidence that at least two Christian writers feel that Bailey supported some form of Satanism. Deleting their criticism does not refute it. It is an interesting position (not one that is endorsed by me), and since we are looking -- briefly -- at those who oppose Bailey's reliigious theories, we should include ALL of those who oppose her on religious grounds -- namely Jews, Theosophists, AND Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am not refuting it, but it belongs on your site, not in a wikipedia article. Actually Helena Roerich, author of the Agni Yoga books, considered Bailey a satanist also....but she has similar problems with the Russian Orthodox Church. I could have introduced a well known letter from HR about Bailey's satanism, but chose not to confuse the argument. Kwork 21:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- "MY" site? What are you talking about? I am not a Christian. I am Jewish. I have no connection whatsoever to that Christian site or to that Christian book author. I found the material to be of general interest and will continue to defend its inclusion in the Criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It would help if you would sign a name, any name, so I know which editor I am talking to. Kwork 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am the editor that does not sign a name. :-)
- I am also quite intrigued that you found other mentions of Bailey as a promoter of Satanism. I would argue for their (brief) inclusion as well, followed by a Lucis Trust refutation, as with the section on her racism and antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Jews as "residue", Bailey as anti-Zionist
THIS ENTIRE SECTION OF THE TALK PAGE WAS DELETED BY SETHIE. I have reinstated it as it relates directly to quotes that were sourced and then repudiated within the article, and it proposes a way around the current impasse by asking others to help create an article on "Occult writers and antisemitism" as a way to retain some of the material that editors have tried to include on the Bailey page. Sethie, i consider your deletion of this discussion section to be vandalism. You owe me an apology, and you need to stop engaging in this sort of disruptive behaviour. If it happens again, there will be no alternative but for me to seek redress against you as a vandal. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN.
Thanks, Kwork, for the link to the downloadable texts. Using an html editor, one can perform multi-document searches, and thus the quotation on Jews as "residue" was quite easy to find. (I use bbedit, a Macintosh html editor and recommend it highly for performing complex inter-file searches on all manner of text files, not merely html documents.)
Here is what is found in "Rays and Initiation" (rays1008.html)
The Jews, as a product of the humanity of the previous solar system, and as constituting the incarnating residue from that solar system..."
This is probably the source of the twisted quote made by David Green, which rbridge seems to have correctly identified as not occuring in Bailey's writings in that form. Therefore, that quotation, and Green as a source, should not be considered accuate.
However, in this document one can find much other interesting material that relates to the "Criticism" section.
This bit refers to Jewish Zionism as "a triangle of evil" -- a snappy phrase well worthy of quotation (rays1156.html):
These Forces of Evil work through a triangle of evil, one point of which is to be found in the Zionist Movement in the United States, another in central Europe, and the third in Palestine. Palestine is no longer a Holy Land and should not be so regarded.
Later in that section, Bailey also uses the cute term "Zionist Dictators."
Also in "Rays and Initiations" we find a direct statement by Bailey that counters the Lucis Trust's statement that she thought of Jews as "a state of consciousness" (rays1156.html):
The Jews (who are not a nation but a religious group)
Looking through the "Rays and Initians" text, i get the distinct impression that were Bailey to be alive now, she would very likely be allied with the White Supremicist anti-Jewish hate movement. Her texts are certainly fully in line with those published by modern hate-groups that promote a conspiracy theory involving the so-called Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG), and also with groups that disseminate anti-Zionist World Trade Center conspiracy theories.
I am not the one to do so, but i certainly agree with Kwork that someone should write an article for the antisemitism section on the topic of Occult writers and antisemitism, a piece including not only Alice Bailey, but also occult authors such as Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade, Carl Gustav Jung, Benjamin Creme, and others -- and that would complement the current Wikipedia articles:
- Antisemitism around the world
- Arabs and antisemitism
- Christianity and antisemitism
- Islam and antisemitism
- Nation of Islam and antisemitism
- Universities and antisemitism
- Anti-globalization and antisemitism
After posting this message here, i will go over to the talk page there and propose this idea to the writers working on the topic of antisemitism in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"These Forces of Evil work through a triangle of evil, one point of which is to be found in the Zionist Movement in the United States, another in central Europe, and the third in Palestine. Palestine is no longer a Holy Land and should not be so regarded." This is one of the quotes that supports my statement that Alice Bailey portrays Jews as at the center of the world's evil. The statement Sethie edited out of the criticism section because he said it was unsupported.
I need to remember that Sethie has edited material out of the the talk section in the mediation when it begins. Kwork 22:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Below is a rough translation of a letter of Helena Roerich concerning Alice Bailey. It is a rough translation by someone who knows Russian better than English. Philip Lindsay has a better translation on his site, but edited to make AAB look better and HR worse. (this translation is from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agni-yoga/message/9025)
A fragment from E. I. Roerich's letter on A. Beiley:
Many naive people believe, that dark forces operate only through evil, debauch and crimes. How mistaken they are. In such a way operate only rude forces and forces of small degrees. Much dangerous are those, who are coming under the light of Teaching. You know already such an example. In America exists a numerous society, and its chief receives the doctrine from a teacher, that do not hide his name, naming himself Tibetan Brother. We know, who is hiding under this pseudonym. HIS POWER IS GREAT. And the purpose of this teacher, (through the) personification ostensibly of the Teacher of White Brotherhood, is to entice as much as possible quite good and useful people to his personnel , which otherwise could help Effectively the Great Plan of Lords, the Plan of rescue of the planet. And these Unfortunate, having no true discernment of heart's fires, are Flying as moths toward destructive black fire that is sizzling them. Ignorance and absence of intuition pushes them to the embraces of darkness and deprives them for a long time, if not for ever, of beneficial Influence and attraction of Rays of Great Citadel of Light. The Armageddon is menace, you see Forces of darkness are fighting for their own existence, the despair makes them so serried and pertinacious in the achievement of their purpose. The Prince of this world has many talented, conscious and unconscious helpers, and it is fondly to think, that they are not able to operate in a subtle manner. They are very refined and inventive and operate according to the consciousness of their victims. But all of them are deprived of heart's warmth. I have the books of this Tibetan teacher, they are extremely dry. One book refers to " WHITE MAGIC ". I was told, that the best pages are borrowed from the teaching of White Brotherhood. It is interesting to notice, that the chief of this Society for the greater prestige for himself and for enticement of followers of our books, recommends them (books) to their members and have established Classes for studying books of Agni Yoga. In such a way interlace on the Earth darkness with Light. The network of darkness is plaited by skilful hands. Many members of this Society are coming to us, asking to establish the same classes and groups for join reading and discussion of books of Teaching. Only from the present Fall and with the Higher Approval, I entrusted Mrs. Horsh to start such groups on a more wide scale. Also not without interest to note, that drivers of such wide Society are, at the same time, on service of secret police.
