Talk:Fellowship of Friends
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
[edit] Peter New Material from Newsletter
Hello Peter, thank you for helping expand the article on the Fellowship of Friends.
I would like to make a few suggestions on how you could review your contributions in order to keep the article closer to Wikipedia standards.
Fourth Way. It seems that much of the material you added refers to what are the teachings of the Fourth Way. This might be better used to expand the Wikipedia article on the Fourth Way, which is fairly short at the moment. So you might rephrase what you have written so as to make it clear what beliefs and practices (or which of their aspects) are specific and unique to the Fellowship of Friends, and which parts are shared with the general Fourth Way teaching - in this latter case you can just write a short summary and use a link to point the reader to the Fourth Way article for more in-depth treatment.
Copying. Please make sure that when you are quoting, you make it clear that you are quoting entire paragraphs from a website and that this was not written by you. Put the entire quote in quotation marks and say (in words) where you are copying it from. Better yet, avoid copying entire paragraphs - Wikipedia is supposed to be written by its editors. Rephrase/summarize the source or sources in your own words, making sure that you do not alter the meaning.
Factual information. Please avoid persuasive and emotional language in Wikipedia entries. Do not address the Wikipedia reader directly (e.g. "You may be thinking: Can I not remember myself...") This is an encyclopedia. Think of what you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. The Fellowship newsletter is a different text type altogether and is written in an appropriate tone for a newsletter. That is why it cannot be copied here directly. Wikipedia is not the place to engage the reader in experiments with divided attention, the newsletter is. For example, you cannot write in an encyclopedia: "Esoteric schools of the past have always emphasized self-remembering as the way to awaken higher centers." This is not referenced, not a fact that has been (or is likely to ever be) independently researched and proven. It presupposes a Fellowship of Friends world view not shared by the majority of Wikipedia readers. It is an opinion: please present it as such. It is fine to include it in the article as long as you say something along the lines of "One of the central tenets of Robert Burton's teaching is that there have been a number of esoteric schools in the past (you can list them here if you have the appropriate references), which have always emphasized self-remembering as the way to awaken higher centers."
Terminology. Your contributions use terminology that is specific to the Fellowship/Fourth Way and not explained elsewhere in the page on in Wikipedia, which makes the article difficult to read and understand for someone not acquainted with this language. (E.g. I's, divided attention, higher centers, lower centers...) If you decide to keep that terminology, please expand the Terminology section of the article (including appropriate references), and change unknown words into links to the Terminology section. Better yet, in as far as that is possible, try to write the article in such a way that it will be understandable to the average person without prior knowledge. You might also want to think of it as a coherent whole running from the beginning to the end: so for example do not talk about self-remembering before you have defined self-remembering. Perhaps the terminology section could also be moved higher up in the article.
In the end, thank you again for your contributions, I see that you are indeed trying to be objective. Wine-in-ark 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Veronica Fellowship History
Hi Veronica, thanks for your contributions, but the section on history you have added is problematic. The thing is that Wikipedia does not allow original research to be published in it. (Read more about it in Wikipedia guidelines.) You can only draw your material from sources that have already been published. So privately circulated letters would count as original research. As would statements such as "the circumstances leading to the creation of the organization started when an older, married woman rendered suggestible by a psychedelic drug met a younger, single man under the disinhibiting effect of alcohol, who claimed to have special spiritual understanding" - such a statement is speculative. If someone else had made this statement and published it as their opinion, you may quote it in Wikipedia, but you are not allowed to draw that conclusion yourself. Wine-in-ark 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Veronica Recommended Reading
Hi Veronica, About the citation from "Collective of Women" that deals with control and submission in a closed group - it is perfectly fine to quote from this publication in a relevant way. But come on, you can't include a link to it in External Links as "recommended reading". If it does not discuss the Fellowship specifically, it needs to be deleted from External Links (you can include it in the References section if you are quoting from it. If the article does discuss FOF, please change the heading into something more reasonable - you can't write "recommended reading" because that's being didactic and expressing your personal opinion in an encyclopedia. Wine-in-ark 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Veronica's Fellowship History 2
Hello Veronica,
I agree with Wine-in-ark that your edits don't inform about the history the Fellowship, so I added a paragraph that I found on their official web site at www.go-c.org. The text "Objective statement of the history of the organization is problematic, because the organization ostracizes ex-members and prohibits current members from contact with ex-members. This creates a situation in which the organization's institutional history is mostly unknown to its current membership." doesn't belong to the History section but to the Talk section because is your personal opinion about the Fellowship's history, not facts extracted from an official source. You also mention "an essay written by the organization's first member" but you don't reference to that essay, so there is no way to verify the authenticity of it. That text belongs to the Talk section also. Mario Fantoni 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Veronica Influence Techniques
Hi again Veronica, I have a few suggestions to improve the quality of the article:
1. Citing references: Please read chapters on Citing Sources and Footnotes in Wikipedia to see how to not quote your sources in the text.
