Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

01 – Archive 02 – 03 – 04 – 05 – 06 – 07 – 08 – 09 – 10 – 11

Contents

Call for expanding FOF history

It would be interesting to see if there are any documented sources out there related to Robert Burton's time in Alex Horn's group, how long he stayed, and his eventual departure, and in what chronological relation it stands to him starting his own group. The material from Bonita Guido also sounds very interesting and relevant, but unfortunately it has never been published so can't be included as a reliable source. Any other sources out there on how the FOF started? I would not remove the former names of Isis as Marthey might serve as a timeline for history: subsections The Farm, Via del Sol, Renaissance etc. It would also be interesting to document the predictions that members of the FOF were adapting their external lives to (quitting jobs, relocating, not having children, building a fallout shelter, taking huge loans in hope of never having to repay, etc.) It would be interesting to document expansion of the FOF into other countries, and in particular - what we all know about but can't write because there are no documented printed sources - the timeline of changes in the form of the teaching, the abandonment of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky and turning more and more away from the Fourth Way and more towards interpretations of pictures/works of art from past civilizations. Because Mario is right, there are some aspects of the article which no longer reflect the current situation, but those old sources are all that we can rely on as they have been printed and published, and the new form has not. Does anyone have or know of reliable sources/references confirming the move away from Fourth Way? Wine-in-ark 21:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wine-in-ark has a good point regarding the changes of the teaching and the move away from the Fourth Way. The only reliable source of the changes that I found is the newsletter's archive at the organization's web site [1]. Since the archive spans from June 2004 until the present, it is possible to follow the changes in the teaching. Mario Fantoni 22:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I too would like to see more on the history of the Fellowship of Friends, if such history exists from a verifiable source. That being said, in trying to adhere to Wikipedia rules, the history section as written is from a self published source. I deleted it, not because I did not like it or because it was inaccurate, rather because it goes against the integrity of Wikipedia. If anyone has verifiable material that would improve this article please add it. I did put in one brief sentence from the Fellowship of Friends official web site. Moon Rising

El condor pasa

I was trying to suggest some ways to simplify and shorten the article. It looks like this process is underway. I accept Wine-in-ark's reasonable disagreements with my proposed changes.

As to my identity, I am Cathie Leavitt (aka Cathleen Campion), of Grass Valley, CA. I was a member of the Fellowship of Friends from 1978-1985. I was a salaried employee in the Fellowship office at Renaissance (now Isis) from 1980-1983.

I also worked as a secretary in the law office of Robert Epley (Fellowship attorney in Marysville, CA) in 1984-5, during the time of the lawsuit filed against the Fellowship by Samuel Sanders, et al. I have specific personal knowledge of the organization's beliefs, practices, internal workings, and external controversies during that time.

As to my continued involvement in the creation of the Wikipedia entry, my interest, scant enough to begin with, has entirely waned. Thank you all for your kind attention.

Babycondor 16:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Cathie, thank you for revealing your real identity. This dispels the rumors that Wine-in-ark raised. Mario Fantoni 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Cathie. Wine-in-ark 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nixwisser: Retreat names & Fees

Hi Nixwisser, I have 2 questions for you:
1. (I already asked this one) Why do you think that people would be interested in all the names that the organization's retreat in California had over the years? People are looking for basic information in Wikipedia (after all, that's the purpose of an encyclopedia, on-line or off-line). The current name should be enough.
2. Why do you think that the details of the fee system are important? I am not talking about the general rules (how much, how often) but details about what happens when members don't pay after 6 weeks, after 14 weeks, etc.
I am trying to think as a visitor to the page, unfamiliar with the organization. If I were looking for some information about the Fellowship of Friends, I would look for:
- What is it?
- When was it created and what happened since?
- What is their system of beliefs?
- Are there controversies?
- Where can I get more information about the organization and the controversies?
If somebody starts telling me about all the names of their retreat over the years and all the details of the fee system, I would ask: "Why do I need to know all this?"
By the way, as you already mentioned before, this also applies to Peter's long entries about Fourth Way ideas, extremely long and boring.
Thank you. Mario Fantoni 23:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

response

Hi Mario,
1. This can be answered by your own question .... When was it created and what happened since? History is just that, and the shifts in name reflect phases in the development of the organization. I am equally baffled why such a short list of names disturbs you. It is hardly controversial.
2. I do think information about the payment system is important, as it points up how central it is to participation in the organization. The FOF's own website quotes Ouspensky's warnings about being certain one is ready, and is used to imply those thinking of joining should be careful and deliberate well as to whether they are ready. Knowing the critical role donations play would be a logical part of preparing for such a decision. If the original posters of material can police it themselves, there will be less back-and-forth. Wine-in-ark - do you think any material can be trimmed from the payments section? For that reason, I would like it if Peter were willing to edit his own posts to make them more essential and in line with Wikipedia styles and standards, but he does not seem able or willing. As I stated, I will try to retain them in their essentials, but I simply do not have hours per day to devote to this and do what I can when I can. I assume that is true for most people, which is why patience is required in waiting for responses/actions from the various editors. thanks Nixwisser 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, Nixwisser. Mario Fantoni 03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wine-in-ark: Fellowship of Friends page nominated for deletion ?

Wine-in-ark, the text below is from your talk page:
An editor has nominated Fellowship of Friends, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fellowship of Friends and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes. You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Wine-in-ark, is the page still being considered for deletion? If it is, what can we do to avoid the deletion? Thanks. Mario Fantoni 23:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, don't worry, this is old and was immediately revoked. Wine-in-ark 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Veronica is not cooperating

At this point it is clear that Veronicapoe refuses to discuss with other editors the controversial edits she is introducing to the page ("Fellowship Suicides", "Fellowship Deaths", "Recruitment and Influence Techniques", etc.). I see a new edit war coming and the possible protection of the page. To Wine-in-ark: I noticed you dealt successfully with vandalism on this page before. What do you recommend? Mario Fantoni 05:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


I don't think Veronica is a vandal, but I think she does need to observe more where she's coming from. I think it's getting better though, her citations are getting better and her writing style is slightly less obviously negative now. I really think Veronica could start her own website where she could put all the controversial information she wants and then we could include her website under "Criticism". What do you think, Veronica? I think you have some useful things to say, they just exceed the scope of this article (e.g. behavior analysis). Wine-in-ark 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion - thank you. Mario Fantoni 02:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I respect your comments, Wine-in-ark. Feel free to tone down material you find too partisan, that is the beauty of this medium. We each call them as we see them. Veronicapoe

Validity of Information

I have to say that the first 10 headings on the FoF wiki read like FoF advertising, like something that could have made it onto the FoF website.

The controversies sound equally imbalanced (information is valid and referenced, but the style in which it is written is not exactly perfect).

At the moment, it is very visible that there are two warring factions trying to win over each other, that's going nowhere.

I was interested how this project would go, but to be honest I have little praise to give. 'Beliefs and practices' will need to be shorter and less dreamy, better structured. Obviously, information on fees and similar (including the weeks) is necessary - it shows how money-obsessed the organisation is and how hard it can be on non-payers (proving that the FoF is first and foremost interested in money, only then comes spiritual growth). Equally, all other 'painful' information, including information on RB and claims on him (including a mention of the lawsuits) will have to be added.

I am afraid that for once the ex-members have a stronger position, reading other wikis on cult-like organisations will reveal the way in which this information is usually dealt with on wikipedia. If things stay like they are now, the wiki won't stay here too long. Be sensible, wikipedia is usually the first place where people look for information, you can't use this to advertise your position and try to influence people to join.

-- Esoteric Sheik


Hello Esoteric Sheik, I agree that currently the page has a "propaganda versus dangerous cult" flavor. Would you like to be an editor of the page? Mario Fantoni 12:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Section on suicides is defamatory

Dear editors, Veronica's section on "Fellowship Suicides" is a cheap shot and is defamatory. It seems that several editors (including Wine-in-ark) acknowledge that but, from one point of view, are washing their hands. This is not the way we are going to produce a high quality page. Mario Fantoni 03:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think the suicides are overblown, as mental instability is produced in people both inside and outside of FOF, and there will be suicides in any section of the population. If Veronica is unable to produce any published references soon linking these particular suicides to direct cause by Robert Burton, I would request them to be removed and I would urge her to publish her own website with her personal account, where she would not be restricted by Wikipedia rules. Wine-in-ark 04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Intentional insincerity

Hi Veronica, can you please explain how this statement: "Intentional Insincerity = refers to the deliberate deception of nonmembers by members of Fellowship organization. The term is not value neutral but refers to a process whereby a recruit obtains spiritual benefit by lying to outsiders to advance the organization's aims, chiefly the amassment of money." - is derived from the Renaissance Journal. I would like to see the original quote from the Journal, if possible. #the term is not value neutral" and "chiefly the amassment of money" sounds totally like your own interpretation. Please just present facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions. If you want to reveal the financial/wealth aspects of the Fellowship, I'm sure you have some interesting sources that are not accessible to me, that you can post here and let the facts speak for themselves. Wine-in-ark 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wine-in-ark. Veronicapoe's statement "The term is not value neutral but refers to a process whereby a recruit obtains spiritual benefit by lying to outsiders to advance the organization's aims, chiefly the amassment of money" is a serious accusation that can't be included on the page without an evidence. If Veronicapoe has evidences, she must provide them. I am referring to Police Reports or Court Summaries, not to a certain "1981 issue of the Renaissance Journal" that editors are supposed to consult at the "Fellowship office". Mario Fantoni 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wine-in-ark: Peter's long sections

I would like to thank Wine-in-ark for having the patience to edit Peter's long sections. Mario Fantoni 04:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Recruitment and influence techniques - references

To Veronicapoe:

Among the References within this section is #23. ^ The Prospective Student Meetings, Library of Congress Registration No. TX-4-472-455.

I have been in the Library of Congress web page, and I could not find the said material. Could you please help me find it? Baby Dove 18:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this subject, I got the system the Library of Congress (it is within Wilkipedia) uses to classify the copyrighted works, and I found that T corresponds to Technology material. Are you sure it could have been classified that way, or may be the T code is a typo?

Regards, Baby Dove 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange Truth: A Horror Story, material suggested in the article

Dear Veronica,

I am probably doing something wrong, because the code TXu-149-031 does not allow me to have any results in the Library of Congress. Moreover, the TX subclass is given to 'Home Economics' books according to their classification system shown in the Library of Congress Classification Outline. As I am trying to get the quoted material unsuccessfully, could you please help me find it?

Regards, Baby Dove 01:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To Baby Dove:

I suggest you use the search function at the Library of Congress website. Search for "Prospective Student Meetings." If you connect to Library of Congress through telnet, you can get a more detailed record which indicates the registration of the work as a dramatic work. Same with the Marlane Dasmann book. I believe the book will be available on the web as a pdf soon. Regards, Veronicapoe

Dear Veronicapoe,

Thank you for your answer. I took some more time in the Library of Congress web site, and I was finally able to find both Copyright Registration Numbers. It seems that I have been looking within the material available in the Library or something like that, but not in the Copyright registration file (as I said before, in the search engine at Library of Congress Search Engine, nothing happens when you enter these Registration numbers).

Regarding Mrs. Marlane Dasmann's work (TXu-149-031), it was copyrighted on January 24th, 1984 and it has 88 pages. But there is no date for the publishing so far. Have you seen any unofficial issue of this, or the Library does not register it when they are published later?

Regarding The Prospective Student Meetings (TX-4-472-455 ), it has been copyrighted on November 26th, 1996 by the Fellowship of Friends, after being published on November 1st, 1995. Do you know who is the editor publishing this dramatic work and how can I contact them?

I'm sorry for all this trouble, but I would like to be accurately informed.

Regards, Baby Dove 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: The registered title of Mrs Dasmann's book is just "Strange Truth." Is it the "A Horror Story" part a sub-title or the gender of the book?

Regards, Baby Dove 06:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Dear Editors,

A Wikipedia Administrator sent me the following message yesterday:

Hi Mario, on the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute. This led to the page being unprotected at your request and the edit war kicking off again, as it would when underhand methods are being used.

I am asking for the sockpupeteer to reveal his/her identity here in the Talk page - we will find out anyway. Mario Fantoni 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood this, and probably confused the check user guys. Redvers said this simply because when a new editor makes his first contribution he doesn't sign it (see sheiks comment), and on top of it all when an unknown user claims to be an expert in order to push his views ahead, it is considered sock puppetry. Although, because these guys don't seem to have made big changes or even argued a lot and agree completely with certain others, nothing would happen even if they turn out to be sockps. Aeuio 23:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Aeuio. See my welcome message below (under "Mario's Editing"); I didn't see that this was your first message. Anyway, I don't think I misunderstood REDVERS. He was not talking about the Sheik: check the diffs he submited as a proof of sockpuppetry and you will see that the Sheik is not there. Besides, the Sheik is not part of the "people who held the high ground in the dispute", to use Redvers' own words, since he only posted a comment on this Talk page. I still believe that serious sockpuppetry by one of the main editors happened at this page and that made REDVERS, the Wikipedia Administrator that was working with it, leave and never come back. He doesn't even reply to messages (I sent him 2 myself). Mario Fantoni 00:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No offense Mario, but you have to put some effort into understanding of what others say, as you seem to be a person who associates everything subjectively and can't see from the other person's point of view. Since you seem to confuse things and misunderstand, I'll have to go in detail here:
First, I never said anything about Redvers diffs point to Sheiks comments.
1. I said "Redvers said this simply because when a new editor makes his first contribution he doesn't sign it (see sheiks comment)"- what I meant was - look at sheiks signature. See something different? That's because he didn't sign his username using 4 ~'s, but wrote it instead. This is the way a new user usually signs his comments. But in Redvers diff's it shows "apparently" new users nicely signing their comments, and thus they already obviously made comments before.
2. More importantly, the second thing Redvers saw in the same comment was "I am a former member of fof...and I think this should be done...". When Redvers put these two things together, in his experience in dealing with vandalism, he at once suspected that there is a sock puppet involved.
Also note that Redvers never claimed any connection between Nix and Babycondor. He meant that the more active editors (the ones that are mainly involved in the editing) are the ones who made new accounts and made those edits. Saying that Nix and Babyc are the same person makes no sense at all. (Claiming that a user who made one edit used a sockpuppet is dumb-I think you should find some other npov articles and see what vandalism/sockpuppets/and all other wiki vandal tricks are all about)
Lastly, Redvers left because you guys didn't follow his instructions and he felt that he would be wasting his time here. Seeing possible use of sockpuppets Redvers simply left.(And it seems that he didn't even want to clarify this) Aeuio 01:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Aeuio, we can go on with this "I think that REDVERS meant this" forever. The only way to be certain of what REDVERS meant when he said that "very obvious sockpupettry was resorted" is to ask REDVERS himself, but unfortunately he doesn't answer my messages. Anyhow, thanks for trying to help. Mario Fantoni 23:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mario's recent content edits (and Mario's reply)

Was: "All efforts to divide attention and be present in the Fellowship of Friends revolve around one aim: to reach higher centers and experience higher states of consciousness."
Mario took out "reach higher centers".
Why, Mario? This is a direct quote from the Fellowship of Friends website. I'm putting it back. Higher centers are also explained elsewhere in the article and there is a link to another Wikipedia article on Centers.

I am trying to think as a visitor to the page, not as an editor. We can't assume that visitors are familiar with "higher centers", a term belonging to the Fourth Way's terminology that appears for the first time in the article and is not linked to a definition or a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, most people are familiar with the expression "higher states of consciousness" since "consciousness" is a very popular term both in the spiritual field and outside of it. Nevertheless, if you think that "higher centers" is a necessary expression in the phrase, feel free to include it; I recommend to link the term to the place of the page where it is defined or to the Wikipedia article about "Centers". Mario Fantoni 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Was: "is recognized in other ancient texts as the division between the "earth" or "world" and the "Lord" or "God". The highest part of one's personality is called "steward" and it can initiate divided attention to support presence and the arrival of higher centers."
Mario changed it to: "is recognized in other ancient texts as the division between "heaven" and "earth.""
Fellowship website has: "The angel symbolizes the steward, which is a part of the emotional center that guides all our efforts to be present. Governed by the steward, the intellectual parts of centers are promoting the presence of the higher emotional center in the third state of consciousness." "This is why esoteric schools throughout history referred to the lower centers as ‘earth’ and the ‘world’, and referred to higher centers as the Beloved, God, or Lord."
I'm putting back information about the steward as I hope Mario will agree with me that it is an extremely important part of FOF teaching and would only deserve more elaboration rather than exclusion. I am also removing 'heaven' and 'earth' and restoring the previous text, as the FOF website does not speak about 'heaven and earth'.

Please note that the FoF site is very far from being an encyclopedic entry, since it contains a fairly large amount of information. Besides, it includes a very extensive glossary. The term "steward" has a very specific meaning in Fourth Way's terminology - it is the same case of the term "higher centers" above. If you think it is necessary to include the term, a more detailed explanation is needed. Your original text: "The highest part of one's personality is called "steward" and it can initiate divided attention to support presence and the arrival of higher centers." can be confusing for a visitor to the page since "personality" is a term that has a very specific meaning in the Fourth Way, different from the normally accepted one. Regarding the 'heaven' and 'earth' issue, your original text: "This same division between higher and lower centers is recognized in other ancient texts as the division between the 'earth' or 'world' and the 'Lord' or 'God'." is correct but note that it can be read as the division between the first and second terms ('earth' and 'world') and the third and the fourth ('Lord' and 'God'). I tried to eliminate that possibility keeping only 2 terms, 'heaven' (presence, higher centers) and 'earth' (sleep, lower centers) but if you think that is not necessary you are welcome to keep your original text. Note that the term "heaven" to describe presence is found on the FoF web site here in the paragraph that says: "Mohammad, who understood the esoteric meaning of the Bible, would later add: “Swords (work ‘I’s) are the key to heaven (promoting presence).” Mario Fantoni 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Was: a list of exercises that were valid in the past and are also described as such, with appropriate references. Mario deleted some. I'm putting them all back because I consider them relevant material. If they really bother Mario so much, he can move those that are no longer valid to the section on Fellowship history, but I don't see any justification for deleting them.

Your insertion of the text "As of 1991, some official exercises were:" at the beginning of the list is appropriate, since your source is from that year. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the text "Failure to comply with certain of the exercises or tasks may have material (e.g. fines, termination of membership) or even mortal consequences (higher forces may cause the death of persons who do not comply with exercises)." The part about "mortal consequences" is a creation of the editor and the quoted reference (the July 1980 "Renaissance Vine") is from a publication that is not available for verification purposes. Mario Fantoni 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Was: "Becoming a member of the Fellowship of Friends is seen as instrumental in one's quest to create consciousness for oneself and escape sleep, the state of not being aware of oneself. A prominent member, Girard Haven, says that by joining the school, one indicates a willingness to participate in the process of having one's life altered and interfered with, to give one's life over to be manipulated by the school and the teacher"
Mario did not like the wording and changed it with the justification that there can be more than one conscious school. Both Mario and I know that he is kidding himself, as Fellowship philosophy states that the Fellowship of Friends is the only conscious school on earth in this age and the nearest other conscious school recognized by Robert Burton that anyone could join is the Gothic school of a few centuries ago. When Mario comes up with some quotes from published Fellowship sources that indicate how a student could possibly join any other conscious school than the Fellowship of Friends, I will be happy to reword this sentence. Until then, I maintain that it stays the way it was.

Using the same logic, if you find a reliable source that states that the Fellowship of Friends is the only conscious school on the planet at the moment, I would be happy to accept your text. Meanwhile, we can't talk about it on the page. Mario Fantoni 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mario also changed the word "manipulated" to "directed", but, as "manipulated" is a direct quote from Girard Haven, I am restoring the original text.

I apologize, but I didn't realize that you were quoting G. Haven literally; I thought the term "manipulated" was yours since the quotation marks on that phrase don't include it: A prominent member, Girard Haven, says that by joining the school, one indicates a willingness to participate in the process of having one's life altered and interfered with, to give one's life over to be manipulated by the school and the teacher "so that one's Self can be freed from the prison of that life". Mario Fantoni 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Girard Haven also talks about "joining THE School" and not just any school.

I don't think that Mr. Haven's expression "joining THE school" means there is only one school on the planet. For example, a political leader may say "it is time to serve THE country" without meaning that there is only one country on earth. "THE", in this context, represents something that is familiar both to the speaker and the listener, not something that is unique. Mario Fantoni 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same section, Mario for some reason does not like "reaching presence" and has deleted it, but once again, since it is precisely those words that are used by the Fellowship itself, I insist that "reaching presence" has a right to be included (see reference).

I find your original text "For example, according to Robert Burton, the Tarot deck is in fact an objective way of telling how to reach presence, to promote and prolong presence." redundant. It should be "reach and prolong presence" or "promote and prolong presence". If you like "reach presence, to promote and prolong presence" it is fine with me, since it is a matter of style. I am trying to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on editing pages, that recommend to be bold in updating pages and state clearly that: "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis like us develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc. We expect everyone to be bold. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be." Mario Fantoni 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would urge Mario to no longer make arbitrary edits like this to alter the original sources. Wine-in-ark 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if you found my edits arbitrary. I hope that after reading the reasons behind them you will think differently. If you don't, please speak up and we will continue the dialog. Eventually we will get it right, I assure you. Thank you for taking the time to discuss my edits instead of simply reverting them.

