Talk:Alice Bailey/Archive 3

message: Eaglizard and Renee -- 
Renee wrote above that the Controversies section was "unbalanced." I presume that this is because it contains no rebuttal. In the past, we have had the Lucis Trust rebuttal, but to me it seems a weak paragraph, due in large part to the Conflict of Interest in having a publishing house defending a dead author. 
Would you be amenable to the following paragraph addition as a way to balance the Controversies section? It uses a part of Eaglizard's proposal, greatly condensed, and relies on Bailey's own quotations. 
Please note, however, that because, this is the Controversies section, we are not going to be able to demolish the controversy. This added paragraph is simply intended to help present the section more neutrally, while also helping its readability and flow. 
 Proposed added rebuttal paragraph in Controversies section. Please do not interlineate responses within this proposal; please reply after it. Thanks.
-----
:::Controversies (proposed revision, per Eaglizard's concerns) 
:::Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism, as well as non-conformity to orthodox belief systems. 
:::Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, likened Bailey's cosmology to that of the Italian fascist and occultist Julius Evola and wrote that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey and her followers. "Russian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism", Victor A. Shnirelman in "Acta no. 13, Analysis of current trends in antisemitism," published by The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998] Retrieved 2007-08-22
:::Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement.""The Racist Legacy of Alice Bailey", Monica Sjöö, published in "From the Flames- Radical feminism with Spirit" - issue 22 - winter 98/99. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
:::Although Bailey never responded directly to charges of antisemitism, in "Problems of Humanity" (1947), she did speak out against "cruelty, torture and wholesale murder," saying that "the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history [...] and right thinking people everywhere are [...] demanding that these persecutions end." As an alternative, she proposed that Jews assimilate into Christian culture, because "the Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage; that of the Negro will not." (Esoteric Healing,1949, p. 263 et. seq.)  
:::The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," replied to Bailey's plan for a New World Order by saying that her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself.""Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings", Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, 1997, revised 2005. Retrieved 2007-08-22. 
:::Bailey's works are also criticised by some Christian groups. In his book Unmasking the New Age, the Christian writer Douglas Groothuis said Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" and was later changed due to controversy.Groothuis, Douglas. Unmasking the New Age. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986; p. 120."Alice Bailey Profile", Reba Parker and Timothy Oliver, 1996, The Watchman Expositor, Watchman Fellowship. Retrieved 2007-08-22. The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship says although her texts dealt extensively with the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are actually contrary to orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.
:::Bailey's books are criticized by Theosophists who consider her writings as borrowed from Theosophy yet including perspectives that were not part of the original teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky."Theosophy's Shadow (A Critical Look at the Claims and Teachings of Alice A. Bailey)", by Nicholas Weeks. Revised and expanded version of article that appeared in the Summer 1997 issue
of Fohat, Edmonton Theosophical Society. Online at the Blavatsky Study Center. Retrieved 2007-08-22."A Comparison Between H. P. Blavatsky & Alice Bailey", from Protogonus, Spring 1989, by Alice Leighton Cleather and Basil Crump. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
-----
This additional paragraph makes the Controversies section longer, but it also has the good result of placing Gershom's opinion in context, as his essay was intended as a series of rebuttals to Bailey's texts and not as a stand-alone thesis. 
Comments welcomed. 
NOTE: I will not make this change to the page without prior wide agreement here on the talk page.
Nameless Date Stamp 19:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting approach, I'm not unhappy with the one condensed quote. However, I am not aware of Bailey ever proposing that Jews "assimilate" into Christian culture; the implication is subtle, yet damning. Unless you can support that with a cite. Eaglizard 03:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Renee and Eaglizard re: Balance" in Controversies section 

message: The criticism section contains, if you have not deleted it again, the following quotation from her autobiography:
“The Jewish problem has seemed to me well nigh insoluble. I, at this time see no way out, except through the slow process of evolution and a planned educational campaign. I have no anti-Jewish feeling; some of my most beloved friends such as Dr. Assagioli, Regina Keller and Victor Fox I love devotedly, and they know it. There are few people in the world as close to me as they are, and I depend upon them for counsel and understanding and they do not fail me. I have been officially on Hitler's "blacklist" because of my defense of the Jews whilst lecturing up and down western Europe. In spite, however, of knowing full well the wonderful qualities of the Jew, his contribution to western culture and learning and his wonderful assets and gifts along the line of the creative arts I still fail to see any immediate solution of their crucial and appalling problem.” (Unfinished Biography pp118-9)
 
Note that the article does not say she was on the black list.  It quotes her saying she was--an important distinction.  The quote does not make a claim that needs justification.  
In the same way, the article does not say she was antisemitic but quotes people who said she was. Both are facts that we are simply reporting here.  I can not justly remove the the critical quotes and likewise, you should not remove what she wrote on this topic. James 01:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to Kwork on the Black List Quote

message: Here is an archived copy of what James attempted to put into the Controversies section. 
* 1) It is biased and pushes his pro-Bailey POV. 
* 2) The convoluted and tense-lost lead sentence is a proleptic apologia for a controversy he does not even name until the 2nd sentence. 
* 3) His uncited and unsourced opinions, like: 
: "Suggestions of overt antisemitism seem at odds with some statements in her books" 
are OR and thus violate WP:NOR guidelines. 
As promised, my sad task for tonight is to revert that section to the way it was for the past day, in the hope that next time James will ask for and LISTEN TO -- opinions, as others here have done, rather than assuming he can control all content relating to controversies that surround Alice Bailey and her teachings. 
-----
Controversies {by James, August 31st, 2007; reverted by Nameless Date Satmp)
Writing during the first half of the Twentieth century, Bailey (like some contemporaries) commented extensively on what was then viewed as "The Jewish Problem". Many critics have considered her comments overtly racist and antisemitic. In addition, references to orthodox belief systems such as Christianity or Bhuddism (couched in their adopted terminology) have been criticized for non-conformity to those system's established doctrines.
Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, wrote that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey and her followers.[8] He also likened Bailey's cosmology to that of the Italian fascist and occultist Julius Evola.
Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," wrote of Bailey's plan for a New World Order, saying her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[9] Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, also wrote of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[10]
Suggestions of overt antisemitism seem at odds with some statements in her books; for instance, in Problems of Humanity (1947) she writes
The fate of the Jews in the world war is a terrible tale of cruelty, torture and wholesale murder and the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history. For it there is no excuse or condonation, and right thinking people everywhere are aware of this and are eagerly demanding that these persecutions end. (italics Bailey's)
Bailey herself addressed this issue later in life:
“The Jewish problem has seemed to me well nigh insoluble. I, at this time see no way out, except through the slow process of evolution and a planned educational campaign. I have no anti-Jewish feeling; some of my most beloved friends such as Dr. Assagioli, Regina Keller and Victor Fox I love devotedly, and they know it. There are few people in the world as close to me as they are, and I depend upon them for counsel and understanding and they do not fail me. I have been officially on Hitler's 'blacklist' because of my defense of the Jews whilst lecturing up and down western Europe. In spite, however, of knowing full well the wonderful qualities of the Jew, his contribution to western culture and learning and his wonderful assets and gifts along the line of the creative arts I still fail to see any immediate solution of their crucial and appalling problem.” (Unfinished Biography pp118-9)
In addition, it has been noted that her books call for the gradual elimination of all extant world religions, considering them "outmoded" presentations of the truth, to be replaced with a new "World Religion" -- Judaism is not singled out in this regard.
Bailey's works are also criticized by some Christian groups. For instance, Lucis Trust was originally incorporated as "Lucifer Trust" -- in his book Unmasking the New Age, Christian writer Douglas Groothuis states the name change was due to "controversy".[11][12] (In Bailey's termanology, "Lucifer" symbolizes Self-consciousness, the Son of the Morning and The Prodigal Son.) The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship notes that, although her texts deal extensively with the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are actually contrary to much of orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.[12]
Additionally, her books have been criticized by other Theosophists, who consider her writings as borrowed from Theosophy yet including perspectives that were not part of the original teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.[13][14]
-----
Nameless Date Stamp 03:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Aarchived version of what James wrote 

message: Now! That's an order! lol
Sorry; as it gets closer to my birthday, my 1st ray will always starts to assert itself. :) (Btw, if you're at all interested in my odd username, consider the signs coming up in the next few months. <smile>)
So, seriously. The tone is once again getting out of hand, and I think everybody needs to relax a little. Nameless, you in particular. Your last comments to James are blatant personal attacks (and they kinda pissed me off, btw). Please stop. Discuss the edits, not the editor, I always say -- but I don't think you quite grasp the difference. And I'm finished breaking my own policy, now.
I have a few notes regarding this talk page. I'm going to archive it tonite or tomorrow, using the 'move method'. I'll pick an appropriate point far enough back that we don't lose the current discussion (pointless as I think it is, I realize others are attached to it). Any problems with that? And, as far as the two (2!) active RfC's on this page: I think the older one should definitely be de-listed, and the newer one doesn't seem to have garnered much movement either.
Now. On a final note. The page Julius Evola has been held up as an example. After thinking about it for a week or so, I completely agree. Would everyone please take a good, close look at that article, right now? It's structure is very illustrative in regards to our current "impasse". Thanks so much. Eaglizard 05:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone have a nice hot bath! 

message: The controversies section is changing so much it is making my head spin. I am going to weigh in now and say that in principle I am an inclusionist when it comes to Wikipedia . Once again it seems to me as if there is a resistance to allowing anything more than a brief mention of the fact there are controversies. If it were just me I would probably just allow this and move on but it isn't just me so I intend to back the idea of inclusion until this matter is resolved. I say this because I believe that this dispute may windup going all the way to arbitration. I am assuming good faith on the part of everyone.
I think that arbitration may become necessary because neutrality is sometimes almost impossible to achieve in cases such as these. 
I don't see any blatant personal attacks taking place but I do think that blaming someone for their edits is undiplomatic and that diplomacy and civility often work hand in hand. Addressing the edits instead of the editor helps keep the lid on things.....Albion moonlight 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Albion moonlight. This has been going on too long without getting closer to resolution. Proceeding to arbitration now seems advisable, because it is clear that compromise over the controversies section is out of reach. What needs to be done to initiate the arbitration process? Kwork 11:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The controversies section 

