Talk:Alice Bailey/Archive 4

message: If Catherine or others of you want to insist on the current version, then it should be expanded so as to shown the whole picture rather than a vague and deceptive portion.  
In which case, a new expanded version  should read as follows: 
In 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, wrote an article, Russian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism.  In this he critisized New Age movement and connected it to Russian Neo-paganism.  He states that "some groups" within this movement have a negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the " 'mixture' of kinds," support isolationism, and want to prohibit immigration.   He then appears to link these views to Alice Bailey, saying:
In contrast to Shnirelman's contentions above, passages in Alice Bailey support internationalism, multi-culturalism and speak for the mixing of cultures and races.  Bailey, Alice A., The Destiny of the Nations, Lucis Trust, 1949, p 64 & 152 Bailey, Alice A., From Bethlehem to Calvary, Lucis Trust, 1937, p 253
Shnirelman also writes:
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.  
Shnirelman's statement above is not followed by a citation of a Bailey passage but is followed by a citation to a book by Margaret Brearley Brearley, Margaret , “Possible Implications of the New Age Movement for the Jewish People,” in Jewish Identities in the New Europe, ed. Jonathan Webber (London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1994), 261–65.  A search of Bailey's books,  available online, shows that the phrases, “Jewish inheritance,” and “Jewish Bible,” do not occur in the Bailey writings, and she makes no use of the word "cleanse " in relation to the Jews or Christanity.  The Jewish reference by Bailey, or an examplar of it, that Shnirelman and Brearley seem to be critisizing reads:
"The reorganization of the world religions - if in any way possible - so that their out-of-date theologies, their narrow-minded emphasis and their ridiculous belief that they know what is in the Mind of God may be offset, in order that the churches may eventually be the recipients of spiritual inspiration. 
The gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the orthodox Jewish faith, with its obsolete teaching, its separative emphasis, its hatred of the Gentiles and its failure to recognize the Christ. In saying this I do not fail to recognize those Jews throughout the world who acknowledge the evils and who are not orthodox in their thinking; they belong to the aristocracy of spiritual belief to which the Hierarchy itself belongs."  Bailey, Alice A. The Externalization of the Hierarchy, Lucis Trust. 1957. p 545) 
James 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third

