Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Archive 4

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

Contents

Change of mediator

I would like to suggest a replacement of the current mediator (Coren). I have nothing against Coren - he seems to be a very reasonable person and quite neutral in his points of view and suggestions. The reason for the request is that I don't think that Coren has the time and availability that this mediation demands. If Coren is willing to dedicate more time and energy to this mediation I would be more than happy to proceed with him. I just don't think that his participation is active enough at the moment. Mario Fantoni 05:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, unless Coren is ready to move on. I agree with you that's he doing a good job, and doubt we'll find someone who can devote any more time to this. Artnscience 05:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Artnscience said: "I doubt we'll find someone who can devote any more time to this." How does he know? Mario Fantoni 06:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's my opinion. You think we need a new mediator, but I disagree that it would solve any problems we're having here. Artnscience 13:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New mediator - Absolutely not. You honestly think that someone is going to come here and go through the entire history of these articles in order to get a good sense of what's happening? Coren at least knows the situation and has been according to everyone quite neutral. Coren obviously needs a break from this page sometimes, so I don't see why he shouldn't get one/or doesn't deserve one. (especially now when there is little assuming good faith) Aeuio 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that with a more active mediator the diferences between the editors could be solved in a week or less. At the current rate it will take much longer. Mario Fantoni 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Artnscience and Aeuio, simply because I think it will take another editor a long time to get up to speed and probably has a life outside WP and won't spend any more time than Coren. As far as mediation abilities, I think we all agree he's doing a fine job. --Moon Rising 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Coren's last edit on this Talk page was on May 4 at 20:12 UTC. This means that he has been absent for 3 full days (including a weekend, when most people don't work). What happens when a mediator takes a break like this is that things escalate (for example the whole "Proof of Advertising" issue above). Mario Fantoni 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Mario, 3 days is not that long of a time; yes, this page is heating up, but maybe he took a 3 day weekend, or is sick. I can see why you seem anxious about this. You have been under a substantial personal attack, and if I were in your shoes, I'd want someone to comment right away. Your detractors seem to have a difficult time taking you at your word, and I don't see how any mediator will really help that. There seems to be a lot of hostility on this page. I do agree that with a more active mediator our differences might be solved sooner, but what makes you think anyone else will be more active? Do you have experience with other WP mediators? --Moon Rising 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot of disagreement on this page, but I wouldn't call it hostility. My main concern is presenting the most balanced article possible, and to present the language as clearly and concisely as possible so that readers can make up their own minds. Artnscience 02:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Baby Dove, it is now almost 4 days since Coren's last participation in the mediation. I don't believe that he is on vacation or sick - he did edit other pages during those 4 days, as indicated in his contribs page. I do believe that a mediator would stop the personal attacks to me, since they are against Wikipedia's policy on that issue, that states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute. It is best for an uninvolved observer to politely point out that someone has made a personal attack, and for the discussion to return to considering the content, not the person." (Bold in the original). Mario Fantoni 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is asking you to give your explanation on this situation a "personal attack". I have made the only reasonable connection possible and stated it (basically I accused you of doing your job), while you denied it...and that's fine. It's the same as the Wine-ark sock-situation; in that case you made a personal attack against Wine-ark when you accused him. Aeuio 19:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, Mario - you've convinced me. Since he's been editing on WP but silent on this page, he's obviously not unavailable, as I previously thought. We need a mediator that can and will be consistent.--Moon Rising 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

p.s. The day Mario first requested a change in mediator, I left a message on Coren's talk page letting him know that this request was made. Since WP shows you that you've got a new message when you log in, Coren is aware that this issue has come up, and he still has not responded. Perhaps he has lost interest. We need a stronger committment. --Moon Rising 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: The situation with Wine-in-Ark was slightly different. Sockpuppetry was "proved" as far as this can be done with WP methods. "Both" involved individuals denied it, and we just chose to believe what they said. Regards, Baby Dove 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I invoked the phrase "edit war" in first requesting mediation. Since then I seen enough examples in other "hot" WP articles to see that we definitely do not have one here at this point. We have a lot of activity, a lot of back and forth which is tedious, yes, but nothing like a real edit war. The first week or two of this article, when Riquiroz was vandalizing over and over again - that was out of control. The back and forth a bit later between Veronica and Mario - that was an edit war. We are doing quite fine here in recent weeks, though it may seem tedious. Coren, quite voluntarily and with no vested interest in the subject nor any obligation, put quite a lot of time into this already. He deserves nothing but thanks from us for that, not talk of "commitment". I would welcome any further comments he may have in the future, of course, but to expect him to hang around indefinitely holding our hands and playing policeman is not realistic. That is not how it works in WP-land. It is us to us to take a little responsibility ourselves, deal with the conflicts and go forward like adults. In short - new mediator? no way. Nixwisser 01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, Nix, but a "I have to take a break now, see you in a few days" or "it was nice to work with you guys, but I have to move on" from Coren would have been nice. Right now we are in limbo. Mario Fantoni 01:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see many big problems, as most seem to be solving themselves. Nevertheless I am begining to agree with Mario on this, as this mediation talking too long and has become very annoying Aeuio 02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The only current problem I see connected with the mediation plan, is that we have a very vague and undefined picture of when the draft page is "ok". Common sense shows that we will never reach a point where all contention stops. So the question then becomes, "are the issues reasonably clear at this point - are we proceeding to edit in a responsible way?" I think the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, it is time to move the draft over to the real page, take all those Halloween banners at the top off and continue editing/developing the page like any other complex WP issue. I expect edits will continue for quite a long time to come, and that is perfectly natural and desirable. Nixwisser 02:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we make the transition a smooth one? Here is a plan: we keep editing the Draft Rewrite page for 3 or 4 days and we copy the Draft page to the main article once a day. If everything goes well we end the quarantine and go back to editing the main article. Mario Fantoni 03:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that no mediation is Plan B. Plan A is to find a new mediator. Today I did some research and I found a candidate: Vassyana. Some info about him:
  • He is one of the coordinators of the Mediation Cabal (there are only 3!).
  • He is a member of the WikiProject Christianity.
  • He is a member of the WikiProject Taoism.
  • He is a member of the Wikiproject Occult.
  • He is a member of the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias In Religion.
  • He is a member of the Kindness Campaign.
  • He is a member of the Wikipedia Department of Fun.
Looks good to me. I posted a message on his User page telling him about this page and he replied: "I have contacted Coren to see if he was just busy for a short bit or needs someone else to step in. If he does not respond in a day or two, I will offer my assistance as an informal mediator. Vassyana 02:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)"
What do you think? Mario Fantoni 04:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to this discussion as a whole:

