Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Refactoring of current issues

As previously discussed, I have archived the previous talk page (see the archive box) in order to allow us to refactor the current disputes.

As a member of the mediation cabal, I am just a normal editor. I have no power here, no authority over any of you, and no means (nor desire) to perform discipline or coerce anyone. The only thing I can offer you is my advice, neutral stance on the article (especially as regards to the current disputes), and a desire to help you make a great article.

I will request from everyone to follow a few simple ground rules, however:

Always, always assume good faith. You may vehemently disagree with another editor, but he or she is working just as hard as you to make a good article. He or she may be simply wrong, or mistaken. Or you might be. That's not important.

Remain civil and courteous! Do not call names. Do not question judgment, or honesty. Don't attack other editors. Commenting another editor's point (but see below) is okay-- telling them their point is garbage is not.

Don't rehash the same arguments over and over. If you've made your position clear in a dispute, just repeating it will not make your position any stronger, and may distract from real discussion.

Do not edit the main article. Proposed rewrites/edits should go only on the draft article, where we can fiddle with them at leisure, and this gives us only one place to look at.

If we cannot all follow those simple rules, I will have to recuse myself and suggest you bring the dispute to format dispute resolution. Before you act brashly, remember that you might not like the result of that any better than my help. :-)

I'm going to sometimes break my no-edits rule for this case, since we're having a hard time of it. When I reach an opinion about a specific dispute, I may offer a write-up on the draft article, especially if the wording appears touchy or consensus is fuzzy. Those write-ups will, of course, not be binding and you may then further edit them-- but remember that if you edit them to support your position at the expense of the other editors', you may simply precipitate an edit war.

We can do this. Coren 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(I'm going to sign each section, if only to make it clear which comment is whose.)

Editors: Please comment after my brief summary and opinion. Explain your point once. If you feel another editor's point requires clarification, ask the question below his point. Please do not give counter arguments. Edit or add to your own position if you feel that's important. We don't want arguments, we want everyone to give their supported opinion.

Please try to limit the number of new sections; let's get those out of the way first before we tackle other points (unless I missed something really important).

Introduction

Let's start with the easy bit. Currently, I see nothing wrong with the introduction. It's factual, brief, to the point, and doesn't require a whole lot of context to figure out what the article is about. I suggest we don't fiddle with it except for very minor wording changes and typos. Coren 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Until Aeuio pointed this out, I missed this point that Coren made and went ahead and simplified the introduction. Aeuio reverted it, saying "after Coren specifically said that the intro is fine and detailed, why in the world does it get completely rewritten?)" in the edit summary. Well, I changed it because, as I mentioned, I forgot that Coren had said this, and when I started reading the page, I saw a hodgepodge of blue reference links interrupting the flow of a rather choppy paragraph, that doesn't really flow at all. I thought the simplification would be appreciated, since that's what we're going for, and since I don't think I removed anything that is not explained elsewhere in the article. What do others think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moon Rising (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Don't edit war over my opinions! If a rewrite can improve the article, then go ahead and do so. I don't bring down edits from "on high", I give suggestions. Just make certain those edits are not controversial. Coren 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the introduction has a link to a more general Fourth Way page with some mistaken information regarding the Fourth Way as being limited to Gurdjieff's ideas.
In fact, these ideas are much older, and are related to many more things, as the following quotes show:
"For instance, schools connected with the building of Gothic cathedrals in mediaeval times were schools of the Fourth Way. This must not be taken too literally. It does not mean that all cathedrals were built by schools, but that schools were behind this building" [Peter D. Ouspensky, "A Further Record, Penguin, 1993 - Chapter 7, Work, p. 115/116].
"A school depends on the level of the people who study in that school. There are schools for men No. 6 who study and wish to become men No. 7; there are schools for men No. 5 who want to become men No. 6; there are schools for men No. 4 who want to become men No. 5 and there are many lower degrees of schools for people studying what man No. 4 means and how to become No. 4, and so on. But all the schools of the Fourth Way, all degrees, all levels, have certain features peculiar to them. First, they are always connected with some kind of objective work." [Peter D. Ouspensky, "A Further Record, Penguin, 1993 - Chapter 7, Work, p. 115/116].
"Schools of the fourth way have existed and exist, just as schools of the three traditional ways existed and exist. But they are much more difficult to detect, because - unlike the others - they cannot be recognized by any one practice, one method, one task, or one name. They are always inventing new methods, new practices, suitable to the time and conditions in which they exist, and when they have achieved one task which was set them they pass on to another, often changing their name and whole appearance in the process." [Rodney Collin, The Theory of Celestial Influence", Penguin Books, 1997 - Chapter 15 The Shape of a Civilization"].
This would make the link superfluous, given that this school work with knowledge other than Gurdjieff's vision of the Fourth Way.
Regards, Baby Dove 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So you want to discuss the Fourth Way...Alright.

Gurdjieff and Ouspensky said that a man can't do anything on his own and that he needs a teacher. Robert Burton studied under Alex Horn - who was a trickster and wasn't a student of Lord Pentland - for a year and a half. Robert Burton then opens his own school,after he realized certain things about Alex Horn, so Burton who was never in a real school to begin with, opens up "a real Fourth Way school" after learning the Horn's teaching. Basically, Burton after a year and a half under Horn was good enough to open his own school. If so then one has to wonder that if this is true then what the heck was Gurdjieff teaching for thirty years - who and where are all these people? Can Alex Horn teach the teaching that Gurdjieff introduced thirty times better than Gurdjieff himself?

Then, Burton claims to have become conscious and to have crystallized higher centers. So basically he did this on his own as he is the teacher in the fof. Not only that, but he is the first to ever point out that he is conscious. You won't find a single quote anywhere from Gurdjieff, Ouspensky or anyone else where they directly say "I am man number..." or "I crystallized so and so..." - while Burton promotes his saying just how conscious he is and it's quoted right on the fof web page.

Also, Fof doesn't have any connection to any other contemporary Gurdjieffian school, so I guess that they believe that they are a real school while the schools directly transmitted through Gurdjieff and Ouspensky are all fake. (I don't think that I need to point out what every other Gurdjieff/Ouspensky/Lord Pentland associated school thinks about the FoF.)