message: I've been invited by both James and Kwork to take a look at this article and offer an uninvolved viewpoint towards achieving an NPOV article based in Wikipolicy.  For context, I've heard of Alice Bailey and know a bit about Theosophy and related topics; but I have not previously read AAB's writings or biographical information.  I've started to educate myself on this and have read the talk page, and will offer some ideas when I can.  In the meantime I thought it would be useful to mention how the intro section worked for me when I first read it, as someone without prior knowledge of the details.
For clarity, I am referring to this version of the intro.  It may have changed already by the time someone reads this.
I don't know who wrote the intro, and these comments are not directed towards any one person or position, it's just my first impression and my ideas about how the intro could be more helpful to a new reader desiring information on this topic. 
I found the intro to be be both overly detailed and at the same time, lacking a good overview.  The individual books and their summaries seemed out of place and I felt took me away from the overview I was seeking to know what the article would be about, in other words, the essence of this notable person's life.  
The books could be included in the article, but would be better described elsewhere.  For example, there could be another section in the article, perhaps following the biographical section and prior to the the "ideas" section, with a few paragraphs about her most important books and how they fit into her philosophy, either by topic or chronologically.  Or the books could b e integrated into the ideas section - depending on if she is seen more as a philosopher or as a writer, which would be better to emphasize.
For an example of some introductions, we might refer to other articles about authors, for example these are pretty good: Robert A. Heinlein and J. R. R. Tolkien, and for comparative controversial figures that were authors but also started occult or spiritual organizations, this intro may be of use as an example:  Aleister Crowley.  I am not saying that the content is similar, I just suggest these as templates for good overviews that give me an understanding of the person before I dive into the article.
The other thing I noticed right off in the intro is that Alice Bailey is described as an author and a teacher or leader, but nothing is mentioned about the unusual way in which many of her books were written until later in the article.  As a reader who did not know much about her previously, I was under the impression that her books were dictated by some sort of other dimensional entity, as with a Course in Miracles or the Seth Material or Crowley's The Book of the Law.  I don't know much about this process and am not intending to discuss the details of it, but before coming to this page it was something I had heard about Alice Bailey and her works, so I was curious about it.
Here is my takeaway from the current intro: She was born in England, moved to the USA, wrote some philosophy books that were early versions of New Age thought, and was related to the Theosophy movement.  
That does not seem to give a good overview of this interesting, outspoken, unusual, controversial, creative, and influential person.
Below is a very rough shorthand idea of how I would approach the intro.  My use of words here like "spiritual" or "occult" are not technical - they are placeholders for convenience, you may have better ways of explaining these things.  Someone who knows more about her could make this into a strong effective overview.  The bullet points are not for the intro, just for this list, the intro should of course be a few paragraphs of prose as usual:
* Alice Bailey - (born - date, place - died date, place) - was a philosopher, author, and teacher on topics of spirituality,the occult, religion, and ...(etc).  She came up with some important new ideas, some controversial, that influenced a lot of people during and after her life and are still discussed and actively followed today.
* She wrote books in two ways, one which is unusual.  Some she wrote in the conventional manner, in her own words describing her ideas, and she also wrote many books where she took "dictation" or received "telepathic communications" from entities she called "the Masters" or "the Tibetan" (fill in the correct terms there, I'm not sure about these).  The writings she produced in this manner used a different style of writing from her own words, and produced a large and complex volume of work explaining a system of philosophy and including advice for readers, or students, for improving their lives and the society in general (again, fill in the proper details here, this is just an example).
* Her writings were related to but divergent from writings by others during the same years (?), especially in the area of Theospophy.
* Her writing charted a new course, in many ways diverging from mainstream religious concepts and interpretations of the Bible and other scriptures,and generally focused on creating a unified society with a global religion (?).  
* Her writings were outspoken and included controversial statements on a variety of topics including criticisms of orthodox Chirstianity, nationalism,  racial allegiances, and the role of the Jewish or Hebrew people in society.  She has been criticized for some of these writings, that some consider to be racist or anti-semitic.  Others dispute that chracterization, stating that it is a misreading of her words and that her philosophy embraces all races and creeds; the controversy is ongoing.
* Her writings generated a lot of interest and attracted many followers who formed groups, schools and organizations to study and implement her ideas, many still active today.
Well, those are some ideas for the intro.  Use them if you wish. I also think there should be at least a short section in the article explaining how her books were written.  I realize some of that is included already in the "Comparison with theosophy section", but that's a different topic.  If the comparison section were preceded by a section about how the books were "dictated" or "received" and the identies of the entities that dictated the amterial, then the Comparisons section would be easier to understand for a reader with no (or very little) prior knowledge of this topic.  (Like me for example).  
I hope you find my comments helpful.  I'll continue learning about the topic so I can be more informed with my notes. --Parsifal Hello 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow!  This is a fantastic review -- very thoughtful and constructive.  I like all of your ideas and hope that James and Kwork, who seem to know the most about AAB, follow this structure.  Best wishes to all, Renee   Renee 19:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: impression about the intro from a new reader

message: :Thanks for your suggestions on the introduction.  I think they make good sense and I will participate in implementing them.
:When you have time, I'd appreciate your take on the "Criticisms of Bailey" section, especially the "Racism and antisemitism" subsection" and its relation to the discussion here: Shnirelman  James 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: Kwork, your recent edits to the introduction look good and are welcome improvements; thanks.  
One minor point, "Master of the Ancient Wisdom" is a paraphrase as I think she never actually used that exact phrase.  She used "Master of the Wisdom"and "Ancient Wisdom" as separate phrases.  So "Master of the Ancient Wisdom" is a phrase that's not exactly hers, but close.  It's a fine point, and I imagine that the reason she used them separately is so as not to over emphasize the "ancient" aspect in what is a new incarnation of a "new age" teaching.  "Ancient" can suggest either old an venerable or dusty and out of date.  I think, in Bailey's writings, the wisdom is defined as both ancient and also very new, e.g. "new age" as in the present age of Aquarius. James 22:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, v good edits, Kwork. I agree that's good call, removing metaphysics and philosophy. Maybe informally you could call it that, but I don't think they're encyclopedic when applied here. Eaglizard 10:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Introduction Development

