Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Reliable Sources and Verifiability 2 Some wiki guidelines 3 Intro 4 Public Domain Primary Sources on the Fellowship of Friends 5 Introduction 6 Article improvement 7 Chat not allowed

[edit] Reliable Sources and Verifiability

We have a new editor who is apparently unfamiliar with WP principles of quoting reliabile and verifiable sources. He has added information that is not published in any verifiable source that I am aware of. I deleted his edit citing my reasons, and he added it back. I have just reverted it. I do not want to start an edit war, so I would encourage this new user to familiarize himself with WP policies. Further edits of this sort could be considered vandalism, but given the fact he is new, I am giving the benefit of the doubt. --Moon Rising 00:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC) ps - I have added a "welcome" message to his user page so he can learn about the five pillars of WP, etc. --Moon Rising 00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear wanthetruth - You keep adding the same text, without adding its source. I checked the reference for the paragraph and there is no mention of what you added. Do you have a verifiable published source for this information? Since you are new to WP, you may not know that this is necessary. WP does not allow original research (adding information without citing a reliable source). Whether or not correct, WP policy favors verifiability over accuracy (which is not to say your information is accurate, just that it does not matter to WP if it is or is not, if you don't cite your source). Please cite or remove quickly.--Moon Rising 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to wait for 48 hours for the new editor to indicate the reference. The time of reverts and edit wars is past. Love-in-ark 01:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Moon Rising, Thank you for posting Wikipedia five pillar guidelines for me. I would draw your attention to the following taken from that post. 1) "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible." -five pillars The information is current and posted for members only on the fellowship member web-site which is password protected. The information can be verified by calling FOF @ 530 692 2244 and asking for the Collin Office. The fellowship does not publicly post it's membership dues, the edit balances the information immediately before it.

2)Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Excuse my beginners temerity but both 1 and 2 would seem to contradict your statement that,"WP does not allow original research (adding information without citing a reliable source)." ? and if you don't mind me asking, who exactly are you?

One last point is that the edit I made is in neutral tone.

Thanks, Wantthetruth

Dear Want: Thank you for taking the time to do some research on WP policies, and for advising readers where to find the information. However, sources need to be a published source available to the public. Also, this subject has been discussed at length in the archives of this page. Neither a password protected website nor a phone number qualify as a reliable, verifiable source, according to WP policy. A valid citation needs to follow a particular format and be incorporated into the article, not the talk page.

While it is true that WP does not have firm rules, it does have official policies and guidelines. The fifth pillar states “Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here.” Within the pillars (you may need to click on a few links) are “no original research” “verifiability” and “citing sources”. No OR and V are “official policy”. Citing sources is tied to these to policies. Bottom line – the information you added still does not have a verifiable source. The neutral tone is certainly appreciated. I hope this explanation helps. If someone else wants to jump in, please do. Regards,--Moon Rising 05:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A phone number to call is not going to do it. The source has to be something like a web site, a newspaper article, a book, etc. Got it? Love-in-ark 11:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wantthetruth, don't ask people "who exactly are you?" We are all editors here. Love-in-ark 13:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to ask (no "rules" against it) just don't expect a reply. ;) Moon Rising 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Moonrising, English is not my first language. I am sorry for my lack of vocabulary and style, but this is the internet, you see. Love-in-ark 23:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a little out of context since you deleted my note on your personal page. We can still be as polite on the internet as we are anywhere else. As a matter of fact, it's strongly encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. Being such a dedicated editor, I thought you'd appreciate being told you were being a little blunt. Telling someone "Got it," is usually a disparaging statement. Sorry if I offended you. Moon Rising 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines also recommend to focus on the article and not on the editors. They explicitly indicate that if somebody says something a little blunt, just forget about it and concentrate on the article. Anyway, let's move on. Love-in-ark 16:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This article obviously has many problems as it stands. The editing history reveals an ongoing war between current members of the Fellowship, some of whom have responsibility for marketing and promoting the Fellowship, and ex-members. The entry currently reads like FOF propaganda, with the exception of the History section and Criticism section (as of Aug 23, 2007 4am PST). The FOF publishes its fees for the Isis center in a document entitled "Isis Donation Form" which is available in PDF and printed forms. Surely the teaching payment figures must have to be published according to California church guidelines. I guess that the FOF center fund payment, which exists for most centers, is a slush fund, so the FOF doesn't want it to be mentioned.

Outsiders are likely to encounter the Fellowship article because they are investigating to controversies around the FOF, because they have encountered the FOF through its marketing techniques and wish to investigate it, or because they are interested in Renaissance wine. There is no mention of the winery, which is owned by the Fellowship, on this page, which is surely an oversight.

