Talk:Aetherius Society/Archive 1

The members of the Aetherius Society clearly sincerely believe this stuff. However, their claims are generally treated with skepticism by others, many of whom regard them as a UFO cult. The article does not make this clear, and is written almost entirely from an Aetherius Society POV. -- The Anome 16:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I added a bit more criticism and critical sites here recently. The main criticisms I find, besides the widely held notion they are very odd, seem to be as followed.


 * George King made many elaborate, as well as unusual and unverified, claims about his accomplishments in life. Including declaring himself archbishop and prince I believe.


 * The group believes there is life on Venus, including "Master Jesus."


 * The group believes in conspiracies of governments covering up information about UFOs.

They may not be quite as harmless as I originally wrote them up as being, but I admit this is simply a feeling and may be unfair. Because I did look for criminal or serious allegations, but the closest was the discredited idea they were a Communist front. So for now I'm keeping it as "intensely odd, but harmless" being sort of the general verdict.--T. Anthony 07:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've ignored this for awhile. Many of the new edits seem fine. However if you are going to say that George King was legitimately made a prince and really did receive a doctorate I think you need a source. Especially on the prince deal.--T. Anthony 10:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He was made Prince of Santorini by an "Emperor of Constantine" - there's more at . The "honour" looks entirely meaningless. Apepper 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian Incident
Added some specifics. The society seems to claim the april 18, 1958 alien transmission was about the 29 September 1957 Kyshtym disaster. The transmission printed in You are responsible! makes no geographic specification other than the USSR (it was a pretty big place). See the full text here As well it makes no claim about a date/time. Post hoc, the society matches the april 18 claim to the sept 57 disaster after specifics of Kyshtym were revealed in 1976. I've noted that 4-5 days before the april 18 transmission it was widely reported in the press that there was a nuclear disaster in the USSR which caused them to suspend weapons testing. The language of the transmission seems entirely consistent as simply making reference to the reported disaster and then providing an unverified claim about space aliens vacuuming up radiation and saving 17 million lives.

Also too the bit about the New Scientist admitting it had been scooped is a bit loaded. The tone of the "admission" seems more tongue and cheek. Other items in the section are likewise amusing or ironic items (a psychiatrist that tells her patient to leave her husband and then marries the husband, a "dolphin embassy"). They are not admitting anything. Mindme (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Chernobyl
From the article:
 * The Society also claims that approximately four hours before the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, Dr. George King received from his extraterrestrial contacts advance warning of an imminent, major catastrophe. It is a matter of record that the Society activated its Spiritual Energy Radiators in order to radiate power to mitigate this disaster, four hours and 23 minutes before the event itself, and that this unprecedented period of such activity continued for three days. It was only as this activity was coming to an end that the first traces of radiation from the accident were being detected in Sweden.

This smells a bit suspect. Is there any substantiation for this? The Holy ettlz 15:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It begs the question; how often did George King "receive" warnings like this - if it was once a month, then occasionally you'd get lucky (if you can call a nuclear disaster getting lucky!). Apepper 16:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I added some contradictory information from the Chernobyl disaster page. The radioactive dust was detected in Sweden on the day after the incident.  Unless the Aetherians want to say that "towards the end" of the 3-day effort equals the very next day, I'd say it's a pretty good counter argument.  The disaster page also says that the radiation was detected in Finland even before Sweden, but wasn't yet published...  I don't know if the source I cited covers this claim as well, so I'm leaving it out for now.  Cheers.  DasBub 00:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

POV - a new Wikipedia Record!
In 1954, George King, then in London, England, was contacted by an extraterrestrial intelligence

This is uncited and, as a claim, must be some kind of record in the strength of evidence that would be required to make it plausable.

Apepper 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a utility in explaining what their mythos is and how they see this guy. When I tried to fix POV problems on this I just started out and didn't know much. It should've been clear though that the statement is what they believe happened, not what necessarily did happen. However I've added an "other views" section to the history segment.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've added a cleanup tag towards the bottom, as there are quite a few unsourced claims and it's unclear whether they are original research: without some kind of citation, statements like "most objective analyses ... indicates that, although these ideas are intensely eccentric to the point of being bizarre, the Aetherians are an apparently harmless new religious movement" and "the society does encourage those people who join to be as active as possible" sounds like the writer's own opinion ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Influence and influences
As well as being obviously influenced by Theosophy, the AS has helped spawn a number of other groups, notably Share International. In some ways, it has been superseded by them much as Theosophy got overtaken.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