Many terrible things happen today in the world. A lot of disgusting witchcraft is spread in the whole world. Certainly, as always, the most large centres are also the centres of the main dark forces. All fiend (devil incarnate) has crept out on the surface of the Earth. Ignorant masses are their best weapon.
Kwork 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The Watchman Fellowship / Christian Criticism
I see that yet once again the forces of incivility have preemptively deleted the portion of the Citicism section that deliver sourced statements from a published book and the large and stable web site of a book publisher.
I have noticed that some of those who have deleted the material have either assumed that my interest in seeing the material retained is due to my being a Christian (not true; my "race," as Bailey would define it, is Jewish) or that this website is somehow "mine" or associated with me (not true; it first came to my attention because another editor had cited it),
Furthermore, the site has been derogated in this discussion forum for being little more than a "conspiracy theory" site.
Today seemed like a good time to check out that claim. I began by searchin Wikipedia itself for references to the Watchman fellowship and found quite a number of them -- but no web page on the Watchman Fellowship itself. I therefore took i upon myself to write a brief (non-stub) aricle on the Watchman fellowship, for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Because t is my desire not to register at Wikipedia, any pages created by me must be submittd to the approval process. I therefore have no idea whether my Watchman fellowship page will be accepted or rejected. While waiting -- and because it is my belief that this material will e of interest to those who wish to summarily dismiss the citation and source in the Alice ailey Criticism section -- it seems to me to be a good idea to append what i wrote, along with the sources. So here it is:
Watchman Fellowship
The Watchman Fellowship, a self-described "independent, nondenominational Christian research and apologetics ministry" was founded in Columbus, Georgia in 1979 by David Henke. The group's current president is James K. Walker.[6].
The group, which is in part defined by its anti-cult stance, publishes strongly worded and sometimes controversial evangelical positions criticizing various reliigious denominations - particularly Christian and para-Christian organizations and so-called "new religions" -- which it deems heretical or in violation of the basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy with respect to such commonly accepted mainstream Christian doctrines as original sin, the role of Jesus Christ as Messiah, the need for salvation, and the nature of life after death.
The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality by James K. Walker and the Watchman Staff (2007) is the Watchman Fellowship's most ambitious publishing venture to date, comprising 366 pages of encyclopedic entries describing more than 1,000 people and organizations currently active in the New Age, neo-pagan, Christian, and new religion movements. The Fellowship also distrbutes more detaied new religion Profiles on a number of prominent organizations, giving historical overviews of their development and listing how their doctrines differ from those of mainstream Christianity. Through its website, the Fellowship also publishes The Watchman Expositor, featuring topical religious articles by a variety of authors.
Not confining itself to countering he religious organizations that it opposes, the Watchman Fellowship also endorses the work of certain authors as being sympathetic to its aims.
Among the organizations and individuals opposed by the Watchman Fellowship are the Mormons[7] (and specifically the polygamist Warren Jeffs), the Theosophists (and specifically the neo-Theosophical writer Alice Bailey and her publishing company, the Lucis Trust) [8], Scientology, the Seventh Day Adventists, [9], and the publishers of the Clear Word Bible [10].
Amomg those whom the Watchman Fellowship endorses are the anti-cult author Doug Groothius [11] and the Christian author Richard Abanes.
Sources
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Abanes
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_LDS-related_publications
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clear_Word
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_opposing_cults
- http://www.watchman.org/reltop/clearwordbible.htm
- http://www.watchman.org/profile/bailypro. htm
- http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=articles.scientology
In keeping with Renee's request, it will be my intention from this time forward to sign off with 5 tides, so as to show a timestampe but no other identity.
I will now go back to the Alice Bailey page and reinstate the Criticism section, in a slightly revised form. Please do not revert it again without discussion here. You all know now the reasons why it is onotable, and perhaps my write-up of the Watchman Fellowship (which seems to promote a sincere and non-inflammatory form of Chistian orthodoxy, as can best be understood by reading the site's extensive material) will convince you too that because Alice Bailey wrote extensively about the person, role, and goals of Jesus Christ, it is legitimate for orthodox Christians to critique and oppose her views, and it is notable that they continue to do so long after her death.
The sooner this edit war ends, the better off we will all be.
Thank you for reading this. 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel very enthusiasic about the addition. But JamesD1 (as pro_Bailey as it is possible to get) introduced this Morman source ( http://www.watchman.org/profile/bailypro.htm ) into the criticism section of the article. Kwork 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Kwork, the Watchman fellowship is not in any way, shape, manner, or form a "Mormon" group. You have it 180 degrees backwards, actually.