I agree that sources are an issue. The FOF site beingpresent.org is not a credible source because the FOF can change the site at will (and has done so) and then the FOF editors change the Wikipedia article appropriately. For instance, the FOF now wants to emphasize that it is a church because its church status is under question, so the language used has a stronger religious element than it did previously. I would suggest reducing the size of the section on the teaching and having the introductory paragraphs include the controversial elements of the Fellowship. If the FOF wants to claim that it has around 2000 members in over 60 centers then it should present some evidence for that, otherwise an unsourced claim like that doesn't deserve mention in a Wikipedia article. The FOF website does not present sources for most of its factual claims. It is not a primary source for those claims, but a secondary source that does not cite its own primary sources, and therefore is ineligible as a Wikipedia source. Because the website and the FOF's own teaching is in flux, any verificable claims should be dated. e.g., "As of August 21, 2007, the Fellowship claimed that..." If the FOF changes its claims, and Wikipedia editors update this article, then the previous dated claim should be kept and the new claim added. The only change I have made so far is to add a link to primary public domain sources on the FOF, but as a good Wikipedia editor, I will soon wade in and start making changes that will help the article's neutrality.Waspidistra 11:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Waspidistra's proposals. But, "Isis Donation Form" which is available in PDF and printed forms." Is there a link to this? Soppose 17:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Any website is not a credible source, by definition: WP changes every second, probably more than once, as the Blog on the Fellowship does. Thus, one cannot search for objective information in the net. So, the official site seems to be the most reliable source on the status of an organization; at least, it would be preferable to personal oppinion on "its church status is under question." How do you know? Don't tell us, because WP is not about what one has personally researched. I said that internet information changes a lot. And when a website does not change, it refers to things more and more in the past, as many of the sources here do. They sometimes talk about dead people sand so forth, showing a certain fixation with a given subject. The list of the current centers of the FOF can be easily found, with provided phone numbers in the now questioned site. So, it is not a FOF claim. Anybody can call these numbers and get the necessary information to verify that they exist. I welcome you to update this information periodically, if this makes you more comfortable, but I bet you would get tired pretty soon. The church is established as a church since the seventies or so, and you can still find in the many contributions by Veronicapoe (whose files you have included in a link) a certain emphasis in saying that the FOF was a religion. Regarding Soppose's question, please ask Waspidistra why did he included copyrighted material in the article (the "donation form" is the copyrighted material), and no information given in it can be used for purposes other than donations.Tupac8 00:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The official site is the most reliable source on how the organization represents itself, which info should by all means be used if no other secondary source says otherwise. Taking what the fof website says as above all is stupid and wiki rules state that secondary sources come before primary for this reason. The fof could say whatever they want on their website, and I think that this article is not suppose to follow the changes of the website. The fellowship canons provide info on the fof beliefs in the past, which I believe should be mentioned under history. I mean, it was written by the fof. Regarding copyrights, I still can't see where the "donation form" link is. And please keep in mind that everything is copyrighted. Soppose 01:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted MR last paragraph in the introduction because it has nothing to do with an introduction. It belongs to history, if it goes beyond a personal oppinion, because the text was frankly ambiguous.Sitting9bulls 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Personal opinion" - Are you serious? Soppose 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Whatever - I added refs which talk about these controversies. Soppose 02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Books and papers are made to make money (all Captain Snow's books are sensationalist ones, search for his name in Amazon or Google). Visit other creed's pages and you will find the same stuff, or worse.

A link to the donations form wouldn't work because the material is password protected. I wasn't the editor who added the donations information. Yes, the donations form is copyright, as is all original material. Whether the copyright belongs to the FOF is debatable because of the way the FOF is set up. It all depends which FOF members actually created the form, and in what circumstances. The copyright may belong to the individual members who worked on the form rather than the FOF organization itself. However, the information on the form is not copyright, merely the arrangement and formatting of that information. And all Internet links are links to copyrighted material.

This is all a bit beside the point. Complete donations information is beyond the scope of a WP article. But the article currently misrepresents the donation amount--even the 10% doesn't apply in Europe, where it is 12% of net. Then the justification for the payments is completely superfluous. I would prefer a simple "Monthly membership payments are required." No specifics, no justification.

The tone of the article should be neutral. Imagine if you were a college student who had to research the FOF for an article on New Religious Movements. Basic history, an overview of the organization, a brief summary of the teaching and an indication of how the organization is viewed by those outside of it. What does the FOF teach, what are its practices, put simply and neutrally. The current tone is meant to be persuasive.

The problem with the FOF site is that the cart is driving the horse. I have now edited the introductory paragraphs to remove the unnecessary material. What I have left is still in the previous wording. I think it creates a more neutral tone. I would propose doing the same to the other paragraphs. My idea is to remove any repetitive material and then to rewrite the material in a neutral tone that simply reports the official beliefs of FOF members. In this way the article could be less focused on FOF promotion but still retain the information that the editors who are pro-FOF say currently respresents the beliefs of the Fellowship.

As for sources, I am sure that there will be more newspaper articles soon. (Incidentally, newspaper articles are excellent and reputable independent secondary sources on the FOF and there are many online.)

