Talk:Alice Bailey/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

THE Alice Bailey?

This article seems to suggest that Alice Bailey may have coined the term "Age of Aquarius" and that she is primarily responsible for the New Age Movement. These definitely relate to the notability of Alice Bailey (whether or not the accuracy of these observations is debated) and deserve more lead space than discussion of the "spiritual development of solar systems," whatever that means. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been established that is not correct. The term predates her and was the name of a Journal published by A. R. Orage [1] which was well known in esoteric circles at that time. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, we can quickly point out that this is an incorrect attribution. To what extent, then, has she shaped New Age Movement philosophy? How is she related to the term "New World Order"? Did she coin that? ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

She was a player in the New Age movement through the Arcane School that still exists, and gives training in meditation based on the Bailey books. But most New Agers these days know nothing about her. I do not know about the other phrase, check New world order. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Woodrow Wilson had preceded her. So is the Arcane School influential to these other movements within New Age? ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-link for The New Age, the journal published by Orage. Bailey may have known it as a Christian journal even previous to Orage having bought it.

If you search the Wikipedia article on the New Age, you will find her mentioned, but there is very little about her. When I mention her in conversation, most people have never heard of her....aside from those who know her reputation for antisemitism (which is mentioned in the Wikipedia New Age article). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In the groups I hang around in (being raised in California and now am in the east) she is very well known. Though people may not be serious students most every metaphysical bookstore carries at least one of her books. Also, the sheer number of books and/or periodicals she appears in speaks to her notability (she's usually in encyclopedias, etc., see the references). There have been some academic writings on her, so I think she is notable. Finally, she's notable enough to generate plenty of criticism too.

I'm wondering why this link is in here? It seems to be a self-published type of link and there are dozens of esoteric science websites based on Bailey's work that are self-promotion of one's classes, or book, or workshops.

The main problem I have with the piece is undue weight. Her writings on Jews are less than 1% of her total writings. They definitely should be in there but if there are to be as many quotations on that topic as there are currently in there, there should be an equal number of quotations for her other topics. Again, I'm not saying they should be deleted, hidden, or minimized at all -- it's just that the other topics she talks about should be given equal proportionate weight. Renee (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The discussion of Jews and races are a tiny portion of her writings and rarely the main point of the discussion when they do appear. 67.188.133.215 (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I also just found out (rather, recalled--you know my lousy memory) she had a few things to say about Lucifer. Thus the Lucis Trust. I'm sure the schoolkids will love to have this in their book report. Is this why Michael York seems to be misattributed? It's just that I'm curious what she actually meant by it and how her critics interpreted it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Renee, the link was put on by Vicktorya, linking the article to her own site. Her intentions were perfectly good, but she does not understand anything about Wikipedia guidelines. I thought of removing it because it is all self-published material, and it does not say much about AAB either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't think it meets the guidelines for an encyclopedic source, so it should probably be removed. Renee (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources and misattributions

Just throw them here if you think they deserve a further look ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rosemary Skinner Keller encyclopedia entry... this isn't the direct source. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Lee Penn and Sophia Perennis Publishing... is this a Christian apologist source? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Mary Bailey?? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

the second wife, got it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• suspect misattribution of Michael York, seems to be a critical source from a notable publisher. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• source that quotes "Gallagher" but cites Olav Hammer. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• we're using a self-published book by Joseph E. Ross. Best to establish his expertise. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You work fast. The edits made who said what much more clearly. Also, have to say I loved the addition of the exact time -- Leo rising with Mars conjunct her ascendant, hmmmm...

Regarding your comments above:

• Here is the encyclopedic entry from Rosemary Skinner Keller. Offers a nice tertiary source for the major themes and contributions of Bailey's writings, as well as detailed biographical information.

• Regarding Lee Penn and Sophia Perennis Publishing, here is the book. Read the "Author's Introduction." Here is an excerpt (p. 9): "I am a Christian, baptized and chrismated to serve Christ, who is my Lord and Savior. I am obliged to share the faith with those who might be receptive to it..."

• Can you please provide the specific statement that you think might be mis-attributed to Michael York? I'll see if I can find it.

Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Crux of the matter of understanding the notability of Lucis Trust and Alice Bailey is understanding why a third party (York) notes this detail. Primary sources don't stand on their own and thus the article lacks context unless we are clear what attracted York's attention and his publisher's interest in the topic. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You want us to figure out why a publisher is interested in a topic? What wikirule is that in? If you are interested in what York's attention is about, you should look at the book. It has a sub-chapter section of several pages about Bailey and her name appears on close to a dozen more pages throughout the book with various specific details. --Linda (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Lee Penn, is there a rule I am not aware of that forbids using Christian sources in Wikipedia articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 March 2008

I don't have a problem with Christian sources where they are notable or otherwise qualify for the Project. The question I'm exploring is how qualified Penn is to make an assessment. If he's considered by others to be an expert on the occult, then that'd strengthen this source's inclusion. If the publisher doesn't have a fact-checking reputation, or Penn is of little note in this area, then it would weaken it and we'd want to look for different sources to understand Bailey from a Christian perspective. Best to include the most authoritative Christian apologetics sources and never lower the bar for inclusion. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, certainly not. I think the question is:

-> is an author writing from a neutral enclopedic or academic-type point of view,

or,

-> is the author making a case for a certain view s/he wishes to advance?

