Talk:Fellowship of Friends

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fellowship of Friends article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Contents 1 Mediation Cabal 2 IP block has been lifted 3 When vandals try to be reasonable... 4 This article is a giant ad 5 Stubbed 6 A fresh start 7 Time for an archive? 8 enshortening intro 9 COI continues 10 History section 11 About practices 12 Restub, continued conflict of interest 13 Yamla refreshes accusations on FOF 14 The stub (with links only to the Fellowship pages) is a free ad for the Fellowship 15 Farewell message 16 COI Continued 17 What is the plan for this page? It's still just a free ad for the Fellowship of Friends 18 FoF emphasises other schools and religions 19 Talk Page is long, Article is short

[edit] Mediation Cabal

In light of Baby Dove's recent edit I've put in a request to mediation cabal. I was hoping a little good faith was emerging and a possibility of constructive dialogue -obviously this was naive. Moving to arbitration apparently requires the involvement of the Cabal followed by formal mediation and as a last resort arbitration. Hopefully something constructive can be accomplished along the way, if not then there will be ample record to demonstrate the need for arbitration -thanksWantthetruth? 08:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, I like that someone is reigning things in on this page. I stated my concerns on the previous talk page as well. At least three or four of the editors here have very definite agendas to remove material from this article that is critical of the Fellowship of Friends, or embarrassing to its leader, Robert Burton, and they have been working literally non-stop to "manage" the content here. This organization is quite controversial, and they have been working diligently over the past several months to remove information that reflects poorly on the Fellowship and Burton. I applaud any effort to bring true balance to this article, which would present complete and comprehensive information about the group's beliefs and its history as well as highlight many of the controversies about the group. Thanks very much for your efforts! Artnscience 01:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is really good, Wantthetruth? You said no to Joshua's offer as a mediator and you request another mediator. Obviously, you do not want the truth, you want your truth. Instead of a vandalic reversion, you could have tried to rephrase the same information as I did, which took time. But, of course, this requires more work. Regarding Horn as Burton's teacher, it is unnecessary to quote Patterson saying this when Burton himself says the same in his book. Though I still think 18 month do not make this important at all, and it even was a reason to disqualify him as a teacher in this same page, as Aeuio did. Baby Dove 16:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Want - I'm glad to see that you are willing to try mediation. I'm sorry you felt that BD's edit was not in good faith. As he mentioned, he tried to rephrase what was said, which made the criticism section shorter. You reverted immediately without dialog here. Was your revert made in good faith? I do hope that your request for help from the cabal is from a genuine wish to mediate. The way you wrote about your request above begins: "Moving to arbitration...." It seems that is your goal and that mediation is an inconvenient step along the way. Arriving at a good article requires time, effort and patience. Mediation requires those things even more. Are you open to that? --Moon Rising 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, I just read this on COIN: "I believe we're moving towards arbitration, sadly it seems we can't move there directly. Advice from any Wiki veterans here regarding dispute resolution and arbitration would be very much appreciated by me - thanks19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC). I guess you answered my question, in part, before I asked it. I don't know why you are so interested in skipping the steps towards Dispute Resolution, but they are evidently there for a purpose - not just having documentation that we went through the process. It might help all of us, including any prospective mediators, if you could list what you what you would like to change. Now that you're no longer insisting on a major section on Alex Horn, what would you like to add or delete? We also have a draft article page where you could outline some things to open a discussion. All this talk about another mediation started with Horn, I think. If we can agree on that, do we need a mediator? --Moon Rising 04:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I went back to the version of Criticism in the draft page, previous to vandalism from our Irish editor, Wantthetruth?, in the hope it will be rephrased civilizedly and with the due effort and respect for fellow editors who take their time writing what does not look clearly phrased. I also added the forgotten financial part, so that nothing is missing in the new phrasing of the same stuff. I hope he does not insist in vandalizing the page, since it is only a draft. Baby Dove 05:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove - Please refrain from POV editing. I've reverted your edit and encourage you to discuss your problems here, calm down please and read up on POV if you need to - thanks20:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wantthetruth? (talk •

contribs)

BD, first, Waspidistra was the Irish editor. I also think we've all used the word "vandalism" too freely on this page. Reverting an edit is not vandalism. It may not be polite or show good faith to do so without discussion first, but it's not really vandalism. It seems you were shortening this section in response to other editors shortening beliefs and practices. The Criticism section has always been a point of contention, and any changes probably need discussion first. It's not that necessarily disagree with what you did, but maybe discuss first next time. Want have reverted your edit again, saying it is POV. Why not start a dialog before reverting his edit? Moon Rising 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising - Starting to feel that you're deliberately trying not to understand me? Nonetheless since you appear to me to be the only reasonable FOF editor here, I'll explain once again. I'm open to mediation in good faith and agree that it's necessary. Editors here have already taken time and made effort to reach concensus with the help of a mediator, what followed was a return to editing based on the FOF agenda which undid thye editing, the good faith and wasted the time of those involved. Nothing in my experience here suggests that there won't be a repeat of this, for example read the POV editing from Baby Dove that's being attempted on the draft page. So, IMO given the fundamentalist views of FOF editors, an absence of good faith and dialogue and the mindless editing which continues, I've decided to lay groundwork for dispute resolution which could legitimately move towards Arbitration . I sincerely hope we don't have to move that far and suggest to you that that is in the hands of the FOF editors as to whether we will or not. I hope you all understand that part of the arbitration teams power includes banning individuals from editing? -thanksWantthetruth? 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Want - I assure you I am not deliberately trying to misunderstand you. Sometimes I find contradictions in what you say (nothing personal, I'm sure we all do it). So maybe that is why there is misunderstanding. Thank you for the compliment. --Moon Rising 00:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising - I have only a little time to answer the second part of your question about what I want re- Alex Horn's inclusion, can I get back to you tomorrow on this? Wantthetruth? 21:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, tomorrow is fine. To be clear, I thought you already said what you wanted in the Horn inclusion: the half sentence with appropriate reference. Isn't that what you said? Also, I'm interested in knowing what other changes or additional subjects or material you want in this article. I sometimes get you and Wasp confused, so maybe it was Wasp who had a large agenda of things to add. Right now, the Criticism section and Horn seem to be the only things we're disputing. Is that correct? Will you be happy if the criticism section stays the way it is, or has some NPOV cleanup work done to it? --Moon Rising 00:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising - One step at a time please. Yes, inclusion of the half sentence to Horn, followed by the two links I've presented, one link goes to Patterson's book, the other goes to Rick Ross. Please note that the existing link to Patterson is not the one I'm referring to, I'm neither asking for that to be removed or insisting that it stays. Regarding the criticism section do you mean pre or post Baby Dove's alterations? thanksWantthetruth? 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP block has been lifted

Yesterday I reported the IP block issue to the Arbitration Committee and apparently today it has been lifted, since I am posting this message from my office. Mfantoni 16:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yesssss! It works now! Baby Dove 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess the horse Mfantoni was beating wasn't dead after all. Mfantoni, you don't give up, I have to admit. On another note, I am amazed of what a single admin can do. I heard that that's one of the problems of Wikipedia: abuse of power by the admins. I heard that the first admin that worked on this page was 14 years sold. Gee, if you are dealing with admins like him you just hope that they don't block you because they just had a fight with their little sister. Scary. Love-in-ark 22:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When vandals try to be reasonable...

They accuse others of not having a NPOV and they insist in avoiding other editors to have the possibility of even reading a draft. Any change is thus impossible, because as any answer, they revert to the only version they think is reasonable...

Of course, they look for an edit war while accusing others, but they make no effort to improve anything, just to figure out whether a slight concession would make their POV more acceptable to who do not share the same view, which they think "objective."

This is probably something unchangeable in these vandals. They will have to learn, however, that an ocassional reader will only get access to the article, not even having too many possibilities to learn about the existence of a draft where editors could be trying to build a better version of the article.

What is even worse, is that some editors had already agreed with the proposed modifications, but all these vandalism avoids that they can help improving the article.

Lazyness is a big problem to be solved here. I hope vandals will get to be civilized soon, because it is the article which needs to be improved, not a mere draft... Baby Dove 07:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

BabyDove - You're doing more than I possibly could to prove my point, is this your intention? Wantthetruth? 19:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is you act as a vandal. So the history part begins when there was a lawsuit, before the Fellowship was even founded? Because you present your draft this way! Good show of your "neutral" point of view of the church! Baby Dove 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We all know that you have differences, but this kind of exchange is not going to help. I suggest that both of you stop calling each other "vandal". If you can't talk to each other without using the V-word it's a sign of Wikistress and I recommend that you take a 24 hour break from Wikipedia (the article is protected so nothing terrible is going to happen). And remember: mediation is coming (hopefully). Speaking about mediation, any news Want? Love-in-ark 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Love-in-ark- I think your question just got answered:-) Wantthetruth? 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a giant ad

Most of it appears to have been written by a copywriter, not in an encyclopedic tone. Viridae^Talk 23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamla: I absolutely agree with Viridae. Even now, with the short stub that is currently posted on the page, it's a very effective advertisement for the Fellowship. There's absolutely no indication that anyone has ever criticized the group, or that there's ever been anything to criticize. This is a very controversial topic, and I feel strongly that some indication should be given that the article is currently being contested in some way. I also believe those links should be removed because it allows people to bypass search engines such as Yahoo and Google, where the first pages are packed with links to criticism. Also, I have to disagree with your assertion that the conflict of interest is even on both sides. Almost all of the editing on this page has been done by the same editors over and over for the past several months, and at least 90% of the content has been produced by them, and they systematically delete anything that's unfavorable to the Fellowship. Those who want to present a balanced article here are outnumbered, and do not have the apparent time -- or motivation -- that these editors have to continue editing on a daily basis for several months. Artnscience 05:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stubbed

The advertarticle needs a complete rewrite from the ground up, with proper independent sources and references. Members of the organisation are encouraged to post to this Talk page, but should not edit the article directly. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, but... how are you supposed to learn about who the members are? Horseshoekick 06:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that you've essentially just undone several thousand edits? The previous ~10-page version had issues, but asserting that all or virtually all of the content is not worth keeping is a stretch IMO. I'm not really convinced that a perfect article will inevitably materialize in order to justify reversing everyone's efforts. Not sure this is the best solution. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, JzG/Guy just erased thousands of edits with a single blow. Who is JzG/Guy? He is not an admin to my knowledge, he is an editor. If an editor blanks a page that has thousands of edits that's called vandalism according to Wikipedia. Should we restore the article as it was before the stubbing and then improve it? Don't let JzG/Guy intimidate you - it's your hours of editing that are being wasted. Love-in-ark 08:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