Waspidistra 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

Dear Wasp: I like your idea of neutralizing the tone of the article, but I disagree with the need to shorten it to any significant extent. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. I think you have removed essential information necessary to explain the Fellowship's beliefs and introduction of an article. There must be a better way of neutralizing than with a hatchet:). The information taken from the web site was carefully pared down to the bare essentials (IMHO) and did much of the work myself. I did what I could to neutralize the information. Given the feedback here, I realize others do not feel the same way and I do welcome your input - but again, not your deletions. I will be adding back some, if not all, of the information you deleted. Since you appear to be a somewhat new editor, may I suggest that before making major changes to a controversial article, you discuss them on the talk page first. This can help avert what is known as an edit war. --Moon Rising 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ps: You mention that "the current tone is meant to be persuasive". Actually, it is not meant to be persuasive, it just came out that way. I spent a lot of time trying to neutralize information from the website. --Moon Rising 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

LoveinArk: I have reinstated my edits. I don't plan to add any anti-FOF material, just to make the article briefer, and to make the overall tone more neutral. You also removed the link to arhive.org, a reputable site. The FOF material posted there is either public domain or the copyright has not been substantiated. US copyright law is quite complex and I suggest that you investigate it and then state why this link should not be included. BTW, the link to the FOF newsletter seems unnecessary because there is already a link to the beingpresent.org site. Waspidistra 17:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Waspidastra, reverting edits is not polite. We do it only in case of vandalism. I deleted the link again to give you a second chance. Love-in-ark 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Monthly payments are required" would be good, because it is not serious to focus the attention on the rates for the First World countries when the church is in many other countries. However, you seem very well informed about things that do not belong to public domain. The detail of the payments required varies according to individual conditions, so you cannot stress what you think members pay. About copyright, the forms claim that the only [italics mine] use allowed is for teaching payments. Your claim on their copyright property shows that you have read something on the subject. However, the content belongs to the FOF in the same way a publisher cannot own the content of a book he publishes and feel free to change the text at will. It is the FOF who is entitled to determine what the payments would be for a given area or individual, so any consideration from outsiders would not be appropriate. Besdides this, feel free to edit into a more neutral version of the article.Tupac8 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some wiki guidelines

Dear Editors: As we enter a new phase of editing, I thought these "rules" from meta-wiki may serve us all well. I think it is the only time I have seen the word "rule" used in connection to wikipedia.[1]

• Rules
• When in doubt, don't delete

That is, edit towards a goal, not away from what you think is bad. If someone contributes something which you find unclear or misleading, polish their work to make it shine. This polishing may involve deletion, but that shouldn't be considered the intent of the edit.

• When in doubt, don't ascribe bad motives to people

Don't say that stuff you don't like is "vandalism" or "diatribe" or "screed". Rather, treat everyone as if you believe everyone is trying to make a contribution, and is in fact contributing, even if the contribution isn't clear. Assume Good Faith — see Hanlon's Law

• Remember that NPOV (neutral point of view) is a collective goal, not individually achievable

Don't call stuff that you do "NPOV", if you can help it. Everyone is trying to make the articles more "NPOV", so saying that's what you're doing is a way of implying that others aren't. Rather, indicate where your concern or confusion lies. Happy editing!--Moon Rising 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Waspidistra, Hello! In case it is not clear to you, I wanted to point out that you are being manipulated by FOF members with an agenda. One aspect of Burton's teaching is, "intentional insincerity" which basically means lying to, " life people " (that is anyone not in the FOF) in order to achieve one's purpose. There are currently four possibly five here that I recognise. Although there's much talk about being neutral there's nothing what so ever in the agenda that is neutral. The intent is to arrive at a pro-fellowship free advertisement. I wish you luck!Wantthetruth? 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Want: I can only speak for myself, but I suspect that other editors would say the same thing. There is no agenda. Period.