(e.g., compare the text from Keller vs. Penn as an illustration)

Then, the question is, does one use a source solely meant to advance a certain POV for an encyclopedia and if yes, how is that source qualified to give context? Renee (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We all have bias. If one uses such a source, and it is common practice in religious topics, the source must be qualified in such a way to make it clear their bias in an elementary way from the way the source self-identifies, if it is not questioned. If their self-identification is contentious then that wouldn't bode too well for the inclusion of their source. The category Religious Writers With No Bias would be a thin one indeed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Renee, I have no idea how many times we have discussed this subject. The problem remains that there are no scholarly sources that can be used as a basis for an Alice Bailey article (which does raise the issue of notability). Most of the sources actually used in the article, are from either Alice Bailey herself, or non-scholars who worship in the Church of Alice Bailey, or New Age advocates who think anything connected with the New Age movement must be good. Other sources focus on her racial views, on her antisemitism, or her views on Christianity. There are no books that have been written about AAB that are of the nature of the Richard Noll studies of Carl Jung, or K. Paul Johnson's scholarly studies of Theosophical Society literature. As a result one administrator who participated for a while in editing this article, Vassyana I think, thought it would be better to reduce the article to a stub rather than use unsound sources. Others, such as AnonEMouse, thought it okay to use the sources we have, and build the article on that. At this point, I am willing to live with it either way. What I am not willing to live with is including the non-scholarly AAB worshipers, and excluding those sources that question her perfection. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a stub sounds like a good idea. Then, we can get agreement on the kind of sources are allowed and build outwards.

I suggest tertiary (encyclopedic sources) and academic to start with, because these are fact-checked and vetted. (with academic being defined as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, a university press, or a doctoral dissertation/thesis) If I recall this will be a wide enough net to include both critics and fans (I recall a U of Hebrew source somewhere and there is a dissertation posted at the end of the current article).

Would you like to take a first stab at it Malcolm? I recall you know a lot about Bailey. You can create a sandbox by clicking this: User_talk:Malcolm_Schosha/AABstub. Renee (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Make a stab at what? Starting over from the beginning? You must be kidding. I am willing to return it to a stub and leave it like that....if there is agreement among the editors. There are no academic sources to build on anyhow, so we will just be arguing over the very same sourcing that is in the article now, and that we have already argued over ad nauseum. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I can live with a stub too, if that's what you prefer. Isn't the dissertation posted at the end an academic source? Renee (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Renee, you wrote "Isn't the dissertation posted at the end an academic source?" You have lost me. What "dissertation"? What "academic source"? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, see external links, 4th item down, Dissertation from the U of W. Sydney, The texts of Alice A. Bailey: An inquiry into the role of esotericism in transforming consciousness. Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Its worthless; and, as far as I know, not even Jamesd1 ever used it as a source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* Why is this worthless? It's an academic source? Please describe what sources you think are valid.

So far everything I've put out there and said you just seem to want to disagree. You say you want a stub, I say fine, you say you don't want to start over and just want to leave it at a stub, I say fine, you say there are no academic sources and then when I provide one you say it's worthless. Please let's work together on this and find common ground.

We both agree the article should have quality academic sources -- I offered a definition above -- what do you think counts as a quality academic source? Renee (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Renee even a stub is going to have a mention of Baileys anti-antisemitism so you might as well expand the article instad of trying to find people to help you delete it. It did not work last time and it will not work this time. Consensus means that everyone either agrees or agrees to disagree. That includes everything including reliable sources balance You are going to need to add to the article if you want to try and balance it to your liking.: Albion moonlight (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see [WP:AGF]. Fine by me. Before you even came aboard I was the one who added a "criticism" section that led with anti-semitism and racism (seemed like 100 years ago). Renee (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Renee, your history is off. There was such a section, obviously critical, before your (or my) first edit on this article [2] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! So the history of going over the same ground goes back before even you and I. I was thinking of this edit which prompted this response from you. This really is a Groundhog Day article. Renee (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Albion has a good point about consensus. There aren't a lot of secondary sources, but there's no doubt Bailey's notable enough for an article. There's also no wikirule not to use primary sources when they're the best info available. That happens in articles about movies all the time that people use the movie story itself as the source of the info about the plot and characters, and then they need secondary sources where there are interpretations about meaning of the stories so that way that's not original research. I think this article is pretty good. It would be a waste of a lot of people's work to start over. --Linda (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But here it seems the primary sources are pulled out to make specific points. A stub seems better because then we can just use the primary sources for undisputed points (name, birthdate, marriage,e tc.), tertiary sources and academic sources for whatever points they'll support (and again, both critics and fans fall into these categories so I think a stub will be more balanced).Renee (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree about the stub. There's nothing wrong with illustrations of what a person wrote about them sevles when they are a notable person. If you don't think it's balanced enough, if you think it tilts in a negative direction, then go ahead and add some more stuff that you think is positive. --Linda (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Renee, your slant on this is that a stub would be the basis of a new beginning, which I can not accept. It would just be running through the same points of disagreement a second time. I agree with Albion and Linda that building on the present article would be better than starting over. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I never said that. I agreed with you that we could return to a stub with academic sources and suggested tertiary sources (like encyclopedias too). And, I said that you could do it. What more do you want? What we are doing currently is going over the same process with little end in sight. Renee (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually things were nice and quiet until ClaudeReigns decided to help out. I have no idea why he thinks the work is necessary, or even what work he thinks is necessary. He has not explained his reasons. If he just wants something to keep him busy, there are plenty of stub articles to pick from. Although this article is certainly not perfect, it contains many positive things about AAB, and is informative, with a lot of clearly written material.