message: Regarding the summary below, albion moonlight wrote: 
Nice try in trying to leave my name out but since this article has a few (essentialy one purpose editors sent here by Phillip lindsay I sincerely doubt that any claim of consensus that you may be trying try to lay claim to, will withstand the scrutiny of either the Mediation committee or the Arbitration comittee. Arb com makes decisions on Rfc's and you may need to create an Rfc on all 3 us if you try to stuff Ms Lindsays will down our throats. My advice to Cat and Kwork is to stick to your guns and force the others to take this to an Rfc. If we stick together we can win. The worst case scenario is that Arb com will refuse hear the case and that the dispute will never be settled. I think that JP Gordon is probably just waiting for the edit wars to begin again. He has known about the suspected Meat Puppetry for 2 or 3 days now and has likely put this article back on his watch list. Oh yes and I have asked 
AnonEmouse to help me create an article on Ms Lindsay. They will never be able to lay a rightful claim to consensus.  : Albion (moonlight 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Albion Moonlight, are you okay? Seriously, I'm concerned. I think we're moving on from personal attacks. Can we trust that James accidentally missed your response. Anyway, thanks for correcting his overlook. Sparklecplenty 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brother Alibion, please cool your jets.  Remember below I said, "subsection above is so large that it's becoming a pain to follow."  It was also a pain to comb through and find stuff in, which I did rapidly, and I've been busy today.  And all you had to do was add your name to the list I created which I see you've done; no need to get worked up about it.  Do seriously believe that I  deliberately left out your name while expecting no one, including you, would notice?  As to the other stuff about Lindsay etc., you seem to be fighting something in your mind that doesn't correspond to any reality.James 01:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Albion, you'll probably think I'm just being dishonest, but seriously. Please write an article about Phillip Lindsay; I'm really curious to know who the hell who this person is, exactly. Thanks! Eaglizard 10:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Your response to Catherineyronwode is an example of Ad Hominem, the most famous logical fallacy of trying to discredit the argument by discrediting the person who made the argument. Kwork 11:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to bet he means me, and my response in another section to another point that's completely unrelated to anything in this section, but it's not clear to me. It's just so ambiguous it makes me sneeze. Eaglizard 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ad Hominem is not "character assassination". But neither is anything said by me, Catherineyronwode, or Albion moonlight about Lindsay. I have had plenty of e-forum discussions with him, and exchanged e-mail too. His attitude toward Jews is abysmal. Nevertheless,I tried to arrange a meeting with him when he was in NYC this past Spring, hoping that personal contact might help matters; but he refused. (I could not possabily care less about his poetry.) Kwork 15:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page.  You can go for mediation, but the problem with that is that consensus shifts when new players come aboard. If we can agree to have good standards for sources, then most of these disagreements will leave (because if a reliable, verifiable sources says X there's really no reason for leaving it out). Renee 14:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Kwork is absolutely right on here, although he  doesn't seem to grasp that comments like this make him look like the very leader of that "certain group". I think this comment in particular displays precisely that Kwork has no intention to ever reach a compromise on the criticism section of the article. He's essentially saying, "Well, if they don't compromise, I'm just going to keep arguing forever." This obviously is not conciliatory. Compromise requires that both sides abandon confrontation. He seems to be saying he'd just as soon RfC or otherwise Wikilawyer it into submission (and that's assuming on good faith he did not mean to AfDelete this article, which would be so very much worse for him to  suggest). Eaglizard 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Albion moonlight personal stuff

message: Please put any further discussion of this here, the Shnirelman subsection above is so large that it's becoming a pain to follow.  James 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks. I just don't have any opinion on this right now, so go ahead with out me. :) Eaglizard 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shnirelman simple / Shnirelman more complete and more clear PART 2

message: Editors in favor of Version #1, the current version:  Catherineyronwode, Kwork, Albion Moonlight.
Editors in favor of Version #2, the smpler one shown below:  Sparklecplenty, Renee, James
Eaglizard (still thinking?)
:Yes, thanks. I just don't have any opinion on this right now, so go ahead with out me. :) Eaglizard 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of Editors positions

message: Reasons given in support of version 1:
* The Shnirelman sentences are "true"  (i.e. that's what he wrote)
Reasons given against verions 1 and for version 2::
* #1 misrepresents and contradicts Bailey's own statements
* #1 mis-characterizes the subject
* Number 2 says what #1 says but is more succinct and easily understood. 
* #1 would require expanding the criticism by contrasting references from Bailey
Above summarized by James 12:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of Editors Reasons

