Talk:Ascended master

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ascended master article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Ascended masters 2 Neutrality tag 3 Earth Changes delete 4 An Ascension Handbook 5 Count of St Germain V Sir Francis Bacon 6 Ascension bloodlines? 7 Ascended masters no part of Blavatsky's theosophy 8 external links 9 Ascension in the media 10 Citations 11 Debunkers 12 Important spiritual leaders in company of sect authorities? 13 Wikipedia is not a pulpit 14 The article was on RfC 15 Reverting potentially libelous material 16 All external links on this article are non-neutral 17 Needs a better intro 18 Technical and confusing tags 19 esotericism and initiatory knowledge 20 Not Only Blavatsky 21 Cleanup 22 reinserted link

[edit] Ascended masters

The subject of Ascended Masters and Ascension has a history. These days, it's typically attached to Metaphysical circles of discussion. Even if you have no experience in this topic, or simply don't believe in it, that isn't a reason to delete the page. If so, you could delete just about every page about religion and metaphysics that you don't agree with. If you truly believe that no one will be interested in discovering anything about this topic, then delete it. Otherwise, contribute something from your own knowing. Mahamudra, 7/10/04

The history of belief in ascended masters is complicated enough that it might be helpful to know, from which of the several groups that teach about Ascended Masters did you get the information that was first posted here? This would help the article read better, making it less likely that waffly statements like "Some believe that. . ." will be desirable throughout the article. Smerdis of Tlön 04:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

I am removing the "neutrality dispute" tag on this article because it's been 8 months and the article is pretty well spruced up and explained and they can put the tag back if they still think it's no good. --Bluejay Young 04:50, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I see the neutrality tag has been put back. I don't think there is a problem with the article. It reports on the beliefs of some people, that's all.Steve Dufour 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earth Changes delete

Hey, would you people care to give your opinion on Earth changes? The article is about to be deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_changes Subramanian ^talk

[edit] An Ascension Handbook

Refer to "An Ascension Handbook" by Tony Stubbs, published by OUGHTEN House Foundation 62.90.164.39 13:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"One concept of an ascended master derives from the teachings of Theosophy." Just where in the "teachings of theosophy"? It is not in Blavatsky or even Leadbeater as far as I know. The Mahatmas or Elder Brothers were not referred to as "Ascended Masters".

"In Theosophy, and various descendants and offshoots of theosophy, ascended masters are a group of spiritually enlightened beings," Same problem, be specific or change it. -Bruce

The Mahatmas and Elder Brothers (and Adepts) are the Ascended Masters, and Blavatsky referred to them as Masters. --Bluejay Young 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The old lady would certainly not recognise the concept "ascended master ". her masters were human. --Vindheim 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Count of St Germain V Sir Francis Bacon

The article says the Count of St Germain's final incarnation was as Sir Francis Bacon. But the Count lived in the 18th century, and Bacon lived in the 17th century - so that doesn't make sense. Can someone clarify?? Cheers. --Triple-X 05:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of things about the story of Asc. Master St. Germaine (as opposed to the real guy) do not make sense. --Bluejay Young 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ascension bloodlines?

Strangely enough, I had never heard of the concept of ascension bloodlines before working on this article. Although it seems to be the kind of thing that fits in with other things I've read, I've never actually come across a reference to exactly what's talked about in this section. Could someone come up with a source? Thanks, --Bluejay Young 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ascended masters no part of Blavatsky's theosophy

madame Blavatsky claimed her teachings were derived from Masters. The "ascended" part stems from the I am - Elizabeth Prophet strain of neotheosophy.--Vindheim 12:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the term exist in Leadbeater or Bailey?- I don't think so. "It was however the Church Universal and Triumphant, led by Elizabeth Clare Prophet which first coined the term Ascended Masters."

Date? I think you'll find the term used by the Ballards antecedent to the Prophets.

-Bruce

You´re probably right, since the Ballards laid the foundations for the Prophet movement.--Vindheim 09:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external links

no need to remove the external links to various exposés of ballards and prophets. --Vindheim 04:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is. The main link is to a user home page. This is not considered a reliable source per WP:EL. Please take the time to read the external linking policy, understand the spirit of it, and suggest better links. —Hanuman Das 05:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the exact section where you think this statement is? I would also note that EL is not a policy. Wjhonson 16:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hanuman Das. The links he removed clearly violate the spirit of the guideline. The personal website in particular violates "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." As WP:V and WP:RS state, anybody can self-publish a website. The linking policy dictates that we not link to sites which have an agenda and which do not cite their sources. -999 (Talk) 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no linking policy. It is a guideline. And guidelines do not dictate anything. Wjhonson 17:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Got some arguable reason why you should get to ignore this guideline?