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

message: It occurs to that it may not be incorrect to give the critics of Bailey some leeway, as has already been done.  In allowing them the space, we are being inclusive, and if not following the letter of Wiki standards, perhaps at least something of the spirit of it.  
Alice Bailey was certainly "politically incorrect" by modern standards, or if you like, she/he "pulled no punches."  I fear though, that because of the tragic history of the Jewish people, many defenders of the faith are over-the-top in their vigilance to ensure that no critic of Jewish people goes unpunished.  Critics of the Jewish people and their history, are indiscriminately thrown into the same category as those misguided souls who really are antisemitic.  IMHO, the anti-defamation league in this forum would do more for themselves if they would turn their energies to building up a true picture of all that is good and creative about their culture and less time defending it against real or imagined attacks.  (In political debates, one of the tactics commonly used is get your opponent on the defensive so they have less time to present the good side of who they are and what they will do.)
Science and philosophy speak about races, and I suppose some of this creates a sense of the vast sweep of evolution that helps take our eyes off our small personal sphere with its provincial concerns.  And a large history and cosmological writings may serve to give some perspective.
On the other hand, talk of the evolution of races, with its implications of more and less advanced types, can be hard to digest.  Personally, I like to think toward the more subtle meaning of types.  But, in people's minds, race is virtually synonymous with body.  And while there is clearly a bodily aspect, it is the idea of race as consciousness and race as culture that is of real value.  The modern trend of adopting the image of a rainbow is instructive.  
Differences, diversity, variations of body, type, culture, heritage, they are all OK in their evolving expressions.  Differences are inherent in forms, in manifestation, and   theses divisions are useful for understanding the phenomenal world.  Yet, emphasis on differences creates divisions, feeds egotism and discord between individuals and various subsets of the one humanity.  A wrong sense of race feeds the separative sense of them and us.  Groups war and fight based on narrow and ignorant identifications.  Thus is mapped the egotism of history and the stupidity of bodily identifications.   The only salvation is perseverance in the primary identification with humanity. James 15:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Affirmative Action for the Jewish People, AAB & Related Thoughts

message: Voidcore, your "disallowance" of the the Gershom and Sjoo articles is a serious matter and i hope you will reconsider. Here's why:
The request to mention Alice Bailey's antiemitism came from an anonymous Wikipedia reader, posting on the Talk page (you can see it in the archives). Thus its inclusion here was not driven by ideology. I happened to see the request, while creating the new category "Occult writers", and within 3 minutes (see the logs) i had pulled in, via a google search, some quotations supporting the reader's request for a mention. 
These quotes were ostensibly made by Bailey. They were presented online by one David Green as prima facie evidence that she was racist and antisemitic. 
Later, some supporters of Bailey claimed that no Bailey quotes could be used as evidence, and that only citations by third parties could be used as evidence of her racism and antisemitism. 
Thus began the hunt for statements by authors who accused her of racism and antisemitism. 
Meanwhile, it turned out that the quotes attributed to her by David Green had been cobbled together and were not a word-for-word transcription. 
To counter this, Kwork then came up with a zillion more (and in some cases more flagrantly) racist and antisemitic quotes from her text, all of them vetted for strict accuracy. 
The Bailey advocates then countered by adding zillions of counterquotes, including her statement that some of her best friends were Jewish. 
Then they took ALL the quotes, both pro and con, down, saying the section was  "too long." 
They also added a very interesting rebuttal from the Lucis Trust, in which it was admitted that Bailey's writings "singled out" Jews for criticsm and were "anti-Zionist." 
A list of articles accusing her of antisemitism and racism was eventually  submitted. All but three of these were rejected as too amateur. The ones considered acceptable, after long debate, were Gershom (a publishd author with prior published expertise in antisemitism, notable at Wikipedia, and writing an essay on his own eweb site), Sjoo, a published author whose web site contained a condensed version of a printed book she had published), and Shnirelman (a professor, riting in a journal published by Hebrew University). 
It then turned out that, alas for the Rabbi, he had taken as one of his sources the same cobbled-together and inaccurate David Green quotes that had earlier been used on the page. This portion of his writing was then removed. 
As part of the next stage of consensus, all of the Bailey quotes (the accurate ones) proscribing racial intermarriage, calling Jews bad names, and blaming Jews for the Holocaust were removed. Only the three one-sentence charges of racism and antisemitism remained. 
Then the Lucis Trust's stantement, with its refreshingly frank and somewhat damning admissions, was deleted.
With the Lucis Trust rebuttal gone, another rebuttal paragraph was created on Bailey's behalf, to counter the charges. It was allowed to use qotes from Bailey, but was accurately said to be evidence of "ambiguity" in her "expressions", and to not be exculpatory. 
 
Then another Bailey supporter wrote a new lead sentence in shich he falsely claimed that her critics had only accused her of expressing "strongly" her opinions on "The Jewish Problem" and not of being antisemitic or racist. 
A google search turns up 
*2,410 pages for the keywords <"Alice Bailey" antisemitic>, 
*...668 pages for <"Alice Bailey" racist>, 
*...550 pages for <"Alice Bailey" antisemite>, and 
*...330 pages for <"Alice Bailey" "Jewish Problem"> 
yet he chose to lead with -- you guessed it -- "Writing during the first half of the Twentieth century, Bailey (like some contemporaries) commented extensively on what was then viewed as 'The Jewish Problem'." 
Where i come from, this is called "burying the lead". See "Burying the Lead: Democracy Denied by Jim Naureckas, 2001. : "In journalism, it's called 'burying the lead': A story starts off with what everyone already knows, while the real news -- the most surprising, significant or never-been-told-before information -- gets pushed down where people are less likely to see it." 
This rewrite, with its buried lead, barely mentioned charges of antisemitism and avoided all mention of her general racism, her anti-Zionism (remember, she called Zionism a "triangle of terror" run by "Zionist dictators" whose actions have made "Palestine [...] no longer a Holy Land"), made no mention of her proscription of racial intermarriage, and passed over in silence her repeated name-calling against Jews as a religion and as a race ("greedy," "selfish," etc.)
Now you come into the picture and you want to remove two of the threee sources cited on the topic of her general racism as well as her antisemitism (along with a Christian source that accuses her of claiming a special knowledge of Jesus that falls outside of orthodox and traditional Christainity). 
If you remove those sources at the same time that the other Bailey supporters refuse to allow prima facie quotations by her on the topic of race (as they have done before, repeatedly), and if the weaselly lead sentence is retained -- then how exactly will Wikipedia be serving the reader who asked us to report on her anti-semitism?
This is a sincere question. Please reply. 
For my part, i do believe that we have a duty to our readers. That duty is to write a biography and to report on her post-mortem notability. It is not our duty to protect Alice Bailey's reputation from her own self-revealing beliefs.  
Catherineyronwode 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Voidcore 

message: In the version of the Controversies section currently online as i write, Eaglizard has removed all quotes by Bailey in which she called Jews "greedy" or called for an end to Orthodox Judaism. In their place, he has inserted what looks on the surface like an ameliorative defense from Bailey, a friendly assurance that she is not a racist. The dear woman claims, "I have no anti-Jewish feeling; some of my most beloved friends such as Dr. Assagioli, Regina Keller and Victor Fox I love devotedly, and they know it." 
This form of rebutting a charge of antisemitism may sound sincere to modern ears, especially to the tender ears of non-Jews who are so young that they haven't heard it before, but in truth, from the 1930s through the present day, the "some of my best friends are..." defense has been openly understood as really no defense at all. Most hardened old Jews like Kwork and myself have hard it often and know it well as a disingenuous ploy that means the opposite of what it says. 
So here's a little bit of education, to bring the younguns up to speed. 
A google search on the exact phrase "some of my best friends are Jews" returns 2,520 pages. 
A google search on the exact phrase "some of my best friends are Jewish" returns 1,430 pages
A google search on the exact phrase "some of my best friends are black" returns 10,900 pages. 
Thus we have evidence that the "some of my best friends are [X]" locution is a well-known idiomatic phrase -- and, like all idiomatic phrases, it can be expectd to have a meaning unique to itself that is greater than -- and different from -- the sum of its parsed words. 
But what does it mean? And, more importantly, what did it mean during the decades that Bailey wrote her version of it? 
George A. Thompson, writing on the American Dialect Society's listserv in 2000, explained that during the decades of the 1930s through 1940s, when Bailey used the phrase, the "some of my best friends are Jews" defense against charges of antisemitism (and its parellel construction, then given as "some of my best friends are colored") were "offered as the standard marker of a speaker who was at least marginally prejudiced." 
Said Thompson, "Robert Gessner [...] published a book with this title ["Some of My Best Friends are Jews"] in 1936 [and] its subject is anti-semitism in Europe of the time. " 
That's right, the phrase "some of my best friends are Jews" was so closely identified with antisemitic ideation that "Some of My Best Friends are Jews" was actually the title of a book about antisemitism! 
Fred R. Shapiro, Associate Librarian for Public Services and Lecturer in Legal Research at Yale Law School and Coeditor (with Jane Garry) of "Trial and Error: An Oxford Anthology of Legal Stories" (Oxford University Press, 1998) helped out with another contemporary citation -- a journal article in which the "some of my best friends are Jews" gambit was said to form part of the rhetorical arsenal of "the professional anti-Semite":
 