- The group's current president (not the founder, by the way) is an ex-Mormon whose own special mission is to expose the undercover polygamous spin-off groups operating as denominations within the Mormon version of Christianity. His newspaper, the Watchman Expositor, was named after the Nauvoo Expositor, a journal published by disaffected Mormons in 1844 who were alarmed at the LDS's endorsement of polygamy. If anything, the Watchman Fellowship is most closely allied with the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest and most mainstream Baptist denomination in the United States. The link is not official, because the WF is nondenominational, but the endorsements on the group's web site come more from Baptists than from any other Christian denomination. See http://www.watchman.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.comments and http://www.watchman.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.more_comments
- Here is a sample of the anti-Mormon material distributed by the Watchman Fellowship.
- Product: DNA vs. The Book of Mormon
- DVD (English/Spanish/English Subtitles)
- SKU: 0974478741
- The Book of Mormon teaches that Israelites are the main ancestors of modern-day Native Americans. New discoveries in DNA research currently allow scientists to test this historical claim and the results are staggering. DNA Vs. The Book of Mormon presents evidence from DNA researchers, including Mormon scientists, who are wrestling with the DNA dilemma that now faces Mormonism.
- That certainly does not sound far-out or unreliable to me. In fact, it sounds downright interesting!
- 04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Dear 64, thanks for using a time stamp. It helps a lot with your posts. The watchmen group is not a reliable, valid source. It is a self-proclaimed biased source promoting a certain point of view (Christian apologetics, anti-cult, see mission statement [[18]]). They do not have a vetting system for checking facts. They have pastors giving their opinions about any group that is not Christian (including Tibetan Buddhism, the book the Da Vinci Code, and even Oprah).
- Read their site and tell me if you truly believe it is an accurate, balanced portrayal of the groups on it. If this citation was allowed, then you'd have to allow a citation from the opposite perspective by some equally biased pro New Age Group where they could be quoted as saying "Alice Bailey is the most enlightened person ever and everything she wrote is true and anyone who says otherwise is a blooming idiot."
- If you want a balanced article is has to work both ways -- negative and positive.
- Please see: WP:V[[19]], and WP:SPS [[20]] --Renee 03:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- p.s. Linking the name "Lucifer Trust" to "satanism" is original research that even the watchmen group doesn't do. --Renee 03:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Renee. First, as a Jew, my inclination is to be wary of Christian "hate groups". I have read dozens of pages at the Watchman Felloship site today and found them all to be accurate, moderate in tone, and not in any way objectionable. Of couse the authors at the WF site are going to have strong opinions about ttraditional Christian orthodoxy -- their interest is in apologetics, after all -- but they seem quite rational. Their mission is not to tear down other religions so much as to doctrinally clean house within the Christian community. That is why their chief targets of opposition are para-Christian organizations who claim some sort of special dispensation within Christianity.
- The groups they seem to oppose most vocally are certainly not Tibetan Buddhists, as you claim, but rather the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and other 19th and 20th century offshoots from Christianity which they perceive as unorthodox. This is a legitimate and time-honoured form of opposition and it seems to be waged from the heart. Had Alice Bailey not claimed some sort of special and unique knowledge of the nature of Jesus Christ within her writings, the Watchman Fellowship would likely never have turned an eye on her. But she did mke such claims -- and thus they are well within their mission goals when they point out that her doctrine falls away from mainstream Christianity while still claiming a special relationship with Christ.
- As for accuracy, we obviously disagree. I think they do their homework. AND There are others who side with my take on the WF. I found for instance, through a google search, that the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, a very well respected multi-faith goup based in Canada, had commended the WF for their "accurate and balanced" profile of the Wicca religion, stating that "Overall, we feel that the Watchman Fellowship has written one of the most accurate and balanced descriptions of any conservative Christian group on Wicca that we have seen."[12]
- Yes, the WF authors believe the Lucis Trust to be a "dangerous" organization. But, you know what? SO DO I. The Watchman Fellowship is merely analyzing various Christian and para-Christian groups with respect to their scriptural conformity to mainstream Christianity. The Lucis Trust, on the other hand, is endosing, supporting, and justifying a decades-long hate-speech campaign that openly and flagrantly promotes white / Aryan supremacy, antisemitism, anti-Judaism, anti-Zionism, race-based marital proscriptions, and general racial prejudice under the guise of "race as a state of consciousness."
- Who's the bigot here? Not the Watchman Fellowship! The bigot is Alice Bailey, who, although long dead, is still supported by her coterie of propagandistic profiteers, the Lucis Trust.
- Now, as to your latest revision of the Critism section: Day after day you continue to move the Lucis Trust's response to criticisms of Alice Bailey racism and antisemitism to the BOTTOM of the section, where it falls after the very mild Christian and Theosophical critiques, instead of leaving it as it was intended to be, namely, directly after and in response to those charges of racism and antisemitism that have been laid against her. I have been a professional editor for 40 of my 60 years, and what you are doing is so obvious that it seems heartlessly deliberate: by cutting apart the flow of the narrative, you are seeking to confuse and obfuscate the matter of Bailey's racism. Because this is an obvious editorial act of sabotage, it seems likely at this point that you will keep on doing it until someone forces you to stop.
- So, to bring this to a predictable close, i am now going to go back to the page, there to undo your latest attempt at spin-doctoring the section. The Lucis Trust response to charges of Bailey's antisemitism and racism will once again follow directly after those charges, and will not be buried at the end of the section. The Watchman Fellowship will be reinstated, although once more there will be an attempt at compromise on my part, effected this time by a further reduction in the number of words devoted to their charge that Bailey's take on Cristianity is unorthodox and that the Lucis Trust is a "dangerous" organization.