So you see, I don't consider the Fof a Fourth Way school at all, and there is nothing that says that it is a Fourth Way school other than Burton says so. Anyone can open a school based on the Fourth Way teaching and say "we are a Fourth Way school". So if you want to remove the Fourth Way link...you have my blessings. (As for the info above you can bet that I will add it once I have more time to locate sources... so we can save this arguing for later.) Aeuio 23:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the Fourth Way article...Let's see: Gurdjieff introduces a teaching which is completely unknown in the West. Gurdjieff never says where this teaching is from directly. He teaches people about his teaching, then these students of his write about his teaching. And now you say "Gurdjieff's vision of the Fourth Way" - as if Gurdjieff just had an opinion on this teaching that is only as valid as those of his students who only know what they heard from him (and concluded in their head) - I got to say: WOW is it ever hard now to convince me that FoF actually knows what they are talking about. (I am also taking into consideration FoF's bent theories which I don't wish to point out). Anyways If you wish to write FOF's theories about the Fourth Way, by all means do it on this article. Aeuio 23:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, but it is Ouspensky the one saying that the Fourth Way is older than Gurdjieff, and so far I found Rodney Collin as well. Had you read the quotations above, or you simply reacted to a stimulous? I will look for more quotes about this. Besides, sometimes a person, being a newcomer to the work, shows more understanding than others with more time doing it. Do not compare the work to awaken one's soul to a college degree, where many get to the graduation day by just being hanging around in a campus. Regards, Baby Dove 03:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are the one comparing it to a teaching that anyone can teach. Also, somehow I failed to notice where in the Fourth Way teaching it is quoted that you should advertise your school. Could you provide a quote? Or is this another fof original. (Maybe it should be in the article?) Aeuio 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you are doing that. I meant that being does not relate to time exactly as you think.
Regarding advertising, this article was started by wine-in-ark and it was not neutral, but originally full of sarcasm.
Another fact regarding advertising is that in the famous London's Daily News, from February 17, 1923, the main title says, "Secret of the Tomb Revealed"; then, after devoting the first two columns to the discovery of Tutankhamen's tomb, with some photos of the coffin and the walls included, the sixth column starts an article with the title, "The new cult" [yes, in those days they were cult-busters as well] - "An Interview with the Master", followed by a gorgeous photo of Mr. Gurdjieff, and then other two subtitles: "Mystic Dances - Persones [sic] that Vary Every Hour."
Curiously enough, though I have no idea whether this was advertising or just a coincidental article, the "coincidence" was repeated on the edition from February 19, 1923; after a title saying, "Lord Carnarvon's Own Story", there is a 3-column photograph of Gurdjieff's company dancing, below which there is a title saying, "Forest Philosophers - Gurdjieff the Master and his Quest at Fontainebleu - The True Source of Love."
According to what Mr. Ouspensky says in "In Search of the Miraculous", Chapter 1, page 14, he has seen himself a Gurdjieff's performance [The Struggle of Magicians] advertised in "The Voice of Moscow."
So, perhaps you should reformulate your understanding of this subject, especially when 90 years have elapsed since this article. Regards, Baby Dove 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove is invited to come up with any examples of sarcasm that were part of the original article which I started until other editors appeared. Wine-in-ark 22:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So when a cult buster writes a story on you "The new cult", that's considered advertising? And then you compare advertising of a performance to saying "We are the best school...I am conscious...Come join us". Anyways concerning advertising see below for my proof of what's happening here. Aeuio 00:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted Aeuio's edits of the introduction. My original reason for the edit was to simplify not only the appearance (all of the large blue links) but also the wording. Thank you, Aeuio for trying to fix the links to references, it was an improvement in appearance, but none of the links worked. I moved (as noted elsewhere) new information about incorporation to the history section. The introduction is now quoted verbatim from the organization's web site. It is brief and uncomplicated by what others think of the fellowship and whether or not it qualifies to be called a fourth way school. I do not want to begin an argument about what a fourth way school is or is not, and who has the right to use that name. The WP article on The Fourth Way is, in the opinion of visitors to the discussion page, NPOV. It is, in my opinion, what would be considered to be a "fundamentalist" view if it were a mainstream religion. Teachings and religions change and evolve, for better or worse. (I know many editors here think the FOF is for the worse, but that is opinion). WP does not need a policeman to preserve Gurdjieff and his teachings. But this is just my opinion. In any case, the Introduction is now simple, accurate and neutral.--Moon Rising 00:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the history and the links worked perfectly fine. I thought that the other one was better, but whatever...(until I throw in the criticism about it being a Fourth Way school anyways). Until then Aeuio 01:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the title with humor. I never said the article in the Daily News was written by a cult-buster. I think you never fully read other's contributions. I already said that when I saw you answering just in the middle of someone else's contribution, as interrupting.
I was also pointing out what Mr. Ouspensky said regarding "The Struggle of the Magicians'" advertising, and the paper calling Mr. Gurdjieff "The Master." Besides, where does it say advertising is not what a Fourth Way School would do?

Regards, Baby Dove 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand other's comments. 1. If a title says "The new cult" - you apparently believe that this is advertising for a non-cult organization. 2. "I already said that when I saw you answering just in the middle of someone else's contribution, as interrupting." - please point where i have done that in this section. (This is not a blog where everything is posted according to date, but rather according to whom you are addressing.) 3. The Struggle of the Magicians wasn't advertising Gurdjieff's group, it was advertising a play. There is a huge difference here which you want to overlap. This advertisement was saying "Come see this performance", not "Come joint our school" 4. "where does it say advertising is not what a Fourth Way School would do" - The part where Gurdjieff/Ouspensky and pretty much everyone said that the Fourth Way isn't for everyone. And Gurdjieff had personally many times refused or kicked out many students (mentioned in many books). Aeuio 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Artnscience:
Mr. Burton's book at Amazon does not give any result at searching "2006" within. The same with "nuclear" and "holocaust." Searching by "war", he appears mentioning this word several times: two of them, quoting Plato, who said "war is a permanent state for humanity" (pages 53 & 171), and twice to mention a "civil war" within, as in "You have to examine what takes the place of self-remembering., and experience an internal civil war" (page 47), or in "If a civil war is occurring internally..."(page 127). I was about to quit, when "warfare" came to my mind. Mr. Burton has used this ward, actually, at page 153 he says "Hydrogen warfare seems inevitable, and one no longar has to be a prophet to predict it."
As he talks about a warfare, I have corrected the introduction by deleting references to unexisting words, however, I see it quite far from the idea that all these want to convey to the reader. But it is an opinion, and I would not put it on first page in the article, as it look that it has been happening... Regards, Baby Dove 23:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the comment about the ark and warfare. The intro is taken from the organization's web site. I don't know where this information comes from, but even if it is a legitimate reference, since it is not in current information from them, it probably does not belong in the intro. If at some point in time, they actually considered this part of their goal, then it belongs in the history section, with appropriate citations.--Moon Rising 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Artnscience, I noticed you put the holocaust part back without an Edit Summary or any explanation to Moon Rising here. What's the point? Mario Fantoni 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