:"1936 _Economic Journal_ 46: 711  The initial declaration ... appears to play the same role as the professional anti-Semite's prefatory announement that some of his best friends are Jews."
Yes, folks, the defense Bailey offered -- that some of her best friends were Jews -- was AT THAT TIME a known "marker" of being "prejudiced" and a rhetorical gambit attributed by a contemporary economic journal author to "the professional anti-Semite." The phrase was so closely identified with antisemitic prejudice that a book with that title had already been published that dealt with the subject of antisemitism in Europe. 
Now look again at what she wrote: "I have no anti-Jewish feeling; some of my most beloved friends such as Dr. Assagioli, Regina Keller and Victor Fox I love devotedly, and they know it." 
See? 
A "professional antisemite." NAILED. 
Catherineyronwode 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: "Some of my best friends are Jewish"

message: jpgordon, I hope you have time to weigh in on this latests:
Kwork elected to delete most of the links I added to the "Influence" section yesterday.  The items I added, prior to deletions were as follows:
"Alice Bailey's influence in many groups currently disseminating her teachings.  Some of these, who have an active presence on the web include:
*Centre for Esoteric Studies
*Meditation Mount
*Moscow Service of Goodwill
*World Unity and Service
*The Seven Ray Institute
*School of Ageless Wisdom
*New Group of World Servers
*Arcana Workshops
*Auckland Goodwill Unit of Service
*Esoteric Center Copenhagen
* Sydney Goodwill
* Torkom Saraydarian University 
After his deletions, the list reads:
*Meditation Mount
*World Unity and Service
*The Seven Ray Institute
*Arcana Workshops
*Esoteric Center Copenhagen
One or two of his edits seem justified, but it looks to me as if he has zealously over done it.  For instance, the link to New Group of World Servers was deleted.  Bailey founded the whole concept and movement of the "New Group of World Servers"  (search the phrase in in books to see).  Apparently Kwork decided that, since there was not a flag on the main page that said "This site is an Alice Bailey site" then the link should be deleted.  Anyone who knows her work can see this is an AAB site, and if you click on the "Plug in" link at lower right you get a list of sites doing AAB full Moon work.
Kwork deleted the Centre for Esoteric Studies with saying "removed link that says nothing about Alice."   This editor is not reading before deleting or else is not sufficiently acquainted with the AAB writings to tell if a site is or is not based on her work.  The "about" section of this site clearly states, "The Centre is a non-profit educational organization that fosters a deeper spiritual understanding, and its application to everyday life. Established in 1989, the Centre combines traditional Eastern and Western thought with the teachings of Alice A. Bailey." 
About the Russian site, I should have given the English version which is   However, Kowork deleted the link saying "removed Russan language link that only contains a link back to the Lucis Trust)"   I don't know if Kwork reads Russian, but the statement by him is simply not true as anyone can see by reading the English portions of the site, including page one of the site which states:
"As a regional group of servers we promote the implementation of projects by The World Goodwill, an international educational organization accredited at the UN, which works to establish the right human relations between races, confession, nations, and classes through goodwill. Our activities, as well as those of the World Goodwill, are financed exclusively from contributions. Our group helps distribute the World Goodwill bulletins and the humanistic teachings of the coming Aquarian Era."
Note to Kwork:  It's just a suggestion, but it seems to me that it would be more helpful to the article if you contributed to it instead of just deleting and reverting other peoples work.  Of course, when I suggest contribution I'm thinking of something beyond the perpetual theme of the Jews which has obsessed this forum.  Really, perhaps you might try helping us build. Cleaning, cutting, and deleting may not be your forte.  James 15:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Link's in the Influence Section

message: Kwork, I've tried for a long time to dialog with you and now see that it is useless and produces nothing good.  I'm done with the defensive posture.  This is my last message addressed to you.  I wish you well.  James 20:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Baruch HaShem Kwork 22:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goodbye to Kwork

message: Renee, 
You said you think the quotes are "useful because they show the context within which Bailey is writing." But that "contextual" reading of her works is not our business here. I think that the lengthy quotes are wasting our time and posing a roadblock to our getting an agreement on the content of the page. 
* You and James might find it valuableh to compare her various passages to determine the breadth of her self-contraditictions, or place her writings in historical-political context, or compare and contrast her works with the writings of her contemporaries -- but that would be OR. What we are here to do is to write an encyclopedia article in which we mention salient biographical points, describe her literary output, and summarize the reactions, pro and con, that others have had to her and to her works. The "Influence" secion details the positive value that later commentators have placed on her and her works. The "Controversies" documents the negative value that commentators have placed on her life and her works. 
*The error in calling the Satan reference OR is that GROOTHUIS said it. No editor at Wikipedia made that up. You can say he's wrong, say he's foolish -- say whatever you want, but this section is about controversies surrounding Alice Bailey (the person and the writings), and because Groothuis engenderd controversy when he wrote that, it is our duty to report on the controvrsy.
 
*The same goes for the Evola reference. Shnirelman called the ideas of these near-contemporary thinkers and writers "similar." No Wikipedia editor made that up. Shnirelman is a professor of ethnography and anthropology; he was researching Neopaganism, New Ageism, and antisemitism, and he compared Bailey to Evola and, controversially, called them "similar." We are not engaging in OR to report on that controversy. 
Sometimes i get the impression that the Bailey supporters here would like the controversy to go away by censoring Bailey's critics off the page, but the truth is, the controversy will not go away. It pre-existed the creation of the Wikipedia Bailey page and it goes on outside the realm of Wikipedia. As i reported earlier, there are thousands of pages indexed by google that refer to this issue. Obviously it is a topic of some interest. As i pointed out yesterday or the day before:
A google search turns up
    * 2,410 pages for <"Alice Bailey" antisemitic>,
    * ...668 pages for <"Alice Bailey" racist>,
    * ...550 pages for <"Alice Bailey" antisemite>, and
    * ...330 pages for <"Alice Bailey" "Jewish Problem">
So folks are talking about the issue. Our role now, is not to fight each other about whether or not she was or was not racist and antisemitic, but to report that a number of prominent people have said that she and/or her teachings were racist and antiisemitic, with citations. 
Sincerely, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 06:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to respond that I, for one, am not trying to squelch the critics. However, if I have accused some of you of trying to hyperbolize the issue, I must admit that I (and I think several other editors) are also guilty of being "hypersensitive" to antisemitism! It's not that any of us dismiss or minimize the evil of antisemitism; rather, we find the accusation so appalling that we resist it. Personally, I think it's a case of Godwin's Law -- you say 'antisemitism' and I hear 'Hitler' or 'Stalin'. So I have a desire (whether right or wrong) to 'soften' the accusation, to point out that she's not exactly Adolf Eichmann. I can barely restrain it, in fact. Alice Bailey's primary principle was the brotherhood of all humanity; any sort of hatred whatsoever is distinctly antithetical to every single principle of her cosmology. But I soapbox in single (italicized) sentences nowadays. You guys think whatever you want, let's write this damned article and be done with it. Eaglizard 08:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Bailey supporters trying to squelch the critics? 

message: Good work.  In fact, I woke up this morning with the intention of writing a version quite similar to the one we now have.  And I agree with comments above by Eaglizard and Renne.  The new version of the controversies section is more accurate and balanced than previous ones and represents major progress.  
There are one or two things that do need repair and one which I think Eaglizard sensed above. It is the idea, attributed to Bailey, that Jews "...should assimilate into a culture that accepted Jesus Christ as the messiah."   The assimilate part is correct but that it should be a culture that accepts Christ as savior is not.
There is a misunderstanding here of this particular aspect of Bailey's writings.  It's correct that she believed that, in not recognizing Christ 2,000  years ago, the Jewish people missed an important opportunity.  She saw this as a spiritual failure on their part--though we should note that she also saw the Christian churches as failing to to understand and live Christ's teachings and criticized them severely for it.   
But my point is that she did not write or believe that the Jews of today should accept the Christ of 2,000 years ago.  The Christian religion as enunciated by the Christ 2,000 years ago, and especially as distorted by church Theology,  was in her mind--like orthodox Judaism--something for humanity to leave behind.  She did not say that the Jews of today should accept the Christ of 2,000 years ago as their savior or that they should convert to Christianity in any conventional sense of the phrase.    
In her terms, Christ simply equals Love-Consciousness as it expresses in brotherhood and right human relationships.  In her mind, Christ does not belong merely to the Christian churches but is essentially the living energy of divine love that is the essence of the good in all religions.   She wrote, "He will not come as the restorer of any of the ancient religions, including Christianity."  The context is:
"The development of spiritual recognition is the great need today in preparation for His reappearance; no one knows in what nation He will come; He may appear as an Englishman, a Russian, a Negro, a Latin, a Turk, a Hindu, or any other nationality. Who can say which? He may be a Christian or a Hindu by faith, a Buddhist or of no particular faith at all; He will not come as the restorer of any of the ancient religions, including Christianity, but He will come to restore man's faith in the Father's love, in the fact of the livingness of the Christ and in the close, subjective and unbreakable relationship of all men everywhere."  (Bailey, Alice A. The Reappearance of the Christ," p 190)
 Note the phrase where she says the new age "Christ" may be 
 "of no particular faith at all."   Reflect on that for a 
 moment and you will see how radical her ideas of Christ and
 his return were and how  remote from both Christian theology 
 and Jewish concerns about being "assimilated" by some other 
 religion.  
Since, in her mind, Christ is not coming to restore ancient Christianity at all, then he is obviously not coming to restore it for the Jews.  In her mind, the Christian churches have fundamentally wrong concepts of Christ and his return.  Her statements on this are one of the reasons orthodox Christians attack her.  So the thought that the Jews should, "accepted Jesus Christ as the messiah"  is off the mark and is actually part of the orthodox Christianity which AAB opposed; it is not AAB's thought.  One of many passage giving some perspective on this is:
"He will not come, we may be sure, as a conquering hero, as the interpretations of the theological teachers have led man to believe, for that would certainly fail to identify Him and He would be simply classed as another military figure; of them we have had a plethora; He will not come as the Messiah of the Jews to save the so-called Holy Land and the city of Jerusalem for the Jews, because He belongs to the whole world and no Jews nor any other people have special rights or unique privileges or may claim Him as their own; He will not come to convert the "heathen" world for, in the eyes of the Christ and of His true disciples, no such world exists and the so-called heathen have demonstrated historically less of the evil of vicious conflict than has the militant Christian world. The history of the Christian nations and of the Christian church has been one of an aggressive militancy - the last thing desired by the Christ when He sought to establish the church on earth."   (Bailey, Alice A. The Reappearance of the Christ," p 110)
Onward and upward. James 14:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat's Revision Good Work, But Improve This

