Talk:Alice Bailey

message: I don't have the patience to investigate who did this, but it seemed a shame to just throw it away entirely. The following list has been de-linked (in the article); I leave the links here for any one interested in some Original Research in the form of Wikilinks:
# The Lord of Power or Will
# The Lord of Love-Wisdom
# The Lord of Active Intelligence
# The Lord of Harmony, Beauty and Art
# The Lord of Concrete Knowledge and Science
# The Lord of Devotion and Idealism
# The Lord of Ceremonial Order or Magic
Some of these may seem inarguable (to some), but there's no equivalent list in Bailey that I'm aware of. (If someone can point to this list, or a secondary source, then it makes a great addition to the article. But until then, it's OR, innit?) Oh and btw, welcome back, Malcolm. :) Eaglizard (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Masters for rays 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are as I recall them in the Bailey books.  Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems there are sources forthese and that there are even whole Wiki articles on some.Renee (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, see the links lead to the Wiki articles...if you look at the sources of these articles you'll see there are several. I think it's a good idea to include them in this article.Renee (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the refs in the WP article for Hilarion, as the 5th ray master, relate to Bailey. I have not checked the other articles, but if these correspondences of rays with masters are used there should be AAB refs for them. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you agree with this chart here? (Have to scroll down a bit...)  It seems it is from this source: Bailey, Alice A. The Seven Rays of Life New York: 1995--Lucis Publishing Co. Compilation from all the Alice A. Bailey books of material about the Seven Rays. Renee (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it is correct. I really wish the books could still be searched online. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: OK I looked through all of these and they all match so I'm putting the wikilinks back in the article with a new footnote.  --Linda (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lords of the Seven Rays 

message: There have recently been additions in "On the Jewish Problem", and in "On interracial marriage". Since there has been a lot of disagreement over these sections, it might be a good idea to discuss such changes before making them. In this case the changes seem to be unsourced, and I will soon remove them unless someone gives a really good reason why I should not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced changes?

message: Hello, folks. It's me, cat yronwode, a.k.a. the old "64." I decided to revisit this previous battleground, wondering what shards and fragments would remain. I am happy to see Malcolm back, and to see that he and Renee can now discuss this biographical article on civil terms. I like the way the article looks at this point. I have little or no time to add to or subtract from it, so all i want to say is, "Hello." Catherineyronwode (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking Good

message: This section uncritically quotes Bailey several times repeating her anti-Semitic statements. The quotes may be valuable in demonstrating her anti-Semitic views, however as stated they do not appear to follow the guidance of WP:QUOTE: the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.
At the moment the section lacks balance by effectively repeating her unchallenged viewpoint. Responses from a critical reliable source would address the balance and probably reduce the need to include so many of her anti-Semitic quotes.—Ash (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check the guidance of WP:SOAP, your statement appears to be promotional rather than specifically suggesting improvements to the article.—Ash (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: It may be worth taking a moment to see how the William Shakespeare article handles quotes. He is the most quotable person in history and yet the article keeps the number and length of quotes quite modest and always gives context. In this article the proportion of quote to article text is disproportionate for the controversial sections in question. Most of these sections have no criticism. Repeating a quote with no context or analysis (when plenty of independent reliable sources are available to give context and analysis) makes for a pointless article that reads like a fan site. The NPOV tag appears justified with little improvement made in these areas since the tag was added. Ash (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that there seems to be a disproportionate focus on the quotes, and should be kept in context.  It feels as if its written to provoke the reader rather than inform on her opinion.  I agree that it needs to be tidied up.  I don't think its this articles place to challenge / counterbalance her statements (with fact), but her quotes do need to be reprensentative and and in context.  I'm happy not to remove the tag, since the article is loaded with issues so the tag is minor, but I'll move it slightly higher up so it covers all her racial theories, since her 'Negro' views are presented in a similar manner.  Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider:  http://www.bookreader.org/bailey/Alice_Bailey.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.74.253 (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Jewish problem" and NPOV 

message: It may be important to people who draw up astrological charts on her, but is it important for Wikipedia? -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Exact birth time in first paragraph