aeiou wrote, "So you see, I don't consider the Fof a Fourth Way school at all, and there is nothing that says that it is a Fourth Way school other than Burton says so. Anyone can open a school based on the Fourth Way teaching and say "we are a Fourth Way school". For the purpose of something like Wikipedia, self-designation can surely be the only criterion: a Fourth Way school is an organization that describes itself as a Fourth Way school. Genuflect 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

History

That section seems to be entirely missing right now. Things that can reasonably go in:

When was it founded? By who?
The FoF bought tracts of lands to develop in Oregon House. When?
Other major centers worthy of mention? (Source!)
Were there any documented schisms?

Major controversial events can (and probably should) be mentionned in here also. Don't expound on them here, though. Keep it to the newsworthy-class events (if it didn't make at least a couple of major news outlets (reprints from AP count as a single outlet) then it's not major enough to be here). Coren 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Coren. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to tackle the History section at this point? Are newspaper articles all we have for reliable source material? Do any books contain some milestone dates so that we can include at least two or three sentences? Coren, regarding some of the earlier discussions, maybe some of Veronica's suggestions for the History section (archive page #1) could be added to the Controversies section instead? Artnscience 08:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WMConey mentioned the following Sacramento Bee story. Coren, is this a good source for the history section? It provides some dates, etc. It's not very balanced in regard to the controversies (it doesn't appear the writer interviewed anyone outside the Fellowship), but it might help. http://www.sacbee.com/161/story/164200.html. Artnscience 16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's an excellent source for dating, and about the winery operation. The court case comment is third-hand, though, and I'd say that excepting the claim that their existence may have scared away distributors, should not be used. Coren 21:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Modified history section: moved some comments to controversies section and added information from company's website.--Moon Rising 06:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

On May 3 at 16:30, Artnscience makes a very funny comment: "... it doesn't appear the writer interviewed anyone outside the Fellowship." So, in this case, the multiple sources quoted here, talking of many unverifiable things for the common reader, such as weird non-dying or riding bycycles excercises, or Mr. Burton regulating "diets of members" do not deserve the same reserve?
It is funny that nobody here asked the institution whether this was true or not, and in what context. I would ask, but "Baby Dove" cannot address a real person hiding behind a nickname, which is what "accepted sources" many times do. And let us see what has happened to Mario Fantoni by using his real name, to understand the big advantage of hiding behind a nick.
I was curious today about the Blog# for the Anima Recro site (it seems to be #8 and counting), and I found a very interesting contribution from his creator, Mr. "Esoteric Sheik of Inner Confusion", who copies an old contribution saying that he invites people "even defending the FOF" to put something in the blog. And the e-address is secret: recroanima@gmal.com or so. But he warns everybody: "The fact that you did not disclose your name, e-mail or any other information will work against you."
Curiously enough, he did not even gave his real name with the email address or by other means. He simply open this blog with his personal impressions of a potential meeting he attended, feeding the fire since then under a nickname.
The common attitude in all these sources is to talk generally and vaguely: "A former member said..." (who?) "Many people has presented charges of..." (How many?)
Of course, some data have to show a real source, such an existing accusation in court 11 years ago but, even here, instead of declaring that no sentence was given against the one accused, the sources hide behind ambiguous phrases, such as "settled with unknown results", immediately insisting in general statements such as "others have accused Mr. Burton of the same..." or similar phrases.
Being annonimous is obviously an advantage, but I guess that if one is going to say anything that could damage others, one should use a name or shut up. Regards Baby Dove 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove raised an interesting point: the main reason why I am receiving personal attacks is because I am the only editor using his real name instead of a nickname. Anyway, I don't repent. I have nothing to hide. Mario Fantoni 05:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Sources are a big issue. I'll look at each here and summarize what I understand the various positions to be.

Blogs

Blogs, as sources, are right out. They are unable to come anywhere close to the reliability guidelines. In fact, they have every possible problem a source can have: primary source, unverified (and unverifiable), self-published, and no editorial oversight.

A large blog or website created by former members that offers criticism may be a valid external link (don't go overboard. One, two at the most), but statements found on blogs cannot be used as sources for the article proper unless backed by at least one other independent source that unambiguously meets WP:RS. Coren 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Blog only as an external link and not as a source. Aeuio 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ph.D. Theses

Those are acceptable. The academic review they are subjected to is almost, if not exactly, as stringent as that of peer-reviewed journals, which unambiguously meet WP:RS and are secondary sources. They can be used to support assertions made in the article proper. Coren 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. (I can safely say Veronica does too) Aeuio 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FoF website and FoF member's self-published "official" books

I.e.: books written by or for the FoF and whose primary purpose is directed to the members of FoF (teaching material, guide books, religious reference) are valid (and, indeed, authoritative) as sources for supporting parts of the article that discuss what the FoF itself claims its beliefs, organization and goals are.

The bit about the predicted apocalypse, for instance, is acceptable. The parts about the interplanetary voyages, I can't tell. The context may not be adequate (the book might be fiction, or metaphor) and since it's very prejudicial I would recommend erring on the side of caution with that one.