  • I think we are all grateful for the work Coren has done to help get us to this point. Nix-I hope you don't think anyone was expressing disapproval by requesting that he show more consistency or check in now and then. After all, when Jossi offered to help with this mediation, he expressed feelings of this being his pet project (I forget his exact words) and politely asked her to back off. It would be really nice if he let us know of his continued interest.
  • As far as transitioning from the draft to the actual article, I'd like to wait at least a few days, as Mario suggests, and see if things remain fairly constant. Artnscience has not edited today, and wine-in-ark has not been here for several days. Let's see what they think about the article and how to proceed.
  • I think we each need to re-review Coren's original assessment of the situation and make sure we have consensus on the key disputed areas. In other words, can each major editor agree that they are basically satisfied with each subsection? What changes do each of you still want (other than clarifications and refinements. Does anyone feel that additional sections need to be added (remember that Coren asked that we just work on what we had, and not add any new headings). I'm in favor of baby steps. This is not a time to be bold. It doesn't help or hurt proponents of either viewpoint to have a draft article for a while longer. Personally, I'm setting my standards high for what this article can be, based on looking at other articles. I feel we're still in rehearsal. Let's wait till we're ready for a dress rehearsal at least. Do we have consensus on these areas? Anyone want to add or delete a section? Is there still too much undefined 4th way jargon that needs to be deleted, explained or moved? Do we need to put a short glossary back? These were some of the earlier concerns. Now's the time to talk about it. I think readers will be confused with either version. I know the subject well; I've been reading Ouspensky and Gurdjieff since I was 17 and that was a verrrrrrry long time ago. And I'm confused when I read it. It's much better than it was, but it would blow me away if I was a newbie. Let's answer these questions before we go "live."
  • I very much want to invite Vassyana to comment on the article too, and get his suggestions, even if he doesn't step in and take over a mediation role. That is, if he's willing. While it doesn't appear that he has 4th way expertise, he has religious/philosophical experience and interest and seems devoted to making the WP articles he works on outstanding. This is not to diminish Coren's past or future role at all. It's just that Vassyana has more experience in our field. Sort of like hiring an electrician to re-wire your house, not a plumber (who could probably do it, with enough general construction background). Vassyana's involvement would likely give us all a fresh look at the article and how we interact with each other. I feel this can only improve what we write, and each of us personally. He has solid experience creating/editing high quality WP articles in religion, and as a mediator. We all want an unbiased, "perfect" WP article in the end. I am confident that we could do it on our own over time, I'd just prefer to do it in less time, and under the direction of someone who can highlight what it will take to get there. Let's be patient and aim high.
  • One final thought - and I hope it's not inappropriate. My guess is that all editors here have studied the Fourth Way in some form, and for some period of time, whether the focus was from Gurdjieef, Ouspenseky, Nicoll, Collin, Burton or others. I wonder how many of the editors actually try to practice the teachings of the 4th way on a daily or even occasional basis while editing WP. I wonder if, as I write this, I can be present to what I am thinking and what I am writing. Can I approach this project without expressing negative emotions? Can I transform the friction of going through all those tedious little edits that get to just one little well written sub-section? Can I respond to a less than polite editor with presence? Can I try to be awake enough to remember to sign my edits, to not jump in in the middle of a conversation, to log in before I sign an aritcle, etc. Just some thoughts. Do any other editors have similar aims as you log into WP. Just a thought. We could actually use what we write about to achieve our WP aim.

--Moon Rising 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another few thoughts - could the article be arranged/formated differently for clarity and WP standards? Would graphics help -it's so dull now? Anybody have any suggestions on making me less long winded<grin>? I could use a lesson. Thanks for your patience with me.Moon Rising 08:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're still under an agreement with Coren that we won't add sections. So before I add a section, (if source material is available for it) do I have support from at least a few other editors? In the section "Criticism of Former Members" some alleged exercises are listed These exercises sound strange, and do not provide any supporting information as to why they might have been useful, if the actually existed. Like any Fourth Way school or group, there must be exercises or activities the group uses for creating and prolonging higher states of consciousness. I'd like to explore sources and see if some current exercises can be found, with an explanation of how they are used in the FOF. So this would be a new section - any problems? Any suggestions where to find this information besides their web site? Thanks.--Moon Rising 09:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I completely agree with Nixwisser: "Common sense shows that we will never reach a point where all contention stops. So the question then becomes, 'are the issues reasonably clear at this point - are we proceeding to edit in a responsible way?' I think the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, it is time to move the draft over to the real page..." So let's move the draft page over to the real page. Artnscience 15:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I am for moving the draft page to the real one, but we need Aeiou's, Moon Rising's and Baby Dove's OK. I assume that Nixwisser can represent Wine-in-Ark. Mario Fantoni 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK for me. Baby Dove 17:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I still have reservations, but I don't want to be the hold out - so go for it!--Moon Rising 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thought as we transition to the "real" article: from Omar Khayyam: O friend, let us use well this one breath of life.--Moon Rising 19:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I copied the Draft Rewrite page to the main article. Let's be very attentive now not to lose what we have gained. Mario Fantoni 06:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

Changed Sub headings for fees, criticism and predictions for the same reason I changed the heading for court cases: the Section heading is "Controversies" and I don't see why we need to emphasize the controversy with a sensational subsection headline. Sensationalizing seems to show bias. JMHO.--Moon Rising 00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that these subsections were in any way sensational: Artnscience 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Simply saying "Lawsuits" could imply lawsuits "by" the Fellowship and Robert Burton and not "against" him. This needs to be specific, so it needs to be "Lawsuits Against Robert Burton". But I do think the term "lawsuit" is better than "court cases," so I liked that change. Artnscience 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I also think simply "Fees" is not descriptive enough. The controversy is not that there are fees. The dispute has arisen because many believe the fees are excessive, so we need to keep it, "excessive fees". Artnscience 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The word "failed" needs to go in front of "predictions." The fact that Robert Burton has made predictions is one type of controversy if we really wanted to explore that a bit more, but the main controversy being mentioned here is that the predictions failed. So we need to keep that word as well. Artnscience 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We need to emphasize where the criticism is coming from, and from whom. The fact that former members are doing the criticism lends some credibility to the contentions, because they have first-hand experience with the organization. So this section should not be simply "criticism", but "Criticism by Former Members." Artnscience 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the simplicity of my edits (of course<grin>) but the edits you just made, and your arguments are reasonable, and though I disagree, it is a good compromise. The first subsection heading is definitely less inlamatory than a previous version (I forget if it was yours or Mario's). We are getting somewhere, aren't we?--Moon Rising 01:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I agree. I did go back and add the first name "Robert", which I thought was a good idea as well. Artnscience 01:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with "Excessive Fees" and "Failed Predictions", since I added "excessive" to the Fees section and "failed" to the Predictions one. I also like "Lawsuits Against Robert Burton" more than my suggested title: "Robert Burton Sexual Behaviour" since the section focuses on the lawsuits, not on Mr. Burtons sexual life. Mario Fantoni 04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The section on lawsuits is about lawsuits against both RB and the FOF, so "lawsuits against Robert Burton" is factually incorrect. The bit about "without sentence" is also incorrect and grammatically horrid. One word is perfectly descriptive, neutral and accurate. The titles "Excessive Fees" and "Failed Predictions" also seem needlessly inflammatory. I think most readers can figure out that there was no world-wide depression in 1984 nor hydrogen warfare in 2006, so they do not need to be hit over the head. If they feel the fees requested are excessive, they can also deduce that for themselves. I would rather keep them short and neutral, but I can live with these latter two for the sake of compromise. Nixwisser 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The section on lawsuits is by now only an anecdote. There was no sentence at all, which makes the word "lawsuits" completely inappropriate and sensationalist. If there was a settlement and it leaves no space to disclose the terms, it is reasonable not to talk about it after more than 10 years, other than to discredit the parts. One can imagine several scenarios regarding the settlement, all of them not being able to be proved. From the organization paying a secret compensation to the plaintiff for his silence, to the plaintiff withdrawing his accusation viewing that he would not be able to sustain it whith the required proofs,everything is possible, but imaginary.

The fact is that no sentence was produced, so the very word "lawsuit" only tends to obscure the facts, but the mention of the given results would make it clear. Regards, Baby Dove 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If it is settled out of court, it in no way means that there was no case, nor that it points to who won in the case. I have edit it for npov, as the words "but" and so on are concluding what happened. And would you not change the title, as the fact that there is no sentence is mentioned word for word in the article Aeuio 16:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