2. Neutrality: Even though I may personally think you have some valid points, right now your section on recruiting and influencing reads like you are pushing the point that the FOF is a dangerous cult. As Wikipedians, our duty is to present hopefully factual data and let it speak for itself, not to try to influence the readers with opinions which we have already decided are true. I would suggest to contribute in-depth elaborations on coercive practices on other pages, such as some subsection of sociology or an article on cults. Then when relevant material is encountered for the FOF, you can simply make a reference to the broader background on another page.
3. While you may have personal experience with Fellowship practices and consider yourself an authoritative source, we cannot put your own synthesis of data into Wikipedia unless you have already published your analysis in a book under your real name. Unless the following statements are opinions which can be traced to a publicly available source, they will be considered editor's subjective views and inappropriate for Wikipedia: "The product of the Fellowship organization’s culture of shame induction is at first to influence recruitees’ behavior, and later their belief systems, without their concurrent knowledge and informed prior consent. Such influence principally occurs when a recruitee’s distrust in his or her own ability to think critically impairs his or her ability to evaluate information objectively. While “verification” purports to be a tenet of the Ouspenskian system generally, and the Fellowship organization claims this tenet as its own, Fellowship recruitees induced to distrust their ability to think critically suffer deficits in their perceptions of reality." Etc. Etc.
4. Sorry to be so formatory :) but that is the medium we are working with. Other media may lend themselves more to personal analysis and synthesis of what goes on in the FOF. Consider publishing your own website if you have a lot of material that will sound subjective on Wikipedia. Wine-in-ark 04:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Peter & Veronica: please keep this page short
I noticed that several editors (mainly Peter Ingle and Veronicapoe) are adding extremely long text and the page is becoming almost impossible to read or understand. Remember this is the Internet in 2007, not the Encyclopaedia Britannica in 1920. Wikipedia recommends a maximum length of 50K or 6,000 words - this is based on statistics about the readability of more than 1,700,000 pages. The aim of a Wikipedia page is to give basic information to the visitor; if people want to know more about the topic they can follow the links at the bottom or do their own research.Mario Fantoni 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Veronica: don't start an Edit War
Hi Veronica, Wikipedia's etiquette recommends not to undo other editor's changes without explaining the reasons for the action. You reverted several edits without doing that. This is how Edit Wars start and at the end everybody loses: the page becomes unstable and impossible to read. Please refrain doing this or I will have to report you to Wikipedia for vandalism and you may be blocked temporarily or indefinitively. Thank you for understanding.Mario Fantoni 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit war
It seems an edit war has started. I am unaware of who is doing it or why, but it has now stopped. The article is protected and changes - which must provide reliable sources - can be made by requesting them here. Discussions about the future direction of this article are welcome here, but must be WP:CIVIL. Everyone is advised to consider waiting 5 minutes before saving any comment. Coolness and reasoned arguments work with me. Petty infighting does not. Sorry to be blunt but I've been here a very long time and have little patience these days. Okay everybody? RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redvers edit war
Hi Redvers. Thank you for your prompt action - you are right about an edit war happening. Wine-in-ark created this page and added factual information from web sites and books. After him, Peter Ingle added long paragraphs copied from the organization's web site that looked like propaganda. He was told by Wine-in-ark to clean them and make them more encyclopedid but he never did. Later Veronicapoe added original research and long sections about cults that are more an essay on brainwashing than a description of the organization. She was told by Wine-in-ark to move most of his entries to the Talk page but she never acknowledged the suggestions. Things were pretty civilized until yesterday, when Veronicapoe started undoing all my edits (even the addition of commas or blank spaces) without any explanation either on the Talk page or directly to me. Today I decided to write to several Wikipedia administrators, including you, asking for help. Thanks for your time - your work keeps Wikipedia going. Mario Fantoni 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redvers Suggested Edits
{{Editprotected}} Hello Redvers (or any other administrator reading this). You asked to request changes here so these are the 4 changes I consider important for the neutrality and readability of the page:
1 - The History section includes original research, actually all the text above "On July 4, 1971..." The original research should be removed since is not neutral and doesn't refer to reliable sources.
2 - The whole section named "Recruitment and Influence Techniques" is from books about cults and "grand schemes" and doesn't relate to the organization. None of the books listed as a reference mentions the Fellowship of Friends. This section should be removed.