message: As a member of the Warburg Institute's Esoteric Studies Group, which is probably the world's leading academic study group in the area, I strongly question the general NPOV balance of the article. For example, it implies that esoteric learning is a subdomain of the meme, whereas if it has any real claim to operational esotericism, it would be the other way around. Such imbalanced claims are hardly to the credit of the subject, and indicate a negative dynamic to Mrs Bailey's fundamental operative practice which is destructive of any original claims in the area, according to the classic texts like the Picatrix.
Esotericism is an aspect of the very earliest documented records of human history, far predating the 19th century's fads, which as they don't seem to have had a serious effect on the world may not be worth the memory taken by this meme. That certain black circles seem to have attempted to commandeer the subject for themselves does not make them authorities, for that matter.
It would therefore be appreciated if a neutral authority could review the meme and reestablish objectivity, which seems to be seriously lacking.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.142.222 (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esoteric taxonomy 

message: I removed material which was all primary sourced because the amount of primary sourced opinions on the article, sourced to bailey herself was excessive. It was reverted with no specific objection. Can people outline their specific objections here. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the amount of sourcing to Bailey was far in excess of the norm on biographical articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm curious as to why this edit was reverted here with an edit summary saying it had to do with primary sources when it clearly does not (at least to me). Was there another reason? Debouch (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reply is unclear. How does it not? Most of the material I have removed is that cited to primary sources, namely Bailey herself, Second Quantization (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, it is unclear. Sorry. I had removed some primary-sourced material and you inadvertently put it back. Debouch (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That specific Diff was due to the revert mechanism failing. (The diff viewer showed my edit, but after the commit a different revert had been made). I had to manually correct it by copying and pasting the earlier version of the article here: . Second Quantization (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit was poorly timed. I'll redo it at some point. Thanks. Debouch (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive primary sourced material 

message: There are two terms that seem to apply to the writing of Alice Bailey that are apparently missing from the article.
#Ascended Masters
#Channeling, noting that the article Mediumship has a section on channeling.
Are there any thoughts on adding some content to the article on these subjects? I know that Bailey objected to being classified as a medium, and that she did not use the term Ascended Master. But her books, as all Ascended Master literature, seems classifiable as channeled literature; and the term Ascended Master Teachings does seem to accurately describe her work. 
Kwork2 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two missing terms 

message: Hey  -- I don't want to get in your way, but while you're working so hard on this article, might you take a look at the section Alice Bailey#Her Ideas about Races and some Criticisms and figure out where to put the three things near the end (Sjoö and the Blavatsky comparison) where they belong? Originally, they seemed to be in the Bibliography in a section called Criticism, but then people started using that section to discuss the criticism, and now that three-item bibliography kinda floats there. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note.  Yes, I was just noticing yesterday and the criticism are sprinkled in multiple places whereas I think, to compare with other articles on Wikipedia I've seen, criticism are usually placed in a discrete "Criticism" section.  I've not looked too much at the overall organization but it probably should be tweaked, inclding putting all the critiques in a single section.  I think it might be good to have all the criticism together and divide that into subsections with the Blavatsky part as 1, and the Sjoo as another, etc. Mystic1muse (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't the arrangment of the criticism section that I noted, just the odd placement of those bibliography items. But yeah, that too. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is that there? sjoo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alice Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907061225/http://www.sevenray.net/sri_journal_v2n2_a6.html to http://www.sevenray.net/sri_journal_v2n2_a6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Alice Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810224751/http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/13shnir.html to http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/13shnir.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927051334/http://www.rogerwoolger.com/images/Beyond_the_Brain.pdf to http://www.rogerwoolger.com/images/Beyond_the_Brain.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621070803/http://www.esotericstudies.net/bailey_talks.html to http://www.esotericstudies.net/bailey_talks.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140115202014/http://www.alice.bailey.it/index.php/testi-bailey-in-inglese to http://www.alice.bailey.it/index.php/testi-bailey-in-inglese
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alice Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407083319/http://www.light-weaver.com/problems/prob1042.html to http://www.light-weaver.com/problems/prob1042.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've done some inline tags for original research in Alice Bailey#In popular culture but I'm also flagging it here as I'm about to tag the article as whole in the hope that someone with more subject knowledge can either source the claims properly or remove them. I noticed this issue as a reader and don't feel able to do more than tag. Thanks. Amedee123 (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in the popular culture section