He's definitely an admin.^[1] I believe JzG's stubification was a reaction to this ANI topic, though I don't think the concerns expressed there justify such extreme treatment and I'm uncertain as to whether the two other editors who posted there would endorse this. I'm not really inclined to revert him though, as the last time I did (forgot edit summary; explanation in body of message) he decided to revert back and protect the page to prevent any possibility of discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Horseshoekick - Hi and welcome, FYI the user names of the currently active and more obviously pro FOF editors are; Moon Rising, Mfantoni, Baby Dove, Love in Ark and StillWorking. You've appeared at a very unusual time and a number of fresh, (to me) names have appeared here, possibly in response to a call for neutral editing help. Please ask anything at any time, you will usually get a helpful response from someoneWantthetruth? 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is important at all to mention who is in favor of what-which can obviously be subjective-let's add that Wine-in-ark (the creator of the article), Veronicapoe, Baby Condor, Waspidistra and Wantthetruth? have recognized they were members of the Fellowship and they left, and some of them (if not all with a different nickname), are active editors in the Blog they insist to quote as a "NPOV" source and other "NPOV" sites. Baby Dove 06:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll be bold and revert, as it seems I'm not the only one who thinks that stubification is too extreme. This can of course be overturned if consensus favors it. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, you seem to be looking for an opportunity to prove that JzG is an abusive admin, and thereby are bringing an outside issue of the blocking of some user A.Z. to an article that already has a thousand problems. If you wish to stalk JzG this is a wrong place to do it. I would recommend that you leave your personal business about whether JzG was fair with A.Z. out of this before this turns into a bigger mess.You are easily making wrong assumptions. You said "You do realize that you've essentially just undone several thousand edits?" - This is wrong. This article was completely rewritten when the fof website got changed not long ago, so the thousands of edits were lost back then. I suggest you look at the current fof website to see just how similar it is to this page. The only difference is the criticism, which under confusing claims might be changed to nothing. 69.156.52.244 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, I was explaining (in brief) a recent conflict involving JzG which might help other editors understand my reservation in dealing with this or anything else resulting from that tension. I think that such dramatic changes (generally) ought to be discussed prior to execution and I maintain that I would have expressed the same opinion had it been another editor stubifying the article. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel - That's not helpful, not one little bit. Were you contacted privately and encouraged in your action by any of the FOF editors I grouped above or any others? Also, you're in Northern California where the FOF is headquartered and interested in search engine optimisation and web design. Do you have any professional connection to mfantoni or Love-in-Ark or any relevant FOF bias to disclose? Wantthetruth? 20:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit confused by your previous comment, being unsure who it was directed at. I'm an agnostic and didn't know that the FOF existed prior to seeing the ANI thread. I run a couple of personal websites, none of which are related to religion in any way and none of which have any bearing on me financially (apart from the $100/yr or so with which I pay for some shared space and a couple domains). I can understand you being skeptical given the history of interest conflicts on this page, but I assuredly have none. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm undoing my revert, as consensus is not as clear as I thought. I still advise and support restoring the page, but as the issue seems more divided than I anticipated I'll wait to see how consensus develops. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, I am not an editor of this page but have been following it for several months. I noticed that several editors are former students of the Fellowship of Friends and their aim is to discredit the organization on the article and will attack any editor that has a different POV (you are an example of that). One of them sent the following message to a blog against the Fellowship 3 days ago:

--- BEGINNING OF QUOTE ---

Post No. 419, posted on 30 Oct 2007 at 8:27 pm by Leonhardon Da Mincey

Dear Bloggers,

A while back art n’ science posted a comment regarding the FOF page on Wikipedia. The comment was moderated and many may have missed it. I wanted to try again to bring everyone’s attention to what the FOF is doing there behind the scenes and encourage as many of you as possible to become involved as active editors in the current editing disputes which are at the moment largely controlled by the FOF, primarily through force of numbers, though additionally by any underhand trick they can think of.

Background

Wikipedia is a collaborative online encyclopaedia and the FOF has a page there which it is currently using as a free advertisement. The FOF is trying to establish its image there as a church with a glossy palatable makeover. FOF editors have been blocking all attempts to shape the article in an unbiased way. Recent examples are blocking of any reference to Alex Horn or James Vincent Randazzo.

Significance

This is an important piece of real estate for the FOF to own. Wikipedia is the 8th most visited site on the entire web after Google, Yahoo, MSN etc. It is used by many, many people now as a first source for information on almost any topic. The FOF is engaged tenaciously in it’s usual stunt of painting itself in the rosiest colors whilst simultaneously eliminating any criticism or dissonance evoking references to it’s history. Editing can be undertaken by absolutely anyone, though any reference put forward has to point to a pre-existing source that any reader can check, i.e. web-site, book, etc. You can’t just go there and say “I think the FOF sucks”.

Difficulties

The FOF uses it’s own web-site to reference comments about itself, so the article is based largely on it’s own propaganda. Balancing the article is very difficult and the nature of the Wikipedia editing policy is promotion of concensus. With eight or nine current virulently pro FOF editors and only one or two outies with enough stamina to resist, concensus other than FOF concensus is currently close to impossible to reach which is why help is needed. Wikipedia could be viewed as a venue for your activism in a public arena and can be undertaken anonymously. If you follow the FOF moves there, you will come to intuit where it sees it’s vulnerabilities and gain insight into the orchestrated manipulation FOF attempted here. It is yet another eye opener into the desperation of a beleaguered cult.

Get involved

If you’re interested go to, http://wikipedia.org/ search for, Fellowship of Friends and read the current page. You’ll see at the top, that the page has been locked by an administrator while a conflict of interest dispute is resolved. Now click on the tab at the top of the page titled; discussion. You’re now on the talk page where you can follow the more recent shenanigans of the Fellowship through their stymying, blocking, bullying, misleading, humiliating etc. of anyone attempting to follow an agenda other than the FOF’s - You know, the usual stuff we’ve come to know and love about the organisation;-) You can also search WP:COIN then find the Fellowship tag to follow the recent conflict of interest dispute. and follow, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends/Draft to see the new draft of the page. It may take a little while for you to figure out who is who there and what they are up to but basically if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and smells like a duck it’s probably a duck!

Thanks and good luck and remember to set up your own user name and to always log in before editing otherwise your i.p. address shows up.

Best, Leonhardon

--- END OF QUOTE ---

Daniel, I just wanted you to know what is really going on before you leave the page thinking that you are doing something wrong. UltraEdit 20:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation -- I didn't realize that the extent of off-wiki (sort of) canvassing. Will look into it more carefully. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel - Thanks for the clarification and the revert, please help us arrive at a neutral page here if you have the time and inclination.Wantthetruth? 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice, very nice. First Wantthetruth suggests that Daniel works for the Fellowship and when the guy proves that that's a false accusation Want thanks him for his edits and asks for his help "to arrive at a neutral page". Very sincere, I am impressed. This way we are not going to attract many new or neutral editors, but that's exactly what some people want. Love-in-ark 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Love-in ark - Your comment is a personal attack and a blatant distortion of my question to Daniel. I suggest that you sit down with your chums and talk over what might be an intelligent and realistic way for you to proceed given the fact that you've now all been discouraged from editing the advertisement you previously generated. I'll await your willingness to participate in a good faith discussion of a new page for the FOF. However, if your previous COI chicanery persists, (your comment above suggests no change in attitude) I think you'll find that the nanometer which now stands between an opportunity for participation versus editorial exclusion will evaporate in a trice. Up to you - in summary; stop yanking everyones chain and take a viewWantthetruth? 22:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth? - Your comment is a personal attack and a blatant distortion of my comment above. I suggest that you sit down with your chums and talk over what might be an intelligent and realistic way for you to proceed given the fact that you've now all been warned because of your constant personal attacks. I'll await your willingness to participate in a good faith discussion of a new page for the FOF. However, if your previous attacks persists, (your comment above suggests no change in attitude) I think you'll find that the nanometer which now stands between an opportunity for participation versus editorial exclusion will evaporate in a trice. Up to you - in summary; stop attacking people and take a view. Love-in-ark 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I've been surfing on these articles Love has just deleted, and I think those contribs are the rule in that blog. And ye can't quite know what are they talkin' about. It looks as a blog for lunatics... Horseshoekick 07:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A fresh start

The article has been reduced to a stub, and I would like to use this opportunity to propose a fresh start. Let's write a short, concise and neutral article that will inform visitors about the Fellowship of Friends. Let's create an article that is not a copy of the official site of the FOF mixed with text taken verbatim from anti-cult sites. Let's avoid personal attacks, accusations of sock puppetry without proof, sarcasm, etc. In summary, let's be editors of an encyclopedia, behaving with respect and politeness. Let's try - I am for it. Mfantoni 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, a summary of the church's beliefs according to their website is there now. Presence, imagination, the higher and the lower selves have been summarized. The problem has been enunciated. Is there a short version of their practices? Baby Dove 08:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this new start has merit and potential. While I might tweek the current Beliefs section, think that it is a good neutral start. Perhaps we could start editing by first agreeing on a brief outline. Trying to follow to brief is good style, I would suggest three additional sections: Practices, Payment, and Criticism and Controversy. I can also see where Payment might be included as a sentence or two in Practices. If we can agree on an outline, then perhaps we could sequentially work down the outline, agreeing on one before going to the next. This might focus as well as facilitate the discussion. Thoughts? StillWorking 16:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello StillWorking. I do not really think payment is an issue anywhere. You only pay for what you want to have. You want to be a member of a club, you pay. Once you are a member, when summer comes and you want to use the swimming pool, you pay again for that, and so on. A mention about the 10% in a Practises section would do, I guess. Baby Dove 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Morning Guys! Restored History and criticism sections. The abbreviated new opening is not encyclopaedic in tone, reads like a smaller ad though is a little better than what was there previously. The style of the history and criticism sections is brief and well referenced. You'll need to generate something along this line for the opening or it won't stick.Wantthetruth? 19:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The new opening may need some refinement, but a good effort was made to remove the ad tone. Please feel free to contribute to this section too, Want. You know what editors are trying to say - would you point out particular sentences that you think are too ad like, or come up with wording that you think is more neutral?

