Talk:Ashtar (extraterrestrial being)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge proposal

I propose that Ashtar Sheran be merged into this article on the following grounds: that both articles are rather short (and so there is room); that Ashtar Sheran is not notable outside of AGC - both articles would be fine on one page; and finally (although this is trivial), that this article would be improved by the rather splendid picture of him! Totnesmartin (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

agree, also needs proper secondary sources & shld Vrillon (check that one out, it's damned funny) be merged as well? or kept separate on the grounds of being a notable incident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsnowball (talk • contribs) 08:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of the name "Ashtar Sheran"

Read backwards, it becomes "Naresh ratsha", which is pure Sanskrit!! Naresh, actually "naresha" = nara + isha ("a+i" becomes "e" due to the sandhi rule of Sanskrit grammar), nara = man, human being and isha = god (in Hindi, the last "a" is not pronounced, even though it is written in the Devanagari writing, and isha becomes ish; therefore you commonly see words written as they are to day pronounced in Hindi, even though they really should have a final "a")

Ratsha, better spellt "raja" = king.

Hence: A king who is a man and a god (or a god for man).

What is that supposed to mean? Why Sanskrit? And why backwards? To me this is strange and suspicious... 89.143.187.167 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hate to be the grumpy sceptic, but this sounds quite like something a New Age hoaxer would do. Hiding a "deeper meaning" in a name with language riddles like this, using a language that is associated with ancient spirituality, but that would have no particular significance to a real alien civilization. I wouldn't read too much into it. (Sorry if that offends anyone present.) Fyrius (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a meaning in this text?

If this is a subject suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, rather than just some crank theory, can there be an explanation of such apparent gobbledegook as "aligned via microchip to an extraterrestrial organization" and "the singular {all}, identified as Ashtar transitioned to the known as an object". Thanks - Paul (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was put there by a fool. I've reverted the foolishness. Robert Ham (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording

The summary of this article is worded in a way that presents it as though it were fact, when there is no proper evidence for anything this article presents. Is there any way this could be properly rewritten? Zugamifk (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is fact that some people (contactees, etc.) claim that an organisation named Ashtar Galactic Command exists. If you look at the bottom of the article, you will find evidence about these contactees. I don't believe the article needs to be rewritten at all.

I think, possibly, you're confusing (1) the fact that people believe an extraterrestrial organisation exists (which is what this article is about) and (2) the "fact" that an extraterrestrial organisation exists (which is not what this article is about) Robert Ham (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first guy.

Ashtar Galactic Command (or Ashtar Command) is an extraterrestrial organization whose existence and purpose is asserted by (...)

I just edited the word "alleged" in between "an" and "extraterrestrial organization". I only noticed afterwards that there had already been versions where there was the word "purported" on the same place, and it was deleted for being redundant. But this wording does imply that this organization is actually known to exist beyond controversy. Surely, that implication is immediately denied by the relative clause "whose existence (...) is asserted by (...)", but I still think it might give less attentive people the wrong idea. Fyrius (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the concept of Ashtar Command is a difficult one to summarise in a single sentence. I believe the current wording, though logically demanding, is the most neutral, accurate description that has been suggested. A less demanding sentence would be welcome but it should not contain redundant qualifications and it should accurately describe the concept without bias. Robert Ham (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

Ashtar Galactic Command (or Ashtar Command) is believed to be an extraterrestrial organization. Its existence and purpose are asserted by (...)

I believe this is a neutral, unbiased and accurate description (an obvious fact, even) with no redundancy in wording and no questionable implications. (It does use a weasel word, I guess, but it's stated directly after that who believe this, with references.)Fyrius (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe this is appropriate. Taking as an example of how the subject of a belief should be described, the article on God opens with:

God is a deity in theist and deist religions and other belief systems

It doesn't state that God is believed to be a deity in theist and deist religions; simply that it is. Stating that a thing is "believed to be" something is weasel wording, regardless of what follows it. It implies an opinion immediately where there should be no opinion; this is the problem with weasel words and why they are inappropriate for wikipedia.

It is appropriate to describe Ashtar Command as being an extraterrestrial organisation. That's what it is. It doesn't matter that the validity of the statement is limited to a particular context (in this case the belief systems of UFOlogists, etc.) If I say that Springfield is a town where Bart Simpson lives, that statement is correct. It would be disingenuous not to qualify it by saying that both are elements of a fictional cartoon, but the statement is still valid. Similarly, Ashtar Command is an extraterrestrial organisation. It is appropriate to describe it as such, as long as the context is also provided, as it is in the current opening sentence. Robert Ham (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is quite factual that God is a deity, whether deities exist or not. It is not factual that Ashtar Command is an extraterrestrial organization.

Crucially, the (common) definition of "deity" includes that it is something unverified that some people believe in and others do not. That of "extraterrestrial organization" does not. And I still believe the present wording (initially) implies the existence of Ashtar Command to be undisputed.

As for the weasel words: this weasel word does not imply an opinion, but a belief. In an article that is actually about this belief, I would say this should be justified. Doubly so if it's stated exactly who believes this. (In a sense, the exact same content is in the article right now - UFOlogists and the like believe and assert Ashtar Command to exist.)

The reason why weasel words are to be avoided is because they are used to sneak opinions into articles, and because they are vague and leave undecided whose point of view they talk about. Neither of these objections apply in the present situation; there is no opinion involved and the believers in question are explicitly stated.

As for context-bound validity: Wikipedia would never say that Springfield is a town where Bart Simpson lives, not even if directly after that it would be clarified that Bart Simpson is not real. It would be very explicitly stated right in the first clause that Springfield is a fictional city where the cartoon character Bart Simpson lives. There are actually guidelines against assuming an in-universe point of view for fictional worlds.

So, yes, it does matter very much that the validity of a statement is limited to a certain context. Wikipedia is supposed to report facts that hold in the context of the real world. This does not include beliefs of UFOlogists. We must report their beliefs, but not from their point of view.