By the way, Renee, I want you to know that as much as we have argued over this article, I do believe that your work on this article is completely motivated by your good intentions. (Workings of the Fourth Ray, I suppose.) If I ever implied otherwise, I regret it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks malcolm, appreciated. Renee (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Malcolm.

The wrong approach

Discussing sources is the wrong approach. We have been down this road before and have failed to reach an agreement. Wikilawyering is futile and I have no intention of going down that road again without a lot of protest. If you want to change the article add too it. There are some of us who support the sourcing just the way it is and it is extremely unlikely that you going to change our minds. Mediation is not binding and the arbitration committee does not rule on content. So once again I strongly suggest that if you want to change the article add too it. : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, absolutely every place I've seen a NPOV dispute there have been problems in sourcing, and I'll be clear on what I'm editing before I add, subtract, or weigh. This is sloppy and misattributed and it will get the microscope. If you think this needs additional detail (I think it is a big fat soapbox) then add some detail about Alice Bailey and Lucifer. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guy but I do not take orders from anyone. Good sourcing is in the eye of the beholder. If you make an edit I do not like I will revert it or fix it to my liking. The dispute process is there for a reason. No one needs your permission to edit this article. NPOV too is in the eye of the beholder. Right now I am going to see if you have managed to piss off either Malcomn or Linda . Both of them seem know more about Bailey than I do. I often acquiesce to there opinion. If you can win them over you will likely gain my trust. But as I said I think you are taking the wrong approach. : Albion moonlight (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns, you can be sure that I will back Albion completely on this point. You are you are moving too fast on your editing; and I see no indication that you understand the issues, nor do you seem to know where you are going to take the article. I am sure you are editing in good faith, but you have not taken enough time to review the problems of this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malcolm and Albion. To many changes too fast. This article has a long history of hard work and that should be respected by a more measured approach. --Linda (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All I see are some clarifications of who said what about Bailey. How about listing the specific edits you object to and offer a compromise? Renee (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mankara link

Albion, I deleted the self-published Mankara link after discussing it with Malcolm here, waiting for other feedback, and upon receiving none deleted it. Then, you reverted it without discussion.

It's fine by me if we include it because there are dozens of others like it.

So, my question, do you want to keep links like these or not? They are are not in line with Wiki policy (self-promotional, self-published) but I'd be happy to add many more like it. Renee (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Or forgive the village idiot when I ask, what's a Mankara and why should we include it? ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to settle that one by re-deleting it myself. I did not see your discussion with Malcom. Sorry about that. If anyone wants to put it back for whatever reason It is Ok by me. I just generally disapprove of deletion. Sometimes it is necessary.: Albion moonlight (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The good faith is appreciated. Renee (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Sources

What dispute, if any, do we have with sources published by various Universities within the article? Please elaborate if you do not believe that these conform to WP:V. Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no dispute allowing it as a source. I took a quick look a it a few times, and it appears useless. No other editor has used it as a source either, as far as I know, and I assume that is because they could not find anything in it to use. Not every allowable source has value. This is a sample of the writing (from ch.3):

A general acknowledgement that studies of esotericism require a subjective

engagement is encapsulated by Riffard (1998) in his attempt to identify an esoteric research method. Riffard presents two approaches as the external (objective) method of scholars of the history of esotericism and the internal (subjective) method of esotericists themselves (1998:73). The former, he argues, tends towards scholarly methodology, objectivity and impartiality (1998:71), the latter tends to be a form of self-analysis, concerned with spiritual interpretations of experiences (1998:70). Whilst Riffard argues that both approaches are indispensable tools in the investigation of esoteric thought, he approaches this distinction from a positivist paradigm, which foregrounds scholarly pursuit of objective truth. A serious incongruity arises through evaluating an internal or subjective method from an external or objective direction. In my view, if researching esotericism is to involve the seekerly level, then a positivist or postpositivist paradigm becomes inappropriate.

Not every allowable source has value. See [3], and be sure to scroll to the bottom of the page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• We aren't using Riffard, or the quote you've mentioned. Please use specific examples, and please use the talk page appropriately and not to make a point. Though your point is well received throughout the fullest spiritual development of solar systems. Tags for vagueness in the article are also welcome. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

ClaudeReigns wrote: "Where I come from that's called talking out your ass".