The gobbledygook you write (lying, etc) makes no sense and has absolutely nothing to do with my edits, or others that I have seen. If you are going to be editing on Wikipedia, might I recommend you review the principles of "assume good faith" "no personal attacks" and similar wiki guidelines. Some of us are new here, others have been here a long time and have worked hard to try to build consensus with each other. Now that there are new editors, we need to learn to work together. Wikipedia is not the place for a "them" and "us" attitude. As a parting thought, this article was begun by a former member of the Fellowship. If you can contribute to making it a better article according to Wikipedia standards, please do so. Thank you.Moon Rising 21:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To Wantthetruth?: I read the archives and I agree that this is useless as these guys obviously don't want a neutral article. The tricks being used here are shameful. I was told in an email that Tupac8 and Sitting9bulls are most likely sock puppets of Baby Dove. I thought of editing here but it seems its pointless to even begin. This is my last edit and I don't plan on coming back here. Good luck Waspidistra. Soppose 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is Baby Dove??? Maybe he's also Babycondor. Not me... Sitting9bulls 01:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was told in an email that Sitting9bulls is Wine-in-Ark. Love-in-ark 23:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that, although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. And do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. But remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity." Waspidistra 17:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So what? Love-in-ark 17:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, let's stop the glorification of Wikipedia. Even Jimbo admits that it has problems - see Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems if you still think that Wikipedia is the best thing since sliced bread. This is from the article: Meanwhile, criticism from outside the Wikipedia camp has been rebuffed with a ferocious blend of irrationality and vigor that's almost unprecedented in our experience: if you thought Apple, Amiga, Mozilla or OS/2 fans were er, ... passionate, you haven't met a wiki-fiddler. For them, it's a religious crusade. Love-in-ark 01:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Love-in-ark wrote, "So what?" So as a good Wikipedian I'm going to edit, move and modify. Love-in-ark also wrote, "I was told in an email that Sitting9bulls is Wine-in-Ark." May users have edited this article under various names. I suspect that this is true of you too, Love. And what is going on with your name? A previous editor, certainly not on the pro-FOF side, called him/herself Wine-in-ark. Now we have pro-FOF editors called Love-in-ark and Presence-in-ark. Also, editor mfantoni often referred to other editors by their presumed first names, and they responded to him in kind, as Mario. Once the edits had died down, he replaced all references to Mario in the discussion with mfantoni. The pro-FOF editors in this article "win" because they are more persistent, simply because they have more at stake. What is the problem with the archive.org link? If you know that copyright to any of the material belongs to a third party who would object to it, you should tell that third party so that they can provide evidence and tell archive.org to take down the offending article or photograph. Tupac8: I'm a current member, so I know full well what the teaching payment schedule is. Isn't it wonderful that the FOF is such a liberal organization that current members can be critical of the FOF on Wikipedia! Actually, I don't think it's appropriate to post the payment schedule here. But neither do I agree with the "10% and, hey, if you make some verifications, you can contribute money to some special projects too." This is a bait-and-switch tactic. If we have an entire long paragraph justifying payments then we need to include more detail on the payments. We can't do that because pro-FOF editors will dispute the source. But the FOF website does not accurately represent the donation schedule. So I suggest that we remove "Principle of Payment" and substitute a simple "Monthly donations are required to join the Fellowship and remain in the Fellowship." I've edited the section headings so that they use standard English title capitalization. Waspidistra 12:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wasp, I didn't know you were part of the family. Give my regards to Moon Rising. Love-in-ark 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good morning everyone - Wasp - thanks for editing the section headings so they look like standard English title and capitalization however the WP guidelines (I think it is the manual of style) says they should be the way they were before your "corrections" go figure....anyway, would you be so kind as to fix what you did so someone else doesn't have to. For what it's worth, I would prefer to keep it your way, but it's not the WP way. Look at other articles. Love - while my edits may appear as if I am affiliated with the Fellowship of Friends, I prefer to just be an editor here. My religious affiliation is my own business. But I do like being part of this wikipedia family, so thanks.

Regarding payments, I think the section is fine as it stands, as it is from the primary source (remember that WP values verifiability through a reliable source more than accuracy) but I could probably live with changing the first sentence to "Monthly donations" are required provided the remainder of the section stays as is. Before this section is changed, since it is an area of contention, it would be nice if more editors weigh in. Moon Rising 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Artnscience - Regarding the external link for the rick ross site, "information" seems more NPOV than "criticism". What are you trying to do with this edit?--Moon Rising 02:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am a former member of the Fellowship so you know where I coming from. I agree with Artnscience - if Rick Ross' site is not critical to the FoF, I don't know what criticism is. Just my 2 cents. Robertozz 03:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

the website is critical; the edit should be neutral - PresenceInArk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.251.202 (talk) 04:41, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

forgot my password- created a new username - PresenceInArk is now 9Passions- no sockpuppetry here.9Passions 04:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A neutral edit will refer to a critical site as "criticism", not "information". What game are we playing here? Lots of smoke and mirrors, for sure. Robertozz 06:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising wrote "Regarding payments, I think the section is fine as it stands, as it is from the primary source (remember that WP values verifiability through a reliable source more than accuracy)". It's strange to me that so little information is given about the payments, and so much space is spent giving justifications for the payments. The problems that I see in being so heavily reliant on beingpresent.org are 1) that it is a promotional site and 2) this Wikipedia page verges on plagiarism of the FOF site. There must be a way of incorporating other material into the article. Wikipedia apparently prefers secondary sources to primary sources. Beingpresent.org is not a reliable secondary source because it never cites its own sources. If it is a primary source then it must necessarily be less important as a Wikipedia source than secondary sources. So secondary sources such as newspaper articles and journal articles surely ought to take precedence. Otherwise this article is basically a slightly rewritten mirror of the beingpresent.org site, with a reluctant nod at the controversies surrounding the FOF. 194.125.117.236 11:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true, somebody ought to fix that. Aeuio 12:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to give it a try. Does anybody know how to create a draft page? I noticed it was done in the past. Robertozz 15:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Yesterday I changed the text in the introduction from "When originally founded, it followed the Fourth Way tradition, while currently it focuses more on other spiritual schools and religions" to "When originally founded, it followed the Fourth Way tradition, and currently it includes other spiritual schools and religions" because to my knowledge the Fellowship didn't abandon the Forth Way, it incorporated other knowledge. Well, today Aeuio changed the text back to the original and wrote: "the fof website makes little refs to the Fourth Way in their teaching section/ and this little sentence is what's keeping the edit war down - let's not start a round two" This sounds like a threat to me. Besides, how come replacing "focuses" by "includes" is enough to start an edit war? What is the problem? It was time to learn from the past, so I decided to check the discussion archives (I recommend all new editors to do it - please reserve 4-5 hours) and noticed how Aeuio was very active trying to disqualify the Fellowship as a "real Fourth Way School". Well, Wikipedia is not about threats, it is about consensus, so I am going to revert Aeuio's edit to see if he is more polite next time. Love-in-ark 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to bring back info from the past then you forgot to mention how Baby Dove lied for months that RB's predictions were symbolical (which ended when the fof canons were uploaded), or how Mario used to move criticism out of the "controversies" section and then deleted it because "it doesn't belong in the new section". And you are trying to make me look negative and unfair here? Of course you - who are trying to come out as if you are not part of the fof - somehow know every copyright of every fof document. And when Wasp asked you to provide some evidence, you said "reverting edits is not polite. We do it only in case of vandalism. I deleted the link again to give you a second chance". And now you rv my rv because my comment is impolite? What wiki rules were you reading? (I am putting the public domain link back as you have simply ignored Wasp's comment. O, and remember the line that your friend Tupac used to get rid of the donations info "How do you know? Don't tell us, because WP is not about what one has personally researched.")