George King's titles
"In 1981 King was presented with the 'Prize of Peace and Justice' - which carried the title 'Knight of Humanity' - by H.S.H. Prince Guiseppe Pensavalle di Mitilene, President of the International Union of Christian Chivalry"

Anyone have a source on who this "Prince Guiseppe Pensavalle di Mitilene" is or was (other than Aetherius references)? If one non notable person from a non notable organization gives a knighthood, is that really worth inclusion in the write up? His knighthood from Prince Robert Khimchiachvili is also quite non-notable. According to the NY Sun "From 1970, Prince Robert M.N.G. Bassaraba de Brancovan-Khimchiachvili-Dadiani ran a bogus Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta from his faux-marble apartment (filled with equally genuine Louis XV furniture) at 116 Central Park South. If you had a passage fee, he had a gong for you, and hundreds of men and women with more money than sense each paid him up to $30,000 for his phony knighthoods." 

"In that same year (1981), a Princedom was conferred on King by His Eminence, Archbishop Gautier of Paris, Archbishop of the Catholic Church - in recognition of King's 'work and sacrifice for humanity'." According to this page Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Paris in 1981 the archbishops of paris were François Marty (1968–1981) and Jean-Marie Lustiger (1981–2005). There was no Gautier. I've removed the reference. Please provide a citation if adding it back.

Mindme (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed the AS's current claims about King's titles have dropped the Sir but retain the Dr. Nothing indicates what institution awarded him the doctorate. For a society that seems to take great pride in the archiving of all the transmissions, they don't much appear to have documented his doctorate very well. It's quite customary for universities to list where their professors attained their degrees. If King had received a legit doctorate from a recognized institution, you would think they would trumpet it. They trumpet everything else. The null hypothesis seems to be King never had a legit doctorate. It's a claim that needs to be supported. Oddly a look at the AS's page on the wayback machine has a considerably errrr richer biography that begins to defy imagination. Made a prince by Prince Henri III Paleologue. One author indicates "prince henri" was King's cousin. The current AS page indicated he was a Chaplain of The American Federation of Police. Sounds serious. Who else claims to be a chaplain of the AFP? Well, Frank E. Stranges. Stranges (dead now) was the author of The UFO Conspiracy. He was also the founder of the International Evangelism Crusades. Curiously the AS claims King was made 1981's Chaplain of the Year by Stranges' International Evangelism Crusades. It sure seems like so much log rolling, people awarding each other non notable, paper titles, awards, etc.

Mindme (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement that "anyone can receive a Grant of Arms if one can "prove that an ancestor have had his arms recorded in the registers of the College"" is not correct. It is not necessary to have ancestors pedigrees or arms recorded in the college. I was a member of the Heraldry Society, and know several people who have obtained grants of arms. None of them have ancestors recorded in the college.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

King Titles Issues
Let's walk through these In 1980, King was dubbed 'Sir George King' by His Royal and Imperial Highness Prince Robert Khimchiachvili, the 74th Grand Master of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta. According to the NY Sun Khimchiachvili "ran a bogus Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta from his faux-marble apartment (filled with equally genuine Louis XV furniture) at 116 Central Park South. If you had a passage fee, he had a gong for you, and hundreds of men and women with more money than sense each paid him up to $30,000 for his phony knighthoods."


 * Legacy text. The official society page no longer claims this although it claimed it in the 1990s. I would remove this. The knighthood is entirely made up and not notable. If proponents wish to leave this in, then it needs to be balanced with text noting it's bogus.

In 1986 King was nominated and given the Freedom of the City of London, and membership of the Freemen of England. Anyone who has been on the City of London Electoral Roll for a minimum of one year may obtain this designation.[59] In 1992 he applied for a Grant of Arms, or Letters Patent of Armorial Bearings, which was officially presented to 'The Most Reverend George King' by the Bluemantle Pursuivant of the College of Arms London, in a ceremonial presentation which took place in America. [60][61][62] A Grant of Arms is applied for. Anyone can receive a Grant of Arms if one can "prove that an ancestor have had his arms recorded in the registers of the College."


 * It's not at all notable to get arms you can simply apply for. If proponents wish to leave this in, then it needs to be balanced with text noting such. The freedom of the city has two versions. One anyone on voter roll for a year can apply for. If this is the freedom King has then it is not notable and should be removed or balance if proponents wish to leave the claim in. It's like saying King applied for a driver's license. Another version of the freedom is an honor like getting the key to the city. If King received this version of the freedom then it needs to documented by an independent source.