ClaudeReigns, this is a warning for your incivility [4]. Save it for were you come from. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh Lord, I think there's been incivility all around toward Claude's edits (i.e., immediate reverts, failure to take his comments seriously). Let's all focus on getting agreement on sources instead of knee-jerk reverts and I think we can really move this article forward. Renee (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Show me something like "Where I come from that's called talking out your ass", and I will apologize to him. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, please accept my apology for the offense I caused. There seems to a misunderstanding as to what I was disparaging. I was responding enthusiastically in agreement with you to the uselessness of the quote you produced, not at all to your conduct here. I want to underscore my wishes to help you weed out such empty language's influence on the article. To remedy this misunderstanding, I shall spare you the colloquialisms and my sense of humor. Wherever did you find that sterling example of postmodern exposition? It is relevant to the article, yes? ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric Astrology

Malcolm, I know you know a lot about Bailey -- I took an esoteric astrology course once from [http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Centered-Astrology-Your-Expanding-Self/dp/0895948117/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205085329&sr=1-2 Alan Oken] that was way over my head, but it was based on Bailey's work. From Claude's earlier post it seems he has some expertise in astrology too.

I did a google search and it seems there are dozens if not hundreds of persons who have written on esoteric astrology and/or conduct workshops/reads -- all of it based on Bailey.

Here is what one site recommends as Bailey sources for esoteric astrology:

1. Esoteric Astrology.
2. Destiny of the Nations.
3. Labours of Hercules.
4. A Treatise on Cosmic Fire.
5. Treatise on White Magic.

And it recommends these as background on the 7 rays:

1. Esoteric Psychology I.
2. Esoteric Psychology II.
3. Esoteric Healing.
4. Rays and Initiations.
5. Initiation Human & Solar.
6. Light of the Soul.
7. Letters on Occult Meditation.
8. Glamour.

Here are some books on esoteric astrology that can be used as secondary sources (and also, the sheer volume indicate notability of the topic):

1. [http://www.amazon.com/Esoteric-Astrology-Alan-Astrologers-Library/dp/0892811811/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205085740&sr=8-2 Esoteric Astrology], Alan Leo
2. [http://www.amazon.com/Symbolism-Astrology-Introduction-Esoteric/dp/1596056142/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205085740&sr=8-3 Symbolism and Astrology: An Introduction to Esoteric Astrology], Alan Leo
3. [http://www.amazon.com/Esoteric-Astrology-Beginners-Torgny-Jansson/dp/1420875957/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205085740&sr=8-4 Esoteric Astrology: A Beginner's guide], Torgny Jansson
4. [http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Esoteric-Astrology-Beverly-Flynn/dp/0975858335/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205085740&sr=8-5 ABC's of Spiritual or Esoteric Astrology],Beverly Ann Flynn
5. [http://www.amazon.com/Esoteric-Handbook-Astrology-Gustav-Brugge/dp/097234716X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086317&sr=8-6 An Esoteric Handbook on Astrology], Gustav Brugge and Juliet Northrop
6. [http://www.amazon.com/Simplified-Scientific-Astrology/dp/B0012PTMNI/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086317&sr=8-9 Simplified Scientific Astrology], Max Heindel
7. [http://www.amazon.com/Esoteric-Astrology-Part-Soul%60s-Purpose/dp/0906006678/ref=pd_bbs_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086317&sr=8-7 Esoteric Astrology, Part VIII The Soul`s Purpose], Douglas M. Baker
8. [http://www.amazon.com/Shamballa-Impacts-Esoteric-Astrology-History/dp/1876849002/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086317&sr=8-13 The Shamballa Impacts: Their Esoteric Astrology in World History], Phillip Lindsay
9. [http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Esoteric-Astrology-E-Thierens/dp/0766138259/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086037&sr=8-21 Elements of Esoteric Astrology], A. E. Thierens
10. [http://www.amazon.com/Esoteric-Astrology-Millennium-Pillars-Ancient/dp/0906006015/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086037&sr=8-23 Esoteric Astrology: A New Astrology for a New Millennium, Vol. 1 (Seven Pillars of Ancient Wisdom)], Douglas M. Baker
11. [http://www.amazon.com/Astrology-Health-Esoteric-Know-How/dp/0572018223/ref=sr_1_30?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086037&sr=8-30 Astrology and Health (Esoteric Know How Series)], Sheila Geddes
12. [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-esoteric-astrology-Bepin-Behari/dp/B0007ANACI/ref=sr_1_48?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086105&sr=8-48 Introduction to esoteric astrology], Bepin Behari

Does anyone feel they have enough expertise to start tackling this? Renee (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I studied astrology, but not Bailey's astrology. Assagioli wrote a book together with Clara Weiss[5]. The danger is falling into the technicalities of it all, and forgetting that the main point is becoming a better person. I have seen that happen all too often. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we'd need a broad overview and can emphasize the point you made above (i.e., spiritual development). If I recall, the moon becomes the central planet in esoteric astrology? I can see if I can find my old Alan Oken book.