Regarding the History and Criticism sections, have you noticed the redundancy? Higher beings and false prophecy don't belong in both sections. Also, history is normally presented chronologically. The first 2 paragraphs in History should be removed, as they are repeated in the criticisms section. If you want them in the history section instead, then they should follow what are now the last 3 paragraphs to be chronological. This explanation is convoluted, but I think you know what I mean. I'd make the change myself, but since it's a hot topic, I mention it here for discussion first. As a general request, when contributing to the talk page, it would be really nice if editors followed the WP standards of indentation using a colon for each level of indent in one dialog. Thank. --Moon Rising 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the first 2 paragraphs of the History section because they are already part of the Criticism. I also agree with Want that the new Beliefs section is still "ad style". For example, take a look at the following text: The Fellowship says that the only way to verify the power of imagination is to make a sincere attempt to stop it. How do you do this? Try to be present. Try to be present right now, and while you are being present to yourself, listen to what is around you. Look at what is in front of you. Be present to this. Does this sound encyclopedic to you? Something we could do is check the articles of new religious movements on the List of new religious movements. If we look at groups that are similar to the FOF (approx. 2,000 members, worldwide presence), we will probably find some examples to be used for the FOF article. Love-in-ark 20:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Moon - Hello. Thanks for the comments re-redundancy. I've revised both sections, let me know. I'm presuming you would prefer the comments on founding in the opening that's where I would place it. I also made a typo correction on one misspelt word in the opening section. Wantthetruth? 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising - Re your request to point out ad like sentences, it's honestly difficult to choose one to focus upon. The section to me reads primarily as a declaration of belief. I'm not criticizing the beliefs but am saying the content as offered is not Wikipedia. Part of your, (i.e. FOF's) problem in establishing something credible is that the only source you're quoting is your own web-site, beingpresent.org which is very definitely and somewhat understandably ad-like in tone. Presumably the wish to distance the organisation from G and O is something you must abide by? I would suggest a VERY abbreviated beliefs section and an expanded practices section, you could then use practices to source and develop a coherent psychological model of man and flesh this out by pointing to historical references to world religions and traditions and on to day to day practical example as taught by Burton and FOF. Anyway that's todays 2 cents worth, I'll try and generate an example. By the way, your comment re colons and indents is unfortunately lost on me. Wantthetruth? 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Want - thanks for your thoughts. Seems we all know what needs to be done, and we're trying to find the right words to do it. Help is appreciated. We need a "lead" section - a brief summary of what's to follow, and separate headings for the other topics. A re-written beliefs and practices section, and a little more meat to the history. Regarding indenting on talk pages, it is mentioned in WP talk page guidelines, and I tried to create an example for you on your talk page. A properly indented talk page is a beautiful thing to behold ;-)Moon Rising 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors, - the reference section is scrambled, not sure how to unscramble yet but I'll get to it in the next day or twoWantthetruth? 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth? You scrambled it. You should unscramble. Meanwhile, it needs a "citation needed" tag. Baby Dove 22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear All -- I have done a major edit that I sincerely hope captures the spirit of most of the discussion of which I am aware of. It is not perfect by any means. Most notably it is completely lacking references; from what I have seen these can easily be added from previous versions but I was very confused about their status and more interested in content. I believe that most of Wants' edits are included except the history section. To my read this unnecessarily expanded the article from its concise nature. I would not have a problem including a history section but I suspect that a balanced section would be difficult. Again, one persons viewpoint and effort for balance. Best to all. Oh yes, one last thing. I really do prefer the draft approach as editing by replacement automatically makes it seem more contentious than I think it is. Just some thoughts on the process. StillWorking —Preceding comment was added at 06:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for an archive?

This page takes forever to open - will someone who knows how to archive consider doing that? I tried once and really screwed things up, so I leave it to the experts. --Moon Rising 20:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I just moved older comments to Archive 11. If I cut too much just put it back. Mfantoni 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] enshortening intro

I tried to make the introduction a bit more encyclopedic, without any reference to a person's situation. I also welcome the restoring of the scrumbled part, and I want to say that the link to the rickross page does not talk about Burton at all, so it should be removed, as far as the editor might consider it unnecessary. I hope my English is clear here, and my apologies if it is not.Baby Dove 00:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI continues

I note that some current members of the Fellowship of Friends are continuing to edit this article. This is inappropriate. You are welcome to suggest and discuss changes here on the discussion page but please refrain from further direct editing of the article. This is not to say that only such editors suffer from a conflict of interest, mind you. --Yamla 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, your comment raises a few questions. First, if FOF members are prohibited from editing, who will edit? Did you know that former members have an equally strong conflict of interest and would most likely produce an article comprised almost solely, or solely on criticism and controversy? If you read the FOF blog (by former members) [2] you will find that many former members are trying to destroy the FOF, and that hundreds of them belong to an organization they created called the "Greater Fellowship". While this group may not precisely fit Wikipedia's definition of a group with a COI, common sense would dictate otherwise, IMO.

Regarding COI, WP states that there are guidelines for COI and to use common sense; that it is a guideline, not a policy. I fail to see the common sense of prohibiting members of the FOF from editing but allowing members of the Greater Fellowship to edit. It is also not fair to assume that all editors who write favorably about the FOF are members. A number of times one editor or another has lumped us all together as "you members". I have repeatedly responded that my religious beliefs are personal and that no one should assume I am a member. I have not once said that I am a member, and I do not say so now. Finally, if you remove the information added by so called members, all that will be left is the criticism section. May I also point out that since the page was stubbed, all editors are going out of their way to be polite and work together. This has not happened before.--Moon Rising 01:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem was brought to my attention that a number of editors were inserting pro-FOF content and were doing so from an IP address issued to the headquarters of the FOF themselves. On review by other admins, they decided the end result was that the article was entirely inappropriate and little more than marketing. COI may apply to ex-members as well. A person dedicated to overthrowing an organisation should also refrain from editing the article, for example. Now, both sides are welcome to make suggestions for the edits right here on the discussion page. That's entirely appropriate and provided everything remains civil, it's a wonderful idea. Editors who are not related to the headquarters or leadership of the FOF but who are nevertheless members should be very careful to disclose their status when making edits and should make an extra effort to remain neutral and to properly cite everything with reliable sources. This again applies to both sides. In the end, if there's nobody left who can appropriately edit the article itself, this would likely mean the article should be deleted. COI is indeed a guideline but it was violated so blatantly as to lead to the article being stubbed. WP:COI has less weight than policy but we still expect all editors to adhere to it. I hope this has answered some of your questions. It is my sincere hope that any FOF member editing from the headquarters of the FOF continue to discuss how to improve the quality of the article by making suggestions here. --Yamla 02:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Yamla's position is personal and doesn't reflect Wikipedia's COI guidelines. Vassyana (an admin with experience in religious articles and a former mediator of this article) said that articles about religious organizations are edited by current members, former members and editors with no connection to the organization. Also, the fact that Yamla blocked an IP address range from editing and an admin from the Arbitration Committee unblocked it tells us that we have the right of appeal. I would like to see more administrators involved to make sure that this is not a case of error and/or abuse of power. Mfantoni 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that if we follow Yamla's reasoning all religious articles will be deleted from Wikipedia, since most of the editors will be either believers or antagonists because:

1. They are the ones that know about the organization.

2. They are the ones that are very definite about their positions and are willing to invest time editing the article.

There has to be a way out of this situation. Love-in-ark 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That the COI was so severe as to result in this article being stubbed after being reviewed by multiple administrators should tell you something. WP:COI isn't my personal opinion, it is an official Wikipedia guideline. You are expected to adhere to it. I'm not asking anyone to refrain from working to make this article better, only asking that those with a conflict of interest do so via this discussion page. --Yamla 04:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that I just checked the IP block. It is not the case that the block was overturned by ARBCOM. See the block log. --Yamla 04:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I confess that this entire discussion is a puzzle to me. Perhaps it would help if you could be specific. What editors in particular are you speaking of and what edits of theirs on the current article do you find objectionable (both pro and con)? StillWorking 06:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere above, on November 2 @6:04 I already asked how can members be recognized. Can anybody answer this, or it is just a vague comment on what it should be? Thank you. Horseshoekick 09:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Moon -You stated above, "I have repeatedly responded that my religious beliefs are personal and that no one should assume I am a member. I have not once said that I am a member, and I do not say so now." You've also not said plainly that you're not a member, perhaps you can clear this up by letting us know. Are you a member of the FOF?Wantthetruth? 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Moon - again above quoting you,"Did you know that former members have an equally strong conflict of interest and would most likely produce an article comprised almost solely, or solely on criticism and controversy?" This statement doesn't coincide with the facts as I see them. I don't see anyone editing here that wants to prevent the FOF from making substantial contributions about itself. I do see an attempt by some to strive for balance based on inclusion of material regarded as unflattering by the FOF. I also see a willingness to co-operate in building a Wiki like article which does not read like a marketing exercise. This inclusiveness was and is still denied by pro FOF editors.Wantthetruth? 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys - Your attacks on Yamla are unfair and unfounded. Please stop arguing with and ignoring admins, put the energy instead into the article and at least try to accept that a balanced view of the FOF will include things that you don't like. - thanks Wantthetruth? 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth, where do you see an attack to Yamla above? In my case, I am trying to understand Yamla's position. Mfantoni 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni- Quoting you above, "I believe that Yamla's position is personal and doesn't reflect Wikipedia's COI guidelines............... I would like to see more administrators involved to make sure that this is not a case of error and/or abuse of power". Mfantoni 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Wantthetruth? 01:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To say that somebody's opinion is personal and asking for other people to be involved to ensure neutrality is not an attack. Please be careful when you use expressions like "attack" and "vandal", since they are strong terms and you seem to have a tendency to use them freely. I am trying to keep this talk page polite and civilized, and I am asking for your collaboration. Thank you. Mfantoni 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I have a feeling this section will require discussion so I've started a new heading. I just replaced what was there with a more detailed history, trying ever so hard to make the language encyclopedic. I removed the reference to Alex Horn because it does not seem appropriate to the History section. I'm not sure it belongs anywhere in the article, but was out of place where it was, in my opinion, as this is the history of the FoF and not Burton.--Moon Rising 01:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Moon - Firstly thanks for the time you took to explain indents to me on my talk page I think I've got it - appreciated.

However, on to weightier matters; You've removed the history section? This was attempted before and was described at the time by someone here as a, "mindless edit" that was restored by an admin. I find it difficult to view this as something other than a replay of the COI agenda and would welcome your comments before I restore it. To be clear, it seems to me that there is an undisclosed agenda to remove important references to the organization's history and that is unacceptable from the viewpoint of generating a factual and balanced article. The Fellowship has a history, it's unfortunate that you don't like that history, however your dislike is not a reason for obliterating it on this page.