3 - The section "Intentional Insincerity" is diffamatory - it is a creation of the editor and can't be found in any of the books or web sites that are listed as a reference. This section should be removed.
4 - The sections "Essence and Personality", "The Need for Efforts", "The Many 'I's", "Higher Centers", and "Transformation of Suffering" are excerpts from the organization's newsletter that are not relevant to the page. They should be removed.
Thank you again for your help. Mario Fantoni 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am disabling the editprotected tag. There is an ongoing discussion here, and it wouldn't be appropriate for admins to edit the page until consensus is reached. At that point, the page will be unprotected, and you can edit it yourself. CMummert · talk 12:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Fourth Way in the West and it's Child: Scientology
Any serious writing or information on this operating organism could never be done by those who themselves are participants: as Rouchefoucauld said; "we begin by disgusing ourselves from others: and end up disguising ourselves from ourselves"; the operating agenda for our friends is that by adopting any or all of their own assessments about what they are actually "doing" you are dealing with nothing but surmise and projection: these people have not "done" anything: but they think they have; and that makes all the difference. To really add any objectivity to these pages would require a real sufi: not a fake one; what is half-formed is still half unformed; because the terminology being used in this article never refers to the Path where this self-improvement is supposed to occur I suppose that were I to quote what I have written in my own book about the lack of a book by their own authority would only mean no one but someone who has already investigated this information where it purports to operate could not know if fraudulent or false date was even being dispensed: let me write the opposite view and it's synthesis as far as a "solution" and then let me edit this page in one area: the controversy of those lost in the wilderness and blind who insist that they can see: it is laudable in that our friends do not "buy" the testimony of their senses as being the arbiter of their wills; the problem is that they have not replaced this reality with the true one; of which this is but the first veil. I do have the books and refernces to back up any and all of my assertions: which would be mercifully brief and concise. Let me know!Unicorn144 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response to criticisms made by Mario Fantoni
First point: Mr. Fantoni objects that "The History section includes original research, actually all the text above "On July 4, 1971..." The original research should be removed since is not neutral and doesn't refer to reliable sources."
Veronicapoe responds: The material referenced is not original research. It derives from an account published by the organization's first member which has been widely disseminated. I suspect the objection to its inclusion here derives from offense to the fact that the material contradicts official accounts.
Second point: Mr. Fantoni objects that "The whole section named "Recruitment and Influence Techniques" is from books about cults and "grand schemes" and doesn't relate to the organization. None of the books listed as a reference mentions the Fellowship of Friends. This section should be removed."
Veronicapoe responds: Mr. Fantoni has not reviewed the source material. For example, "Sex, Lies and Grand Schemes of Thought in Closed Groups" is an article about the Fellowship of Friends published in the Cultic Studies Journal in 1997. "Strange Truth: A Horror Story" is a work registered with the Register of Copyrights in the Library of Congress which has been widely disseminated. It was written by a former member of the Fellowship organization and contains accounts of historical events which contract official accounts. The 1985 Ph.D. thesis by Ursula Hilde Sack discusses case histories of defectors from the Fellowship of Friends and the fact that it does is readily apparent from reviewing the abstract which is available at Dissertation Abstracts International.
Third Point: Mr. Fantoni objects that "The section 'Intentional Insincerity' is diffamatory - it is a creation of the editor and can't be found in any of the books or web sites that are listed as a reference. This section should be removed."
Veronicapoe responds: Mr. Fantoni has not reviewed the source material, in particular the 1981 issue of Renaissance Journal concerning the subject "intentional insincerity." Mr. Fantoni is incorrect that it is a creation of the editor. However, it is an idea that reflects poorly on the Fellowship organization and fully understandable that members embarrassed about the same would not want to see the fact that the organization has such a doctrine become widely known.
Final point: This editor suspects that consensus is impossible where one editor seeks to write institutional hagiography and another editor seeks to include material incompatible with institutional hagiography.