It's true that the context is provided, but I find that it is provided too late. First Asthar Command is presented as if it were definitely a real thing from a neutral point of view, and then this is watered down - somewhat unclearly, even, I might add - by saying "which is believed by these people." I believe it should be clear from the first few words on that the existence of Ashtar Command is not a given. This is the essence of my objection. Fyrius (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Ashtar Galactic Command (or Ashtar Command) is believed to be an extraterrestrial entity according to certain contactees, New Age believers and channellers, including American Ufologist George Van Tassel.

Excellent.

I'm content with the present wording. So as far as I'm concerned, this issue is now resolved. - Fyrius (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the issue is not resolved. You say

Wikipedia is supposed to report facts that hold in the context of the real world.

You seem to assume that, within the “real world”, Ashtar Command isn't actually real. This isn't the case. Your belief that Ashtar Command is not real is precisely that; a belief. It is not based on positive evidence because there is no positive evidence that Ashtar Galactic Command is not real; there is only belief that it is not real. Hence, within the context of facts, that context in which we find wikipedia, it is not the case that Ashtar Command is the subject of the beliefs of solely UFOlofists; it may actually be the case that Ashtar Command exists and, this is possibly something you might have trouble acknowledging, it may actually be the case that Ashtar Command exists in the real world.

I believe the opening sentence still needs work in order to place it firmly in the category of "we don't actually know, for a fact, whether it exists or not." The present wording is written with the assumption that we know that it doesn't exist. We don't. Robert Ham (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You also say

Crucially, the (common) definition of "deity" includes that it is something unverified that some people believe in and others do not. That of "extraterrestrial organization" does not.

I can't seem to find a definition of "extraterrestrial organisation" on wikipedia. I'm sure though, if you were to find such a (common) definition, it would include the fact that it was unverified. This undermines your argument entirely. Robert Ham (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"You seem to assume that, within the “real world”, Ashtar Command isn't actually real."

Not at all. I'm deliberately not taking a stance on whether it's real or not; in the present context, it is irrelevant. In my perception, the only factually backed-up stance here is that Ashtar Command is a belief that is not verified; the text should reflect this uncertainty.

Stating that "A is believed to be B (by such-and-such)" conveys this perfectly; stating that "A is B" obviously does not.

As a side note: you've often changed formulations like the former into the latter on the grounds that they are "redundant". But wouldn't you agree that compared to false implications of certainty (if not blatant unverified claims), redundancy is a very petty thing to worry about?

"The present wording is written with the assumption that we know that it doesn't exist. We don't."

Not really. The present opening sentence, "The Ashtar Galactic Command (or Ashtar Command) is believed to be an extraterrestrial entity according to certain contactees, New Age believers and channellers", does not at all say that it doesn't exist. It merely says that it is believed to exist, which is the only factual thing we can say about this.

Let's again take a look at the article on God. There too it is said that He is conceived of as the creator of the universe and yakkitiyak, and that theologians have ascribed to Him various attributes and whatnot. I think this is the right way to report beliefs without choosing sides.

"I can't seem to find a definition of "extraterrestrial organisation" on wikipedia. I'm sure though, if you were to find such a (common) definition, it would include the fact that it was unverified. This undermines your argument entirely."

It would be marvellously easy if in a serious debate we could entirely defeat an argument with a hunch.

But in my opinion, it's not at all obvious that all extraterrestrial organizations are unverified. There's nothing inherent about that. The unverifiability of a deity is inherent in the definition; extraterrestrial organizations however could easily end up being proven beyond doubt to exist. And the wording you advocate makes it seem this has already been done. - Fyrius (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (additions made at 10:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

JulesH Edit Comments

'"fictional" is not NPOV, as some claim this really exists. "supposed" may be better'

I beg to disagree. Fictional doesn't imply anything about whether anyone believes it. It simply asserts the fact it is am invented concept. "Suggested" is just a weasel word to ignore a fact, in order to please everyone, a position that wikipedia does not take. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this a fact, though? You'd need to know the source of these beliefs, and be able to cite sources and whatnot that verify it as the source, to say it's a fact that these beliefs are fabrications. - Fyrius (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no. Policy states it is upon the head of the person making a claim to source the facts. It being fiction is simply the status of it not having been shown to be real. If you have any doubts though, read one of the thousands of scientific articles stating that the Earth has had no contact with Extraterrestrial life, or the ones that show there isn't a single piece of credible evidence if you don't want to waste time looking for the sources which don't exist. This isn't about respecing the right to be of the opinion the Ashtar Galactic Commnd is real... if someone says Red is Blue and starts a notable organisation supporting the fact, we will represent them here, but we don't have to source the statement that red is in fact not blue, it is upon them to find a reliable citation to prove their view. Infact, our own ET article states the fact there isn't a single piece of evidence, so yeah, it isn't a belief that this is fiction, it's a fact I don't have to source, because it is the lack of an assertion. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"It being fiction is simply the status of it not having been shown to be real."

Not exactly. If something has not been shown to be real, its veracity is questionable to Wikipedia, but asserting it to be fiction is in this case an assertion all the same. The fact of the matter is that we don't know whether it's real or made up. Given that, we're in no position to make any claims in either direction.

Moreover, we're not here to make judgements about other people's beliefs, and declaring it to be a "fiction" because it fails to be proven would be no less than just that. I don't suppose you would even think of trying the same thing with the article on God. Fyrius (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is scientific fact that it is false. All evidence shows no contact with earth by any sentient species, as I requested you read up on. I wouldn't source, because the facts aren't specific to this case, but they do make it semantically correct. I didn't make any judgements at all on their belief, and your claim it was a judgement shows a severe lack of understanding of the language. The fact it is fictional is a fact, it shows absolutely no opinion on my part or on the part of Wikipedia. The God article claims him to be a deity, and all deities are fictional, the facts are already present there, so I didn't need to think about making correct edits. I don't take your claims that I drew judgement on a set of people I don't know lightly, and I would ask yo keep your own insecurites off of Wikipedia. Prejudice is not something I ever take part in, I enjoy learning all the fact before I form any opinion, something you clearly don't also feel given your lack of understanding here. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to claim factuality, I still do suggest you find some or other source with which to back up this claim. Even if it's a more general statement that no aliens ever contacted people.