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

message: I see the collection I posted of positive quotations from Bailey was deleted from the discussion forum.
I agree that five screens of positive quotations is long, though small compared to the 250 screens of text in this discussion forum that is mostly dedicated to the contention that her writings were anti-Jewish writings.
And I would not want to disrupt the new format of this forum, focused as I optimistically hope it will be on AAB's life, what she wrote, and what good and reliable sources have written of her life and work.
But in case my optimism proves foolish,  there may be those who may still want to consult the deleted text, here is an external link to it:  James 16:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive Passages from Alice A. Bailey on the Jews

message: OK, look, when I make a content suggestion here, I'm just another editor with an an opinion; the hats I wear sometimes (admin, arbitrator, etc.) are not relevant. I came here because someone mentioned it over at another talk page I watch, and often I can be more helpful than usual when I'm totally ignorant of the content of the article. 
In this case, I'd like to suggest that people slow down a bit. For example, I raised my objection to the Gershom quote form the purpose of discussion, not action. Someone else might know more about his expertise in the field than I do. It's a lovely long three-day weekend here in the U.S.; perhaps people with different opinions are out enjoying the weather (or hiding from it) rather than being on Wikipedia. And even if that weren't the case, it's better to work stuff through on the talk page rather than quickly changing the article page (with the obvious exceptions of fixing blatantly incorrect material.) It doesn't hurt the world if something like the Gershom quote is included (to whoever removed it) or removed (to whoever re-inserted it) for an hour, a day, or a week. 
Many of us are here on Wikipedia because we have a passion for truth. This passion shouldn't get in the way of thoughtful deliberation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kwork deleted and replaced Catherine's new version with the old version that was the center of much conflict in the forum. Most agreed that Catherine's last version was on track and in the middle of our talk about it, Kwork deleted it. We were starting to talk about how to improve on it. It is good to have Catherine's new version in front of us as we talk about it.  And were moving toward a consensus, having escaped the problems and disagreements of the old version. I'm glad James restored the new version of that we were focused on.Sparklecplenty 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care. It's edit warring; it shouldn't occur. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what "I don't care" means in this context. If edit warring shouldn't occur, what are you purposing to end the edit warring that has been going on here for months, possibly years. There appeared to be a consensus and only one person warred against the majority. Sparklecplenty 18:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This morning I removed the Gershom text (quoted below) since I agreed with Jpgordon, Renee, and Eaglizard who all concluded it was not up to Wiki standards.  We know Kwork's view since he restored it again.  There are no less than 89 reference to Gershom in our forum above.  Before I follow the consensus view and deleted it again, is there anything more to be said that hasn't already been said in the 89 forum reference.James 18:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please note, I have no objection to the above criticism as such.  If we can find a better source that says the same thing, then fine. James 19:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. In the hope of finding a better reference for the criticism section, I spent two full hours this morning trying to find a reputable and reliable source containing a published scholarly critique that cites AAB's as anti-Jewish.  So far no luck, but I will continue the search for a while and report anything I find.  James 19:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In the interest of fairness and balance, I just worked patiently for another hour and a half trying to find a scholarly reference citing Bailey as anti-Jewish.  I did not locate any.  Such reference may be out there, but if so they are hard to find.  James 20:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Eaglizard, i shall reply as per your numbered points.
1) Lead sentence. Thanks. 
2) Evola reference by Shnirelman. 
* QUESTION: "why can we have that particular historical context, and not the historical context of the multiplicity of contemporary writings re: The Jewish Question? I know this is widely-known to us, but it may not be to future readers." Also, Renee called it "gratuitous" and said it must "go".
::ANSWER: If we, the editors, mention it without citation, that would be OR. But remember, we are QUOTING or SUMMARIZING Shnirelman here, and Shnirelman made the comparison. Frankly, i think it was an interesting comparison and i strongly support it. Evola went much farther than Bailey in terms of ACTIVITIES, in that he edited an Italian edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and supported the Fascisti. But Shnirelman was specifically commenting on their "IDEAS" about race and not their ACTIVITIES. So i think Shnirelman made an important point, and a valid one. As for our duuty to "future readers" this is a very good point, but it is not best handled by writing a historical side-essay here. It is best handled by Wiki-links to artcicles that discuss that issue. This is why i always add so many wiki-links in my contributions here at Wikipedia (and at my own luckymojo site, which is among the most interlinked sites i have ever seen on the web) and why i have been trying to find time to launch an Occultism and Antisemitism article. After replying to you, i will try to find some appropriate wording that can be wiki-linked to provide historical context without the side-show of adding it directly to the Bailey page.  
3) "Assimilation" reference
*QUESTIONS: "I believe this is OR. Do you have a cite to either a critic or to a Bailey passage which connects her acknowledged desire that Jews "assimilate" into 'something' with specifically Christian culture?" 
:: ANSWERS: No, it is not OR. Yes, we have cites, both to critics and to Bailey 
::For a cite to a critic, see the third sentence of this paragraph by Shnirelman, and from there to a source that HE cites in his own footnotes. (i have bolded it): 
:::    "Racist and antisemitic trends are explicit, for example, in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its “Jewish inheritance” and reject the “Jewish Bible” as a prerequisite for entering the Age of Aquarius.105 In her view, the twentieth century has been a period of world catastrophe, soon to be replaced by a Golden Age. Jews were depicted as the “human product of the former Solar system,” linked with “World Evil” and justly punished for their rejection of the Messiah.106 Similar ideas are found in the philosophy of the Italian fascist Julius Evola, who held that the contemporary epoch was part of the decline which began in the 8th–6th centuries B.C. He, too, predicted a coming catastrophe to be followed by a Golden Age.107"
::For a cite to a "Bailey passage" -- well, this passage has been quoted here previously: 
:::   "The decision anent the Jews is one of hierarchical importance, owing to the karmic relation of the Christ to the Jewish race, to the fact that they repudiated Him as the Messiah and are still doing so..." (The Rays and the Initiations, p.636-7)
::Obviously, Bailey is not asking Jews to assimilate into Buddhism or Taoism -- she says that they are suffering political violence because they repudiated JESUS CHRIST. In another passages (cited repeatedly, so i won't bring it here again) she says that their political problem with persecution in Europe ("The Jewish Problem") will be solved "through intermarriage" -- and since Europe was dominantly Christian when she wrote, it is clear that she means intermarriage with Christian (not Muslims, not Zoroastrians), in order that they may be at one with Christians -- those who accept JESUS CHRIST. 
::But citing Bailey is not important, because we can cite Shnirelman, you see?
::An aside -- and what follows is definitely my OR and is not intended for use on the Bailey page, but i hope it will help you and others understand the issues here, and where Shnirelman is coming from: 
::I think that i could develop a good case for the argument that Bailey never fully abandoned the rhetoric of her early work as an Anglican  Christian missionary in India, where she advocated a harshly colonialist theology that urged Hindus to convert and drew for its text upon centuries of prior Christian pleas, demands, and edicts aimed at forcing the "stubborn" and "separative" Jews to convert to Christianity. 
::Remember that originally Bailey was an Anglican, a member of the Church of England. Herewith, from the Wikipedia page on Deicide (the charge of murdering God, a charge made against Jews as a petext for persecution) is something that will put her Anglican religious antisemitism in very clear context:
:::The following, for example, is a verse from a hymn written in 1892 for use in the Church of England to call upon God to convert the Jews to Christianity:
::::Though the Blood betrayed and spilt, On the race entailed a doom, 
::::Let its virtue cleanse the guilt, Melt the hardness, chase the gloom; 
::::Lift the veil from off their heart, Make them Israelites indeed, 
::::Meet once more for lot and part, With Thy household's genuine seed. 
::::("Thou, the Christ Forever One", words by William Bright, from Supplemental Hymns to Hymns Ancient and Modern, 1889)
::I think that Bailey's theologically ingrained religious antisemitism evolved into racial antisemitism after she adopted a belief in the racist theories of Blavatsky. I think that this is the same road that both Gershom and Shnirelman were going down in their arguments -- that she was both a religious AND a political antisemite. (Sjoo, who criticized Bailey for her "racism"  was much less alert to the theological implications of Bailey's antisemitism than Gershom and Shnirelman.) 
::If you are interested in learning more about the history of religious antisemitism and the differences between it and racial antisemitism, see these  Wikipedia pages: Deicide, Host desecration, Anusim, Converso, Marrano, Crypto-Judaism, Spanish Inquisition#Expulsion of the Jews, Alhambra Decree, History of the Jews in Spain#Edict of Expulsion, Timeline of antisemitism.
4) No one expects the Spanish Inquisition#Expulsion of the Jews -- but there it is, nonetheless. :-)
cat Catherineyronwode 00:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "cat's Current Revision" (response by cat)  

message: First of all lets put everything back into the context that it belongs. I first became aware of this article as the result of an attempt by user Sethie to censor something Catherine had put on the Antisemitim talk page. At first I thought he had erased it for honorable reasons but as it turned out he was only interested in trying to censor Catherine, It took me a while to figure out what was going on but when I did I decided to help Catherine and Kwork. I guess that makes me a member of the Jewish Defense League as well. The Racist crap I was referring to were quotes from Ms Bailey. Once I understood that I had no real objection to it being left on the antisemitism talk page. 
The Bailey faction has no rightful claim to ownership of this article no one does. As I have said before this dispute will ultimately be decided by the arbitration committee or not at all.  Albion moonlight 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being taken out of context. 

message: The claim that the Alice Bailey page has been hijacked by members of the Jewish Defense League is pretty over-the-top. 
Those unamiliar with the JDL and not inclined to click the link ought to know that the FBI calls it a "violent extremist Jewish organization", the Terrorism Knowledge Base lists it as an "active terrorist organization based in the U.S.", and the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies it as a "hate group". (References courtesy of Wikipedia!)
I recommend that the author of this conspiracy theory step away from the keyboard, take a long shower, and come back later in a clearer frame of mind, perhaps with a nice cup of tea and some digestive biscuits to comfort and sustain him.  
Catherineyronwode 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Jewish Defense League]]??? 