Veronicapoe 02:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding Unicorn144 ("The Fourth Way in the West and it's Child: Scientology")
The following excerpts are from Unicorn144 Talk Page:
"Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as Messenger of Jehovah of hosts. It is considered vandalism." (15 February 2007)
"Your recent additions (such as The Revelation of St. John the Divine) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles." (20 February 2007)
"Your recent additions (such as "the House of God") are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles." (21 February 2007)
"Your recent additions (such as The throne of the Kaa'ba) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles." (21 February 2007)
"Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Tribulation. It is considered vandalism, which under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges." (21 February 2007)
"Your recent additions (such as Son of Ham) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles." (4 March 2007)
"Please stop. If you continue to ignore our policies by introducing inappropriate pages, such as 12 princes of Ishmael, to Wikipedia, you will be blocked" (4 March 2007)
"Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to Summary of Christian eschatological differences, is considered vandalism and may result in a block."(4 March 2007)
"Your recent additions (such as Revelatory) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles." (4 March 2007)
"This is your last warning. The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as Sufic view of Jesus, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." (4 March 2007)
"Please - you've been asked over and over to stop adding unsourced information to Wikipedia, such as that you recently added to Fatimah. Yet you keep creating pages with this information and adding it to numerous articles. Is this information your own point of view, are you getting out of some book, or what?" (27 March 2007)
Mario Fantoni 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] To our friend Mario Fantoni
In my early days at Wikipedia I did inadvertently put unsourced information into articles; but since I have learned to bring in the sources that I am actually using I have not received any more notices; but after all, you never read any of the information either; it is far from nonsense; but what I have written is only original research until it is published: then it becomes something else: a book. Until then I will back up my assertions to whatever standard of objective truth is operating here: thank God it's in a realm where people actually read what the other people have to say! It almost makes for that most miraculous of events: someone might learn something! What a shame Mario did not answer to one thing that I actually did write about the "4th way".Unicorn144 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to Veronicapoe
Hi Veronica. Thanks for your reply - it is mandatory that we keep this dialog open for this page to be neutral. I will respond to your comments following your order of points.
First point: Mr. Fantoni objects that "The History section includes original research, actually all the text above "On July 4, 1971..." The original research should be removed since is not neutral and doesn't refer to reliable sources."
Veronicapoe responds: The material referenced is not original research. It derives from an account published by the organization's first member which has been widely disseminated. I suspect the objection to its inclusion here derives from offense to the fact that the material contradicts official accounts.
Mario Fantoni replies: Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources is very clear: "Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (see WP:ATT). In the "History" section you mention "An essay written by the organization's first member, Bonita Guido, a woman expelled from the organization in the early 1970s who now resides in Denmark." The essay has not been published so is not a reliable source. Your words above "has been widely disseminated" are not equivalent to "has been published."
Second point: Mr. Fantoni objects that "The whole section named "Recruitment and Influence Techniques" is from books about cults and "grand schemes" and doesn't relate to the organization. None of the books listed as a reference mentions the Fellowship of Friends. This section should be removed."
Veronicapoe responds: Mr. Fantoni has not reviewed the source material. For example, "Sex, Lies and Grand Schemes of Thought in Closed Groups" is an article about the Fellowship of Friends published in the Cultic Studies Journal in 1997. "Strange Truth: A Horror Story" is a work registered with the Register of Copyrights in the Library of Congress which has been widely disseminated. It was written by a former member of the Fellowship organization and contains accounts of historical events which contract official accounts. The 1985 Ph.D. thesis by Ursula Hilde Sack discusses case histories of defectors from the Fellowship of Friends and the fact that it does is readily apparent from reviewing the abstract which is available at Dissertation Abstracts International.
Mario Fantoni replies: 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. Regarding the second publication you mention, "Strange Truth: A Horror Story", I searched for it at Amazon and Google and couldn't find any references. Since you say that it "has been widely disseminated", could you tell me where to find it? Finally, regarding the 1985 PhD thesis by Ursula Hilde Sack, I don't see that a PhD thesis is listed as a reliable source at WP:ATT, but I will check that with the Wikipedia Administrators.
Third Point: Mr. Fantoni objects that "The section 'Intentional Insincerity' is diffamatory - it is a creation of the editor and can't be found in any of the books or web sites that are listed as a reference. This section should be removed."
Veronicapoe responds: Mr. Fantoni has not reviewed the source material, in particular the 1981 issue of Renaissance Journal concerning the subject "intentional insincerity." Mr. Fantoni is incorrect that it is a creation of the editor. However, it is an idea that reflects poorly on the Fellowship organization and fully understandable that members embarrassed about the same would not want to see the fact that the organization has such a doctrine become widely known.
Mario Fantoni replies: You say that I have not reviewed the source material, in particular "the 1981 issue of Renaissance Journal." Since there is no link to a source material in the "Intentional Insincerity" section, which publication am i supposed to review? Where is the "1981 Renaissance Journal" that you mention?
Also, please read Wine-in-ark postings "Veronica Fellowship History" and "Veronica Influence Techniques." They contain recommendations on how to make your edits more neutral.
Thank you for your attention - I look forward to your comments.Mario Fantoni 04:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to Mario Fantoni
Mario Fantoni states: 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.