"I didn't make any judgements at all on there belief, and your claim it was a judgement shows a severe lack of understanding of the language."

Excuse me? You very clearly judge their beliefs to be false. That too is judgement, however well motivated you may consider this judgement to be.

"The God article claims him to be a deity, and all deities are fictional"

I suppose that's a fact too?

Find yourself a decently intellectual Christian and tell them what they worship is a fiction. See what happens. Judging from my own experiences, the religious have quite sophisticated ways to defend their beliefs; sometimes sophisticated enough to make the open-minded doubt their own certainty and the bigoted feel confused and frustrated and retreat to less civilized levels.

My point here is that you're making very bold and probably a bit rash claims here.

"I don't take your claims that I drew judgement on a set of people I don't know lightly, and I would ask yo keep your own insecurites off of Wikipedia. Prejudice is not something I ever take part in, I enjoy learning all the fact before I form any opinion, something you clearly don't also feel given your lack of understanding here."

Oh wow. It's been a while since I've been seriously reprimanded by a complete stranger. It's kind of amusing. I should return the favour.

I do suppose you realize how ironic it is that first you tell me how much you resent my remark that you judge people you don't know, and then in the next clause of the very same sentence you tell me I let my alleged insecurities interfere with my editing. You do judge people you don't know.

It becomes even more amusing when you throw in that you don't deal in prejudice, right after ascribing insecurities to me in one of the very few areas that I am actually genuinely confident about.

As for your stance on forming opinions: it is commendable, but rather naive in its present form. You can never learn all the facts. For one thing there are those facts that one is unable to possibly know, and for another there are way too many facts in the world - or even in any worthwhile debate - to know them all. Here for example you express an opinion on a specific belief that is based on only a global knowledge of extraterrestrial contacts in general, judging from the kind of sources you rely on. (Granted, Ashtar Command probably wouldn't stand up well in a debate, but if you deal with everything like this...)

Furthermore, nobody is free of prejudice.

As a final remark, if it makes any difference to you, I believe Ashtar Command is a load of bollocks too, truth be told. If you scroll up a bit you'll find me arguing at length with Robert Ham on a sentence that made the article imply this belief is true. Personally I'd love to put the word "fictional" in here somewhere - but I feel that would be intellectually dishonest.

I'm really only here to keep Wikipedia neutral. And that works in both directions. - Fyrius (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for those blatant lies, you've at least assured me that I have no need to take this conversation seriously, and will respond only for the pleasure in showing you to be wrong. Starting with the first definition of judgement I could find, if you disagree with it, I can find even more accepted ones that support my point.

"The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation."

I formed no opinion, only stated a fact, therefore, I quite clearly did not pass judgement. Fact is not motivation, it is fact. I've argued religion with some of the most articulate and well studied theologians one could hope to know, and I've never failed to feeling completely solid about facts (not beliefs) when they refuse to present a single piece of evidence to the case. Of course, I don't see how my belief or the ability of delusioned academics could possibly change a fact. Perhaps you should look up the definition of fact; while results from scientific study can often be debated, facts are very rarely debated by the intelligent, and there are absolutely no facts in this case to discuss, but thankyou for getting off topic, you've really helped strengthen my argument. I find your claim that those who find irrational arguments confusing and irrational to be bigots highly insulting. Not only to myself, who, while never "[retreating] to less civilized levels.", has ofen become enraged by the blatant disregard for actual argument in the face of having not a single supporting claim; but also on behalf of real intellectuals like Richard Dawkins, a man no one would claim to be a bigot, or Christopher Hitchens, who not only refutes the idea of race but is sickened by all forms of individual discrimination. Your attempts to turn this discussion into insult are pathetic in the face of the fact you are the one who admits to not having a single Scientific fact supporting your argument. My claims are not bold, nor rash. You sit and type at a computer, it is so far from bold or rash to claim that fact is obviously truth, that if you honestly wish to make that claim, you should probably move away from it and work out how it is possibly working if science is a fiction.

I'm sorry to hear you don't often find yourself contradicting when you make accusations that are currently considered severe by popular culture. There was no irony. Prejudice would require that I haven't examined the facts. But, from a single statement, you quite clearly did do that which I claimed. It wasn't hard to see it, based upon an actual fact, whereas your attack upon me was entirely unsubstantiated, given I made not judgement. The rest of your gibberish I am afraid was far beyond my intellectual abilities to comprehend, so insightful was your claim that one can't collect all the facts relevant of a single case, because they can't collect all the facts in the Universe that I felt awe stricken.

On a serious note though, while I am sure I am not entirely free of prejudice, I still take the claim seriously, especially when made without a single rational piece of evidence. Had you been correct, I would still have taken it seriously, and then thanked you, before attempting to change myself to remove my irrational conclusions. Your final comments appeased me alot, so I apologise for any negativety in the above, but I feel no need to go back and change it, only to append that, while I stand by the facts, I retract not the tone. I'll stand down on the addition of fictional given that it sounds neutral, even if I do disagree that an opinion can have neutral standing with a fact; it beats arguing. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it this conversation is over, then. Too bad.

I suppose this marks the point where this conversation stops being sensible enough to carry on. If we continue from here, the odds are that the sense-to-bigotry ratio would only aggravate with every post. I think it would be best to our peace of mind if we wouldn't let it come to that.

You seem to be rather hot-headedly taking half of what I said the wrong way, reading more enmity into my post than I intended it to contain. I'm not going to correct everything you misinterpreted; like I said, I don't like where this thread is going. Rather, if you're interested, I suggest when you've calmed down you take a look at the most outrageous things you believe I said, and see if maybe you could have been reading something into it that I did not actually write.

"Your final comments appeased me alot, so I apologise for any negativety in the above"

That's nice of you. Albeit a bit late.

It's a shame the thread turned out this way. I think we could get along well if we wouldn't find ourselves on opposite sides. - Fyrius (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone here know the source of Ashtar Sheran.jpg?

As you may already have noticed, this picture has been nominated for deletion, for being unsourced.