Your time would be better spent citing this article. Uncited material can be removed at any time by any editor. Most of this article could arguably be deleted under WP:V. Why not make the article more solid by citing sources rather than engage in pointless edit warring. -999 (Talk) 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I find your edits to be POV pushing. Massive deletions are never acceptable practice if you're trying to constructively enhance the article. Wjhonson 05:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 999's deletions, they are in accordance with WP:V:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Every section or paragraph removed has been tagged with a request for citation for some time. If you wish to return it to the article, you must cite it. —Hanuman Das 08:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And I don't agree with these massive revisions. I also do not agree that these sections have been tagged with {{fact}} for "some time". It is common knowledge that Blavatskians referred to the "Great White Brotherhood" for example. Wjhonson 16:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to the average encyclopedia reader. Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE for article citation policies. The article violates them. Period. The obligation to provide citations lies with the editor wishing to return the material to the article. The section tags and citation tags have been there for over three weeks. According to Jimbo, it is preferable to remove uncited material rather than tag it. I tagged it out of courtesy and waited. Nothing was done. Now I am removing it per policy and requesting citations on other "facts". Please provide them. Thank you. —Hanuman Das 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And you overshot your mark. Deleting things which are citable trivially by anyone with knowledge in this area. You deleted that the Mahatmas were Tibetan ? Tibet is only mentioned about a million times in the writings of the Blavatskians. Wjhonson 16:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Great. Cite it. —Hanuman Das 20:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I did cite it, and again you deleted my citations. Wjhonson 22:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I got an impression that the subject of the article is not well defined. The article is poorly sourced. Most of current external links could appear in Wikipedia only as examples of new age websites, they do not contain verifiable information about the topic of the article. The quote from WP:V found above is appropriate in the situation. I also browsed some history. To remove the "citation needed" tag it is necessary to cite a reliable source, see WP:RS. Wikilinking a word in the disputed sentence is not enough. If this article should exist at all, it needs some serious work. Hele 7 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is about a belief. As this belief is not a scientifically established fact, both supporting and critical viewpoints to this belief should be presented. Voice of those who think that this belief is holy truth is already too well represented in the article. But there are other people who see this belief as means of deception and their viewpoint should be represented too. Wikipedia does not prefer sympathy to antipathy (if it did, there would be sympathetic articles about things you do not like at all). Dedicated and disappointed viewpoints are both somewhat "emotionally disturbed", so neutral academic works of people with knowledge, but without personal involvement would be especially valuable for this area.

At present there are at least 6 articles (Great White Brotherhood, Kuthumi, The Temple of The Presence, I Am movement, The Bridge to Freedom, Seven Rays) in addition to this one, which largely repeat each other while representing the same religious belief from almost exclusively "dedicated" POV. Even differences from commonly accepted Wikipedia style are the same (e.g. overcapitalization). It seems to be a campaign to promote the belief, not information designed to help the reader. To make the material useful for readers, the information from these articles should be merged under one most-used name for this belief system. A capitalized phrase used in this belief system usually does not deserve a separate article. Maybe also some organisations holding and promoting this belief system are notable enough for a separate article including both supporting and critical POV.

Some new users with old behaviour (e.g. removing the NPOV tag and critical links) have appeared here. To become familiar with Wikipedia policies, please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and [1]. Also see [2] - it is possible to check abuse of sockpuppets. Hele 7 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ascension in the media

Why was this section removed?

The contents were speculative - depending on a controversial understanding of the concept "ascended master". --Vindheim 09:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

As far as I know the concept comes from Blavatsky's theosophy and I think that as a consequence her writings can be used as a source for this article. Voiced as an opinion attributed to Blavatsky/Theosophy of course. Citations to her work continue to be important, even if it is much work and even if it seems superfluous for people who know Theosophy. Independent scholarly works about the concept are probably more suitable than Blavatsky if available. Andries 19:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debunkers

The neutrality of Wikipedia is compromised if links to opposing views are removed. A full presentation of the Ascended Master must include references to nonbelievers and debunkers.--Vindheim 11:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vindheim. Please do not remove critical material, this is not the first time to remind this here. Hele 7 17:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks, please read WP:EL that give standards for external links. Any site with a tilde in it is a personal website and does not meet the standard of a reliable source (see WP:RS). There is no problem with critical links, but no links, supportive or critical, can be to personal website. —Hanuman Das 14:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL and WP:RS do not tell that "any site with a tilde in it is a personal website" and this is not true in general. A page can be reliable with a tilde in its address or personal without it. The real problem here is that Aburesz keeps pushing a POV in non-encyclopedic style and deleting all critical material without any discussion. It has resulted in article being totally out of balance, actually changed into religious propaganda while we are disputing about a tilde. Hele 7 22:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is highly inappropriate to be adding links to personal attack sites - labeled as "Debunkers" - to Encyclopedia entries on religious beliefs held by large numbers of people throughout the world, with long established centers, churches, and temples. This is the Twenty-First Century, not the time of the Spanish Inquisition. It is appalling that some individuals think they have the right to judge the validity of other people's religious beliefs. NO ONE has the right to judge the validity of other people's religious beliefs. Just think how outrageous this would be if widely practiced on Wikipedia: Christian Bible Fundamentalists would post "Debunker" links on entries relating to Catholic saints about the false belief of praying to saints as being non-Biblical and idolatrous; Shiite Moslems would post "Debunker" links on Wikipedia entries about Sunni Moslems; Sunni Moslems would post "Debunker" links on Wikipedia entries about Shiite Moslems; Christian Bible Fundamentalists would post "Debunker" links on entries relating to religious beliefs about Hindu Gods as being false beliefs, non-Biblical, and idolatry; Jewish zealots would post "Debunker" links on Wikipedia entries about Christian beliefs as being false and violations of the First Commandment!

Using this "Debunker" logic of attacking other people's religious beliefs, every article relating to Christianity could have negative impositions upon it, such as the Moslem commentary in the Yemen Times on October 29, 2006 which states: "Yes, it was Christianity that was imposed upon the ancestors of most of its faithful today and it was either belief in Jesus or death for them." Does this charge also need to be attached to every Wikipedia article related to Christianity? OBVIOUSLY NOT!