Veronicapoe responds The article was published in Cultic Studies Journal in 1997. Cultic Studies Journal is an academic journal published in hard copy several times a year. Mr. Fantoni has not reviewed the article, he has reviewed a website containing an abstract of the article. Neither has Mr. Fantoni reviewed the essay entitled "The History of the Fellowship of Friends" by Bonita Guido, published in 1997. Nor has he reviewed the 1981 issue of Renaissance Journal, an official publication of the Fellowship of Friends, devoted to the topic of intentional insincerity. Assuming Mr. Fantoni is a member of the Fellowship, he may be able to obtain access to that journal by inquiring at the Fellowship office. There are also multiple copies of the Dasmann book in both Oregon House and Nevada City.
Veronicapoe 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the second publication you mention, "Strange Truth: A Horror Story", I searched for it at Amazon and Google and couldn't find any references. Since you say that it "has been widely disseminated", could you tell me where to find it? Finally, regarding the 1985 PhD thesis by Ursula Hilde Sack, I don't see that a PhD thesis is listed as a reliable source at WP:ATT, but I will check that with the Wikipedia Administrators.
Third Point: Mr. Fantoni objects that "The section 'Intentional Insincerity' is diffamatory - it is a creation of the editor and can't be found in any of the books or web sites that are listed as a reference. This section should be removed."
Veronicapoe responds: Mr. Fantoni has not reviewed the source material, in particular the 1981 issue of Renaissance Journal concerning the subject "intentional insincerity." Mr. Fantoni is incorrect that it is a creation of the editor. However, it is an idea that reflects poorly on the Fellowship organization and fully understandable that members embarrassed about the same would not want to see the fact that the organization has such a doctrine become widely known.
Mario Fantoni replies: You say that I have not reviewed the source material, in particular "the 1981 issue of Renaissance Journal." Since there is no link to a source material in the "Intentional Insincerity" section, which publication am i supposed to review? Where is the "1981 Renaissance Journal" that you mention?
[edit] Second reply to Veronica
Hello Veronica. Thank you for your comments. Below are mine.
Mario Fantoni states: 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.
Veronicapoe responds: The article was published in Cultic Studies Journal in 1997. Cultic Studies Journal is an academic journal published in hard copy several times a year. Mr. Fantoni has not reviewed the article, he has reviewed a website containing an abstract of the article. Neither has Mr. Fantoni reviewed the essay entitled "The History of the Fellowship of Friends" by Bonita Guido, published in 1997. Nor has he reviewed the 1981 issue of Renaissance Journal, an official publication of the Fellowship of Friends, devoted to the topic of intentional insincerity. Assuming Mr. Fantoni is a member of the Fellowship, he may be able to obtain access to that journal by inquiring at the Fellowship office. There are also multiple copies of the Dasmann book in both Oregon House and Nevada City.
Mario Fantoni replies: The article "Sex, Lies and Grand Schemes of Thought in Closed Groups" from the Cultic Studies Journal in 1997 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). Regarding the publication "The History of the Fellowship of Friends" by Bonita Guido, it is not a reliable source according to the Wikipedia Attribution page that clearly states that "reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (see WP:ATT) Ms. Guido can't be considered a recognized authoritative source on the subject. Finally, the 1981 issue of Renaissance Journal that you mention is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia's Attribution page at WP:ATT): "the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."
Veronica, your attempts to classify the Fellowship of Friends as a dangerous cult should be reserved to your own personal web site or publications, not to Wikipedia (as was also stated by Wine-in-ark on his message "Veronica Influence Techniques" above). The first of Wikipedia's Five Pillars at Wikipedia:Five_pillars states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." As editors, we must avoid our own personal judgements to percolate to the pages we are editing. Thank you for keeping the communication open. Mario Fantoni 18:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Working together
Both of you (and other contributors, begging your pardon) are asking good questions of each other here. It seems like everyone here is seeking a good quality Wikipedia article, so you've got something in common. That's a good basis to start with.
Continue asking questions of each other, and continue replying. Keep cool, calm and collected; it all helps oil the wheels of Wikipedia.
What we will come to is a good article, based on Wikipedia's two best rules - WP:V and WP:RS. So, as you continue to debate this article's direction, we need verifiability from reliable sources. Each statement you make should be backed by a link or a citation. Links are better (for me), but editors are prepared to go to the library and request copies of books if required - please give page numbers and ISBNs. Each statement that one of you objects to needs a citation showing that someone else said it. The citation must be in some way checkable.
I see in the above discussions that unpublished or hand-passed work is being cited. That won't do, I'm afraid. But that's not to say that you're wrong; just that it is unprovable to your fellow editors.
Are you ready to start on a new draft of this article? Every controversial phrase will need a verifiable citation; if you disagree with a verified assertion, provide a reliable source that disagrees and we'll include both.