You've removed all reference to Renaissance Vineyard and Winery, which for the uninformed I should explain is the Vineyard and Winery founded by the Fellowship, built, planted and tended by FOF members for decades. It was at the core of Burton's beliefs and teaching regarding establishment of an environment for work and preparation for survival in connection to the doomsday prophesies he pronounced. It also represents an important connection to His teacher Alex Horn. Burton studied the Fourth Way system with Horn for 18 months before founding the FOF. Part of the form of Horn's teaching included establishment of a winery as an environment for practical work.

You've removed the reference to Alex Horn by arguing that it relates to Burton's history and not the FOF's. Are you seriously trying to argue that Burton's history is not inextricably linked to the History of the organization he founded and has led continuously since it's inception? Again for background to the uninformed. Burton studied the Gurdjieff/Ouspensky system with Horn immediately prior to founding the FOF, Horn's group established a vineyard and used theatre as a vehicle for expression. Burton went on to found a school based on the Gurdjieff/ Ouspensky system then a vineyard and uses art in a broader sense including theatre as a vehicle for teaching and expression, additionally Horn was subject to allegations of abuse, Burton was and is subject to allegations of abuse. Your denial of this as important and relevant is IMO absurd.

You've put reference to failed prophecies in the practices section and have tried to give it a slant by adding that exercises were generated around this? The failed prophecies are an important historical fact. Hopefully this is not an FOF gambit leading to deletion in a few days under the argument that it doesn't fit where you've placed it?

I'm trying to avoid a knee jerk reaction to your edit which is not easy and await some semblance of dialog. Perhaps our two new editors could express an opinion? This is not going to fly Moon, please, please don't act like blockhead or I'll have to call for admin intervention to help resolve this - that's not meant as a threat but definitely is a statement of outcome born of exasperation. - thanksWantthetruth? 21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciated my indent tutorial. I probably didn't explain it as well as I thought. I just indented your above comments with one colon, and I've indented my response to you with 2 colons. Hope this further explains how indents work.

Now to meatier stuff - Yes, Horn is a point of controversy. If any mention of him belongs, it would be in the section about Burton, I think, which has not been recreated since the article was stubbed. When I edited the history section, the only thing in it, as I recall, was information about Horn. So let's work together on this. By the way, I did not remove the history section, I edited it, as the first sentence of this section says.

Regarding all the other changes you refer to - I didn't make any of them. I think most were from StillWorking who is a very new editor. It appears he was trying to rephrase the article so that it does not read like an advertising brochure - just using his own words instead of what's on the FOF website. Is it perfect? By no means. Could it be a sincere effort to improve the article? I think so. Would I like to change some of it? Yes, when I have time. He seems like a reasonable individual based on his talk page comments, perhaps he can enter this dialog - if you haven't scared him off. Please remember Wikipedia's advice not to bite the newcomer. (ps: he mentioned his rewrite above, under fresh start).

So, thanks for curbing your knee jerk reaction. I've certainly been called worse than blockhead and sometimes that adjective is probably an apt one. In this case I think it is largely misplaced. When you put mention of Horn back, please try to make it flow with what's already there - although what's already there needs cleanup. I'm not a professional writer and I don't know if any of us are, but we're doing our best, or so I choose to believe. I'm sorry you feel exasperated by this process. It can be a challenge at times to assume good faith and keep cool.--Moon Rising 02:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Want and Moon. Yes, twas I that removed the history section and in my Talk part I tried to give a brief rationale. My main aim was to keep things brief, simple, and objective -- notice lack of emphasis on style. Want should recognize some of the paragraphs as they are directly his. I have no big problem but many trepidations about a History section. My trepidations are that history is highly subjective - balance and interpretations are slippery for everyone involved; the ancient Chinese developed a system where they would just mention events in a very simple way. For example, Emperor X died in 755. I tried to blend much but not all of Wants' History into Practices -- certainly they were a significant part of that. I have no irrevocable problem with a History section in theory. Given the volatility, I would suggest that we agree on what we can now with what is there and then talk about a history section in outline form before someone commences writing. But perhaps I am too cautious about further argument. For now, I think my role is to observe how things evolve but glad to respond to inquiries. StillWorking 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About practices

Some of the practices mentioned are taken from what the church says they do, such as "the core of our religios practice" part. Other parts do not seem to belong to Practices, such as supposedly failed predictions from the past. By sure, if they belong somewhere in the article, it should be in the History section. Otherwise, it would convey a false idea of what the churh does. Please check. Thank you. Baby Dove 22:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restub, continued conflict of interest

Despite numerous warnings, users with a conflict of interest are continuing to edit the article directly. This is not acceptable. I have restubbed the article and protected it. Once those users agree not to edit the article directly, let me know and I will be happy to remove the protection. Such users are free to make suggestions and comments on how to improve the article right here. Note that I am aware that a number of edits make by users without any conflict have also been reverted. Such may be undone once an agreement is reached. --Yamla 16:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Yamla, you mention that there are users without a conflict of interest. I may be dense, but I'm trying to figure out what the criteria is. On the pro-FOF side, do you consider any member to have a COI? Or just those who work in an office building leased by the FOF? May lay members edit? What if the lay member rents space from the FOF, but is not otherwise connected, other than being a church member.

And on the anti-FOF side, would could consider an editor who made a statement such as "I genuinely wish to do everything I can to try and steer anyone away from the dire consequences I encountered after taking the FOF at face value" to have a COI. This comment was made by Wantthetruth? on Oct.3. So, please explain who may edit.

I don't mean to be difficult. I'm just trying to figure out if any editor is allowed to edit and I'm truly confused. Thanks for your help--Moon Rising 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamla...again I request that you identify which users are expressing a COI, in your interpretation of the criteria. With the imprecision of your accusations, there can be a sincere lack of recognition of who among us meets your criteria. From my viewpoint, this is a request that meets a minimum standard of fair practice and exercise of authority. StillWorking 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article was reaching a point where it finally was more balanced (as of today in the early morning) and now the only thing you can do with it is to use it just for clicking in the church's web site to read nothing negative about it. Isn't it curious? Baby Dove 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, as I stated before, I am a member of the FoF and I rent an office for my business at a building owned by the FoF, including an internet connection that I found recently is owned by the FoF. I declare that:

1. I don't work for the FoF.

2. I don't hold any position in the organization.

3. I am not hired to do PR for the FoF and I don't receive money or any other form of compensation for editing the Wikipedia article.

Since I am not different from any other member of the FoF, if there is a COI in my case it means that there is a COI for the other 2,000 members of the organization. Is that true or COI applies only to members editing from the FoF headquarters, independently of their relationship to the church? Mfantoni 19:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, regarding the stub page: One suggestion is to remove the two links to the Fellowship of Friends "Being Present" website. If you were to leave the page exactly as it is, I think the editors here to support the Fellowship's point of view would be relatively happy with that, because it provides Wikipedia users with a direct link to the Fellowship site without any counterbalancing criticism of the Fellowship. In my view, it's important to either remove those two links or add some links to sites that are critical of the Fellowship. Best regards, Art Artnscience 03:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My vote is to freeze it as it is. It can hardly be called comprehensive but it is almost Zen in its simplicity. StillWorking 04:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To think that a Wikipedia article could be frozen is either naiveté or wishful thinking. A more realistic alternative is to have the article semi-protected for only established editors to be able to edit it. This is the current status, for example, of the Scientology article. By the way, I was reading Wikipedia's protection policy and noticed that temporary page protection is used for:

• Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war.
• A history-only review of the article during some discussions on deletion review.
• Preventing abuse of the "unblock" template or other disruptions by a blocked user on their user talk page.

I don't see COI in that list, so Yamla's recent protection of the page because of COI didn't follow Wikipedia's protection policy in my understanding. Robertozz 08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that freezing the page is impossible beyond a transitory stage. Articles that short are not what WP has. When it was a bit longer than this, the creator of the page (Wine-in-ark) defended the need of a page on the FOF in the AfD page. Under another name, he asked for help in the blog (the link to this should be in the archive, in the last file) and he got it allowed. What Artnscience proposes is what attracted FOF members to edit the page. As I said, when the article was starting to be well balanced, the page was frozen as it is. What Artnscience says is to have a page saying: "There is a church whose name is the Fellowship of Friends. If you want to know what its former members say, please click here: http://greaterfellowship.ning.com/main/authorization/signIn?target=http%3A%2F%2Fgreaterfellowship.ning.com%2F. If you still want to know what all these 60 centers in 40 countries are for, you may still click here: http://www.beingpresent.org. Would this be a Wikipedia page? Please be serious about the article. Baby Dove 05:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove, a link to the Greater Fellowship site is not appropriate for Wikipedia because the GF is a password-protected site, meaning that only authorized members have access to it. The link that you included in your message takes one to the login page. A better site to know what former members have to say is the so-called FOF blog. Robertozz 07:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove, stop making things up. I personally never asked for help with Wikipedia on the blog, especially not under a different name. This is your pure speculation and you present it as if it was fact. Face it, there are just enough other interested parties out there that keep the party going. And I also want to clarify that I am NOT Jason somebody; that person was asking on the blog for the creation of a Wiki repository of history, and not an article in Wikipedia, which will be clear to you if you read his contribution again carefully. -- I don't think an article containing only a link to the Greater Fellowship and to the official site would serve its purpose, but for sure, links to GF, the FoF blog, and the official site are relevant and should be included under External links. Wine-in-ark 16:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wine-in-ark. Sorry, the contrib in the blog said "I have created an article", so I always thought it was you. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Baby Dove 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not my intention to indefinitely freeze this article in its current state, only to stop the continued violations of WP:COI. StillWorking, you ask me to identify specifically which editors have a conflict of interest. I cannot do so because I do not have access to what IP addresses everyone is using, nor have I significantly investigated the anti-FoF editors. However, I think given the history here, an editor has a conflict of interest if they are editing from the FoF headquarters IP address range and are a FoF member. That would apply even if you are editing from home. If you work in the FoF headquarters and are an FoF member, you have a conflict of interest. An editor probably has a conflict of interest if they belong to an anti-FoF organisation. Again, all parties are free to make suggestions or to discuss how to make the article better but those with a conflict of interest should refrain from editing the article directly. If you are unsure if it would be appropriate to edit the article directly, you should probably refrain so as to show you are acting with the best of intentions. Now, I have no doubt that everyone here is trying to make the article better, it's just that "better" is a subjective term and there's no doubt that the article was blatantly inappropriate prior to JzG's (?) stubbing. --Yamla 18:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding FOF members working at headquarters: given your logic, if I worked in a law firm that rented space in the Transamerica Pyramid Building, would I be prohibited from editing an article for the Transamerica Corporation? The connection between FOF members in the headquarters building is no closer than it is anywhere else where members are gathered. If mfantoni or babydove rellocated their rented offices and worked in an office building next door, would that change their status? I am still having trouble understanding this logic.