File:Ashtar Sheran.jpg

It seems I was the one who uploaded it, some two years ago. I really haven't the foggiest as to who made it. But since it's a rather common picture of him, I figured one of you guys might recognize it and know the painter.

I found a higher resolution version here: http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f15/aventuroso/AshtarSheran_MB_600_1_blg.jpg

It's signed. I believe the signature says "C. Gianfaqdoni", but I'm not sure. (Google yields nothing for that name.) - Fyrius (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As of mid-February 2009 the www.AshtarCommand.net website seems to have been shut down to transfer to a new link by Feb.20/09 Here is the passage in the entry that mentions the website :

"There are presently many new students awakening with a lack of familiarity of the earliest contacts. Yes, we are proud of the Web-site offered here and Ben-Arion's unweavering efforts to expand and make this happen. "Ashtar Command.net will soon contain more extraterrestrial information in general, needed to support these new candidates in the Mission." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.171.180 (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I read it as C. Gianfardoni. He is an artist, and his web site is http://www.claudiogianfardoni.com/ 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Using serversofall.com as a source

The article suffers from an overload of self published rubbish sources rather than reliable sources. As an example, the site http://www.serversofall.com is a personal site registered to "Altieri, L" with an aol.com email address as a contact. Consequently it is a self published source and is not suitable for a reference. If nobody has a proper rationale for inclusion I shall remove it.—Ash (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Using luisprada.com as a source

This site fails WP:SPS as it is a personal website for Luis Prada (as show by the public registration records). It consequently fails WP:RS and should not be used as a source.—Ash (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Using godumentary.com as a source

This site fails WP:SPS and WP:RS. It makes no claims as to validity and the site registration is under a false identity and a doubtful anonymous PO box address in Arizona. It may exist to promote "Rainbow Products" or be part of a con. It is not a valid source and should not be used.—Ash (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Using star-esseenia.org as a source

This site fails WP:RS as it makes no claim as to validity and the site public registration is to an incorporated organization that appears not to exist and an doubtful anonymous PO box address in San Francisco. The website appears to exist to sell the "spiritual" services of "Alexandriah Stahr" (unlikely to be a real name) by phoning the unpublished Phoenix landline number "480-619-6565" and paying $150 per session. This is likely to be a con or fraud. There are no Google News or LexusNexis articles to any publication that references this site or organization. The site should not be used, ever.—Ash (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to "ashtar" social networks

The following external links have been repeatedly added and removed:

• http://ashtargalacticcommanders.ning.com/
• http://www.ashtarcommandcrew.net/

These are both Ning social networks and consequently fail WP:ELNO #10 and should not be re-added. Please refer to Ning for information about this type of social network.—Ash (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello ,

I am with the Ashtar Galactic Command and have a great insight to the the cosmic spiritual area's that are being talked about here.

I have seen links added on other Wikipedia topics . For people who want to know more about the Command if the links cannot be added how should they know where to go next?

How should I add the links without having you remove them?

Blessings and Peace, CmdrAleon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmdraleons (talk • contribs) 03:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. Wikipedia is not a place for free advertising of social networks or websites you may have created because you hear extraterrestrial voices but cannot provide any verification. Read the warnings on your talk page and note the guidance of WP:NOTAFORUM, further ramblings you might add are likely to be pruned off this talk page.—Ash (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashtar Galactic Command Improvements

Ramblings from Cmdraleons (talk · contribs) pruned, see diff.—Ash (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ash, I'd like to request that as a sign of good faith that you reinstate Cmdraleon's comments directly on the talk page. Even though I believe that objectively the comments could be taken as "promotional" in nature, I believe that good faith should be extended insofar as I believe that it's reasonable to assume that they believe they are being 'helpful' in this context. IMO it's important for Cmdraleons to understand that the contention that they're putting forward; that his or her group alone has an exclusive claim to the right of defining or describing this subject; does not meet criteria set out by the encyclopedia; unless substantial and reliable references are provided to back them up. IMO the problem for their particular organization is especially one of notability. Unless they can demonstrate, through reliable sources, that their group, "Ashtar Galactic Command" is notable according to WP:NOTE, the organization can not be represented as a stand alone separate article in Wikipedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as a gesture of good faith I have re-pasted what I consider to be obvious spam text and a violation of WP:TALKNO below rather than leaving the reader to examine the text in a diff link. Please take this text in the context of the previous section on this talk page.—Ash (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Greetings Wikipedia,

Being one of the sites you deleted I decided it was time to get involved in this discussion being part of the Ashtar Galactic Command.

For people wanting to learn about us .

First some real information on what and who we are which I am adding tonight to the main page .

Also I see that a need for Ashtar Command weblinks that are good and very active is important .

We have two major Ashtar Command Internet Radio shows produced right here in the United States by myself and my good friend Ashtar-Athena .

Well just sharing some basic information.

I will add some important backround information on the Command.

I hope it will not b deleted.

Blessings and Peace, CmdrAleon Ashtar Command —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmdraleons (talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