PS. I apologize for adding my comments to the body of your message instead of creating a new one with my comments placed after a copy of yours. I am worried about the length of this Talk page - it is already massive. Should we archive the older messages? Mario Fantoni 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To the editors

Dear colleagues,


I find it very interesting to see that the star of this page is "discussion," the talk page. As of today, asking for the 250 options, it shows March 29 at 4:05 as the oldest entry, and to reach the first one, requires about 100 or more entries..!

At one point, before I enter here, it seems that the page was even frozen because of editing war.

Today, there are still discussions regarding what should remain asnd what should not in the article, or even people suspecting what are others doing here!

I assume this is not what Wilkipedia is about, because I have been a consistent user several years, looking for what I needed to know on various subjects.

As a new editor, I try not to change too much anywhere, because I think I should respect other's time and efforts, so I try to say what I find less consistent.

I think that there are many things mixed-up in the article. For instance, in the very start, it contains a description on the Fellowship of Friends, then the Beliefs and Practices and so on, until the article meets "Controversies." That should be a whole chapter, but surprisingly, it goes on whith a whole fourth chapter on "Recruitment and influence techniques", where the very subject tends to be more a controversy than a description of how this group finds their followers.

As a user, I would probably like a description of what does the group do to introduce its ideas to the rest of the world, and all the supposed "influence techniques"as a part of the "Controversies" chapter.

These are just examples. Because from almost the very start, these chapters have a lot of these opinions going on, without any orderly presentation, such as having two unresolved "citation needed" in the first chapter, about the history of this organization. Can all these name changes be traced, and how? How were they decided and why? Or these members who left to create their own groups, is this something relevant and that can be proved?

This was just a way to try to suggest some order in our work, that I hope might help stopping the huge amount of pages in the discussion page. If anybody saw my unsigned contribution, please forgive the mistake. Regards, Baby Dove 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Baby Dove, welcome to the party. It is OK to criticize the current content and direction of the article, but it is better to try to fix it. One reason why this Talk page is so long is because several editors (Nixwisser aka Babycondor, Esoteric Sheik, and now you) offer some very reasonable suggestions on the Talk page but they never implement them on the article. At the end, 99.9% of the edits are done by Wine-in-ark, Veronicapoe and myself, giving the impression that we “own” the page.
Baby Dove, please roll up your sleeves and edit the article - this is what Wikipedia is about. Mario Fantoni 05:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

babydove suggestions

Babydove, thanks for the suggestions. I agree the overall impact of the page is still very muddied, but, if you trace the evolution as shown on this discussion and on the history page, you will see that it has gone through many struggles and is much better now than it was. As an example the overlong "recruitment and influence techniques" was originally near the top of the page. Moving it to the "controversies" section was an attempt to balance things better until some consensus about edits to it could be reached. As to the "retreat" names, the entry initially came from Veronica. The names Via del Sol, Renaissance and Apollo are mentioned both in the Stella/Harold Wirk site and the Rick Ross site. The latter also lists Mount Carmel and the Farm. The 2 "monastery" names are new to me. Perhaps Veronica can source them. I agree with Mario at least in this - every new, responsible editor is welcome. Research and sensitive editing takes time.

-Mario, we all have our private hunches and guesses, but I would ask you to keep them to yourself. Wine-in-ark never stated that Babycondor was not an ex-student, but you did and then openly ascribed this fantasy to wine-in-ark. Now you somehow assume Babycondor and I are the same person (even though I argued against most of her suggested changes) and state that assumption openly here, pausing only to take a cheap shot at my lack of editing (which a look at the history page will contradict). As this page is already an obviously contentious and polarized effort, I find such sniping by you not particularly helpful.Nixwisser 06:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nixwisser. You are right when you say that Wine-in-ark never stated that Babycondor was not an ex-member of the FoF but he did say "Who is Babycondor? When was this user created? He appears out of nowhere, not having been part of the page creation, and requests changes, to which Mario agrees within 4 hours." What is the meaning of "to which Mario agrees within 4 hours"? 4 hours is plenty of time to read Babycondor's message and to agree with the suggested changes. Who is guessing here?
Regarding my assumption that you and Babycondor are the same person, please read the message below that REDVERS, the Wikipedia Administrator that was working with this page, sent to me on 04/09/07:
Hi Mario.
On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute. This led to the page being unprotected at your request and the edit war kicking off again, as it would when underhand methods are being used.
For that reason, I don't feel able to help with containing the renewed edit war. Dispute resolution when the party who are in the right resort to disrupting Wikipedia is not my forte. You will need to seek help from the various formal and informal dispute resolution facilities that Wikipedia offers.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that the users listed on the diffs above (very obvious) are "Nixwisser" and "Babycondor".
Finally, regarding your contributions to the article, you submitted 7 out of the current total of 385 edits (less than 2%), so you haven't been particularly active. Please don't get me wrong - I am not criticizing you for not being an active editor, I am encouraging you to be more active. It worked with Baby Dove - it may work with you too. :-) Mario Fantoni 17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ex-members reference removed from History for lack of citation of source

To the editors:

As some of you encouraged me to do myself what I was suggesting, therefore I took away the list of ex-members said to have formed other groups. If there is a valid source about the relevance of this people's activity regarding the interest of the article, whoever has it, can restore the old version.

I left, however, the list of old names in the same situation because Nixwisser said he knows where does this come from. So, I hope the quotation can be placed soon.

Regards, Baby Dove 07:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Baby Dove. I apologize if I was a bit blunt when I requested for you to be active. As I said before, welcome and enjoy the party. Mario Fantoni 19:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Babycondor and Nixwisser are not the same" declares Babycondor

This is getting pretty silly.

My name is Cathie Leavitt and I posted 2 messages on this discussion page under the screen name "Babycondor." In my first message I suggested some broad changes to the article in question. In my second message I revealed my identity, in response to someone else's challenge of it, and indicated that I had no further interest in being involved in the creation of the article. I have never made entries or edits to the article itself.

I am not "Nixwisser" and I have no idea who he/she is. Nor am I posing as "Veronicapoe," "Mario Fantoni," "Wine-in-ark," "Baby Dove," or any other fictional entity.

I suggest there is a flaw in the method the Wikipedia administrator used to draw his/her "very obvious" sockpuppet conclusion.

Babycondor 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Cathy, for coming up once more to clarify the situation. I apologize for being such a pain in the neck, but when a Wikipedia Administrator affirms that sockpuppetry is occurring on a Talk page and presents a proof of that, this is a serious thing according to Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy, that clearly states that: "Accounts operating in violation of this policy should be blocked indefinitely." Besides that, can you imagine how surreal this Talk page would become if I were the same person as Wine-in-ark? Mario Fantoni 01:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
To spare me the trouble of going through winarks history, i am just wondering out of curiosity as how do you know that his real name is Jason? Aeuio 15:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)~
He revealed his identity at the so-called FoF blog where he mentioned on posting #287: Hello, I am a former student that wishes to create a wiki that can serve as a repository of FOF history. The wiki is just in the beginning phases, I would like to find some people, current or former students, who wish to help me get this project started. Once it is at an acceptable level of function, I will open it to be read by the general public. If you would be interested in helping me, please send an email to FOFwiki@gmail.com. About me: I joined FOF at the age of 21 in Chicago in late 1997, and was a student for eight years. I lived in centers in New York, Moscow, California, and Illinois. My experiences with FOF were almost entirely positive and while I am no longer a member, and have my own conflicts and ambivalences, I respect REB and the organization as a whole. I am creating a wiki because I believe the history of the school is very rich. There are stories that need to be recorded, and time is not on our side. (posted by Jason Cryter on March 20th, 2007 at 10:06 pm) Mario Fantoni 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

center funds

Mario, please tell me where I can find a statement from the FOF concerning the cessation of center fund dontations. thanks Nixwisser 04:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nixwisser. The FAQ section of the FoF web site has the following paragraph about fees:
To join, one pays a tithe of 10% gross monthly income. The membership donation increases at the second year as one’s verifications in turn increase. Special donations are also requested to help build the School. Different payment categories, such as parent with child, unemployed, retired, university student etc. are provided to help accommodate a member’s circumstances. Because the Fellowship of Friends is recognized by the state and federal governments as a non-profit religious organization, all membership donations are tax deductible in the U.S."
I can't see any reference to a "center fund donation" there. Mario Fantoni 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mario, give me a break, the fact that center fund donations are not mentioned on FOF official page does not mean they don't exist. They have been written about by Girard and unless you can prove that they have been abolished, there is no valid reason to delete this information. Also you used a very sneaky way to get rid of the "center funds" statements and leaving the statement that "these donations are not obligatory", making it seem as if "not obligatory" refers to all donations and not just to center fund donations. Your recent edits are very biased and unfortunately I don't have time to get to all of them right now, because I have a day job. Wine-in-ark 21:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wine-in-ark. Since there are no references to "center fund donations" on the FoF official web site in the "Fees" section, we can't assume that they exist. G. Haven's book is pretty outdated (1991); besides, it is self-published and can't be used as a reference. If you think that my edit was sneaky please feel free to make it more objective when you have the time. Mario Fantoni 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Mario is grasping. Unless there is some recent published reference to "center funds" being abolished, we have no reason to assume that things are not the same as they were in 1991, i.e. center funds existed and Girard Haven quotes Robert Burton as saying that C Influence wants members to pay center funds. In fact both Mario and I know that center funds still exist, but for some reason (we can only guess why) he is trying to hide this information. Wine-in-ark 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wine-in-ark, can you explain what you mean with "in fact both Mario and I know that center funds exist"? Are you a member of the Fellowship of Friends? Mario Fantoni 05:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member, and I can confirm that center funds still exist. Center fund payments do not have the same status as teaching payments. Center members are encouraged to pay the center fund, but non-payment does not result in any change of status with the FOF. The amount of the center fund payment varies from center to center and there is no center fund payment at Isis. Genuflect 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In the section on center funds, there was nothing to contradict what Genuflect just said. Moreover, it was gathered from a printed source. However, since that source was Letters to students, and has been declared a private publication, I agree that we can't use it. I will see if there is mention of center funds in other Fellowship publications. What I know and Mario knows and Genuflect knows from personal experience, is off the record, and can't be put in the article. Whether I am a member is not the issue, maybe I am, maybe I'm not and I know people who are and I have seen them pay center funds. Doesn't matter. What is the issue is that someone who is a member would remove information about center funds "because we cannot assume they exist". Wine-in-ark 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if "center funds" exist or not, I swear, but that is not the issue. What I really don't understand is why is this information so important to Wine-in-ark (and Nixwisser, by the way). A visitor to the page needs to have an overview of the organization; if he/she wants to know more he/she can do further research. For me "center funds" is superfluous information for an encyclopedic page that is supposed to offer general information. Since a reliable source hasn't been found yet, we don't need to agree if it is relevant or not. We just can't include it. Mario Fantoni 05:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-Published books from G. Haven & G. Mueller

Dear Editors,
I found out today that 3 of the sources used in the article, namely:
- "Creating a Soul" by G. Haven
- "Letters to Students" by G. Haven
- "Bread upon Water" by G. Mueller
are self-published books and can't be used as references in the article according to Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, that states clearly: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources." Mario Fantoni 06:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the fact here (and in other discussions) that the fof website could very well be claimed to be untrue and original research. Who's to say that everything on the site is verified, and even that you don't have editing connections to that site? Aeuio 23:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am assuming that the FoF official web site is a reliable source, since it can't be classified as a "personal web site" acording to Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, but if somebody finds a Wikipedia policy that states that official web sites of organizations can't be used as a reliable source on an article about that organization, all references to the FoF web site have to be removed from the article. Mario Fantoni 00:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The fof website can certainly be used as a reference for fof's teachings. What I meant was that similarly as you claim that there is no verification for the critic websites that say that fof did some things, there is no verification for the fof website which might claim the opposite, since there is no one who verified the info on one site as well as there is noone who formally verified the other. Aeuio 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Aeiuo, please note that the books mentioned above are not against the FoF; on the contrary, both Mr. Haven and Mr. Mueller were members of the FoF when they wrote the books and there is nothing in their writings against the FoF. That being said, the books are self-published so they can't be used as a reliable source according to Wikipedia's policies. On the other hand, the official site of the FoF is not "self-published". I noticed that the the Mormon Church's site is listed 5 times in the 7 references of the Mormon page in Wikipedia. Mario Fantoni 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mario, I am not assuming good faith on your part since it is obvious that you are twisting Wikipedia's policies to promote the Fellowship of Friends and remove as much information as possible that is not coming strictly from the official FOF website. The books you refer to are personal accounts of members about their experiences in the Fellowship, and they describe what they know about the organization from personal experience. Who is more qualified to talk about FOF than those who have been prominent members with important roles in it for a very long time? Who will independently check "facts", and how do you imagine that? An independent third-party interview with Robert Burton to ask him to confirm if he really predicted an Armageddon in 2006, or did Girard Haven invent this statement for the purposes of his self-published book? G. Haven and G. Mueller are not even negative about the Fellowship, they are still members and still supportive. They have decades of first-hand experience with the Fellowship and with Robert Burton and have had prominent roles in the organization. So I completely disagree when you say they are unreliable sources. Unless you are trying to say that no one has independently checked that G. Mueller and G. Haven really are members, as they claim to be, and that they really did not have those interactions with Robert Burton and other members of the Fellowship. Is that what you are trying to say? Wine-in-ark 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Wine-in-ark, please see the message "Sources" below from Genuflect. He/she seems to know more about the sources than any other editor so far. Mario Fantoni 05:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section

The "Controversies" section has had the templates for more than a week. Any suggestions? Mario Fantoni 06:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

mediation request

I would like to ask for help from the mediation cabal at this point as we have an open and obvious editing war going on. If things continue as they are going now we will have an empty page with just references at the bottom, which would be rather silly. The mediation cabal is not any sort of police - it requires good faith cooperation and is entirely voluntary. As far as I can tell, no editor here is very neutral and at least two are wildly partisan, so we really need some cool outside heads with some possibility of impartiality to help us move forward. I get the impression that we are all novices as Wikipedia editors, so we also need some real-world advice from those more experienced. Your comments please, Mario, Veronica, Wine-in-ark, Babydove are crucial. Any other editors comments and involvement is also quite welcome. I would also ask specifically you, Mario, to give it a break for a while as you are, by far, the most prolific editor here. We may need to protect the page again, but it would be a lot more mature and helpful if everyone could voluntarily keep their hands off the respective axes they are grinding until we can get some outside mediation. Thank you all for your help in this matter. Nixwisser 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Nixwisser's suggestion for a mediation (I suggested that on 04/03/07, see my message "Veronica - Mediation Request" above), but I don't think that his suggestion for the main editors to stop all edits would work, since editors that are not part of the no-edits agreement can -and will- edit page. That being said, I am willing to give the no-edits agreement a try if the most active editors (Veronicapoe, Wine-in-ark, Nixwisser and Babydove) agree.
Information about mediation can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation, Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Thank you Nixwisser for bringing this up. Mario Fantoni 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not even close to an edit war, and it will probably be denied. Edit war is when More that one editors are making constant changes to the article and reverting themselves. This qualifies as a clean up. Aeuio 23:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

New editors have come after the truce...

Dear Nixwisser:

Well, it is really happening a lot here after my last contribution (April; 12 at 17:23, not counting my answer to Mario Fantoni's question on the Library of Congress search engine). I saw that Mario Fantoni made a lot of changes, and then Nixwisser called for a break before a mediation.

But other editors who have never been in the page changed the page before I could even think about Nixwisser's proposition. And one of them (with an IP address as a signature), restored the references to sueing based on an internet site that, of course, is full of "original research", such as the ones not accepted in Wilkipedia.

The list of references in the article looks very funny now: the description of a religious organization starts by the three first items quoting and linking to websites with original researches!!! The references to the official voice of the organization now appear all together in a second plane, under "Material produced by the Fellowship of Friends", as a sub-chapter of external links...

I guess the page would not be within the serious standards of Wilkipedia with its present configuration... And all this happened within 20' after Mario Fantoni, the most active of the editors, agreed with the not editing truce.

Regards, Baby Dove 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That means that Nixwisser's "no editing truce" didn't work, as predicted. Mario Fantoni 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
? There's no such thing as a "no editing truce" Aeuio 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Mario Fantoni 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Stella Wirk's and Rick Ross' websites can't be used as references

To all editors, old and new:
Please note that Stella Wirk's website and Rick Ross' cult busting site can't be used as references according to Wikipedia's reliable sources policy: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources." (bolds are mine)
 Note that it is OK to have a link to Mrs. Wirk's and Mr. Ross' websites under "Criticism", of course. Mario Fantoni 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are way of Mario. Someone who hates fof could mention EVERYTHING from the that Rick Ross site. Apparently this Rick Ross is not an anybody, believe me - on wikipedia- | this over qualifies him to be a reliable source, and this | institute is not made up, and could even be contacted. I may not like the fof, but I am not that interested in pushing a huge critics section myself. Aeuio 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
To Aeuio: I am sure that Rick Ross' own web site "over qualifies him to be a reliable source", as you said, but here is a site that says "Although Rick Ross promotes himself as a professional “cult expert”, a review of his educational background shows that quite apart from being anti-Christian (he refers to Christians as “Bible bangers”) has no religious educational credentials whatsoever. To the contrary, his only formal education is a high school diploma. Self-aggrandizement and personal financial reward seem to be Ross’ primary motive for his attacks on Christians and members of other faiths." A visit to Rick Gross' home page lists the Mormon Church and Herbalife as dangerous cults. I don't think that Mr. Ross can be considered a reliable source. Mario Fantoni 01:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a normal circle, where he badmouths them, and they badmouth him in return - and both seem to be using the same arguments. That doesn't disprove him as a source, as who knows who's telling the truth there, and in the end it seems to me that everyone might be taken as a reliable source (since the other option is to not take anyone)- but that'll be probably dealt with later.Aeuio 15:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Badmouthing is one thing, a convicted felon is another. Rick Ross was convicted twice for "conspiracy to commit grand theft". Check this. Mario Fantoni 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Court Cases

I am not sure on these court cases, but it seems to me by sheiks comments above, and the various critic site, that the court cases did happen. If that's the case they certainly should be included in the article. The only thing you can do is explain what happened and why it happened. Aeuio 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Aeiou... Every time I take a break, there are news here..!
May be what an article on an organization should focus in describing, first of all, what does the organization says about itself. In this article, however, there seem to be several personal opinions on their beliefs that the organization does not show in its official site, such as the limbo and the nine lives.
I guess that who ever wrote that should source it, but note that you can't dismiss everything just because it's not mentioned in the fof site as obviously the fof site would not mention some things. If it is sourced you should change it so it's not taken out of context. Aeuio 15:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, after this description of the organization taken from its official word, there might be a place for opinions. However, it is weird that these opinions are often based in adding ideas that the organization does not publish, but somehow seem to be known for some people (personal research?), or in sue cases published in a website from a self-called "cult expert", and in linking some psychological/sociological ideas taken from books and applied to a religious organization.
I have been visiting the Wilkipages on Judaism, Lutheranism and others, and their talk page focuses only in how to improve the presentation, not in discussing what the beliefs are or in disqualifying their leaders.
What you saw was the main page, what you obviously haven't seen is the other hundred pages which pick on EVERY POSSIBLE POSSIBILITY. There are articles which talk about the claim that Jesus was gay (I don't even feel right wrighting this), and every other possible nonsense, and I literaly mean every. Aeuio 15:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the "truce", of course this does not exist. Nixwisser suggested some of the editors to agree on one. He failed. As I said before, this is making the page uninteresting, due to all the personal opinions in it.
I do not know what do you call an editin war, but, for me, it is sometimes difficult to know what is on the page and what is not...
Regards, Baby Dove 07:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Concerning a real ugly edit war, you should have seen the 9/11 articles, and the Hezbollah article couple of months ago. On the 9/11 articles there were edits being made every ten minutes - they had 30 archives, and that's after they trimmed them constantly. On the Hezbollah article, I think there was a months old discussion solely on whether or not they should be labeled as a terrorist organization. If you saw this you would have known what vandalism is, and just what wiki policies "can" do. I've come to the conclusion that the talk pages are a better source for real info that the actual pages. Aeuio 15:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the court cases, seeing that no one has claimed that they didn't happen, but rather that there is an issue on why and how they happened. If that's the case someone should clarify them. Aeuio 15:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to make this clear. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WILLING TO BACK UP THE CLAIM THAT ROBERT BURTON GETTING SUED DO TO HIM HAVING SEX WITH A STUDENT IS FALSE. Post your name and a reference to back up your claim. Aeuio 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mario's editing

Mario, you seem to be advertising the fof, and putting a tag on/or deleting everything that you don't want to be included. You shouldn't do that because could easily be used against you later, and as its very possible that someone is going to get really mad and start pushing anti-fof writing.(If this happens its going to be way easier for them due to the nature of fof) Aeuio 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Aeuio, welcome. I can see you are a very active editor of the articles on Gurdjieff and the Fourth Way; your contributions are needed. Regarding your advice about my edits, I thank you for it but I am afraid you don't know the whole story. Several editors have been "pushing anti-fof writing", to use your words, from the birth of this page. Just take a look at the history page to see what I mean. Anyway, I hope you become an editor of the page. Mario Fantoni 00:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

About Library of Congress Registrations under dramatic plays

To Veronica Poe:

I am creating this new item, because you probably did not read my observations once I found the copyright references (they were under "Strange Truth: A Horror Story, material suggested in the article", in the talk page, at the end).