The important point here is for us all to serve Wikipedia's readers rather than ourselves. Our readers are what's important here and we must do our best by them. Ready to get to work? REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reply to Mario Fantoni
Regarding Cultic Studies Journal, Mr. Fantoni appears to want to discredit this publication as a reliable source. Mr. Fantoni has not indicated he wishes to read the article, unlike other articles referenced by veronicapoe. I encourage Mr. Fantoni to read the cited article before he attacks it as unreliable.
In respect of Renaissance Journal, it is certainly not a reliable source for anything except to establish particular ideological norms within the Fellowship of Friends. I grant you that the name "Renaissance" was abandoned some time ago. Does Mr. Fantoni believe that official publications of the Fellowship are unreliable sources? To the extent he believes they are, he cannot have it both ways by citing the ones he likes and discrediting the ones which embarrass him.
In respect of Strange Truth: A Horror Story, Mr. Fantoni should make inquiries where he suspects he might lay hands on a copy. If he likes, he may visit the Library of Congress and inspect the work. The fact that Mr. Fantoni cannot find the work on Google or on Amazon gives no indication about whether it is a reliable work. As to Ursula Hilde Sack's book, any good academic library will have Dissertation Abstracts International and Mr. Fantoni may be able to borrow the thesis through University Microfilms in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Veronicapoe 21:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redvers Working Together
Hi Redvers. I am ready to start working on a new draft of the page with the other editors. At this point I think we all verified that the Talk page is the place to solve differences, not the main page. Thanks for your help.Mario Fantoni 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Veronica - Mediation Request
Hi Veronica. Thank you for your suggestions. Please don't get me wrong. It is not a matter of time and effort invested finding the sources; it is a matter of whether:
1 - A publication from a certain "International Cultic Studies Association", which is virtually unknown;
2 - An essay from a former member of the organization that is not an authority on the subject, and
3 - A PhD thesis that didn't undergo a formal review process
can be considered reliable sources according to Wikipedia's policies.
I would like to involve a Wikipedia Mediator. Please check Wikipedia's Mediation policies at Wikipedia:Mediation and let me know what you think. Thank you.Mario Fantoni 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mario, Veronica, Redvers and anyone else involved in resuscitation efforts. All of the back and forth since the article was protected involve the additions by Veronica. What is necessary to allow for adjustment of the voluminous copy-pasting by Peter from the Fellowship of Friends own webpages into a style closer to Wikipedia standards? Since making the additions, Peter seems to have declined any further involvement in this, so there is little to discuss. 2 of the sections, "Consciousness and Functions" and "Self-Remembering" have been rewritten, adding no new material, nor editing out any essential ideas, but simply reducing repetitive statements, eliminating elements stylistically incompatible with Wikipedia (extensive quotes etc.), and reducing insider jargon confusing or entirely indecipherable to the average reader. The same still needs to occur for the sections "Essence and Personality","The Need for Efforts", "The Many 'I's","Higher Centers","Transformation of Suffering". Basically this is a procedural question for Wikipedia administrators - how can any such edits be effected? Nixwisser 07:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reply to Mario Fantoni
The International Cultic Studies Association is an interdisciplinary lay and professional association of persons which exists to educate the public about psychological manipulation in high intensity, high control closed groups. The ICSA was founded in 1979 and is a secular organization. ICSA's official website is at http://www.csj.org and ICSA publishes an academic journal, the Cultic Studies Journal. Mr. Fantoni may wish to consult the website of the organization before reaching a conclusion that it is an unreliable source.
Mr. Fantoni should note that Ph.D. theses are subject to rigorous review.
This editor does not believe mediation will be helpful. Mr. Fantoni's goal is to discredit sources that reflect poorly on the subject matter of the entry. Veronicapoe 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A proposed solution
I am a former member of the Fellowship of Friends.
As I see it, the problem with this Wikipedia entry is that it is overly verbose, detailed, incomprehensible to the average reader, and apparently fraught with editorial conflict. May I suggest a simple solution?
1. Retain the current opening paragraph as written. It is factual and (apparently, so far) undisputed. The photo is nice.
2. Delete the heading "Recruitment and Influence Techniques" and all material under it. This material can be linked under "Criticism."
3. Under the heading, "Beliefs and Practices," provide a link to the Fellowship's web site. (Alternatively, delete this heading, and provide the link under the heading "External Links.")
4. Delete the heading "Controversies" and all material under it. Controversies clearly exist and no purpose is served by airing them here. Interested readers may learn of the controversies in the newspaper articles listed under "External Links" and the anti-cult material listed under "Criticism."
