Talk:Ascended master

Using ascension-research.org as a source

The site claims to have no affiliations with any organization but is registered by Allen Buresz of Natural Health L.P. in Virginia. Checking the Virginia company records online, no such limited partnership has been registered as active. Consequently the registration is suspect with apparently false information. The site appears to be another rambling self-published and self-promotional site with no claim as to status or validity. It does not meet the guidance for wp:reliable sources and should not be used as a source, ever, by anyone.—Ash (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Using anandgholap.net as a source or link

This site is the personally registered site of Anand Gholap of Pune, India. He has a disclaimer that he is not responsible for the use of anything on his site (http://www.anandgholap.net/Terms_Of_Use.htm). He makes no special claims of expertise or any affiliation. A number of texts and images from books are on his site but copyright status is uncertain as he does not have specific permission to make these public domain but has added these on the basis of his understanding of copyright law which is not the same as Wikipedia's. His site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be used as a reference or link for any article apart from (possibly) an article about himself.—Ash (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge here. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Spiritual Hierarchy appears to be almost completely lacking in third-party-sourced material. The article's lead states that the topic "represents the concept of a group of self-realised Masters of the Ancient Wisdom" (Masters of the Ancient Wisdom being the parent topic of this article), and most of the article is about "cosmic beings" which it states are "Ascended Master[s] who [have] never incarnated in a human body".

I am therefore proposing that whatever third-party material (if any) exists in that article be merged here (or a simple redirect if none can be found), per:

1. Lack of third-party sourcing, and thus WP:Notability
2. WP:MERGE#Rationales #2 (Overlap) & #4 (Context)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Object Third party sources have now been added to the Spiritual Hierarchy article. Also, the Spiritual Hierarchy article is too long an article to merge with this article. Keraunos (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant: (i) the third party content is vestigial (and poorly cited, besides) and (ii) it is actually on the topic of Masters of the Ancient Wisdom (Theosophy), NOT on a separate topic of "Spiritual Hierarchy". As such, it does not even demonstrate that the latter topic even WP:ITEXISTS, let alone that it has any notability. (iii) As I am proposing that only "whatever third-party material (if any) exists in that article be merged here", the amount of material needing merging is very very short indeed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: in order for Spiritual Hierarchy to survive it needs to be demonstrated (i) how this topic differs from Ascended master (and Masters of the Ancient Wisdom (Theosophy)), and (ii) that there is significant reliable third-party coverage of this non-overlapping topic area. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge. Massive amount of overlap. Theosophy is notable, but our articles only need to give a brief outline of tenets, ideally from independent sources, with pointers to further reading. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge, per above. The fact that the other article is long is not really a problem, if most of that content shouldn't even be on Wikipedia. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge: The material that is sourced overlaps entirely with that of this article. The bulk of the material is unsourced and unsourceable, and can be deleted without any loss of improtant information. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per Dominus Vobisdu. bobrayner (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge, the sourcing is quite poor, restricted to a fairly shallow pool of primary sources (in the same way the Bible would be primary), there's some personal websites and more than one external image cited as a source, and too much of the "referencing" is actually commentary. Looks like a massive pile of overly-detailed Theosophy cruft that has been synthesized to produce a truly terrible page. Gut much of the content, use third-party sources, take out the incredible level of unnecessary detail and focus on any third-party sources that indicate an actual impact. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mess