message: I've archived most of the last few weeks' discussion, keeping former #91 as requested by Kwork.  I also archived some minor issues like the hyperlinks and Parsifal's excellent suggestion that we take greater care when responding to posts (because they're so difficult to read otherwise).  
Please let me know if any of the other sections above can be archived as this "new" talk page is still long to start fresh!  Thanks, Renee   --Renee 14:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're referring to?  Please provide link or diff.  Thanks. Renee 17:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I am on the talk page, and click on "history" at the top of the page, I get a new page that says Revision history of "Talk:Alice Bailey" at the top. Kwork 17:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I click on history for any page (including my user page and yours) that's what I get.  I think it's just a description of the page, that is, history of the revisions for X page.  Renee 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive note

message: "Professional self-published sources
"When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking."  
"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources...
...reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial..." 
"Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues..."
::Moot point. Shnirelman was not self-published. He was published by Hebrew University! cat (shaking her head at the ridiculous extremity of this edit war) Catherineyronwode 03:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki policy applicable Shnirelman:  Professional self-published sources

message: ===put your complaints about Kwork here:===
Its called kvetching. Kwork 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the explanation. I didn't mean to single you out with my comment or imply that you were uncivil. Actually I thought you might have done it as a joke, but then as we could see, it became something else.  The tensions are high on this page so we all need to be extra careful to respect each other.  --Parsifal Hello 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be shy Sparklecplenty. I put a complaints section, above, so list what you mean by threats, etc. Or is there anything extra beyond what Sethie put here ? If there is anything missing in Sethie's RfC against me, you might do even better to add it there. Kwork 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: civility and collaboration

message: Its called kvetching. Kwork 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: put your complaints about Kwork here:

message: I've refactored this little section to make room for this comment. Please note that behavior like the above is not conducive to attaining a positive result.  We may be able to make some progress here, but not with that kind of approach.
I strongly suggest that whenever someone feels the need to insult someone else, or enter a cynical comment about someone else, take a break and read these articles:
* Wikipedia:Etiquette
* Wikipedia:Civility
* Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
* Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot
* WP:TALK 
Thanks.  --Parsifal Hello 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the explanation. I didn't mean to single you out with my comment or imply that you were uncivil. Actually I thought you might have done it as a joke, but then as we could see, it became something else.  The tensions are high on this page so we all need to be extra careful to respect each other.  --Parsifal Hello 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be shy Sparklecplenty. I put a complaints section, above, so list what you mean by threats, etc. Or is there anything extra beyond what Sethie put here ? If there is anything missing in Sethie's RfC against me, you might do even better to add it there. Kwork 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: talk page etiquette

message: Regarding the lead section, James and I were debating the inclusion of date-links (also known as auto-formatted dates) in the lead sentence. As I've inserted them, and they've not been removed, should I assume we're in agreement now? For the record, my reason for including them is that each of the 25 or 30 random bio articles I checked used this format, and I contend all or most do so, making it a de facto standard. This bio should conform, I think.
I also would prefer the link to Manchester (england england) to remain; the link to US I just added for consistency; obviously it adds very little to the article.
Btw, did anyone notice that I added a claim of notability in the lead? Isn't it just awful how some editors like me keep trying to remove or bury any reference to criticism of Mrs Bailey? Somebody stop me, please. Eaglizard 21:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Eaglizard, the format thing is no big deal, my ongoing concern had more to do with peppering lots of low value Wiki links throughout the article, which at one time it had.  If only your format concern was the most serious matter to be dealt with... James 22:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, James, if we just keep moving forward, we'll get there eventually. :) See, I spent two years putting off expanding this article because I didn't feel qualified. I kept hoping some better writer would come along and summarize Bailey's teachings, and now you have. So, I'm just trying to apply what skills I do possess, mostly in the areas of formatting and copyediting. Eaglizard 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Above you wrote:
Oh, right! It was Gershom who was self-published. But what he said wasn't a lie, because he just quoted Alice Bailey.-- Catherineyronwode  
You may be confusing Gershom and Shnirelman.  The lie I was citing is Shnirelman's, specifically these parts of his AAB attack:
* "extremely negative view of multi-culturalism"
* "object to the 'mixture' of kinds"
* "support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." 
* "Julius Evola"
* "Jewish inheritance,” 
* “Jewish Bible,” 
* "cleanse " in relation to the Jews 
The problem is, Shnirelman doesn't quote AAB on these issue and then attack that which would be the honest thing to do.  Instead, he just makes up some things and cites words that she never used and are the opposite of what she wrote.
He associates her with the phrases, “Jewish inheritance,” and “Jewish Bible,” and  "cleanse " in relation to the Jews or Christianity--just do a keyword search of those words and phrases using the texts from   You will find no such quotes or statements.  He made them up.  They are not even paraphrase and he gives no references or quotes from AAB that use them.
He associates her name with "Julius Evola" whereas she explicitly condemed fascism. Search her texts for "fascism" and see. 
On the issue of internationalism, multi-culturalism and  mixing of cultures and races AAB wrote the opposite of what Shnirelman states. Bailey, Alice A., The Destiny of the Nations, Lucis Trust, 1949, p 64 & 152 Bailey, Alice A., From Bethlehem to Calvary, Lucis Trust, 1937, p 253  There are lots more, but that's just a sample. James 15:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "...he just quoted Alice Bailey"; Not