History

[...] "Ashtar Command" (note, not Ashtar Galactic Command) appears to have been a term first used by proto UFO contactee George Van Tassel in the early 1950's, as the name of an extraterrestrial organization that he purported that he was in contact with. As is the case with many UFO religions, the names of purported extraterrestrial organizations or supposed contacted 'entities' are simply appropriated by other groups and individuals over time with tweaks being made to the specific details. This appears to have been the case with Van Tassel's "Ashtar Command" as well, before the end of the 50's, I've found evidence of at least one other individual who had lifted the term for their own system. Apart from Van Tassel adherents and a limited number of offshoots, its use appears to have experienced a bit of lull until the 1980's, when another contactee/channeller named Thelma B. Terrell (also known as "Tuella") wrote a series of books which re-popularized it. This in turn led to further appropriations of the term, eventually leading to the variants such as "Ashtar Galactic Command" being used on websites by the online groups we see today. The Gods have landed: new religions from other worlds by James R. Lewis [1] is useful in support of what I'm saying (try running "Ashtar" on the 'in book' search function) unfortunately, once again as is often the case, Google Books will not allow a full view of the material online. The Study of UFO Religions by John A. Saliba‌ in the academic religious journal Nova Religio November 2006, Vol. 10, No. 2, Pages 103–123 is informative on this matter as well. What I'd like to see done, is that this article be renamed "Ashtar Command", reduced to a stub and re-written along the lines of what I've outlined above, including full proper references from reliable sources. What I definitely don't want to see done at this point, is that this article remains in its present nebulous state, basically a potential jumping off point for promotional links to the websites of only one or two editor's particular belief systems. The term has been in play for over 50 years in one form or another, I'd suggest that any claims to its exclusive (or "proper") use are simply an expression of a non-neutral point of view. [...] cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply ran out of time this evening in the middle of putting together a completely revamped authoritatively referenced version of this article. Either later today, or early tomorrow, I'll post a completed version for your critique and I ask for your patience until then. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I decided to 'be bold' and simply add the material I developed directly to the article, mostly motivated by the sad condition of the existing one. Obviously it still requires some tweaking and polishing and more importantly, footnotes; which I'll be adding along with a couple of more sources to buttress the whole thing over the next week or so. The article in its present state, becuase of its new content, pretty much demands to be renamed. As I mentioned earlier, it would probably make the most sense in my opinion to name it something like "Ashtar (channelling)" in order to disambiguate it from other uses of the term. Let me know what you think. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions. They are very interesting, informative and helpful. Keraunos (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The next step is to detail the story of how the Vrillon hoax incident became connected to Ashtar--"Vrillon" coming to be presented as the spokesperson for the now renamed Ashtar Galactic Command. Keraunos (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, they're appreciated. I'm afraid I'm at loss in terms of how to demonstrate evidence of a link between the television hoax incident and "Ashtar Galactic Command" except in the sense that both purportedly connect with a very generalized notion of an extraterrestrial civilization somehow in contact with mankind. The sole possible exception to that appears to be a purported recording of the original hoax which appears to be hosted on an "Ashtar Command" website.[2] which I also posted earlier in the discussion. This may perhaps demonstrate an attempt at the appropriation of the hoax (or its purported message) on the part of that particular group, but IMO that's quite a distance away from proving that a connection actually exists. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename

There seem to be few reliable sources for "Ashtar Galactic Command" compared to "Ashtar" as a claimed ET figure. Are there any appropriate suggestions for renaming? Let's generate some options and then discuss. Please add to the following list:—Ash (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

1 Ashtar (channeling)

2 Ashtar (extraterrestrial being)

3 How about Ashtar (claimed channeled extraterrestrial being) ? That about covers the whole concept. Keraunos (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

4 Or it could be called Ashtar (claimed extraterrestrial being claimed to have been channeled). That is even more accurate but kind of long. Probably my first suggestion is better because it is shorter. Keraunos (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm hoping that we can keep the title as brief as possible (rather than "longer") but making it precise enough to differentiate it clearly from the other Ashtars in the encyclopedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My preference at the moment is for #2 as "channeling" and the fact that we are talking about "claimed" contact are refinements discussed one way or the other in the article. After all most articles about events are "claimed" in some form without being titled that and not all elements of the article may be just about channeling or based on such texts (n.b. changed my spelling as the single "l" seems to be the most widely used form even though it's not the preferred English form).—Ash (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest I go ahead with the move and set up redirects for the old name and the alternative names. If a better rationale on naming comes along it can easily be moved again based on fresh consensus.—Ash (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"essay-like" tag

Hello Ash, I wonder if you could perhaps provide me with some guidance regarding what you see as deficit in the compositional style of the article, in other words what is it exactly that you regard stylistically in the version I've submitted that you believe constitutes an "essay like" tone or causes it in your opinion to resemble a "personal reflection" according to WP:NOT#OR? My intention was to begin with an accurate précis of the Helland material that I've noted at the bottom of the page, I believe I've succeeded at that, and then to return later in the week and add material from at least a couple of more specialists in the field to round it out. Obviously, it still requires formal footnotes, but I'm curious as to your reasoning for placing the template. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Some examples:

"Although the purported method of communication resembled what is commonly referred to"

"the Ashtar messages became much more elaborate and began to provide details of the purported existence of"

"with the shift of importance being laid onto purely interior spiritual development as a means of reaching "higher dimensions""

I think the style of these example fragments is essay-like and could be considered either an un-sourced synthesis of material or original research if they are not quotes from a source.—Ash (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are the specific page numbers for the source of the material in Partridge that I've utilized to develop the current version of the article that you've asked about :

"Although the purported method of communication resembled what is commonly referred to [as channeling]" pgs. 163-164

"the Ashtar messages became much more elaborate and began to provide details of the purported existence of [...]" pgs. 168-170

"with the shift of importance being laid onto purely interior spiritual development as a means of reaching "higher dimensions" pgs 170-174