As ever with articles of this topic, someone with a personal agenda against the general topic has obviously crusaded for removing a load of information and "compressing" it into one article, and since their only agenda is censoring information they don't like rather than building an encyclopedia, they've done a terrible job of it. I got redirected here while looking for information on Serapis Bey, whom this article does not mention once. I know I'm banging my head against a brick wall, but change your attitude and sort this out. - filelakeshoe 08:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you have a point to make or did you just come here to rant? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've marked my main point in bold to make it easier for you. Undoubtedly there are other censored articles which uselessly redirect here too. - filelakeshoe 13:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep - Paul the Venetian, Manu (Theosophy), Lord Ling, Lady Master Sachita Kaur redirect here too with no mention in the article. If someone types X into the search box they want information on X, not the general topic to which X belongs. I can't even find a deletion discussion which gained consensus for all these articles like Kuthumi, Serapis Bey, Master Hilarion etc. being redirected. If they had been merged properly I wouldn't care, but they haven't. - filelakeshoe 13:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Then go to those redirects, find the last diff and read the edit summary. To speak of some sort of "censorship" is entirely irrational. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I did that while looking for evidence of an AfD. There isn't, there's just someone redirecting all the articles saying the topic is covered here and that there are no third party sources available. Both, imo, are false, though I understand the way of thinking employed because I've seen it around Wikipedia enough already. Anyone affiliated with any of these topics is not a reliable source. This leads to the "necessary assumption" that anyone who isn't criticising something is affiliated with it. I don't see why this article can't exist, really, it even seems to have "third party sources" (under the ridiculous definition of "sources written by non-theosophists") on it. - filelakeshoe 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe about a month ago there was a large discussion about Theosophical articles on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. If I can remember correctly some of the members there and even some admins were willing to AfD a large number of these Theosophical articles becuase most of them either had no sources at all, or no third party sources and some of these articles have been on wikipedia for 3 or 5 years and it was time something had to be done about them, most of them had been created by a user called M Alan Kazlev who owns a well known new age website (he appears to be a Theosophist himself) and if you check the edit histories of these articles it appears a large number of IPs (who obviously are connected to the Theosophical Society, Adyar) are copying and pasting many lines from Leadbeater or Bailey books. Many of these articles were not notable outside of Theosophy and contained hardly any sources at all, infact I spent some time looking and could not see any nontheosophical references. Theosophy has some very far out ideas and there is no reliable third party sources for some its claims relating to things like Kuthumi or Serapis Bey etc. Most of these articles quote from a single book from Charles Leadbeater or Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Even for occultism some of these concepts are very unknown and there doesnt need to be a wikipedia article for every Theosophy belief or claim. The majority of claims by the Theosophists have all been merged to the Ascended Master article.

There is not an agenda to remove Theosophy from wikipedia only material which does not have reliable references. GreenUniverse (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into a rant about how ridiculous the double standards about what constitutes "reliable sources" are (how many articles on saints have 3rd party sources written by non-christians?) because this has probably already been exhausted on the censorship-of-what-random- consensus-determines-are-far-out-ideas noticeboard. Sure, some of that article is written badly and with a COI but that's no reason to delete all of it. Anyway, I'm just going to go back to my original point - I typed "Serapis Bey" into the search box. I'd seen the name in a few places and wanted to know who or what he was. I was redirected to this article. This article told me nothing. I used my find function and the only mention of "Serapis Bey" was the small text in the top prefixed "redirected from". Then I found the information I was looking for, albeit not very well written, in the edit history of the redirect. Is this how you think Wikipedia should work? - filelakeshoe 09:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Next time you can't find some obscure information on Wikipedia: TRY THE REST OF THE INTERNET. Also, user GreenUniverse updated this article here with some information on Serapis Bey. I think it's sufficient. Instead of complaining that you can't find things here, you might want to propose some constructive changes. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article appears to depend predominantly on the views of prominent theosophists themselves (WP:PRIMARY), rather than analysis from secondary sources (e.g. academics working in Comparative religion, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

How to get to ascension

Wouldnt one have to go through ascension via elemental kingdom>vegetable kingdom>animal kingdom> non-initiate or human kingdm>aspirant-to-initiation>disciple or adept>deva or master which are 100yrs-500yrs-1000yrs-10,000 years consciousnesses. Some say jesus was a full 100,000 years consciousness. Every 2,000 years the sun turns a day old, it turned a day old in pisces 2000 years ago. It is turning a day old today, april 19 2011 all the natal signs were in aries and taurus.