- I ask you to please consider that your work displays exactly the kind of "separtist" mentality that Alice Bailey attributed to the Jews. I ask you to try, at least once, to work for harmony, balance, fairness, and truth. Alice bailey WAS criticised and still is being criticised, and it is legitimate, fair, and verfiable to report on that criticism.
- Note also, before you dismiss the Watchman Fellowship out of hand, that in addition to the Bailey page, the following Wikipedia pages also reference the group, and thus acknowledge it a notable source, and have not fought to have it removed:
- Finally, you say that "Linking the name "Lucifer Trust" to "satanism" is original research" -- well, you missed the point. We at Wikipedia are not to publish our own OR in our articles here, but we are of course encouraged to report on the OR of others that takes place outside of and prior to its description at Wikipedia. For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity was Einstein's OR and of course it is reported at Wiki. Similarly, when the author Doug Groothuis linked the Lucifer Trust name to Satanism, that is his OR, and we at Wiki are encouraged to report on it while not engaging in any OR of our own.
- 04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Renee, you wrote:
Dear 64, thanks for using a time stamp. It helps a lot with your posts. The watchmen group is not a reliable, valid source. It is a self-proclaimed biased source promoting a certain point of view (Christian apologetics, anti-cult, see mission statement 22). They do not have a vetting system for checking facts. They have pastors giving their opinions about any group that is not Christian (including Tibetan Buddhism, the book the Da Vinci Code, and even Oprah).
We have had pretty much the same discussion many times on this talk page. The problem is that, although Bailey seems prominent in the minds of the editors participating here, there are no scholarly studies such as Richard Noll's studies of Carl Jung. I have not been able to find even a scholarly essay about her. That leaves no choice but to refer to sources that would not be acceptable in many other articles. If no one can find sources good enough to satisfy you, the alternative is to concede that she is not notable and nominate the article for deletion. My view is that Wikipedia rules are intended to be flexible enough to allow a variety of sources in a situation such as this. Kwork 15:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify: truly independent secondary sources for Alice Bailey seem non-existent. If an editor of this article knows of such a source, they have so far kept it a secret. (I have just discovered that there may be a little information about Bailey in K. Paul Johnson's study of the Theosophical Society, but I have not yet had time to check.) The sources included by JamesD1 are really all primary sources, because even those not written by Bailey herself are entirely based on Bailey as their only source of information.....in other words they were written by Bailey disciples, and they can not be considered independent studies. Kwork 19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, now I will be in trouble with SqueekBox, who did supply an independent source Monica Sjöö, and which source is now included in the criticism section. If her discussion of Bailey is used as a new foundation to build on, the article will certainly be very different than it is now, based as it is on primary sources only. Kwork 19:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Labeling the group a "dangerous" organization is strongly POV. Because you too view the group as a dangerous organization only proves the point that you are finding quotations to promote a POV. This phrase needs to be deleted. I can live with the rest. --Renee 02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Renee, please don't be ridiculous. I did not "find" the source. For some reason you and others have associated me with this Christian source. I repeat: I did not find that source nor first mention it on Wikipedia. I seem, however, to have been the only one so far to have looked at the site. Kwork an another editor thought it is "Mormon" and others have branded it a "conspracy theory" site. It is neither. It is a mainstream Christian site that, although nondenominational, holds positions fairly similar to positions held by the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest Protestant denominations in the USA.
- And, yes, the words the WF uses to describe the Lucis Trust are "strongly POV" -- and that's why they belong in the article's "criticism" section. Are you ignorant of the concept of a criticism section? Many, many, many Wiki bio pages have cricitism sections. OBVIIOUSLY the critics have a POV and OBVIOUSLY it is ipso facto negative with respect to the subject of the biography.
- Having a criticism section is not unique to Alice Bailey's bio. See the Mircea Eliade bio. See the Papus biography. See the Julius Evola biography. In each case, first the non-neutral criticism is started, then the non-neutral supoortive responses are stated. The point of the Wikipedia NPOV rule is NOT to stifle commentary or criticism. It is to ensure that the article as a whole preserves a neutral point of view and is written in a factual tone, with as few value-laden adjectives as possible, and that if there is a controversy, both sides of the qustion are fairly represented.
- Continually removing legitimate criticism from the page is NOT neutral. Frankly, it seems to me that you and your pro-Bailey cohorts are trying to turn a neutral piece into a big flattery-fest for a Jew-hating racist.
- And, yes, i do have an opinion. The Lucis Trust does seem "dangerous" to me, for the simple reason that as a Jew, and the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, their position is demonstrably contributive to antisemitism and the kind of violent hatred it engenders. In the years following Bailey's death they could easily have recanted her extreme antisemitic positions and apologized -- like the Mormons did when they admitted that the anti-black prejudices in their religion were wrong and would be dropped, like the Pope did when he apologized to the Jews for thousands of years of blaming them for killing Jesus even though the gospels clearly state that the Romans (Italians) actually killed Jesus.
- One would think, hope, and pray that a group as ostensibly spiritual, forward-looking, and peace-loving as the Lucis Trust claims to be could do the right thing, swallow their pride, and try to reach out and make ammends, as the Mormons and the Catholics have done. But they are not doing that. They believe that Bailey's trashing of the Jews and her proscription of interracial marriages and her blathering about "the Negro problem" is timeless, ageless Tibetan wisdom, and so they cling to it, until it stinks and rots like an albatross around their necks.