Concerning our rv, you also misunderstood the content. "The fof in the beginning only look at the 4th way" + "now it looks more at 6 (or whatever #) different schools and religions" = "The fof focuses more on other teachings". The "focuses more" is saying that the fof still looks at the 4th way, but there is a bigger number of teachings that they refer to now. + From the fof website "In the past, the primary focus was on the teachings of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. The Church now increasingly looks to the texts of the great religions for its spiritual guidance and understanding." (this info will probably be changed by the next time I check:)) But currently this implies that the fof is moving on and including a number of many other sources - which we all already know. Got it? Aeuio 01:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The way the intro looks after your edits is fine. Regarding your comments about Baby Dove, Mario, etc., I prefer not to get involved in past wars. Love-in-ark 06:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Aeuio, thank you for organizing the discussion page. I just don't have the time (I have a full-time job and 3 kids). Love-in-ark 06:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad we got this over with quickly. Take care. Aeuio 12:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Aeuio. Make sure you stay close - things tend to get strange when nobody is watching. Love-in-ark 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public Domain Primary Sources on the Fellowship of Friends

Why is this included in the "External Links"? Please enlighten me. Love-in-ark 07:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's relative to the FoF and it includes additional information which is not mentioned in this article. (Whether or not it should be there is between you and Wasp so if you are going to comment here then direct it towards him). I don't want to argue over this. Aeuio 12:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is between all of us. I think it should be there. Robertozz 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Roberto, can you tell me why? Thanks. Love-in-ark 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are pictures and documents there that you don't find anywhere else. The only reason for deleting the link would be if they were fake, which they are not. Robertozz 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know they are not fake? Love-in-ark 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know they are fake? Robertozz 17:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How can any editor know if they are fake or not fake? There's a large variety of links spanning decades - how can the answer be definitive? My guess would be that unless authenticity and the absence of copyright infringement is absolutely certain for each and every link included in the archives.org link, then it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Robertozz, you say they are not fake. Did you take the photos yourself? Did you draw the pictures? Make the lists? Do you have the copyright on, or receive permission from the copyright holder for the book pages that were copied or on the original material from the FOF? etc., etc. etc. Some of the links in arhive.org say "pubic domain" but this is unlikely in those instances. Wikipedia is cautious about this area - it could create legal liabilities and hurt the Wikipedia project. If any of this link is doubtful - find something definite.--Moon Rising 05:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Roberto, I guess Moon has a point. The link has to go. Love-in-ark 17:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no legal liability to Wikipedia if WP provides a link to an external site that may include copyright infringement. And the idea that those documents are faked is absurd. Archive.org is a reputable site and will remove any material if ***the rightful copyright owner*** of that material complains. In any case, beingpresent.org infringes copyright. It reproduces images from other sites without permission or acknowledgment (e.g., the Metropolitan Museum), and many of the quotations from Sufis etc. would not be considered fair use. Even a single line of a Carl Barks translation of Rumi can be considered to be beyond fair use. The disclaimer that the images are for educational and spiritual use only is merely an attempt to limit potential damage, and doesn't represent any legal right to display copyrighted material. And it's not the case anyway, because the images are used as part of a promotional newsletter. It's actually wilful infringement because the people involved with FOF promotion know that this is the case. 78.16.125.249 11:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And your name is...? Love-in-ark 15:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising: You said that you like the payment section the way it is. Well, it doesn't make any difference to me whether you like it or not. Could you provide us with some reasons why this is suitable for an encyclopedia entry, or better than any rewritten paragraph could possibly be? I would also like to point out that every single edit that I have made has been reverted, sometimes twice, by pro-FOF editors. The FOF does not own this page. Use your own site for promotion. Waspidistra 15:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To "and your name is...?"

Regarding archive.org: I respect your opinions about the site and the documents in it, whether or not your opinion is correct. There is a flaw in the theory that material will be removed if the "rightful copyright owner complains" because there is no way the owner would know their work is on the website, and there is no way for the user to know who the owner is to notify them. And there seems to be a clear possibility of anyone creating a document, drawing, etc., naming it and adding it to say whatever they want. I'm not an attorney, so I will not offer a legal opinion about WP's legal liability. My knowledge comes from synthesizing of large number of it's guidelines.

