Talk:Alice Bailey/Archive 1

message: I am currently attempting to develop a coherent statement of the Tibetan's ideas expressed in AAB's books. Obviously this could be approached from many angles, but I believe the most representative is as follows:
#The belief of man that he is separate from and independent of his fellow man is an illusion (maya).
#When this illusion has been conquered among humans, the current 'evils of society' will all disappear.
#Life is a reincarnational series of lessons that inevitably overcome this illusion of separateness, leading to an eventual 'at-one-ment' of the entire planet.
Purists may argue, but I feel that the elimination of maya & glamour (aka at-one-ment) was the primary goal of DK's publicly disseminated writings. However, this is just a formulation, and leaves out quite a bit of interesting ideas, such as the unique formulations of the planes and rays, the 12 'departments' of the Heirarchy, and in fact, the particular characterization of the Heirarchy as an 'invisible brotherhood' of ascended masters. In fact, I'm not even sure this belongs here under AAB, but I'm not convinced DK deserves a separate page (some will argue there is/was no such person), and putting it under 'neo-theosophy' or (my preference) 'trans-Himalayan' would both be neologisms, afaik. Any comments from interested parties will be welcomed. Eaglizard 17:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an extensive page on Djwal Khul but this covers mostly Theosophical sourced descriptions. You could add a section on his teachings as revealed through  Alice Bailey. Lumos3 19:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. For some reason, I didn't think to look under the name. I wonder why? Eaglizard 22:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement of Tibetan's philosophy

message: Something definitely needs to be added about her constant anti-Semitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.147.48 (talk • contribs).
:Could you cite a source? I am currently patrolling the occult and metaphysical bio articles for mentions of anti-Semitism and would write this up if some references were provided. Catherineyronwode 02:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, i found it. I shall write it up now. Thanks for th tip. Catherineyronwode 02:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have read 50-75% of her work, I would not characterize mention of Jews as 'constant', nor as 'anti-', but that is my opinion. This section's criticims are valid, but I do wish to reword them slighty. I have added a rebuttal of sorts, and removed the sentence referencing a "solution" to the "problem", as this formulation deliberately flirts at triggering Godwin's Law.Eaglizard 18:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've not seen any evidence of this.  I've collected all the Jewish issue quotes that sound harsh to many ears as well as her benevolent and sympathetic sounding passages about the Jews.  I've have all the works in both paper and digital form and it's not hard to find things.  And whole work, as originally published, is available on CDROM.  The publishers, as you might imagine, would consider it sacrilege to alter what they regard as a Masters exact words. 
James 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interestingly, in that regard, the books themselves contain rather constant reminders that they, as works of human hands, are quite fallible, that the teaching contained therein is subject to flaws and imperfection, and that dogmaticism is an evil to be strenuously avoided in any case. To regard the books as perfect or be disinclined to question their content is diametrically opposed to the express instructions of their author. </ot> Eaglizard 10:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Semitism

message: Alice Bailey definitely did NOT coin the term New Age. It was in common use well before her time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekacameron (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Age 

message: Why aren't there any articles specifically about the Lucis Trust and affiliates? I've tried to find more verifiable information, but usually I just find conspiracy pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.231.187 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it? Wjhonson 18:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lucis Trust is the organization that publishes Alice Baily's books, operates the training school she founded, The Arcane School, and maintains such Foster Bailey projects such as World Goodwill.  Kwork 13:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Block quote
I have been officially on Hitler's "blacklist" because of my defence 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.”
[from the Unfinished Autobiography, Alice A. Bailey.pp.119]
Since this quote is included in the article about Alice Bailey, I would like to know if her claim to have been placed "offically on Hitler's blacklist" can be documented. I have read the Unfinished Autobiography several times and there is no documentation of this there.
kwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a question 

message: Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Please try to come up with a wording  that the other party might consider acceptable.  See Wikipedia:Edit war.  Lumos3 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ma happy to see the inclusiion of any sourced criticism. While I like some of what is in the Bailey books I am certainly not a fan let alone a follower. I have worked a lot at wikipedia and I am particularly concerned that we get our bios right. There is a Scandinavian women who wrote a cogent criticism but I can t remember her name (she also had a son who died during rebirthing and without sources I am reluctant to add anything, SqueakBox 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop this edit war