Using this "Debunker" logic of attacking other people's religious beliefs, every article relating to Islam could have negative impositions upon it, such as the Catholic Pope Benedict XVI's reading: "Show me what Mohammed brought us that was new, and you will only find nasty and inhuman things, like his order to use the sword to spread the faith that he professed", quoting a text attributed to a Byzantine emperor, concerning the violence supposedly present in the Moslem religion since its birth.

Using this "Debunker" logic of attacking other people's religious beliefs, every article relating to any religion could have negative impositions upon it by atheists, or by Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that every religion except their own is a "false religion" (their current global campaign is to spread a 4 page flyer to all households stating just that!). Jehovah's Witnesses have not hit Wikipedia yet, but they would have a precedent if this "debunker" approach to reference material is allowed to continue. Allen Buresz 05:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article about a particular subject should reflect opinions and attitudes of different people, not only of admirers of the subject. You warn about Jehovah's Witnesses, but Wikipedia article on Jehovah's Witnesses is much better balanced than your version of this article, it contains also critical and controversial material. Follow this example and you will get far better results than from repeated deletions of everything you do not like to see here. You note that it is not the time of the Spanish Inquisition now - so please do not follow their practice to silence all different opinions. On flyers your text and style would be OK, but an encyclopedia is not a place to promote a religion. Hele 7 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to clarify my previous comments on "Debunder" impositions on Wikipedia articles. I agree that it would be appropriate to include critical and controversial material in a article about an ORGANIZATION in order to present differing views. Joe Szimhart's article from 1998 that is part of his personal smear campaign and vendetta against Church Universal and Triumphant under the former leadership of Elizabeth Claire Prophet is about that organization. So in an article about Church Universal and Triumphant, it would be something that could be advocated by some as appropriate in such an article. But it is not appropriate in article about the RELIGIOUS BELIEFS in Ascended Masters. These beliefs about the Individualized Presence of God, the Ascension, and those who have entered Immortality and become "Ascended Masters" are held by many who neither have nor want any association with Elizabeth Claire Prophet's organization. Allen Buresz 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that makes some sense, I have to admit. Andries 23:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the link to debunkers ( or detractors ) to be inconsistent with what appears to be very neutral, academic and informative entry on the topic of ascended masters. When it comes to established faiths and religious beliefs, and write-ups about them in encyclopedia, it would appear to me the article and it's supporting references are all that is required. The concept of having oppositional links to a belief system being posted on the same page detracts from the encyclopedic ambiance of wikipedia. Along with freedom of the internet, most enlightened countries hold to freedom of faith or belief as well as freedom of speech. Rather than the debunkers standing in opposition to a faith on the same page, it would seem to make sense to me that they have their own page and topic and, there, under some banner or heading, present what they stand for. Otherwise any write up on religion or a faith runs the risk of becoming a bar brawl of contending beliefs or disbeliefs, resulting in wikipedia loosing it's standing for rational, measured and accurate presentation of many known facts and beliefs in the world about us. Procleus 17:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A quote from one of the supporting links - can you call this "very neutral, academic and informative"?

The purpose of the Ascended Masters' "I AM" Activity is to bring help from Their Octave of Life. Mankind must have more than ordinary assistance to stand against the accumulation of mankind's disobedience to the Laws of Life. Physical actions alone cannot solve the world's problems nor remove the discordant energy which human beings release against each other, usually ignorant of its destructive force. The aim of the true seeker of the Light is to protect all that is constructive; to maintain God (Good) Ideals by dedicating one's Life to God in the highest and most powerful way possible; and to bring forth the Fulfillment of God's Divine Plan for all embodied in America and every nation and all who come in the future.

If there are links to such praise and preaching, there should be also links to opposite views. If you do not like the NPOV policy of presenting different values and opinions in one article, you should bring your issue up on the talk page of the policy, not violate the policy here. Hele 7 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The ascended master article is neutral, academic and informative. The link in question is a reference to a historic and current organization which holds to the ascended master belief. Finding a particular tenet or view of one of these organizations that one is not 'agreeable' with does not invalidate the clear and authoritative nature of the article. Hanging signs over and around the article about 'Neutrality' being in question, for someone with knowledge of the field, smacks of pandering to yearnings of censorship and control. When I came across the wikipedia article, some weeks back, I was impressed by it's throughly researched and authoritative description. What detracts from the experience however is the desperate attempt to include debunkers and their views. The wikipedia article is not 'selling' or 'promoting' anything but presenting an authoritative description of the field. It would appear the detractors are uncomfortable with such an exposition of the subject matter. Should that shroud the subject matter. I would hope not. Procleus 04:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important spiritual leaders in company of sect authorities?

I moved here the following text from the article:

"Various important spiritual leaders such as Jesus, Confucius, Gautama Buddha, Mary the Mother of Jesus, and Kuan Yin the compassionate bodhisattva, take their seats alongside magical or alchemical personalities like the Count of St Germain, and other mystic celebrities like Kuthumi, one of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's claimed spiritual guides—all of these leaders have put aside any differences they might have had in their earthly careers, and unite instead to improve the spiritual well-being of the human race.^[1]"