Regarding the alleged FOF transgressions - You are assuming they have not taken the legal steps needed to use what's on their website. If you are a former member, your mistrust is understandable, though not necessarily merited.

Regarding the section on payment:We are trying to reach consensus, so, while you don't care whether I like it or not, I felt it important to state my view as part of the process. You have stated yours. The section seems suited to an encyclopedia entry in that is short and factual. I can't say if it's better or worse than a re-written paragraph that is not yet written. What would you like it to say? Why don't you make some suggestions on the talk page, and let's see if we can get some consensus. Believe it or not, consensus has been reached in the past, and can be done again in the future, if we work together, which I am more than willing to do.

Regarding your reverts: I don't have know which reverts you refer to, but I hope that whoever did them explained them, either in the subject line or on the talk page, either of which is appropriate. If you disagree with a rv, then open a discussion on the talk page. Moon Rising 21:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising: You are assuming that there are illegally reproduced images on archive.org. I am not assuming that the FOF has failed to get permission for the images on its website or for its publications--as an insider I know that this is the case. I'll give you a mild example, which happens to be the first that I came across. The FOF newsletter http://www.beingpresent.org/newsletter/en/events/Desire.html has an image credited as "A Persian painting by Riza 'Abbasi of Layla and her lover Majnoon" This image belongs to the Metropolitan Museum. See http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/09/wai/ho_50.164.htm Now, the Met actually allows reasonable use of the images on their site. Whether the FOF use would qualify is debatable, beingpresent.org promoted FOF membership and vaguely specifies the fees for new members. But the Met clearly states its terms http://www.metmuseum.org/information/terms.asp "#

The text, images, and data on The Metropolitan Museum of Art (the "Museum") website (the "Site") are protected by copyright and may be covered by other restrictions as well. The Museum retains all rights, including copyright, in data, images, software, documentation, text, and other information contained in these files (collectively, the "Materials"). Copyright and other proprietary rights may be held by individuals or entities other than, or in addition to, the Museum.

The Materials are made available for limited non-commercial, educational, and personal use only, or for fair use as defined in the United States copyright laws. Users may download these files for their own use, subject to any additional terms or restrictions which may be applicable to the individual file or program. Users must, however, cite the author and source of the Materials as they would material from any printed work, and the citations should include the URL "www.metmuseum.org."

The Museum does not warrant that use of the Materials displayed on the Site will not infringe the rights of third parties not owned by or affiliated with the Museum. For example, some works may be under copyright by the artist or the artist's heirs holding rights to these works. Such works may not be used in any form; they may not be copied or downloaded without prior permission from the holder of the underlying copyright.

Copying or redistribution in any manner for commercial use, including commercial publication, or for personal gain is strictly prohibited."

Even if the FOF's use qualifies as fair use (which is doubtful due to the website's commercial nature), the painting has not been credited to the Met site, and not even the title has been referenced correctly. If the copyright actually belongs to a third party, then the situation is even worse. When images or text are licensed for use, the owners require copyright statements and permission acknowledgments to be included on the website or publication. None of the other images included in the newsletters contain acknowldgements, source references, copyright notices or permissions statements. And the translators of the quotations aren't credited either. So this is copyright infringement.

At the moment my main problem with this WP page is that the language is emotive and promotional. I could probably live with most of the content remaining as long as the language is more neutral and factual. Waspidistra 15:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If the fof owns the copyright to something on that link then [2][3] they'd complain about it. And since this link may violate copyrights, while the fof website does violate them, that link should be put back. Aeuio 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou, your YouTube links don't point to any particular movie, just to YouTube's home page. Can it be that they were removed?Love-in-ark 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ...try [4][5]. Should see something like this Aeuio 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why are people discussing if the images in the Fellowship's newsletters and web site are OK or not? What a waste of Wikipedia's space and editors' time! I thought that our aim was to inform people about the Fellowship in the Wikipedia's article. Yes, I know, there is an issue about the link to archive.org, but this discussion between Moon and Wasp looks to me like a total waste of time. Anyway, I am going to stay out of it and concentrate on the article. Have fun! Love-in-ark 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, love.--Moon Rising 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, after some time away, I came back to the article today just to find out this useless discussion on copyright violation from both sides... It looks as a chat page, to me.

The purpose of the page is to show the interested reader what is the Fellowship of Friends about, not to discuss how many members it might have or whether the donations are perfectly detailed within the article. And, of course, whether the FOF website or any other site violates copyright should not be a subject to discuss here, because all these annonymous editors cannot claim they know the facts in detail as to make this sort of accusations.

The said newsletter states that "The images included here are for educational purposes only and are not intended for any other use". Then, someone has questioned this, but it is precisely what the Met largely authorizes in [[6]]. The image illustrates the text in a personal website, accessible to anyone, and at no charge. Moreover, it can be a reproduction of a postcard bought at the Museum (in which case copyright should have been honored explicitly).