I found that Mrs. Dasmann's work, "A Strange Truth" (no horror story in the registered title), was registered as a dramatic work, according to the Registration records, and it was never published, save the Library of Congress does not track later editions. If this is so, however copyrighted it could be, it is not a valid source to my understanding, because were it not edited, nobody can know what is it about. Of course, informal copies could have been distributed, but no one excluded from this hand-in-hand chain would have the opportunity to read it...

Regarding "The Prospective Students Meetings", the records say that it is registered as a dramatic and not dramatic work. This makes me think that it could not be exactly a dramatic work as when you write a theatrical play, a novel or a screenplay... Sometimes, when one wants to avoid any litigation about a title, one reserves more than one category (Mrs. Dasmann's book is registered under 1/B, and the Fellowship of Friend's one is under 1/B/D). However, it would be helpful if you could say that you have already read this play and can consider it a dramatic one or not...

Regards, Baby Dove 22:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

yo white flag y'all

BabyDove, apart from a correction of an inadvertent title deletion, Veronica has not edited, neither have I nor Mario nor Wine-in-ark. It is a bit odd to have you edit and then claim the "truce failed" as though others started bombing. If you are opening refusing mediation from the Wikipedia mediation cabal even before we begin the process, fine. But please state this openly. If, however, you are now willing to work with the cabal, then nothing has failed - all other significant editors on this project have restrained themselves. The addition of a single "outsider", Aeuio, already is bringing some "relativity" to the process and the cabal would bring a lot more and has a real chance of diffusing the conflicting interpretations of Wikipedia standards that are paralyzing this page. Asking for page protection is exactly the kind of heavy-handed approach we need to avoid, so I asked for a voluntary short quiet period to get help from the cabal. I am not eager to follow either the Hezbollah nor the history of their entry, as long as there are other options. So BabyDove - it is up to you at this point - are you willing to give them a try?Nixwisser 00:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nixwisser. Did you request mediation already? Mario Fantoni 04:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nixwisser,
I am not obstructing any serious mediation. As a matter of fact, on April 12 at 17:23 I : renamed "Recruitment and Influences Techniques" as Controversies, item which was empty before. As I said almost 14 hours in advance, on April 12 at 3:55, I considered that the many "citation needed" in the article, were justifying this. Nobody answered, so I did this rename, saying "moved to Controversies until observations are solved." (They were not so far, by the way).
On April 12 at 21:48, Mr/Mrs 65.93.104.137 opened two subitems within controversies: "Court cases", where the editor states without any source quoted about the sues cases. It was necessary for an editor to wait until April 13 at 19:19 to get the present text in the page, where it is attributed to Rick Ross as a source. (Curiously, it was not the same editor, though both are from the same place, because the last one including this material in the article was 65.93.133.54).
The other subitem was named "Other", where all the "Recruitment" staff was classified by this editor, whoever he or she is.
So, when Veronicapoe "corrected her mistake" she was actually reverting the rename I made throught reinserting the "Recruitment and Influences Techniques" title be means of renaming "Other" that way.
I cannot say that this was an intentional reversion; she could have probably done this inadvertedly, but the result was a reversion.
I am not against an official mediation. On April 13 at 21:08 I pointed out that "New editors have come" (in the talk page), just because I was trying to accept the unofficial "truce." However, new editors to the page, such as Aeiou, that on April 13 at 23:10 stated that "There's no such thing as a "no editing truce."
Meanwhile, the page has kept being changed, and the talk page, growing up. Is any official mediation request asked for? I would accept it, but I would not agree in a break for some, while others come and keep transforming the page at will. Meanwhile, please do not even suggest I am not willing to cooperate with other's work in the page, because here every one is doing his or her best, I assume.
Regards, Baby Dove 07:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

mediation cabal and length of discussion page

A request for mediation has been submitted. As to the length of the discussion page, I don't see a problem per se, but it would help if people start new topics each time at the bottom of the page (just click the new topic link at the very top). Otherwise, the comments kind of vanish into earlier sections and may not be seen at all by those you wish to communicate with. thanks Nixwisser 23:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Moon rising edits

You may not have seen earlier discussions about seeking mediation (help from experienced Wikipedia administrators and editors). To avert a pointless and time-wasting edit war, most of the earlier editors are agreeing to this mediation. Some of your recent edits, based on the interpretation that the sources were not acceptable, are understandable, even if I do not agree with them. Your supplanting of a rather non controversial history section with a blatantly biased excerpt from the Fellowship's own pages is indefensible and goes beyond any conceivable sense of neutrality. In light of the attempt by others to restrain their editing, particularly in "correcting" other's material, I ask you to revert it yourself.Nixwisser 23:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To Nixwisser: Moon Rising wrote a note above regarding his edits - please check it out.
To Moon Rising: Nixwisser has a good point. Make sure you read this Talk page entirely (yes, it is long read and it may be tedious but it is the only way to get an idea of what is going on). And, please, don't feel intimidated - we need more editors desperately.
To all editors: Please make sure you follow Nixwisser's suggestion of starting new topics at the bottom of the page to avoid what happened with Moon Rising.
Mario Fantoni 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

About sleep

Hi Aeiou,

I do not understand the change you made in the Beliefs and Practices section. You wrote: "According to a part of the Fourth Way teaching, humanity is said to be asleep and not know it", where you added "a part of" to the previous text. In the Wilkipage about the Fourth Way, it is said that "people live their lives in a form of waking sleep." May I know which is the part of the Fourth Way saying that humanity is not asleep? Thank you...

Regards, Baby Dove 03:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

May I know since when does it mean that if someone says that "believing in Jesus is "a part" of the Christian belief" it also at the same time means that there is a part in that Christian belief that says that you shouldn't believe in Jesus? Or if it is said that having faith is a "part of" a religion, it is at the same time implied in the same religion that you shouldn't have faith? (It's good to know that you and Mario think alike, maybe he should have put his name to that sock puppet list where he put everyone's name from this page but his own?...he didn't even put yours?) Aeuio 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio:

Sorry I called you Aeiou in my previous contribution. As far as I understand, "a part of something" always imply the other part. Being parcial is about taking a part instead of the whole.

Today at 20:30, you also say you cannot understand that by saying "believing in Jesus is "a part" of the Christian belief", at the same time means that there is a part in that Christian belief that says that you shouldn't believe in Jesus. The answer seems to be yes. If only a part of Christians believe in Jesus, another part is implied in the sentence...

The same with the Fourth Way. If I say that "a part of the Fourth way" believes that people is asleep, I neccessarily imply that some part of the Fourth way would not believe this.

This was the part I was asking on my contribution of today at 3:27.

Regards, Baby Dove 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't be to be rude but: can you see the difference between 1. - which you claimed that I said :"A part of the Fourth Way believes" and what I actually said 2. "According to a part of the Fourth Way teaching". As I don't want to go on with this stupid discussion you can change it back if means that much to you. Aeuio 22:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer found

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nixwisser to see:

Confirmed that Nixwisser (talk · contribs) and Wine-in-ark (talk · contribs) are the same user. Mackensen (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I told you that something was rotten in the state of Denmark. Mario Fantoni 18:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that last part was really necessary. Leebo T/C 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Leebo, did you read the message center funds above where Nixwisser asked me a question, I replied, and Wine-in-ark joined the discussion to support Nixwisser? Did you check the message mediation request where Nixwisser proposes a mediation and asks "Mario, Veronica, Wine-in-ark, and Babydove" for their opinion? Have you seen the message babydove suggestions above where Nixwisser says: "Mario, we all have our private hunches and guesses, but I would ask you to keep them to yourself. Wine-in-ark never stated that Babycondor was not an ex-student, but you did and then openly ascribed this fantasy to wine-in-ark. Now you somehow assume Babycondor and I are the same person (even though I argued against most of her suggested changes) and state that assumption openly here, pausing only to take a cheap shot at my lack of editing (which a look at the history page will contradict). As this page is already an obviously contentious and polarized effort, I find such sniping by you not particularly helpful."
I feel I am being extremely polite with Nixwisser/Wine-in-ark quoting Shakespeare. Mario Fantoni 19:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mario and everybody. This is Wine in Ark. Nixwisser is sitting here next to me having his lunch. You see, Wikipedia sockpuppet detector is severely limited. I suppose that since Nixwisser and I are both on the same LAN, we transmit the same IP, and so we appear to Wikipedia as the same person. Well, no way to prove over the internet that there is two of us. But Mario could always come over for lunch and count us. See: one, two.

If anyone used two different internet connections when posting under different names, or even terminated their dialup connection and then dialed-up again, they would never be recognized as the same user. Whereas there can be a local area network connecting to the internet through one modem, and if users are contributors to the Wikipedia and happen to have a similar outlook on the matter, they will be declared sockpuppets. So Nixwisser and I are obviously just a single stupid person who can't even cover up his tracks. Yaay! You win, Mario.

Good luck to this article. And P.S., my name is not Jason either. Wine-in-ark 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wine-in-ark. Thank you for explaining the situation. Let's assume that REDVERS was wrong, that Nixwisser and you are two people sharing the same IP address, and proceed to the mediation. Mario Fantoni 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

About sockpuppets and myself

Dear Aeiou,

Yesterday at 00:33, someone who was finally discovered as a sockpuppeteer, accused me of not being willing to work with the cabal.

I am sorry this page is being used for other than discussing how could the article be improved.

Today, at 20:30, Aeiou again involves me in a cloud of doubts, saying that Mr. Mario Fantoni did not put my name under the possible sockpuppeteers...

Aeiou, if you have any concerns about this, please ask yourself regarding this matter to whoever it might correspond. I never used a double identity, and if you do this research, you will find I am true. I do not want to be unpolite, but trying to disqualify living individuals is not the purpose of Wilkipedia, so please, be sure you are able to explain your reasons before accussing someone. I really hope the mediation people can see this, because by now, it seems to me that it is becoming a very low-level discussion.

Regards, Baby Dove 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did explain my reasons, and I don't care if you are a sock puppet or not. Aeuio 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Aeiou, I am not Baby Dove. You are welcome to do a checkuser on both of us if you wish. The only reason why I didn't include Baby Dove when I did the checkuser on Nixwisser, Veronicapoe, Babycondor, Unicorn144 and Wine-in-ark is because at the time of REDVERS' message about sockpuppetry Baby Dove was not part of the "people who held the high ground in the dispute" (REDVERS' words) - he became part of that group after REDVERS' message. Mario Fantoni 02:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Offer to Mediate

Hello. If the involved parties are still willing, I would be happy to try to help mediate this dispute for you. I generally do not involve myself in editing articles having religious topics (excepting the occasional vandalism revert), so I'm looking at things from the outside. I'm catching up with the page history and talk to figure out exactly where the pain is, and once I have a better idea of what's going on we can start talking.

Are the original requesters for the mediation still willing to work together to improve the article? Coren 03:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Coren. Thank you for your offer to mediate - it is very welcome (and needed). At the moment there is an issue with sockpuppetry (please see above) so I suggest to wait one or two days until the dust settles. On anoher note, I noticed on your user page that you call yourself a "methodoligical naturalist". Since this page is about a religious group, can you please explain what your position is regarding religious topics? Thank you again. Mario Fantoni 05:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, basically, I don't have a position-- this is why I don't edit religious topics. If my philosophical stance makes anyone here unconfortable, I'll leave this particular dispute to someone else. But I tought having someone with no vested interest in (or against) any religious group would be handy. And yes, waiting a few days for the dust to settle (and spirits to cool down) is advisable. I'll check back regularly until everyone feels ready. Coren 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Coren, I am comfortable with your mediation. Thank you for the clarification. Mario Fantoni 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Wecome Coren. I agree with Mario Fantoni. I'm not sure if I qualify as "one of the parties involved" because my edits to date have not been controversial. I hope I will not be out of line if I revert a recent edit back to the previous revert, since it appears we need to wait until the sockpuppetry dust settles.4.246.126.42 11:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello 4.246.126.42. When I suggested to wait until the dust settles, I was referring to the mediation, not to edits. Mario Fantoni 11:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, 4.246.126.42. I don't see you in the history logs - did you edit the page under a different IP or user name? Thanks. Mario Fantoni 11:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Mario. I accidentally posted anonymously. 4.246.126.42 is me. Moon Rising 11:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Moon Rising
Thank you. Please note that the four tildes already add your user name to the signature, so you don't need to type it after them. Mario Fantoni 12:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Coren. It is good to have a mediator. I hope you can calm down the agitated waters, and of course, as a person who tries not to get involved with pages with religious topics, you will be able to see what are the relevant facts for a page about a religious organization, and which are not.

Regards, Baby Dove 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Coren, I would be happy to have someone mediate. In particular I'm interested in the topic of reliable sources. Some editors here (such as Mario) seem to claim that the only reliable source about the organization is the organization's own website. There was a large references section for citations from published works but I see it has been completely deleted as unverified and unreliable. The argument is that these sources are self-published and have not undergone "fact checking". But the sources are members of the organization, writing about the experiences in the organization and about its rules. What kind of external fact checking can be done in such a case? Wine-in-ark 23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I second this claim of what Mario has done. Aeuio 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Fellowship is on top of it. In addition to its official website being considered the only reliable source by some, it is now amending its own website. Just a few days ago its mission was still unwavering: to awaken members and fulfill the aims of higher conscious beings (C influence). This was quoted on Wikipedia, but the Fellowship subsequently amended its own website and took out the reference to higher beings, which was quickly mirrored on Wikipedia. So unfortunately, even the information in the "official" reference source is shrinking. Wine-in-ark 05:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the opinions of the main editors are clear, and it is also evident that several of those opinions are irreconcilable. That is the reason why mediation was requested. If we continue arguing amongst ourselves, time will be lost and the mediation process could be delayed or even aborted. I encourage everybody, mainly Wine-in-ark, Aeiou and Baby Dove, to hold their opinions and accusations and wait for the mediation. Mario Fantoni 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Court Case

I've been pondering this section and all of the reverts that have been done to it. It's pretty clear why some want it and others doesn't. What irks be about the section is not my personal feeling, but rather that it merely states that there was a lawsuit brought.

Then expanding it and provide a npov on the matter. Aeuio 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since anyone can be sued for anything, with or without merit, just saying that a suit has been brought can be defamatory. Since the party is still living, to be a good Wikipedian, it seems better to ere on the side of caution and leave the man's reputation alone.

Really? That's funny, if you see the Rick Ross (consultant) article you will see that even your mentioned kidnapping charge is mentioned, even tough he was declared NON-GUILTY - its there because wikipedia is an encyclopedia and provides this kind of info on nearly every person who has been charged. BTW, it's not wikipedia's job to keep a man's reputation good. Aeuio 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For the heck of it, I just googled Rick Ross and taking just a quick look, found that his site is highly inflammatory, highly biased and appears to be a personal site. There are also multiple google entries about the man himself. He has been actually been convicted of multiple felonies including kidnapping. I question whether he is credible reference for Wikipedia standards.

So now it's ok to believe all the blogs, if you so, then google Robert Burton or fof and see what happens. Of all the negative stuff written about the group, there is nothing on wikipedia - THAT'S RUINING WIKIPEDIA'S CREDIABILITY. Anyways I am putting the other cult consultant who doesn't appear to have as much negative things written about. Aeuio 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If I am incorrect in my assessment of the situation, I'm sure one of the editors will not hesitate to enlighten me. Thank you.Moon Rising 11:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Moon Rising

Since these cases did happen I don't think that they shouldn't be mentioned, as this is an encyclopedia and should include that kind of info. By not mentioning anything about it you are basically telling everyone who reads this page that something like that lawsuit never happed. Why doesn't someone add Robert Burton's explanation on what happened, and expand what really happened in general? This is what is usually done concerning controversies on other wiki article. Aeuio 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you guys do me a favor and stop deleting this under the claim that it shouldn't be put in an encyclopedia. The only reason that it should be delete is if there was something proving that these cases are completely made up. I have restored the court section and attributed another source to it. AND FOR THE LAST TIME - PROVIDE FOF'S OR BURTON'S DEFENCE ON THE MATTER IF YOU FEEL THAT IT'S CURRENTLY POV. Aeuio 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou, there is no need for CAPS - we can hear you. Mario Fantoni 17:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, instead of actually saying anything you'd rather stick tag on the places you that talk negatively about fof and delete them because you wish to advertise fof. Anyways, on Rick Ross site he quotes the lawsuit against [|Burton]: "In fact, Burton manipulated the beliefs and assets of the entire membership in order to satisfy his own "voracious appetite for perverted sexual pleasure and elegant lifestyle... ," the lawsuit alleged." The exact same wording is [|here] "The suit stated the church was a front for Burton’s “voracious appetite for perverted sexual pleasure and elegant lifestyle.” Tell me, did the lawsuit state that fof was for Burtons:
voracious appetite for perverted sexual pleasure and elegant lifestyle
, or is this made up. Aeuio 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio,

You keep using unpublished references consisting in original researches. This are not NPOV, as you claim. Besides, the content is not verifiable; the second site could also be quoting the first one and so on. Also, the last paragraph of your source seems to show that there was finally a set up out of court. This means nobody has been declared guilty of charge, and the very charge has been removed.

Regards, Baby Dove 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's start the mediation process

With the sockpuppetry issue behind us, I suggest to start the mediation process if the other editors agree. Mario Fantoni 07:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. My question was stated above: the issue of reliable sources. Wine-in-ark 16:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but I guess since Coren has introduced himself we should consider that the mediation has already started, not as something in the future. He is probably reading this quite long talk page, and all the reverted items, but he will probably let us know soon what his conclusions are, and how can we help him. My concerns are also the reliable sources, and whether a wilkipage should be used to disqualify individuals or institutions.
Regards, Baby Dove 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I'm a current member of the FOF and intending to remain so as long as the FOF develops in a direction which I feel I can follow. I just want to declare my bias. But I have no problems with the Wikipedia article being neutral and accurate. At the moment it reads like FOF propaganda. Previously it was a mixture of FOF propaganda and anti-FOF propaganda. One issue that must be addressed is the issue of which sources may be used. Via del Sol Journals, Mount Carmel Journals, Renaissance Journals, Fellowship Forums, Renaissance Vines, Thoughts from the Teacher et al were privately published and are held only in private collections and are not available for general reference. The same applies to some other publications, including Girard Haven's Letters to Students, which was privately published for circulation the the FOF and is not generally available. However, the other books published by Ulysses Books may be suitable, as they are available for purchase and often have Library of Congress LOC/CIP data. Girard's books are not self-published: he does not own Ulysses Books, is not a publisher or editor in Ulysses Books and did not pay for the books to be produced or published. So they would seem to be reasonable sources for the article. Other sources would be: newspaper articles, REB's Self-Remembering book, the FOF site, publicly accessible legal documents, academic journal articles, etc. Taking with the Left Hand is a questionable source: it is polemical (not just against the FOF but against Mouravieff and the Enneagram movement too) and badly informed. It is arguably self-published. The same applies to the Gurdjieff Journal. The situation with Patterson/Arete is somewhat similar to Haven/Ulysses, but Haven's works represent primary sources and Patterson's secondary sources. The Rick Ross site seems appropriate when it reproduces newspaper articles, but not when it contains original material. Genuflect 18:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds very reasonable to me. Private publications out, official books available for purchase outside of the FOF with their own ISBN numbers, ok. I have previously quoted form Letters to Students, but let's proceed from the point that it is a private publication. Wine-in-ark 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Genuflect's suggestions with one exception: I couldn't find any other book published by Ulysses Books besides the ones from Mr. Haven, so that may represent a situation similar to the Patterson/Arete case. I will contact Ulysses Books to find out about this and post their reply here. Mario Fantoni 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ulysses website lists Ten Years of Daily Cards by Robert Burton, The Gospel of Thomas by Andrew Phillip Smith, Good-bye My Fancy by Judith Grace. Girard Haven's books are primary sources. They represent the thought of a Fellowship leader at a particular time, and they are publicly accessible. I don't see how there can be any difficulty in using them as Wikipedia sources. Genuflect 01:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Genuflect, you saved me a phone call. I must say that I am still not convinced - I will wait for the mediation to decide. Mario Fantoni 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So I would start by suggesting a few sources that we can agree are reliable. Please add as you like.
1. Self-Remembering by R.E. Burton
2. Creating a Soul by G. Haven
3. The Prize is Eternity by G. Haven
So much for a start. Do we all agree that these three books are OK as sources? Wine-in-ark 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Mario Fantoni 22:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou talk page clean up

Aeiou, I appreciate your help trying to clean this Talk page, but we are entering a mediation and I think it is important to keep all information intact at the moment for the mediator(s) to see the whole picture. Let's wait for the mediator(s) green light to do the cleaning. I am reverting your edits, not because I disagree (I agree with all of them) but for the reason I just mentioned. Thanks. Mario Fantoni 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of "Special language"?

Dear colleagues,

It does not seem relevant to have this section on "Special Language" in the article. Every human group has a language which they share among the members. It usually means nothing for people outside and, unless they are strictly necessary to understand an idea that cannot be expressed otherwise, it is of no general interest. If anybody disagrees, please let me kow; if not, I think it should be removed.