Claude, do you have an interest/skill in this? Sounds like you've done some astrology. Renee (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. There is an Esoteric astrology site, but it's very weak. Renee (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

My understanding that this article is primarily classified as a biography. Why was the RfC listed under "Religion and philosophy"? I would like to have the RfC placed under to the proper category. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

New Suggestions

Per Jack A Roe's comments above, that an RFC should focus on content and not user behavior (and seeing the amount of further bickering the comments on user behavior have caused), I propose changing the RFC to focus on content only. I will take a stab at doing that.

Per a request from Malcolm, I withdraw any suggestion of ownership because I do believe he has made progress toward dialogue. I think we should start fresh, take everyone's concerns seriously and answer them (not dismiss them). I think Claude had some questions on sources that perhaps Malcolm could answer. (And, I understand Malcolm's weariness at doing this for the tenth time, but I think Claude is very reasonable and just needs an explanation.) Renee (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

{{RFCbio}} Removed RFC template according to instructions because no-one's talking about it any more --Linda (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see below, because I have no idea what the purpose is for this RfC [6] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what appears on the RFC biographies page: Please provide feedback on sources, suggestions for decision rules on which sources to include and which to exclude, and please provide feedback on balance overall and within each article section. Renee (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What we'd like to see from the article and how we can be bold to acheive it

• Comment:I want the article to be properly attributed, fully sourced, generously wikilinked, and contain quotes in the citations so as to aid the verifiability of the article and assist in discerning the reliability of sources. I am half satisfied with the reception of my edits sofar, and welcome guidance to pursue this goal. I am willing to work with all other editors to help acheive their goals as well. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC
• Comment. I think everyone here wants a well-sourced article that accurately reflects Bailey's views. From my perception, there seems to be a great sensitivity that nothing be buried and a corresponding fear that it will, which results in some possessiveness of the article and suspiciousness toward newcomers' edits. I should say there is good reason for this fear because in the past important points were minimized and there were frequent edit wars. But, a new editor is unaware of this bruising history and only sees reverts in response to his edits and welcomes tinged with warnings.

I was a little surprised to see an RFC and had to admit that like the old timers, my first response was arghhhhhh, not again. I also felt that recently we had turned a corner and really started (for the first time) to make productive edits again and have a fear that this will halt that. I hope not and am committed to working with the editors here, for I think we hold the same goals in mind.

Regarding the content, here are my questions for reviewing edits:

• Is the tone of the article neutral?
• Are all of the sections needed? Do some seem extraneous? Are some too long and redundant?
• What kind of standard should we use for sources? (This, IMO, has been our biggest block. We have yet to agree on a common standard for sources which means each and every one basically is discussed, re-discused, then 6 months later, re-re-discussed.)

My initial concern about undue weight was solved by a suggestion by Linda. She suggested that instead of deleting text to make the article more proportional in topics to Bailey's writings, add more text on points of her writings which are widely disseminated and used today to give the article more balance. I have started to do this with the esoteric astrology section. Renee (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Arguments about sourceing are very often a pretext for for deleting content. For the most part I think good sourcing is in the eye of the beholder. Malcom and Linda know a lot more about Bailey than I do. If they agree to this latest proposal I will happily go along with it Albion moonlight (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that good sourcing is in the eye of the beholder, which is why I attribute everything, so that readers can make up their mind, no matter their viewpoint. I think the suggestion is a great remedy to problems of weight and use of primary sources. I've got no problem how you want to define acceptable sources. There is already a greater community consensus at WP:RS, and eventually others will look. I mean, hopefully others will look. Wouldn't it be nice if this was a good article or a featured article? ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in case we are missing each other's point please read this. Consensus is very hard to come by and I do not agree to necessarily consent to the deletion of sourced material that a majority may find to be unreliable. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC) :Albion moonlight (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to read this [7] also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: 99.9% of the discussion that as occurred on this talk page (much of it acrimonious) has concerned the content and sources for what was formerly the "Criticisms" section of the article, and which content is now disbursed into several sections. You will, I hope, understand if I do not feel much enthusiasm for discussing it yet again. But, if Claude has specific questions on that, I will give a reply based on how I understand the issues. Otherwise, as I have previously said, I wish to absent myself from further writing of the article. I do hope the current effort will both expanded and improved the article, but without removing content. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"generously wikilinked". Claude states, as one of his goals for the article, to have it "generously wikilinked". In my view, in his his editing so far, he has been rather too generous in his wikilinking. Creating a link to virtually every possible personal name, every institutional name, every place name, every concept and profession, and every date, results in a page that is confusing visually and more difficult to read than is necessary. That is my view as a professional calligrapher with over twenty years of experience. I would suggest restraint in wikilinking. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for your eyes, told you it would look worse before it looked better. Criticisms of Theosophy is certainly a topic to be breached as this article indicated. Esoteric science may be a bit of jargon, I was just quickly wikilinking to see if there was an article to tell me what it meant. Which is it? A respectable field or dressed up language? If it is a respectable field it should have an article. WP:MOS indicates full dates should be wikilinked. Personal names have been wikilinked for notability. If nothing about a source blue-links, chances are it doesn't meet WP:V. That's how I discovered the lack of notability for the Penn source. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to revert excessive wikilinking. If you need to discover if a particular individual has a Wikipedia article, try using the WP search bar. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No defense of "esoteric science" as a discipline? No defense of a lack of criticisms at Theosophy though an author on the portal has herself criticized it? Planning on being here to explain every time someone questions the Penn source? You've not addressed the points and weaknesses these wikilinks exposed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason for this RfC?