Regarding the anti-FOF editors, you say you have not significantly investigated them. I'm not sure how you can. It is unlikely that they use the same usernames on both the blog and wikipedia, and as far as I know, real names are used on the Greater Fellowship website and I think an invitation is required to join. So if you plan on investigating membership in an anti-FOF organization, I don't think you'll find anyone to block, as you have with Baby Dove.

Common sense in this situation, IMHO is to allow anyone to edit the article, or no one. The emotions behind the biases that exist here are by their nature going to create a COI. If you read the blog, you will see how deep the hatred towards the FOF is and how former members are actively trying to destroy the FOF and prevent others from joining. There is no way to determine if the editors here are participants in the blog. There is a greater risk of that than of editors who share office space with the FOF- one is based on emotion, the other physical location. I admit to being biased towards the FOF, and my agenda is to have a balanced article. I do not have a hidden agenda to protect the world from what some consider the evils of this small church.

I will go on the record now to say I am a lay member of the church. My contributions to wikipedia or strictly voluntary.--Moon Rising 19:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The situation you outline with the Transamerica Pyramid Building is not the same at all. Here, the people renting space in the FoF headquarters are also FoF members. It's a much closer relationship. And the reason that this article is not similar to, say, an article on Roman Catholics is that there is an accusation that FoF is a cult. I am making no judgment on the validity of this accusation. However, it does mean that we need to hold the editors, all editors (both sides), to a high standard with regard to WP:NPOV and WP:COI. We saw the mess that resulted previously when this was not policed sufficiently, resulting in the page being stubbed. Once again, I'm not saying people should be prohibited from discussing this article or suggesting changes. Only that everyone needs to be extra careful about conflicts of interest. WP:COI is enforced to ensure neutral points of view. If we are unable to enforce NPOV here, better that the article be deleted than violate this fundamental Wikipedia principle. I truly hope that this drastic step is not required, though, and that we can work out the COI issues here. --Yamla 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamla--thank you for the explanation (a few paragraphs above). I hope that you can allow that the COI guidelines are broad and the details of this particular situation complex, making explanations by Wiki-authorities important to those working in good faith. Would you indulge me as I try to make sure that I do indeed understand? Here is the situation, as I currently understand it, with respect to your COI block:

1. the FoF article was viewed as too pro-FoF

2. it was noticed that some editors were using a FoF IP address

3. you concluded (assumed?) that these editors were the cause of unbalanced article

4. you decided to stub the article, block editors with FoF IP addresses (at first), and (later) request that all FoF members refrain from editing, though they can continue discussing.

5. you also urge all editors with a biased point-of-view (in particular those anti-FoF) to also refrain from editing

Is this a fair summary of your actions and their rationale? StillWorking 22:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not initially stub this article. This was done by another admin after a fairly brief discussion on WP:ANI (or possibly WP:AN, but I'm almost certain WP:ANI). I think it is important to note here that I'm not saying all the blame rests on one side or another. I am concerned about conflicts of interest on both sides. I did not initially stub the article, I only restubbed it subsequently because I had every reason to believe that the problems leading the other admin to stub it the first time around were still not resolved. Nobody has asked me but I want to point out for the record that I am neither pro-FoF nor anti-FoF, having never heard of them until this article. So, on a point by point basis, 1 is probably true though I did not make this decision. 2 is definitely true, though another admin did the whois lookup. 3 is true in part. It was not me who decided this article violated WP:NPOV. Additionally, it would be unfair to lay the blame on only the editors using the FoF IP addresses. 4 is not true. I did not initially stub the article (though I did restub it recently). It is possible that I have blocked FoF members directly but I think this is not the case. I have indeed blocked the IP address range, however, and I have protected the main article page. Number 5 is not strong enough. Editors with a biased point of view should refrain from editing the article. Perhaps "beg" would be a better term than "urge". The problem is we have people who are directly involved with FoF, people who are members of the FoF, people who are directly involved in anti-FoF activity, and people who just generally disagree with the FoF. Also, generally we have ex-members of the FoF who I am sure hold a variety of opinions, some favourable and some not. I hope I have made these distinctions clear. There's no doubt that a person directly involved with the FoF organisation or a person directly involved with an anti-FoF organisation (if one exists) are too biased to be contributing directly to the article. The grey area is in the other contributors. Given the history of this article, I believe it appropriate to request that people who work in the FoF headquarters building not contribute directly (whether from that IP address range or not) to avoid the appearance of COI. --Yamla 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Yamla, this helps a little, but I'd like to fill in a couple of gaps: the originally stubbing was done because the admin felt that the article read like advertising. This is true. When the FOF published their new website a few months ago, the article went through a major revision based on the new website, which reflected changes in an evolving religion. I was the editor who went through the website to extract the most important points from the site. I did the best I could to neutralize it, but it still read like advertising. At the time, if memory serves, I did not delete any criticism. Several editors on both sides made small edits, as I recall, and the site was substantially unchanged until in was stubbed. By the way, I don't work in that building. The editors who do had almost nothing to do with the article at that point in time.

What happened after the stubbing and page unblocking was that several editors tried to rephrase the wording that was lifted from the website and make it less ad like. It was very rough and needed major wikification, but it was a start. There was still a major difference of opinion in one area between the 2 sides, but basically, we were moving forward. Then you stubbed/blocked it again.

Regarding gray area contributors: I would venture to say there aren't any, at least not yet. So those of us with biases need to keep trying to make our edits as neutral as possible. But if everyone with a bias can only edit the talk page, then the article will remain a stub. JMHO.--Moon Rising 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Someone had discovered a perceived COI prior to the stubbing. There was a discussion on COIN about that. It was a separate from the stubbing. I'm not sure if the "stubber" actually knew about the COI issue at the time.--Moon Rising 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on Moon Rising's comment above: "many former members are trying to destroy the FOF, and that hundreds of them belong to an organization they created called the "Greater Fellowship"." His comment might lead someone to believe that vengeful former members who hate the organization have created Greater Fellowship in order to destroy FoF. I would like to go on record with what I feel the Greater Fellowship is and would challenge anyone who disagrees to prove otherwise.
Greater Fellowship is first of all not an organization - it is a social networking website, similar to MySpace. It has always been the policy of the Fellowship of Friends that former members should be shunned, and so many people who knew each other in the FoF lost contact with each other for years or decades - they are now reconnecting with old friends and acquaintances through the internet and through Greater Fellowship. Probably about a fifth of the people who are signed up for the Greater Fellowship are current members who are choosing to ignore Robert Burton's directive that they should not have contacts with former members for the sake of their own evolution. The site is home to discussions on spiritual and other topics, people post photos from their lives, upload their favorite music, describe their experiences with the FoF and talk about what they have been doing since leaving, what they are studying now and where their life has taken them. There is NO organized effort to destroy the Fellowship of Friends. However the website itself is subversive of the Fellowship's practices of restricting free exchange of information. Since it is now possible to sign up for Greater Fellowship without an invitation, I would definitely include the link to it under external links in a future article on Fellowship of Friends. Wine-in-ark 22:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification about the GF. You neglected to mention the blog and how a large number of people are trying to facilitate exactly what I described, and there is undoubtedly much overlap between the two. I'm just trying to point out that there is COI on both sides. I don't know that it matters if GF is an organization or social networking website. And the fact that there are members of the FOF who participate does not mean that it is pro-FOF, it just means that some current members may not be pro-FOF. --Moon Rising 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to be clear that I do not believe all the conflict-of-interest issues on this article are one-sided. With an organisation such as FoF, it is absolutely inevitable that there will be people firmly biased in favour of the Fellowship and people firmly biased against the Fellowship. --Yamla 23:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising, there is more to the world than pro-FoF and anti-FoF; there are all shades in between. You are attempting to paint the picture in black and white. When I started this article, I was a current paying member of the FoF. I am now a former member of the FoF, but my view on things is more complex than "for" or "against" and I'm not out to "destroy" anything. The fact that there are people posting to the FoF blog who want to alert the US authorities of fraud and abuse and formally terminate the FoF institution, does not mean those same people are editing this article. I think it matters quite a lot that there is no organization whose aim is to destroy FoF, because members of such an organization would automatically have a COI. Former members will want to expose aspects of the FoF that reflect negatively on it, as opposed to a purely positive view promoted by the official website. That does not mean former members' interest is to destroy FoF. Do you really think that something revealed in this article could destroy FoF? Wine-in-ark 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wine - You're correct; I have focused on the extremes, and no, I don't think this article or the blog will destroy the Fellowship. It's good to know you are not among those out to destroy - from what I've read from those bloggers, they seem full of hate, which is not something I would wish on any of my old friends. --Moon Rising 07:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamla -- many, many thanks for the very lucid and comprehensive response and helping me clear up my own misconceptions. Please understand that I do feel that you are neutral and executing your Wiki-responsibilities as you best see them. Understanding is just so difficult and takes such a commitment on at least two parties. Many thanks, again ---StillWorking 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution would be to retain the block for a while, but retain the basic article outline, so that discussion can continue on how to fill and subsequently modify the layout if needed (Or even start a sub-article with proposed edits, and then migrate the information once a neutral version is agreed on). At the moment I feel that discussion concerning the article is faltering and that editors are focusing on each other rather than focusing on (re) creating the article in a neutral way. I see no reason that editors involved with the movement cannot contribute, but perhaps the edits could be discussed and if needed Requests for Comments from outside editors made, once proposed edits elude consensus. It doesn't really matter what motives editors have, as long as civility is maintained, and consensus respected. Sfacets 10:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yamla refreshes accusations on FOF