About "private" documents. There is no such thing, legally or otherwise. Citing from a written work cannot run afoul of copyright law (within fair use), and trade secrets (if they could even be said to apply) are a matter between the author and those he or she has given to material to in the first place. Yes, some of this information is prejudicial, but such is the danger any author takes when laying down ink on a page. Such sources are equally valid as other self-published FoF material: they can be used to support what the FoF claims about itself (and only that). Coren 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. Aeuio 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Coren, could you expand a bit on what you mean by "private" documents? Is this strictly in reference to the G. Haven books or in reference to privately circulated documents such as internally circulated journals, newsletters, emails etc. ? thanks. Nixwisser 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I was talking specifically about the G. Haven books; that is, books which are ostensibly "published", but which may contain a disclaimer about audience. Privately circulated, low print count documents are iffier, because they are harder to get a hand on to verify and almost impossible to authenticate.

To be considered a source, a document must have an unequivocal author or publisher, and preferably an ISBN. Documents which could easily be produced by "home" means are too easy to forge or modify, and are very suspect in all cases (that would include journals, newsletters, memos). Emails are, of course, right out.

My understanding is that the G. Haven books were, at least at one point, offered to members of the general public and that the origin of the book is undisputed. That would make it acceptable as above, regardless of boilerplate disclaimers it may contain.

I think a good rule of thumb is: would it be possible for an editor to find the document and verify its contents? If the answer is "yes" and the origin of the document is certainly from the FoF (or a representative of the FoF) then it's a valid source. Again, as above, only for supporting what the FoF (or its officers) are (or were) claiming about themselves.

Case-by-case is the only reasonable approach here. Coren 04:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A further point, remember that while it may be reasonable to document what the FoF says about itself in such a manner, we are not attempting to debunk them or prove them wrong somehow. Internal memos and one-off "proofs" may be good when you're trying to make a point or prove a case, but we must not do either. That'd be very much pushing an agenda. Coren 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Court cases

Citing myself:

Court cases are primary sources, but are generally accepted as reliable. But maintaining neutrality when using them as sources is touchy-- you must at all cost avoid making inferences or legal conclusions from those documents yourself (that would be original research even if justified. "X was convicted of Y by court Z in 19XX" is acceptable (with cite). Dismissals and Acquittals should not be mentioned (unless the case itself was notable) because they are prejudicial and may even be libelous.

Out-of-court settlements are a very gray, and very touchy area. When the case is significant to the subject of the article, mentioning it (with cite) may be appropriate, but the choice of language must be very careful to avoid veering into plain attack. Going into too much detail about the allegations is probably a no-no, and using weasel words is a clear sign that something is almost certainly wrong.

This stands. Wording has to be very careful when discussing court cases. They are sourced, however, and are not off-limits. Coren 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Aeuio 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Baby Dove just deleted much of the text in the Court Cases section, and added some of her own text. This effort removes a lot of good work in this section by other editors, and disregards the above comments by Coren, the mediator. We can certainly cite the Sac Bee article, but we need to work together on this section. Coren, what's the next step? I'm inclined to return the section to its previous version, and try to include SOME of what Baby Dove added, but I don't want this to escalate into the old editing war. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Artnscience 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up note. I suggest that we NOT use quotes for this material. Other sources, not just the Fellowship sources in the Bee article, mention the out-of-court settlements. There's no real practical difference between the insurance company paying those settlements and the Fellowship paying them. Artnscience 19:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Artnscience, I reverted your recent edit to put back words "undisclosed sources" because, if you note the discussion above, Coren and another editor were uncomfortable with those words and the wording that was used in the last edit was from Coren, who is probably the only editor on this page without a bias. Hope this meets with your approval, under this circumstance.

It's not appropriate for us to decide that (differences between insurance and FoF payment), but the focus of the Sacramento Bee article is the winery, not the FoF. Besides, the court case is mentioned only third-hand, and passingly. Except for the bit about the claim that the existence of the suits scaring distributors away, that article isn't a good source about the legal woes of FoF. Coren 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Coren says that the Sacramento Bee article "is not a good source about the legal woes of the FOF", because it mainly talks about Renaissance Wines. As it can be seen in the item on the "Impact on the regional economic activity", and reproduced here Renaissance, Renaissance Vineyard and Winery recognizes it was founded by the Fellowship of Friends, which makes the article also focused on the latter.
However, when the Rick Ross' cult-buster site was objected in the beginning due to their personal researches, it was said that the quote from the Los Angeles Times was a relevant one, from a valid source.
Is Coren meaning that LA Times is a valid source for the case, though it does not say anything regarding the results of the out-of-court settlement, but the Sac Bee is not a valid one, though quoting the words of the President of the institution?
Besides, another aspect of these out-of-court settlements is that they generally imply that the plaintiff, at seeing he or she would not be capable of producing the require evidence to win the case, withdraws the accusation. The "unknown results" of the settlement would refer to monetary aspects involved, but never to this inability to prove the accusations. What the Court generally does, regarding the records, is to keep as public what both parts say, and confidential the terms of the settlement.
Thus, though having a public record number (which had been provided to the article but it disappeared some time ago), nobody should use any of these unknown terms to affect the anybody's good name.
Regards, Baby Dove 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking my objectives, Baby Dove. I'm not trying to figure out "what could possibly be included in the article", but "what is the largest intersection of things editors want to include in the article". This will, as a rule, mean that material is kept out more than is included, and a good balance should be found between reliability and completeness.

The Sacramento Bee article offers us good information on time line, but given its focus, it should probably be kept at that. It does mention the lawsuits, but in an off-hand manner.

As to out of court settlements, they no not imply anything about the ability to produce evidence. Some people settle when they are culpable, and some people settle when they are not. It depends on the offer, and the settlement itself will either contain an admission of culpability, or a disavowal, or (more commonly) a statement specifying that neither party actually admit anything at all but agree to not pursue the matter further in exchange for (usually secret) compensation.

Claiming that either party "backed down" or was "unable to proceed" is wrong, and in fact may be libel. This is one of the reason why referring to a settled suit in an article is touchy, and should be restricted to reporting the existence of the case, what the parties may have publicly said about it (sourced, of course), and the outcome. Any inference from the suit or its outcome is unwarranted, and POV.