Regards, Baby Dove 18:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


I believe there is also a Wikipedia article called something like "Fourth Way terminology". Defining special terminology is a good and concise way to show which concepts are of particular relevance to a certain group - that they are important enough to create words for them, and that these concepts might not be shared with the general population, which is precisely why they need to be explained if an outside observer is to understand Fellowship texts. FOF terminology is what makes the FOF special and unique. Because much of the terminology is shared with the fourth way, I would suggest moving the more general terms such as self-remembering etc. to the Fourth Way project on Wikipedia, and only keeping the terms that have special or different significance in the Fellowship, e.g. feminine dominance, way of love, lifetimes, photograph, teaching payments, king of clubs, sequence etc. I would recommend placing a link in this section to "See also..." to the article on Fourth Way terminology. Wine-in-ark 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


I think it's convenient for the reader to have the definitions on the same page. The link to the other page might be a nice addition for additional terminology. I was hoping I'd get around to linking words with the article to the "special language section". Now that wine-in-ark mentions it, it might be better to have the section heading read "Fourth Way Terminology". I would suggest removing unsourced definitions though. Moon Rising 21:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Colleagues,

I was referring to all the terms without as source, which are there for some days without anyone taking care of sourcing them, after I found some quoted by Fourth Way authors. I am removing all these, and renaming the section accordingly, as suggested.

Regards, Baby Dove 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice Glossary, Baby Dove - but is there a source? Moon Rising 22:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually did not mean to encourage the glossary to take such proportions. I would suggest only including those terms in the glossary that are specific to the Fellowship, as that is what the article is about, and referring the reader to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fourth_Way_terminology, which can be appropriately expanded with more general Fourth Way terms that are not unique to the Fellowship. But I would really suggest to keep this section limited to FOF-specific terminology. Wine-in-ark 22:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The glossary as it is, is taken from the same organization. It gives a good idea of what does they work in. I do not see why if they made up their own glossary, the reader should be sent to another page to get this information. Moreover, if the glossary gets divided in a general one and a specific one, the description of the organization and their beliefs would be diminished...

About the citation needed tag, Moonrising, I realized once the sent bottom was pushed.

Regards to all, Baby Dove 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you copied this whole glossary directly from a Fellowship webpage, it would be easier to simply refer the reader to that webpage with a link in the section on special language. That would be a welcome addition to the article. However, I'm afraid the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to reproduce entire webpages, but to condense information. I still believe it would make sense to only include terms that are used in a specific way only by the Fellowship and not other fourth-way groups, e.g. feminine dominance, lifetimes, see above. Please consider this. There is lots of room in the Beliefs and practices section to say more about self-remembering and so on. It is just not a term that is exclusive to the FOF. Wine-in-ark 23:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point of having a glossary. As I said before, I believe that a visitor to the FoF page in Wikipedia wants to know:
  • What is the FoF?
  • What is the FoF's history?
  • What are the beliefs of the FoF?
  • Are there controversies regarding the FoF?
  • Where can I find more the information about the FoF?
Why would a visitor that wants some basic (encyclopedic) information about the FoF be interested in the special terms that FoF members use? I am certain that members of the Scientology or the Mormon churches use specific vocabulary, but I don't see a glossary on their Wikipedia articles. Mario Fantoni 22:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

court case

Baby dove, when you wrote "case set up out of court" I assume you meant "settled out of court". The idea that this means the suit never happened is one of the most bizarre legal fantasies since the Supreme Court declared blacks to be "2/3 human". The suit is a matter of public record and is attested to by the LA Times article. This is primary research from an organization legally bound to be able to verify its claims. Leave the RR reference in place also, as this references the full article, rather than just the beginning. If you wish to suggest that Jenifer Warren, the author of the newspaper piece, fabricated it, I suggest you sue her like the Fellowship did. They lost.Nixwisser 22:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said it did not happen. As far as I understand, when something is settled out of court, the accussation is removed, because the one accussing is satisfied with the settlement. And, once again, do not involve me in what you imagine I want to do. I never call this journalist a liar, and I never said whether it happened or not. I do not know, but if the parts were satisfied with the result, I do not see why should I add my own personal oppinions on a private matter.
Regards, Baby Dove 23:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the link Nixwisser. Aeuio 01:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Since the talk page is getting very long, I will archive those old sections that have not been discussed in 2 weeks or more and are not currently issues of debate. I am leaving all content intact. A link to the archives will be provided at the top of the page. Wine-in-ark 22:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wine-in-ark - when summarizing the archive you did, you listed just a few of the many sections that are in the archive. I am wondering if the fact that you placed "suicides" at then end, where it is quite visible, is reflective of your negative viewpoint towards the Fellowship and displays your non-NPOV. Going back into the archives, the section is "Veronica's Suicides" and you already listed "Veronica's Negative Bias". Don't you think it's redundant to add her section on suicides so conspicuously? What's your real agenda? --Moon Rising 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Moon Rising, I don't think that Wine-in-ark had a hidden agenda when he listed some articles of the archive. Anyway, I added a list of ALL the articles next to the archive link at the top of the page to avoid future issues. Mario Fantoni 16:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the glossary and its sharing

Nixwisser,

This is an article on the Fellowship of Friends, not on the Fourth Way. This glossary says how this particular organization uses each entry on it. If the Fourth Way article needs a glossary, it can easily be developed as large as it is needed, and any Fourth Way group can add to it or not, at will. But since they developed this glossary, it should not be changed to show that they say something different.

Regards, Baby Dove 00:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Babydove, I do not think I have said anything on this issue so far, but thanks for thinking of me.Nixwisser 01:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I also saw it is rather long. I can perhaps take away the parts that are less mentioned in the article. Give me some time for this...
Regards, Baby Dove 01:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Baby Dove, I think you are addressing Wine-in-ark's comments, not Nixwisser's. I understand - I get confused myself sometimes. Please see my comment above under "Special Language." Mario Fantoni 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you... it was really a confusion with the names. Sorry Wine in Ark. Regarding the glossary, it was already there, full of Fact tags, so I found the glossary in this page, removing the terms with the citation tag, which has been there for days without anybody trying to get the sources. I guess the reader, in case it already has some information, could find this glossary interesting.

Regards, Baby Dove 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think having a glossary is useful to the reader of this article; the glossary actually expands upon the "Beliefs & Practices" section. Many of the words defined could have their own subsection under "Beliefs and Practices". Using the Glossary format allows for a very brief description of these terms, rather than a full subsection. It's helpful right here on this page where the reader is seeking info on the FOF, rather than being linked to a generic 4th way article or the FOF website. If it's too much info for some readers, they are free to scan down to the next section. I appreciate Baby Dove making an effort to shorten it, but I think he could do a little more. I don't want to arbitrarily take out what I don't think is necessary, but I would suggest removing ISIS, Meetings, Self Observation, and Right and Wrong work of Centers. Baby Dove, why don't you see if you can pare this down a bit more - use my suggestions, or select your own. Or leave it the way it is if you really feel it's beneficial. Just my opinion.4.246.126.53 08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC) I am sorry - I was not signed in when I left my last post; I didn't mean to be anonymous. Moon Rising 08:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Moon Rising,
I guess that Isis or Meetings might be removed,since the interested reader would find it out in the FOF page, I guess. Regarding self-observation, as it is the first kind of work someone tends to do, it might be useful to keep it becasuse it says that it is a way of self-remembering, which is what the Fellowship of Friends says it encourages in members. Finally, the wrong work of centers puts an example that I could see by myself: "becoming emotional when balancing a checkbook!" So, I think it is useful here...
Regards, Baby Dove 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation in progress

Alright. Let me get the ball rolling here by summarizing what I think is the primary point of contention: use of self-published statements by (former?) members of FoF about FoF which, I suppose, contradict or nuance what the organization's website says about itself. Am I right in interpreting this as the focus of the dispute?

Now, I've been re-reading Wikipedia:Verifiability, and we're sitting in a very gray area. In both cases, we are discussing not only primary sources, but self-published sources which must always be taken with a grain of salt. Regardless of the claims made by either, expounding either in an encyclopedia is touchy at best. But it's might still be usable. Quoting from the policy:

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

Now, without delving into the facts at issue, I think we can all agree that the first and last point are not an issue (I can find no claim that the proposes non-FoF sources were not from who they claimed to be).

There are, however, obvious points of contention and an argument can always be made that any self-published source (especially public relation material as the FoF's) is self-serving. The question remains on whether it is unduly self-serving.

As a starting point, I'm certain we can take the FoF's claim about their philosophical position at face value. Those can safely be included in the article (although I have seen arguments that Fourth Way, having its own article, would best be summarized in relation to FoF and then given a reference to the article. Those seem reasonable).

Historical information about FoF is, likewise, unlikely to be especially contentious and could be sourced from the organization's website primarily.

However, I would suggest that when a third party source makes a claim that objects to, or otherwise contradicts specific points of FoF's own material, we need to take both of them with an industrial-grade grain of salt-- they are both self-published primary sources and of equal value in the eyes of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV requires us to not take side in such a debate unless a verifiable secondary source can be found. In my opinion, that means that we either include both (risking a potential mudfight) or include neither.

Also, be careful about setting up a controversies or critique section-- those tend to invite edit wars. Given that almost all the material going into the article comes from primary sources, it's better in general to avoid putting controversial statements in the article in the first place rather than counter them later. Arguably, you can (and indeed should) still do that if the controversy itself is notable, or central to the essence of the article.

That's a good starting point.

A strictly stylistic critique, however: the article as it stands is IMO overly verbose and hard to comprehend in the first place. I got a mild headache reading it.  :-) Let's try to be a bit more encyclopedic and summarize, pointing at relevant resources when appropriate (the bit about Fourth Way above is one such change I'd recommend. The glossary, IMO, has got to go. It could deserve a separate page if usage of the terminology specific to the FoF was sufficiently notable on its own, such as used in mainstream media or secondary sources about the FoF. Coren 04:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, By the Way, I am not going to edit the article myself, and I would recommend that no edits are done to the actual article itself while we discuss things. Maybe we can set up a talk subpage with drafts? While being bold is usually a good thing, everyone is likely to be served better by reaching concensus before acting when a dispute is in progress. Coren 04:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Coren and Editors - does anyone know how to set up the talk subpage for drafts that Coren mentions? I'm continuing to make some non-controversial edits until this page is set up. I'd do it myself but I don't know how. Thank you all for your help. --4.246.251.123 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've went ahead and made one right here, which you can use. Subpages are like articles: you just edit the page that isn't there yet and it will be. Coren 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, one more thought: I think it's a dangerous path to walk on when you start including information about members of an organization in the article about the organization. While it could be argued that the credibility of prominent members of the organization reflect on the organization itself (especially if founding members are involved), such an argument does not belong in the article unless it comes from a verifiable secondary source. There are a few very good reasons for that:

  • It invites edit wars as defenders of the organization feel obligated to "balance" it;
  • It's against policy (and guidelines); and
  • It makes for a poor article. Mud slinging is never appropriate.

If you can source criticism of the organization, then it might belong in the article to maintain neutrality-- but the leap from criticism of members to criticism of the whole is not one encyclopedia editors should be making. The bit in [draft subpage (permanent link)] is a good example of things to avoid. Even if what is claimed is perfectly true, unless that prediction was made or endorsed by the FoF, or was used to critique the FoF for a reliable secondary source, it should not be included. (Coren 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC) a posteriori)

Coren, is the paragraph above from you? It has no signature. Mario Fantoni 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is; the signature was on the paragraph below and got separated by the response from Aeuio. With a few lines it was still obvious but not after replies over replies.  :-) Coren 13:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
From what I know (and its not much as I didn't read this book), that claim in Girard's book was made by Robert Burton? (if I am wrong someone correct me) Aeuio 01:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I just did a google search on this and it seems that Burton made this claim (again not sure) Aeuio 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It's still a fairly dangerous leap to make from here to there. Is this a tenet of the FoF, or was this Robert Burton's personal prediction? In the latter case, it would almost certainly be better to include that information on a page about him rather than the FoF's. I'm not going to say you might have a POV, Aeuio, but I think I can feel a desire to temper the FoF's description with critique. This is not inappropriate per se, but you have to be careful to keep it relevant to the organization itself. Coren 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
About the POV, you are right, everyone here (+me) is either only willing to advertise or critique the organization, and this is according to personal beliefs in nearly everyone's case. As for critique on this |here it says that "Burton has predicted a coming Armageddon, in which only Fellowship members will survive, and will be solely responsible for carrying on with civilization. The rest of "life" will be "expunged" according to Burton." I am waiting for someone to disprove/approve this claim as I don't know, and I agree that this might fit better under his article rather than here. Aeuio 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The court case is a fairly good counterexample. It affects the organization itself (since it was named in the suit). The small paragraph on it could use (a) more (better?) sources and (b) a bit of a rewrite to avoid the (IMO) POV tone. Coren 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a question of procedural preference? Are you expecting me to give a specific "thumbs up or down" on the different points of contention on the talk page (sections discussing specific sources, for instance)? I could do that (if you remember I'm just giving and outsider's opinion) or keep discussing basic principles and let you work it out from there. I'll only jump into the specific threads if there is consensus that this is what I should do. I'm here to help discuss, not bring down pronouncements from on high.  :-) Coren 01:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Coren's question about the procedural preference, I suggest an initial phase in which Coren talks to the different editors and understands positions, explains Wikipedia's policies, gives advice, etc., and a second phase in which Coren expresses specific "thumbs up or down" to the contentious areas that remained after the initial phase. Mario Fantoni 02:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Coren, I would like to add a few things regarding sources. The books that were written by members such as G. Haven, G. Mueller, R. Burton, are in no way negative towards the FoF. These people are still current members and there is no reasonable doubt that they are lying in their books. They do add information about beliefs and practices that is not publicly advertised on the FoF main website. However, absence of information on the FoF website by itself does not mean that the books are in contradiction with the FoF.

I agree with summarizing and making the article shorter by not repeating information that belongs in a more general Fourth Way article.

As for the prediction about Armageddon in 2006. Coren says that this is something to avoid unless it is a prediction made or endorsed by the FoF. Here I ask myself - WHO IS THE FOF? If Girard Haven reports in his book that the Teacher Robert Burton made that prediction, which became part of the form of the organization and members were living to prepare for that day and organize their lives with Armageddon in mind, does that constitute "endorsed by the FoF"? (I'm asking Coren) You see, it is difficult to separate Robert Burton and FoF, because the tenets of the organization are what he says are the tenets. He dictates policy and creates tradition. This is different from say Buddhism where you have the doctrine and then separately you have individual lamas who say things. In the FoF, Robert Burton is the supreme authority who creates and directs the teaching that is the Fellowship of Friends, and when he makes personal pronouncements they are taught to members.

I also agree with Mario's suggestion above that we first use Coren to explain policies and give advice, and in the second stage to give a specific thumbs up or down. Wine-in-ark 16:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, on April 24 at 7:44, Girard Haven's Creating a Soul is an essay on the work, the way it is seen by the organization the article is about. At page 487 there is an article describing "The Fellowship Community", and at page 490 there is another article named "Armageddon: The 'birth' of humanity. And as a subtitle, '"Speculation", December 1987' So, as this says, he speculates on an Armageddon. Moreover, at page 2 the book says: 'This document is to be used for study purposes of members of the Fellowship of Friends only.' This introduces a relevant clue, because quoting this issue may not satisfy the author's expectations regarding the reader he is addressing to.
Regards, Baby Dove 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Way Transmission

Dear Tzvarnoharno - I've done some minor cleanup to your post under 4.1 Fourth Way Transmission. I could not figure out what the word "clamant" is supposed to be. It's the 3rd word in your post. Would you correct this?

Would you please also add a page reference for James Morris' book. In addition to helping others who read this article, I have that book and would like to read this section.

To try to maintain Wikipedia's high standards, please try to use capitalization, correct spacing and grammar when adding text and references.

Thank you for your consideration, Moon Rising 07:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the complete quote from Ouspensky is:
Q. You said that one can learn how to escape only from those who have escaped before?
A. Quite right—in the allegory of prison. And this means a school can only start from another school. This system can have value only if it comes from higher mind. If we have reason to believe that it only comes from an ordinary mind, like ours, it can have no value and we cannot expect anything from it. Then better sit down and write your own system.
The current text: "And this means a school can only start from another school." is an excerpt taken out of context. Mario Fantoni 09:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This section has been moved to the new mediation draft page for more complete citation and NPOV

Belief and Practices - Fourth Way

First, please pardon me for not starting a separate discussion page for mediation. This belongs there, but I don't know how to do this. If someone creates such a page, please move this if possible.

I removed the statement: The Fellowship of Friends incorporates into its belief structure information that comes from G. I. Gurdjieff which is classed under the name "Fourth Way." The link to the Wikipedia article on the Fourth Way makes clear that in the view of the author(s), the only true Fourth Way system was taugth by Gurdjieff. To link the FOF article to the Fourth Way article, in effect, negates the Fellowship article in its entirety, as it is not lead by Gurdjieff. As such, it seems to imply that the FOF article should be deleted, as it is not a "true" Fourth Way school.

On the other hand, the FOF's teaching is substantially different than that of Gurdjieff and draws on many sources, as the edit indicates. The reference to the FOF newsletters will give the reader an insight into the FOF beliefs more accurately than an the Fourth Way article that states, in a rather non NPOV way that only Gurdjieff's teaching is the true Fourth Way.--Moon Rising 11:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think pointing at Fourth Way and simply noting the difference, where applicable, would be best for a few reasons:
  • It's probably best to avoid letting the article sprawl into a manifesto. Explaining the basic tenets of a religious group is very relevant to an encyclopedia article. Enumerating fine detail of dogma probably is not, unless those happen to be independently notable.
  • The fact that the other article Fourth Way might need editing help should not affect editing decisions in this one.
  • Pointing a the source the FoF draws upon and stating the differences is probably more informative to the reader than drowning the significance of those differences.
As usual, this is opinion. Consume as desired. Not to be used internally. Coren 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This might be true if the major editors of the Fourth Way article were more flexible about edits. They are rigid in their definition of the Fourth Way to exclude anyone's interpretation other than Gurdjieff's, and, theoretically, Ouspensky. ALL of the information in the article is directly from Gurdjieff. There are many other proponents of the Fourth Way which are not allowed. PERIOD. This makes the article very one sided. While the main editor says that information from Ouspensky is allowed (see discussion page) a new article was started specifically for Ouspensky's book, the Fourth Way, to separate it from Gurdjieff's Fourth Way page. This page is not informative about Ouspensky's teaching, which is different from Gurdjieff's. The differences between the 2 articles (FOF and 4th Way) in the description of the Fourth Way are significant enough to make this an unacceptable solution, in my opinion. Another alternative would be to reach a consensus about shortening and better organizing this article.--Moon Rising 21:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments from Aeiou:
This might be true if the major editors of the Fourth Way article were more flexible about edits. They are rigid in their definition of the Fourth Way to exclude anyone's interpretation other than Gurdjieff's, and, theoretically, Ouspensky. ALL of the information in the article is directly from Gurdjieff.
I said Ouspensky is fine? Don't twist things. Aeuio 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There are many other proponents of the Fourth Way which are not allowed. PERIOD. This makes the article very one sided. While the main editor says that information from Ouspensky is allowed (see discussion page) a new article was started specifically for Ouspensky's book, the Fourth Way, to separate it from Gurdjieff's Fourth Way page. This page is not informative about Ouspensky's teaching, which is different from Gurdjieff's.
No it hasn't. "Fourth Way" is the name of Gurdjieff's teaching, and there is an article on the "Fourth Way" - as in Ouspensky's book. And this wasn't started to separate the two, it was done so to clear up the two same names. And now what? You have a problem with the book having its own article like every other book? Aeuio 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The differences between the 2 articles (FOF and 4th Way) in the description of the Fourth Way are significant enough to make this an unacceptable solution, in my opinion.
Now that I think about it, the entire teaching from this article is from Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous. And I mean nearly everything. So I will take your advise and add a lot of it to the Fourth Way article as it Ouspensky. Aeuio 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have began a transfer of the teachings which were documented in Ouspensky's book. I left the well written part, while I shortened some other parts for clarity. Aeuio 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I copied Moon Rising's text with Aeiou's comments below Moon Rising's original posting for more clarity. I encourage editors not to insert their comments in the middle of other editor's messages. The person that wrote the initial message had a point to make and the message shows their rationale. If we start inserting comments in the middle, the logic of the original message becomes fuzzy. Mario Fantoni 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Court Reference

Superior Court of California, County of Yuba, Case # 060209, filed on 04/29/1996 - Is there any way to verify this? I would guess |here, Mario do you have a membership here or do you know another way to verify this? Aeuio 02:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aeiou. Because the case was settled out of court, the court records are not available for public view. I getting in contact with the lawyers to get a copy. I will keep you posted. Mario Fantoni 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If the info that you added is in documented in the court case, then I have no problem with it. But I am confused as how this would be verified by everyone, because as I see this, you will be the only one in possession of those files and no one else could say whether you are telling the truth or not. (Baby Dove also said below that he has never seen this and that it can't be found on any site) Aeuio 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mario - I went on the assumption that you were quoting from publicly available court documents. If those documents were sealed as part of the settlement process, not only is that information not permissible on the Wikipedia article, you and whoever made that information accessible to you might be in violation of the law. Even if they were not formally sealed as part of some sort of gag order, if they are not publicly accessible, they are not valid sources for the article. If you do not already have a copy, your information can only be original research. Please clarify. Nixwisser
Nix, I assumed that since you edited that section, that maybe that court case file this might be an obtainable source. Seeing your comment I went to delete the claim and the reference in the original article because this in no way is acceptable source. Aeuio 00:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Mario, have you had any luck tracking down copies of the original Complaint and Response from the lawyers? If not, can the unsupported statements about the court case tagged with "citation needed" be deleted? Babycondor 15:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cathie. I found out that the lawyers don't have a copy and that the Yuba City court doesn't have an on-line service to obtain information about cases (it is a very small courthouse). The only way to get information is to actually visit the court and ask for a copy. I am working on that. Mario Fantoni 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

content/choice/founder/member

Thanks Coren for all your work so far. I would agree that material strictly about a member seems out of the scope of what should be on the main FOF page. There have been several members that left and went on to form groups of their own. Their history is relevant, but should be a single line reference which links to a separate page detailing their histories, if an editor has enough information and sources for such. At the same time, we need to understand that R.E. Burton is not a "member"; he is the founder, single and still leader of the organization. There is almost no aspect of the history, form, beliefs and practices of the organization that has not come either entirely from him or from his interpretation of other sources (Fourth Way, Sufis etc.) There simply is no such thing as "endorsed by the FOF" as distinct from "endorsed by R.E. Burton". Nearly anything about his history that can be sourced is relevant to this article. Repeated accusations of sexual and financial impropriety have dogged Mr. Burton for at least 20 years from very many former members. Most of these accusations, not being properly documented, cannot be referenced in the article itself, but certainly should serve as a framework of reference for editors in determining the relevancy of any such information/accusation that is documented, such as the court case currently in the article. Currently, there is very little information that can be sourced, so neither is there a basis for a separate page concerning R. E. Burton, nor any valid concern that the little information that can be sourced would excessively lengthen this article.