message: I'm so happy, James, that you have, for now, decided not to obsess over the fact that this article contains a few paragraphs of criticsm of Alice Bailey and will let Professor Shnirelman's comments remain, without constant reversions and attemts to chop them apart. I hope that in times to come you will see this as a  good day. I am optimistic about that. 
To Eagilizard, who did not appreciate my tongue-in-cheek parody, my apologies for wasting your time. Humour is a delicate flower, and its blooms are shy. 
cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 02:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've probably reiterated it 10 times and I guess one more won't hurt.  I have never been opposed to including elements of criticism in the article.  I have myself inserted new ones.  What I have advocate is a proportionate picture using reliable high quality sources and an honest and scholarly critique of AAB on the Jews and other issues as well.  James 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beauty of Unity 

message: About the Bailey quote you shared:
"He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. — A Treatise on White Magic, p. 421"
At the moment I wrote "pro Jewish brothers and sisters" the line you quote above came to mind.  But I left phrase as is because it is realistically correct and honest.  I thought someone would question it, if not attack me personally for it.  You questioned; thanks.
"Pro" and "con" are debate terms and this, in its better moments, has been a debate.  Three is nothing wrong with taking the affirmative, or arguing the pro and con of this or that view.  This is the same "pro" as in the words "promote" and "protect."   The pro-Jewish folks here are trying to promote their agenda and their view of AAB.  There is a group of people here gathered for the express purpose of defending the Jewish identity by attacking AAB whom they see as " Jew-hating racist."  
I think the "partisanship" as AAB refers to above relates to placing ones narrow group identifications above the good of humanity at as a whole.  Consider the irony here.  This is the AAB that, in the eyes of certain folks made such blatantly "anti" statements about the Jews that she must be clearly and explicitly branded in this article as a " Jew-hating racist." And fascists.   Of course AAB's works are critical and take strongly "pro" and "con" positions on all manner of things.  She wrote for and against many things.  So this bit of advice about not using a "pro" is applicable in a certain context.  It's not a biblical axiom for application to any and all circumstances.  Underlying the advice in this quote it is the ideal that affirms that we are all one, and that our primary allegiance is to humanity as a whole, and that we should not be extremist or fanatics with regard to our group identifications.  
For a bit of context, here is a quote to lay along side the one you shared with me above:James 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The prefix "pro' in depth

message: ::Jamesd1, and a few other editors, have spent six months trying to prevent the information in the criticism section from being there. If that is not correct, why are we still arguing about it?Kwork 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there weren't so much generalized discussion of editors -- unattached to any specific statement or edit of the article -- there wouldn't be so much dragging up of the past. That's a great point, Parsifal. Can we stop discussing the editors and their alleged motives and agendas please? I'm asking nicely. But I'm not holding my breath, I'm afraid. Eaglizard 17:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deja vu, and deja vu, and deja vu until the head spins

message: To cast this six months argument, frequently acrimonious, as a struggle between the Forces of Light and the Forces of Darkness is delusional. Kwork 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would not be delusional.  It would be wrong.  You've jumped to this thought form on your own.
;We've been over this ground already.
"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)

text: As I suggested above, please let's all stop talking about editors and get back to the content of the article.  Who has an idea for the next improvement?  --Parsifal Hello 21:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deja vu, etc.