This is strongly not NPOV and in case of inclusion into article it should be clearly tagged as a claim of a limited religious group. Hele 7 23:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The belief that these individuals are Ascended Masters is widely held throughout the world, and is not "a claim of a limited religious group". Allen Buresz 05:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Partially true. There are several related groups who have this belief, not just one religious group, but still, the number of people who hold this belief is small and the belief is considered a bit strange and "exotic" to most people. Andries 07:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs in Jesus, Buddha and other important spiritual leaders are indeed widely held, but belief that Count of St. Germain or Madame Blavatsky's ghosts belong to the same level or company is rare and for most people, strange. It is a try of authority transfer. An analogue were if I said "great physicists such as Newton and Einstein take their seats alongside me; we together have made the physics". Such a claim should in no case be stated as a fact in an encyclopedia. Hele 7 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculing other people's religious beliefs has no place in an objective encyclopedia article entry, nor does condemning the religious belief in Immortal Ascended Masters - that is considered Sacred Truth by so many throughout the world - as being a belief in "Blavatsky's ghosts". This is as out of place in an an objective encyclopedia article entry on Ascended Masters as it would would be for non-Christians to ridicule articles on the Transfiguration, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus, or for Protestants to ridicule an article on the Catholic belief in the Physical Ascension (Assumption) of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. A subject or belief needs to be accurately described with definite citations, not trampled upon by those who disagree with the subject or belief!

This Wikipedia project should not degenerate into a judgmental new "Spanish Inquisition" or Muslim clerical "thought police" intervention where that which someone does not agree with is condemned and attacked. Opinions are not facts. What needs to be stated as fact - when dealing with an article about a religious belief - IS WHAT THE BELIEF BEING DESCRIBED IS, not that non-believers think that it is ridiculous or irrational. Allen Buresz 17:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The new version of the disputed paragraph is better than previous, but nevertheless I moved the following here:

"Belief in the Brotherhood and the Masters is an essential part of the syncretistic teachings of various organizations that have continued and expanded the Theosophical philosophical concepts. ^[2] Examples of those believed to be Ascended Masters are Jesus, Confucius, Gautama Buddha, Mary the Mother of Jesus, Pope John Paul II, ^[3], Kwan Yin the compassionate Bodhisattva, as well as the Master of Alchemy Saint Germain and Kuthumi, (one of Helena Blavatsky's "Mahatmas"). It is believed that all of these put aside any differences they might have had in their Earthly careers, and unite instead to advance the spiritual well-being of humanity.^[4]"

Why I moved this? Because such words as "various organizations", "believed to be" and "it is believed" are not informative enough. Name 1-3 biggest organisations who hold the belief and confirm this with reliable references. Please do not use your own writings in Internet as sources, see [3].

To continue the discussion: in an article about a religious belief, the belief should be characterized in balanced way by various groups, not only by believers. See for examples [4] and [5], there you will find many examples of articles where worshippers and enemies of different legendary beings have found good compromises with those who deny existence of these beings. Describing a belief from non-believer's POV is not "trampling upon" it, nor is the belief "condemned and attacked". A non-believer gives his or her description of the belief as does the believer, a reader gets information from both sides and is free to choose (or not) a standpoint. Hele 7 15:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The new version is so much better that I will not touch it now. Do you know some secondary sources (not published by these religious organisations) which would describe beliefs about ascended masters, e.g. some university textbook or scientific monography? The present references section is... like references mainly to Watchtower were under article about Jehovah, you see? Hele 7 00:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is the famous study by Charles S. Braden released by MacMillan Publishing Company in 1960 titled These Also Believe. This classic study of minority religions in the United States of America was referenced in university theology, sociology, and psychology classes that I took decades ago. Allen Buresz 02:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Titles cited by Johnson, Faivre and Whitsel are all academic works published by academic publishers.--Vindheim 02:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities (Oxford University Press, USA 2004) is an academic book by an academic publisher describing these believers in Ascended Masters: The I AM Activity, The Bridge to Freedom and The Summit Lighthouse. Allen Buresz 06:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Great :) I think we should summarize these academic sources in neutral way and add the summaries and references to the article. It would increase the value of the article. I am glad that editing of the article has became more constructive. Hele 7 13:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a pulpit

Some editors seek to shape articles to present their secterian views as objective truth. This is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Secterian views must be presented as such, and links to secterian views the same. Also, links to critical pages should be included. --Vindheim 12:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as Wikipedia gains popularity here will appear more people who try to use it to promote their views and products. Wikipedia should have a definite procedure or policy for such cases. Hele 7 16:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It does have a policy: WP:NPOVQuendus 06:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What actions does the policy prescribe for case if somebody keeps pushing a POV and several warnings from different editors do not change his behaviour, as is the case here? Hele 7 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have posted an alert on the Wikiquette page, in order to attract the attention of an administrator. ("call the cops")--Vindheim 01:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The recommended action is described here, and is more-or-less what Hele7 is doing.

Also: I yesterday I kept forgetting to sign my comments and I have no idea why. Quendus 06:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Next stop, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. - Richfife 18:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to work, however, all parties should also formally agree to mediation. Maybe those who are familiar with the procedure should remind and instruct those who may not be so familiar with it? Hele 7 13:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that the aburesz has tacitly agreed to the two points I declared for mediation: NPOV tag and opposing links, so it's probably moot at this point. Should the issue unmoot in the future, though, mediation and possibly arbitration certainly remain options. - Richfife 19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked unexpectedly fast and well. I will keep this article on my watchlist. Please help some more: see your talk. Hele 7 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems that he is asking for stronger measures. Hele 7 14:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been blocked for 24 hours as of now. - Richfife 21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

More to clean up for the same reason: Great White Brotherhood, Kuthumi, The Temple of The Presence, I Am movement, The Bridge to Freedom, Seven Rays ... Hele 7 23:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have very little time right now, but I'll do what I can. - Richfife 23:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the block applies to all articles, not just this one. - Richfife 00:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article was on RfC

The article was on RfC, it's how I got here. It was removed from RfC as over 1 month old request. [6] Hele 7 13:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting potentially libelous material

From: Wikipedia: Three Revert Rule

Reverting potentially libelous material: "All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection, and repeated reversion should be used only as a last resort. Reverts made to enforce this provision are generally not considered contentious, because they are necessary."