As I said, I'm attempting to do this as two or three referenced and "interconnected" précis, there's more to come on the referencing and footnote side and a little more referenced detail as well, from a couple of more sources. I think a close reading of the sources that I'm using will support my claims as being a fair synopsis of the source material. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that these were pure cut & paste from the source. This may not be WP:OR but you should consider how to summarize factual material from the source rather than potentially falling foul of wp:COPYVIO.—Ash (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've lost me Ash. "Pure cut and paste" is just that; a verbatim word for word 'lifting' of the text directly from the source material, followed by its direct placement in the encyclopedia, in this context it would implicitly imply a total lack of 'good faith' on my part. Because of the potential seriousness of that accusation, I'm going to have to ask you to provide specific quotations from both the current version of the article and the Partridge book material being referenced, for comparison purposes, in order to demonstrate your claim. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, I was going by how you were referencing particular quoted sentences against page references. This style would normally indicate that those quoted sentences were as quoted from the text. If you were doing that you might, as I said, potentially fall foul of copyvio (though that would be debatable if these were small extracts). I assume from your reply that that was not what you intended by quoting the sentences in this style. I have no interest in following up on accusations as I'm not sure I actually made any. If you think I implied a lack of good faith then it seems more likely that you inferred a lack of good faith as that was not my intent. You may find WP:ABF helpful.—Ash (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that's good to hear. It appears that we've simply experienced a misunderstanding. Actually, apart from quoting specific dates, names, places and the occasional descriptive adjective or two, the remainder is written as a somewhat abbreviated synopsis/overview of Helland's material in Partridge. If I were to have directly quoted extended passages from Helland's chapter in the article itself, I would have enclosed the verbatim material in quotation marks, as required of course. Let's return to your objections and the rationale behind your placement of the template. Could you please provide other editors with specific ideas of why you believe the current version of the article "could" be viewed as "an un-sourced synthesis of material or original research". In other words, what specific material do see in the current version of the article that you believe exceeds what WP:OR is saying when it requires us to adhere to the notion that [...] "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." [...] Could you please explicitly spell out how you believe the material in the present version of the article in your opinion goes beyond a "source based" synopsis of Helland and ventures into what might be considered an unsupported novel synthesis? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As you are planning on doing a major re-write in the next few days I'd rather defer spending time taking a more detailed look until sometime after that when the dust has settled. I'll note that the article is completely different to the one I started trimming bad sources off only a few days ago.—Ash (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

sources, npov

This article has very serious wp:npov problems, this is probably the same reason the "essay like" tag was added. I'm also questioning how reliable the Partridge source is wp:rs. I did a quick search and was unable to find any reasonable sources for this article. If nobody else can find any, this page should be nominated for deletion or merged with another article. The only reason I'm not doing so now is out of respect for the 'construction' tag. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I just realized how ominous and threatening this sounds, it isn't meant to. Since I have been unable to find any additional sources, if Ash or another editor could find some other sources, we might be better able to work out some of the issues this article has. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, personally I'd love to see this rubbish deleted from Wikipedia. This article has become a rather silly list of anyone who ever claimed to be in telepathic contact with a fantasy UFO commander, normally based on self published articles. Consequently I'm probably not the right person to address POV...—Ash (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No malice intended, but I think the question that begs to be asked here is: why would an editor want to be involved in working on an article in any capacity at all (beyond nominating it for deletion) if they've stated their "non-neutrality" on the topic beforehand and definitely concluded that the subject itself has no merit whatsoever? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are free to speculate, though I suggest you judge my edits instead. My first edit to this article was on 10 Sep 2009, it is now quite a different document as a result.—Ash (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's deal with the purported "unreliable source" issues first. Partridge, the editor of the book "UFO Religions" [3] that is being cited at the bottom of the article as the source of the material I've added, appears to be fairly highly regarded by his contemporaries in this admittedly rather small, but actively studied, area of academic specialization within social science, at least in the sense that they cite his work.[[4]]. He's been reliably published in a number of peer reviewed journals, and has had books published through university presses on this topic (amongst others) as well. Christopher Helland, the author of the particular chapter in the book I'm utilizing, seems to also be similarly accepted amongst his peers on the subject of this type of new religion, as well as on the topic of religion and the Internet.[5] Is there a particular reason why the reliability of this source is being challenged? Contrary to what's being stated, I'm finding it relatively easy to substantiate a claim to some sort of mainstream academic credibility here, at least on the subject at hand. In terms of the "neutrality" side of things in the article, as I mentioned to Ash above, I believe that I've posted a fairly straightforward "synopsis" (although greatly abbreviated) of the Helland chapter, if I've exceeded that, please feel free to point out where you feel I've gone astray and ventured into a POV beyond what Helland has advanced in the original source material. I'm more than willing to work with other editors on revisions here, so long as they're being contended on the basis of reliable references, I'm more than content. Many of the instances of the "weasel word" template being applied here are fair enough in my estimation, but contextually they 're appearing in circumstances where I felt the source material itself provided such a degree of detail on a (IMO) peripheral subject that the article itself would need to be extensively expanded to accommodate it. I'm more than happy to pitch in if a consensus decides that enlargement is necessary, but I'd suggest that we be wary of exponentially filling the article with vast amounts of material on what I regard is a justifiably tightly maintained focus so far. I predict that in the not too distant future we'll be experiencing at least a little pressure to include things like direct quotes from the primary material of the groups themselves here, my meagre steps are an attempt to put together a base of reliably sourced material, that will hopefully form a framework for what is to come. It's not difficult to point out articles in this 'genre' that end up listing a multitude of only incidentally related names of channellers and their theoretical positions, which in actuality should be dealt with in their own particular articles, if they exist. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm currently under the weather with influenza, but fully intend to get back to this article as quickly as I can. In closing, I'd like to strongly suggest that a nomination for the wholesale removal of this article is premature to the extreme, especially if no evidence can be simultaneously provided for why the present material is believed to be "unreliably sourced". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I found a link to this book on google books [| here] which makes me feel much better about this source. Still, I don't think it's enough to stand by itself, Helland is mostly just reporting on the beliefs and claims of these individuals. It's better journalism than science. Are there active Ashtar groups of any significant size or influence? If there are some news sources talking about the group or some other non-primary sources than the Helland book is relevent, if not then the subject is probably not notable wp:nn. It's my impression that Ashtar is considered fringe even by most UFO people. But if there are enough people involved in an Ashtar movement I would be more than happy to help build an article it in terms of its being a religious movement. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the start of defining an inclusion/exclusion criteria. As the article has become a list of claimed contacts that may be a sensible approach. I recommend that stories from or about channellers of Ashtar are excluded if the sources are only self-published or based on journalistic re-reports of their self-published work. The rationale for this is that if some of the non-notable Ashtar Galactic Command networking group started blogging about themselves, then we really don't want to argue around in circles trying to exclude such blogs or minor mentions about such blogs or websites in the media. On the other hand, if an Ashtar "channeller" is notable for being significantly discussed in third party reliable sources, perhaps because of the genuine level of media interest (rather than funded propaganda), these significant reliable third party sources would be an indication of notability and should be mentioned in this article. If a particular case is not obvious based on the sources available then it can be discussed to reach a consensus for notability on this talk page. Note that I would also recommend not quoting significantly from primary sources (i.e. the channellers self published articles or books) but prefer quotes from third party (secondary) sources wherever possible.—Ash (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Developments after the mid 1990s