message: When I said above that the article was being taken over by the Jewish defense league, please note that only the word "Jewish" was capitalized.  The reason is that I did not know there was literally any such thing as a JDL, much less anything about its nature.  I used this string of words in the ordinary dictionary sense, meaning that there is a group in this froum that is Jewish, and who are in league with each other, and are defending against what they believe is anti-Jewish statements by Bailey.  "League" means  they are an association for common action, official or not.  This group has mission here, which is to try to define AAB as antisemitic.  I think this is a clear statement of fact.  I am happy the that this league exists and am grateful for it.  I am certain however, that it has chosen the wrong field of battle in this forum and article.  
I myself am pro-Jewish.  I am pro-humanity.  I am for all the underdogs and oppressed groups of the world.   I approve defending the Jewish people against all actual antisemitic idiots of which there are still many out there.  I am sorry to see the "league" that is here spend there considerable energy on trying to brand AAB as anti-Jewish when there is such crying need for their skills and expertise elsewhere in the world where it would really help and against targets deserving of their attention.  Again I say that AAB was severely critical of the Jewish people and of many other groups as well.  Yes, she was not "politically correct" in her writings.  But her statements are simply tough love and there is no hatred in them.  Her message was and is love.    I ask you to step back a bit and reconsider.  I do not expect you will hear these words and follow my suggestion, but I cast these thoughts into space anyway.  Be well.  Kind Regards to all, James. James 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what the "Jewish defense league" is and i know what a "hijacking" is and i consider the use of those terms in this editorial forum to be highly inappropriate. A simple apology would have been in order, but a convoluted rationalization was offered instead. cat Catherineyronwode 02:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish defense league not Literal, Relax a little

message: It dawned on me just now as I was editing that one of the many clear differences between an an actual anti-Jewish type and an Alice Bailey type is this:  the anti-Jewish person wants to harm, degrade, or kill the Jews.  What does Bailey advise instead?:  love and marriage.  Some might see this love and marriage thing as a terrible vengeance of the Gods that has blurred the lines between individuals and groups throughout history.  James 00:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This, above, belongs on your web site or blog. This is not a forum for you to try to re-define antisemitism. (You might find it helpful to read the wikipedia article on antisemitism, about which the only thing you seem to know is that you are unwilling to have Alice Bailey called anti-Semitic.) Kwork 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The anti-Jewish person wants Judaism to cease to exist. He may advocate violent pogrom or genteel supercessionism but the central, defining act of the anti-Jewish person is that he takes it upon himself to tell the Jews what to do, namely to DISAPPEAR. cat Catherineyronwode 02:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Love and Marriage

message: Gershom is a published author with expertise on religion, Judaism, the  holocaust/shoa, antisemitism, kabbalism, reincarnation as a part of Jewish belief, etc. Because his work actively covers antisemitism and history, especially that of the World War Two era {Bailey's era), he seems an acceptable source to me. 
To insist that he must also be an "expert" on Bailey is grasping at straws. 
The Wikipedia guidelines about web sources and self-publishing are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. As web publishing becomes more common for authors, we find that many writers who at one time were print-only are now self-publishing on the web. 
Professor Bainbridge was mentioned by me before as an example of this trend. He is currently publishing quite a lot of his own material (including reprints of his own out-of-print material) on the web. 
I myself am such an author, with books on gardening and herb magic in print -- and more of the same online for free, as a gift to my readers. This trend does make it difficult to distinguish between a blog and a "real, accredited" author's web site, but some investigation will generally set the matter staight. 
catherine Catherineyronwode 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gershom's area of expertise 

message: Tonight's revision contains some new attempts to incorporate the suggestions of various editors. 
*The Evola passage had been deleted as "gratuitous" (whatever that means) and "off topic," but it only seemed so because, due to compression and "sound-bite" quote usage, Shnirelman's actual topic -- contemporary Neopaganism in Russia -- was not made clear. His point was that the then-recent translations of works by Bailey and Evola into Russian had had a decided impact on the form taken by the then-developing Neopagan movement in Russia. Putting this into context gives us a glimpse of Bailey's notability and influence after death, and the Evola comparison is thus seen as obviously not "gratuitous," because both authors had recently been translated into Russian, shared what Shnirelman called "similar views", and had mutually influenced Russian Neopaganism. Please give the new version a kindly look and see if it doen't make sense now to include Evola. 
*For the record, the Shnirelman material was translated into English FROM RUSSIAN without reference to the original works by Bailey in English, so you will see a bit of translation-drift in his quotes. He says, for instance, that Bailey said that the Jews were "the products of the former solar system," which quote we know more accurately as "the residue of a former solar system." I would have changed the mis-translated Russian back into Bailey's original English, but wanted some feedback on this. Please understand that this is not a mistake on Shnirelman's part -- it is a problem of translation into Russian and then retranslation into English. It could easily be corrected with a comment on the correction added to the ref footnote. Comments? 
* I have reinstated the refrences and wiki-links to supercessionism, religious antisemitism, and racial antisemitism for two reasons: (1) they provide helpful background for a modern reader's understanding of Bailey calling Judaism "obsolete" and (2) James, who deleted them, provided an unsupported explanation for his cut (he said that the word "supercessionist" is "name calling," which it is not), and he did not have the agrement of any other editors -- there having been only complimentary comments on the pedagogic background i provided yesterday in support of my inclusion of those wiki-links. 
Here, in case the page is rapidly reverted again, is my latest version. Please do not interlineate comments, but rather make them after the text. Thanks.
::Controversies -- cat's rewrite of September 4th, 2007
::Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism. 
::In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed moden Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its 'Jewish inheritance' and reject the 'Jewish Bible'..." and that "similar ideas are found in the philosophy of the Italian fascist Julius Evola." Citing a Russian translation of Bailey's works, he noted that in it, "Jews were depicted as the 'human product of the former Solar system,' linked with 'World Evil' and justly punished for their rejection of the Messiah." "Russian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism", Victor A. Shnirelman in "Acta no. 13, Analysis of current trends in antisemitism," published by The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998] Retrieved 2007-08-22</blockquote>
::Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement.""The Racist Legacy of Alice Bailey", Monica Sjöö, published in "From the Flames- Radical feminism with Spirit" - issue 22 - winter 98/99. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
::The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," replied to Bailey's plan for a New World Order by saying that her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself.""Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings", Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, 1997, revised 2005. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
::Bailey never responded directly to charges of religious antisemitism or racial antisemitism, but in the posthumously published  Unfinished Autobiography (1951) she wrote "I have no anti-Jewish feeling" and in "Problems of Humanity" (1947), she spoke out against "cruelty, torture and wholesale murder," saying that "the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history [...] and right thinking people everywhere are [...] demanding that these persecutions end." As an alternative to persecution, she offered the supercessionist viewpoint that Jews, whose religion she believed was "obsolete," should assimilate into the cultures of the nations in which they were born (those being predominantly Christian cultures). "The Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage," she wrote, "that of the Negro will not." (Esoteric Healing,1949, p. 263 et. seq.)
::Bailey has been criticised by some religious writers because, as a former Christian and former Theosophist, she spoke of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Theosophical spiritual beliefs as an authoritative teacher while simultaneously demonstrating non-conformity to the orthodox belief systems of these varied religious traditions 
::Bailey's works are criticized by some Christian groups for their heterodox approach to theology. In his book Unmasking the New Age, the Christian writer Douglas Groothuis said Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" and that the name was later changed due to controversy.Groothuis, Douglas, . Unmasking the New Age. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986; p. 120."Alice Bailey Profile", Reba Parker and Timothy Oliver, 1996, The Watchman Expositor, Watchman Fellowship. Retrieved 2007-08-22.   The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship says although her texts dealt extensively with the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are contrary to orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.
::Bailey's books have also been criticized as a form of Neo-Theosophy by mainstream Theosophists who say that a great many of her ideas, including the concepts of "root races" and Himalayan masters, were borrowed from Theosophy while also including perspectives that were not part of the original Theosophical teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky."Theosophy's Shadow (A Critical Look at the Claims and Teachings of Alice A. Bailey)", by Nicholas Weeks. Revised and expanded version of article that appeared in the Summer 1997 issue
of Fohat, Edmonton Theosophical Society. Online at the Blavatsky Study Center. Retrieved 2007-08-22."A Comparison Between H. P. Blavatsky & Alice Bailey", from Protogonus, Spring 1989, by Alice Leighton Cleather and Basil Crump. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
Thanks for reading this, and, once again, i look forward to your comments. 
cat Catherineyronwode 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section, revision by cat, september 4th, 2007 

message: I noticed that James, when removing the word "supercessionist" from the Controversies section today, wrote in his comment line, 
::"(supercessionist is complex theological concept that is in part name calling and a conclusion by the editor; use words of scholarly critics or use her words please do not draw theological conclusions)."
First of all, "supercessionist" is not "name-calling" in any way, shape, or form. 
Second, the concept is not complex. It is simply the idea that Judaism has been superceded by Christianisty. 
Third, to apply an adjective that points to an information page is not to "draw a theological conclusion." 
Fourth, i believe that my duty is to the reader, and i believe that the reader who clicks on that link and reads the brief definition of supercessionism will better understand Bailey's use of the term "obsolete" with respect to Judiasm, as well as her "residue" quote (cited by Shnirelman).
I truly see no great difference between the wiki-link to supercessionism and links that help the reader understand, for instance, that Robert Johnson was "born out of wedlock", that his step-father, Charles Dodds, "made wicker furniture," and that his mother "picked cotton".  
cat Catherineyronwode 06:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly makes sense that Bailey could have been influenced by supersessionist Christianity. It can't go in the article, though, unless there's a reliable external source for it. I do despair a bit about WP when I look at this article's talk page. Really, there's no point here in arguing the substantive pros and cons of Bailey's writings. The discussion needs to switch to what sources are available, how reliable they are and how they can be summarised in a balanced way. Itsmejudith 11:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercessionism: Complex? No.  

message: I wrote this yesterday, but have gotten no response from Jamesd1 or Renee, so I will try again because I really want to know if you have any serious intention of compromising enough to settle this endless argument.
It is not necessary for you to like what he says. Gershom is knowledgeable on the subject of antisemitism, which is the subject in this case. Also, because he is a Kabbalist, it is impossible to say his views result from an inability to understand spirituality and esotericism. AnonEmouse has a lot of Wikipedia experience with biographies, and I think her accepting the Gershom article is based on experience. She did not allow a number of sources that I very much would like to see in the Controversies section, but I decided to live with her decisions. If I can live with what she left out why can not you live what she left in? Otherwise you are as much as saying that you will never compromise, and this argument will never be resolved. Kwork 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