>>> The repeated adding of blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous external web site links attacking any person or organization on a page describing the belief in Ascended Masters, a religious belief held by a number of organizations both in the past and present, is totally out of place - and a violation of the Wikipedia policy quoted above. This type of behavior interferes with the possibility of Wikipedia becoming an objective, neutral, and useful academic reference resource. At the very least, it should be obvious that under no circumstances should External links to defamatory personal attack web sites directed against any individual or church be on an encyclopedia article that is not about that individual or church organization. <<< Allen Buresz 23:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The rule you quote only applies to living people. What living person is being libelled here? -999 (Talk) 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Spam:

Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be speedily deleted by tagging the articles with {{db-spam}}. Other advertisements posted on Wikipedia can be dealt with by either Prod-ing or listing them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Propaganda for a religious belief is no way "an objective, neutral and useful academic reference resource", it is spam. On your flyers or on your website you may remain silent about facts that most people do not share your belief and many of them are critical towards it, but you cannot do the same in Wikipedia. You have crossed the line using unacceptable editing methods (repeated reversions instead of discussion, repeated removal of NPOV tag when there is no consensus, marking your content-changing edits as minor, etc.), so all your production in Wikipedia is under attention now. If your belief does not allow you to tolerate different opinions and limit yourself to commonly accepted editing methods in articles about this belief, please consider contributing in other areas of Wikipedia. Hele 7 15:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read the discussion above and tend to side with the view by Allen Buresz. It makes sense to me that an article should put forth the relevant facts on the topic and not be clouded by links to various people's comments that just don't happen to like the concept. To permit this behavior is at best in poor taste... Bob8080 6 November 2006

I think posting external links to defamatory smear articles against a person or organization on a page about a particular religious term and belief is TOTALLY inappropriate. The article on Ascended Masters presents facts refering to the entire history of Ascended Masters' teachings as they have been given out over the last 75 years. Those critical external links point to articles posted by disgruntled individuals, written under high emotional disturbance and with a vindictive and destructive bent. It has nothing to do with the spirit of Wikipedia in my view. Paul Verity 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also side with Allen Buresz. I don't believe it's right for links to the web sites of Bible fundamentalist groups - that are crusading against other religious groups that they don't agree with - to be placed on a page about the subject of "Ascended Masters". This is not a page about a religious group. I thought this was supposed to be a serious attempt at an encyclopedia? (?!?) I'm all for Freedom of Speech, which means I AM also all for the Freedom of Speech that I personally dissagree with. The article could include language such as "claim to be", "purport to be", etc., but those certain links have no place here. Theoschela 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about a belief. A belief should be described not only by admirers and followers of it but also by neutral observers and by those who have had bad experiences with it. The same applies to religious groups and all other subjects in Wikipedia. All groups have freedom of speech here, not only those you "happen to like". Wikipedia should give balanced descriptions. It is not a place for a religious group to promote their system of beliefs. Attempts to do so are bad PR for the group and it will remain in public space for a long time. Hele 7 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Having come to the 'discussion' section of this article, I wasn't expecting to find such recent activities and differences of thought. The current, as I write, reference no. 7 within the article - "Partridge, Christopher ed. New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities Oxford University Press, USA 2004" is an update and not otherwise much changed from the original which was published in the late 1980s. I turned out to be the principal contributor to the section in this academic book for the section on the 'neo-Theosophical' movements commencing with the 'I AM' Activity of the Ballards. Contributors such as myself were consultants and did not do the final edit. In discussion with the original editor of the 1980s version (not Christopher Partridge, and she will I imagine have been advisor to him for the 2004 update), we discussed then what attitude or tone should be taken, and why. Perhaps I should explain that this volume is not just an academic work, but was specifically requested by elements of the British governemnt - as recall, by the Home Office - in order to provide accurate and unbiassed information on the 'New Religious Movements' precisely because most information not actually derived from the groups or movements themselves was of a negative nature (e.g. Christian evangelical tracts on each and every such movement). Since the intent of such sources of information was negative by nature, it was sometimes wildly inaccurate. These inaccuracies in turn were being picked up at the time (the 1980s) by the mainstream media in the UK. It was therefore officially requested that the London School of Economics, which had a department for such study, produce a neutral and factual work of the 'NRMs'.

I give this background since it was deemed quite inappropriate and unnecessary to go into much detail about critics of any NRMs. Today I'd comment on this that whereas a membership might number in the thousands, a critical perspective is often, it turns out, written by one or a few individuals, or by a competing religious viewpoint such as Christian. What WOULD be briefly referred to would be any truly factual, information, possessing evidence, of a negative nature about any movement's misdeeds. But the academic approach chosen was essentially one of giving each movement's history, philosophical background or sources, current beliefs, and where available the facts or estimates as to the current undertakings, membership numbers, etc. In summary, a 'neutral' article was not usually deemed to be one giving 'both sides', pro and contra, since the contra side is almost always there for any religious set of beliefs. Accuracy lay in giving the history and present state and set of beliefs more-or-less as the membership would have given them to us. Needless to say, this did not in any way take on an evangelical slant for any organisation, however: the aim was to be factual.