Many of the edits made on the basis of "relevancy" concern the relevancy of the information to the current form of the organization. That form is changing rapidly at this point. Fairly fundamental aspects of the beliefs of the organization, as represented by its own website, have changed and those changes have been reflected in the FOF's own webpages within the very short period of the existence of this Wikipedia article. It is certainly legitimate to outline the current central tenets/beliefs of the organization, and to lean heavily (though not necessarily exclusively) on the FOF webpages in doing so. It is just as legitimate to place that current picture in the context of the development of the organization's tenets and beliefs over the years. Very many of the edits made clearly have the aim of erasing any sense of the development and history of the organization. A case in point concerns the predictions Mr. Burton made for events in 1984,1987,1998 and 2006. How central these are or were to the members is a matter of opinion. If it were permissible to quote from the privately published materials circulated among members, one would find references to them on an almost daily basis by R.E. Burton between 1975 and 1998. My experience also is that the predictions played a very central role in the development, values and focus of the school. Which of the current beliefs require explanation on the page is equally a matter of opinion. I personally find that section excessive and over-inclusive, but that opinion is not sufficient justification to drop the entire section.

As to the glossary, a lot of work has gone into that already, so I do not think it necessary to simply delete the section, but I agree with Coren that it is a too much for the main page. A 2 line preface about the existence of certain special terminology ending with a link to a separate Wiki article (or subpage- however it works) with the glossary would work well, and would make moot any question of overlap with the Fourth Way page. Nixwisser 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

hidden information regarding Court Cases and other negative contributions

Thank you Coren for your efforts. This looks to me as when a couple divorces and suddenly they start accusing each other with the sole purpose of taking the biggest part of the common belongings. Then, they both go to Court and argue whatever at hand to get a balance in their favor.

In the present version of the Court Cases, someone has brought the files of the case, and new information appears:

"The leader of the Fellowship of Friends, Robert Earl Burton, was sued in 1996 by a former member of the organization over charges of non-consensual sex, sex with a minor, and brainwashing. Robert E. Burton and the Fellowship of Friends denied every allegation. 'In the course of the lawsuit, the plaintiff admitted that he had no facts to support the claim of sex with a minor. There was no proof of brainwashing since the plaintiff's father was the leading advocate for the plaintiff to join the organization and gave his consent. There was also no proof that the plaintiff was coerced into any sexual activity.'The case was settled out of court." All this is sourced as [Superior Court of California, County of Yuba, Case # 060209, filed on 04/29/1996].

I do not know what personal information might Nixwisser have, but this case was also quoted by some of the cult-busters frequently quoted in the article, who said nothing regarding this part of the files.

Then, the "prediction" staff appears. As recognized in the Rewrite page, the last one trying to bring this information quoted a book by a prominent member of the Fellowship he did not read.

Nixwisser says these predictions were a relevant part of the organization between 1975 and 1998, and this is what reminds me of all this divorce examples I said before. And he immnediately says the proof is self-published material from the organization.

Of course, this cannot be quoted, and it is not by chance that this is not so. They are private stuff, and, whatever they say, it seems they do not bother other members. Insisting in talking about these private affairs might even disqualify all active members in the organization.

Regards, Baby Dove 08:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Babycondor: you can't use a blog as a reference

Hi Babycondor, welcome back. Please note that you can't use a blog as a reference in the article since anybody can write whatever they want on a blog without any formal review process. Wikipedia's policies about reliable sources and, specifically, self-published sources are very precise: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Mario Fantoni 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Babycondor, please be aware that there is a mediation in progress and the mediator suggested for all controversial edits to be done in this rewrite page. Mario Fantoni 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

About the Rickross site

His observations to qualify the Fellowship of friends are based on a different interpretation of what could not be proved in court by the plaintiff, according to what is said about the case records. Baby Dove 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true if those records could be verified somehow - since no one has them or seen them - and you even said above that you never seen this. Aeuio 19:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Parallel discussions

I understand that Coren created the draft rewrite page for us to show changes to other editors in a draft form before we implement them to the article. If we start discussing those changes on the draft rewrite page, as is happening now, we will have 2 discussion pages (this one and the draft rewrite) and it will be very difficult to follow what is going on. My suggestion is to keep the draft rewrite page for the suggested changes and to have all the exchanges between editors only on this page. What do you think? Coren, can you help? Mario Fantoni 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree. While there is something to be said for keeping the argument close to the proposed change, it just makes it more likely that someone overlooks one or the other. It would be easier to keep all the discussion on this talk page instead and refer to the subpage for the actual proposed text.
In fact, an "ideal" result of the whole discussion would have the subpage ending up looking like a complete article everyone agrees on that can then be moved to the main article (yet another reason to keep changes to the actual article to a minimum in the meantime). Coren 19:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How Does Mediation Work?

After reading this page and the article after the Draft/Rewrite page was created, I am wondering what the purpose of mediation is about. I thought that this page would be fairly silent and that the discussions would move to the new page. The Rewrite page is woefully underused, IMHO. New controversial material continues to be added directly to the article.

Is the purpose of this discussion page a place for those with a negative bias toward the Fellowship of Friends to say whatever they want that they know will never be allowed in an article because there is no reliable source? Is a Wikipedia article discussion page meant to be a place to insert material that would never be allowed in the article, because the editor is frustrated that he/she cannot find such a source? Is this the place for long unsubstantiated essays? Does "anything go" here?

And if one chooses to write an essay during mediation, does that belong here, or on the Draft page. I thought mediation was a cool off period. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't there are better way to cool off than to write here what you can't write in an article"

What's the point of mediation if editors choose not to participate?

I searched Wikipedia for answers to these questions but found none. Coren - do you have an answer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moon Rising (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Informal mediation (what we are involved in) is a process where we're just trying to talk in order to reach consensus on what is the best way to proceed in order that we reach an article everyone is satisfied with. There are no set procedures, or fixed methods. I suggested the subpage so that drafts can be placed and modified without messing up with the main article-- the actual discussion should normally proceed here. The point is that the text in the subpage will, eventually, be moved to the actual article so what goes there should be "article-grade" not "talk page-grade". Coren 19:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So Coren, would the best next step be to copy the discussion from the Draft page and paste it here, and then copy the article and paste it to the Draft page, which is now filled with a lot of discussion because we didn't know what we were doing? Would it make sense to block the article from edits so that changes are only made on the draft page? In the future, I will try to refrain from editing when I'm TOO tired not to make tpyos (or sign my edits).--Moon Rising 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Protecting the article would not be appropriate-- this is a measure that should really be reserved only in cases of virulent edit wars (everyone here is civilized enough to not do that right now) or recurring vandalism. However, I'll place a nice, pretty tag (I think there's a template for that around somewhere) on the page suggesting reference here and to the subpage rather than just editing the page outright. If we keep an eye on the article history this should do the trick.
And yes, the copies/move you suggested would be appropriate. I'll handle tagging the main article. Coren 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This section moved from the draft page

By me. Coren 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This spot for drafts.

False Prediction

Armageddon

Girard Haven, a prominent member, noted in book "Creating a Soul" that civilisation will be destroyed in 2006 by worldwide nuclear war. Isis will survive this catastrophe and form the seed of a new civilization.

Aeuio:

Mr Gurdjieff had a friend who was born in Saturn; he talks about him more than once in "Tales from Beelzebub to his Grandsons."

Well thanks for showing me how you read a book. If you can source a page where Gurdjieff claims that he had a friend that was born on Saturn, I'll be very surprised and will even write this under the criticism section in the Gurdjieff's article. Or if you need help in understanding how fiction characters are invented, then look up fiction characters on wikipedia and try to understand. Lastly, if you are trying to tell me that Girard's book is written in a form of a fiction and that he writes from a fiction character's point of view, then accept my apologies as I was unaware. (Note that I realize what you were really trying to say, but I had to reply this way because I don't think that Coren would know the situation never mind I though he was trying to show me how things could be taken out of context, but it seems that's not the case) Aeuio 01:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not spoil his page with this silly comment just to disqualify him. Mr Haven starts his book by saying "Neither this book, nor anything in it, is the answer. The answer is work, and the states it creates". (page 5). It is a pity you cannot see that many things can sound weird when taken out of context. Baby Dove 00:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's really taken out of context that much then provide the sentences from the book right before the claim, and the sentences right after the claim; or explain how it is taken out of content and what Girard meant to say, and this wont be an issue.(PS I didn't read the book so I wouldn't know this) Aeuio 01:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Aeuio's False Prediction

Aeuio:

Please, do not cut other's phrases; answer them below. Thank you.

Regarding Gurdjieff, though I know that you have surely read it, for the sake of Coren I tell you he says: "During the period I am speaking of, I visited most of the planets of that solar system, those already populated and those still unpopulated." "Personally I liked best of all the three-centered beings dwelling on the planet 'Saturn ' Their outer form is quite unlike ours, resembling that of the bird-being, 'raven. '"Baby Dove 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That was written through Beelzebub's point of view no Gurdjieff's. Where it says "is quite unlike ours" he means unlike the Beelzebub's tribe people, not us. Aeuio 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is on page 89, under Chapter 10 "Why men are not men." Then, on page 90 he writes "The verbal intercourse of these raven-beings of the planet Saturn is somewhat like our own. But their way of speaking is the most beautiful I have ever heard."Baby Dove 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again "like our own" those are Beelzebub's words. Aeuio 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On Chapter 17 "The arch-absurd: According to the assertion of Beelzebub, our sun neither lights nor heats", at pages 140/141 he says: "However, it was not on the planet Earth that I was an eyewitness to these experiments, nor did your favorites conduct them. They were carried out on the planet Saturn by that three-brained being who, during almost the whole period of my exile in that solar system, was my real friend, about whom I recently promised to tell you in more detail."Baby Dove 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is only to show that the Saturn friend is quoted there.Baby Dove 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what fictional characters are? Did you skip the part in the beginning where Gurdjieff says that he chose Beelzebub as his main character? I can't believe you actually made this mistake. This is the same as me saying Shakespeare had a friend called Julia based on the fact that in his book it says "I saw Julia". Don't even bother me with this nonsense as you don't even know the difference between fiction and first-person non-fiction. Aeuio 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Mr. Haven's book, it would be good for you to read it completely before quoting whatever phrase you think it would fit your point in a discussion. This book is basically dedicated to members of the Fellowship of Friends, who can have a more complete opinion on the subjects that are addressed there.Baby Dove 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not as stupid as to think that Mr. Gurdjieff was seriously considering that these raven-beings were actually living in this apparently gaseous planet, more similar to a small sun than to a planet as the earth, So, as I said, I would not bring this to a Gurdjieff page just to disqualify him. I consider it a fiction. However, once I know I am reading fiction, I can also consider that it might involve many fictional elements, and I would take care of being literal regarding other information in the book.Baby Dove 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

These are two different styles of books. Aeuio 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that Mr. Haven work is a fiction. It is an essay on the work as it is seen by the organization the article is about. At page 487 there is an article describing "The Fellowship Community", and at page 490 there is another article named "Armageddon: The 'birth' of humanity. And as a subtitle, '"Speculation", December 1987'Baby Dove 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There, he takes Rodney Collin's Theories about time and goes on with his own speculation on how things can be seen from a given moment in time backwards, to explain how many events lead to a given end.

The part you quote is obviously only meaningful for members sharing a given belief, in pretty much the same way than Catholics believe that a man was engendered without a physical father.

I repeat: before quoting a book, next time try to read it (or was even the quote suggested to you?).

Regards, Baby Dove 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So instead of showing me how this was taken out of context as I asked, you affirm the claim and tell me that I wouldn't understand? Good one Baby Dove Aeuio 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: About the purpose of Mr. Haven's book, at page 2 it states: 'This document is to be used for study purposes of members of the Fellowship of Friends only.'

Baby Dove 15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Aeuio 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio:

As far as I understand, it means it cannot be quoted without having this in mind.

About my suggestion regarding not interrupting the flow of other's contributions, it becomes hard to know who say what when there are several interruptions. Besides, I personally feel as if an answer is produced before knowing what the other person was actually saying, but I might be wrong.

Regards, Baby Dove 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked for a clarification of what's the real meaning of Burton's claim because you pointed out that it was taken out of context. This document is to be used for study purposes of members of the Fellowship of Friends only - doesn't prove that it was taken out of context at all. Like I said - If it's really taken out of context that much then provide the sentences from the book right before the claim, and the sentences right after the claim; or explain how it is taken out of content and what Burton meant to say. Aeuio 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Way Transmission

Altogether more clamant and problematical are the movements and literatures adhering firstly to pupils whose spiritual itineraries diverged, and secondly to implicit and explicit pretenders to Gurdjieff's mantle (Idries Shah, E.J.Gold, Robert Burton, Gary Chicoine, etc) who in fact never met him. [1]

While, when Ouspensky was asked,"You said that one can learn how to escape only from those who have escaped before?". He replied "Quite right—in the allegory of prison. And this means a school can only start from another school. This system can have value only if it comes from higher mind. If we have reason to believe that it only comes from an ordinary mind, like ours, it can have no value and we cannot expect anything from it. Then better sit down and write your own system. " [2]

This "proper school forming" goes into contradiction with the fact that Robert Burton studied for only a year and a half under Alex Horn (student of a student of Gurdjieff), and then he left and opened his own school because he "realizing that Mr. Horn’s teaching methods were no longer serving his aim." [2][citation needed] After that he claims to have become conscious and crystallized higher centers, apparently without a teacher as he was the teacher of his school. [3]

I have move the section "Fourth Way Transmission" to this page for discussion.

  • Previously on the discussion page I asked for page references for the first paragraph. That request has not been answered. I searched the index for this book and could not find anything under the names mentioned, nor for pretenders to Gurdjieff's mantle. It's a long book and I'd like to read this section. I hope this is a reasonable request in Wikipedia; I'm still a newbie.
  • The final paragraph refers to 2 pages in the FOF website. The text as written shows a high level of bias and a bit of sarcasm. Can this be edited to be less subjective. Direct quotes from the web site would be most accurate. Thank you for your consideration.

The quote from "Anatomy of a Myth" is on page 370. The word "clament" is a correct quote, but I also can find no definition or instance of this word, so I assume it is a typo in the book. This section of "transmission" seems a good example of what Coren described as needing to include both sides or omit the section. The version of transmission according to the FOF webpages cited above clash radically with both published and commonly known facts. While those webpages seem a valid reference for the organization's current beliefs, when it strays into the realm of the "real world" (names, dates, places, events) then it is not particularly more reliable or viable than original research in the "FOF blog". The FOF pages claim Horn was a student of Lord Pentland. The Gurdjieff Foundation in New York has confirmed this is false. They also describe Lord Pentland as as student of Ouspensky, which I think the Gurdjieff Foundation would also find an amusing slant of omission on him. He was a pupil of Ouspensky, but his forty years of work with the Gurdjieff Foundation certainly implies that Gurdjieff was by far his primary influence. Nixwisser 21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this stuff out. Aeuio 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Glossary reduction

Here is a reduced glossary, including only the relevant text for what is quoted so far in he article:

BEING PRESENT: The practice of paying attention to one's immediate environment, both externally and internally, without IMAGINATION or IDENTIFICATION. [4]

CONSCIOUSNESS: The ability to use attention to be aware. Consciousness can be measured in terms of what one is aware of, how long that awareness can be sustained, and how deep or profound the awareness is. [5]

DIVIDED ATTENTION: An intentional effort to be aware of two or more things simultaneously, in contrast with IDENTIFICATION, in which attention is focused on only one thing. More specifically, divided attention sometimes refers to SELF-REMEMBERING seen as an effort to be simultaneously aware of one's environment and of oneself within that environment. [6]

FIRST STATE: The state of CONSCIOUSNESS ordinarily called sleep. [7]

FOUR LOWER CENTERS: The INSTINCTIVE, MOVING, EMOTIONAL and INTELLECTUAL CENTERS. [8]

FOURTH STATE: A state of higher CONSCIOUSNESS in which a person can be objective both about himself and the world around him. It is associated with the functioning of the higher intellectual center.[9]

HIGHER CENTERS: The higher emotional and higher intellectual centers. The higher emotional center is capable of perceiving the connectedness of all things and is the seat of conscious love and compassion. The higher intellectual center perceives the laws which govern all things and is the seat of conscious wisdom. [10]

HIGHER EMOTIONAL CENTER: The level of presence experienced in the third state of consciousness. The higher emotional center has a feminine hue that may be evoked inadvertently by the gentle shock of out-of-patterns experiences, unexpected impressions, and natural beauty. As a result of work on oneself, it may be evoked consciously by WORK ‘I’s that promote presence through DIVIDED ATTENTION. ESSENCE aware of itself transforms into the higher emotional center.

I's: The fragmented and short-lived thoughts, emotions, movements, and sensations which one experiences as an expression of oneself in the moment. Tens of thousands of ‘I’s mechanically displace each other every few seconds, creating in man the illusion of a single and permanent ‘I’. All these ‘I’s are manifestations of the four LOWER CENTERS. [11]

LOWER CENTERS: The INSTINCTIVE, MOVING, EMOTIONAL and INTELLECTUAL CENTERS, sometimes together with the SEX CENTER. [12]

NEGATIVE EMOTIONS: Any of the emotions, such as anger, jealousy, indignation, self-pity, and boredom, which are negative in character. They prevent people from seeing and accepting their situation objectively. Because negative emotions are always based on IMAGINATION and IDENTIFICATION, it is possible to eliminate them through long, hard work on oneself, and this is one of the major emphases of Robert Burton's teaching. [13]

SECOND STATE: The ordinary state of CONSCIOUSNESS of most people, in which they act and react with little or no awareness of themselves, that is, without SELF-REMEMBERING. For this reason it is called "sleep." [14]

SELF, THE: HIGHER CENTERS, particularly as seen from the point of view of their independence of anything external to them. [15]

SELF-REMEMBERING: The practice of bringing a sense of one's presence or existence into the moment; being aware of oneself as well as of what one is doing or experiencing. Robert Burton has made self-remembering the central idea of his teaching, and speaks of such disciplines as SEPARATION, DIVIDED ATTENTION, and BEING PRESENT as aspects of self-remembering. [16]

SLEEP: The second state of CONSCIOUSNESS in which the four LOWER CENTERS function with little or no awareness, and without SELF-REMEMBERING. [17]

STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS: A man's degree of CONSCIOUSNESS in a particular moment, generally measured in terms of the FIRST, SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH STATES. [18] THIRD STATE: A state of CONSCIOUSNESS, induced by efforts of SELF-REMEMBERING, in which a man SEPARATES from his personality and observes himself objectively. It is characterized by self-awareness and an absence of IDENTIFICATION and IMAGINATION, but lacks the ability to be fully objective about the external world. [19]

TRANSFORMATION OF NEGATIVE EMOTIONS: The practice of turning a NEGATIVE EMOTION into a POSITIVE EMOTION. It begins with the effort of SEPARATING from the negative emotion by not expressing or justifying it, and then involves intentionally choosing to experience the cause of the negative emotion in a way which evokes understanding rather than negativity. For example, if one is reacting negatively to a rainstorm, one might instead cause oneself to look at the rain from the point of view of the good it does. [20]

TRANSFORMATION OF SUFFERING: The practice of SEPARATING from suffering and experiencing it in such a way that it can be accepted freely and without NEGATIVITY. In its highest expression, transformation involves the activity of HIGHER CENTERS and leads to powerful experiences of increased CONSCIOUSNESS. [21]

WORK 'I'S: 'I's which remind a person to make efforts to further his work to awaken. [22]

I guess other words were not necessary so far. Regards, Baby Dove 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reports by Former Members

Following the mediator's suggestion, this has been moved here:

A number of former members of the Fellowship of Friends have reported that Robert Earl Burton used his position of authority to obtain sexual favors from them.[3]

A number of former members and outside observers have noted similarities between the Fellowship of Friends and other cult-like organizations. [4],[5]

Regarding WP policies, blogs are not accepted as sources, because they are original research.
Regards, Baby Dove 17:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


The first quotation uses a blog for a reference. Wikipedia's policy on blogs: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The second quotation is from a website which has been questioned as a reliable source; I do not recall if this dispute was resolved.--Moon Rising 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


The blog referenced is a moderated blog with (currently) over 2000 posts. While it is true that someone could have fabricated the discussion and personal memoirs recounted there, it is highly unlikely. The material in the Animam Recro blog is evidence that the claims about Burton have been and continue to be made--the truth, falsity, or provability of the claims is not the issue. The claims have been made, that is all I am pointing out here. It is a factual, unbiased statement. The Wikipedia policy says blogs are "largely" not acceptable, implying that exceptions can be made. Thus, I request a decision from an impartial Wikipedia administrator on the issue of whether the Animam Recro blog is an acceptable reference to substantiate the statement that "a number of former members of the Fellowship of Friends have reported that Robert Earl Burton used his position of authority to obtain sexual favors from them." One has to question the motives of anyone who does not wish this statement to appear in the "Controversies" section of the article. It is at the very heart of the controversies surrounding the Fellowship of Friends. Babycondor 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see two sections below for my opinion on blogs as sources. Coren 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Draft

I've shuffled things around as discussed. Please make proposed changes to the article Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Draft_rewrite and discuss those changes here. This way, we'll be able to find our way around and not be that confused anymore.