But the main point is that annonymous people freely gives way to their personal oppinions on an unknown matter, as in chat sites.

I will keep reading the article regularly, and I hope I wont have to start writing just to face fake sockpuppetteering accusations from other editors. This is also a waste of time, since the very founder of this article was once accused and, even though his explanations were not too satisfactory, he could go on contributing for a long time. So, Baby Dove is as unknown an editor as anyone here, and that is not very relevant to disqualify him, as far as he behaves civilizedly. Regards, Baby Dove 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Babydove: Moon Rising brought up the issue of copyright as a ploy to remove the archive.org link. The FOF webpage does not follow the conventions insisted on by the Met Museum because it does not give a source reference. No source references are given in the newsletter, yet the FOF slaps a copyright notice on every page. It's at the very least rude to include copyrighted material, in this case both images and quotations without a reference to the source. I notice that the pro-FOF members are very keen to see strict source referencing on this page. Waspidistra 11:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Want - information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. You don't cite the source for your edit, which differs from a published source. I did not revert your edit a second time to avert an edit war, which serves no one. If your edit is based on opinion, rumor or original research, it does not belong in WP. Please provide your source. If you don't have one, please don't start an edit war. Thanks. --Moon Rising 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Want, it seems we have a workable solution for now, thanks to Passions. Since you're so insistent on the number of members, would you elucidate the rest of us as to how you received your information. I don't have any inside sources or crystal balls, so I just go with what's on the web site. Thanks.--Moon Rising 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article improvement

Dear Wasp: you said somewhere above that "At the moment my main problem with this WP page is that the language is emotive and promotional. I could probably live with most of the content remaining as long as the language is more neutral and factual." I've worked on trying to do this, but since you think it needs more work, what do you suggest? --Moon Rising 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is easier to criticize than to fix. The first takes seconds; the second, hours. Love-in-ark 07:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the snide remark Love-in-ark. Yes, it does take longer to fix an article. Since my previous edits were instantly reverted by you (who told me that reverts were rude) and Moon Rising I have been reluctant to wade in. My Internet access has also been limited for the past week and that continues to be the case. I'll try this: I'll save the page so I can edit it offline and I'll submit couple of sample paragraphs in a style that seems more neutral to me. Then I'll post them here and see what the other editors think. The current tone (and the tone of some of the previous extremely anti-FOF versions of the page) comes over as trying to convince the reader. I don't think that that is appropriate for a WP page. It should be informational. It should give good basic information about the FOF and provide references and links that allow for further research. Waspidistra 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if Wasp keeps his promises. Love-in-ark 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC

I'm sure that Love-in-ark will love this: I no longer feel that the page as it stands can just be rewritten neutrally. Once I had downloaded the article and read it more carefully, it produced quite a different impression on me. I compared it to the beingpresent.org website, and it clearly does plagiarize from that site to a considerable extent. (I wonder if it falls into this category: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted."?) The addition of all the "the organization states" "The Fellowship of Friends claims" etc to the beingpresent.org descriptions--which are essential--create a very different feel. I can't imagine that anyone is happy with the article as it is. The combination of material lifted more or less in its entirety from beingpresent.org with the attempt at neutrality by inserting the "the FOF states" etc. makes all of the FOF's statements sound insincere. I was concerned that the page was too much of a mouthpiece for the FOF's views, but it may well do the opposite. My suggestion would be to summarize and condense the contents of beingpresent.org rather than lifting so much text directly. Incidentally, Love-inark, you commented that it is easier to criticize than to fix. I haven't you noticed you making any substantial contributions to the page, unless you did them under a different ID.

Anyway, I would say that the page is more neutral than I originally thought, in that neither side can be happy with it.

Waspidistra 11:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems we've encountered the same dilemma, and have come to the same conclusion. It is often said of negotiations that you know you've reached a good one when neither side is happy. Cheers!--Moon Rising 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So our fellow editor Waspidistra suddenly decides that the article looks good and saves himself many hours of tedious work. How convenient. By the way, the reason I don't make substantial contributions to the article is because I can live with it as it is. I took a look at the 8 archive pages and the idea of starting an editing crusade gives me the willies. Love-in-ark 07:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Love-in-ark (not much love there) I didn't say that the article looks good, just that a careful reading of it made me feel that the tone is not as pro-FOF as I originally felt it was. Just to please you I've made some minor edits. Waspidistra 09:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wasp, nice to see you back after almost 2 weeks. Also, thank you for the minor edits. Now we all feel better and the article is improved, right? Love-in-ark 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Really, Love - you do have a sarcastic edge to some of your comments, which is not consistent with the WP request that editors "be polite", IMHO. As for the edits Wasp made, I've skimmed through them quickly. For the most part, they seem to be edits made for the sake of editing (perhaps to be able to prove something to you, after you goading him on) and not for article improvement. When I have time, I plan to clean up some of those edits to improve grammar, readability, etc. --Moon Rising 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of those edits I had prepared when I was looking over the article previously. I eliminated some of the redundancy in the intro and tried to improve readability a bit. I moved the criticism on payments into the payments section, added some references, added some "the FOF believes" clauses, etc. Waspidistra 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry galore, again. Oh, well, let's move on. Love-in-ark 22:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So, Love-In-Ark, who are the sock puppets? Robertozz 03:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Roberto, if I tell you the names of the socks, this is what is going to happen:

1. They will deny everything.
2. Somebody will do a checkuser and find out that they were socks.
3. They will say that they share the same internet connection, or that they are married, or twin brothers, or something along those lines.
4. Some editor will tell everybody to stop accusing and to concentrate on the article.
5. The whole issue will be dropped.