Regarding Yamla’s direct accusation that the FOF cannot be considered a religion as the Roman Catholic, for example, here there is a quotation from the King James Bible, one of the purest in the English language, saying what was said about primitive Christians:
“But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against. And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.” (Acts, 28:22-23)
The New International Version (UK) also says:
“But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?” (Luke 5:30)
Of course, you know that for the British, the word sect is what cult is for Americans. This happens to any new religious movement in the history of mankind, and I do not see why it should not happen to the Fellowship of Friends. Hebrews, expelled from Egypt became the persecuting establishment for the Christians, and it will probably be the same for ever.
But this has a practical side as well, because I am not fond of discussing religious matters with other people. And it is that if Yamla personally thinks that the Fellowship is a cult, he should step aside as and admin working with the article, based on the existence of a COI. Of course, if he doesn’t step aside, he is entitled to, because COI is a recommendation, not a WP policy.
A final thought on this matter, is that he says he cannot see the IPs. Were this true, this would be a mere case of an admin persecuting an editor(s). I never said whether I am a member or not. WP does not require true identities, so I do not see a reason to talk about my personal beliefs or memberships. But I am not editing from the FOF headquarters, as he says, and he can check that this is true whenever he gets someone who is able to get the information. Meanwhile, I hope he would really think about this subject. Baby Dove 09:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said FoF could not be considered a religion. I have also not said that I consider FoF a cult. To be clear, I do not know enough to pass any sort of judgment. I think we can both agree, however, that other people have made the claim that FoF was a cult and my point is that in such a situation, editors need to be more careful. Baby Dove, you are under no obligation to disclose your membership in any group. However, if there's a belief that you are suffering from a conflict of interest regarding this article and you are unwilling to disclose the extent of your association, the correct action is for you to refrain from editing the article directly and instead to contribute solely on the discussion page. However, Baby Dove, we know for sure that you have edited from the FoF headquarters in the past. You disclosed this information here. --Yamla 15:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, being British, I dispute that sect and cult are used interchangeably in British English. In any case, when I say people have accused FoF of being a cult, I mean it in the typical American sense as that is what the accusations are. Once again, I am not claiming that FoF is a cult. I am simply stating that because this is an accusation levelled against FoF, we all need to be extra careful when it comes to WP:NPOV and WP:COI here. And please don't dismiss WP:COI simply because it is a guideline rather than a policy. As a Wikipedia editor, you are expected to follow policies and guidelines and you may be blocked if you do not and the encyclopedia suffers as a result. --Yamla 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys - Are we ready to work on the article yet? I suggest a little time spent together agreeing on a protocol followed by discussion of an outline, i.e. which sections in which order, followed by work on the page itself. We can start to generate the page here section by section or else on the draft page which robertozz set up. By protocol I mean for example an agreed upon method for discussion and editing. I propose no editing without discussion, no reverts without discussion. Something along these lines might lower the temperature here and get us moving, it doesn't have be written in stone. Could you all think on it and offer suggestions for a good faith working model - thanksWantthetruth? 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Another alternative which has proved useful in some other areas is to have everyone agree to limit themselves to one revert PER WEEK regarding this specific article. It means people have to spend more time on the discussion page arguing for their version. This is absolutely not something I can impose but if you all agree that this would be a good idea, let me know. It's not always a good idea as you can easily have tyranny of the majority and it is wide open to problems with sockpuppetry. But it may possibly side-step the COI issues. --Yamla 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been very active with editing in drafts, but they disappeared with the freezing of the page, however. Since I do not use reverts too much, except the case of vandalism, I agree. You can check how many I have in about 10- months. Regarding Yamla's contrib yes, he says he does not say that that FOF is a cult, but he brings the information up. That is what I do not see as a proper behaviour of an administrator. But may be it was just an unhappy phrase. Regarding the IP blockage, I seldom know which is my IP address, so I learnt about it when Love-in-Ark was blocked for his 3RR violation. As a result, all this people saying they are members and former members can edit in spite of a COI, but I cannot because of an IP address? Funny. Baby Dove 18:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I very much mistaken? Is it not the case that FoF is accused of being a cult? Is this truly just a lunatic fringe theory? Google shows over 10,000 links when searching "Fellowship of Friends" cult (and by comparison, about 100,000 links when searching just "Fellowship of Friends"). Unless I am very much mistaken about this, WP:NPOV requires that these accusations be mentioned and it is most definitely appropriate for me to make note of them here. Baby Dove, I am concerned about your statement that you were not editing from the FoF headquarters IP address range when in fact we know you were. I believe this reinforces the urgency of dealing with COI on this article, and reaffirm that this applies to both sides. And once again, no editor who suffers a COI should be editing this article directly. --Yamla 19:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's List of Cults includes the Bush Administration, users of the MAC computer and Wikipedia. The term "cult" is loosely used these days so I guess a Google search doesn't mean much. Love-in-ark 20:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's significant that any published external source outside of the Fellowship of Friends itself, mentioning the Fellowship, refers to its dubious ("cult" if you wish) nature. Name one external source that speaks positively of the Fellowship religion and organization. If general public perception of the FoF is negative, this should be included in the article. Wine-in-ark 21:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamla's last contrib show he has indeed a prejudice against the FOF which suggests a strong COI on his part. Thanks to his lastest contribs, we are now discussing this subject, which proves he should step aside as far as there are no declared vandals in the article. The last page before the unfortunate freezing had both minimized the quotations from the FOF website and the criticism to a reasonable minimum, and no editor had brought the cult subject to the page openly, even when quoting some cult-buster's site(s) (See the latest version from StillWorking just before the freezing). The purpose of bringing up the biblical quotations showing that Christianity was considered to be a"sect" in the first two centuries AD, was to show that any new religion has to overcome this process. Differently from other so called "cults", Justice could not prove any crime on behalf of this organization, existing over 36 years by now. No massive suicides, no minors corruption, etc., for instance. Some editors here had claimed they were members for some years, and now they want to use this unfortunate accusation by an administrator to say they were part of a "cult"? Come on..! Wine-in-ark, there is no such a thing as general public perception of the FOF. People do not really care for it, because they don't know it. Some websites with suggestive names such as "Greater Fellowship" or similar ones, are even working in preparing bookmarks to neutralize the FOF ones, spending lots of their times to discuss how to better damage the church. Please, do not tell me there is a "general oppinion on the FOF", but tell me that there are some people sharing this negative vision of this organization, sharing with it the fact that general public ignores both! Sorry if my English was not too correct, but I am not a native speaker. Baby Dove 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove, you are confusing a conflict of interest with a bias. These are very different things. As far as bias is concerned, I have no opinion on whether or not FoF is a cult. I simply do not possess remotely enough information to make a judgement on that matter. Claiming that I am biased (actually, you claimed I had a conflict of interest, I am presuming you used the wrong term because you are not a native English speaker) because I believe it appropriate to mention here that some people have accused FoF of being a cult is, I'm afraid, inappropriate. --Yamla 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you and I both agree that the 6 billion people who are non-members, either a) know nothing about the FoF, or b) have published something non-adulatory about the FoF. Since we cannot write an article about people who know nothing about the FoF, we have to include the statements of those who HAVE expressed what they know. Yes?
I find it unhelpful to label any organization as "cult" because this can mean different things to different people. However, I am in favor of including actual information as reported by non-FoF sources. And if it is found that a significant number of sources are calling FoF a "cult", then that is also information and should be included. Remember we are not about discovering what is more "true", we are simply reporting information that is out there. Wine-in-ark 04:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you and I both agree that almost all the information about the FoF out there has been generated either by journalists trying to sell newspapers, by writers trying to sell books or by cult bashers trying to get “deprogramming jobs”. A newspaper or a book that states that the FoF is OK is not going to sell much and a cult basher that tells people on his web site that the FoF is OK is not going to get a lot of deprogramming jobs, so it is obvious that 99.9% of the information out there is “non-adulatory about the FoF”, to use your expression. We must create a Wikipedia article about the FoF that provides objective information about the organization since we have no financial interest in the article. Love-in-ark 06:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Regarding Yamlas's reply, I guess that what WP is concerned about is that a COI results in a biased article. IMO, Yamla has brought this subject about, not other editors, so this creates a real COI, because his interest might be to "prove" his viewpoint. I think he is not being neutral, as an admin should. He is surely more experienced in the use of English language, but one of the elementary things one learns in a Law school is that a judge has to step aside when he has some sort of prejudice against a part. I call this conflict of interest, he calls it bias. Sorry if my words are not that clear, but I think my concepts are. 2) Regarding Wine-in-ark's contrib, all the "neutral" sources he quotes are not so, since they are undoubtedly quoting what a part (former members) tell them, mostly when they could not prove their unfrequent accusations in Court. Then, they interpret things according to what they think, even knowing that there is a mandatory part of the agreement sealing the lips of both parties. But, of course, since this does not involve third parties, they speak as if they really know, and they quote what a paper would say, probably because they went to them with the story. This is an example of their "neutral" sources. Another one is all those internet sources they quote, whose content comes entirely from former students. I won't come back to Jason's story, but how to know that all these people claiming for help for they cause in WP directly from the blog, are not the same people editing here under other nicknames? I do not think it is an easy task to get a neutral article, but I insist that the page immediately before the freezing was quite a neutral one. However, this very freezing has turned the article into the best FOF propaganda ever in the article: It says, "There is a church whose name is the FOF", and then it provides a link to their site. Pretty biased, isn'it? So, I guess we should try that version once again. Baby Dove 08:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