I still have no idea what is actually going on here. Just what is the reason for this RfC? So far, I have put time into this, and nothing has happened. All Claude has said so far is that he wants to edit the Alice Bailey article. I knew that already. There is not one single specific in this RfC (unless I have missed something); and how am I, or how is anyone else, going to comment on something unspecified? I do not know if Claude has anything else to do with his time, but I do. I would like him to either say something specific, or delete the RfC. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

One place to start is with Claude's specific questions about sources here. Specifically i've rephrased his questions and then started a comments section after each. Please note that I'm only evaluating the sources; I purposely did not look to see how the source was used in the article:

• The Rosemary Skinner Keller encyclopedia entry -- is this a direct source?

Comment. I think this is a good source. She appears to be an expert in the area of new religions and this is a good tertiary source. Renee (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mild Support: There are actually three authors, not just one. (Demonstrating a peer review process) After having read the entry, I got the impression that A) they had done their research B) they were interested in treating all spiritual claims across the spectrum as true. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. A fine source, published by a mainstream university press. It's original research to judge a source based on our personal interpretations of what the author believes. NPOV says, include the source and if another reliable source expresses something else, include them both and let the reader decide. --Linda (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lee Penn book appears to come from a Christian apologist publisher. Are sources like this biased? Should they be included?

Comment. This looks like a biased source to me, expressly written to promote a point-of-view. I don't think sources like this should be in Wiki. Renee (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Mildly Oppose. Nearly every source here could be said to have bias. The problem here is that both the author and publisher are non-notable by our standards. How can the reader possibly make an informed decision about the reliability of such a source? Without notability for either, we can neither treat this as a self-published expert opinion nor a reliably vetted source from a better Christian publisher. That being the case, we then have no basis for maintaining that it notably represents a minority viewpoint. There are stronger sources for Christian apologetics. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Claude, but that argument does not make sense. Lee Penn's bio says he graduated cum laude from Harvard, and that he is a journalist[8]. Is it your POV that Christian sources are not valid when you do not agree with the source? Wikipedia articles are neutral when they balance opposing points of view. Allowing only the side of the argument you like does not achieve balance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent discovery of the source's credentials add weight. An article about the author will make it easy for other newcomers to verify this, support his sourcing in other articles, and reveal criticisms of his work if well-founded. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Malcolm stated this well, I don't need to repeat it. --Linda (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The book by Joseph E. Ross appears to be self-published. What is his expertise in this topic? Are self-published sources allowable?

Comment. I think this is an okay source. I couldn't find evidence as to whether or not it was self-published, but it currently is in the reprint library of Sage Publications, which is a quality academic publisher (my academic library contains many of their titles). Renee (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This is a case mentioned in WP:RS about a previously published author which should be "used with caution" but a reprint from SAGE would warrant standard treatment. Can you link the entry to that publisher? ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is self-published, however, it is based on primary source documents that are printed in the book. The Huntington Library, of Pasadena, California wrote in their review: "This volume and its sequel will be indispensable sources for scholars." It has been cited in several places, including: California Civilization: Beyond the United States of America? Josef Chytry, California College of the Arts and Managing Editor of Industrial and Corporate Change, Institute of Management, Innovation and Organization, Haas School of Business, University of California; and, "A Multiplicity and Diversity of Faiths": Religion's Impact on Los Angeles and the Urban West, 1890-1940, Michael E. Engh, The Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Winter, 1997), pp. 463-492, doi:10.2307/969882. --Linda (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Source that quotes "Gallagher" but cites Olav Hammer (not sure what the question is here...sorry).

Comment. Question needs to be clarified. Renee (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mildly Oppose.: We're given no context to evaluate who _____ Gallagher is or why Hammer is quoting him. We should cite _____ Gallagher, not Hammer. This isn't an RS thing, it's a V thing. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Error - has been fixed. I checked the book. The quote is directly from Hammer, Gallagher is not mentioned. The article has been corrected. --Linda (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added an extra "comment" section for the next person to add to; please be sure to add four tilda's to each comment. I hope this helps! Renee Renee (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Renee, are you saying that the goal of this RfC is to decide four minor references in the article, or do you have something else in mind?