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

message: Albion moonlight wrote, that this dispute will not be resolved until it goes through the complete dispute process. []
I am in complete agreement with this, though of course for diffent reasons.  I request that jpgordon take a more agressive, though of course impartial, action in addressing the problems.
I think freezing the article would not improve the situation.  The same folks will still be here making the same mistakes after it is "thawed."    The problems are long-term and deep seated and require action from the highest possible levels. James 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration

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

message: In response to Renee's excellent editing of the Shnirelman section and to James' continued chopping away at mention of racism in general (he eliminated the entire "Negro problem" text!), plus the objections to my mention of supercessionism, i went back to the Controversies section with fresh eyes. What i saw was that the tendency on the part of Renee and James to chop sentences in half has resulted in the loss of a lot of data. 
For instance, with the "Negro problem" section -- by first eliminating Bailey's proscriptions against racial intermarriage, on the grounds that the section was "too long," the statement by Bailey that contrasted the solution to the Jewish prblem by intermarriage with the fact that intermarriage would not solve "the Negro problem" was left a rhetorical orphan. James then cut out the orphan, chopping the sentence in half on the grounds that we had no prior mention of Negroes in the paragraph. 
So, i restored the mention of intermarriage. 
I also decided to break the material into two sub-sub-heads, beacsue the two parts are not at all connected. 
Here is my version of tonight, September 5th, 2007. Your comments are welcomed. Please do not interlineate comments; please reply after the text
:Controversies
:Charges of racism and antisemitism
:Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism. 
:In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed moden Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its 'Jewish inheritance' and reject the 'Jewish Bible'..." "R:ussian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism", Victor A. Shnirelman in "Acta no. 13, Analysis of current trends in antisemitism," published by The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998] Retrieved 2007-08-22</blockquote>
:Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement.""The Racist Legacy of Alice Bailey", Monica Sjöö, published in "From the Flames- Radical feminism with Spirit" - issue 22 - winter 98/99. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
:The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," replied to Bailey's plan for a New World Order by saying that her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated that "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself.""Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings", Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, 1997, revised 2005. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
:Bailey did not respond directly to charges of antisemitism or racism during her life, but in her postuhumously published Unfinished Autobiography (1951) she wrote "I have no anti-Jewish feeling" and in "Problems of Humanity" (1947), she spoke out against "cruelty, torture and wholesale murder," saying that "the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history [...] and right thinking people everywhere are [...] demanding that these persecutions end." 
:With respect to racism in general, she claimed that "the best and soundest thinkers in both the white and black races at this time deplore mixed marriages" and that "intermarriage between the white peoples and the yellow races (the Chinese and the Japanese) is equally unfortunate." http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/OMM.GB/WomenWriters/AliceBailey/Problem/prob1047.html
:Folowing on these beliefs, she proposed different solutions for various facets of what she called "The Problem of the Racial Minorities" "Problems of Humanity - Chapter IV - The Problem of the Racial Minorities". She believed that the "orthodox Jewish faith [is an] obsolete teaching", characterized by "its hatred of the Gentiles and its failure to recognize the Christ." (The Externalization of the Hierarchy, page 545), and that Jews would find relief from persecution if they would assimilate into the cultures of the nations in which they were born (those being predominantly Christian cultures). Her opposition to race-mixing, however, led her to state that "The Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage, that of the Negro will not." (Esoteric Healing,1949, p. 263 et. seq.) 
:Relious criticism
:Bailey has been criticized by some religious writers because she wrote of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Theosophical beliefs with authority while expressing non-conformity to the orthodox belief systems of these varied religious traditions 
:Bailey's works are criticized by some Christian groups for their heterodox approach to theology. In his book Unmasking the New Age, the Christian writer Douglas Groothuis said Bailey's Lucis Trust was originally named the "Lucifer Trust" and that the name was later changed due to controversy.Groothuis, Douglas, . Unmasking the New Age. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986; p. 120."Alice Bailey Profile", Reba Parker and Timothy Oliver, 1996, The Watchman Expositor, Watchman Fellowship. Retrieved 2007-08-22.   The conservative Christian Watchman Fellowship says although her texts dealt extensively with the role and person of Jesus, her teachings are contrary to orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine.
:Bailey's books have also been criticized as a form of Neo-Theosophy by mainstream Theosophists who say that a great many of her ideas, including the concepts of "root races" and Himalayan masters, were borrowed from Theosophy while also including perspectives that were not part of the original Theosophical teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky."Theosophy's Shadow (A Critical Look at the Claims and Teachings of Alice A. Bailey)", by Nicholas Weeks. Revised and expanded version of article that appeared in the Summer 1997 issue
of Fohat, Edmonton Theosophical Society. Online at the Blavatsky Study Center. Retrieved 2007-08-22."A Comparison Between H. P. Blavatsky & Alice Bailey", from Protogonus, Spring 1989, by Alice Leighton Cleather and Basil Crump. Retrieved 2007-08-22.  
Now, once again, i would like to ask people to stop cutting material from this section. The idea of reducing it to two sentences is a bad idea, in my opinion, as it damages Wikipedia's helpfulness and goes gainst its educational responsibilities. The earlier claims that the Controversies section was "too long" have been -- and continue to be -- ably addressed by those who are actively expanding the biogrphy, teachings, and influecnes sections. I will post next a list of suggestions for those areas, as my research has uncovered a wealth of scholarly information on them that, if shared, would greatly improve this article, in my opinion. 
carCatherineyronwode 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section, cat's rewrite of Sept. 5, 2007 

message: For the editor or editors here who want an expanded treatment of the contention that AAB was antisemetic, please take note of Wiki
guidelines below.   It states that if we are to allow any self-published source to shape the biography--including even a published expert in a field-- the contentious claim made by that self-published source must be also have been published by "relaible source" meaning, at a minimum, two other sources must confirm the claim.  Otherwise, it is correct to remove it. 
Reliable Sources, Official Wiki Guidelines Definition 
"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
Questionable sources , Official Wiki Guidelines Definition 
"...self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources..."
"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.  However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.  Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Guidelines--A Review and Reality Check

message: Cathrine went wild making edits that violate Wiki guidelines just now.  I substituted the following for her edits:
Alice Bailey is thought by some to have made antisemitic statements in her books.  
Other's wirters point out positive statements and see her as constructively critical. 
Cathrine will likely overwrite the above "holding pattern" so I ask that you restore it as above and allow us time to work this out.  If the controversies section is to be expanded it needs to be done carefully under your guidance, or if you really "don't care" then under guidance from another disinterested Administrator. Thanks for your help in insuring unbiased application of Wiki guidelines to this article. James 01:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: jpgordon Please Freeze Article Using Kwork's Proposal

message: If the critics want expansion, then let the critics write 200 words of whatever they want following Wiki guidelines for neutral language and reliable sources.
We will write 200 words in contrast to it following Wiki guidelines for neutral language and reliable sources.
Then we freeze it and move on.James 01:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded Controversy:  A Proposal to End This

message: In looking through my own occult and esoteric library, as well as that of my husband, i have found some wonderful material on Alice Bailey that has not been utilized here. I am referring to two nooks by Professor Robert S. Ellwood, Jr. of the University of Southern California:
*"Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America" (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973)
*"Alternative Altars: Unconventional and Eastern Spirituality in America" (University of Chicago Press, 1979) 
In both of these books, but at greatest length in the former, Ellwood comments extensively on Bailey's life and teachings (using material mostly gleaned from her own works), and he describes attending a circa 1970 full moon meditation circle operated by her followers, which included the "Great Invocation." 
These books are dense with information, and form the best source on Bailey i have seen that does not originate with one of her followers. 
Things that Ellwood brings up and that have not yet made it to the Wikipedia Bailey page include:
*Bailey's three youthful suicide attempts (9,730 pages returned by google on <"Alice Bailey" suicide>, of which the 2nd one is at the Lucis Trust site -- so why no mention at Wikipdia???
*Full Moon Meditation circles and groups -- i learned from Ellwood that lectures and were presented at these circles that were tied to the astrological signs in which the lunations occur -- why nothing about this on the Bailey page??? (the closest is a bare mention on the Wiki page of "the importance of full moon cycles in relation to meditation", which is not informative at all because it does not mention that these groups continue to meet -- nor is there any link on the Bailey page to the Wiki stub on New Group of World Servers -- an orphan stub with NO links from anywhere except a couple of user pages! 
*The Great Invocation (text and usage). This absolutely should have its own page and a link to that page from the Bailey page!
*Demographics of adherents -- in the 1970s, Ellwood met mostly elderly adherents, whom he saw as fairly conventional in dress and prosperous in income. He noted that there were only a few "long haired" people in attendence (by which he meant hippies, members of the baby boom generation). Have the demographics chaged, remained the same?  
Out of deference to those who have claimed that this is THEIR page, about THEIR teacher, i have limited myself to merely working on the Controversies section until now. When i asked why the suicide attempts were not mentioned, i was chastized for seeking "scandal" (!!!) and told that i could find the information all over the web, and so it need not be at Wikipedia. But, folks, there is some great stuff here -- why not use it?
cat Catherineyronwode 02:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material to add to the article (suggestions) 