Is everyone satisfied by the wording of the tag I've put on the article itself? Coren 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me - nice and simple - thanks again.--Moon Rising 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is fine for me. Regards, Baby Dove 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

About some unclear stuff

Babycondor's request of making a blog acceptable is not a fair one. It means that she asks the privilege of quoting whatever an unknown person writes there, with no identity revealed, to face others from whom a request of "using valid sources" is applied.

At the same time, Aeuio, who asked Mario Fantoni (perhaps a real name here), who asked Mario whether "he have any way to verify what the Court records say", in a clear sign that he has not read it at all, now changes what was written there for the one that seems to have read them, trying to show that what was written before is not true.

Meanwhile, his changes are on the article, not in the Draft Rewrite page, as requested.

Regards, Baby Dove 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you pointed out in your comment (somewhere above) that you never seen this info is a clear indication that you never read it either. The fact that Mario needs a lawyer to obtain this info indicates that he doesn't have it and probably won't. The fact that Mario never commented on the outcome of the case is a clear indicator that he never read the full report either. The fact that the case is in the middle of internet fof criticism is why it was added. Next time present the entire story so its not "taken out of context". Aeuio 00:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere else, I said that disqualifying a religious organization because it does not fulfill personal expectations or beliefs is not fair for the active members. Religious freedom is accepted worldwide, unless it damages others. A case it is used because someone thought he was entitled to a lawsuit; when the results are shown not to be the expected ones, others hide behind a cloud of suspicion and nicknames to attack a person and also a church and its many active supporters as if they were criminals. I do not really see that this is what WP was created for.

Regards, Baby Dove 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that this article is not about the validity of the belief structure proposed by the FoF. It's about describing the organization itself as factually pas possible. This might include information not favorable to it, but it's not a debunking exercise either. It's no more appropriate to defend FoF than it is to attack it.
As far as blogs go, they are almost certainly not a reliable source. They are-- almost by definition-- primary sources, self-published, and unverifiable. They can, however, provide pointers to good secondary sources (new articles, book cites, etc) that can then be checked and used.
Court cases are primary sources, but are generally accepted as reliable. But maintaining neutrality when using them as sources is touchy-- you must at all cost avoid making inferences or legal conclusions from those documents yourself (that would be original research even if justified. "X was convicted of Y by court Z in 19XX" is acceptable (with cite). Dismissals and Acquittals should not be mentioned (unless the case itself was notable) because they are prejudicial and may even be libelous.
Out-of-court settlements are a very gray, and very touchy area. When the case is significant to the subject of the article, mentioning it (with cite) may be appropriate, but the choice of language must be very careful to avoid veering into plain attack. Going into too much detail about the allegations is probably a no-no, and using weasel words is a clear sign that something is almost certainly wrong.
Coren 01:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A Fresh Look at the "New" Article

Well, it's not quite a blank slate, but the draft page inspires a fresh look. Maybe I should have been more aware of this before, but I'm really trying to read this as if I never heard of the Fellowship or the Fourth Way. I see why others have commented that the article has extraneous information. There are two things that jump out at me right awy that I'd like to see deleted. I don't want to be too aggressive about it though, so I left them in and want to hear what others have to say.

  • The Glossary is waaaaay to long. As a matter of fact, I'm beginning to agree with those that find it unnecessary. Regarding the words that are used in the article, maybe they could be explained briefly in the section where they are used, if necessary. Just my opinion.
  • Under the section "C Influence", there is a reference to people being food for the moon. I added a second reference to that statement, citing "The Fourth Way" by Ouspensky, which is where the idea comes from (or from Gurdjieff). I just don't see what it's doing on this page. It has nothing to do with C influence, so if it does belong, it's in the wrong place. But really, if you were new to the 4th Way or wanted basic info on the FOF, would this really be something you need to know? It's a fairly obscure part of the system for an encyclopedic article.--Moon Rising 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the glossary can still be enshortened. Can you try to do it?

About the "food for the moon", though Mr. Ouspensky talks about it, is something nobody can demonstrate. For me, it is as talking about going to hell because of dying in "mortal sin", as Catholics do. However, after all these days I cannot say who put that in this place. I guess it can be cleaned.

Regards, Baby Dove 22:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps those items of the glossary that are, in fact, used in the article could be relegated to footnotes? Coren 01:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well look at that. When I realized that that claim was way out of place, I tried to smoothen in out (because I was worried that I might get attacked for POV pushing if I deleted it like I wanted to) and I still got attacked for it. And now you guys all of a sudden think that it should be deleted. Aeuio 00:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, Aeuio, assume good faith! The whole point of this exercise is to get people to get a fresh look at the article, not rehash old slights. It's an edit you feel you can agree with-- there's little point in grumbling over how difficult it might have been to get it accepted earlier. Coren 01:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I apologies, I just couldn't resist pointing this out after the weird accusations. Anyways I agree that this should be deleted or changed Aeuio 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The glossary has to go. Visitors to the page are looking to an overview of the FoF, not a detailed explanation of their vocabulary. A link to an external glossary page is sufficient. Mario Fantoni 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the glossary needs to be replaced with a link to an external page. Babycondor 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

References from Veronicapoe

References that underwent substantial discussion (see archives) in the original article were deleted. Some of the original comments for removal of the article are paraphrased here:

  • The article "Sex, Lies and Grand Schemes of Thought in Closed Groups" is from a web site; it is from a contributor to this site and includes the disclaimer "Views expressed on our web sites are those of the document's author(s) and are not necessarily shared, endorsed, or recommended by ICSA or any of its directors, staff, or advisors." This disqualifies the article as a reliable source, since it is equivalent to a Wikipedia page created by an editor.

To Moon Rising: The Cultic Studies Journal is an academic journal, which is where the article was published. What appears on the ICSA website is an abstract of the article. Reprints of the article are available from ISCA, or check your local public or academic library. A librarian may be able to assist you with obtaining a copy. Good luck. --Veronicapoe 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is a questionable source according to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources that states that "a questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." (see WP:ATT).

  • Rregarding the 1985 PhD dissertation by Ursula Hilde Sack: a PhD dissertation is not listed as a reliable source at WP:ATT. Now that we are in mediation, maybe Coren can help decide this one.

To Moon Rising: Ph.D. dissertations undergo a rigorous process including fierce editing. You may be able to borrow the book through interlibrary loan. --Veronicapoe 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Regarding Marlane Dasmann's work (TXu-149-031), it was copyrighted on January 24th, 1984 and it has 88 pages. But there is no date for the publishing so far. Substantial research in the Library of Congress was needed to determine this the first time it was added. Additionally, the title does not include the words "a Horror Story". Including that again demonstrates that the editor is not adhering to NPOV.--4.246.253.99 04:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)--Moon Rising 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To Moon Rising: The subtitle of Marlane Dasmann's book is "A Horror Story." It appears on the cover of the book. It is not significant to me that the Library of Congress record you have retrieved does not have the subtitle. --Veronicapoe 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To Veronicapoe: Regarding your reference "Cults and consequences: The definitive handbook" (1988) by R. Andres & J.R. Lane, Commission on Cults and Missionaries, Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles, I do not see that handbooks of this sort of commission is a reliable source at WP:ATT. Was it published by a reputable publishing house? Coren, would you comment on this reference's suitability? Thank you. --Moon Rising 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To Moon Rising, Cults and consequences: The definitive handbook is a published hardcover book. Check your local public or academic library. A librarian may be able to assist you to find a copy. --Veronicapoe 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can register the copyright of their own work, published or unpublished, at the Library of Congress. Genuflect 06:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Dear Genuflect, thank you for your comment, but would you expand on it? It's an interesting fact, but how would you apply it in this situation. Thank you. --Moon Rising 08:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm researching what consensus has been in the past about reliability of those classes of sources in other disputes to get better background. I'll be back with an opinion in a bit. Coren 13:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ow. There is pithy precedent for dissertations. I will, however, suggest that as a rule, a dissertation should be considered reliable unless contradicted by more reliable sources. PhD dissertations are defended in front of an academic panel, and this should normally count as at least minimal peer/expert review. The standards may not be as high as peer-reviewed journals, however, and the dissertation should be findable in academic circles (IIRC, all accredited universities share a very inclusive database of PhD theses).

The "Cults and consequences" book, however, should definitely be considered a reliable source despite its apparent self-publication status. I can trivially find numerous international organizations referring to it, and it has been cited repeatedly in mainstream media. It should therefore be reasonable to deem it published by "well-known, professional researcher" (WP:SPS). Coren 01:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as a note however, the fact that it is reliable does not make it neutral! Keep this in mind when using it, to avoid biasing the article itself! Coren 01:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Moonrising: it would seem that the Dasmann book is an unpublished manuscript that was registered at the Library of Congress for copyright protection. Genuflect 19:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Glossary...again...

I just deleted many definitions that were included, at least to some degree, within other sections, e.g., Self-Remembering. Mostly what is left are descriptions of the higher and lower centers and the four states of consciousness, plus a few other terms. I think it would be more clear to have a subsection on centers and states of consciousness than to have definitions in a glossary. I left them in, however, until someone gets around to adding these sections (if indeed they are necessary). So, the glossary's not gone yet, but it's not monopolizing the article.--Moon Rising 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising, thank you for the effort trying to shorten the glossary but all the terms that you left (First State, Four Lower Centers, Fourth State, Higher Centers, Higher Emotional Center, I's, Lower Centers, Second State, Self, The, Sleep, State Of Consciousness, Third State, Work 'I's) are part of the standard Fourth Way terminology. As I said before, I think the glossary is dispensable. Mario Fantoni 05:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mario, I hesitate to make such a drastic move. Also for right now, I thought leaving it there would be a reminder to write subsections on states of consciousness and centers. I'd like to wait a day and see what others say before deleting it - but if you want to, I won't stand in your way. --Moon Rising 05:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the glossary has been removed, as many suggested. Regards, Baby Dove 15:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The changes are in the Rewrite page... Baby Dove 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Armageddon

I have inserted this into the draft based on the following:

  • It was claimed and endorsed by the leader of the the group and therefore the entire organization.Aeuio 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is sourced in a book which: 1. was written by a prominent member as a teaching help for the fof members 2. has been agreed as a reliable source by the editors. [23] And the only objection is from Baby Dove under the fact that ion this book it is stated that :"This document is to be used for study purposes of members of the Fellowship of Friends only" This statement doesn't disqualify the book as a reliable source for the fof teaching, but only strengthens it. Aeuio 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC) As well this claim was stated in the LA article and in the Hassan's anti-cult site. Aeuio 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The claim is not taken out of context as Robert Burton literally meant that there is going to be a destructive nuclear war in 2006. Aeuio 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, that as pointed out by Coren, that whether or not this is trying to disqualify a person is irrelevant on wikipedia. Aeuio 20:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: I've cleaned up a bit the formatting of the previous statement by Aeuio Coren 20:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The statement is correctly sourced, now, but the heading is dangerously close to POV. Perhaps "Controversial predictions"? Coren 20:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Done, as I see your reasoning Aeuio 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The full source for the book is now in place. I note that the "this document is to be used..." statement referenced above is not in the edition that I have. Perhaps it was added in later editions. The "controversial predictions" title seemed redundant with the main section title of "controversies" so I changed it simply to "predictions" Nixwisser 00:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The preditions are also mentioned, in an understated way in Self-Remembering p.52, "A cataclysmic disaster may be imminent that could be a prelude to hydrogen warfare." Genuflect 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to Nixwissers' contribution in this talk page, from 4/26 at 00:41, where he says his edition of the book does not contain the author's recommendation saying, '"This document is to be used for study purposes of members of the Fellowship of Friends only"', I went to my book and found that it is a FIRST EDITION, so all the books should have it. However, I said at page 2, but this recommendation is actually on the first page after the cover, which has no printed number. On the top of the page, it can be read, "Girard Haven - CREATING A SOUL - Insights from a Fourth Way School" on three succesive lines, and at the bottom it can be read this recommendation. I add more information regarding the said book, according to the third printed page (with no printed number also): the ISBN is 0-9645782-2-0, and the Library of Congress Catalog Card Number is 99-070784.

Regards, Baby Dove 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the book can properly be used as a reference here at all. The author clearly indicates his wish (or is it a command? certainly it is more than a mere "recommendation") that the book be studied by members of the FOF only. Babycondor 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Read point two. Aeuio 01:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, my copy is a first edition, and it does not contain the suggestion Baby Dove refers to. I have no real reason to doubt that it may be in some editions, but clearly it is not in all editions. This is in any event irrelevant; the point is spurious. The book is sold on the open market (Amazon etc.) and is available to all. It was not published strictly for FOF students, nor circulated privately. It is as public as the newspaper. If Mr. Haven truly changed his mind and no longer wished anyone outside of the organization to read the book, it was entirely up to him to remove it from the common market. He did not.Nixwisser 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)\

We can cite the following source on this topic: "Deadly Cults: The Crimes of True Believers". (See more information about this book in my post below.) Here's an excerpt from the book:

"As a result of his claimed direct contact with these angels and higher sources, Burton predicted that an earthquake in 1998 would swallow up all of California, except for Apollo. He has also predicted that nuclear holocaust will destroy most of the world in 2006, but again spare Apollo, which will then become the center of the movement to reestablish civilization in the post-holocaust world."

Artnscience 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To view the text of the above book, see http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0275980529/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop.Artnscience 19:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Veronica's Cult Revision Material

1) The ICSA webpage (according to the source you originally included the first time, about tweo or three weeks ago) only offers electronic material, not saying anything on published ones.
2) Mrs Dasmanns book has not been printed, according to the Library of Congress record. May be it was privately printed, but that does not make it an acceptable WP source. Can you tell the ISBN #, or the Publisher's data? I already asked this about two weeks ago but you never answered. I also said that the "Horror History" part was not in the registered title. It is not minimal, because a different title may even arise doubts whether it is the same registered book or not.
3) Mrs. Ursula Hilde Sack's dissertation needs to be also published (not self-published). Please, give also the required details. However, is it related to this article or it is a general idea she presented and you personally thought it was referred to this case?

It would also be good whether you do not answer in the middle of other people's sentences. It interrupts the flow of what it is being said and after a while one loses the sense of who is saying what.

Finally, when something is observed by other editors, try not to reintroiduce the subject without referring the observations that might have caused the removal. It takes others time to get acquainted to what has happened. Thank you for your understanding.

Regards, Baby Dove 22:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How to practice self-remembering

Incidentally, I agree with the tag that this is a how-to, and not very encyclopedic. Is anyone very attached to that section? If so, care to discuss why and ways it could be rewritten? Coren 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Coren, Yes, thanks for asking. I'm sort of attached to it. I think it makes the description of Self-Remembering more practical. I don't know if that means it is not encyclopedic. I was thinking of moving it into the Self-Remembering section, and removing the "How to" title. Can you explain, without too much trouble, why it's not encyclopedic? I don't mean this in a controversial way - I just don't understand; guess I'm dense. Would moving it help?
I will be going on vacation for a few days and with any luck my fingers will not touch a keyboard while I'm gone. (I feel the withdrawal shakes starting already). Since I won't be able to participate in the discussion, could we put this on hold until my return without violating any WP rules?
Who wrote the comment above? It's not signed. Mario Fantoni 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter of policy (check point 4). Wikipedia articles are not meant to be (or include) instructions or tutorials. There is a separate project, Wikibooks, where such material is welcome. Coren 00:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I think it'd be overly optimistic to think the draft will be ready in "a few days". No worries there. Coren 00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs and Practices

Some changes showing differences always existing with other Fourth Way groups, throughout the history of the organization, have been added to the draft page. The citation tag was put there to remind me to quote the more specific sources besides the general ones quoted at the end of the section. This is one reason, to my understanding, to justify that general Fourth Way ideas are not necessarily right within this article.

Regards, Baby Dove 08:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits

moved from my user's talk

As a senior WP editor, your opinion carries a lot of weight, but I have to wonder if you really reviewed the situation and issues before making your edits to this article. The changes to an Amazon plug and the meditation note shift are understandable, but the others indicate a lack of understanding of the subject-specific issues. 1. You removed the Rick Ross site reference without justification. It is not a personal website, it is written by an authority on the subject and contains the single largest published collection of media reports about the subject at hand. This edit is really not defensible. There is very little published information on this issue, so every viable source is central to the health and balance of the article.

2. The link to the blog is a grayer issue. WP:EL does links blogs as "usually" to be avoided, unless they are written by a recognized authority. The blogs consists of over 2000 entries overwhelmingly written by current or former members of the organization. Many identify themselves fully by name, others post under "handles", but many of those are equally acknowledged by the named contributors as being who they indicate they are. What greater authority on the subject of the organization can there be than current and former members with up to 30 years direct personal experience with it? WP:EL does not expressly ban the use of blogs, it simply points up the dangers involved and the considerations to be taken in linking to them. This is not a personal blog written by someone pushing a personal agenda, it is an astounding documentation of the history and experiences of the organization's members that consistently expresses both positive and negative aspects of the subject. Please clarify your thoughts on this, thanks. Nixwisser 17:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rick Ross site is a personal/partisan site, and his authority is in question as it pertains to reliability of sources for Wikipedia. See Rick Ross (consultant). Any specific sources listed on his site could be referenced directly, if these are reliable sources as per Wikipedia guidelines. Regarding the blog, please see WP:EL#Links to avoid. Recognized authorities means that. Authors that are notable, published and authoritative on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case then you might as well remove that tag which says that "This article or section needs sources or references that appear in credible, third-party publications." as you wont find that. Aeuio 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If there are no third party reliable sources, then this article should be listed in WP:AFD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Of the 21 listed references for the article, 20 of them are a book by the founder of the organization, Robert Burton. According to Wikipedia policy, "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." It appears that the article may be a candidate for WP:AFD. Babycondor 00:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the primary sources policy was initially designed for articles that deal with historical events and scientifically verifiable information that is common to all people and does not have to stem from a single source (e.g. scientists in Japan and USA can perform the same experiment and obtain objective data). But in this case, we are talking about the beliefs of a small organization, and obviously the organization itself and its members are the supreme experts anywhere on Earth who can say with authority what their own beliefs are. Which is more credible, if the leader of the organization himself states in his book "we are preparing to survive hydrogen warfare", or if I say so in an article about the organization? Wine-in-ark 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Two articles

I think that there should be only one article as it is stupid to edit two at the same time simultaneously. And it seems that the draft is a little disregarded because "the draft will replace this article" no longer applies. Aeuio 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have copy/pasted the draft as keeping track of a conflict on the exact same subject which is happening over two pages is ridiculous. Aeuio 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aeuio that the situation is ludicrous. There are now two different articles, both of which appear to be receiving different edits. The notice about mediation that formerly appeared at the top of the main article has been moved to the top of this Talk page, so the draft rewrite page has become inaccessible from the main article. Babycondor 23:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Subtitles

Please avoid making a subtitle for every argument as this isn't a blog and that is completely uneccassary. Making a separate subtitle like it has been done in the past only confuses newly entered editors and prolongs this page. If a subtitle says "Reply to so and so", who in the world is interested in finding the arguments above which this is replying to? From now on post you arguments under the arguments that you are addressing. Aeuio 01:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

General notability of the article topic

I think everyone here can agree that the topic (the FoF itself) is notable enough for inclusion, if only because it has been referenced (as focus of topic) in mainstream media on several occasion.