The section Ashtar (extraterrestrial being)#Developments after the mid-1990s is entirely based on (apparently) Partridge surfing the internet and repeating what some self-published websites have to say (probably similar in content to ashtargalacticcommanders.ning.com). As these groups have no official capacity or particular association and are not notable, this section is overly speculative unless reliable third party sources can be found to address notability.—Ash (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're making some unsupported assumptions here in my opinion. Why would it be assumed that a section within Helland's chapter in 'UFO Religions' is authored by Partridge, the editor of the volume, rather than by Helland himself unless it's explicitly stated in the book itself? The second assumption, that the contents of Helland's chapter are the literal equivalent of unvetted material directly provided by the groups themselves, flies in the face of the fact that the book that's being cited is not a primary source, it's a secondary one. If the actual challenge being offered here is regarding the reliability of the book itself, please provide your reasoning for doing so. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree I had assumed Partridge was the author. I have made a more detailed response below which you must have missed before posting your comment.—Ash (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Tuella

I get no matches for "Tuella" under her real name but do get just one real match on Google News under Tuella, Tuella in The Age and that article is entirely reliant on Tuella's own book Cosmic Prophesies For the Year 2000 (1994). The lack of media interest alone suggests that Tuella should be removed from the article. As for the matches on Google Books, these all rely on Tuella's book and do nothing but either reference it (because the authors are indexing every mention of UFO channelling they can find) or just quote from it. For example Partridge seems to base all information about Tuella by looking at her book rather than any other (real) sources.

Note that Tuella's book was published by Inner Light Publications, amongst other things their website can offer you a "MOLDAVITE PENDANT: Psychic Gem From Space. Opens Interdimensional Doorways!". Obviously if someone cares to test out one of their psychic gems I'll be interested to hear the results but in the meantime such claims hardly enhance their status as a publisher of reliable sources.—Ash (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if I begin to suspect that perhaps a 'full on' search is not being conducted regarding alleged sourcing issues.:) A simple search on Google books using "Thelma B. Terrill" returns:[6]. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As you seem to be accusing me of something, I shall justify my comments. Please note that as this is the second time on this page that you have made accusations against me rather than applying WP:AGF by simply asking for clarifications, if you wish to accuse me of something I would prefer you to do so explicitly or go through a recognized WP:DR process.

My search under her real name was a Google News search, I thought that was clear when I referred to "Google News" in my first sentence. When I referred to Google Books in my third sentence I mentioned "matches", these being the same you get. I only count five books, two by Partridge, the others by Palmer, Lewis and Reece. I stand by my earlier statement with regard to these five books in that they appear to rely solely on the primary source and so I do not believe any would be a good reliable source.—Ash (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But I did ask for "clarification" regarding potential non-npov conflicts you might have regarding editing this article in the section "sources, npov" above, after you suggested that you thought that this article's subject matter itself was "rubbish" that should be "deleted from Wikipedia" and that you were "probably not the right person to address POV". Your response was that I was "free to speculate", presumably on your motivations, and that I should "judge [your] edits instead"; something that I am continuing to do. I believe that any "accusations" that you consider that I'm making should be contextualized around that earlier exchange. If you personally believe that a dispute resolution is required in this instance, please feel free to commence the proceeding, I have no objection at all. I have another question. Why are you presuming that a Google news search is in any way a useful 'benchmark' in attempting to ascertain the notability of a subject as difficult to reliably research in the mainstream media as the subject is? Any number of contextually quite useful Wiki articles would be excluded on that basis, from those dealing with more esoteric subjects within the 'hard sciences', all the way through a myriad of history topics. Are you suggesting that because a subject is not mentioned in news sources, but is available through other reliable means, that somehow makes it less notable? You appear to me to continue to presume that your own personal critique of a secondary sources authors choices regarding the inclusion and interpretation of primary material is valid, without demonstrating why you believe that the author has insufficient authority to make those decisions and somehow you do. Please, lets stick to the sources. I apologise if my earlier attempt at "humour" was misplaced, more than anything it was based on what I see as a certain amount of irony going on here. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Partridge as a Source

Partridge's book is the single current source for the article (taking into account that other sources may be added at some future point). Unfortunately, the single chapter referenced (chapter 8) appears to be a somewhat speculative essay by Christopher Helland (a doctoral student at the time of publication). For his sources listed on page 178, Helland quotes only the primary sources (with the exception of Chariots of the Gods? and his own text in another book). As a source this is very poor and equivalent to writing an article based only on primary sources. I propose this is removed as a source for the reason of not meeting the requirements of WP:RS. As most of the text in the article appears to be based on it, the need for fundamental re-write or deletion is obvious.—Ash (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be adding more references later today. The allegation that you're making here appears to be anchored in the notion that both Helland and Partridge are "unreliable sources" in some sense, yet no evidence is offered for this conclusion beyond your own personal assumptions regarding what you feel constitutes the proper use on the part of an author of primary material in a secondary source. These assumptions appear to extend to second guessing the reliable authority of the authors of the material itself. I would suggest, that as Wikipedia editors our own personal authority is somewhat restricted in this area in terms of offering our personal opinions on a subject. Unless we can demonstrate that the secondary source itself, in this case the book 'UFO Religions' is unreliable according to policy, we are bound not to presume that we know better, which of course if we presume so, is a violation of both OR and NPOV. What you failed to mention in your personal critique is that although Helland was indeed a doctoral candidate at the time that this article was written, as the 'Notes on contributers' section at the front of the book indicates, he was also the author of two previously reliably published books on the subject of religion prior to making his contribution to 'UFO Religions', as well as providing material for inclusion in another reliably published volume specifically on the subject of UFO religions. More importantly, the material he provided for 'UFO Religions' was chosen for inclusion by editor Christopher Partridge, my assumption is that the material would not have been included in the book at all, unless it was deemed acceptable and accurate by Partridge, a recognized authority on the subject. It seems to me, that if Helland's 'expertise' is what's being challenged here, then you're going to have to 'go through' Partridge first. References please. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote. I am not rejecting Helland, I am saying that for all the information on Ashtar in this book he relies on the primary sources. To make things easier for you I have struck out my bracketed note which you seemed to read as a "personal assumption" about "reliable authority" rather than a simple statement of fact.—Ash (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Human frailty being what it is, I'm afraid (in this dimension at least...sorry lol) that I am forever constrained to responding to what I think you wrote, rather than your intentions in a more abstract sense on a given matter. Once again, in my opinion, your conjecture that Helland (or Partridge for that matter) lack the authority to select or interpret primary sources for inclusion in secondary materials exceeds the authority of a Wikipedia editor, in itself appearing to me to be a case of unsubstantiated OR. IMO, we have to do better than our own 'feelings' regarding this sort of thing, lest we end up with articles that consist solely of 'feelings' and lord knows we have enough of those already. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have raised the book for discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Does a book that only collates primary sources count as a secondary source? At the moment 3 other editors agree with my view that such a book is no better than a primary source.—Ash (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing weasel tags without fixing the problem