44 angels, california fall and nuclear holocaust

It is very interesting that, at searching in Mr. Burton's Self-Remembering, in Amazon, I could not find any other result for the term "44" than the page number, in the page itself and the index. Then, I search for "forty-four" and I succeeded once: At page 151, Burton says "... Basically, forty-four conscious beings spread their work throughout the school. Higher forces help us every day. Sometimes, they give us gifts (suffering)..."
It is very interesting that in the article, some names are given (Christ, Plato, Benjamin Franklin, etc.), as well as in some cult-buster's books and other sources. However, if these books say these names (LA Times mentions this by affirming that "Burton tels members that he speaks with 44 angels..." though it does not say that they have interviewed him).
So, all these has to have reached these media through a second-hand interested version, resembling pretty much to a personal research.
Moreover, in the "Failed Predictions by Robert Burton" section, it is said that "Burton states that 'higher forces are comprised of a group of 44 individuals that include Benjamin Franklin, Christ, and Plato." This is not what he says in his book, because "forty-four conscious beings spreading their work throughout the school" does not mean "higher forces are comprised by a group of 44 individuals..."
Then, I realized that the FoF website is previous to 2006, year of the nuclear holocaust announced by LA Times in 1996. However, in these pages nothing is said about the incoming war, or the preparations for the event.
Of course, the dates have also somehow been suggested to LA Times, because "1998"and "2006" does not give a result in the Amazon "search within the book."
I was temped to delete this section due to these uncertain sources, but perhaps some can provide a full quotation from the book or any official material from the organization confirming what it is said. We can consider that, in case former members would be the source for all of this, their quality of former members may avoid them to be duly updated regarding these issues, or know the reason to work with this within the organization in the past.
I am aware that Mr. Haven is quoted as giving the dates of the failed events. However, since it was said here that he is not a source representing the official thought of the church, it cannot be quoted in this sense. Everything he says is up to him. Besides, since this is the only quoted material regarding these events and he has written more books afterwards, may be he already gave another version of these predictions that former students might not be aware of.
Regards, Baby Dove 06:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Haven quoted Burton, who's opinion very much decides what the fof believes. It has been stated by other editors taht this was a major belief of the fof, so if you wish to prove that these predictions are made up, then do so. (You might even want to contact the fof website guys because they have Girard along side of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky and Burton in their Fourth Way transmission.) This is exactly what I was referring to when I claimed that you were advertising. Let's get this straight: "The predictions were said by Burton, and you are not going to claim that they are made up, and you are not going to try to prove that they are taken out of context. They are sourced to Burton by a second in line member of the fof (according to the website), but since Burton didn't quote it himself in his book, let's just be fair and neutral and delete it all." Buddy, if you have a problem with the wording then get rid of the names of the "44 angels"; don't propose that we delete everything. Aeuio 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Aeuio, and strongly disagree with B.D. These are excellent sources. The detailed descriptions of the failed predictions should all stay, including the information about the 44 conscious beings and their connection to these predictions. All of this provides a clearer picture of the leader of the organization, and of the organization itself. By the way, I want the names to stay as well because it provides a clearer picture for readers about "higher forces" and what they are. Artnscience 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Aeiou and Artnscience that the predictions and the names of (some) of the 44 conscious beings should be mentioned on the page, but since the source is Mr. Haven and not Mr. Burton the text has to say "According to a prominent member, Girard Haven, Mr. Burton predicted..." See Coren's comment above regarding Bush and the sour cream moon. Mario Fantoni 16:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mario, as it is more percise Aeuio 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is enough to point to Girard Haven as a <reference> on what Robert Burton has said, that is, quote the book and page number. What is the point of having a references section if you have to spell it out as "G. Haven said that R. Burton said..." G. Haven quotes R. Burton in Creating a Soul as having predicted world-wide depression for 1984, California falling for 1998 and Armageddon for 2006, and FoF serving as an ark for the survival of human civilization (page 581). G. Haven quotes R. Burton as having said that 44 conscious beings are helping the Fellowship of Friends (page 484). Do we have any reason to believe that G. Haven is lying or misrepresenting the truth? Do we have reason to believe that R. Burton did not make those statements? Why would G. Haven's book have been intended for the instruction of Fellowship students, why would he be up on the FoF website as the second man in Burton's lineage, if this was false and not in fact the official belief? The only reason to phrase it as "G. Haven says that R. Burton says that there will be an Armageddon in 2006" is to create a sense that G. Haven is not credible and that there is evidence to the contrary. Wine-in-ark 23:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see that some strongly disagree with being literal to what Mr. Burton wrote in his book. By saying, for instance, "44 individuals work in this school" does not mean "the school has only 44 members." But this is what the quoted sources made: twisting what was said.
For me, it does not matter whether it was a former student who told about the dates and the names of the 44 angels to LA Times, or Mr. Haven who published them by saying that this was said by Mr. Burton. Since Mr. Burton had the opportunity to talk himself about this and he did not, we cannot entirely trust that he really wanted the world to be aware of this.
We all know that everybody say things in private that would not say publicly. If one hears something in private, common decency says that one cannot make it public. Since Mr. Burton has never gone to a television study to let the world know about his predictions, talking about the subject when one knows them through others should not be taken seriously.
Coren has said something relevant about this, regarding Bush and the moon, but this point was not honored regarding Mr. Burton's predictions. Especially some editors consistently forget the "It is said" part of the sentence.
I did not delete anything just for the sake of someone able to get official statements mentioning all this stuff. Instead of providing the material, many have angrily said "the material is perfect and it should remain", or "you are not trying to show that this was taken out of context (after all, what I decide to try is just my business)."
I tried to follow Coren's spirit of being precise to what it was said (where are you Coren? it has been four days since you last showed up), so please, show me where all this precise information is written such as it is quoted in the article, instead of being angry. If one or more of you have heard it in person, please remember all the rules regarding personal research, because I guess we do not want WP to be a place where a person says "I heard it" and the other say "I did not hear it."
Regards, Baby Dove 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

When talking abour C Influence, the article was saying that Mr. Burton was "claiming to be conscious." The quoted source was p. 150 in his book, Self-Remembering.
Searching within the book in Amazon, no reference to himself as a "conscious" person was found, not even searching as "conscious being."
I could not find in the page any reference to him asd a connection with C Influence. The only result for C Influence in the page is: "Influence C is a sacred celestial influence coming to us from the stars..."
Searching by "conscious", the said page #150 says: "Collin refers to a higher mind arranging one's fate as 'Conscious' influence [bold in the original]. Man is not the highest power in the universe..."
I tried to see this said in other pages but I could not, so I changed the text accordingly.
Regards, Baby Dove 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the fof website states that Burton is conscious. Aeuio 03:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio:
The article was saying "he claims to be conscious." It said nothing regarding the FOF believing that they have a conscious teacher. These are the slight differences that separate the acceptable from the not so acceptable.
Regards, Baby Dove 04:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

From the official web site FAQ section:
Is the Teacher conscious?
Yes. Robert Burton crystallized his higher centers in 1976. Because it is a law that the lower cannot see the higher, verifying the level of being of the Teacher may seem challenging. Yet we can approach this question in a practical way. If working with this Teacher in this School makes you more conscious, more awake than when you began, then the question of the Teacher’s consciousness is to some extent irrelevant. What becomes increasingly more important is the question, “Am I more awake than before?” Ironically, as you begin to awaken and learn to distinguish in yourself moments of consciousness from moments of mechanicalness, you will recognize when other people are conscious of what they are doing and when they are not.
Mario Fantoni 04:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And you interpret this how? They said "Burton is conscious" + "It can't be varified" = "Burton claims to be conscious". Same as if I write that "Aeuio has a trillion dollars" + "you can't verify this" = "Aeuio claims to have a trillion dollars". And if you find something worded not according to what you think it should be, I think it's better that it's reworded instead of deleted completely. Or in this case it was in a wrong place, so I think that it should just rather be moved Aeuio 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is more "John says Aeuio has a trillion dollars" + "you can't verify this" = "John claims that Aeiou has a trillion dollars". The correct phrase in my undertanding is "The FoF official web site claims that Burton is conscious." Mario Fantoni 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That's true, but by the same standards the info from the website mentioned here should then be rewritten as "The FoF website claims that the FoF teaching involves". I thought that you said that the info of the website is absolutely true on what the FOF believes? Aeuio 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Aeiou. By the way, after reading the official statement from FoF's president, it looks like the website and the statement are not in agreement. For example, the statement declares "The Fellowship is a Fourth Way school with a different form than the one presented by G. I. Gurdjieff and P. D. Ouspensky" but the home page of the web site states "The Fellowship of Friends is a true Fourth Way school based on the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky." Go figure. Mario Fantoni 04:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the reference to C Influence being a "rare gift" and that they "seldom reveal themselves" was not found in Burton's book at all. Regards, Baby Dove 05:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, but then the article needs to be changed as it doesn't represent how FoF regards themselves. Aeuio 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Not true that it was not found in Burton's book. Please check your sources before you make such a statement. It was completely referenced. Original quotation from "Self-Remembering", Robert E. Burton. Samuel Weiser Inc., 1995, page 152: "I cannot stress enough what a gift it is that higher forces have revealed themselves to us. They rarely reveal themselves, even to conscious beings. We receive Influence C because life rejects it. They pursue Influence A, while we pursue Influence C." It is not helpful to hang on every word. In fact a Wikipedia article should not be a direct copy from another work. Wine-in-ark 23:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