I should just stress again that I only discussed all this with the first - 1980s - editor informally, though at length, and then I helped shape the couple of pages on the twentieth-century 'Ascended Master' movements. My point here, seeing the discussion, is that with academic accuracy in mind, little heed was given to staunch critics, and the beliefs of the movements were presented largely as they would have worded them (or even had, in print), since the critics above all had an agenda and lacked accuracy - as it happened. That's the attitude I'd advocate today for Wikipedia on the ascended masters (lower or higher case).

It was difficult to know which discussion thread to put this into but I've chosen this current one. May I also add that - if it is not obvious - a fairly good knowledge of the movements, these specific movements, is required in order to usefully edit the article.

In reference to another discussion thread on the article: the subject of whether 'Ascended Masters' is or is not a term or concept held by Theosophy. The path to take here seemed pretty obvious for "New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities", Oxford University Press. Theosophy had its own section in which Theosophy was discussed. Then the twentieth-century movements had their own sections, which can indeed be summarised as "ascended / Ascended master / Master Activities". Whether the beliefs and concepts of these movements really did reflect Theosophy was immaterial - the article or pages was on them and their beliefs. [We did not go into this technicality, but 'Ascended Masters' do exist within Theosophy, but simply under another term. Within Theosophy, Masters or Mahatmas who have undergone the Fifth Initiation (in Theosophical terms) appear to be identical to 'Ascended Masters'. From the Ballards on, the attempt was to de-mystify terminology and to make it more accessible to the layperson. Steranko 03:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your informed contribution. What is "Theosophical teachings" may however be more complicated than you seem to realise. "Masters undergoing the fifth initiation" were introduced by Leadbeater, and cannot be found in Blavatsky's writings.I would therefore label such beliefs "second generation Theosophy" and the Ascended Master beliefs third- or even fourth-generation Theosophy. --Vindheim 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on the numbered initiations you are quite right that this began with Leadbeater and Besant and also Alice Bailey were she to be considered part of the canon. It can in a sense be regarded as 'second generation Theosophy'. However that's a debate for any article about Theosophy; my real point there was that 'Ascended Masters' can be perceived as having a precursor-concept within Theosophy. I'd certainly say that this goes back to Blavatsky's era and the Mahatama Letters as well, since a detailed reading about, let us say, the Chohans, seems to indicate that while they can manifest in physical form, they were / are much more than physical beings; and certainly when discussion or writings of the late 1800s got into such beings as the Kumaras, here we are certainly not dealing with incarnated humans. Again, it is all moot as the approach I'd suggest is not to even attempt to 'prove' whether neo-Theosophy is 'correct'! All one can do with any religion, let alone those apart from the mainstream, is to faithfully report their beliefs. In doing so, we are not assesing truth-claims (such as the Mormons believing that God is a physical being on another planet, as I understand it - one simply reports on the beliefs held, with as much accuracy as possible). Steranko 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel compelled to 'jump in.' ... I too would side with Buresz, and for reasons similar to Steranko's, I will add some relevant passages here at the end of this discussion chain. I have found a number of pertinent quotes from Helena Blavatsky, which, I believe, relate closely to Ascended Masters, and the fact that the Mahatmas, or her Masters, were not mere human beings, but represented (and demonstrated, if I may) much more to her. Indeed, the fourth quote may well address Vindheim's concern about the "Fifth Initiation", by presenting a related or comparible concept of Blavatsky's. ... While these passages cannot prove the reality of their claims (which I believe in, personally), they do clarify how Helena understood the Mahatmas to be, and where the term 'Ascended Master' can fit in to Theosophy. These latter two points are the purpose of this presentation of quotes.

• I here cite a number of passages from the book, "The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky" (ISBN 09-913004-47-2, Point Loma Publications, Inc. 1985), in chronological order. The last point may be the strongest.

1. After an initiatory Pledge was taken by the Inner Group Members, including Dr. A. Besant, HPB said, "It is in the presence of the Master you have taken it" (Meeting: August 20, 1890). This would suggest that the Master was somehow present, though not physically, which is an ability not ascribed to usual people.
2. Along the lines of the Ascension, while explaining a diagram representing the human principles, HPB affirmed, "In all these systems remember the main principle, the descent and re-ascent of the Spirit, in man as in Kosmos" (Meeting: December 17, 1890).
3. On New Year's Eve, 1891, in a letter to Annie Besant and Isabel Cooper, HPB described herself as the "...devoted servant of the MASTER, beyond" (All-Caps in original). The word "beyond" is obviously referring to a transcendent 'location.'
4. Again, relating to the Ascension, HPB explained "To become a Rāja-Yogi, one has to ascend up to the seventh portal, the Satyaloka" (Meeting: January 11, 1891). I admit, I do not fully comprehend the terms used, but I suspect the gist is suffecient for the current purpose.
5. HPB stated, "The Masters' bodies are, so far as they are concerned, illusionary, and hence do not grow old, become wrinkled, etc" (Meeting: January 21, 1891). This would better fit the description of an immortal (...the idea being that the Mahatmas were not born as such but, through the practice of various disciplines, attained to it. Unascended adepts are able to stop the aging process, not out of self-gratification, but to extend the time with which to advance the disciplines...in preparation for the final Ascension). Trying49 07:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a useful and interesting list of reasons for considering HPB's Mahatmas, or some of them, to be synonymous with Ascended Masters. I'd point out, as above, however, that there's possibly - I'd suggest probably - no need at all to assess the truth claims of the twentieth-century movements. If people were to delve into assessing the truth claims of religion, then an entry on Christianity may as well begin with assessing whether God exists. The best approach would seem to be an accurate rendition of any movement's beliefs, nature, history and activities irrespective of content. Questioning the validity of religious beliefs isn't usually the role of an encyclopedia entry. (There could be exceptions to this in certain circumstances: for example, a very detailed article on Theosophy might well mention the controversy over the Mahatma letters, since this was an important historical debate.) Steranko 11:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that these quotations show that Blavatsky's concept of masters, even in her final year, was equal to the Ballard and later concept of "ascended masters". My point is not to dicuss the truth or otherwise of such concepts, only to make their historical development clear.--Vindheim 11:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the concepts aren't 'equal' in the sense of being identical, since little was really known or stated in Blavatsky's time about the details of what a Master was or how such a state was achieved. Later Theosophy itself, and then the neo-Theosophical organisations, purport to take the original concept but develop it - and purport to be doing this in communication with the Masters, or even in their own words. (Remember that we are simply dealing with belief here.) Blavatsky, for obvious reasons on the timeline, couldn't confirm that the later developments did indeed accurately reflect her Mahatmas; but what can be said is that Leadbeater and Besant, the Ballards, the Prophets, and so forth, certainly believed they were in possession of knowledge accurately developing the original (rather vague) Blavatskian concept of Masters. Steranko 16:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All external links on this article are non-neutral