- Then there is the political issue: The Lucis trust's endorsement of Bailey's proscription of interracial marriages borders on requesting their members to work to reinstate anti-miscegination laws -- hateful laws which people of my mother's and my generations worked very hard -- even under threat of death -- to overthrow so that no one would have to live under the kind of grotesque restrictions that Alice bailey and the Lucis Trust endorse. I believe that the Lucis Trust is politically endorsing marital apartheid and that is, in my opinion, "dangerous."
- The fact that a mainstream Christian organization also calls the Lucis trust "dangerous" is a coincidence -- because the Watchman Fellowship's objections to them are acriptural and my objections to them are political.
- 08:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, I did not think what you added was Mormon. I was pointing out that JamesD1 had added a much more problematic, Mormon, source without anyone (but me) complaining about it. Those editors most concerned about defending the positive image of AAB do not take any of the accusations against her seriously, aside from the antisemitism criticism; as proved by the fact that is the only criticism they have responded to in the article. In my view, the other charges are trivial, and originally added by JamesD1 to dilute the more serious criticism of antisemitism and racism in the criticism section. Kwork 11:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Dear nameless date, Thanks for explaining your (very strong) POV. Please avoid making personal attacks and assumptions. If you went back through the logs you'll notice that as a neutral outside editor I was the one who wrote the lead sentence in the criticism section about race and antisemitism. My only goal is to make the section neutral and putting in words like "claims," "warns," "dangerous" gives undue weight to the negative side. (I would do the same if the words were on the positive side too to make the article neutral.)
- With the two minor word changes I just made to make the section neutral (changed the "Wiki word-to-avoid" claims to writes; changes warns to says), I can live with the criticism section as as.
- --Renee 17:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Renee, if, instead of describing yourself as "a neutral outside editor", you had said something along the lines of 'I am trying to main neutrality in my editing of this article', I would feel more confident in this process. No human is neutral in viewpoint, and you have already stated your positive evaluation of the Alice Bailey books.
- A question: Do you consider an ethical stance on an issue as necessarily being POV? Kwork 11:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Renee, I do not think deleting statements from the talk page, as you did with my statement directly above, is a good idea. Moreover, it is not, as you claimed, a personal attack. There are important distinctions between a criticism (which it was) and a personal attack (which it was not). Kwork 12:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA, "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Also, "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters." Do you wish to escalate matters and keep the personal attacks going, or do you want to focus on content?
As I mentioned above, I think the criticism section reads fairly neutrally. Wiki's goal is getting an article to something all editors can live with, though it may not be what each person personally wants. What do all of the editors think of the Criticism section now? --Renee 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- What I was discussing was not you but an ethical point, as I see it. If you think I am mistaken, the proper thing to do is to explain, rather that delete what you don't like.
- It has occurred to me the "Criticism" section might be better called "Controversies". But, as it is now, it is okay with me.
- There is, however, still an important problem with the biography because it is built on one single, primary source; and it does nothing to establish Alice Bailey's notability. Kwork 14:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I actually like Controversies better than Criticisms too. I think it's more accurate.
- According to what I've read about primary versus secondary sources, it's okay to use primary sources if it's non-controversial and gives basic information. It's when someone starts selectively choosing topics and pulling quotations together to build a case about some particular issue that is not allowed (because it is anlaysis of the literature; i.e., Original research). But, if everyone agrees on her biography, that (presumably) should be fine.
- I'll search Amazon for some books -- there must be something on her. --Renee 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Secondary Source Books
Here are some books available on or about Alice Bailey, written by a third party, through a search of Amazon.com. I'm sure that a university library search would probably reveal even more.
- Esoteric Healing: a Practical Guide Based on the Teachings of the Tibetan in the Works of Alice A. Bailey, by Alan Hopking, 2005, publisher Blue Dolphin Publishing [21]
- A Planetary Awakening: Reflections on the Teachings of the Tibetan in the Works of Alice A. Bailey, by Kathy Newburn, 2007, publisher Blue Dolphin Publishing [22]
- Reference guide to the teachings of D.K. by Alice A. Bailey, by Aart Jurriaanse, 1978, publisher World Unity & Service [23]
- Devotion, idealism, and abstraction: Perspectives on the religious impulse from the work of Alice A. Bailey, by Katherine L. Hendon, 2006, downloadable dissertation from ProQuest Information and Learning [24]
- Prophecy on trial: Dated prophecies from the Djwhal Khul (the Tibetan) to Alice Bailey, transmissions of 1919-1949 (Prophetias trans-Himalayas occidentalis), by James Stephenson, publisher Trans-Himalaya [25]
- Der Osten im Lichte des Westens, Tl.2, Die Lehre von Alice Bailey aus der Sicht der christlichen Esoterik, by Sergej O. Prokofieff, 1997, publisher Verlag am Goetheanum (in German) [26]
- The Initiation of the World, by Vera Stanley Alder, 2000, Publisher Weiser Books [27]
- The Seven Rays Made Visual: An Illustrated Introduction to the Teaching on the Seven Rays, by Helen S. Burmester, 1986, Publisher DeVorss & Company [28]
- Introduction to the Seven Rays, by Kurt Abraham, 1986, Publisher Lampus Press [29]
- Great Souls: The Seven Rays at the Soul Level, by Kurt Abraham, 2002, Publisher Lampus Press [30]
- Psychological Types and the Seven Rays (Volume One), by Kurt B. Abraham, 1983, Publisher Lampus Press [31]
- Threefold Method for Understanding the Seven Rays, by Kurt Abraham, 2003, Publisher Lampus Press [32]
- The Seven Rays Made Visual: An Illustrated Introduction to the Teaching on the Seven Rays, by Helen S. Burmester, 1986, Publisher DeVorss and Co. [33]
- Lost Star of Myth And Time, by Walter Cruttenden, 2005, Publisher St. Lynn's Press [34]
--Renee 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Renee, I am not interested in launching another argument, and I am willing to leave things the way they are now. My understanding is that none of these books can be considered independent studies because they are written by followers of Alice Bailey, and probably should be considered primary, not secondary, sources. What I am thinking of are independent studies such as Richard Noll's studies of Carl Jung. Scholarly studies of that class have not been written about Bailey. I have looked, and if I had found something I would not have kept it a secret. If any of these book are included in the article as secondary sources it is going to launch another argument. Better to just leave things the way they are. Kwork 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh Kwork, you ask for secondary sources and I spend an hour looking for them and providing citations and then you say, no these don't count. Doesn't that seem a bit contrary? Have you read all of these books? Do you personally know all of these people?