message: Hey, Renee, i am very hapy with your latest revision of the Controversies section, incorporating the elements we have all been discussing for so long. I feel quite comfortable with it. It is medium-length, covers all the controversies, does not reduce all of the critics to wordless footnotes, and does not embroil the reader in either a defense of Bailey or a rebuttal to that defense. In case someone comes along and changes it, this is the specific version to which i refer:
:Controversies
:Charges of racism and antisemitism
:Critics of Alice Bailey have charged her with racism and antisemitism. 
:In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed modern Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit [...] in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its 'Jewish inheritance' and reject the 'Jewish Bible'..." R:ussian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism, Victor A. Shnirelman, in Acta no. 13, Analysis of current trends in antisemitism, published by The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998] Retrieved 2007-08-22
:Monica Sjöö, an advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement.""The Racist Legacy of Alice Bailey", Monica Sjöö, published in From the Flames- Radical feminism with Spirit - issue 22 - winter 98/99. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
:The Chassidic author Rabbi Yonassan Gershom in his article "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings," replied to Bailey's plan for a New World Order by saying that her call for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith" indicated that "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings, Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, 1997, revised 2005. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
:Religious criticism
:Bailey has been criticized by some religious writers because she wrote of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Theosophical beliefs with authority while expressing non-conformity to the orthodox belief systems of these varied religious traditions.Groothuis, Douglas, . Unmasking the New Age. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986; p. 120."Alice Bailey Profile", Reba Parker and Timothy Oliver, 1996, The Watchman Expositor, Watchman Fellowship. Retrieved 2007-08-22.   
:Bailey's books have also been criticized as a form of Neo-Theosophy by mainstream Theosophists who say that a great many of her ideas, including the concepts of "root races" and Himalayan masters, were borrowed from Theosophy while also including perspectives that were not part of the original Theosophical teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky."Theosophy's Shadow (A Critical Look at the Claims and Teachings of Alice A. Bailey)", by Nicholas Weeks. Revised and expanded version of article that appeared in the Summer 1997 issue
of Fohat, Edmonton Theosophical Society. Online at the Blavatsky Study Center. Retrieved 2007-08-22."A Comparison Between H. P. Blavatsky & Alice Bailey", from Protogonus, Spring 1989, by Alice Leighton Cleather and Basil Crump. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
I am quite content to live with this. I corrected a typo and fixed some invisible coding cruft but did not alter any further words. I say YES to this version. 
cat yronwode 64.142.90.32 08:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with this version too, though again I'd like to caution about Gershom.  If that citation is allowed it opens the door for other self-published opinion pieces.  I think this is a dangerous precedent and I also think that people who click on it will be disappointed with the "reference" and will be able to see for themselves that it's self-published, so I can live with it.  Renee  --Renee 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renee -- it's good! 

message: I do remember someone  dissing Catherine when she she first brought that idea up but it wasn't you. I will not name names but I will say that your response to Kwork was commendable. Perhaps now is the time to commence creating that section on her attempted suicide. I am going to wait and see what kwork does but I think that we should allow the rest of you a lot of autonomy in the non criticisms section(s).  Anyway I have to go now. I should be back on line 6 to 8 hours  Have a nice day and thanks again Albion moonlight 09:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for the note.  James 13:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks James 

message: Catherine, I certainly wouldn’t condemn people who “hear voices,” as schizophrenic and self destructive. There are lots of different levels to voices, both physical and psychic.  Speaking of  “hearing  voices”:  if your permitted to read literature on channeling.  There is a wonderful book, true story,  about two Jewish women, a Jewish man and a gentile woman who saved many Jews  by creating a fake company. Together the four friends also spoke to unseen voices—“Budaliget 1943, Talking to Angels.”  Although the three Jewish friends chose to sacrifice themselves, because of it many were saved. 
One of my favorite quotes: “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”  (Longfellow)
Of the motivations for five-year-old and teen age suicide attempts she (Alice Bailey) said that "I just did not find life worth living" and she also attributed the impulse to the confusion brought on by the awakening of her mystical nature.  After the age of 14 she was done with it and "Since then I have not been very interested in suicide, though I have always understood the impulse."  She elaborates:
"At that time I did not like the "feel" of life. I did not appreciate what the world seemed to be or had to offer. I was convinced that better things lay elsewhere. I was morbid, full of self-pity, through loneliness, exceedingly introspective (which sounds better than self-centered) and convinced that no one liked me. Looking back, why on earth should they? I cannot blame them. I gave them nothing of myself. I was preoccupied all the time with my reaction to people and circumstances. I was the unhappy, self-dramatized center of my little world. This sense of better things somewhere and a capacity to "feel" into people and circumstances and to know often what they were thinking or experiencing was the beginning of the mystical phase of my life and out of it emerged much good that I later found."
"Perhaps the time will come when our adolescent boys and girls will receive some attention along the lines of capitalizing on their normal, mystical tendencies....The universality of the process should be emphasized, thus dismissing the loneliness, and the false sense of isolation and peculiarity which are such disturbing features of the experience. I believe that this method of capitalizing on the adolescent urges and dreams will later receive more attention. I regard the silly adolescent miseries through which I passed as simply the opening of the mystical phase in my life which - in time - gave place to the occult phase, with its greater assurance, its understanding and its unalterable convictions." Unfinished Autobiography pp. 21-23Sparklecplenty 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sparkleplenty, you have addressed yourself to me, but i never wrote anything about Bailey "hearing voices" or being "self-destructive." I have no opinions about that, and trying to embroil me in conversation about it is useless. Let's stick to editing, shall we? Thanks. catherine Catherineyronwode 10:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Consulting oracles, and other such unseen voices, played a substantial part in the ruination of many of the greatest cultures (Egypt, Greece, and many others) of the ancient world. To see it arising again now, with its increasing popularity, is not a promising sign. Problems with it range from encouraging people to replace their own rationality with guidance from unseen voices, to the near impossibility for humans of distinguishing between voices that actually carry a higher light and the voices of spirits who are liars and fools presenting themselves as masters or angels. It is far better for people to develop their own ability to distinguish between virtue and vice, and their ability to work for good without relying on invisible voices. Kwork 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talking With Angels

message: In response to the "Talking with Angels" post above jpgordon wrote:
::What does any of this have to do with improving the article? Let's keep the philosophical musings to a minimum; all we're interested in here, remember, is recording what other people say about the subject of the article, not our own opinions, ruminations, beliefs, or ideas. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish that, in this forum and article, it actually was all about "recording what other people say."   But it is instead, much about opinions beliefs and ideas and these lead editors to quote fragments like the little man in cartoon   James 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All Problems, Including Editing, are Philosophical

message: Jamesd1, I had reverted you edit of yesterday, then this morning undid my own revert (because I no longer give a flying rats ass if you get every fact wrong in the article, or not.) When you undid what I had already undone, you returned to the correct version that you do not want. 
But, if you can manage to read Bailey's text, she does not say she was secretary of the Theosophical Society, but editor of a magazine. namaste. Kwork 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing the error about which Bailey was the secretary; the correction you did on that is still there.James 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: REVERT ?

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

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

message: Renee, stop reverting the material on channeling. Channeling is discussed extensivly in the article. It is a dangerous practice, and some balance belongs in the article to achieve neutrality. I did not introduce the subject of channeling, or invent the material used. If you don't want channeling analyzed, take the subject out of the article. Kwork 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kwork, it was the consensus of all editors above that this was OR (please see itsmejudith, albion moonlight, and James above).  They all agreed that what you put in was original research because you linked various forms of previously unrelated research into an analysis of your own. (See how James explains it above.)  Please review above for ideas on how to incorporate your ideas that aren't original research. --Renee 15:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not an answer. (Moreover, itsmejudith, and albion moonlight do not understand what the actual issue is, and have said that). Are you claiming that channeling is a safe practice? Kwork 15:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about Alice Bailey, not channeling.  I have no opinion on channeling.  Here is a good place to discuss that issue.   --Renee 15:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kwork, if you would like an "informed" opinion, Alice Bailey did not engage in "channeling". Telepathic transmission (often called "dictation" by I AM types) is emphatically not a form of channeling, according to Bailey. At least, in so far as "channeling" involves any sort of "release" of personal awareness, or conscious control. Mrs. Bailey has stated that she was fully aware of (and in control of) herself and her surroundings during reception; that the thoughts occurred in her mind as though transmitted, rather than her self being somehow "replaced" by DK's personality or soul. In fact, she mentions this in numerous books, in order to emphasize the exact dangers of "channeling" that you point out. But that's irrelevant to this article, also. My only point is that even calling it "channeling" is just Original Research on your part (and very shoddily conducted, I might add, using the worst method of science: the preconceived notion). Eaglizard 21:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about Alice Bailey not about channelling. It should scrupulously avoid stating any POV about whether channelling is beneficial or dangerous. I'm sure we have a range of different views on the question, which we should keep to ourselves. Itsmejudith 14:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Channeling, or whatever you want to call it, was how Alice Bailey wrote over twenty books, and if it were not for those books there would not be a Wikipedia article about her. I see no reason why something as important as that, and discussed in many secondary sources, should be excluded from the article. It is also a fact that many psychologists consider the phenomena of telepathic dictation, channeling, or whatever you want to call it, a symptom of Multiple Personality Disorder, and there are good sources for that too. This should all be in the article because it is central to Bailey. Certainly, if the other editors think what I put in the article was poorly written, heavy handed, and/or unbalanced; I would concede all of that might be correct. I never claimed to be a good writer, and am open to improvements to what I wrote, or a complete change to what I wrote. But the information needs to be in the article, and it is already in the article in many different places....for instance Bailey's own description of her first contact with DK. Kwork 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: B.S. Excuse

message: Bailey claims to have been on Hitlers "Black list." If anyone has the refference for that, we should put it in. Sethie 20:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will oppose that being put in unless there is a document verifying it. That is a claim that could be, and should be documented by a good secondary source...with an actual document. Kwork 20:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is explicitly attributed as a claim she made, as it is, what is the problem? Vassyana 20:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A secondary, historical, source is needed. We should see that such a list, with Bailey's name on it exists. Even now, the article to too dependent on on one single primary source, her Unfinished Autobiography.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.23.62 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweetie Unsigned, there is no such Wiki rule.Sparklecplenty 21:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless you are disputing that she claimed to be on the list, the need for discussion is over. Sethie 22:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anyone have the Hitler refference?