and don't kid yourself. That's not fatal, it's just the way things are around this belief system. People enter into and it is the best thing that ever happened to them. Other people into it and it is hell on earth. Both experiences are valid and must be accepted. Sometimes people express opinions that we don't agree with. That's too bad, life goes on. If you can not accept that, then you have a severe problem that you need to address sooner rather than later. Attempting to remove information that you do not agree with does not speak well of you or your belief system. - Richfife 03:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a better intro

The intro in this article is hard to understand. It should be the Wikipedia format, as in An Ascended master is a ...... It was first proposed by..... etc. --AW 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this line should be first? "In various descendants and offshoots of Theosophy, [12] Ascended Masters are held to be a group of spiritually enlightened beings, once ordinary humans, who have undergone a process of spiritual transformation. " --AW 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Be bold and try it! However, be warned that some believers follow their specific style in this and some related articles (read the rest of the talk page). They insert large quantities of Overcapitalized Praise and Preaching and often revert changes by other editors. Making any changes permanent is a problem here. Hele 7 22:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion for a new cleaner simpler intro with the term being described in the first sentence is a very good idea. I have moved the previous first sentence down to the section "Beliefs about Ascended Masters" making it the first sentence of that section. Aburesz

Thanks to both of you. I added the line I suggested to Aburesz's line. --AW 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the repetition of that line which appeared in the second paragraph. Aburesz 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical and confusing tags

I added those to the article, because it seems to quickly get bogged down in stuff I don't understand and a huge amount of footnotes. --AW 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The large number of footnotes evolved from repeated requests for references and citations for various statements about this belief system. Aburesz 22:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Technical accuracy correction: I have removed "Share International" from the introductory paragraph and External links, since Benjamin Creme's organization has never used the term "Ascended Master". I just confirmed this by reviewing their printed literature (which I purchased several days ago through Amazon.com) and their own web site information. They don't consider themselves part of the "Ascended Master Teachings" belief system introduced by "The I AM Activity", but base their beliefs on theosophy, Alice Bailey's books, and new concepts introduced by Benjamin Creme. Aburesz 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Untrue [7] Can somebody make sure that proper references are not removed from this article? Thanks in advance. Andries 08:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, that doesn't address the tags. Can somebody please clarify this article, at least the beginning, and make it make sense for somebody who isn't involved in these things, as you guys all seem to be. For example, this is the third sentence, and means nothing to me:

"This term for the "Immortal Saints and Sages" who have gone through the Initiations of the Transfiguration, Resurrection, and the Ascension was further popularized by The Bridge to Freedom (1951), The Summit Lighthouse (1958), The Temple of The Presence (1995), and various other organizations." This article clearly gets too technical too fast. --AW 09:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I started taking my medicines I do not meet the Ascended Masters anymore. I think the subject would be clarified if we inserted a list of Ascended Masters that is now at the Great White Brotherhood. Andries 09:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think that would help. There needs to be some kind of basic thing that says what an ascended master is, does, etc. The line I mentioned there means absolutely nothing to me. --AW 10:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the phrase that AW pointed out was not clear into a lower section in order to simplify the introduction. Aburesz 19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The article in general is still pretty dense and hard to follow however. --AW 07:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In an article introduction that lists examples of organizations that have popularized the use of the term "Ascended Masters" since the introduction of the term by "The I AM Activity" in 1934, there can not be listed Benjamin Cremes's Share International - which has never used that term. Aburesz 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They did use the term as I already proved. [8] May be they did not help to popularize and may be they do not deserve to be mentioned in the lead section, but they do deserve to be mentioned in the article somewhere. Andries 19:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Creme does not use the term "Ascended Masters" to describe beings in his belief system. The sentence you quoted was using "resurrected and ascended" as adjectives in the same way that a Christian might use those adjectives to describe Jesus. But outside of the organizations that believe in the "Ascended Master Teachings" you do not have Christians referring to Jesus as the Ascended Master Jesus. This article is about the religious belief systems that use the term "Ascended Masters". Aburesz 06:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have some simple questions that I can't figure out from this article, and which should be in the second paragraph, I think. What does an ascended master do? How do you determine if somebody is or not? In layman's terms please, unlike the rest of the article. --AW 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added in the second paragraph a clear and simple definition of "Ascended Masters" as requested by AW - taken from the literature of the believers of this religious belief system. Aburesz 05:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much better. There are a few random capitals and things, and I'm not sure what a matter plane is, but that definitely helps. --AW 15:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Matter plane" refers to the atomic and molecular structure in which evolution takes place, the lower planes (dimensions / wavelength frequency resonance) sometimes correlated with physical solids, liquids, and gases; the higher subplanes of the physical octave are sometimes referred to as "etheric" and not normally perceivable by the physical senses. Aburesz 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so what does it mean "to gain mastery over matter planes"? Sorry to ask so many questions, I'm trying to get this to be understandable by your average joe, like me --AW 16:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to these teachings, gaining "mastery over matter planes" means learning to consciously use 100% of one's Creative Power of thought, feeling, and spoken word to create greater perfection, joy, and love in the world, as opposed to using thoughts, feelings, and words to create greater limitations, bondage, and chaos in one's own experience and in the world at large through carelessness and lack of awareness of the extent of one's influence in the world. Aburesz 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The first few paragraphs are a lot better now. --AW 03:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] esotericism and initiatory knowledge