message: I strongly suggest that the introduction of this article includes the fact that Ms Bailey is considered to be a Humanitarian. We mention her racism and her antisemitism in that intro so why not something positive to balance it out. The first few lines of any article tend to paint a picture in the mind of the reader so let us make it balanced from the get go. I will try to come up with something tonight but I am not a writer so feel free to write it yourself or edit anything I may come up with. I think this will help bridge the gap that James complained about. Lets see if we can balance the tone from the onset. : Albion moonlight 07:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take a crack at it too.  For instance, controversial writings appears twice in the intro which is undue weight.  Also, according to the Lucis Trust website her books have been translated into only 9 other languages (with three others currently in progress).  I cringed using the Watchmen Tower citation for the intro since it's such a lousy source but I knew it wouldn't get any objections from the critics since they insisted on including it in the first place, but I think it's wrong (it says her works have been translated into over 50 languages).  Renee --Renee 10:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: p.s.  Hey James, I just noticed you deleted the Watchmen Tower citation for the same reasons I mention above.  Again, the only reason I put it there is because I knew the critics wouldn't argue with it but I agree it's a lousy source. Renee 10:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have a citation other than "Groothius" who says Bailey launched the new age movement?  I checked several websites and they all say the same thing but some of these non-electronic citations here also must say the same thing.  Renee 10:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless its been removed there were two or three good citations that said substantially that. James 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm traveling and don't have time now but will give the ref you asked about later and also some more on the book distribution so we won't need to put "Watchtower reference" on the top floor of the intro; if someone actually looked at the link they would think "say what?"  AAB is connected to the Watchtower people.  Fantastical!   :-) .  James 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some drastic hacking to the lead, because I have a certain idea of what a lead should read like. I hope no one (Renee :) is offended I removed so much text. I also want to say I'm a little disappointed the ref to controversy is removed from the lead, since thats an important part of her notability, imo, but I couldn't see where to smoothly add it back in. Expect me to try to do that later, tho. Also, I think "among the first writers to use the term 'New Age'" is a pretty safe claim (Discipleship in the New Age, 1944). And, I added not only humanitarian but also the more specific humanism, which describes her philosophy to a "T", and I pity the foo' who disagree... <wink> Ok, I know I'm going to get argument on this, so I say up front that the Statement by The Tibetan is a direct confirmation that s/he "... rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or allegedly divinely revealed texts." Ah well, we'll see how that goes over... the more I think, the more I doubt anyone will allow it... sigh. Eaglizard 19:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, after I thought about it, I decided it's OR. Eaglizard 20:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Eaglizard, I think your edits are good.  Also, the controversy is highlighted in the lead -- it's the whole last paragraph, so I think it's pretty prominent.  The only other suggestion I have is that several writers have said that Bailey "started" or "launched" the New Age movement, which is a bit different in connotation than what is currently written.  Best, Renee  Renee 21:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Humanitarian]] 

message: Friends, the AAB biography is not a place to put lists of Theosophical leaders etc., and especially toward the top.  Some of these deserve mention, but only as they specifically relate to AAB.  AAB  and her thought must be the pivot and hub of everything that is included. For instance, there should be no mention of person X unless AAB wrote something about them, or they wrote something about her, or  their lives touched in some other significant way.  Also, even if any of these conditions is true, you need a reference from one or both to establish this connection, otherwise, don't go there.  
This is also partly just an expansion of the common sense principles we were all taught in school about things like outlining, and writing paragraphs that are coherent and where everything flows from a set of related topic sentences. 
In addition to not follow good established practices for writing any article in or outside Wikipedia, all the TS focus creates another undue weight issue. In the universe, in the last analysis, everything relates to everything--but here the focus must be on AAB. 
I think another big part of the problem as the article has "evolved" is that editors who don't have a thorough knowledge of AAB's thought and life are trying to tackle a major task for which they are not, by background and study, adequately equipped.  
Since you have been here you have taken ownership of this article even though you state you have little knowledge of Alice Bailey teaching. 
There's much more to say on various issues, but I'm going to put my energy into reorganizing and rewriting the article to try to show rather than tell what I think needs to be done. James 02:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James, maybe it's just me, but I hear a real hint of ownership and some serious condescension here. Maybe its the part where you tell the rest of us that we aren't "adequately equipped". Frankly, I see no difference between this comment and a comment by another editor that, for instance, "some editors" are an (allied) bunch of revisionist anti-semites. Like I've tried to say to Kwork, non-specific charges and insults are just divisive. Anyway, I won't argue the claim itself; but I will argue that being equipped to edit a Wikipedia article should really have little to do with in-depth knowledge of the subject. We're not writing an intro textbook for "Bailey 101", just a simple encyclopedia article for laypeople. Importantly, however, I want to stress that none of this means that I disagree with your criticism vis. the sectional divisions, btw. But your tone... wellll. Had a nice hot bath, lately? :D Eaglizard 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a biography about Alice Bailey, not Theosophy etc.