C influence

This section is confusing me. I know what C influence is, I know what the Fellowship web page says about their teacher being conscious, and I should be able to understand this section. I think at least one editor has tried to say that Burton is conscious. I think another editor(s) added stuff about 44 conscious beings helping the FOF more to discredit the Fellowship than to add to the explanation of C influence because it sounds so loony. I'm pretty open minded about these things. I think the content here should be divided into 2 sections - one called C influence, taken from the organizations web site to show what they think of themselves in this regard. The more loony stuff (for lack of a better word) could go into criticisms. Does this make sense to anyone else? Also, at the end of the section, BD stuck in some references to A and B influences. How the heck is a casual reader going to make any sense of this? "What is this A and B influence, he might ask himself? I don't have an answer now on how to resolve this - just something for editors to think about, in case you want to clean it up before I get to it. I tried, but got lost in words.--Moon Rising 08:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising:
Another way is to quote first Mr. Ouspensky's short definitions of the three kinds of influences, and then enter the C Influence subject.
I can try to make it brief and clear.
Regards, Baby Dove 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you BD - if you can. Otherwise I'll try to get to it. --Moon Rising 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising,I did quote Ouspensky's influences. If yoiu want to see how it is now and make some grammar correction, it might be good. Regards, Baby Dove 23:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is helpful to have input from more than 1 source in any section, including those which purport to show FOF's central beliefs. I really cannot see why the belief that there are 44 conscious beings helping the Fellowship, a very central tenet of the school from near its inception, should be seen as 'looney', unless a reader considers all ideas of discarnate powers as 'looney'. Unless a sourced statement disclaiming the "error" of the prior belief in "the 44" can be brought, this has no place in the history section. The Fellowship retreat is no longer called Renaissance, and that is sourceable. References to Renaissance might be a good example of material for the history section. The beliefs about these 44 discarnate beings is not. Nixwisser 00:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


From Burton’s book “Self-remembering.”

[The following is posted as a review of the content of the book and comes under fair use provisions.]

A cataclysmic disaster may be imminent that could be a prelude to hydrogen warfare. If California fell, there would be no major population center near Renaissance and so the coast would be clear. (53)

Almost all of Christ’s disciples died an unnatural death. We must talk of these things to prepare us for what is to come. Enduring suffering, one takes up one’s own cross. We are chosen to play these roles. (87)

They [C Influence] have given us some prophecies that are facts for them but, until they turn into facts for us, they must be called prophecies. (142)

Influence C ushers us to Heaven’s gate. (151)

We have been chosen by Influence C to awaken, while almost all others have an indifferent fate. That is, they are left alone to a great extent by higher forces. Influence C wants something for us: an astral body. And they want something from us: an ark to survive hydrogen warfare. (155)

Hydrogen warfare seems inevitable, and one no longer has to be a prophet to predict it. Incredible events may happen in our lives, and I will be very surprised if anything but us survives. (156)

We are truly involved in tremendous events, such as hydrogen warfare, and yet these events favor us because they have evoked a school on earth from higher forces. (161)

I still have considerable difficulty transforming negative emotions, primarily due to the violence of the suffering I must absorb to lift a school and humanity out of the chaos of impending hydrogen warfare. (176)

Our school will produce seven conscious beings. Apollo will not reach its peak for centuries or millennia. Our school is one of the greatest schools in recorded history, and that is why suffering is so abundant. (185)

(posted by) The King of Clubs

==Brief Work Overload==

Hello all.

Sorry I haven't been very present lately; I've been stuck with Real Life work taking almost all of my free time, and I felt you deserved more than a quick off-the-cuff comment now and then, so I was not very much around during the last week, excepting for when pulled in my an email or something (which is why I'm here).

I'm going to be reading what's been going on and give a few comments to help things along this evening, but I'll be back with actual time to dedicate in a day or two.

Coren 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we are pretty lucky to have you, and that you should stay as the main mediator, while if you can't contribute for a while then someone could help out while you are away.(And the mediator who offered help looks pretty good too) Thanks and welcome back Coren Aeuio 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Official statement of the Fellowship of Friends

Dear Mr. Fantoni,

Thank you for requesting this information for the Fellowship of Friends Wikipedia article. The statements below reflect our official position.

Sorry it took so long to respond.

Linda Tulisso
President, Fellowship of Friends, Inc.

23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Purpose and aims of the organization
 The Fellowship of Friends, Inc., is a non-profit, religious organization recognized by CA Secretary of State and US Department of the Treasury as a 501(c)(3) organization; documents on file with State and Federal Governments, Federal ID# 23- 723332. The Fellowship sees its designated task as the attempt to develop a soul that can survive death and achieve independent, immortal existence in the universe. This task includes continuing and preserving the highest forms of beauty, knowledge, and culture; and using this task as a vehicle for, and the expression of, divine presence. [Source: Fellowship Canons; document on file with CA State and US Federal Governments].

Summary of the principles and beliefs
The doctrines of the Fellowship of Friends are based on esoteric religious teachings about how to develop consciousness. These esoteric religious teachings include Sumerian and Egyptian texts, Greek philosophy (the schools of Pythagoras and Plato), the Old and New Testaments (including the Essenes and Gnostics) and certain Sufi and Buddhist teachings from the 9th to the 19th century. [Source: Fellowship Canons; document on file with CA State and US Federal Governments].

Official position of the organization regarding the Fourth Way teaching
The Fellowship was founded in 1970 in the Fourth Way tradition, also known as "esoteric Christianity". The Fourth Way teaches that there are different levels of conscious teaching and that these teachings take unique forms throughout history. The Fellowship is a Fourth Way school with a different form than the one presented by G. I. Gurdjieff and P. D. Ouspensky.

Brief summary of the current teaching and sources
The pivotal teaching is the development of consciousness through presence. Different esoteric traditions have expressed this same teaching in different ways (e.g., the Sufis called it Divine Presence, the Philokalia describes it as Ceaseless Prayer); the Fellowship is currently studying these forms and using these terms interchangeably, as they all not only reflect the same aim but also show the hidden meaning of life on earth.

Official position regarding predictions
Robert Burton's predictions were always considered theoretical and did not form a basis of the teaching.

Mr. Haven's books as representative of the organization’s purpose, beliefs and teaching
Girard Haven's books are a compilation of essays he wrote to fellow members. They express his personal experiences on the path to awakening. They do not represent the organization, per se, as a whole.