BabyDove et al.: The FoF may be in pursuit of "objective knowledge", but it is not Wikipedia's task to discover objective truth, so please don't transfer that attitude from your studies in the FoF to your contributions on Wikipedia. Wikipedia merely reports information that is available on a certain subject, and the readers themselves are trusted to decide for themselves what they find more credible. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), NOT truth. I think months ago we had already reached an agreement on what were reliable sources. From my perspective, FoF members came in and deleted information they did not like, stating that it was "not relevant" and "obsolete", even though it was properly referenced. Wine-in-ark 17:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wine-in-ark, your affirmation that "FoF members came in and deleted information they did not like, stating that it was "not relevant" and "obsolete", even though it was properly referenced" is not appropriate for Wikipedia. First, you are grouping editors in a category ("FoF members") when you should address editors individually by their IDs. Secondly, you are generalizing ("they deleted information they didn't like"), when the correct action is to provide examples (preferably with the diffs) of the edits you disagree for us to see your point and reach consensus. I ask you to stop grouping editors and generalizing about edits because that attitude is not going to help to arrive to a neutral article. Love-in-ark 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the organization should be described as it says it is, not as you think it is, because then, anything would be possible. And neutral sources talking about it should be neutral, not interested. Because COI exist out there, in real life, not only in WP. A paper is interested in selling news, and catastrophic ones are the news that sell best. This is the interest of papers and media. So there is a lawsuit: this is news. The lawsuit comes to an end and accusations are withdrawn. This is news. Some "third parties" (let's say friends of one of the parts) come to the journalists and say: "I can tell you the true story..." and thus, the paper has some more "news." They now say, "The lawsuit was dismissed, however..." But the quality of these news is not the same as before, because they are now subject to the particular bias of one of the parts. This kind of things happen with media all the time. But there was a moment, just before the freezing, where the article was pretty neutral, and it was then transformed in what it is now under the pretext of a COI. Baby Dove 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Fellowship can be described here both in the way it sees itself AND in the way it is perceived by others. We've reached the present situation here due to the relentless exclusion by pro FOF editors of any view that is not the FOF's view of itself. It's very simple and I don't believe that you can't all see this. Can we move on now to a balanced article or do you need more time to bash Yamla?Wantthetruth? 19:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth, please stop saying that some editors are here to "bash Yamla". We are all trying to understand the COI issue and arrive to a neutral article, and your strategy of trying to present some editors as "anti-admin" is adolescent. Love-in-ark 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Baby Dove, you are simply wrong. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:RS. When there are two sides, as there are here, it is appropriate to include information about both sides in the article. That is, it is appropriate (and, in this case, necessary) to include information critical of the FoF, appropriately sourced. Furthermore, you are forgetting that it was not me who decided the article was inappropriate and stubbed it initially. Other admins took a look and decided the page was so far from neutral that it was best to stub it and start over. Now, I am not claiming that any of the sources here are neutral. Indeed, in most cases, the sources will not be neutral. Certainly, the FoF website itself is the very definition of not neutral. Similarly, pretty much any source apart from court judgments and major newspapers would almost certainly not be neutral either. This doesn't make them inappropriate. WP:NPOV requires a balanced article which would then include information that is pro-FoF and information which is anti-FoF (again, referenced appropriately). We don't discount what the FoF says or refuse to link to them, for example, simply because they are biased. This is what Wikipedia policies and guidelines require. Baby Dove, you insist that I am biased. Please explain why. I have not called FoF a cult. I have not said I think the Fof is a bad organisation. In fact, I have specifically stated that I do not hold these opinions because I do not have enough information to make that judgment. Are you claiming I am biased because I have pointed out that some people consider FoF a cult? A person is not biased for pointing out the fact that some other people consider FoF a cult. --Yamla 19:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamla: I do not like this role of discussing with an admin. I said, however, that we never discussed this "cult" stuff until you brought it about. Before, it was only Rick-Ross (or Steven Hassan) who talked about this, but no editor did. And these two guys make a living out of talking about "cults", so their oppinions are naturally biased. And Rick Ross has even been convicted for an ordinary crime and accused of other ones, as it was somewhere in the archive, so we cannot even know what is true or not there. What I see is that the page was frozen when it was somewhat neutral, and now it is biased again, justifying all this endless discussion on what it should have. Regarding Wantthetruth?'s words, I recognize has to be a place showing how others see it. But if the organization says it is a religious institution working on learning how to develop the ability to be present to one's life, the criticism cannot say, "Oh no, this does not happen, they only want to have free sex." There was an editor here, whose only concern was to avoid that the church made any reference to the Forth Way. Well, this is more sincere, because his criticism was about discussing that, according to him, there are other institutions deserving the FW name more. This is the kind of criticism that you may have within a civilized discussion, not the other one. Baby Dove 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

BD: You're saying that editors here "never discussed this "cult" stuff until you (Yamla) brought it about." Many editors here have expressed their serious concerns about the Fellowship of Friends being a controversial organization and have provided links to SEVERAL web pages that refer to the group as a cult, and they have also expressed concerns about the one-sided editing on this page (since current members of the group are outnumbering everyone else). For the record, in my view it does fit the definition of a cult. And removing all negative information about the group is apparently one of the tasks that cult members participate in. Artnscience 17:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Baby, don't worry because Yamla is an admin. According to Jimbo Wales (Wikipedia's founder), an admin is an experienced editor with special technical capabilities. This text is from Wikipedia's article on admins (Jimbo is referring to administrators as sysops):

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

– Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry

Baby, focus on Yamla's experience as an editor and not on his "power". No admin is going to block you because he or she disagrees with you. Eventually we will reach consensus (I hope). Love-in-ark 02:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The stub (with links only to the Fellowship pages) is a free ad for the Fellowship

Yamla: As long as you keep the links to the Fellowship website on the stub page but don't include any other information, it's a free ad for the Fellowship. I recommend that you delete those links or add links to sites that are critical of the Fellowship of Friends. Anyone finding this page will have no idea that the Fellowship is a controversial organization. Artnscience 17:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can suggest an appropriate link, I would be happy to add it to the article as per WP:NPOV. --Yamla 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Yamla. I suggest both of the following links:

Rick Ross page on the Fellowship of Friends: http://www.rickross.com/groups/fof.html

Wordpress blog on the Fellowship of Friends: http://animamrecro.wordpress.com/2006/04/16/fellowship-of-friends-a-cult-for-intellectuals/

Artnscience 17:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'd like to see other people's opinions on these links. Obviously, I do not expect pro-FoF editors to approve, though if they have specific complaints about why these are not appropriate representations of FoF criticism, I hope they speak up. --Yamla 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the rickross site on Wikipedia and Google; seems that there is a degree of controversy related to the man and his work. I looked up FoF on Google; the rickross site comes out first, then an official FoF site, and then www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/f/fellowship/. I recommend that we substitute this last reference for th rickross reference. Regarding balance, I notice that, though there are two FoF footnotes, both are the same website. Therefore, I suggest that only one "controversy" website be included for strict numerical equivalency and that this one be the freedomofmind website. Finally, I believe that a sentence is required to introduce the footnote, perhaps something like "The Fellowship of Friends has encountered criticism and controversy related to its practices and the behavior of its founder." 75.106.212.12 19:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow my most recent post is attributed to 75.106.212.12 instead of StillWorking. Just wanting to make the attribution clear for those keeping track. StillWorking 19:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably, you forgot to sign, so your IP address showed up.--Moon Rising 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamla - Either Wine-in-ark's or Artnscience's option seem reasonable to me. My impression of the FOF editors is that they're happy to stall at the moment while undermining you. It's the same 'ol same 'ol. - thanksWantthetruth? 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, it is a free ad for the FOF. By the way, how does Wantthetruth? speaks about FOF editors? How can he know about the editor's identities? Regarding the use of the animamrecro site (the blog), blogs are not acceptable according to WP suggestions, especially one whose only purpose is to critizice the church (that was why it was created, and that is what it still is, as if destroying a 2,000 people church from which they withdraw would be the most important thing to do in the universe). Baby Dove 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not to be used as a RS, but they are fine as external links. I just don't think it would be appropriate used now, while the article is stubbed. Too much hostility without an article to offset the comnents. --Moon Rising 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How about simply restoring the External Links we had before the page was stubbed? Wine-in-ark 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit overwhelming for one link to the FOF, without an article to counterbalance, don't you think?--Moon Rising 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this before, after a comment from Wine-in-ark, but apparently my remark went unnoticed. Calling some people "FOF editors", like Wantthetruth did on his comment above, is a generalization that shows judgment (like "black editors" or "Christian editors"). We are all "editors" here, with no attributes. Some editors (current and past) started editing the article as FOF members, then left the FOF, and continued editing the article as former members of the FOF, so any adjective placed before the word "editor" may have to change when people change their positions. The best thing (and the most polite) is to refer to other editors individually using their IDs. I may have to repeat this comment again, and I will, since I believe that respect and politeness are essential for us to arrive at a neutral article. Love-in-ark 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds like a racial slur, and I wish others would stop. But how do you feel about the subject in question?--Moon Rising 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Racial Slur? give me a break!Wantthetruth? 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

StillWorling's suggestion seems the most neutral. There is only one "pro" FOF website that has 2 links. To keep things balanced, I would favor one link on "each side". Both Rick Ross and Steve Hassan (Freedom of Mind) are cult-busters with an agenda. Both Hassan and Ross are controversial figures in their own right, but Hassan is probably less so (his degree has been questioned, but he's not a convicted felon). Rick Ross's site is much more extensive than Hassan's, though Hassan's site is quite informative. The wordpress blog is a diatribe against the FOF by former members, and while it was included as an external link when there was a full article about the FOF, as a stand alone link, would be completely over the top. Of the three, Hassan's Freedom of Thought website seems the most balanced against one link for the FOF. http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/f/fellowship/. The FOF site on its own cannot stand up against Ross or the Blog, IMHO. Once the article is written, the scenario will change. PS - I just looked at the Ross site again, and it is full of sensational stories; the Hassan site is equally critical, just less sensational, FWIW.--Moon Rising 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

MoonRising - beingpresent.org can be seen as cult promotion with an agenda, wanted to add that for the sake of balance -thanksWantthetruth? 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the Rick Ross page. http://www.rickross.com/groups/fof.html Yes, I agree that the Rick Ross *site* has a sensationalist aspect to it, but the FOF page itself only reproduces third party articles and legal documents. I have never seen why the beingpresent.org site should have two links to it, so we ought to delete the newsletter link. Waspidistra 10:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer the Rick Ross site. Any links that help present a balanced view would be acceptable to me, and that includes the Rick Ross site, the Freedom of Mind site, and the blog:

Rick Ross page on the Fellowship of Friends:

http://www.rickross.com/groups/fof.html

Wordpress blog on the Fellowship of Friends:

http://animamrecro.wordpress.com/2006/04/16/fellowship-of-friends-a-cult-for-intellectuals/

Freedom of Mind site:

http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/f/fellowship/

To reiterate my earlier comments, the page currently serves the purposes of the FOF public relations machine quite well. Seriously, I think all of them would be quite happy to leave this page as it is (with a short paragraph and a link to the FOF site), because readers are just one click away from Fellowship sanctioned material. They literally don't need to do any work. Also, while I do understand why you're asking for feedback on these links, any objections to the above links (Rick Ross, Freedom of Mind, and the blog) would be expected from these editors. They have been working diligently for months to remove any information in this wikipedia article that's similar to what you would find on those web pages. Artnscience 14:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Artnscience that the current stub largely represents a super-link to beingpresent.org. My hunch is that the current reluctance by FOF editors to set about writing an article here can be best understood in this light.Wantthetruth? 18:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farewell message

I will not edit this article anymore. I noticed that the IP block of my connection at work that was supposed to expire today was extended indefinitely; this, together with the fact that Yamla and several other administrators believe that I shouldn’t edit the article, is just too much resistance for me to work with. At the end, it is just an article. Good luck everybody and let me end with the Wiki Prayer:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the pages I cannot edit,

The courage to edit the pages I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