message: To whoever posted the plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion: The third opinion dispute resolution mechanism is intended to provide a tiebreaking opinion between two editors. More than two editors see to be involved here, so a third opinion may not be the best way to bring in more comments. You might try RFC or mediation.
If this disagreement primarily exists between Kwork and James, I'm having difficulty finding an unresolvable conflict here. The disagreement seems to be about the validity of sources, no? The quantity of sources isn't important, if you can find a small selection that seems to represent the viewpoints of the sources out there. I'm not sure what else to say. Please clarify if you need me to form a more solid opinion coming down on one side or the other. -Amatulic 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: The article states "One of the most controversial aspects of Alice Bailey's texts are the many statements she made about the Jews. In her discussions of Judaism and the Jewish ethnic group she refers to Jews as the  Jewish "race"; which, itself, is an incorrect stereotype []."
I have added a  tag to the end, because after reading the referenced weblink I cannot see that it supports the contention that it's used to bolster.  If anyone believes otherwise, I would appreciate a direct quote from that link, perhaps added as a footnote or something. Wjhonson 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your new source is better as it directly addresses the question of "race". It doesn't exactly state that it's an "incorrect stereotype", so I've toned that down a bit. It does however give a good analysis of the issue. They do note that the US Supreme Court stated that Jews are a race, at least for the purposes of the non-discrimination statutes, which sort of speaks against the claim that it's incorrect. Wjhonson 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed the source, and the sentence. Kwork 10:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I rewrote the sentence that has bothered you, and removed the tag. If you are still unhappy about it, I assume you will replace the tag. Kwork 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kwork, you should not turn the Alice Bailey biography, or the even the discussion, into an article about race and perceived antisemitism.  As clearly stated in the Wiki. guidelines, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Your expansion does not have the right tone for Wikipedia bio.  Your expansion appears, not to contribute to the the creation of a balanced and relatively objective biography of Alice Bailey, but prosecution of a personal mission--namely the expression of your opinion that AAB was antisemitic.  Doubling the size of the bio entry with antisemitic thesis is not appropriate. James 00:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not my personal opinion, as you well know. Even inside the New Age movement itself she is far more famous for her views on the Jews than for her writing on the seven rays: http://www.nonduality.com/alice.htm (By the way, I am puzzled that you wrote an article about Alice Bailey with no discussion of her teaching....leaving the most interesting thing unsaid.)  Kwork 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed the inclusion of a quote from an extreme Nazi. Is anyone claiming Bailey was a Nazi? Putting it there seems like propaganda. I have removed the polemic. This is an encyclopaedia. We present accurately the views as stated by others whom we cite as sources, we do not try to preach. I have added Bailey’s own defence against the accusations. Lumos3 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am recopying my explanation of for this quote being there from above: "THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE. The question of Alice Bailey's antisemitism is of importance for two reasons. The first is that bias and animosity against a religious group calls into question the claims for the spirituality and the basic goodness of her teaching. The second is that, if it can be established that the statements about the Jews in her books are actually based on European stereotypes, it will leave in question her claims that the books were dictated to her by a Tibetan Master of the Ancient Wisdom and would indicate, instead, that it was the product of her own mind. The purpose of my presenting the issue in the form that I have, by comparing her statements with typical antisemitic European stereotypes, was to highlight the second as well as the first issue." I will restore that quote when I get a chance, probably later today. Kwork 11:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We are not trying to convince a reader of this article of the nature of anti-Semitism in Europe but that Bailey made some statements which are anti-Semitic. That is all that is needed the rest becomes a personal essay. I don’t doubt your sincerity in arguing it but this is not the place for it. I suggest we link to History of antisemitism. The quote from the autobiography is an accurate quote of what Bailey wrote. You go to far in removing it because you personally cannot verify it. Neither are we trying to debunk Bailey's beliefs but provide an accurate representaion of them, warts and all. Also I took a lot of trouble to put the references into citation style please do not revert them back again. Lumos3 20:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I added this section to the article, I INVITED comments and suggestions, exactly because I wanted to be fair and make the article better. And I did, in fact, make changes in response to suggestions, and I think it actually did become better and more fair. I am certainly willing to make more changes. However, you were never a participant in that process; and you chose, instead, to just go into the article and make the changes you wanted. I have asked you to stop doing that, and engage in discussion. Kwork 21:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Race