Mario Fantoni 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is surprising in many ways. Aeuio 01:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments about the official statement of the FOF

What is the position of the editors here concerning the info from the email? Although it can't be used as a source, is this FoF position going to be attempted on this article? Aeuio 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can write a book or a paper saying that "Mr X, a neighbour, said that Mr. Y was organizing orgies every Tuesday, so the police had to intervene."
When Mr Y sees his name in the paper, he calls them to say he was not organizing even a tea with his aunts, and they tell him a phone call is not a valid source. If he insists too much, the paper enlarges its original article: "the results of the police visit to Mr. Y's are unknown." Regards, Baby Dove 16:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove, I don't understand how your comment above relates to the official statement of the FoF. Can you explain? Thanks. Mario Fantoni 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the official statement, I don't think that anybody will know more about the purpose and beliefs of the FoF than the President of the FoF (Mrs. Tulisso), since she represents the organization. Anybody can verify the authenticity of the information on the statement writing to contact@go-c.org. That is the e-mail address I used to contact the FoF. Mario Fantoni 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I would think that WP would accept the cannons of an organization that are filed with state and federal agencies and being a reliable source. --Moon Rising 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated my comment from May 10 at 16:49 with the missing part:
Regarding some questioning about using a source from the same talk page, it can be said that many items in the page are based on books and papers quoting very undefined sources, such as "A former student said..." That is very weird, since anybody can write a book or a paper saying that "Mr X, a neighbour, said that Mr. Y was organizing orgies every Tuesday, so the police had to intervene."
When Mr Y sees his name in the paper, he calls them to say he was not organizing even a tea with his aunts, and they tell him a phone call is not a valid source. If he insists too much, the paper enlarges its original article: "the results of the police visit to Mr. Y's are unknown." This seems to be what has been happening here.
Questioning a legal authority of the organization because she explains what these publications said from a second-hand source seems quite surprising to me. Regards, Baby Dove 16:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is it possible to get a copy of the Fellowship cannons? Is it a publicly accessible document? Wine-in-ark 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The reference in the article says: "Fellowship Canons; document on file with CA State and US Federal Governments". --Moon Rising 23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

About the Fourth Way

Though Peter D. Ouspensky was the first one using the term "The Fourth Way", here there are some quotes from other recognized Fourth Way authors:
It is Mr. Ouspensky who shows us the wide concept of this name, when he says: "But all the schools of the Fourth Way, all degrees, all levels, have certain features peculiar to them. First, they are always connected with some kind of objective work. For instance, schools connected with the building of Gothic cathedrals in mediaeval times were schools of the Fourth Way. This must not be taken too literally. It does not mean that all cathedrals were built by schools, but that schools were behind this building." [A Further Record, Penguin, 1993, ISBN 0140193073 - Chapter 7, "The Work."]
Mr. Rodney Collin says: "Schools of the fourth way have existed and exist, just as schools of the three traditional ways existed and exist. But they are much more difficult to detect, because - unlike the others - they cannot be recognized by any one practice, one method, one task, or one name. They are always inventing new methods, new practices, suitable to the time and conditions in which they exist, and when they have achieved one task which was set them they pass on to another, often changing their name and whole appearance in the process." Then, he adds more, showing the wide range of the term: "Thus schools of the fourth way were undoubtedly behind the designing and construction of the great Gothic cathedrals, though they had no special name and adapted themselves to the religious organization of the time. For a time the Cluniacs sheltered them, for a time the Freemasons. In the seventeenth century, similar schools were responsible for much of the new scientific and medical research, sometimes under one name and sometimes under another. In the eighteenth century again, fourth way schools borrowed many of the discoveries of Greek and Egyptian archeology to clothe their ideas and their organization, while some of their leaders - in order to penetrate the luxury loving and sophisticated circles where they had work to do - might even appear in the guise of fashionable magicians or mesmerists. For the fourth way endeavours to introduce consciousness into all sides of life, and its form is always connected with that which is most new, with that which prepares the future. At the same time, by definition, the fourth way - like the other three ways - is primarily concerned with the development of human souls. And its true work, like theirs, is to feed the soul of the culture in which it works. It may thus be said that the stage of development of the soul of any given culture will be the direct result of these four ways, and of the work of the schools which study them." [The Theory of Celestial Influence, Penguin, 1997 ISBN 0140193650 - Chapter 15 "The Shape of Civilization."] Regards, Baby Dove 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Gurdjieff has also recognized the existence of schools in history. He makes Beelzebub say: "Although this learned Hamolinadir was descended from the race of beings called 'Assyrian,' and his arising and preparation for becoming a responsible being had taken place in that very city of Babylon, his knowledge had been acquired in Egypt, in the 'highest school' of all those existing on the Earth at that time, called the 'School for Materializing Thought.'" [Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, Penguin, 1999 ISBN 0140194738 - Chapter 24 "Beelzebub's fifth flight to the planet Earth"]
Regards, Baby Dove 00:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Designation as a Fourth Way School

Aeuio is bringing here a serious issue: By quoting Mr. William Patrick Patterson, he intends to disqualify the organization and the founder by means of finding someone who says Mr. Burton is not a Fourth Way teacher because he is not physically connected with Mr. Gurdjieff's "official" descent.
As Mrs. Laura Knight-Jadczyk says in her page, it seems that Mr. Patterson follows the old technique of disqualifying others: he accuses Mr. Boris Mouravieff, author of a three-volume book "Gnosis", on the esoteric tradition of the Orthodox Church, of "stealing" Mr. Gurdjieff's knowledge. He also accuses Mr. Burton of arrogating the Fourth Way knowledge, indirectly disqualifying also Mr. Alex Horn by saying he never studied with Gurdjieff.
The Fourth Way wikipage is also a very hard place to contribute in. Even quoting Mr. Ouspensky's is difficult there, where endless discussions on the Fourth Way "true nature" of whatever one tries to contribute there, happen all the time. Unfortunately, the discussion is not about the validity of what is said, but on whether the one quoting the subject was a "real Fourth Way character" (meaning he comes from Gurdjieff's official descent).
After 58 years from the end of Gurdjieff's life upon earth, nobody is allowed to give a single idea because Mr. Gurdjieff "only entitled Lord Pentland to do this."
Of course, this seems to be more a business idea than an esoteric one...
Finally, it would be good to know if anyone can hope that by trying the Fourth Way work, only by reading how to do it in a book, he would be able to awaken his higher centers, since it does not seem that any living teacher is available. Because if the answer is no, then no Fourth Way page should be useful at WP. Regards,Baby Dove 22:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits because you interrupted the paragraph with "the book's other contents are questioned on a personal website". while so far you have attacked every personal website and deleted the info from former members, and now you think did is ok? If you have something which disproves this theory on the fof then share it with us, and add it appropriately, otherwise this the wrong place to add that info. This is also not the place to discuss other Fourth Way pages. And this view is the official view of many Gurdjieff's schools and followers today, and it's on a lot more than "physical connection" (and this is all you said instead of picking parts and proving them false) so it's going to be mentioned. If it comes to it when can email the Gurdjieffian Foundation and ask them about their official view on the fof, and Alex Horn (Alex Horn was already dismissed as a fake by the New York Foundation) Aeuio 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
And even tough it's all true I have written it appropriately with "Patersson wrote"...as a view and not as a fact Aeuio 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The article does not seem to imply that FoF is a Fourth Way school, but rather based upon those teachings, along with other material. I do not see what the additional material would add to the article. As an additional observation, it may be better to integrate the Controversies section into the appropriate places in the article. A separate Controversy/Criticism section does little but to highlight the controversial aspects of an article's subject. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, everything by the fof but the fof email is saying that they are a Fourth Way school, and their website states that they are a "real conscious Fourth Way school". That's why there is stuff written concerning their designation as a Fourth Way school. I don't think that anyone would agree to add the info from Paterson as a fact into the article as it disproves the fof as a Fourth Way school. Nevertheless, if this article were to state, and not imply, that fof is not a Fourth Way school, then what I added is out of place.(but I don't see this happening) Aeuio 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the Fellowship of Friens seems to state that it is a "different form of a fourth way school" than the one presented by Gurdjieff and Ouspenskly, Patterson's words saying that he diverges from Gurjieff's teachings and that he never met Gurdjieff are totally superfluous and confusing for the reader, so they have been removed. Regards, Baby Dove 03:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Their FoF website clearly states that they are a true conscious Fourth Way school. Aeuio 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Completely agree. Until the official webpage or some other authoritative source clearly states that the FoF is not exactly a fourth-way school, we can't even say "In a private email to Wikipedia editor M. Fantoni, the Fellowship president L. Tulisso explains that the Fellowship is different from a fourth way school." However accurate it may be and reflective of the current situation, we can't quote this email as part of the introduction to the FoF article because it is not an appropriate source. Please fix that in the article. So far, we can only say that the FoF identifies itself as a conscious fourth-way school. If the content of the website soon changes, we can expand the history section to say that for 27 years, the FoF identified itself as a conscious fourth-way school, but now it refers to itself as... whatever will come. Wine-in-ark 23:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Current state of things