The society's official King biography claims King was a Chaplain of the American Federation of Police[63]. The organization's full name is "American Federation of Police and Concerned Citizens".[64]. Anyone who is a concern citizen appears to be able to become a member for $36.[65] Charity Navigator gives this organization its lowest ranking (1 star)[66]. Several police organizations have warned that solicitation by the American Federation of Police are possible scams[67][68][69]. The site does not appear to have any official way to apply for a position as a chaplain and does not provide any list of official chaplains.


 * There is no evidence whatsoever that King was ever a chaplains for this group (the group, in fact, only appoints one chaplain at its national level, it does not use multiple chaplains). The group itself is not notable save for the fact several police organizations WARN people NOT to donate.

In short, without balance, the titles section is mere hagiography.

Mindme (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The society may not now make claims for King's titles, but they used to do so. So the references should net be entirely deleted from the article. I note that all members of the society in New Zealand who are mentioned in their publicity claim doctorates.Royalcourtier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The White Eagle Lodge
Regarding Revision made on 00:14, 6th April:

Deconstructhis said ''Unless specified sources being cited here explictly within them compare The White Eagle Lodge and The Aetherius Society, this is 'original research' and thus not permitted. Please take this to the article talk page.''

I've taken this on board. I added this 'research' because a staff member of the Aetherius Society stated the following:

''The White Eagle Lodge predates the forming of the Aetherius Society, by a few years. George King always spoke very highly of the White Eagle Lodge, stating that it's source was genuine, and one of the few 'clean' channelling groups in Britain at that time. You would also have found a couple of their books on his book shelf.''

This was from the Aetherius Society Google group discussions. I wanted to add this to show the fact that The Aetherius Society, while unique in it's own right, nevertheless shared common beliefs with The White Eagle Lodge. They were also founded in a similar way by a 'channel' for higher intelligences who proposed that life did indeed exist on other planets in this solar system.

Perhaps this isn't enough to warrant inclusion in this wiki article?

yogiadept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogiadept (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 edits - do we actually need this article?
There is so much unverifiable nonsense in this article that there has to be a strong argument for deleting it. A good 80% of it has to be considered total fantasy, put together by well-meaning but misguided member's of the Aetherius Society.

In reply to the above, one might ask whether a 'good 80%' of the Bible is complete fantasy, put together by well-meaning but misguided member's of Christianity? How long has the Christianity article been 'allowed' on Wikipedia? Or shall we move towards Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism and so on? Yogiadept (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at examples of some of George King's claims:

He claimed to hold the degrees of PhD, DD, ThD, DSc, LittD, but we do not seem to have a verifiable source from any of the awarding (..no doubt highly prestigious!) bodies.

He titled himself Shri Yogiriji Swami George, Sir George, His Eminence George and Metropolitan Archbishop George. These fantasies simply beggar belief!!

He claimed to hold an international peace prize from UNESCO? Can we see some evidence of that please.

He claimed to be Deputy Director General of the Oxford Literary Association.

Anyone who has done any sort of reading of Aetherius Society will be familiar with these fanciful claims. And that's without mentioning he had a cup of tea on a space ship with Jesus!!!

I hope someone with better editing skills that mine will set in motion the procedures necessary to delete this page, given its very unencyclopaedic nature.

The Title Shri Yogiriji Swami George king is incorrect. It was Dr Shri Yogiriji George King and I believe this was given to him by the Aetherius Society Staff and not from George King himself unless I am mistaken. Also, that he had a 'cup of tea' on a space ship with Jesus is incorrect. I like to see the sources for this! (And no it wasn't coffee either!) Saying that George King does claim many titles that would be better appreciated and believed if the Aetherius Society stopped it's 'D-Notice' on certain aspects of it's work which the public have an honest right to know. Credentials is the very least the public should be given for any prospective 'member' and 'joining one's ship', as they say, would be very much easier had they released the documents and accompanying photo's of his honours for sceptics and believers alike. Why they haven't done this yet I don't know! Sometimes spirituality can hamper one's material achievements I guess! Yogiadept (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some mind boggling POV statements in this article; it seems to be taken as read that King "channelled" alien intelligences.

The George King article is more neutral and covers pretty much the same topics, as King and the Aetherius Society are more or less the same thing, wouldn't it make sense to combine the two articles? Apepper (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply: I agree that there are some mind boggling statements in this article but then The Aetherius Society IS mind-boggling! Which only goes to demonstrate the need for a separate entry for The Aetherius Society from the George King article. To say that Dr King and The Aetherius Society is 'pretty much the same thing' only underlines this need. One could say that the Bible and Christianity, to use an example, are pretty much one and the same thing. However, these have their own separate entries, as indeed do all the major religions and faiths. While it's debatable as to whether the society is either, or in fact just a cult of weird proportions, is really a matter of opinion which readers should be allowed to make for themselves. The fact that the 'Founding' of the Aetherius Society is under the heading 'Aetherius' Societies View' is very transparent for readers. The actual content also includes references and sources for others to make their own decisions.