If you don't believe me just check the archives (reserve 4 hours minimum). Unfortunately, Wikipedia only blocks socks in case of vandalism, so there is really nothing we can do. If I can give you one piece of advice, here it is: be patient. Wikipedia is based on the principle of the Wisdom of the Crowds. Love-in-ark 04:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that the two editors in the archives who claimed to be on a home network are actually man and wife. That might be construed as meat puppetry, but it's not sock puppetry, and most of the editors here are current or ex-members of the Fellowship, so meat puppetry is more or less inevitable. Who are you accusing accusing of being a sock puppet and why? Waspidistra 12:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding improvement of the criticism section by adding "and cult investigors" - the citation is a book that quotes former members, not cult investigators.--Moon Rising 19:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Want - you keep adding nonsense. Please stop vandalizing this article.--Moon Rising 04:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this is funny, after all that chit chatting about sock puppets, Love-in-ark is unable to say anything when asked to give some names and evidence. Seems all she is interested is chatting and attempting to divert the discussion. Well, I just got an email from a well-known editor of this page saying that "PresenceInArk is probably a sock of Moon Rising (SAme ip and same habbit). And Tupac8 and Sitting9bulls are probably socks of Baby Dove (These two did the exact same thing that BD did word for word some time ago)."Robertozz 23:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The message above is the original text that I posted earlier. Aeuio deleted the part about the identity of the sock puppets that was sent to me by an editor today. PLEASE DON'T MODIFY OTHER PEOPLES' COMMENTS - ADD YOUR COMMENTS BELOW INSTEAD. This is common sense. If we start editing other people's comments this page will become a total mess. Now I have some checkusers to do. Robertozz 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ozz - just reading through this and noted your comment on other's modifying other people's edits. I second the motion. I don't know if a guideline or a policy in WP, but it's some sort of WP advice. Same goes with cutting in to other people's edits. It gets very confusing and is rude. We used to have more trouble with this than we do now. Anyway, WP even remcommends not editing one's own posts on talk pages, because other editors may comment about the edit before the change, so a change with be confusing. Hope I'm not being confusing. Anyway, belated thanks for pointing this out. I missed it earlier.--Moon Rising 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and if somebody modifies other editors' edits we just undo the person's edit (exceptions are vandalism, profanity, libel, etc.) Robertozz 06:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chat not allowed

Good work Aeuio! This unnecessary chat was well deleted. Regards, Baby Dove 17:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As a clarification for the less informed, Baby Dove is congratulating Aeuio for the deletion of a section about suspected sock puppetry. It is obvious why several editors are interested in getting rid of the section ASAP. Love-in-ark 18:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Suspected sock puppetry"? more like "LoveArks chitchatting attempt to stop new editors from focusing on issues of the article". From what I read (and here is the section) you didn't provide one piece of evidence or a single accusation. Seemed like a phone conversation between you and Moon Rising. And me deleting the section doesn't really do anything for me and probably does the most favor to MR. If you have something actual and want to return the section then go ahead. Otherwise address MR on his talk page and don't make false or empty threats here. Aeuio 19:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! this is good...Well, sort of. I don't know where to start....let's see....oh! Chat not allowed - don't be silly! And by the way, what are we doing here now, but chatting? The next point that comes to mind as I catch up with this, and the deleted section, is that we seem to have forgotten to assume good faith. Let's try to get back to some basic Wikipedia civilities, folks. Finally, while I hesitate to "defend" myself against spurious accusations that don't really deserve a response, I just want to say that I am not a sock puppet. I do share a computer with my spouse, 9Passions (formerly PresenseInArk till the forgotten password episode). I'm also on dial-up (arghh!) so my computer id changes. We've had this situation twice before - editors who share computers being accused of sock puppetry (check the archives). Aeuio, you are quite a sleuth - I marvel at your abilities! What diligence ferreting out potential infractions. So let's all be polite, assume good faith and focus on the article, not each other. --Moon Rising 23:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Moon, you made me laugh! Do you promise you will always write like this? Pleeeease! Love-in-ark 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Always happy to bring mirth to my fellow man (woman)....we are having fun, aren't we, but we're taking up WP space and the article hasn't changed. So, let's not delete this section, but we really should stop this merriment, don't you think?--Moon Rising 16:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC) p.s. Let's continue to be merry (and eat and drink) but not here.--Moon Rising 16:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what my Mom used to say when I was talking to my friends on the phone instead of doing my homework. Love-in-ark 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I like the analogy, but if the shoe fits, I guess I'll need to wear it. So sorry to be a party pooper. Now get back to your homework before your father gets home and deletes this section.Moon Rising 20:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)