- According to the Wiki policy the standard is verifiability. You wanted non-primary sources. These are non-primary sources. There's even a dissertation in there which has to go through an extreme vetting and fact-checking process before it's awarded (university and committee review).
- And, here's another that's an academic sourcebook.
- The encyclopedic sourcebook of New Age religions,edited by James R. Lewis, 2004, Publisher Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books. Prometheus Books is a well-known, bona-fide publisher.
- I think we need to get an outside opinion on this. --Renee 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has gone astray. It was in much better shape a few months ago. Useful links and references have been deleted, and good noncontroversal material was removed. The criticism section has been expanded and the material there selected so as to give a misleading picture of Alice Bailey's writings on the Jews. The links used to support the criticism are weak, as in the link to a talk page. The references and material deleted were better than that which replaced it. I made two relatively minor edit-improvements just now and they were deleted almost immediately with statement I come here and discuss them. There were not controversial things requiring discussion. I added a reference to a book about Alice Bailey and made a few lines in the criticism section more neutral. James 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- James, your cutting of material from the criticism section is not a "minor" thing to do. It is provocative and hurtful to the building of concensus. This page has already been the subject of a request for comments and a request for mediation. If you do not understand what that means or why the reuests were made, you should look these terms up. Guidelines clearly state that discussion should occur in situations where there are contentions. The incivility of reverting the criticism section so as to remove its text or its links is perceived as arrogant, propagandistic, and dishonest. It makes people angry, and it will lead to massive, hateful, and spiteful attacks on the entire page. I have seen this happen again and again at contended pages. A word to the wise should be sufficient. DISCUSS THESE MATTERS FIRST. 09:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.90.34 (talk)
- Dear Nameless date, Remember our goal is a page you can live iwth. It may not be your ideal.
- Words like "claims" push a POV (the give a subtle negative bias, for example, "User:64.142.90.34 claims to be a party animal," see how the word claims casts doubt on the sentence?). I think James edits were solid. Renee --Renee 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Further reading section
User:Fl1942 and User:Kwork [35] have been deleting the Further reading section. I find this quite hypocritical, because Kwork then goes on to claim that there is no literature about Bailey.
- The Alice Bailey Inheritance, by John Sinclair. Turnstone Press
- The Texts of Alice Bailey Witghtman, I.
- Sutcliffe, Steven J., Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, Routledge, 2003
- Foster Bailey: Vom Wandel esoterischer Werte. Lucis Trust, Genf 1990, ISBN 2-88289-071-0.
- Harold Balyoz: Three remarkable women. Altai, Flagstaff 1986, ISBN 0960971017.
- Otto-Albrecht Isbert: Yoga und der Weg des Westens, Der geistige Pfad des modernen Menschen. Günther, Stuttgart 1955.
- Annrose Künzi (Hrsg.): Meditation ist Leben, Gott meditiert, und solange Gott meditiert, bleibt das Universum in Manifestation, Beiträge zum Thema aus den Lehren von Sathya Sai Baba und Alice A. Bailey. Rosenkreis, Oberdorf 2001, ISBN 3-9522528-0-8.
- Annrose Künzi (Hrsg.): Shamballa - Hierarchie - Menschheit, Das grosse Dreieck, Aus den Büchern von Alice A. Bailey und Djwhal Khul. Rosenkreis, Oberdorf 2001, ISBN 3-9521968-7-8.
- Annrose Künzi (Hrsg.): Sathia Say Baba und Jesus, Eine vergleichende Gegenüberstellung von Aussagen des Avatars Sathya Say Baba und des tibetanischen Meisters Djwhal Kul. Rosenkreis, Oberdorf 2004, ISBN 3-9522528-2-4.
- Sergej O. Prokofieff: Der Osten im Lichte des Westens, Teil 2, Die Lehre von Alice Bailey aus der Sicht der christlichen Esoterik. Verlag am Goetheanum, Dornach 1997, ISBN 3-7235-0992-4. --Voidocore 15:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The section below is from Wikipedia Wikipedia:No original research. If you read it, you will see that what you call secondary sources are actually primary sources.
Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
- Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
- Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.
- Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. (Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source.) Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the
encyclopedia is a high quality one.
Kwork 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- These are not primary sources. Primary sources are writings by Alice herself. The only one that could qualify as "primary source" in this further reading section is Foster Bailey, who was the husband of Alice Bailey. A Christian biographer who writes about the Pope after having met him can still write a "secondary source" biography on the Pope.
- It's also not a reason to (again) delete the further reading section. WP:OR is about the article body, not about the literature section. --Voidocore 16:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above mentioned are most certainly not primary sources and some of them are secondary sources.