5. Retain the heading "References" and allow pertinent source materials to be listed (subject to Wiki administrator review).
6. Retain the heading "External Links" and allow pertinent links to be posted (subject to Wiki administrator review).
7. Retain the heading "Criticism" and allow pertinent links to be posted (subject to Wiki administrator review).
Babycondor 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Babycondor's Suggestions
I agree with Babycondor's suggested changes; they are a good starting point towards a shorter, cleaner, neutral, and more understandable page about the Fellowship of Friends. Mario Fantoni 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unprotection Request
It seems that BabyCondor's suggested changes are accepted by the editors and that we are ready to start editing the page under a Wikipedia adminitrator's review. At this point I would like to request the uprotection of the page; I will add the unprotection template to the List of Protected Pages. Mario Fantoni 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unprotect - Babycondor
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. Then Mario states that changes have been accepted by the editors (? I did not see anyone else agreeing except Mario). I did not see any consensus being reached.
So here are my comments to Babycondor's suggestions.
1. Agree.
2. I would not completely delete the heading Recruitment and Influence techniques. It definitely seems to have been written with an agenda, and is not neutral. However, it does contain some valid information. I suggest inspection and strict modification to eliminate non-neutral points of view, personal inferrences and irrelevant information. Referencing in this section also needs to be brought up to Wikipedia standard. I suggest this section needs to be treated separately.
3. I strongly disagree. To send the reader directly to the Fellowship website for all information regarding beliefs and practices is unhelpful, for several reasons: a) there is concise information now in this section that comes from printed FOF sources rather than their website; b) it is in the nature of an encyclopedia to be short and concise, while reading through the entire website leaves the reader wading through too much text whose intent is not to be informative but rather to attract members, text similar to what Peter copy-pasted into this article, and that has already been disputed.
4. I strongly disagree. Deleting the heading Controversies would only serve to hide the unquestionably highly controversial nature of the organization. Compare the Wikipedia article on Scientology, with a clear Controversies section. Pointing readers to external links to read about controversies there if they wish to, is unhelpful, for the same reasons mentioned in point 3. Wikipedia needs to summarize neutrally all that has been written about the organization in other sources.
5. Agree.
6. Agree. Veronica Poe posted some quite interesting sources that are directly relevant to the Fellowship and I believe they should not be deleted.
7. Agree.
Wine-in-ark 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
PS:
8. About the "intentional insincerity" section: this is a part of the teaching, though not such a prominent part that it deserves to be the first entry under Beliefs and Practices. I suggest moving it to Language and Terminology, and referencing it appropriately, otherwise it is original research.
9. Mario, original research goes both ways. You can't just remove parts of the article because you feel that the views expressed are no longer part of the current teaching. That would be original research on your part. The parts you wanted to remove were referenced and based on FOF published material, and are/were very important in the FOF ideology for a long time. If you would like to shed more light on the current trends in the teaching, I would be very glad to see your contributions, appropriately referenced of course. Thanks. Wine-in-ark 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
PPS: I'm sure this has the potential to turn into quite a good article. Wine-in-ark 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit suggestions
I am hopeful that we can cautiously move forward at this point. I agree with Wine-In-Ark that we need to honestly work towards establishing a real article. Babycondor's suggestions would reduce it to a mere stub, not a neutral, informative article. Wikipedia has tackled hundreds of controversial topics, so I am confident that a reasonably balanced article can be achieved.Nixwisser 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wine-in-ark - Babycondor
Hello Wine-in-ark, welcome back (it has been a week since your last posting). You question Babycondor's sudden appearance as suspicious. As Wikipedians we need to respect all editors, independently of the time they do their first edit or post their first message in the Talk page. May be Babycondor has been passively monitoring the page since its creation (perhaps without an account) and only now decided to be active. We don't know, and we don't need to know. We have no reason to suspect that he is not "a former member of the Fellowship of Friends", as he clearly states on the first line of his first posting, or that his intentions are not good until we have a proof of that. I found his suggested changes very reasonable; the Fellowship of Friends is not Scientology or the Mormon Church, so a short page should be sufficient. The actual page is awfully long for such a small organization. Again, welcome back and stay tunned. Mario Fantoni 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is Wine-in-ark a Wikipedia Administrator?