message: Lumos3, since you know there is disagreement about the criticism section of the article, it will be easier to come to an agreement if you stop just blowing away whatever parts of the article you don't like. Perhaps you would be interested in trying something you have not tried so far: dialog. Thank you.Kwork 21:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the changes I made incorporated parts of your material. I have been trying to find a form that is acceptable to everyone. Plus I have had no contact with James outside of this page. Even if I had that would be a normal part of the Wikipedia community and it’s your attack which is inappropriate. Lumos3 12:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Your changes kept some of my material but changed all of my intent, so what you are saying is deceptive. Since you have James' e-mail address, I have no way of knowing what you say is true about contacting him. It looks bad, and I have no reason to trust you based on your repeated ill intentioned edits of the criticism section of this article.Kwork 12:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preemptive Changes to the Article 

message: :Following the Wikipedia guidelines cited above, I removed many personal parts of Kwork text on antisemeticism that he had inserted again and expanded on in essay fashion.  These contained assumptions, conclusions, and thesis-affirming implications and did not have a good Wikipedia tone. Left just the core of the ideas expressed in relatively objective and neutral language.  More work is needed.James 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have never engaged in any discussion about this, just made changes. In any cases there is nothing personal in what I added, it is not about me.  Kwork 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to engage you in discussion as can be seen by reading all my entries here the last two weeks.  I'm not able to communicate with you and everything significant I say is just ignored.  About the article, you make the same Wikipedia standards violations over and over and my efforts to talk to you did not alter this.
I have decided to, temporally, remove all of the criticism section that I added. It needs rewriting, and it is difficult to do that while arguing about revisions. Kwork 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contining Effort to Make Cirticism Section More Objective and Neutral

message: I would like to have all the biographical information in the article that is based on Alice Bailey's unfinished Autobiography removed, and replaced with other sources. Basing a Wikipedia biography on such biased information as that would be like basing an article about a politician on the official biography from his campaign headquarters. Her Autobiography, alone, is not a suitable source, and it is not neutral. Kwork 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you don't make this a war.  Wiki. is full of autobiographical references and, to the best of my knowledge, using an autobiography in a bio about a person is entirely appropriate.  Sure, it would be helpful to have more diverse 3d partly sources.  So instead of a destructive approach, go buy some other books about Alice Bailey and improve what is there. James 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you don't want to to that, then let's go to mediation Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee  
Do you agree to that?James 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Unfinished Autobiography 

message: (Most of what you have written feels like a seperate discussion from the issue of her autobiography and Sethie would like to continue it in a new section)
:hum-drum stuff?! Hmmmm... Well lets see: Bailey said that a Tibetan Master of the Ancient Wisdom dictated (from his Monastery in Tibet), telepathically, twenty books to her. In addition to a lot of interesting stuff in the books about the occult history of the solar system, of this planet, of the working and influence of the Seven Cosmic Rays, etc.; she also heaped praise on Hitler in his early years, and said that the Jews are going to have to give up their religion for the good of humanity. Additionally, her former coworkers at the Theosophical Society said she was a liar, and Helena Roerich, who one might assume to be an ally, instead said Bailey was possessed by the Black Lodge. Perhaps you consider this hum-drum stuff; but not everyone would. For instance, to read a discussion  involving people who had read her books, see: http://www.nonduality.com/alice.htm  Kwork 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hum-drum discussion