- Regardless that policy has no application here- this is a further reading section not the article itself, while the policy you quoted has to do with the content of articles. Sethie 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The source is exactly what I gave, and you will find if you follow the link I gave. Those sources put in the article are not independent studies, which is what the article needs to establish notability. Implying that they are what they are not is problematic Kwork 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Kwork however does make a good point- on an English wiki, further reading ought to be English sources. Sethie 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that only works published which examine existing works or practices, or are otherwise not directly connected to the belief system in question, can be considered 'secondary sources'. Depending on your position as to the truth of the underlying hypotheses, most of the above must fall under either "written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations" or "artistic and fictional works". Eaglizard 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
To James
James, I found your edits to be a breath of fresh air. The reference you provided was a welcome addition. Also, I like how you neutralized the language. Kwork, please note that "claim" is a Wiki-word-to-avoid because it advances a POV.[36] Also, we must be fair in our tone.[37]
Thanks again James for your work on this. --Renee 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hello all; and thanks. I just added some external links that were part of the article some months ago but were deleted. Also corrected the statement in the criticism about Bailey's meaning of "race" as "consciousness" which is as stated in the link referenced. But, strangely, all the rest of old line about what race was not, e.g. "nothing to do with biology" and a few other things were simply not stated in the Lucis article at all. There is no reference to biology or the other keywords inserted in the criticism. Did not look to see who added this but whoever did so "put words into the mouth" of the Lucis article that simply were not there.^p
- Also, I think its not correct form to add lots of links to other Wikipedia articles unless they are in some way truly related to or illuminating of the biography we're working on here. So, for instance, the word "biology" was done as a link with brackets, i.e. "Biology" as a general head is not relevant to the biography. There are many more such which I will clean up; only those should be there which are primary and relevant. So, for instance Neo-Theosophy is relevant but "England" is not. This is common sense. Lots of irrelevant links have the effect of sabotaging the natural flow of thought in any text. It's like adding an irrelevant footnote to every other line of a book. You see here I did not put "Biology" in double brackets here because were are talking about this article and not introducing each other to biology as a general subject. James 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks James. Have you read any of the books above? I searched our university library for the dissertation but couldn't get my hands on a hard copy. Thanks, Renee --Renee 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do not know who first added the bits about biology, etc. but it was my work that linked those words to their various Wikipedia pages. This is specifically according to Wiipedia policy -- a word that can be defined by reference to a Wikipedia article may be thus linked to provide a definition for the ease of the reader's comprehension. Bailey dealt with the subject of race and this subject has had various definitions, one of which does include biology, so to a reader unfamiliar with either of those concepts, the definitions of those terms would be vital to an understanding of Bailey's text. Generally when a word is linked to a definition or primary entry page on its subject, the link is only made on first usage within each section. Your objection -- that the link must have relevance to the article -- makes no sense to me. because every definition of a word has ipso facto relevance. This is what the web, hyper-text, and wiki markups are all about. Removing the linking function -- or removing the links themselves -- destroys the reason for the web. Think about it: the very word web refers to interlinkage. 09:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
On Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:12 am, on an Alice Bailey e-forum [38], Plillip Lindsay, a prominent exponent of the Alice Bailey teaching [39] posted this message:
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. There is also another link http://www.nonduality.com/alice.htm which purports to be a balanced perspective but is far from it.
Phillip
Not long after that message SqueekBox arrived as an editor of this article for the first time and removed the criticism section of the article. He said it was unsourced. In fact (although it did need reworking) it was, at that time, the only section of the article that had any sourcing.
Later JamesD1 arrived and started editing the article. JamesD1 has three of his own articles on Lindsay's site, and he sells Lindsays's books on the site for his own business as a bookseller.
This is only a brief outline. I will fill it out wit more information, such as JamesD1 linking the article to his own business site, later when I have more time. Kwork 12:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
JamesD1 already made that known when he linked the article to his own website. He put that on, I deleted it. He also gave out his e-mail address to another editor he tried to recruit to his own purpose. If he objected to that he should not have done what he did. He is the one who did what is wrong. If you want to try to get me banned, and I am sure you do, there is no stopping you from trying. Kwork 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yikes, indeed, Renee. This is what is known in the fields of journalism and criminology as "a smoking gun" -- the perpetrators of this meatpuppet scam on Wikipedia are caught in the act of inciting conspiracy to swarm onto Wikipedia for the purpose of collusion in remving criticisms of Alice Bailey as a racist and antisemite. The fact that the conspiracy-initiating post came in reply to a post titled "The present Jews are residue of previous solar system" adds a real urgency to my desire to see these posters banned. Just in case the posters of this material take it down from its original place, it should be noted that the appeal by Phillip Lindsay for meatpuppets to come to the Wikipedia page on Alice Bailey to help altering it by removing references to criticism of her antisemitism and racism, can be found in the following two messages to the Yahoo group called EsotericWisdomTeachings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EsotericWisdomTeachings/messages -- retrieved August 21st, 2007 per the link provided above by Kwork. The Yahoo summaries of these messages -- readable by the public -- are as follows.
- [message#] 71 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... Zach
- zachrymill
- Feb 21, 2007 2:05 am
- [message#] 72 Re: The present Jews are residue of previous solar system
- 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 not... phillip@...
- Feb 21, 2007 12:16 pm
- Thank you, Kwork, for finding the smoking gun. This issue now has escalated in importance far beyond the question of NPOV reportage. I feel that the antisemitic supporters of Alice Bailey have exposed their agenda fully and can now be combatted with full knowledge of their agnda.