You could just as easily claim that "FoF, knowing it would lose, settled for a large undisclosed cash amount" as "X, unable to prove its allegations, backed down and settled." You just don't know unless you can cite the court documents. Coren 23:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Coren:
I did not want to question your objectives, and I apologize if it sounded this way. However, my statement regarding the inability to back up declarations with facts by part of the plaintiff comes from the first person referring to these events not by second-hand. Since all the quoted sources say that the settlement had "unknown results", I paid attention to the figure saying that the plaintiff could not prove his accusations. She is the President of one of the parts involved, and she has not been contradicted so far.
The Sac Bee article, differently from others, talk about what a part says about the results. If any other part wants to contradict this, it is fine, but most of the other sources quoted talk about what others said...
Thank you for your efforts and my best regards, Baby Dove 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coren. If she said what she said then its going to be written "she claimed that" and not as a fact. Anyone can say whatever they want after the things is over. If the plaintiff mentions somewhere "I received a big cash offer to settle that suit", you would object to agreeing that this was true as he is free to say whatever he wants. And by the way: IF the plaintiff "has no evidence whatsoever of the crime" THEN this kind of thing is not settled out of court. Why would Burton settle this in private instead of easily (as there is no evidence against him) clearing his name? You claiming that that the there is no case at all because it's settled out of court is pure nonsense. Aeuio 01:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: Please rephrase your sayings; it is very hard to understand you. I have never heard/read the plaintiff saying anything regarding cash he received. One of the links mentioned what this plaintiff claimed at the time he started the lawsuit, but all sources except the Sacramento Bee one say the result is unknown. Have you really heard Mr. Buzbee saying anything regarding this issue? If so, please provide a good source and do not speculate regarding what others might say in case new information is provided. Thank you, Baby Dove 06:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood. There is an "if" in front of what I said (I was trying to make a comparison). Also I wanted to say that: whatever someone says after the case is long over is not all true and can't be verified and should only be mentioned as "he/she claimed so and so", and not "this was what happened in fact". Aeuio 12:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If the article quoted uses the words "she said" then it is inappropriate to say "she claimed" just because the case is long over. Since the link to the newspaper article follows the quotation, the reader can easily review the exact words, so why change them? In this case, an assessment is not being made about the accuracy of the statement but rather the accuracy of the quote. The Sacramento Bee is used as a reliable source throughout this article, and it is not up to WP editors to change what it says.Moon Rising 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine keep the quote as she "she said" instead of "she claimed". But don't say that that was the real outcome of the case just because she said so. You said that "reworded sentence; removed "unknown outcome" reference as the outcome is stated in a more current reliable source" [1]. The article only mentions what the president said about the case, that's it. It doesn't say "according to the case files this happened..." - and it can't because the files are sealed away from public. Since no one has these files, the case outcome is unknown. Aeuio 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this opinion. I do not want to start an edit war here, but when the president of the organization is quoted in a newspaper about the conclusion, I think we need to take that at face value. Unless she's not too bright, it's hard to believe she would make a libelous statement. --Moon Rising 16:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, we very specifically cannot take her at face value because it's not verifiable. We can report what she is cited as saying, but not as though what she said was fact. If a reliable source quotes G. W. Bush as saying "The moon is made of sour cream", it means "G. W. Bush said, the moon is made of sour cream" not "The moon is made of sour cream". Coren 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, thank you for the clarification. I won't dispute reverting the comments about "unknown outcome" --Moon Rising 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Coren, while the thrust of the article is about the vineyard and winery, mention of something as scintillating as a sex lawsuit should be not be deemed as something being dealt with in an "off-handed manner". Why this was mentioned in the article beats me; I would not have brought it up, but it's there, in print, and the President's statements regarding the lawsuit is relevant to this article's neutrality.--Moon Rising 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My reading sees the reference to the lawsuit as an offer to explain poor sales (distributors being scared off), and still seem to be to be related to the winery primarily. Coren 16:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but that does not detract from the statement's value in this article. The CEO may be explaining sales, but the President's comments cannot be ignored just because she, or the comments, were not the subject of the article. --Moon Rising 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right that we don't need to ignore the comments because it was in an article on another topic, but as noted above, we must also be careful to not use them beyond their value (as discussed above). It doesn't mean they're unusable, but it means the article isn't a proper source for much beyond the focus of the article. It can source the quote, but the the conclusions that can be inferred from it. Coren 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to put in my own two cents worth, I have a linguistic objection to saying the case was settled with an unknown outcome. Can we say instead that the case was "settled on unknown terms" or "details of the eventual settlement have not been revealed"? Sorry if this seems overly picky but we do in fact know the outcome of the case. There is an assumption that settlement details would reveal who was "more right" and that is specifically what's unknown. WMConey 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct. I knew the wording "unknown outcome" bugged me, but I couldn't articulate it. I would suggest "The suit was settled out of court on undisclosed terms." Coren 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(As an aside, being able to read the settlement details would almost certainly not reveal who was in the "right" or "wrong". Settlement agreements are almost always written in such a way that either/both parties very specifically neither admit nor deny any of the original allegations.) Coren 20:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Glad I said "assumption" <grin>. WMConey 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed sub section title to undo Mario Fantoni's and Artnscience's edits. The Section heading is "Controversies" and I don't see why we need to emphasize the controversy with a sensational subsection headline. Sensationalizing seems to show bias. JMHO. I left the word lawsuits instead of reverting to court cases. I try to use a writing rule of thumb that says 'why use two words when one will do'.

I'm a bit late to this, but for me (I was the first one to include Ms. Tulisso's comments in the draft), the usefulness of those comments were in serving as a sourceable reference to FOF defense, as the prior court document citations could not be used. As long as it is kept NPOV with "she said" etc. and kept as concise as possible, it seems a valid addition. Nixwisser 01:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Disputes

Beliefs

My understanding is that at this time, many editors feel the entire section is valuable because the teachings of FoF differ from Fourth Way in significant ways. Some other editors (with the new addition of artnscience (Welcome!)) feel the section should be severely whittled down.