message: Yes, OK, I see a degree of truth in the ownership criticism, though it might be more a sense of responsibility than ego-ownership.  And thanks Eaglizard for your moderate response to my willfulness, and thanks Alibion for your more textbook response.   
About knowledge and writing, I disagree.  For some subjects, what you said is close to right, but not for this one.  And it is no longer a short simple article but is moving toward an ambitious expansion.   Clearly, good writing must come from knowledge of a subject, and where that is limited, the resulting writing will be correspondingly limited.   You've all made good edits, but the big picture and sense of proportion is missing because this only comes with a deep knowledge of a subject.   The missing knowledge tends to undermine the overall structure.   To be perfectly honest, since Kwork left, I seem to be the only one here with much knowledge of the subject.  I say this not to "blow my own horn" or underscore the lack of others in an unfriendly way, but rather because it honestly seems to be how things are.  If I recall correctly, virtually everyone here has admitted that they do not know that much about AAB's works.   With some degree of success, I've studied and tried to live the AAB philosophy for 45 years.  I've written related books and articles, taught classes, and given public lectures on the subject.   Beyond that, there are certain plus factors at work in me that I won't attempt to describe.
I just returned from the Theosophical library in Ojai California with new references for the article, but perhaps it's of no use here, and progress would be better served if I apply my energy elsewhere.  I've tried to do the right thing.  Know that my creative identification and investment with the article is what made all the my labor possible.  At the same time, I--or the most significant part of that--hold all this rather more lightly than may appear from some of my words.  If my approach is unacceptable, and no one cares one way or the other, I can cheerfully withdraw now instead of waiting a week as I had planned.   You can all then proceed as you like without me as an distraction.   In the big scheme of things what I've written here is of no great importance.  I made a friend or two and that is important. 
I applied myself to the article with the intention of a final push to get it in shape, then reach a stopping point in the coming week.  At that point, I pictured myself leaving and anticipated there would be a down hill slide for the article.  Sorry, but months of personal experience here in the discussion have not done much for my optimism on the future of the biography.    Sorry also if this sounds too ownershipish and critical, but as I said,  I think there are not many folks with the needed background, perspective, and motivation to write the article in a way that measures up to the subject.     Kind Regards to all,  James 18:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership, responsibility, knowledge, detachment, decisions

message: One more thought that illustrates what I've tried to communicate above about knowledge.  Take the analogy of an artist who is sculpting a representation of the human body.  In order to sculpt faithfully in a way that accurately represents the original, the artist must have a holistic grasp of the human body, and of the specific one that is the subject.  He or she should know as much as possible about the overall contours of the form and be able to see it whole in the mind.   Without this knowledge, this or that part will be exaggerated or reduced so that it fails to represent the subject, and the final result will be a a caricature of the subject.  James 20:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sculpture

message: All these references are in the article now:
"Likewise, in the book Perspectives on the New Age we find "The most important—though certainly not the only—source of this transformative metaphor, as well as the term "New Age," was Theosophy, particularly as the Theosophical perspective was mediated to the movement by the works of Alice Bailey." [53]"
"The books produced in this manner express a millennial view similar to that of Besant, including the expectation of the World-Teacher or Christ. The Bailey works and their focus on the 'New Age' or 'Age of Aquarius' are an important source of the contemporary New Age movement." (Wessinger, p. 80)
"After Bailey's death, former members of the Arcane School created a host of new independent theosophical groups within which hopes of a New Age flourished. …" [64]
Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."[66]
Here are two more that are not in it:
"The Bailey works and their focus on the "New Age" or "Age of Aquarius" are an important source of the contemporary New Age Movement"  (Steven J Sutcliffe, Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, Routledge, 2003, pp. 46-49) 
"According to Bloom (1991:2), Bailey's total work contains some 285 passages refering to the 'New Age.'  Three of her titles are explicit:  the two volumes of Discipleship in the New Age and Education in the new age"  (as above)
It doesn't matter to me who was first to use the phrase or in what sense.  I'm sure AAB would not care and its not a big deal.  Why worry about the emblem on the flag in the front yard when the foundation of the house is still incomplete?  A more important theme would be, what did the term "New Age" mean in the AAB writings and how is that different from the way it is used by others?  Do you see friends, how everything circles round to the main point I've been trying to share with you about what is major?  James  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Age