- 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I get the impression from Kwork's messages here that he is planning to summarize the situation and is dealing with it through a request for mediation rather than a report of suspected sock-puppetry or an "incident" report. At this point, we are seeing multiple entities doing multiply unfriendly things, including deletions of talk page discussions, conspiratorial incitement of meatpuppets outside Wikipedia to alter the page, removal of Wiki links to definition pages of terms used in the article, daily reversions and blank-outs which have repeatedly resulted in incomplete sentences and messed up grammar, improper accusations of POV and OR as excuses for deletion of relevant sources, accusations that editors are linking in to their own sites (such an accusation was falsely made against me, and has been made against James as well), and many other messy and non Wikipedian activities. I think that at this point it would take someone 6 - 8 hours to document all of the improprieties and incivilities that have happened or for which people are being held to blame. I wish Kwork good luck in getting this matter before the mediators or administrators.
- Also, because it now appears that at least some of the edits to the Criticism section have been done in BAD faith -- and evidence of that bad faith has been uncovered in the Yahoo group messages cited above -- it seemed to be a good time to add some more specific criticisms of Alice Bailey's writings to the Criticism page -- namely the utterly unassailable evidence presented by Rabbi Gershom that Bailey made a false statement about Judaism when she said that it was a religion that lacks a term for love of others. As Gershom pointed out, the Book of Leviticus, a portion of Jewish scripture, specifically does advocate love of one's neighbors.
- I added this in because, unlike the more theoretical and context-laden texts of Bailey's that deal with "the Jewish race" and "the Jewish problem" and "Zionist dictators" and the Jews as "residues of a former solar system," this text is both factually wrong and it is used to support the antisemitic theories that follow it.
- 01:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a talk page, not a discussion board
This talk page is getting out of hand.
Any comments and posts not directly related to creating an article will be removed.
This includes speculation about who is in cahoots with who, ofline conspiracy, etc.
If anyone believes there is such a conspiracy, I support you in reporting it, I am happy to point you towards where to report it. WP:COI is the place to begin.
This talk page is not. Sethie 02:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well said. --Renee 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sethie, your heading, "This is a talk page, not a discussion board" makes no sense. This is indeed a discussion board (see tab at top of page -- "Discussion"). It is known in Wiki code as the "talk" page. The terms are used interchangeably at Wikipdia.
- You have previously deleted discussions from this page and they have been reinserted. You have also previously been asked to not delete relevant discussions.
- Pease do not continue to threaten to punitively delete discussions that bear directly on the editing of the Alice Bailey page. Such threats are unfriendly and incivil. They do not help the situation but only escalate it to new levels of polarization and hostility.
- Renee, it is unfortunate that you support Sethie in his threats to unilaterally delete discussions about the editing of the page. Punitive deletions of this type are not the way to resolve matters. For one thing, such punitive deletions always fail because anyone can access the discussion page history, grab the deleted portions and reinsert them. For another, punitive deletions are so inimical to the Wikipedia discussion process that the repeatd use of this tactic may result in Sethie getting blocked from further participation in Wikipedia.
- I suggest that both of you take a step back ad re-evaluate your threats and your advocacy of threats of punitive unilateral deletions to the Alice Bailey talk page. Time has shown that your stance is incompatible with civil discussion and the building of consensus.
- The situation here is alarming, no doubt about it. But the way past this difficulty is not to threaten your fellow Wikipedians with removal of editorial discussions; rather the way forward is to assess how what appears now to be a clear case of meatpuppetry may have previously affected the editing history of the Alice Bailey page with respect to charges that Alice Bailey's writings were antisemitic -- and to move forward with the re-editing of the page iteself, in good faith.
10:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA, "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." --Renee 10:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the Alice Bailey article is a part of WikiProject Biography, I would like someone from there to take part in this RfC. I just left a message for one of the administrators of that WikiProject, but do not know if that is the procedure to get such help. This article is a complete mess, and things continue to spin out of control. To me it appears that Renee was recruited by Sethie for this RfC, and I have seen little reason to think she is neutral. I hope someone else could see this whole problem case with better perspective and help resolve the problems. Kwork 11:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Kwork, Is it possible that neutral editors interested in "Religion and Philosophy" could peruse the RFCs for those pages and then give feedback? Maybe that's why you see some editors on similar pages? Just a thought.
- If you post an RFC and get similar feedback from neutral editors, then is it possible that their points are valid and maybe the text needs adjustment? I think it's a great idea to post another RFC. --Renee 13:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Renee, you greeted JamesD1 (who is almost certainly a single purpose meatpuppet) when he made undiscused changes to the article, as "a breath of fresh air". It is insulting for you to imply that it takes someone paranoid to question the neutrality of that. One goal of meatpuppets is to make it look (falsely) as though there is an overwhelming majority view among the editors of an article.
On the other hand, if someone I trust as truly neutral (not you) tells me that what I am trying to accomplish in my editing of this article is mistaken or problematic, then I will stop. Kwork 13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Archiving
You may wish to consider starting a talkpage archive for this article. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- If there are no objections I'll do this later today. Feedback welcome. Renee --Renee 11:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Archived everything through July, as apparently the current kerfluffle starts then. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- ^ http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/OMM.GB/WomenWriters/AliceBailey/Problem/prob1047.html
- ^ http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/OMM.GB/WomenWriters/AliceBailey/Problem/prob1047.html
- ^ http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/na_jews.html#na%20views
- ^ http://www.pinenet.com/rooster/bailey.html
- ^ http://www.monicasjoo.org/artic/channelbrief/sinisterchannelings1.htm
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Abanes
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_LDS-related_publications
- ^ http://www.watchman.org/profile/bailypro. htm
- ^ http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=articles.scientology
- ^ http://www.watchman.org/reltop/clearwordbible.htm
- ^ http://www.watchman.org/profile/bailypro. htm
- ^ http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrw_pos.htm