At this time, I agree with the latter position. A superficial survey of the Fourth Way article reveals much more in common between that article and the beliefs section than differences. Perhaps a refactoring is in order? Something along the lines of:

The teachings of the Fellowship of Friends are based on, and draw upon Fourth Way, but with some critical(?) differences:

followed by a few paragraphs summarizing said differences. A good rule of thumb is, if Fourth Way says it, don't repeat it here. Coren 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not so cut and dry. Fourth way presents some ideas which are expanded in the FoF far beyond their original role in G.'s teaching, and new interpretations are added to them (e.g. C Influence consisting of 44 conscious beings working with the FoF). On the other hand, there are 4th way ideas that are practically unheard of in the FoF (e.g. table of hydrogens). That is why it is difficult to separate it into 2 sections: purely 4th way and purely FoF. I'm more in favor of joining it into 1 section simply titled Beliefs and mentioning briefly those 4th way beliefs that are part of the core FoF teaching while including points where FoF beliefs differ from general 4th way. Just an idea. Wine-in-ark 22:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fees

The tithe is well sourced, and can (indeed should) go in.

The center contribution is argued between editors. Coren 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is valid to quote a neutral source here:
"Payment is a most important principle in the work, and it must be understood that it is absolutely necessary", and "Without payment you can get nothing; and you can get only as much as you pay for—no more." [Peter D. Ouspensky, A Further Record, Penguin, 1993 - Chapter 6, Aim, p. 108]
"Money payment depends partly on understanding, partly on possibilities. The other payment is the more important matter and it must be understood that it is absolutely necessary..." [Peter D. Ouspensky, A Further Record, Penguin, 1993 - Chapter 13, Payment, p. 255]
This shows that payment is a Fourth Way idea, not something just invented in the organization.
To clarify, this "other payment", he adds "Payment was when I remained in Russia after the revolution, when I knew it would be impossible to work and that sooner or later it would be necessary to leave. Instead of leaving Russia I stayed on for three years and did not know how I would get out. That was payment." [Peter D. Ouspensky, A Further Record, Penguin, 1993 - Chapter 13, Payment, p. 255].
This "other payment" is, to my understanding, probably related to what ex-members could not afford.
Regards, Baby Dove 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Artnscience contribution on fees, about birthday and special projects donations, it would be an issue to ask whether these donations are mandatory or not, because if they were not, we would be trying to judge an institution because it collect funds to be able to afford a project! For instance, in scramento bee, it can be seen how Yuba County approved the building of an amphitheater. This should have been a very costly project probably requiring extra funds. Can anybody get the complete quote from Mr. Patterson's book regarding this, including the source he uses? Regards, Baby Dove 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since in the section "The principle of payment", the 10% payment is referred to an appropiate link where the school itself recognizes the existence of this payment, I do not see the point in keeping this section at all, where an author comments other people personal opinions on the subject. Besides, about a week ago I have asked about Mr. Patterson's source on additional payments with no success at all. Regards, Baby Dove 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Glossary

Seems we reached consensus about cutting that. Yeay for discussion! :-) Coren 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting

Some editors have argued against quotes juxtaposed out of context from certain sources. Coren 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Age of references

Some of the (otherwise reliable) sources proposed are rather dated. Some editors favor disqualifying those sources, while some wish to draw on them.

At this time, I would recommend that sources not contradicted by more recent sources are usable. Coren 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely Agree. (if it is a big issue and is contradicted, then I guess the old source can be put in the history section showing what and how changed...or not - just a seuggestion) Aeuio 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Coren. Your suggestions above are very good, I agree with Aeuio on that. About this particular issue, I agree with you but with some reservations. Aeuio is right that many of these changes are highly relevant to the history of the group. For instance, as some others have stated, the aim of the Fellowship to build an ark, and the predictions of 1984, 1998, and 2006, were important aspects of the group for many, many years -- almost from the beginning. If it is no longer referenced in recent books, we should still leave this information in the article because of its relevance to the history of the group. Thanks again, Artnscience 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but then it's important to note, when using such a source, that the information is historical. "FoF claimed, at least until 19XX, that Y [cite]" may be appropriate, it that assertion itself is notable. When those claims are critical of the FoF, then they belong in the Criticism section, and probably not in the main article itself (unless it's critical at that point in the article-- good judgment here is important). Coren 04:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks again, Coren. Artnscience 06:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is a desire for something more recent, note that an article came out in the Sacramento Bee two or three days ago. It's primarily on the winery, but may nonetheless be useful as the FOF President was asked about some of the controversies. Link is: http://www.sacbee.com/161/story/164200.html. WMConey 15:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wm, thanks for providing this link. This is perfect source material for the History section and controversies section as well -- or at least I believe it is... asking Coren for his help on this question (see History section above). Artnscience 16:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Artnscience, in the criticism section 7.4, you quote a source as saying "in recent years". Since I don't have the book, would you check for a date for the reference itself. Since the book includes a much larger subject and does not even have a chapter dedicated to the FoF, the publication date is not a good indicator. The reader does not know when these circumstances actually occurred. Unless it's literally been in the last few years, the quote is misleading. Thank you, --Moon Rising 01:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a chapter devoted to the fellowship. not sure what you mean. You can view the book easily yourself online. enter the title in amazon and look for the online version. I provided a link in the archived Talk page. I'm not attached to whether it's me or you or anyone else placing the information in this article, but the information belongs. As for the dates of the actual occurrence, the book does NOT state the actual date, but states in recent years, or in some such thing. can't recall the exact words. The book was published in late 2003. I would suggest reading the chapter, and using it in any way that you believe will be helpful. For that matter, I would encourage anyone of the editors here to do the same. Artnscience 02:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The provided link takes to the Amazon page for the book. Unfortunately, at searching within the book, you can only read a couple of lines from each found page (9 of them) repeating information from other cult-busters quoted here or from the LA Times article. Then, a former member of the organization is quoted at p. 158 giving his subjective opinion on the "complete control" in the FOF. It is good example of the Fourth Way idea on the many 'I's, because I still have my copy of his first edition of Body Types (Globe Press Books, NY, 1986), where he dedicates his book to Robert Burton, his teacher.
If you think there is a well documented new material in this book you quote, could you be so kind of quoting it in a reasonable length? Thank you, Baby Dove 06:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See the related section below. Artnscience 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding purpose of the organization, beliefs, predictions and other subjects

Mario Fantoni: In a discussion that arose over the weekend, I remember you said that you were going to "ask the Fellowship's authorities" regarding these delicate subjects, originating many personal opinions in the page. Can you tell us whether you have any news regarding all these affairs? Regards, Baby Dove 21:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all, the email counts for nothing and can't be used for anything. Aeuio 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Adjusted order of sections to match those of other religious organizations