message: Indeed James, I had read some of her bio, some weeks ago when I dismissed her article completely (now somewhere in the mists of /Archive 2). And to be honest, I can't -- from a clinical, "objective" point of view -- I can't effectively assert that Sjoo is any less credible than Bailey herself. Just because Bailey is less "wiccan slangy" and "Lewellyn" in her writing style doesn't discount that she describes experiences that will be largely indistinguishable for "secular" readers (you know, having visions, guided by voices, new age channeling hooptedoodle). I think the only important question is: Has Sjoo had an arguably wide-spread influence on the "Goddess" movement? It's my understanding that she has, but I could be wrong there. Eaglizard 21:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eaglizard, okay you think both aren't credible. Our opinions don't matter, only when Kwork takes advantage of our opinionated detraction to rework the article in his image. Renegade behavior is the problem. Please check it out! Sparklecplenty 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I haven't stated my own personal opinion on either author's credibility, I don't believe. I'm saying Bailey has few, if any, better objective claims to credibilty than does Monica. And Kwork's behavior is not too interesting to me, but I will say I that both sides of the debate are flinging bad-faith and offensive accusations with abandon, and that that fact alone is causing over 90% of the problems here. Eaglizard 21:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Eglizard.  Thanks for your thoughts.  You may be correct that she influenced the Goddess movement.  AAB's writings have very little to do with that movement, and at most is only indirectly related to it.  But if we credit Sjoo with expertise in the Goddess movement then she might be seen as a person to cite in connection with that specific thing.  For instance, she might be quoted as saying that AAB's emphasis was wrong because it exalted the masculine over the feminine principles or something along that line.  But I think it is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines to  quote her as a support for the contention that AAB was antisemitic or a bad channeler and such--Sjoo was not a scholar in relation to these subjects.James 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goddess Movement & Sjoo

message: James, please stop the renewal of the reversion war that you have again been waging on the Controversies section. The version of September 6th was the consensus version. We  -- ALL of us! -- were awarded a Barnstar of Peace by the administrator AnonEMouse for our cooperative agreement. Your decision to unmake this accord is troubling and disturbing. 
Please stop tampering with a carefully crafted compromise that reported fairly and briefly  on a very real phenomenon -- namely the fact that there are now THOUSANDS of web pages discussing the subject of Alice Bailey's racism and Alie Bailey's antisemitism.
The most recent reversion attempts center on charges that Monica Sjoo was not a "scholar." However, scholarship does not define her usefulness as a source. She was a published author in the New Age and Neopagan communities, a spokesperon for the Gaia-centered Goddess Movement, and a long-time observer of and commentator upon the entire Neopagan and New Age scene. She wrote, with the authority of a participant-observer journalist, that Alice Bailey's racism had affected the New Age movement as she knew it, in the Anglophone nations. Similarly, we have Victor Shnirelman presenting the same conclusion with respect to Bailey's racist followers in Russia. The Sjoo and Shnielman quotes do not duplicate one another, nor do either of them relate to Gershom's theories of Bailey's antisemitism. 
To delete the existence of critics and opponents and to eliminate brief quotations that define the naional scope of their comments is a blatant pushing of a particular POV, namely that of Bailey's followers, who will brook no criticism of their leader. 
cat Catherineyronwode 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damnitalltohell cat, you were doing just great until that smarmy asininity at the end. Why do some of you editors clearly feel that any opportunity for an insult must be taken advantage of? Yet another of many many violations of WP:NPA on this talk page. Why can't you people STOP??? In all other appearances, you folks sure seem to be adults; why the persistent playground pissantry?? It's really friggen tiresome, you know. Eaglizard 06:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: NB: Seriously, can't everybody just leave your shovels in the closet, and stop getting in your little digs on each other at every opportunity? It adds nothing to the debate or to the encyclopedia of which we sing. Please. Eaglizard 08:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion War on Controversies section is a recipe for disaster 

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

message: Hopefully on a happier note, the article has gotten much better since I first saw it. It has been expanded with several sections, most with references. I think it's time to upgrade its assessment from Start-class to B-class, and start thinking about Wikipedia:Good article status. It probably won't make WP:GA since it's not stable yet, but it seems to meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale B-class requirements, in spades. Good work folks. --AnonEMouse (squeak)  0:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear! The idea of WP:GA occurred to me too, earlier today when I was clicking thru the edit history for the last few weeks. This article is so much better than it was a few months ago, and in my opinion it's mostly due to James' efforts. For being the only person I saw who had actually gone out and researched additional decent sources rather than just sitting here picking nits with the rest of us, I salute you in particular, James! But good work, everyone, for improving this article. Eaglizard 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo James.  It's clear you know this literature and I'm glad there's an expert on board to put things into context. I agree with Eaglizard -- your edits are valuable!  Renee  --Renee 23:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment 

message: The criticisms look nice in one section. Unfortunately, the Shnirelman section of the criticism was cut in half under the false editorial comment that a full sentence by Shnirelman was being used instead of the former sentence fragment. Yes, the full sentence was used -- but the meat, heart, and guts of Shnirelman's commentary was removed at the same thime that the full sentence was inserted. I have restored the missing text, of course. Yours for full disclosure in editing comments. cat Catherineyronwode 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Catherine, it is far more complicated and more problematic than you suggest above.  Apparently, you missed my one-line explanation for the edit or did not trouble to check or reflect on it.  
I've changed it back and here is the explanation as to why.
Before my last change it read:
In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed modern Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "groups [that] take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, [and] support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "racist and antisemitic trends are explicit, for example, in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its 'Jewish inheritance' and reject the 'Jewish Bible' as a prerequisite for entering the Age of Aquarius."61]
You adapted the above from a fuller  passage consisting of three lines which read:
"Both Neo-paganism and the New Age movement are very amorphous; composed of many different and even opposite ideas, worldviews, and predictions about the future, some aspects of which are both questionable and alarming. Some groups, as we have seen, take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the “mixture” of kinds, support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration. 104  Racist and antisemitic trends are explicit, for example, in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its “Jewish inheritance” and reject the “Jewish Bible” as a prerequisite for entering the Age of Aquarius.105"
There are three lines above.  
*The fist two sentences relates to "some groups," and as you yourself state, "Neopaganism in Russia" 
*The third sentence relates explicity to Bailey. 
Since the last sentence referencing Bailey immediately follows the first two about  "some groups," and "Neopaganism in Russia," a reader may get the impression that Shnirelman is linking the whole array to Bailey.  I had this impression myself until I examined it more carefully.  The key is in Shnirelman' cucial footnote number 108 which reads:
  "In this respect, the Russian Neo-pagans differ radically from Bailey,
  who accused the Jews of “separatism” and treated them as the major 
  obstacle for an establishment of the uniform nationless world 
  civilization. See Bailey, Rays and Initiations, 634; Brearley, 
  “Possible Implications,” 261–62"
Again, he explicity states:   '"Russian Neo-pagans differ radically from Bailey."'
There are only two ways to be honest with this.  Either we quote just the portion of the text that explicitly references Bailey, or we quote the whole thing and then have to explain to the reader that Shnirelman apparently did not intend to paint Bailey with this broad of a brush, and point out the internal contradiction between what is conveyed by the apparently "accidental" (to be kind) juxtaposition of the third sentence about Bailey following so closely on the first two about Russian Neo-pagans.  I do not think you will like having to elaborate his quotations and footnote in full as it will not reflect well on Shnirelman as a scholar.  Also, with all this detail, balance will then require that we quote, for contrast, what Bailey wrote about "multi-culturalism," "the 'mixture' of kinds,"  "isolationism," and "prohibition of immigration."  As you may, or may not have absorbed, she wrote about all of these in explicit terms.  My suggestion is, don't go there:  leave it simple as it is at the moment. James 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for my simpler Shnirelman quotation

message: Itsmejudith, you created a wiki link in the bio to "United States of America" where AAB moved.  Please read again what I wrote above under "Discretion in Use of Hyperlinks."  A link to the US is a good example of what not to link to.  It has only the most remote relation to the subject of this article and does not serve to distinguish AAB from millions of others who moved to the US.  There is no benefit to the reader in following that type of link.  It draws attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following.  Please try to understand the difference.  We should only link to things that in some way illuminate something about Bailey, her writings, or persons and subjects that bear some significant relationship to her.   Sincerely,  James 19:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James, i cannot more strongly DISAGREE with you. I think that every wiki topic shoudld be linked on first usage and that those which are essential to the topic being covered should be re-linked on first usage within each sub-head. This is the style i prefer to read, and it is the style in which i write. You never know who will be reading the page and what they may wish to learn more about. I will also further note that i have seen you use deliberate and disingenuous UNlinking in order to remove criticism from Alice Bailey in the past and i have called you on it and reinstated the links. The present case may be a matter of style, but your UNlinking is not merely about style -- it has been noted in the past that this is a tactice to discourage further reading on an "uncomfortable" topic. cat Catherineyronwode 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think accusations about someone's ulterior motives are always out of place (well, except at RfArb or RfC I guess), and I'll continue saying so as long as it keeps going on. cat, your implication might be interesting in the proper place; here it just looks like maliciousness. Unless you're accusing James of not wanting people to read about the US or about Manchester, England England (across the Atlantic Sea)? Eaglizard 10:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlinking

message: I noticed some discussion above about interruptions or inter-threading of comments during discussions.
It's an OK method, but it can be confusing.  According to WP:TALK, here is a method that can help reduce the confusion when an interruption is needed:
Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~"). In such cases, please add  before the interruption.
By adding the note and user name when a prior comment is interrupted, the original commentor's signature does not get separateed from their comment.
Another method that can work well is to reply under the prior complete comment, and if replying to a particular section of it, copy a sentence from the part you are replying to, and include it in italices to introduce your reply. Below I'll include a random example as if I'm replying to my own comment.
These are just suggestions, but I think they can help keep the discussion more organized, especially since this talk page is so long and active.  --Parsifal Hello 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "copy a sentence from the part you are replying to, and include it in quotes/italics to introduce your reply". This is just an example, so my reply to that would go here, if I were actually replying to it.  --Parsifal Hello 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  talk page guideline re threading of comments 

message: Hi Folks, Can we start with Parsifal's review and archive everything else?  Thanks, Renee   Renee 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep, at least, from #91 because there is still discussion involving that. Kwork 19:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okee dokee.  Anyone else want to go further back?  Renee 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been a full month an we already need another archive. :( Eaglizard 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving?

message: Use of secondary and primary sources is allowed:
"Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways."  
"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources." (reference as above)
There is no Wiki rule that states that an article or any portion of it must consist of X% of secondary sources and Y% of primary ones.  That said, this article is full of full of both primary and secondary sources.  James 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deja Vu, etc.  Primary sources and secondary sources