Esotericism is not identical to a belief in initiatory knowledge, a point which is not appropriate for discussion on this page. However there is no doubt in academic studies of religion that the concept of intiatory knowledge is extremely ancient. Text changed accordingly. --Vindheim 21:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "the concept of intiatory knowledge is extremely ancient". Some writers have claimed that it was restored 4.5 million years ago (some have it at 18.5 million years) at Shamballa. Aburesz 00:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Blavatsky's number was 16 million years, I believe. That is however a sectarian statement of faith. Academics claim only to be able to trace the concept a few thousand years back. That should anyway legitimate the statement in the article.--Vindheim 06:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see my change was not understood. I have modified the wording a bit more to make the intent clearer. Wjhonson 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But the article by Faivre (an academic reference which I added some months back) does not confirm your statement. It confirms that belief in the existence of initiatory knowledge is exteremely ancient. I have changed the wording accordingly. I do, however, have a problem in seeing sectarian quotes by (i.e.) Grace F. Knoche being presented as historical sources equal to academic texts. --Vindheim 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Only Blavatsky

Purely on Blavatsky, and her period of the Theosophical Society, I don't find the article at the time of writing to be neutral. I read in it "While some of her critics believe the Masters are pure fantasy" and words about her "changing stories". On the one hand, to be comprehensive and inclusive, I do agree that it should be mentioned that Blavatsky had her skeptics then and does now. What religious belief doesn't? But the article in its approach to Blavatsky's claims about the Mahatmas is not at all neutral and academic on this important point: it gives the impression that all evidence and all accounts as to the Mahatmas' real existence stemmed from just her spoken and written words. Nothing could be further from the truth! During her time some dozens of people left accounts of their meetings with the same Mahatmas, or in some cases, Mahatmas co-working with the more famous names. For example, this article, which I doubt is exhaustive, lists twenty-five people's accounts of meetings with the Masters in the late 1800s:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/mastersencounterswith.htm

A few of the accounts there are 'astral' and a skeptic may therefore take them to be dreams, but the majority are quite physical. The article is therefore over-critical by not mentioning this or taking it into account, giving a quite false impression. In my opinion, therefore, the article shouldn't make it appear that the Mahatmas' reality at that time hinged only upon the accounts of one person, Blavatsky. This is not at all the case - from the historical record. I'd suggest the wording be altered to take this into account.

On a much more minor note, there has been discussion about capitalisation. I find it rather bizarre therefore that I find 'Mahatma' spelled in the article with lower-case 'm' when Blavatsky and the Mahatma letters each, as the original sources on Mahatmas, used upper case. Steranko 11:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

At first I wrote the above just as a comment. But it didn't seem logical to comment without tweaking the article accordingly, so I've added a sentence with a reference on this. Steranko 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article needs a cleanup according to the mediators. Going through it today, I have noticed that there is little differentiation between the various versions of the AM beliefs.

Perhaps representatives of the various viewpoints here could insert the name of their organization or its main proponent(s) at relevant places. Maybe also the article should be reorganized, so that the various versions are separated into different paragraphs or even sections.

The footnotes should also be reorganized, to emphasize the differences between sectarian and academic viewpoints. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vindheim (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] reinserted link

I do not agree with aburesz that a the link should be removed. please discuss before doing such things. --Vindheim 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The link that was removed was to a wacky article on a personal web site that does NOT provide additional reference material on the subject of Ascended Masters. Instead, this individual states that Ascended Masters must die and disappear after acknowledging him as the "living master": "You must announce in the body you are using that you have heard the truth of the living master and you are going on. You must tell the people only this, and be gone."

Wikipedia:External links: Links normally to be avoided: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject." Aburesz 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The link you have continually removed is no more wacky than the links you actively promote.The site contains information on the theme of the article, namely "ascended masters".--Vindheim 18:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole idea of 'ascended masters' is pretty wacky to many people! The link is to a personal website but the article is not by that individual but by the spiritual teacher Barry Long. The article is directly about and provides information about ascended masters and offers an alternate view. I would re-insert the link except that I'm not sure about copyright issues. 89.240.2.153 13:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)