It struck me that in describing a religious organization, the beliefs of the organization are of more interest to the reader, in general, than the history. I checked 3 other pages - 2 mainstream religions (Christianity and Islam) and one less mainstream (Scientology) for comparison. In all 3 cases the order was Beliefs first, History later in the article. Hope this meets with general approval.--4.246.126.95 11:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems entirely reasonable. My instinct would have gone the other way, but it makes sense that way as well-- the fact that the convention is this way is extra points: consistency is desirable. Coren 12:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Excerpts from Book at Baby Dove's Request

All right, at least two people now have denied that there is any significant content related to the FOF in the following book. The text below is from from Chapter 11 of "Deadly Cults: The Crimes of True Believers" Artnscience 14:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

by Robert L. Snow Publisher: Praeger Publishers (November 30, 2003) ISBN-10: 0275980529 ISBN-13: 978-0275980528

"It's all very stimulating stuff in the beginning...," said a former member of the Fellowship of Friends in a 1996 Los Angeles Times article. "But there's no doubt it's a cult. Our lives were totally controlled."

Is this man talking about the cult formed around a wild-eyed guru who preaches that all members should embrace poverty and the simple life? Is he talking about the cult that rejects all worldly pleasures, and whose members spend their days praying, chanting, or meditating?

Hardly. According to reports in several California newspapers, the Fellowship of Friends is a pleasure- and consumer-oriented cult. Founded in 1971 [have heard 1970] by former schoolteacher Robert Burton, the Fellowship of Friends believes that true spiritual awakening can only come through experiencing the finest things life has to offer: fine food, fine wine, great art, great writers, great music. In his book Self Remembering, Burton stresses "the education and discipline of the emotions, the importance of living in the present, a love of beauty, and an understanding of its capacity to create higher awareness."

True to his beliefs, Burton, who lived out of his car before founding the Fellowship of Friends, has built a lavish mansion, which he named Apollo, in the style of a French chateau on a 1,300-acre estate in the northern California Sierra foothills. There, among terraced hills supporting a vineyard that produces award-winning wines, the members of the Fellowship of Friends can come and study under a man whom they believe to be both spiritually advanced and a prophet.

Burton, who claims he is guided by 44 angels, including Benjamin Franklin, Jesus, and Plato, is believed by members of the Fellowship of Friends to be near godlike and also privy to information from "higher sources [forces]." As a result of his claimed direct contact with these angels and higher sources, Burton predicted that an earthquake in 1998 would swallow up all of California, except for Apollo. He has also predicted that nuclear holocaust will destroy most of the world in 2006, but again spare Apollo, which will then become the center of the movement to reestablish civilization in the post-holocaust world.

While his prediction of a California-swallowing earthquake, of course, didn't come true, this didn't humble Burton. He carries on as though he'd never made a mistake. Like most cult leaders, Burton either ignores or attempts to rationalize his mistakes, while also attempting to control every aspect of his followers' lives. Within the Fellowship of Friends, this control includes regulating the members' sex lives and diets, ordering them to abstain from any form of negativity, and even directing them abstain from the use of certain common words, such as I or thing. Burton has also forbidden members to dye their hair, have mixed-breed pets, ride bicycles, or smoke. Smoking, incidentally, is so strenuously outlawed that Burton has instructed cult members to sniff when greeting each other to catch renegades. Burton fined one couple $1,500 each for violating the no-smoking rule. One former member of the Fellowship of Friends claimed that the cult leaders, besides barring him from having sex with his girlfriend, also ordered him to urinate only on one side of the toilet so as to make less noise. While most Fellowship of Friends members have jobs and homes, Burton discourages members from mingling or socializing with people outside the Fellowship, including family, whom Burton sees as "spiritually dead."

The leadership of the Fellowship of Friends doesn't see these constraints as brainwashing, however. "The Fellowship does not engage in brainwashing," said Girard Haven, a member of the group's board of directors. "We may have a charismatic leader and strong feelings about higher forces and our own spirituality, but we know what we are doing. We are not doing it blindly."

Unlike many cults, though, the Fellowship of Friends doesn't recruit from the masses, but instead recruits mainly from groups of well-educated and well-heeled individuals. New recruits are often located after Fellowship of Friends members go to bookstores and plant Fellowship of Friends' bookmarks in selected metaphysical books that reflect the beliefs of the cult. Prospective members who respond to the telephone number on the bookmark are invited to attend lavish dinners at expensive homes. Only after being appraised by Fellowship of Friends members can prospective recruits be invited to join the cult, whose membership includes many doctors, lawyers, artists, and musicians.

Recruiting well-heeled members certainly paid off. In the late 1990s, the Fellowship of Friends had 65 centers around the world (in late 2003, their Web site, which is translated into 10 languages, states that they now have only 30 centers) and employed approximately 500 people. The group's overall worth in the late 1990s was estimated at $26 million, while Burton's annual salary was at least $250,000. Many of the Fellowship of Friends employees work at the cult's winery, which is located on their property in northern California. According to recent news articles, the Fellowship of Friends produces 25,000 cases of wine a year, which is reported to be of high quality.

Along with the winery, the Fellowship of Friends has its own collections of fine art and rare literature, as well as its own opera company, orchestra, theater troupe, and museum. In addition, Burton had decorated the mansion at Apollo with expensive antiques and paintings. One of Burtons' favorites sayings is, "Beauty creates its likeness in those pursue it."

Because of all these expensive possessions, belonging to the Fellowship of Friends is naturally very costly. The cult requires to tithe 10 percent of their incomes, while wealthy members pay much more, in special assessments, to enable the Fellowship of Friends to purchase sculpture, paintings, rare books, antiques, and other items that will "lift the spirituality" of the cult members. The annual income of the Fellowship of Friends in the mid-1990s exceeded $5 million.

However, all is not rosy for the Fellowship of Friends. In recent years, large numbers of its members have been leaving, causing a serious cash flow problem. The trouble began for the Fellowship of Friends in 1995 when a cult member sent an open letter to the membership accusing Burton of sexually seducing him. He said Burton brainwashes members into a state of "absolute submission," allowing him to feed a "voracious appetite for sexual perversion." Following this disclosure, other male members came forward with similar accusations, including the cult's former financial officer, who said he felt pressured to join Burton's male harem.