There is an issue with the relative lack of reliable sources, given that excepting said coverage (which, by its very nature, expounds on specific events rather than the organization itself), all of the sources are primary sources.

While, strictly construed, the notability guidelines would seem to indicate the article is not viable, I doubt deleting the article is appropriate. The media coverage is almost entirely negative ("nothing special happening to religious group" makes for a poor headline), and it's reasonable to accept at least a few primary sources at face value. Certainly, the organization's own documentation should be considered authoritative about what the FoF themselves claim their organization is about.

I agree that blogs are not reliable sources and cannot be relied upon. But we did make some headway in finding some external documentation of better value.

I think we have been doing some good progress here, and I would be disappointed if that work did not come to fruition. Let's keep working at shoring up the sources and weeding out the sections of the article that are less useful or simply impossible to hold up to scrutiny.

≈ jossi ≈: It's obvious you are an experienced editor, and your input is of course very welcome, but I'm going to counsel being a bit more circumspect at the moment. Everyone here has worked hard to achieve a fairly productive truce, and I wouldn't want rash editing, however well intended, to compromise that.

Let's all focus, and I'm certain we can come up with a very good article. Coren 01:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll let you work your way through. But note that in my experience, there are always good sources out there if one cares to research them. I will do a bit of digging and provide you guys/gals with some sources for the article if I find any. But I will not engage in editing, as requested. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mario's removal of information on aspects of the FoF belief

I'm asking for the mediator's help in deciding whether this information was justifiably removed.

1 Mario removed information in the introduction that the purpose of the FoF is also "to create an ark for preserving civilization[6]." His reason was that this is not stated on the official website or in the founder's book. However, we had agreed that G. Haven's book Creating a Soul was a reliable source. G. Haven says many things in the book that are not on the official website or in the founder's book. That does not make them untrue. I see no reason for removing this information. In addition, it is also mentioned in the founder's book (Self-Remembering) on page 155: "[Influence C] want something from us: an ark to survive hydrogen warfare." Wine-in-ark 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Mr. Haven's book is a reliable source since he is a prominent member and the book is not self-published. Nevertheless, he is still a member and he can't define the purpose of the organization, since by federal law only the founder, the council and the board of directors of the Fellowship of Friends can do that. Regarding Mr. Burton's statement: "Influence C want something from us: an ark to survive hydrogen warfare.", it is just that: a statement from the founder. We can't extrapolate and affirm that Mr. Burton's statement is part of the mission of the organization, since Mr. Burton didn't say that. Mario Fantoni 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"We can't extrapolate and affirm that Mr. Burton's statement is part of the mission of the organization, since Mr. Burton didn't say that." You need to rephrase this Mario (and delete this with it). Aeuio 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was that Mr. Burton said: "Influence C want something from us: an ark to survive hydrogen warfare.", he didn't say "The purpose of the Fellowship of Friends is to build an ark to survive hydrogen warfare.". Being asked something is one thing, to have a purpose is another. Mario Fantoni 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The full quotation is: "The Teacher has always said that he has two aims for the Fellowship: to build an ark to bridge an interval in the octave of humanity and to help his students create conscious souls." (page 515) And on page 510: "the aims of the School, which are, according to the Teacher, twofold: the creation of consciousness in its members and the creation of an ark." Unless Mario has reason to believe that G. Haven is lying in his book about what RB has said, this IS the aim of the Fellowship as stated by its founder. Wine-in-ark 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Haven is saying "The Teacher has two aims for the Fellowship...", he is not saying "The purpose of the Fellowship of Friends is...". When we declare the purpose of a religious organization on a Wikipedia page we have to be precise. The Fellowship of Friends has an official web site that states its purpose: "The Fellowship's mission remains unwavering: to help its members awaken." Why are some editors looking for quotations from Mr. Haven and Mr. Burton's older books in order to incorporate them to the organization's purpose? Are they trying to come up with a different purpose, meaning that the one on the official web site is wrong or incomplete? Mario Fantoni 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does Mario have such unwavering trust in the official website as the only true source? Why does he think the official website will contain COMPLETE information on what the Fellowship is? Isn't it more likely that 500-page volumes written by members will contain more in-depth information? The more sources, the better, more varied and more objective the whole picture will be. So Mario sees a strict difference between "purpose" and "aim" of the organization, and at his insistence, I would rephrase that "the Fellowship of Friends has two aims: to create conscious souls in members and to create an ark to bridge a gap in the course of human history." Do we agree? Wine-in-ark 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that "purpose" and "aim" are different - I agree that they are the same. What I am saying is that Mr. Haven saying in 1995 "The Teacher has two aims for the Fellowship..." and the organization's official web site saying in 2007 "The Fellowship's mission remains unwavering: to help its members awaken." are 2 different things. I suggest to use the web site's current purpose, not Mr. Haven's belief of Mr. Burton's aims for the organization in 1995. Mario Fantoni 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
So the website that keeps changing and is written by somebody unknown - who doesn't have as much authority on the subject as Girard and Burton - is more reliable then what Burton claims? Aeuio 11:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It is odd then that in 2007, the website states "the aim... remains unwavering", as if that had always been the only aim, while it is clear that at least in the past, the aim was also to create an ark to survive hydrogen warfare. It is certainly worth noting in the Wikipedia article if one of the fundamental purposes of existence of an organization has been abandoned when Armageddon failed to occur in 2006. But for all anybody knows, the Fellowship may still be creating an Ark, maybe to prepare for a later Armageddon, just does not announce it on its front page for every casual visitor to see. Maybe that information is disclosed once you become a member. You see we could play with speculations. What would convince me that the purpose of the organization has changed, is a statement on the Fellowship website that although once the aim of the FoF was to create an Ark, this is now no longer an aim and the only aim is to help members create conscious souls. In which case it is still worth noting in the history section that the purpose for the existence of the organization has changed over time. Wine-in-ark 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The aim of the Fellowship of Friends should be stated by the Fellowship of Friends, not by editors speculating about that aim. I will contact the organization, as I said before, and ask them to state the official aim. Mario Fantoni 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

2 Mario removed the following information under Self-remembering: "[self-remembering] is used as a technique to create one's immortal soul,[7] which is said to be built from cumulative moments of remembering oneself for three seconds or longer"[8]. Mario's justification was that this was "editor's interpretation of founder's book excerpt (non-literal quotation)". This statement by Mario is untrue. The original quotations are: "Are we actually creating souls by trying to remember ourselves? RB: Precisely." (page 135) "Self-remembering not only saves time, but creates an astral body not subject to time." (page 142) "Being present leads to the crystallization of an astral body, the creation of an immortal soul." (page 143) "Every second that one is present is added to one's immortal soul" (page 140) "Remembering ourselves for three seconds or longer will add to our astral body, our souls. It is a fact that we can create an astral body out of this physical body." (page 143) Please refute if you can how the above quotations do not mean "[self-remembering] is used as a technique to create one's immortal soul, which is said to be built from cumulative moments of remembering oneself for three seconds or longer". I would also remind Mario that it is Wikipedia policy to request the original quotation when he thinks I have drawn a wrong conclusion from the source, rather than just delete what I have written. Wine-in-ark 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The original text ("Fourth Way's self-remembering is a central idea in Robert Burton's teaching and is used as a technique to create one's immortal soul, which is said to be built from cumulative moments of remembering oneself for three seconds or longer") is not clear, since a reader has no way to know which part of it belongs to the Fourth Way teaching and which part belongs to Mr. Burton's. A more clear text, for example, would be: "Fourth Way's self-remembering is a central idea in Robert Burton's teaching and, according to Mr. Burton, it is used as a technique to create one's immortal soul". Regarding the part: "which is said to be built from cumulative moments of remembering oneself for three seconds or longer", this has been changed by Mr. Burton after the book was published to 15 seconds, but this information is not part of the official web site or any publication since it is fairly recent. It is important that the article informs the reader about the current teaching, not the teaching as it was 16 years ago when the book "Self-Remembering" was published. A possible text could be: "Fourth Way's self-remembering is a central idea in Robert Burton's teaching and, according to Mr. Burton, it is used as a technique to create one's immortal soul, which is said to be built from cumulative moments of remembering oneself for fifteen seconds or longer."
Then rewrite it thus instead of deleting it. Aeuio 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I did - see above. Mario Fantoni 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It may be that RB changed his mind recently about how long one needs to be present to add to one's soul, however, we have nothing to support that except Mario's testimony, which would count as original research I believe. I suggest leaving the original text intact, since it is clear from the reference that it comes from a book published in 1995. Wine-in-ark 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
In order for my testimony not to be considered original research I will contact the Fellowship of Friends and ask for a clarification regarding the length of presence necessary in order to be added to one's soul. Mario Fantoni 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
And ask them to publish it on their website? Or will we take your word for it? Wine-in-ark 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's ask the Fellowship of Friends to forward their reply to the mediator (Coren). Mario Fantoni
So you are saying that emails count as sources? Aeuio 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

3 Mario removed this information: "In this teaching, ordinary people are expected to be "eaten" by the moon when they die" because he says this idea is not present in the referenced text. This, again is untrue. The reference is [9] and the original quotations are: "We cannot verify this now, but according to the system, at death an energy field flies to the moon, or World 96, and Mr. Gurdjieff said that infinitely long planetary cycles must elapse before the opportunity of escape presents itself again." "The point of death will come for each of us, and man number four will put his soul in the hands of influence C and hope that they will place him in limbo to await a conscious role. Everything points to this." "Limbo would be for ascending souls." "By the grace of influence C, I have made it through to the other side and will take my students with me." I can rephrase it to be closer to the original if you wish. Wine-in-ark 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wine-in-ark should rephrase this section to stay closer to the original. Mario Fantoni 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So how about this: "According to the system used in this teaching, a person's energy field at death flies to the moon and infinitely long planetary cycles must elapse before the opportunity of escape presents itself again. However, for people in a conscious school and people working to awaken (called "men number four"), the hope is that Influence C will place their souls in limbo to await a conscious role." Wine-in-ark 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I prefer this: "According to the Fourth Way system, a person's energy field at death flies to the moon and infinitely long planetary cycles must elapse before the opportunity of escape presents itself again. However, for people in a conscious school and people working to awaken (called "men number four"), the hope is that Influence C will place their souls in limbo to await a conscious role." Mario Fantoni 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What Burton teaches doesn't qualify as the "Fourth Way teaching", so that needs to clarify who is teaching what. Aeuio 11:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Aeiou. Mario Fantoni 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess we finally solved something. Aeuio 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not see what is the point in discussing about this "food for the moon" thing. Is there any difference between Christianity promising an "eternal fire" for those who die in "mortal sin", and Mr. Ouspensky's quotation on man as food for the moon?: "For instance, the evolution of humanity beyond a certain point, or, to speak more correctly, above a certain percentage, would be fatal for the moon. The moon at present feeds on organic life, on humanity. Humanity is a part of organic life; this means that humanity is food for the moon. If all men were to become too intelligent they would not want to be eaten by the moon." ["In Search of Miracolous", by Peter Ouspensky, Chapter 3, p. 64](Perhaps the quote is valid for the fourth way page, anyway).
In relation to C Influence, it is something that other teachers have already talk about. Again, Mr. Ouspensky states that: "If the magnetic center works rightly and if a man really searches, or even if he does not search actively yet feels rightly, he may meet another man who knows the way and who is connected directly or through other people with a center existing outside outside the law of accident, from which proceed the ideas which created the magnetic center." ["In Search of Miracolous", by Peter Ouspensky, Chapter 10, p. 208]
So, a more practical way would be to say, '"In the Fourth Way teaching..'." instead of "In this teaching...", as it would be something weird invented within this organization which only involves some aspects of the Fourth Way teaching, as said whithin the Beliefs item.
Regards, Baby Dove 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The moon statement is not a problem, "the hope is that Influence C will place their souls in limbo to await a conscious role." is not according to the Fourth Way but is rather according to Burton. And we agreed on this already so please lets move on with other things. Aeuio 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

4 Mario removed the following information under C Influence: "According to Burton, with the help of C Influence and his help, his students will eventually become immortal in their ninth lifetime[10], while five to six billion people on Earth do not have that privilege and will fall prey to time[11]. He says he removed it because it was free interpretation and non-literal quotation. He changed it to this: "According to Burton, with the help of C Influence, his students will eventually become immortal in their ninth lifetime." Again I quote from the original sources: (in the chapter called Death and surrounded with a discussion of creating an astral body to survive death) "By the grace of influence C, I have made it through to the other side and will take my students with me." (page 118) "We have nine lives, the last immortal. Our astral bodies will be taken by angels while our physical bodies will be left to decay. A man number four must rely on the faith that influence C will take his astral body upon his death and prepare it for his next role." (page 145) "There are five to six billion people on Earth now and all will fall prey to time. We are people who have been given the privilege of transcending time. I hope to give my finest knowledge to you when my task is complete [he means when he dies]. I am almost certain that higher forces will allow contact, and at that time I hope to pass information to you regarding your next life, and to advise you that death is in all respects an illusion for ascending souls." (page 121) I could also add "Influence C ushers us to Heaven's gate" (page 151) "[awakening] is completely impossible to achieve without influence C" (page 152) "We are a simple little school on Earth, and we have a tie to higher school, Influence C." (page 156) "We have the highest religion possible: angels working openly to help us create our astral bodies." "We are the fortunate recipients of their work." "We have been chosen by influence C to awaken." (pages 154, 155) "We are people who have consumed our youth in producing magnetic centers in order to find Influence C. But people in life have consumed their youth with nothing to show for it." (page 157) "It's hard to realize that there are five to six billion people on the earth tonight, and Influence C has selected us to evolve." (page 157) "There is a line to heaven that is millenia long, and yet we are at the head of the line." "Through inexplicable luck, we have been chosen." (page 158) "This school enables you to escape." (page 161) Wine-in-ark 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The book "Self-Remembering" by Robert Burton states on its cover: "In talks to his students a modern teacher of the Fourth Way shows how to use the ancient practice of self-remembering to fully penetrate the elusive present." The important part is "in talks to his students". The book is a collection of Mr. Burton's sayings to his students, and it was not written to inform a visitor to an encyclopedic page about the beliefs of the Fellowship of Friends. This means that we need to select from the book the information that best informs the visitor to the page about the beliefs of the organization. I don't think that Wine-in-ark is wrong, but he is extracting text from the founder's book out of context and using that text to define the purpose and the beliefs of the Fellowship of Friends. Besides, as I stated above, the book is 16 years old and doesn't reflect the current teaching of the organization. Mario Fantoni 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
First, since when don't the lectures of a teacher reflect his teachings? Second, unless you have a source saying that this part of the teaching was changed, then it's your opinion that it doesn't reflect the current teaching. Aeuio 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the claims that since the book is 16 years old it does not reflect the current teaching. Mario must have done some original research to have come to that conclusion. Otherwise why should we assume that since something was said 16 years ago, it is no longer a belief taught in the FoF. Perhaps Mario can provide some publications where the pronoucements made by Robert Burton 16 years ago are explicitly denied as no longer valid by RB himself, or the FoF council, or the board of directors. Wine-in-ark 00:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of giving the visitors of the Wikipedia page about the FoF information that is not current? At this point, I see two choices: either we use the material on the official web site of the organization (supposed to be current) or we write to Mr. Burton, the FoF council and its boards of directors and ask what are the current beliefs of the organization. Mario Fantoni 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As for extracting text out of context; the book is full of quotations regarding the special chosen nature of students of Robert Burton's school and their unique luck to have a connection with Influence C. If you really wish, I can copy them here (but it would take a long time to type them all!). I don't think I was taking it out of context at all; on the contrary, it seems after reading the book that the unique and special connection of his organization with influence C is a core element of Robert Burton's teaching. Wine-in-ark 00:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No need to type all the quotations - I agree that Mr. Burton mentions in his book several times that he and his students are lucky to have a connection with Influence C. What we do with that information is the issue, not if it exists or not. Mario Fantoni 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
So what exactly do you believe I'm misinterpreting about this book? And what am I taking out of context? Wine-in-ark 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Wine-in-ark's original text linked 2 different quotations in one: "According to Burton, with the help of C Influence and his help, his students will eventually become immortal in their ninth lifetime" and "five to six billion people on Earth do not have that privilege and will fall prey to time". They are not connected and should be kept separated. Also, Mr. Burton stated in his book that his students are helped by C Influence (see Wine-in-ark's quotations above); he never said that they are helped by Influence C and himself. Mario Fantoni 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no rule against joining 2 quotations in one sentence. To me they are obviously thematically related, see all the quotes above. I don't see why they do not seem so to you. Would breaking it up in 2 sentences sound better to you? I also don't understand how you are unable to see from the above quotations that Burton is talking about his own help to his students in creating souls (when he says that after his death he will communicate with his students and transmit the highest knowledge and that he has made it through to the other side and will take his students with him). Please look at it in the context of all the quotations I have copied here, rather than just hanging on individual words. There are more quotations if you wish. Are you saying that Burton is NOT helping his students create souls? That he is NOT saying his students have a special privilege to have been chosen by higher forces to evolve? That six billion people on Earth will NOT fall prey to time? I believe I have not drawn any wrong conclusions from the source text. Wine-in-ark 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
At this point I would like to ask the mediator (Coren) to express his opinion. Mario Fantoni 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

5 Mario removed this quotation under Esoteric Schools: "On the subject of importance of Fellowship of Friends, Robert Burton says that the type of knowledge it works with is rarely experienced on the Earth[12], but that in the midst of five to six billion people, the Fellowship has hit the nail on the head[13]." His justification is that the sentence is made up of two quotations that do not follow each other in the original source. I don't see how that warrants removal from the article. These are original quotations. The only thing perhaps would be to change "but" to "and" if you wish, as "but" might be construed as inferrence. Wine-in-ark 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Wine-in-ark 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wine-in-ark is connecting 2 quotations that where not linked in the original source. The text needs to be rewritten. Mario Fantoni 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why. Are the quotations not thematically related? They both speak about the rarity of school knowledge. Wine-in-ark 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
How does Wine-in-ark know that "the Fellowship has hit the nail on the head" is connected to the rarity of school knowledge? Mario Fantoni 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What else??? Because it is in a chapter titled School, where RB talks about the uniqueness of the FoF. The preceding sentence says that the Fellowship is remarkable because is the most specific in its interpretation of awakening. That, to me, refers to the rarity of school knowledge. More quotations from the same chapter: "Our school represents the soul of humanity", "few are interested in hearing about the opportunity to develop a mature soul" (page 183) "life is a tragedy without the system" "life begins when one meets a school" (page 182) "our school is one of the greatest schools in recorded history, and that is why suffering is so abundant" (page 185) etc. I believe I have not drawn any wrong conclusions from the original text. Wine-in-ark 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Wine-in-ark and I see this issue from different perspectives. I would like to know what other editors think. Mario Fantoni 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also remind Mario that it is Wikipedia policy to request the original quotation when he thinks I have drawn a wrong conclusion from the source, rather than just delete what I have written. Wine-in-ark 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's recapitulate. The accepted mediator (Coren) created a draft page for editors to work on and, after agreeing on the content of the draft page, that content was going to be moved to the article. Coren created the draft page on April 23 and things were pretty civilized until April 27 when a new editor (Jossy) started changing the article. Noticing that, Wine-in-ark inserted a tag at the top on the article saying that "This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed." Jossy apologized and said that he was not going to edit the article anymore. At that point, Aeiou copied the draft to the main article, what was wrong in my opinion since we hadn't agree on the controversial issues. After Aeiou's action, Babycondor, Wine-in-ark and Aeiou started editing the main page on April 27. I started editing the article on April 28 since it was obvious that the draft page had become useless at that point. I thought we had a mediation and a draft page, but now I don't know anymore. Mario Fantoni 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrong recapitulation. Jossy said that he wont edit the article anymore after Coren asked him on his talk page, and not because of your reason. You said that I copied the draft after Jossy declared this, that is also wrong, as I copied it before Jossy made his statement. (I explained why I did so somewhere above). Aeuio 00:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Aeiou, I find it very interesting that you concentrate on the small mistakes of my recapitulation (like saying that Jossy stopped editing the page because of Wine-in-Ark's tag instead of Coren's admonition or my estimate of when you copied the draft page to the article, two minor issues) and you totally ignore the fact that you copied the draft page to the article without asking anybody (including Coren, the mediator) if that was OK. Mario Fantoni 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
They are not minor mistakes as they completely change the situation, and I find it very interesting that you would write a wrong recapitulation of what happened in order to make others look like they did something wrong. And if you look at what really happened you'd see that I explained what I did. By the way, Jossi is not a new editor - as you said, but he is a very experienced admin. Aeuio 11:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, Aeiou, let's end the issue and concentrate on the page. Do you promise that you won't copy the Draft Rewrite page to the article again until the main editors and the mediator agree? Mario Fantoni 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I would have never copied it if an admin didn't start editing the original. And if only one page is edited then I won't/wouldn't have done the transfer. Aeuio 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I will not have the possibility to contribute for a while, but I have asked Nixwisser to follow this issue through for me. Wine-in-ark 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please change the Draft Rewrite page only

In order to follow the mediator's instructions, I encourage all editors to edit the Draft Rewrite Page only.