I have read over the talk page history and therefore have a pretty good idea of where people stand. However, I do not want to assume. What issues remain to be worked out on the current version of the article? How is the current version an improvement over the previous version? What is the biggest flaw of the current article, and how can it be repaired? Vassyana 23:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version mentions all views, while the flaw I guess is that their other teachings are not mentioned. Currently the only dispute to me is the last part I added (above). Thanks for helping Vassyana Aeuio 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Vassyana:
The "other teachings" seem to be a part of the fourth way teaching, not necessarily being used in the Fourth Way most frequent literature.
Rodney Collin, the closest Mr. Ouspensky's student, writes, in "The Theory of Celestial Influence", that a whole cycle of civilizations shows how fourth way schools appear, create a civilization and die, giving way to another fourth way school. Not every fourth way school is supposed to create a civilization, but through this study many different forms of a fourth way school are seen. He only uses the European civilizations as an example, but it is very harmoniously presented.
Since the FOF defines itself as a Fourth Way School under a different form from what Mr. Gurdjieff and Mr. Ouspensky gave to the teaching, it would be good to have enlarged the part on other influences they use, such as the Sufis, the Tibetan, the Egyptian, which are only limited to their monthly newsletter so far. Besides, the controversies part has perhaps been taking an excessive time from editors, since it is mostly based upon what some sources say at hearing what former members say, without any serious research beyond this. Regards, Baby Dove 00:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, Thank you for taking the time to work with us on this article. I don't have a clear answer to your questions yet. I've been trying to come up with a pithy response. The revised article seems better than what was before, if only because it is more brief, and some of the ambiguous wording has been clarified. If my memory serves, the controversies section has been greatly expanded bringing more balance to the article as well. There is a new dilemma that just arose when an editor added information from the FOF's president to the talk page. It seems that there is a slight shift in the FOF's philosophy. It seems to me this needs to be incorporated somehow. In my opinion, most of the work needed to be done on the page is refinement of what is there. However, three of the most vocal opponents to the FOF article's content still need to be heard from on this topic. --Moon Rising 05:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC) ps - we continue to have disagreement about reliable sources; see discussion below about personal web sites for starters. There's also been some question about the use of certain books. While they meet with WP standards for reliability (publication), the quality of the author's research, and whether credible sources were used to validate the material are in question. --Moon Rising 05:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio's idea on personal websites

I dislike sites attacking others. However, my contribution enlarging Mr. Patterson's ideas on other people in the Fourth Way teaching, was because I found he writes books to disqualify every other "competitor", so to speak.
Mrs.Laura Knight-Jadczyk is not attacking another one, but refreshing what he seems to consistently being doing by disqualifying others: Boris Mouravieff, Robert Burton, Alex Horn, as far as I know. And she even quotes Gurdjieff by saying he "stole" some knowledge from others.
This particular page is full of quotations from personal web pages and other questionable sources, but now you react and say "this is from a personal site", just because it is not convenient for your own purposes regarding disqualifying others. If you do not like this, the best is to remove every diffamatory material away.
I know the Fourth Way ideas since 1973, and I have never heard from Mr.Patterson so far. However, I have experienced myself many similarities within Fourth Way ideas and the esoteric side of Orthodox Catholic church or the Philokalia. If the only hope for people to awaken would be to meet Mr. Gurdjieff in person, when he died in 1949, it would be definitely desperating.
This reaction of disqualifying others in public is not new. The Jewish establishment of pharisees and saducees did just the same when christianity was arising. And among Egyptians, a whole set of Pharaos were intended to be "erased" from the memory of the people by others for the same reasons, such as Akhenaten of Hatshepsut.
The Gurdjieff Journal© is devoted to explore Gurdjieff's ideas, but the copyright symbol after the name does not refer to the journal as having the revealed truth about these ideas. Even when Gurdjieff might have chosen Lord Pentland as to give him the task of spreading these ideas in America, he did that in a moment of time and then he died. Nobody can seriouly pretend to control what should other people do after they die. Not even Gurdjieff.
Sacred knowledge is as old as man is, and it has a purpose: allowing men to use it, but not for helping others from doing it with the excuse of being a "private property." Besides, no chatter about the work is the Work, no dancing of sacred music is the Work in itself.
About the Fourth Way term, also, instead of acting childishly by saying "my teacher is better than yours", please tell me where did Mr. Gurdjieff wrote this term before Ouspensky did so? It is not too important, but you would prove that he did so if you know about it. It is not in any of his published books, so you should quit using this as an argument. And next time anybody puts a link in the Fourth Way wikipage (not necessarily the FoF), just leave it as it is, or change the name of the page from "Fourth Way" to a particular school name. Regards, Baby Dove 23:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1.So, former member Stella Wirk's website about her opinion on the fof can't be cited and similar material was deleted under the claim to "keep Wikipedia's integrity as it doesn't allow personal websites", but now you think it's ok to source what others think from their personal websites? Is this not a personal website? Otherwise I don't want to discuss this. 2. And you think that before the criticism has began, there should be a paragraph about the criticism of the section not related to this article. Let's see: A visitor comes to this page, and gets to the criticism section. There he reads "FoF was claimed by X to be so and so, but interestingly X has been criticized for another section of his book and here is a huge quote" - what is this? It's not even countering the part about the fof, but it's adding something unknown and ruining the section. 3. Would you quit discussing other articles here, and straying away from the argument. But since you asked here it is to end your accusation: You "known the Fourth Way since 1973", then you probably know the book called "In Search of the Miraculous". Since it seems that you don't I'll tell you that there Ouspensky talks about how he first met and studied under Gurdjieff. At the end of chapter two there is something along the following: Gurdjieff talked about the ways for self-perfecting. He mentions three ways, and then he states that there is a "Fourth Way" teaching that is faster than all the three ways. THat's the first documented mention ever of "Fourth Way" and that's around 1915, within a half year of when Ouspensky met Gurdjieff. Is your source dated to before that? How could it be, Ouspensky wrote his books laterAeuio 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Lastly, what I wrote represents a view held by many, and it's perfectly sourced (and you haven't even tryed to claim that it is false) so it won't be removed. Aeuio 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Stella Wirk has had this site for a long time. Apparently she left the organization a long time ago (her letter to Robert Burton is dated in 1981), so she cannot even know what is the school like nowadays. She calls the FOF premises, the Farm, a name mentioned as history 11 years ago (in Rick Ross'site). Besides, all her material there is just personal research (and personal opinions).
That is why I proposed the deletion of what has been taken from these sort of sources, based on badly done personal researches.
Regarding the fourth way name, I told you it was first used by Mr. Ouspensky, and that he recognized Mr. Gurdjieff as his teacher, so he probably heard it from him. But Mr G. never used it in public, which is what it was said. And about previous forth way manifestations in history, I said that Mr. Ouspensky talks about it in A Further Record, giving the example of the Gothics, which is enlarged later by Rodney Colin or previously quoted by Gurdjieff himself when he talks about schools in Assyria and Egypt. So, please, do not discuss about what title should we put to a given idea, but discuss the content, if necessary. Regards, Baby Dove 02:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

1.Wikipedia doesn't accept personal websites, so they are out. 2. I sourced Gurdjieff being the first to say what the Fourth Way is, and you are ignoring this so let's move on as this shouldn't be discussed here. Aeuio 02:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on your comment, Aeuio, I deleted a personal website as a reference. I hope you are as knowledgeable in this regard as you are in others. And I hope I did not misunderstand you, as I evidently have in the past--Moon Rising 15:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarity, that's not what I meant. I meant that you can't quote what those sites say, such as "FoF is a ..." ref/Stella Wirks personal website. For them being mentioned just as links, wee blogs by Coren above. But whatever, this doesn't matter. Aeuio 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
We keep having misunderstandings. I will try to read your posts more carefully.--Moon Rising 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem editing page