Mfantoni 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see from the block log that the block was not extended. It was never set to expire on November 14, 2007 and, as I have previously noted, has not been touched since it was placed. --Yamla 04:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mfantoni - you can still edit this page. Would you like to voice an opinion on which external links are appropriate at this point in time.?--Moon Rising 05:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I had also previously resigned from the page in frustration, not with the admins but with some of the other editors, so I can feel a certain sympathy with mfantoni. However, I agree that it is inappropriate for mfantoni to edit this page because of his COI. For instance, om May 9, 2007, mfantoni included an email from Linda Tulisso, the then President of the Fellowship. on the talk page, in reply to mfantoni's questions. "The letter was sent via email last Tuesday (May 1) to the contact address on the FoF's official web site (contact@go-c.org). On Wednesday (May 2) I received a reply from the person that takes care of messages to that address saying that the letter had been forwarded to the FoF officers. I will keep you posted. Mario Fantoni 06:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends/Archive_3 Linda Tulisso's reply is included in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends/Archive_4 I accept that mfantoni may not be working for the Fellowship, but he certainly works in the Collin Office, which is the building affected by the IP block. Until she was sacked last week (see the FOF blog), Linda Tulisso worked in the same Fellowship building as mfantoni. The following news article has some interesting information on inappropriate editing of WP pages by large organizations:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm Waspidistra 10:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bye mfantoni. Wantthetruth? 18:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI Continued

I have in the past stated my own situation with respect to the FOF: I was a current member when I began editing the article and I am now a former member. I am a member of the Greater Fellowship website, which describes itself thus:- "This network came to life through the desire to exchange experiences and connect current and former members of the Fellowship of Friends and related 4th way schools." Current FOF member Love-in-ark was extolling the virtues of the GF website recently, ""GF" is the "Greater Fellowship" on-line community (it would be nice to add a link to the Greater Fellowship to the article but access is restricted to GF members only). I was told that 100 FOF members and 600 former FOF members belong to the GF community. As with any on-line community, the Greater Fellowship makes possible for its members to exchange messages and pictures, organize events, meet for a cup of coffee or tea, etc. Any candidate to invite GF members to become Wikipedia editors? Love-in-ark 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends/Archive_11

So membership of the GF social networking site cannot indicate a COI. I have two motivations in editing this page: I am interested in the history of the Fellowship of Friends, and I also wanted to counter the suppression of information and the promotional tone of the page in order to make it more balanced. There has been a tendency on the part of mfantoni, Babydove, Love-in-ark and Moon Rising and others to exclude information that doesn't represent the image that the Fellowship of Friends wish to promote, and to overemphasise material that does promote the FOF's current interests. I would mention particulalry the 1998 and 2006 predictions, Alex Horn as Robert Burton's teacher, the removal of any description of the previously established and long-lived form of the teaching in favour of the new form, the removal of the vineyard and the winery from the history, the overemphasis on the Fellowship as a "church" or "religion" and of religious-oriented material, the suppression of well-sourced information about Burton's sex life. Many of these issues may be currently embarassing to the Fellowship, but do not constitute criticism of the Fellowship. Conflict of interest is involved in many of these. For instance, Alex Horn has been accused of violence and abusive behaviour to his students, so this could be embarassing to the Fellowship. The winery has been attempting to free itself from the stigma of association with the FOF (even though its relationship to the FOF is no different than it was), thus its suppression in the article. So I think that there has been a confusion between material that is actually critical of the Fellowship and material that is neutral in itself, but potentially embarassing for the FOF, or otherwise seen as inappropriate to itas current image. Including a brief reference to Horn as RB's teacher is merely factual. Including the predictions in the history section is merely factual. Even the FOF lawyer Goldman's statement that Robert Burton does have sex with his students is merely factual and not critical in itself, whereas an allegation that the relationships are abusive on Burton's behalf should be construed as critical of the Fellowship (which is not a reason to exclude the statement). Third-party interest in the Fellowship, such as newspaper articles, usually focuses on allegations of abuse and cult-like behaviour, or on the winemaking and the grounds of the property and the art collection, so each of these should have a proportionate space in the article. Moon Rising described himself as a lay member of the Fellowship, but historically there has been little difference between what in other churches might be described as the laity and the clergy. I was technically a minister when I began contributing to this article, but I didn't realise that it was still the case until I received a message removing my status in the summer. Most Fellowship ministers had the position just for visa qualification (though I will acknowledge that this was usually for genuinely spiritual reasons on behalf of the applicants.)

One more point regarding the status of ex-members. Current members are told to have no contact with ex-members beyond the minimum required, as a recent email restated, "Although you may have read or heard something different, all students are reminded that the exercise of not spending unnecessary time with former members has not been changed. All members are also requested to refrain from reading and participating on what is known as the “Blog” and the “greater fellowship” or similar websites." This attitude is visible in some of the references to ex-members by current members in the Talk page. I would point out that an ex-members is also a non-member. I'm sure that most of us here would agree that ex-Scientologists or lapsed Catholics or ex-Gurdjieff Foundation members are generally well qualified to comment on these particular organizations because they have the experience of being in the organization and yet no longer have the same personal investment in it. Waspidistra 11:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So, this is all a Greater Fellowship propaganda. Since their members declare that they left the Fellowship (or are about to leave), I do not see they have any moral right to make use of copyrighted material (the beingpresent website) for purposes other than for what the site was created. They do not need any quotation from that website to carry on their own propaganda. I won't be discussing with them, however. My suggestion would be to take the Fellowship website off the article. In any case, former members lose their ability to know what the organization they belonged to is doing, save the keep crawling as spies. This is obvious when one reads their criticism regarding things that if they happened at all, they date from years ago (most of the things that the sites they suggest as "neutral", such as the convicted Rick Ross or Steven Hassan, date from more than 12 years ago).

I have said that the page immediately before the freezing had summarized all the pros and cons as never before. It is a pity the opportunity to have a balanced article has been lost, but now I guess that the pros are superfluos in the article, because the article was never created to talk about the FOF, but only to ridicule it. So, for what I am concerned, do as you please (you will, of course), but I leave this suggestion regarding taking away the link to the official website and any unauthorised quotation from it. Baby Dove 07:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BD - I'm a little confused by your comments. When you say to take the FOF website off the article are you referring to the external link, or the information contained in the website? I would agree to removing the link if no other links were added, but I'm not sure that's what the majority wants. As far as using the website for material for the article, it's the only source of current information and can be used for reference and quoted briefly, as any other source, if I understand Wikpedia rules correctly. If I've misunderstood you, perhaps you can clarify what you want when you are less tired. --Moon Rising 07:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BD -- I don't understand what you are saying either. Perhaps you might study the concept of [copyright|copyright] and its implementation a little more, particularly the doctrine of [fair use|fair use]. Extracting and paraphrasing material from a website is not copyright violation, and nor is linking to a website. It would seem a little silly to rule our beingpresent.org as a source for the WP article, even if it has been overused in previous versions of the article. Removing all links seems like a good -- dare I say it, "unformatory" -- solution.

Waspidistra 09:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, just to clarify the section title, I meant it as continuing the COI discussion, not as stating that there is continued COI.

Waspidistra 09:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the plan for this page? It's still just a free ad for the Fellowship of Friends

Yamla, I've been anticipating that you would either remove the two links to the Fellowship website (which of course, contains nothing but positive information about this organization), or that you would add links that balance the page so that readers can be aware of the controversies surrounding this group. Why the delay? It's been 16 days since you've locked the site. I'm sure you have a reason for not changing anything, but can you share your thinking with us? As it stands right now, this page remains a free ad for the Fellowship. Artnscience (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

With all the fuss about which links should be included in the article and which are too critical of the Fellowship, has anyone noticed that a Spanish and a Portuguese article have appeared a few weeks ago, written very positively and containing ONLY a link to the official FoF site. Gee, I wonder who wrote those. Wine-in-ark (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I hadn't heard about that. I'm sure it's written by a completely impartial scholar who happens to be interested in the Fellowship, because after all it's such an interesting topic for the impartial observer. Kidding. Is anyone in favor of deleting this article? We've gone through several mediators. Has it been three? Four? None of them have succeeded in creating an impartial article. It always ends up being an ad for the Fellowship, and all effort that went into writing and editing the article gets trashed. And now the latest "mediator" is leaving the page locked with a free ad for the Fellowship. This is complete nonsense. Artnscience (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does need an external link to balance the current material, or a single sentence outlining criticism of the Fellowship. Waspidistra (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea putting the question directly to Yamla on his talk page. --Moon Rising (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone, I've been really lax on this one. I'm going to add a link right now. --Yamla (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it. I removed the two references which were actually really just links to the Fellowship of Friends site, moved it to the external links section, and added a link to a site critical of the Fellowship. This means we now have a balance of links. That's not necessary under WP:NPOV, of course, but NPOV does require that we don't just show one side which was the whole point here. If you can come to a consensus as to suggested changes to this article, including but not limited to changing the external links, please let me know and/or use the {{editprotected}} template. In case it is not already obvious, my intention with this change to the article was to bring the article into compliance with NPOV and with the consensus of editors here. I am not condoning the information presented in the link I added, nor am I trying to push an agenda. I selected this link from one of several recommended by you, the regular editors of this page. --Yamla (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FoF emphasises other schools and religions

I would like to suggest that the current information on the FoF page in Wikipedia (FoF emphasises other schools and religions) is misleading. I find it necessary to add that the way the FOF studies these religions is by offering very idiosyncratic explanations and interpretations of their teachings, which would not be recognized as legitimate and usual by adherents of those religions, or religious scholars. In addition, the sentence in the introduction refers to FoF's reliance on the concept of a tradition of "esoteric schools", and FoF being the latest in this tradition of schools (hence: "other schools"), which in itself is not a generally accepted notion and is particular to the FoF belief. Could you please comment? Wine-in-ark (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page is long, Article is short

Get this. The article “Fellowship of Friends” has 3 lines of text. The associated Talk Page runs for miles and is backed up no less than 11—count ‘em—archives. I don’t know if there is some WP Guinness Book of Records type info on articles with the largest disparity between Article Page and Talk Page size disparity, but this must surely be in the running. The other irony is that the amount of rancour, heat and animosity that has been generated in the process of filling what appears set to be a bottomless pit of archived cockfighting is for a entry for “The Fellowship of Friends”. Honest, if you made this stuff up, people would think that you were straining the credibility of readers. Myles325a (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This link should be on the External Links section of the main article:

http://thefellowshipoffriends.wikispaces.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwgoodwin (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)