message: The page is now listed as an RFD, when it is not a WP:REDIRECT page.
Even if it was a redirect page, the RFD was done improperly.... so Sethie is reverting it. 
Sethie's hunch is you want to do an WP:AFD. Sethie 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to have an afd as subject is very notable, SqueakBox 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sethie concurs. WP:AFD also clearly says that POV disputes and content disputes are not valid reasons for deletion, and Kwork (please correct Sethie if he is wrong) has been saying it is his intention to delete the article if it does not undergo some changes. Sethie 01:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Tell Sethie that it is not my intention to delete the article, as that is something that is not in my power. I will nominate it for deletion if it does not improve, and (if it does come to that) I will live with the decision. But my interest is in improving the article. Instead of telling everyone what I intend, Sethie might do better to ask for clarification. Otherwise, it might sound as though Serthie is lieing, God forbid.Kwork 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the clarification... If you read WP:AFD you will see that content is not considered a valid reason for, yes, nomiatiion for deletion. Sethie 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked article says:"For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." You may recall that tags I added were quickly removed, and additions I made to the article were emasculated. If a further step is needed, I will attempt that. Kwork 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well all that would be fine, though subject to normal edit rules. Afding the article would not be fine, esp as I am sure you dont think Alice Bailey lacks notability yourself, SqueakBox 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you do that I would argue it would be WP:POINT and disruptive, thus subject to revert. If you want to delete this article you would have to argue that Alice Bailey is not notable and with over 30 books still being published and the abundance of refs about her available she is clearly notable which is why the article was created early on in Jan 04 and nobody has subjected it to deletion. In a word, dont, SqueakBox 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really feel good knowing that all you guys are so concerned about keeping me safe from making a mistake. (By the way, what is the punishment inflicted here for making a mistake?) The problem for me is this: since there is not one of you guys that I trust, I am unwilling to trust your advice, and I must (as a result) try to get to what I think is right by trying things out. I will assume that the system at Wikipedia will not fall apart because of this. Kwork 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. *If* the objection is that the main source used for the biography is herself, then a good suggestion would be that the objector get himself to a library and find another source. IMHO, we don't delete articles simply because *one section* of them is based on a single source. Wjhonson 01:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is no basis for deletion.  In addition, there is now a new line and reference in the bio:  "A corroborative version of main events in Bailey's life, her ideas, meeting with her teacher, relation to Theosophy, etc. may be found in Sutcliffe (Sutcliffe, Steven J., Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, Routledge, 2003, pp. 46-49)"  Contrary to Kwork's assertion that all that is written on Bailey is from her autobiography, the section of the the book dealing with Bailey in this work draws from other sources as well and includes material not found in her autobiography.James 01:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:RFC, SqueakBox 01:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: Kwork, in reading over all that you have written here in the discussion, and the now substantial history of your article edits, it seems that you are not hear to help develop the Alice Bailey Biography.  Instead, it seems you have set yourself a mission to disrupt the article based on your strong personal feelings about what you perceive as Alice Bailey's antisemitism.   You have used the discussion section to vent your feelings and attempted to do the same in the article itself where such tone is a violation of Wiki standards.  Now if you can not weigh down the article with quotes emphasizing the antisemitism theme, or criticize it based on misunderstanding of Wikipedia standards, then you try other methods.  While your personal feelings are understandable, this biography is not the place for your catharsis, and in the discussion as well, your personal agenda has replaced what should have been a friendly ongoing talk about how to continue to improve and develop the article in accordance with Wikipedia standards.  The Internet is full of places for discussion about the things you want to vent on, but this is not one of them.  You are fighting a loosing battle here--not because either of us is right or wrong about the antisemitism or the facts of Bailey's life--but because the Wikipedia process is designed to prevent exactly the sort of thing you are trying to do.  You may win some small battles but it's all for nothing.  Why waist your time and the time of others pushing the rock up the hill only to have it roll down again upon you?  I bear you no ill feelings and wish you well; but please find something constructive to do.  Sincerely, James 01:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Sethie would add to this is a suggestion to go edit some other unrelated articles, get more familair with how things function and flow here and then come back. Participate in some dialogues where you have no vested interest. From personal experience, Sethie can say  it is NIGHT and DAY and it is quite a learning experience.Sethie 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You really manage to write the silliest sounding stuff. I do think that AAB let her personal prejudices into the otherwise good books. But DK told his students that it was their job to differentiate between what is correct and what false in the books (see, for instance, the introduction to White Magic). My real problem is with the 6th Ray types, such as yourself, who distort and harm the teaching while genuinely believing that they are protecting it. I know that you mean well, but it is clear that you just never had proper training. It is quite sad to see that the teaching represented by people such as you, because I can remember how little AAB's own students were bothered by these criticisms, and to what extent they would go to maintain unity in diversity. Kwork 21:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Kwork, for so generously offering your personal insights into my ray type and the level of my training, or lack thereof, in relation to AAB/DK writings.  You are obviously a person who has broken free of all form identifications, so providing yourself with that unfettered and instantaneous insight that allows you to paint even the hidden characters of distant and anonymous interlocutors with such infallible touch as would bring the gods themselves to jealousy.James 01:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Students of the teaching, normally, over the time of many years, develop an ability to recognize ray influence. It does not take a god, or a Master, or even a disciple. It is sad to see how little training current students, particularly those who speak publicly for the teaching, have gotten. Kwork 12:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporting the Development of this Bio Versus Sabotage of It