I note that all the {{weasel}} tags have been stripped out, unfortunately without making the language specific or any other improvements to correct the problem. Claims including phrases such as "well known channellers" is meaningless when undefined. What made these people recognized "channellers" and in what way were they "well known"? It may be better to restrict the text to naming channellers for which published sources define them as channellers rather than including what amounts to original research.—Ash (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the initial objections to the article being included in the encyclopedia at all, was that it merely constituted a "list of channellers", an objection which I never clearly understood because of the inclusion of numerous other referenced details, but I attempted to accommodate by not listing each and every individual by name. Is it now being suggested that each of these persons should be specifically named in the article regardless of the weight afforded them by the sources provided? The appearance of phrases like "well known" is a reflection of their specific use in Partridge and other sources (Partridge, bottom of pg. 163, top of page 164 for instance), and should be understood contextually by my addition of qualifying phrases such as "of the era", which also appear in the text of the article. As to whether or not a given individual in this context is *really* a "channeller" or not, I'm completely reliant on the sources cited and so once again in my opinion, if those types of claims are being challenged the issue is actually with the "authority" and "reliability" of the base sources themselves; something that I assumed was settled during the afd discussions. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the weasel word tags seem to have been used inappropriately and should have been removed. For instance this quote from here

"This concept of an Ashtar Command, was appropriated for use by a number of prominent early channellers, both inside and outside the Giant Rock community, and was soon"

I don't think this is weasel words; but it is poorly cited, which is a ongoing problem with this article and reflects poorly on the notability of the subject. Given the extensive nature of the problems I would suggest adding a notability banner to the top of the page rather than trying to tag each and every instance. Ultimately arguing about tags doesn't help build the article, most of the places where weasel word tags were added do have problems with uncited material. Either we need to find sources for these, remove the uncited material and leave the article a stub or we need to think about nominating this article for AFD or merge again. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Disappearance of Ashtar Galactic Command

This article was originally named "Ashtar Galactic Command" and was about that subject, which goes beyond just Ashtar and the channelers listed in the article and involves a broadcast intrusion incident in the UK. There is still a redirect present for "Ashtar Galactic Command" to this article. What has happened to coverage of Ashtar Galactic Command? Why has it disappeared? Robert Ham (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The page was moved, it did not 'disappear'. Lack of reliable sources for "Ashtar Galactic Command" was the main rationale. All previous sources have been self published websites, forums, social networks (especially Ning networks) and debatable blogs. As most of the published books about Ashtar are actually self published by "channelers" the topic tends to have a bias to promote non-notable self publicists.—Ash (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of channelling and Americanization

I notice that the spelling has varied back and forth a few times. The British spelling is "channelling" and the American spelling is "channeling" (see askoxford). As the use of the word in this sense seems to have originated in the USA, it seems reasonable to stick to the American spelling and I suggest spelling throughout the article is harmonized to American standard on this basis even though sources quoted may differ and subsections may relate to other countries (I'm aiming to be neutral though I'm actually British). Any objections?—Ash (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

purporting the purported

Compare:

1. Ashtar is the name of a purported extraterrestrial being,
2. Ashtar is purportedly the name of a extraterrestrial being,

I chose the first wording because there is no doubt that the name "Ashtar" is being used to designate the being. It's the existence of the being itself that is in doubt. Socrates said that you can only assign names to things that exist in the real world, but in modern linguistics you can assign a name to a non-existing entity, and that name will exist on its own.[7]. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ashtar social networks removed again

Note, I have removed the section reliant on the ning social network for the second time (see above). Such a section would only be reasonable to add if reliable sources can support the text.—Ash (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ash I have to disagree with the removal of the Social Network called Ashtar Galactic Command .

This is very relevant to the discussion provided here.

A matter of fact one of the admins of the site Ashtar Athena has been well documented on the Internet for many years if you google her name and articles .

The reason this Social network should be readded is because it is well related to the Ashtar Galactic Command also being called Ashtar Command.

Who best to contribute to a Wiki Ashtar section then people like me and a few others who are directly involved within it.

Please reconsider adding the link back .

Cmdraleons (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As per my original statement, if you can supply reliable sources there may be a case to make an exception to WP:ELNO. However, despite your persistence, no such third party sources are available in order to substantiate your claims of notability or any reason to suspect that the Wikipedia consensus has shifted on such matters.—Ash (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Universe people

Checking UFO religions reveals Universe people which seems to make some Ashtar-related claims. The main website appears to be almost a parady of itself (unintentional?) but probably no less valid in this article than the other self proclaimed and unverifiable contactees.—Ash (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just gonna throw this out here: I'm totally disputing the neutrality of this article. Not to mention its been up for deletion for three years. It's a disjointed cut-and-paste mess and it really smacks of a cult trying to get the "approved" word out rather than a third-party description of an entitiy and the beliefs surrounding it. See any of the pages on Egyptian Gods for comparison. 50.99.43.77 (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)