I'm not a member of the Aetherius Society, by the way, but do have an interest in the organisation and know that others will no doubt edit and possibly delete entries as time goes on. As a non-member I've very often come across many inaccurate statements about The Aetherius Society on the Internet, so at least this entry can, in part rectify people's misconceptions from misinformation. Some may likewise regard much of the information from the Aetherius Society as 'misinformation' but then do we also apply this to all other Wiki articles just because we find them implausable or 'against' current thinking? The article is about the Aetherius Society so it's natural that certain information about it's beliefs and activities is included. Perhaps others will find a better format and information than I have.

And finally! The Aetherius Society as an organisation IS very different from the individual who founded it, although its almost inevitable that there will be some overlapping in content. Wiki's are always evolving so I hope we can improve this article in content and neutrality without making this interesting subject a barebones fact finder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.233.17 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has doubled in size over the past month. I hope that someone can review the article for compliance with WP policies and guidelines.   Will Beback    talk    23:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have much interest in the group either; they gave a, rather sad, talk to the Astronomy club when I was at University - it was sad because the audience were laughing at them, so I felt a bit sorry for them as they seemed pretty harmless. I also happened to live quite close to their "European Headquarters" - a shop in the Fulham Road and they also ran a health food shop next door (I remember someone asking for a treatment for headaches and they were asked, "what birth sign are you?"). The article seems like it needs a lot of work, but very little seems to be known about society or King other than what's published by the society themselves Apepper (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC).

Amazon
Links to book outlets are not needed, or indeed wanted, unless there is a "see inside this book" facility or other specific reason. Clicking on the ISBN link will take you to a page where all major on-line book stores, libraries and bibliographic services can be referenced. Rich Farmbrough, 10:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Rewrite needed
While the group meets WP:NOTE, the article is too reliant on WP:PRIMARY, and has issues with WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. I'm going to leave some sources here to use in a rewrite. I'll try to get to it as I can, but I welcome others (who can follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV, of course).


 * End of Days: Essays on the Apocalypse from Antiquity to Modernity By Karolyn Kinane, Michael A. Ryan
 * Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements By Richard Allen Landes
 * The Gods Have Landed: New Religions from Other Worlds By James R. Lewis
 * The Oxford Handbook of Millennialism By Catherine Wessinger
 * A Brief Guide to Secret Religions By David Barrett
 * Alien Worlds: Social and Religious Dimensions of Extraterrestrial Contact By Diana G. Tumminia
 * The A to Z of New Religious Movements By George D. Chryssides

I also think this old revision might possibly be an acceptable starting point (instead of the current article), as it was before a certain POV-pushing adherent drastically altered the article into a puff piece. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. The article needs a vigorous purging. Get out the castor oil! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, Dougweller cleared out a lot of crap, and I finally got off my ass. Obviously, other help would be appreciated, as the article is not (and will not be) finished.  I ended up not really using anything from The Gods have Landed (not that I found anything wrong with it), but I have "ref name" tags for the rest of the books.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Further editing
I’ll see what I can do for this entry as it’s probably got the least coherent write up in the UFO religion field, possibly cos it’s fairly complex. Aetherius has several main contemporary scholars, i.e. who've written at least one chapter on the subject. 4 of them are used in the entry: Barrett, Rothstein, Saliba and Smith. There are 3 more as far as I know i.e. Ellwood, Isaksson and Scribner. So these are the sources I’ll be using. Jyddcc (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've added the millenarian aspect, but as there appear to be 2 Saliba references for this initial phrase, I've deleted the second one and substituted Rothstein who's written a chapter on millenarianism in Aetherius. Jyddcc (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Founding dates given by the authors actually range from 1954-6, so I’m using Saliba’s reference [mid-1950s.] Hence the other 2 refs could be deleted. Jyddcc (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, as I prefer to put in exact page references for transparency and easy identification, the main Barrett ref (to the whole Barrett chapter) is being moved down, and in the end ought to be superceded by exact page refs. Meaning that where I don't alter text, I'll still substitute the page ref. Jyddcc (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, at the end of the Lede I've updated the membership numbers with Barrett's 2011 info, but I can't seem to correctly delete Melton's reference, so it's still there as ref no. 1. As it won't enumerate properly into the ref sequence, this may mean there's something wrong with it - not sure. Can keep moving it down, but this may not be useful. Maybe someone else can help, or I can try to find out more later. Jyddcc (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The old ref is still being called up in the chart (which is before the lede) and at the end of the paragraph. Nothing's wrong.  I've updated the membership bit in the chart to fit the new source.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. That's good, then. Jyddcc (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC) Re secrets of the universe: Barrett says 'many of', which makes a significant difference, hence I've added it in. Jyddcc (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