message: Kwork, as I asked earlier:  What ideas do you have about how to make the article better?  What would you like to see happen?James 16:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the type you cited above.James 23:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements to the Alice Bailey Biography--A call for constructive thinking

message: ...writer and lecturer on Neo-Theosophy...
This term, Neo-Theosophy, was never used by AAB, or by RA either. In fact, I don't recall hearing anyone use this term. But, if that is how you want to classify her, it is okay with me.....even though it makes no sense. Kwork 13:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-Theosophy?

message: Could someone tell me how Alice Bailey meets any of these Criteria for notability of people, in this article?  Kwork 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She has been the subject of many secondary publications, she has demonstrable wide name recognition, she has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field so notability is simply not an issue in her case, SqueakBox 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the criteria for secondary publications: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." But all the secondary publications have been written by her own followers, and they are by no means intellectually independent of Bailey. She simply is not in the same league for notability with writers such as Carl Jung, Rudolf Steiner, or Sri Aurobindo. That is not to say she is inferior, but the notability does not seem to be there. I am thinking about putting a tag on this article, but will think about it for a few days. Kwork 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Squeakbox, notability is not an issue. She has been mentioned in every scholarly history of the New Age movement I've come across. Lumos3 22:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there have been many other sources for her, including people critical of her, she may not be as notable as Steiner, Jung or Blavatsky for that matter but that doesnt mean she fails our own notability guidelines, SqueakBox 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Then why is that not established in the article? The virtually the only significant source used in the article is her autobiography. Personally I do not know of any published critical studies, but I would be happy to see those sources. The point is to get what is needed in the article, not just assertions on the talk page. Kwork 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I agree though I also think the lack of them, while making for a worse article, doesnt imply lack of notability, SqueakBox 22:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The lady I mentioned before and couldnt find her name who criticised AAB is callaed Monica Sjöö, SqueakBox 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have seen those articles, but as far as I know they are not a published source. Kwork 22:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The book she wrote is clearly a published source (I did own it once) though this page is also clearly perfectly acceptable as a reference and shows online that she wrote the book and that it was published so its 100% fine for our purposes and useful as a different criticism, SqueakBox 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay. But what I would really like to see is something as thorough as the studies Richard Noll did of Carl Jung....and that is not to be found. Kwork 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if they are not to be found there is nothing we can do about it but she is still notable. We just have to do the best we can, SqueakBox 01:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand that we disagree over that. I do not think she meets the notability guidelines, but I will not put a tag on the article without thinking about it more. By the way, I am as doubtful of writers who see nothing good in AAB as of those who see her as perfect; but the issue, at this point, is not her goodness but her notability. Kwork 11:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to add something to what I wrote directly above. What is at issue is the article. In my view the article, as it now is, does not make the case that Alice Bailey is notable. If that is changed, I will have to accept the proof, no matter what my personal opinion of Bailey. Kwork 13:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You simply wont get this article deleted through lack of notability, she is far too notable for that, SqueakBox 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think she was notable, and I don't see anything in the article that proves me wrong. Kwork 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wel that is your POV but we dont judge notability solely based on what the article says, AAB is more notable than tens of thousands of other bios we have, and the article is a reasonable length and good qquality. We cant remove people on the basis of I DONT LIKE and this discussion is going nowhere and beginning to be a complete waste of time. If you dont thinkl she is notable I think you are not grasping notability for this encyclopedia, SqueakBox 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I said clearly that the problem is the article, not Alice Bailey. The article fails to make any case for her notability. If nothing is done to correct that, I will put a tag on the article. The problem is the article. Kwork 11:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thinking about this further, I suppose it might be possible to argue that the "Criticism" section of the article does establish AAB's notability in a negative way. That seems pathetic, but perhaps justified. Kwork 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notibility

message: Substituted at 20:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment