Talk:A Treatise on White Magic

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Treatise on White Magic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Withdrawn, 23 August 2013, see discussion.
Keep, 17 September 2009, see discussion.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Occult Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Authorship[edit]

"The work originates from a Tibetan Master and was transcribed by Bailey." Is this documented? --Rich Farmbrough 14:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Psychopathology[edit]

There is no mention in the article that the writings in question have a schizotypal quality... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.6.148 (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No meaningful content or history[edit]

Suggest rapid delete. This article, nothing more than a book report, would not get a good grade in high school. The book, which is the subject of the book report, is obscure. Kwork 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) If they are[reply]

There is another article, White Magic (Alice A. Bailey), for this same subject. Kwork 10:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Could I suggest that, if anyone really thinks that the subject of the article is notable, they edit the article to at least assert this? At the moment is seems to technically fit criteria for a speedy. SamBC 03:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content is no less notable than any of the other Category:Theosophical texts articles, nevertheless, I've merged the content into a related article, since the requested expansion would require direct attention from an expert, and the subject matter is sufficiently arcane to suggest this may not happen any time soon. dr.ef.tymac 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying prove that it's notable, or anything like that - just assert it in a non-ridiculous way? CSD allows any article not asserting notability (that is, saying that the subject is notable) to be speedy deleted. Any claim of notability means it has to go to PROD of AfD. Just a friendly note, really. SamBC 00:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. To be blunt, I personally have very little inclination to analytically distinguish "ridiculous" from "credible" assertions for abstruse topics such as this. Someone else with more connection to the subject matter might be, but waiting for that "someone" may be more cumbersome than simply letting the guardians of WP:N or WP:CSD or whoever else out there do whatever they want.

It would be nice if people would refrain from deleting content that could be salvaged, especially for arcane and obscure topics that are nevertheless "non-frivolous" ... but then there are plenty of "non-frivolous" (but obscure) topics that the random person on the street simply would not recognize as worth keeping. dr.ef.tymac 14:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was merged why is there not a link to the other article? Why keep it a secret? Kwork 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a secret, if one WP contributor does not have the time to fully cross-reference and link appropriately, others are more than welcome to to step in lend a helping hand. Anything you want to know can easily be reviewed by checking a user's contribution history. White Magic (Alice A. Bailey) <-- link is here dr.ef.tymac 13:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I forgot about that. (Of course if the article had been moved properly this article would not still be here. My knowledge of Wikipedia does not extend to correcting this problem, so perhaps someone else will.)

It has been moved to White Magic (Alice A. Bailey), a second article on the same subject which is as defective as this one. Are we making progress, or what? Despite what Dreftymac said (above), it should not be hard to find someone who could re-write the article. All it takes is someone who has studied the teaching of Alice Bailey a few years and who has actually read her book, White Magic. Truthfully, I had assumed someone could - and would - do that, and now wonder why no one has. I wonder if all her books have articles?....she wrote about twenty five books. Kwork 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are serious questions as to the notability of the book, but not of the author, would it not make sense to merge these articles into the article on Alice Bailey herself? SamBC 16:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But her articles seem have a bad history in Wikipedia. Her school, the Arcane School, and her foundation, the Lucus Trust, both had an article at one time, but were deleted. (My guess is that the Alice Baily article, too, was once deleted.) I could not track down the reason. Perhaps because they were just promotions for the group, or perhaps because they were not considered notable. Kwork 17:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been checking the articles about the book itself and the one about the author. I higly agree with Kwork about this article being a candidat for SD, as it has very little notability, and violates Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV. Also, the hole section about White Magic, although been related to the contents of the book, does not explain how it relates to the subjet of the article, plus the hole section is unsourced. So, eliminating that section (which constitutes a large part of the article) it can be said that the article is a stub. And remember, stub articles that remain like that for a while can be nominated for SD. --Legion fi 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using freeread.com as a source or link[edit]

This site is owned by Joseph John (JJ) Dewey though the registration record does not actually mention his name but refers to RMC Internet Services. Detail is on http://www.freeread.com/archives/about.php including promoting the yahoo group to discuss his book. The site exists to promote his books. The site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be added to any article not specifically about him and his publications.—Ash (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]