In History, removed "in the following year, 1955" as the date had already been amended in the lede. Jyddcc (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC) The redundant Barrett whole chapter reference, now ref [34], can probably be removed as there are no more current refs, but will leave to end. Jyddcc (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, suggest moving Credibility, as Beliefs and Activities follow on directly from History. The Cred section also contains material not related to History. Basically Credibility needs to be a main heading somewhere at the end, so it can address the issues. So will move it for now. I’ve slotted the hagiography point into the History section Jyddcc (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, am rearranging some of the Beliefs/Activities material for a bit more coherence, i.e. will continue with the space subject and wrap it up, then will start on the energy stuff. Jyddcc (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Have deleted magnetic field and alien invasions as these aren't connected with batteries or human energy. Smith p93, Saliba pp132-5 and Ellwood p127 are quite specific here. As are Wojcik's own references, strangely enough - Wojcik being the source used. Jyddcc (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Re Eschatology, the "rescued" text (Wojcik) is in conflict with the other sources, so I've deleted it. Jyddcc (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Re the Silence Group - this seems to be original research with 2 refs from Aetherius Society texts and the other from Keyhoe (a UFO author) who's not an AS scholar. Can't find ref to the silence group in the AS sources, so it looks like it shouldn't be there. Propose deletion. Jyddcc (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Going away for a bit, will resume later. Jyddcc (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, back now. Onto Credibility - propose making this a main heading and Titles a subheading inside this - as Titles has too much weight, plus it’s an aspect of credibility. Have continued with this for now.Jyddcc (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Re the 'New Scientist text', the Aetherius Society reference (no. 86) is a dead link and no longer on their website, so it needs to be removed or replaced.Jyddcc (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Finally into Titles. The standard here is much lower than the rest of the entry due to inadequate referencing in general, including unsubstantiated original research. As I go through it I'll note the relevant points on the Talk page, etc. Barrett has an updated critique of the titles, and Saliba and Rothstein are also relevant. Jyddcc (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The knighthood mentioned by Barrett (2011) is WP:RS and updated, so I’ve replaced the current knighthood text with this. I’ve left the deleted text intact and identifiable on the Edit page, although I can’t see any grounds to revert it. It’s not sourced and contains obvious journalese. It’s also got 2 dead links, the Sovereign Order page link, and the Daily News (New York) ref. Jyddcc (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing's right about the Freedom of city text, as it's unsourced and, probably as a consequence of this, just assumed (whether reasonable or not) that the type of Freedom is non-notable, as per the Talk page. No choice but to delete it. The comments, based on the assumption, are also referenced to a dead link. Deletion intact and identified on the Edit page. Jyddcc (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strangely enough, 2 of the 3 sources (were refs 92 and 93) given for the Grant of arms text were dated 1980 and 1989, so they couldn't possibly record the granting in 1992, as the text said. Hence, I've deleted them. However, this award is noted in Rothstein, but as given in 1991, which casts doubt on the 1996 source (now ref 92). Jyddcc (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Re chaplain appointment, the source given isn't valid, i.e. the society's website doesn't give this info, though I presume it did once, hence I've deleted the words "official King biography". The source needs to be replaced or the text deleted. Have replaced the dead link and updated the star rating. Have corrected the general Barrett reference so think my refs are cocher now. Also corrected the dead link to the Marburg article in External Links. Anyway, have come to the end of the entry. This one's been a bit of a marathon but interesting. Having a break now! Jyddcc (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Aetherius Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130430084852/http://www.aetherius.org/index.cfm?app=content&PageID=653 to http://www.aetherius.org/index.cfm?app=content&PageID=653

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

News of death was broadcast
It is stated George King's announced death was not reported in major newspapers. 'Major' in what context? It had been broadcast by the BBC, at least via Radio Shropshire, and it was also reported in local daily newspaper the Shropshire Star, both on account of his Shropshire birthplace. I recall at home hearing Radio Shropshire and reading the Shropshire Star report it.Cloptonson (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aetherius Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050728092817/http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu:80/nrms/aetherius.html to http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/aetherius.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)