Dear fellow editors, I just added a paragraph to the section "Esoteric School". In the process, several paragraphs from that section were deleted, as well as the sections on "Other Belief's", "Effects on Community" and "History". The "Esoteric Schools" section is truncated but the concludes with half the "History" section. The text box has all the correct text, though the preview does not show it. I've tried this several times. I've tried editing just the section, putting back the missing material, and I've tried it by editing the whole page. Nothing works. Does anyone know how to fix this glich or find out from WP what the problem is. So very strange. Help!--Moon Rising 05:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Mario Fantoni 05:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I see what I did wrong. It's great to have experienced, knowledgeable editors to help us newbies along.--Moon Rising 15:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

More regarding sources

Besides my comments on May 11 at 23:59, regarding Patterson's Talking with the Left Hand, which are on another section of this talk page, I would like to add what I have found by searching by "Books by Robert L. Snow."
This author, that has inicially been presented as a cult-expert, has written about very assorted subjects, as it is seen in this short list (which might not be a complete one):
- Protecting your Life, Home and Property, 1995
- Swat Teams: Explosive Face-offs with America's Deadliest Criminals, 1996
- Stopping a Stalker: A Cop's Guide to Making the System Work for You, 1998
- Terrorists Among Us: The Militia Threat, 2002
- Deadly Cults: The Crimes of True Believers, 2003
- Murder 101: Homicide and Its Investigation, 2005
He is an Indianapolis police officer who published a book on cults, where he mixes up Religious groups as the Amish or the Scientologists, with Satanist cults, Suicide cults and even colleges under the label of a "cult", and he probably deserves to be called more a "sensationalist writer" than a "cult-expert."
The references made to the Fellowship of Friends, except the news on the failed court-cases taken from the papers from 11 years ago, are mostly repeating second-hand information, with no reference to interviews with the organization's representatives (or even current members).
I wonder whether this can still be considered a reliable source. Regards, Baby Dove 18:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a funny guy Baby Dove. Back on the Centers talk page we had a weird argument. I said that Susan Zannos's theories can't be used as a fact on the Fourth way teaching, as she has written 46 books on every possible subject and one being about the Fourth Way, and she also doesn't have any background in the teaching. Nevertheless I agreed to mention her theories on the condition that they are attributed to her and not on to the Fourth Way. And now, here you are writing contradictory statements to your believes. Have they changed or do they vary depending on what page you are on? And this seems to be happening constantly, so next time we argue, try to understand what I am saying. Aeuio 22:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
And his claims are attributed to him, and just because he doesn't give pictures, dates and names doesn't mean that they can't be used as a reference. But I think you are trying just to argue about who he should be represented as? Aeuio 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with comparing Captain Snow with Mrs. Zannos. Mrs. Zannos has not written only what she heard about human types and centers of gravity, but she has also presented several photographs to empirically prove her statements about the subjects. This means she had a certain understanding of the subject about which she was writing. She is surely not a Fourth Way teacher, but she made a contribution of a certain value. Of course, she did not discover this by herself (not even Gurdjieff did), but she seems to qualify to talk about her subject.
This, on the other hand, cannot be said of Captain Snow, who - save for references to old papers everybody can know - talks about what Mr. Burton and the Fellowship of Friends believe without even mentioning a single interview with anybody, to figure out whether the second-hand information coming to him had another admisible viewpoint. Moreover, his references to other "cults", as he calls them, do seem to respond to a similar method of "research." But, of course, this is very natural among "cult-busters", even the famous ones.
Regards, Baby Dove 23:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the word describing Snow was changed from "cult-expert" to "sensationalist writer", so I consider this done. Aeuio 01:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

More about the sensationalist writer, Captain Robert L. Snow can be seen at page 123 of his book, when he states that a "large number" of members leaving caused a "serious cash-flow problem." Then he states that "the trouble began for the Fellowship of Friends in 1995..."
Here there is a visible contradiction: he quotes no active members of the organization giving their oppinion on the matters he denounces, but he is able to talk about their cash-flow problems? And did these problems start in 1995, or he is talking about something else now, without givin the reader a clue of how does he knows this?
As I tried to convey in my contributions before, I do not think we can consider books of this sort as valid sources. Regards, Baby Dove 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Baby D - this is an interesting point. I'm not sure that WP distinguishes between well written, factual books on a subject and books written by anyone who thinks they have knowledge of a subject, but does not. I think this would be a good question to pose on Vassyana's talk page, as Coren seems to have taken a back seat for now. I'd do it myself, but you've been putting a lot of energy into this, so I will leave it for you to decide if you want to pursue this. This is very similar to a talk page for another article, where the main editor tends to limit who is qualified to write about a particular subject. Can anyone who takes an interest in a subject be considered a reliable source? --Moon Rising 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Monikers like "Cult-buster" and "sensationalist writer" should not be used. They are distinctly and obviously POV. If another reliable source refers to the author in those terms, it is acceptable to note separately he is called such by whomever does so. Touching directly on the subject of discussion, popular writers are reliable sources. At least in principle, they have done research and gone through some form of editorial oversight. Academic and scholarly sources may be considered superior, but it does not negate that Snow may be considered a reliable source. If there are sources that contradict Snow's information or criticize his methodology, feel free use them in the article. That is, of course, just my own opinion. Vassyana 06:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vassyana, thank you for clearing this up. Would you also take a look at the comment above your recent response. It specifically deals with some edit conflicts on the talk page for the Fourth Way, a related article. The section I refer to is here: [1] The selection of which books the main editor accepts is limited, and seems similar to the situation you just addressed. But the editor feels I'm missing his point, and perhaps I am. These two articles both need a bit more work on neutrality, in my opinion. Thanks for your advice.--Moon Rising 08:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana wrote a clear explanation about sources that we have been debating here as well as in another article. He responded to my question on the talk page for The Fourth Way article. I pasted it here, for those editors that do not read the other page.--Moon Rising 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources vs official sources

If something is not an official source, it can still be considered a reliable source. Even non-academic popular writers are considered reliable sources. At least in principle, they have done research and gone through some form of editorial oversight. Academic and scholarly sources may be considered superior, but that does not affect the status of a popular writer as a reliable source. Official references and primary sources are generally treated as accurate but subjective and biased.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church have not bestowed priesthood and authority upon most of the extreme number of authors who discuss those churches. However, those "outside" and "unofficial" writers are still considered reliable sources of verifiable information. Maintaining a neutral point of view requires including outside observations, material unsanctioned by the "official" group and similar secondary sources. For example, most of the Protestant churches are outside of Apostolic succession. That does not mean they cannot claim to be Christian, nor does it invalidate (from a NPOV) a claim to apostolic Christianity. If other sources contradict their claims, an editor would be free to include that additional information in the article.

Sources cannot be excluded because the authors are not properly sanctioned or fail to be in a proper line of succession. Groups are not granted exclusive claims over schools of thought. If a group or individual claims to advocate a particular religion or philosophy, they should be taken at face-value. If there are additional sources that reinforce or contradict such a claim, they should be used in the article. However, our personal biases regarding what is a "true" X should not be the standard for inclusion or exclusion of verifiable information. Vassyana 20:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(end of copied section)--Moon Rising 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Predictions