• If sources are considered good if they have a New Age POV, and sources critical of the New Age are considered "biased", the neutrality and balance of the article will be lost. In fact the Lee Penn source has already been removed. I do not agree with that action. This gives Lee Penn's biography: [[9]]. In what way is he not qualified to write on Bailey and the New Age movement? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I'm simply trying to bend over backwards to be responsive to your concerns. You said you wanted me to withdraw the ownership claim, I did. You said you wanted a new RFC on biography, I did, and I removed all personal comments. You said you wanted specific questions, I did, I went back and re-inserted Claude's questions. Renee (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Renee, I never wanted this RfC at all. My complaint about your accusation of ownership, aside from it being untrue, is that you gave Claude on opening to initiate an RfC that has no content. If you want to reinstate your accusation about ownership, you know how to request mediation. But why is this RfC necessary just because Claude can't decide about four minor sources in the article? Moreover, by opening up the sourcing argument you are also opening up the fundamental argument about content. I hope you enjoy the results. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If he is a recognized expert then let's dig in: Lee Penn. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Claude, if it is your point of view that individuals with Wikipedia articles are notable, and usable here, that is actually okay with me, because I could then use Constance Cumbey as a source in the article. Are you agreeable with using her Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow as a source? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

She is definitely somebody. I don't see anything in the article to suggest that others think her views are fringe. Her article could use some work for verifiability, but I have seen far worse sources cited in criticism sections. Like Richard Abanes whose work comprises a hefty weight in the Criticism of Mormonism article. Why they cite him, I'll never know. Also, people like to cite Anton Hein[10] and although his site is good for finding long lost critical sources, he's not to be taken seriously on matters of opinion. Cumbey is definitely major league in comparison. Are we talking about "significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources?" Then it's allowed by WP:V. Are exceptional claims involved? "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we're making progress. Of those who gave comments, three of four of the sources are supported. The Lee Penn source is supported by some and not others. There are questions about whether or not the source is neutral. Malcolm provided his biography here. The outlets he has written for according to this biography are exclusively Christian and Catholic outlets. Does this make him neutral or slanted toward these perspectives?

By the way, I do not support the addition of Constance Cumbey, who had been discussed previously and found to be biased by the editors on board at that time. Renee (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I just looked at the manner in which the Penn source is used and it's just listed as basically an "extra" source to buttress the claim that some people find her writings racist and antisemitic. I think it's fine for this purpose (assuming it's true; I haven't read the book). Even if it's a biased source, the way the statement is phrased gives people a clue that any sources supporting that statement are likely to come from people with a POV.Renee (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course this skirts LP's most noted observation about AB. "Penn also documents the anti-Semitism in her writing" [11] [Emphasis mine] LP has also written for the secular World Net Daily. Not sure if that's a feather in his cap or not. I look at it this way: there is cross-denominational support for Penn's alarmed take on URI, New Age, and global institutions; but to say that Alice Bailey co-founded Lucifer Publishing to help take over the world is quite the exceptional claim, and requires mucho mas support. Still seems fringe on the surface. Am I misrepresenting Penn? I think it's safe to say that a majority of Christians would view the history and scope of Lucis Trust with alarm, and that False Dawn and other works capture that way of perceiving Bailey saliently. Surely there must be calm rational counterpoints which serve to reassure on these matters. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely a fringe source, not mainstream. The only reason I suggested leaving it in is because if I recall there's a U of Hebrew press source that says the same thing, so I didn't think it was worth arguing over this, especially since it's not quoted directly. It would be my preference to just use the U of Hebrew press citation. But, I'm willing to compromise on this as there is no direct quotation.Renee (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New Group of World Servers

The introduction contains this sentence:

According to Robert S. Ellwood, her philosophy and her writings are still applied by the groups and organizations she founded, such as the Arcane School, the New Group of World Servers, and the Full Moon Meditation Groups that follow her teachings.

The two groups that are called "New Group of World Servers", consists of The Group for Creative Meditation (based on a series of sets of blue instruction pamphlets) and the Meditation Group for the New Age (based on the series of yellow pamphlets). They were both founded by Roberto Assagioli, and not Alice Bailey. Since Dr. Assagioli kept his name off anything associated with esotericism, I have no idea how I could document that. But, although both groups are bases on the writings of AAB, she was dead at the time Assagioli started the groups. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking here? Are you making a case for keeping the sentence in? I think it's fine. Renee (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he's saying Ellwood has made an error in attribution. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is just one example of deficiencies in the sources. The sources that much of the article is built on are in many respects problematic. Up to this point I have never challenged the sources supporting Baileys notability, while Renee has in every single case challenged sources critical of Bailey, such Lee Penn. For instance, in the section of the article called, Influence on the New Age Movement [12], there is this sentence:

Sir John Sinclair, in his book The Alice Bailey Inheritance, commented on the seminal influence of Alice Bailey, which, he said, underlies the consciousness growth movement in the 20th century

It is completely obvious that this statement is nothing but surmise, and biased surmise at that. If there had been some sort of formal a study to establish Bailey's influence in New Age thinking, it would have been sited. In fact it is just John Sinclair's biased guess work, and I do not see why his guess work is superior to referenced sources in Lee Penn. If tough evaluation is given to sources, it must be applied equally to all the sources -- not tough evaluation for critics of Bailey, and an easy pass for everything else. So far that has not been the case. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, Please do not make things up -- have you forgotten so quickly that I was the one who deleted the Mankara site because it was self-published? I thought it was a great site but alas, Wiki cannot use self-published sources.

