Talk:Alice Bailey: Difference between revisions
imported>James Davis No edit summary |
imported>James Davis No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Note: I was the primary author of the Alice Bailey article on Wikipedia. When I left, I brought the best portions of it here (or rather what the article use to be before non-experts | Note: I was the primary author of the Alice Bailey article on Wikipedia. When I left, I brought the best portions of it here (or rather what the article use to be before non-experts took over) The portions I brought here were already substantially different than the rapidly "evolving' version on Wikipedia. I've done major revisions, reworking, and condensing on the Citizendium version so that the material reflects Baily's main themes together with that of her more reputable critics. When I last looked, the Wikipedia version was being turned into an unusually critical and unbalanced article on race and politics, which are significant but proportionately minor threads in Alice Bailey's writings. [[User:James Davis|James Davis]] 13:56, 12 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:24, 12 October 2007
Note: I was the primary author of the Alice Bailey article on Wikipedia. When I left, I brought the best portions of it here (or rather what the article use to be before non-experts took over) The portions I brought here were already substantially different than the rapidly "evolving' version on Wikipedia. I've done major revisions, reworking, and condensing on the Citizendium version so that the material reflects Baily's main themes together with that of her more reputable critics. When I last looked, the Wikipedia version was being turned into an unusually critical and unbalanced article on race and politics, which are significant but proportionately minor threads in Alice Bailey's writings. James Davis 13:56, 12 October 2007 (CDT)
Just FYI--my observation is that articles which contain more quotes than substance, or significant quote amounts often come under scrutiny. I'm pretty sure that's what happened to the article on Mien Kampf (it's redlinked now.) --Robert W King 18:34, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
Robert, thanks for your observation. I've followed your implicit suggestion and radically reduced the number of quotations and made the whole article much tighter. James Davis 10:51, 12 October 2007 (CDT)
Workgroup category or categories | philosophy Workgroup, religion Workgroup [Please add or review categories] |
Article status | Developed article: complete or nearly so |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | James Davis 14:39, 12 October 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
- Philosophy Category Check
- General Category Check
- Religion Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Philosophy Advanced Articles
- Philosophy Nonstub Articles
- Philosophy Internal Articles
- Religion Advanced Articles
- Religion Nonstub Articles
- Religion Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Philosophy Developed Articles
- Religion Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Philosophy Developing Articles
- Religion Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Philosophy Stub Articles
- Religion Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Philosophy External Articles
- Religion External Articles
- Philosophy Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Religion Underlinked Articles
- Philosophy Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Religion Cleanup
- Cleanup