I just noticed that Wine-in-ark protected the page today, then unprotected it, and finally requested protection. This means that Wine-in-ark is a Wikipedia Administrator. If that is the case, there is a conflict of interest since he can do edits and protect the page after doing them, edit protected pages, block editors that he doesn't agree with, etc. This text is from Wikipedia:Administrators "Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." Please tell me if I am wrong. Mario Fantoni 03:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I just checked Wikipedia's Requests for page protection page and saw that Wine-in-ark's protection request was declined under the reason that "No edit-warring is taking place; discussion can still continue if necessary." This is very nice; let's move forward with respect and please keep the communication open. Mario Fantoni 05:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mario, I'm not an administrator, I just didn't know what I was doing as I wanted to protect the page. 148.78.41.150 19:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Wine-in-ark, is that really you? Your comment was not signed. Mario Fantoni 21:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Wine-in-ark, I am sorry to ask again, but can you confirm that you are not a Wikipedia Administrator? The message above was not signed. Thanks. Mario Fantoni 06:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] April 6 changes
Mario - concur with your changes with the exception of the historical names deletion, which Veronica has restored already
Veronica -it seems you are creating links incorrectly or accidentally in the additions to the Fourth Way Tradition. Most of these names either have valid Wikipedia entries or have other published material about them that can be linked there, but currently it seems no direct link is supplied and Wikipedia is pulling anything it can find that seems to match. James Randazzo, as a former student of the Fellowship, certainly is worth mentioning somewhere in this article, but I am not sure his former group could be typified as "fourth way". Newspaper articles described it as "Christian". Would love to see your Bonita Guido material in the article, but you need to find a valid way to source it, or find similar material which can be validly sourced.
thanks Nixwisser 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nixwisser, thank you for your comments. The more editors this page has, the higher its quality will be. Can you explain why you think that somebody looking for basic information about the Fellowship of Friends in Wikipedia would be interested in all the names that the organization's retreat in California had over the years? Thank you. Mario Fantoni 18:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Veronica's Fourth Way exponents
Hi Veronica, I noticed that you added to the opening paragraph the name of "other 20th century exponents of fourth way", as you describe in the edit comment. This is unnecessary - even the Fourth Way page in Wikipedia mentions only G. I. Gurdjieff. It is also very strange (or suggestive) that the list starts with G. I Gurdjieff and P. D. Ouspensky, the founders of the Fourth Way system, and ends with James Vincent Randazzo, a convicted criminal that served served 12 years in a state prison (see | here).
You also included incorrect links in the "list of exponents": Rodney Collin-Smith is a link to an empty page in Wikipedia, Boris Mouravieff is a link to an empty page in Wikipedia, John Godolphin Bennett is a link to the Bennet surname page in Wikipedia, Jean Toomer is a link to the Toomer surname page in Wikipedia, Kathryn Mansfield is a link to the city of Mansfield in England, Frank Lloyd Wright is a link to the term "Wright" in Wikipedia, Lord Pentland is a link to the surname "Pentland" in Wikipedia, Alexander Horn is a link to the term "Horn" in Wikipedia, Meg Wirkunnen is a link to an empty page in Wikipedia, Daniel Ennis is a link to the city of Ennis in Ireland, Robert Earl Burton is a link to the surname "Burton" in Wikipedia, James Vincent Randazzo is a link to the city of Randazzo in Italy
Veronica, your edit makes the page confusing listing a criminal as an exponent of the Fourth Way and directing people to incorrect pages. Can you fix it? Mario Fantoni 18:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Veronica's Fellowship Suicides
Veronica, you added today a section on "Fellowship Suicides". As you know, this is a highly controversial topic. Are you willing to discuss highly controversial edits in the Talk page before you do them? If we don't communicate, a new edit war may arise. Thank you. Mario Fantoni 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If there have been suicides, they could go under Controversies, but Veronica would somehow have to be able to prove that the suicides were directly caused by the FOF in order to be relevant for inclusion in the article, and I think that would be extremely difficult. Certainly not doable in one paragraph, and would exceed the scope of the article. Veronica, if you wish to expand on the controversies, perhaps you can begin with well documented sources, such as charges brought against the FOF and its leader. Wine-in-ark 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the sections named "Fellowship Suicides" and "Fellowship Deaths" because of the reasons stated by Wine-in-ark. Mario Fantoni 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Question to Veronica: That is an interesting approach to the suicides. The organization may have brought some people to mental instability and despair, but on the other hand, so does normal life. Is there any way to prove that 4 suicides out of a group of 12,000 people who have passed through the FOF is a more prevalent occurrence than in the general population? This site [1] shows 173 suicides in about 1 million people for Yuba county in the last decades. That's 1 in 3000 in the FOF and 1 in 5780 in the general population. Although with just 4 cases, there can be a lot of statistical deviation. Still I think the suicides section is a bit overblown at this point. If it can't be appropriately referenced, I really recommend to put it on your own website. Wine-in-ark 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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 they 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 [2]. 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