I checked the press the Sinclair citation and it seems it is a reputable, mainstream (albeit small) press. Do you object to the quality of the source, or are you saying that the source is misquoted. I don't have the book and it's not available on Google books. I wonder if anyone can check it? Renee (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Renee, you wrote "Don't "make things up" (a 'nice' way of calling me a liar), but I have not made anything up, and nor have I insulted you. In fact, what I wrote acknowledged that you have followed an intelligent method of defending your POV in this article, and have been more effective than I have been. As for Sinclair, what do I care about his publisher if his book is filled with statements that are both unverifiable and biased? The book is trash disguised as scholarship, and it should not be allowed as a source in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way, the problem with Turnstone Press [13] is not its size, but that they have no claim of academic standards at all. So in what way is it superior to any Christian publisher? Also, just a quick look at their publications list shows they have also published at least one book on Psychosynthesis [14], so they do have a bias toward the Bailey based work. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not a fan nor a critic. I am a fan of Wiki though and believe in its principles though.

According to this it looks like a quality publisher given many of its books have won awards, and the other publisher has not. However, if we're not confident in the vetting process of each, I'm okay with removing each. Renee (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In Skinner's book (see universal support for it above from those who responded), she says this: "Bailey was good at organizing and generating income for her religious groups. In addition to the Arcane School and the Lucis Trust, she founded the New Group of World servers in 1932 and the Triangles in 1937."

Later it says, "In the mission of these two groups, the prototype for the numerous New Age groups of today can be found."

On p. 763, Skinner lists the "principal contributions of Alice Bailey and the Arcane School to the New Age Movement."

If some sources are in question and this source says the same thing (which it appears to do), we can just use this source that everyone agrees is a good source (and easily found on the internet).Renee (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this information from Skinner is completely incorrect. It was Foster Bailey who handled financial matters, not Alice Bailey. Skinner is just making up stuff he knows nothing about. Likewise, it was Foster Bailey who initiated Triangles, and World Goodwill also. Foster Bailey was a First Ray person and very much involved in the external matters related to the Teaching; and he kept away from Arcane School matters, which because it involved teaching, was a Second Ray project. Aside from the writing of the books with DK; Alice Bailey's service project was the Arcane School. AAB was a natural teacher, and very much a Second Ray person.

I am trying to explain what I know is true, which I was told by Roberto Assagioli and Frank Hilton (when he was director of the School for Esoteric Studies). The misinformation in Skinner's book is the result of incorrect guess work. I have nothing to gain by telling you this, and if the article is filled with such crap it is not going to make my life any worse because I separated myself from the AAB teaching years ago.

The term "New Group of World Servers" does come from one of the AAB books, but the project was Roberto Assagioli's and was initiated after the death of Alice Bailey. Assagioli wrote the instruction booklets himself, and was still writing them at the time I was studying him. Sometimes, when I had meetings with him, he would give me the latest booklets to be published -- in the late sixties and early seventies. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Esoteric Astrology text

Please review the newly added Esoteric Astrology text and give feedback. Renee (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good! Like the sourcing, like the exposition, like the attribution, like the balance between Bailey's and Oken's observations. Hmmm maybe Oken should have an article? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Renee. I hope that you expand your new addition on astrology. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just moved the new Astrology section to above the Pop Culture section. I hope there is no objection. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Renee (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Table formatting

Does someone know how to format Wiki tables? I was able to figure out a basic table but it would be nice if it were shaded and centered in creative ways. Any help would be appreciated! Renee (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The instructions for tables are on this page: Help:Table - it has a section about colors etc... --Linda (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Renee (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

recent edit

Have to say I totally agree with Linda on this. Renee (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding anti-semitism category

Hey Malcolm,

I think it's going a little too far to add this article to the anti-semitism category. This is a biography and while I understand you firmly believe Bailey is anti-semitic, others would strongly disagree. I'm not saying I agree one way or another but it is too far to add this biography article to that category. Renee (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It should have been there all along. It is not as though I added the antisemitism template to the article, but just a small indication as a category that appears at the bottom of the page. It is not so unusual either; and it can be seen also, for example, here [15]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It just seems out of place to me. That wasn't her life-purpose, to be anti-semitic. A proportion of her writings were anti-semitic out of a much larger body of literature. Does this justify a category placement? What do other people think? I'm willing to go with the consensus here -- it just seemed a bit extreme. We could probably put that template on hundreds of biographies in Wikipedia. Where is the line drawn? Thanks. Renee (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Renee, but Alice Bailey's antisemitism has been thoroughly discussed on this talk page, and is in the content of the article. The category should have been added long ago. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Malcolm, This is okay. Let's just discuss it next time first, as a courtesy. Renee (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It seemed a very minor thing, or I would have discussed it here first. Sorry for delivering it as an unwelcome surprise. Very sorry. (By the way, I see one of the categories at the bottom of this talk page is Low-importance Religion articles ! I want you to know that category is not my fault.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I like this Malcolm, he's nice. There are a lot of strange categories down there I never noticed either. "Rational skepticism" articles? Take care, Renee Renee (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)