This sentence "The mechanical part of the intellectual center, "formatory mind" [37]. will mechanically conclude that this refers to a nuclear war" is made up by some editor and good luck sourcing it. Aeuio 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the kind of stuff the formatory mind does (meaning reading "hydrogen war" and changing it to "nuclear holocaust", as well as requiring a quotation every two words). Higher parts on the intellectual centers are able to compare things in different levels, for instance. I need to quote nobody to explain how did I write what I wrote, especially when two different authors were quoted in the same paragraph. If you really want to learn more about the work of higer parts in the intellectual center, there is a lot of sources quoted, such as The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution, by Peter D. Ouspensky, or Human Types, by Susan Zannos. I did not bring them with me right now, but I can complete the quotation later. Regards, Baby Dove 21:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Baby Dove, "nuclear holocaust" is most likely in reference to Girard's statement that R.B. has predicted "thermonuclear war" and "Armageddon" for September 2006. Also all references to Ark point to this as a reality for the FoF. I would suggest it is you who is taking things out of context by stating that R.B. probably did not mean it literally when he spoke about the end of the world. Wine-in-ark 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Not one of those sources in the critique section even mention Burton's book, so I am not sure why you are saying that "they interpreted Burton's book wrong". They are quoting Burton as personally saying that there will be a nuclear war and so on. And how do you explain the formatory mind came up with the Arrmaggedon (which is not mentioned in Burton's book)? Aeuio 21:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please find the word "nuclear" in Mr. Burton's book. About formatory mind just read what I said before. Regards, Baby Dove 00:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove, regarding the use "formatory mind", Gurdjieff, Ouspensky and Collin used certain words in a way that differs from common usage - formatory, feature, and center of gravity come to my mind - and we can't assume that visitors to the page are familiar with that terminology. Can you rephrase the part: The mechanical part of the intellectual center, "formatory mind" will mechanically conclude that this refers to a nuclear war, which Burton never mentions in his book. Thanks, Mario Fantoni 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting or advertising

I have requested to check Mario and Baby Dove based on the fact that not long ago, I proved that Mfantoni is the same user as Mario Fantoni, under which name Mario promoted his advertising company. He admitted (please read detailed proof here). Anyways, recently Baby Dove made a comment here while he wasn't signed in, and then 10 minutes later he logged in and signed it. If you look at the ip address's contributions, you will see that he also had (just as Mario had word for word done) added the link of the advertising company's website. This means one of two things: 1. Mario and Baby Dove are the same person or 2. Baby Dove works in this advertising company alongside of Mario. Aeuio 02:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. This time I will keep it short:
  • I am not Baby Dove.
  • Baby Dove doesn't work for my company.
  • I am not being paid by anybody to advertise on this page.
Mario Fantoni 02:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Then Baby Dove can explain, if in fact he has no connection to you, why he was adding the link of your company word for word like you did (and around the same time too). Aeuio 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I just had the idea that a good way to see if 2 users are different people is to check if they ever did 2 edits at the exact same time. It is true that a sock puppeteer can ask somebody to login with his second ID and then save an edit at a pre-arranged time to pretend he is 2 users, but it would take a fair amount of work and a perfect synchronization to do that. Anyway, it is fairly easy to do this test: simply copy all the contribs of the 2 users into a text editor, sort them per date and time, and find the simultaneous edits. I did that for users Baby Dove and Mario Fantoni (me) and found the following simultaneous edits:

  • 00:01, 11 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends (About the Fourth Way) - BABY DOVE
  • 00:01, 11 May 2007 Talk:G. I. Gurdjieff (Aeiou's link removal - cm) - MARIO FANTONI

  • 00:00, 11 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends (About the Fourth Way - + ref from Gurdjieff to existing schools in history) - BABY DOVE
  • 00:00, 11 May 2007 Talk:G. I. Gurdjieff (Aeiou's link removal) - MARIO FANTONI

  • 05:53, 9 May 2007 Centers (Fourth Way) (Other Authors - +ref, cl) - MARIO FANTONI
  • 05:53, 9 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Draft rewrite (The principle of payment - gr, redundant phrase) - BABY DOVE

  • 17:58, 7 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends (Proof of Advertising - typo) - BABY DOVE
  • 17:58, 7 May 2007 m Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Draft rewrite (Consciousness and Functions - Added missing space) - MARIO FANTONI

  • 05:16, 20 April 2007 Talk:Centers (Fourth Way) (Susan Zannos - personal opinions?) - BABY DOVE
  • 05:16, 20 April 2007 m The Teachers of Gurdjieff (Corrected name of publisher) (top) - MARIO FANTONI

This means that 5 times since April 9, 2007 (the date Baby Dove, the newer editor, created his/her account) Baby Dove saved his/her edits at the same time that I did. As a curiosity, I did the same experiment for all the contribs of the previous suspects of sock puppeteering, Wine-in-ark and Nixwisser (since March 29, 2007, the date Nixwisser, the newer editor, created his/her account) and couldn't find any simultaneous edits. This doesn't prove they are the same user, of course, since this test is similar to DNA paternity tests: it can only indicate that 2 people are probably not the same user. Mario Fantoni 05:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: I am not Mario Fantoni and I do not work for him. Regarding the IP address, I can presumably have edited from three of them: one at home and two at work. The one I was unsigned was corrected when I saw the edition unsigned. I was supposed to be logged in, but for some reason the connection was lost and the IP address appeared when I signed, so I corrected this when I realized. Curiously, today I turned on my computer, went to WP page and I was already logged in after the whole night! Regards, Baby Dove 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked "Then Baby Dove can explain, if in fact he has no connection to you, why he was adding the link of your company word for word like you did (and around the same time too)." And as far as I can see I have not received an answer. Aeuio 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: If you, please, explain better what was the link I supposedly added and when, I can give an answer, but I do not know what are you talking about. Regards, Baby Dove 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the top comment, as I spelled out what I mean and there are even links to aid you. Aeuio 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so you are going to avoid answering (other than making comments to make this section longer), so then someone else will jump in and say "Aeuio let's move on and focus on the article!". I am not letting go of this until you give a reply. You have edited the page so you are not away, and you have had enough time to come up with a reply. So any time soon (and please just answer the question). Mario, you obviously know him and so you could reply instead if Baby Dove is busy. Aeuio 19:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I already said that I am not Baby Dove and that he/she never worked for me or advertised my company. Baby Dove already said that he/she is not me and that he/she never worked for me or advertised my company. Regarding this last issue, I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says that an editor can't work for another one in real life, so Aeiou is invading our personal lives here. This paranoia has to stop - I don't see how this is going to make the FoF page better. Mario Fantoni 03:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have asked Baby Dove to explain one edit, and apparently as this can't be explained, "I am invading your personal lives". If I made a false or stupid acusement, then Baby Dove would have stated his reasons and this would have been done with, but it seems that I am right so I don't really need an explanation anymore. Aeuio 03:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we please drop this? It is not helpful to the article or settling any disputes. Aeuio, if you have a specific question for Baby Dove, you may contact them on their user talk page. If you have specific allegations, you can post them (as you have) on the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks. Vassyana 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-remembering

I just edited this section to add clarity. I deleted some reference to the Sufi tradition and reference to Allah because it seemed out of place. The reference created a run-on sentence and I couldn't figure out how to clarify it. So, to whomever added that information, my apologies if you don't like my edit. Please revert it if you like, but try to make your point more clearly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moon Rising (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Moon Rising, I reverted your edit because you removed almost the whole section and there was nothing left to improve. I will work on the section to make it more legible. Mario Fantoni 07:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I did a cleanup of the "Self-Remembering" section. What do the other editors think? Mario Fantoni 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Mario - I think it's still a little hard to follow. Can you do something to re-work the information about the Sufi tradition. I think I know where you are going, but it's still confusing. Do you want to try to fix it or shall I? --Moon Rising 06:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a concept about lifting the veil of imagination as the beginning of third state. Regards, Baby Dove 22:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

AEUIO - you just reverted a group of edits, including one I made to make the section on self-remembering be more direct, according to MOS. Your edit summary said "(rv edits done against the consensus on the talk page). There has not been any discussion on this subject and there is no reason for your reversion, other than you don't like what I said. Kindly undo this reversion, or explain why you did it. Thank you.--Moon Rising 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So after you have commented down there about our revert war, you somehow missed that there was a temporary revert war and are asking me to explain what I did? Anyhow, the rev I did was reverting Baby Doves reconstruction of the page and had nothing to do with you. You apparently must have edited at the same time as Baby Dove, so your contributions were reverted as well. I am not sure why you have posted this question instead of reverting your edit back in 2 sec; you can go to history and click last of the edit you want back to see the changes, and copy/paste. Aeuio 02:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to be polite and engage discussion, rather than just do an automatic revert. Too bad this gesture was not appreciated.--Moon Rising 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)