When we all agree on the draft page we will transfer its contents to the article. If new editors arrive and start editing the article, we will undo their edits and tell them to edit the draft page. I just copied the current article to the Draft Rewrite page for us to edit it. Thank you for your cooperation. Mario Fantoni 07:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mario. Perhaps you could put a clear statement at the top of the main article page, requesting that edits be made to the draft page only, with a link to it. Babycondor 15:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I added the "Mediation in progress - please change the Draft Rewrite page" template at the top of the article. Please take a look to see if it is OK. Mario Fantoni 03:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing truce

Hello again everyone.

Please remember to remain civil and always, always, assume good faith! May I recommend a short (6h) editing truce while I catch up? (My, I didn't expect two days would be so stormy!) Everyone here has important points, and we need to sort/clean things up a bit so we can return to being fully productive.

Here is my first recommendation: In the interim, I will archive the current talk page and post a summary of what my understanding of all the outstanding issues are, each in its own section. If I misunderstood something, correct me. Once that's done, we can concentrate on addressing each of those issues to everybody's satisfaction. Once we basically have consensus, we'll apply the conclusions towards the draft article.

After we worked everything out, we'll move the draft to the main page (possibly merging minor edits from other editors that happened in the meantime), and we'll pat each other on the back and get a big group hug going (group hug optional).  :-)

I normally prefer being a bit less hands-on in a mediation, but everybody here has had their tempers frayed over time. Maybe this will help us reach consensus with more ease.

It appears everyone here is still open to mediation, and my involvement in particular. I'm am going to request one thing from all editors, however: forget all past perceived slights, and evaluate all issues on their own merit. If we can all agree to that, then we have a good chance of ending up with an article everyone is satisfied with.\

Deal? Coren 22:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks Coren. Wine-in-ark 23:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Zounds! Things have been sizzling these 4 days I've been gone. Amen to Coren's assessment. Is 6 hours sufficient? --Moon Rising 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Coren, you have my support. Mario Fantoni 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
What slights? Who are you? Who am I? Isn't this the Parcheesi page? Well, let's forge on. Thanks Coren. Nixwisser 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Nix, this page needed some humor desperately. Mario Fantoni 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems I'm not going to get to this page before this evening (EST). (God, I hate my pager). Hang tight, everyone, I'll have something up as soon as possible. Coren 13:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Request of information to be sent to the Fellowship of Friends' officers

In order to know the official position of the Fellowship of Friends, I am preparing a letter to be sent to the officers of the organization (council and board of directors) asking for the following information:

  • The purpose and aims of the organization.
  • A summary of the principles and beliefs of the organization.
  • The official position of the organization regarding the Fourth Way teaching.
  • A summary of the current teaching of the organization with a list of the sources.
  • The official position of the organization regarding the predictions of the founder, Robert Burton.
  • Are Mr. Haven's books, specifically "Creating a Soul", representative of the organization's purpose, beliefs and teaching? (added after the message was posted)

If any editor has additional questions to be added to the list above, please send them to me and I will incorporate them to the letter.

I will ask the officers of the FoF to send their reply to the email addresses of all interested editors, including Coren, the mediator. Please send your email address to me at mariofantoni@gmail.com and I will make sure the letter from the FoF is sent to you. If you want to keep your identity private, you can always create an anonymous email address at yahoo.com, hotmail.com, etc. Thank you. Mario Fantoni 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke Mario? After all the dismissing of sources because they weren't "checked" "verified" "neutral" and so on, you are trying to say that an email will be the official source of the fof. Whatever this email says can't be taken into consideration unless its written/published somewhere. Aeuio 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I find it amazing that we are all trying to define what is the purpose of existence and the system of beliefs of the FoF based on quotations extracted from books written by the founder and a prominent member and nobody bothered to ask the FoF what their official purpose and beliefs are. Note that in my message above I didn't say "in order to use as a reliable source"; I wrote "in order to know the official position of the FoF". We can still come up with our own idea of the FoF's purpose and beliefs, but we will have the official ones to compare. Anyway, I am going to send the letter tomorrow, let's see what they say. Mario Fantoni 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to send it go right ahead. Just note that something of the following shouldn't happen in the future: "Although in the Book by Girard it states that Burton claimed this, yet in the email that was sent by the fof it states..." In other words, an argument can't be backed up by the email as the email doesn't count as a source. Aeuio 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As stated before (three times with this), Mr. Haven wrote, in the first printed page of his book "Creating a Soul", the following statement-on the same page under the Title: "'This document is to be used for study purposes of members of the Fellowship of Friends only'." Does the will of the author is valid here, or you think we can do as we please with it? On one hand, some editors have tried to use whatever informal paper they found suitable for their purposes, even not published books (though copyrighted, which only takes $30 to get it), and even with "slight" changes in the copyrighted title; on the other hand, when someone clearly states the purpose of its book, it is ignored and it is consistently brough back over the days. I have given enough data. This book is the first out of one editions, ISBN 0-9645782-2-0, and Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 99-070784. Since it is copyrighted material from Ulysses Books, I do not think that ignoring this warning is allowed. Regards, Baby Dove 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the following question to the request of information to be sent to the FoF officers tomorrow: "Are Mr. Haven books, specifically 'Creating a Soul', representative of the organization's purpose, beliefs and teaching?" If they say they are, we will quote them and the issue is closed; if they say they aren't, I suggest to ask the mediator (Coren) for his opinion. Mario Fantoni 04:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Mario's attempt to clarify certain “official positions” of the FOF. If the council feels that the FOF web pages as they stand do not address these issues clearly enough, they should respond to the email directly on those web pages. If they decline, however, I am not sure how it will concretely help us in the long run. Nixwisser 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Veronicapoe - Please don't edit the article and be true to the quoted source

Veronica, I just noticed that you edited the article. Please note that we are editing the Draft Rewrite page only. Also, Coren (the mediator) asked for us to stop editing until he catches up with the Talk page later today (see "Editing Truce" message above). Can you undo your edit? Thank you. Mario Fantoni 02:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To all editors - perhaps I jumped the gun deleting Veronicapoe's edit - I forgot to check this discussion first. I made the deletion because we are in the midst of an Edit Truce and because the Coren, our mediator, and the majority of editors have agreed to only make edits to the draft page, not the article, as Veronicapoe did. Assuming good faith, it was no doubt an oversight on her part.
If we were not in the Edit Truce, I would have objected to the references being reinserted as they were previously removed and Coren was asked to comment regarding their reliability at that time; it is my understanding that these references were not approved. I would also have requested a source for the deletion of "and state" regarding the Fellowship's incorporation. --Moon Rising 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Before it was deleted, I read that Veronicapoe's change was changing "non-profit religious corporation (church) with state and federal authorities", as the quoted source says, for "religion with California and federal authorities." I recommend that quotes should be as literal as possible. If Veronicapoe thinks that a religion and a religious organization are the same, she could look for a good source to contradict what is stated by the same organization. I also recommend the wilkiarticle on Religion [| Religion=definitions], because a religious organization can also be non-confessional. Regards, Baby Dove 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improving the Article's Balance

I agree with the what Esoteric Sheik wrote several days ago, and his comments still apply: As of today, the article is still imbalanced and sounds a lot like an advertisement for the Fellowship of Friends. To achieve a better balance in the article, additional content in the Controversies and Criticisms section is needed, and we also need to remove a lot of the extraneous content in the Beliefs and Practices section. As of now, this section is much too wordy and does not match Wikipedia’s encyclopedic style. Although quite a bit has been trimmed off, work still must be done to make it more concise.

To achieve more balance in the article, here are my suggestions:

1. Add the following book title to the Criticism section:

"Deadly Cults: The Crimes of True Believers" Publisher: Praeger Publishers (November 30, 2003) Language: English ISBN-10: 0275980529 ISBN-13: 978-0275980528

To view the text of this book, see http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0275980529/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop.

2. An entire chapter in this book is devoted to the Fellowship of Friends, so we can extract information from this book and add it to the Controversies section, and of course include references / citations. If anyone is interested, I can provide instructions for how to review the content of this chapter online, or I can post the chapter somewhere within this discussion if that's helpful.

3. Return the link to the Rick Ross website. There is precedence for including this link on Wikipedia (for an example, see the Wikipedia page for Scientology -- a link to the Rick Ross website is included there, and takes you to a page with information relevant to that organization. I’m very concerned that someone has removed it from this page, because Ross obviously feels it's relevant enough for the Fellowship of Friends as well. I believe one or two editors here have also expressed this concern. And the fact that Wikipedia articles for other similar organizations include such links means there is some precedence for including it here. If the goal of the editors and writers of this article is to present a balanced, unbiased view of the Fellowship, then it makes sense to include links to this page.

4. Reduce the Length of the Beliefs and Practices Section. If the moderator is open to this idea, I’d be happy to trim down the Beliefs and Practices section myself. My goal will be leave ALL of the basic and most important points in these sections, but to prune all unnecessary text so that the paragraphs are more concise. One of the numerous examples of how this can be done is found in the Obstacles to Awakening section: “Identification: Another major obstacle to divided attention is called identification.” There’s no need for this sentence, as the heading states, “Obstacles to Awakening,” and the word Identification is shown in bold. Removing numerous sentences like this would go a long way toward making the article more concise.

By the way, if the goal of some of the writers/editors of this section is to promote the Fellowship of Friends, I really don't think the length text is going to help. People tend to read what is concise and easily readable, and in shorter paragraphs. People tend not to read what is extravagant and lengthy. Something more direct and to the point will help you get more readers. On the other side of the coin, what concerns me about this lengthy extraneous text is that it serves to water down the balance of the article. Certainly, the criticism section could be equally as wordy (especially after including the information from the above-mentioned book), and if someone wants me to demonstrate I will be more than happy to do so. Even if all of this text roughly describes some of the ideas within the Fellowship, we need to draw a line at what is pertinent for a Wikipedia article, because obviously in an extreme case we could cut and paste the entire contents of the Fellowship's website. Certainly everyone agrees that we don't want do that, but I just want to point out that there is a limit or threshold to how much is too much. In my opinion, we're still in the "too much" category.

Note: I will do the best I can to participate as an editor here, but have limited time.

Thanks, and great work everyone,

- Artnscience

Artnscience 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Artnscience: Who is Esoteric Sheik??? Regards, Baby Dove 05:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One question mark would suffice. See the "Validity of Information" section above... Esoteric Sheik starts by saying: "I have to say that the first 10 headings on the FoF wiki read like FoF advertising, like something that could have made it onto the FoF website. The controversies sound equally imbalanced (information is valid and referenced, but the style in which it is written is not exactly perfect)."

He ends with signing his name: "-- Esoteric Sheik"

Artnscience 05:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Artnscience. You have some valid points, but I am afraid they will never make it to the article. Are you willing to become an editor? You see, I encouraged the Esoteric Sheik to become an editor but he never did. By the way, we all have limited time, but it doesn't take long to learn Wikipedia's commands and guidelines. Mario Fantoni 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Mario: Artnscience has offered to make the changes to the 'Beliefs and Practices' Section, and to add other reference material, so I think you're question is answered. I'd like to add another couple of questions...
Coren, where are you? We miss you. Please let us know you're okay.
Coren, if, in your good opinion, some or all of Artnscience's recommendations make sense, who is best to make them, given the bias of each of us? If it is agreed upon that some editing in these areas is needed, I volunteer as well.--Moon Rising 06:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Mario: I just re-read my last comment to you; I didn't mean to sound so abrupt. Sorry.--Moon Rising 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Mario and Moon Rising. My first goal was to offer the suggestions in case others have time to implement. But if others are open to it, I am certainly willing to "clean up" the text a bit in the Beliefs and Practices section with minor edits -- although it will be several minor edits. The goal would be to leave the content intact but to make it more concise. Artnscience 07:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The length of an article is subjective, and so are the opinions on what does the reader like to see in an article. Of course, it is much more necessary to use longer phrases when trying to explain what an organization is about when some consistently use short phrases such as "It is a cult", or take for granted what an ex-member became as a plaintiff said without following his actions to the end (by getting a veredict in his favour). It is easier to destroy than to build. I said some days ago, when someone leaves a religious organization, it becomes a sort of divorce lawsuit, where the parties try to get the best part of the common belongings. This is normal, and I do not question these private matters, that are not my business. However, cult-busters live from selling books (the recommended one from Praeger Publishers costs $59.95 in Amazon or $42 when used and new...) In general, these books interest nobody, except the families of a member of some of these organizations or ex-members of them trying to get peace with their own conciences.They are presented as neutral, but they are not, since the ones remaining (which are generally more than the ones leaving to my own understanding), are more ready to write their "true stories" within the organization, while the remaining ones are not even interested. Regards, Baby Dove 07:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the divorce analogy is a very good one, but this is a society issue as well as an issue that relates to families of members, etc. (I mean, I think this is true with many organizations, including corporations, religions, etc., in case this is coming across as being critical to the Fellowship of Friends.) Also, I think it's one of those myths that certain 'things' written in print or on the web can be completely unbiased. Certainly, the books being cited as sources in this article (Self Remembering, for example) have their own biases in what they leave out as much as in what they include. That's part of what bias "is" -- it's what we include and disclude in a book. But I'm just trying for balance in this article if we can. I know you're all doing your part, and now I'm just contributing as much as I can for as long as can whenever I can. Let's see how it goes, but mainly just want to give Coren my opinion on these matters because it's important for Coren to hear as many viewpoints as possible. thanks again.Artnscience 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Artnscience: While I appreciate your offer to clean up the "Beliefs" section you mention, I reiterate the need for a mediator's opinion here are about who would be best to do it - if indeed doing it is agreed to be necessary. Clarity is always something to strive for; not that I am doubting your ability to put aside your personal bias in making such an edit, perhaps you could allow someone with more time and a different bias to take the first step. Again, I can't stress enough that we are in mediation and Coren's opinion on this will be given a great deal of weight. Do you agree? I'm sure that Coren appreciates your additional insights, as do I.--Moon Rising 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising, Yes, I agree. If someone else can tackle what I'm suggesting, that would be great. But if others don't have the time or the desire, I'll be glad to pitch in. Thanks. Artnscience 09:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and offer of help, Artnscience. Though the Beliefs and Practices Section has come a long way (the original postings were literally pages of wholesale cut and paste from the FOF website) and it paring down has been the work of several editors so far, any help in making it more concise would be great. I agree with BabyDove that determining the "correct" length is a subjective process. There are general guidelines (based on total space in bytes taken up), but they are not nearly as specific as other guidelines such as WP:RS etc. What that means is that the issues of material relevancy and necessity can only be settled by patient cooperation and compromise. This is particularly true of material from the most used source for this page, the FOF's own website, simply due to the amount of material available. Mediation will not play a big role in this.

There obviously are volumes of information that are entirely supportive of the FOF in all its aspects which cannot be referenced in WP. The same is true of material critical of the FOF. Bewailing this fact and defaming authors on either side of the issue is pointless. We have no rational choice but to work within the given framework. With the hopeful exception of Coren, no editor here is neutral, so it would help if we simply abandon the fantasy that we do/can or should have the same vision for this page and work towards some compromise.

If the Praeger book does contain material directly about the Fellowship, its pertinence to this site can hardly be questioned. I also find no legitimate ground for barring the Rick Ross site. A quick look at the WP article on him (on which Jossi was an important editor) will show that RR is a controversial figure who has no love for organizations he sees as “cults”. This alone disbars any information from him, invalidates a lifetime of research and experience in this area? The WP article also sets a precedent in that wildly partisan (e.g. published by Scientology) anti-RR pages are referenced at the bottom. A bit of a double standard, I would say. Nixwisser 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nixwisser. Thanks, I agree with all of your comments, and will definitely defer to you, Coren, Wine-in-Ark, Moon Rising, Aeuio, and others for now -- especially since all of you have been doing the bulk of the editing for so many days. Even if the Beliefs and Practices section cannot be trimmed as much as I would like, I think there are certain editing concepts (for example, removing obviously redundant material in the same paragraph) that would be helpful in improving that section. Also, I especially agree with you about the Praeger book and the Ross site. Chapter 11 of the Praeger book is filled with material that is perfect for this article. Thanks again, Artnscience 19:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
To view the text of the Praeger book ("Deadly Cults: The Crimes of True Believers"), see http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0275980529/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop. You can search for "Fellowship of Friends" from this page, or simply navigate to p. 121, which is the beginning of Chapter 11. Artnscience 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing Truce Reminder

Artinscience: You make some interesting points in your edits, but as far as I know, we are still in an editing truce - which the most active editors before you entered the scene were willing to abide. Would you be so kind as to remove your edits and not make further additions until the Truce is over? I will send a note to Coren to see when he thinks he will complete his review. Thank you for your consideration.

Yes, I'm sorry for that -- I'll remove my new content and save it for inclusion after the truce. I completely misunderstood... I thought the truce was for the main page and not the draft page, but now I can see what's happening.

Artnscience 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

effects upon region

BabyDove has started a new section which seems quite valid for this article – the impact of the FOF central retreat on it's surroundings, relations with the existing population of Oregon House, political relations with Yuba County etc. The fact that the FOF has pumped up the local economy and that FOF-related products (wines, olive oils etc.) have garnered many awards and much international praise is indisputable. We just need to source it, which should not be too hard. Sourcing the original newspaper and magazine articles directly where possible, rather than just quoting FOF or RVW web pages would lend greater credibility to the balance of the article as a whole. There are other relevant newspaper accounts e.g. quoting county officials praising the beauty of the Theatron or expressing how initial mistrust, on the part of locals, of the organization has given way to cooperation, even admiration over time. Nixwisser 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nixwisser and BabyDove, has Coren stated that we can now edit the draft page? Moon Rising asked me to remove some material last night, so just checking on that. But either way, I agree that this would be an interesting section, and there are newspaper articles that present both positive and negative views of the Fellowship in this regard, so it should end up being fairly balanced. Artnscience 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, he only requested a six hour truce on Sunday/Monday... Regards, Baby Dove 23:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Initially he did, but later asked for more time. Also, see "Editing Truce Reminder" in the above section. Moon Rising asked me to remove some text that I inserted last night. Anyway, I'll wait for Coren at this point until I hear otherwise. Can anyone step in and help clarify it for us? Baby Dove thinks the Truce is over. Is that true? Thanks, Artnscience 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Text for Controversies Section

Here's the text that I mistakenly added last night. It includes detailed references to the Praeger book, but I've removed them, as well as the other references... I mainly just want to present this material as a suggestion to Coren and all of you for your review. Hope it helps.

CONTROVERSIES

Court Case

The leader of the Fellowship of Friends, Robert Earl Burton, was sued in 1996 by a former member of the organization. Robert Burton was accused over charges of non-consensual sex, sex with a minor, and brainwashing. [14] [15]Robert E. Burton and the Fellowship of Friends denied every allegation.[citation needed] They claimed that the plaintiff had no facts to support the claim of sex with a minor, and that there was also no proof that the plaintiff was coerced into any sexual activity.[citation needed] This case and another lawsuit claiming sexual abuse were settled out of court with unknown outcomes. [16]

Predictions

According to Robert Burton, the work or undertaking which higher forces have given to the Fellowship of Friends is to create an 'ark' to preserve civilization across a major gap in the course of human history, characterized by the destruction of civilization as we know it. In particular, Mr. Burton was given to believe that a world-wide depression would occur in February 1984; that California would be destroyed in a major earthquake occurring in April 1998; and that thermonuclear war (Armageddon) would occur in September 2006.[17]. This last prediction has also been mentioned in an anti-cult organization's webpages[24], and in an LA Times article [25]. In making these predictions, Burton said he was being guided by higher forces -- which he has stated is comprised of a group of 44 individuals that includes Benjamin Franklin, Christ, and Plato. [18]

Fees

The Fellowship of Friends has been described as a "pleasure- and consumer-oriented cult." [19] Members believe that spiritual enlightenment comes through the experience of higher culture such as fine art and fine music, as well as fine food and wine. [20] The group requires members to pay at least 10 percent of their gross incomes each month, and several members pay more than this. [21] The group's overall worth in the late 1990s was estimated at $26 million, while Robert Burton's annual salary was at least $250,000. [22] The leadership of the Fellowship of Friends has stated that high payments are a principle that can help individuals gain a deeper understanding.

Authority Over Members

The Fellowship of Friends includes numerous rules that are described as being part of the work toward spiritual awakening, and members often describe these rules as voluntary and necessary toward their aims. However, former members have criticized the group for what they believe to be excessive control. For example, smoking is disallowed in the group and can lead to fines as high as $1,500. [23] Burton has also forbidden members to dye their hair, have mixed-breed pets, or ride bicycles, [24] and he has also regulated the diets and sex lives of many members. [25] Burton also discourages members from socializing with people outside the Fellowship, including families, [26] and forbids socialization with former members.

Artnscience 19:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To view the text of "Deadly Cults: The Crimes of True Believers"), see http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0275980529/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop. The above material was pulled from this book, and references can be included when this material is added to the page. Artnscience 19:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that the info about Alex Horn, Fellowship of Friends connection with the Fourth way and so on is not forgotten and I'll personally wright that soon ( I consider this the top controversy of the fof . O and welcome Artnscience, and I think that you can source some of that here [26]Aeuio 19:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Aeuio. Sounds good! Artnscience 19:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)