"They don't see it coming, and when it comes, they don't know what's happened," said Charles Randall about Burton's aggressive homosexual advances toward Fellowship of friends members.

Another male member of the cult who also claimed Burton aggressively pressured him into having sex said, "I never had a homosexual encounter before this. But he [Burton] told me it was the wish of C-influence (the group's term for higher forces, or gods) that I have sex with him." At all-male dinners hosted by Burton, members say he has been known to boast that "one hundred boys would not be enough [for his sexual appetite]."

To these charges, Burton's attorney has responded, "We don't think a [sexual] relationship between a leader and a member of the congregation is abusive in and of itself." However, two lawsuits filed by former FOF members have been settled out of court.

Former FOF officials who have left the cult also aren't kind in their evaluation of Burton and his organization. "The Fellowship is a dictatorship, a predatory dictatorship," said Thomas Easley, an artist and former leader who left the cult after a homosexual relationship with Burton. "I should know. I was a leader."

Former Fellowship of Friends financial officer Charles Randall said, "I thought it was the one true way, but as it turns out, it was just a cult."

The point of the preceding anecdote is that a cult can be formed around almost any belief or philosophy. Also, this anecdote shows that, to succeed, a cult doesn't have to be aimed at the uneducated, the emotionally challenged, or the poor. As shown by both the Fellowship of Friends and the Solar Temple (discussed in the previous chapter), cults can also attract well-educated, wealthy, and seemingly mentally competent people. All that's needed is a charismatic leader who followers believe has some type of special insight, some type of special knowledge unknown to the rest of the world, or some type of special direct pipeline to God or ascended beings. To attract followers, the cult leader then offers to share this information or knowledge with cult members. This belief in the leader's gift quickly becomes a strong magnet that pulls people in because gaining this insight or knowledge from the cult leader, members believe, will make them part of an elite group who are a step above regular human beings.

[end excerpt]

Artnscience 14:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thak you, Artnscience. Now everybody could know what are these cult-related books like: they repeat whatever a former member says as the revealed truth, and so they diminish, not only the figure of the leader, but also the follower's. It is a good way to make easy money to take it from a desperate person and convince him that he se was not responsible for what he now considers his mistaken actions, but he was cheated instead. It is also hard to explain how this picture showing "large number of followers" leaving might relate to an original small group in California becoming a worldwide organization, with over 60 centers. Of course, no one makes a book based on what people remaining in the organization say. Especially if they do not complain about having their lives "regulated." Regards, Baby Dove 16:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC) PS: By the way, isn't an over 70 lines quote from a book violating any copyright isasue? Baby Dove 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No; that's unarguably fair use for academic or review purposes. Copying that whole text into the article might be dubious, but its use on the talk page to examine the value of the reference by the editors is A-Ok. Coren 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

About the source itself: That book is a good source, according to the guidelines. Again, however, we have to be careful to take quotes as quotes, not as statements of fact. For instance, that source cannot be used to source the statement that "The Fellowship does not engage in brainwashing", but it can be used to attribute that claim to Girard Haven. Coren 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the suggested book does exactly this, that you say is not a correct use of a source! It says, save it is mistakenly quoted, "who preaches that all members should embrace poverty and the simple life?"
It also says, "the Fellowship of Friends believes that true spiritual awakening can only come through experiencing the finest things life has to offer: fine food, fine wine, great art, great writers, great music." Some of the conscious beings quoted above, did not have this opportunity, but the leader uses them as examples of people who made it. Jesus and Peter, for instance, were only fishermen in a poor place, or others were slaves. Working with impressions does not mean it is the only means that can be used to awaken.
Regarding the "lavish mansion, which he named Apollo, in the style of a French chateau on a 1,300-acre estate in the northern California Sierra foothills", it is not hard to see that who says that has never been in a European castle.
The following is not even sourced, "Another male member of the cult who also claimed Burton aggressively pressured him into having sex said, 'I never had a homosexual encounter before this. But he [Burton] told me it was the wish of C-influence (the group's term for higher forces, or gods) that I have sex with him.'" However, I understand the reserve of the name of someone speaking of his own sexual life in such a pitiful terms. But "Another male member" is not an appropriate name for a source, since it cannot be contradicted.
Is there a valid source for all these "a member thing" or the book is repeating what others said in the author's ear? Regards, Baby Dove 03:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinions based on a sense of outraged injustice are simply irrelevant here. WP has its standards, newspapers and books have theirs. The latter two know that anything libelous or defamatory they publish may be held against them in a civil law suit and they comply with the needs of documentation/proof for their own economic survival, although hopefully also out of sense of fair play. In a WP article, I cannot write "Robert Burton is a God", but if someone else does in an accepted source, I can reference it. Nixwisser 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism by Former Members

Re-reading this part of the article, I found that the sources being quoted there are two: The "Freedom of Mind" website and the book "The Crimes of True Believers."
The website article only talks about statements of unidentified former members talking about their feelings of discomfort regarding some excercises. In a similar way, as I said above, the quoted book also uses the same method, at least in the 70 lines that Artnscience gently provided in the talk page, save in the case of well known old-cases already quoted in other sources.
In some cases, the reserves in providing the name of the source is understandable, such as in the case a former member talks about his homosexual first experience. However, even so, I feel it is not too healthy for any page to offend a person or institution based on sayings that cannot be verified.
Are still these two sources acceptable ones? My question comes because I find a certain unbalance between not paying attention to what the President of the FoF states regarding the court cases, "because the main article is not about the FOF", and not taking the same attitude with this and other books. The purpose of the said book is not specifically the FOF, but a collection of other institutions not well identified in their similarities.
The table of contents amazingly mixes up alchemy groups, hindu groups, suicide groups, fourth way groups, religious groups, colleges, buddhist groups, umbanda groups... trying to show how they would be connected, though probably the imagined connection is also based on the same methods I question.
It would be useful, at this point, a good explanation of the said unbalance between the reasons to accept or deny a given source.
Regards, Baby Dove 10:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting point, Baby Dove. Coren commented on a similar situation above, when he said that we could take a quote from what a person said in a newspaper article, but could not draw conclusions from it. Specifically, Coren said:

So, Coren, does the same rule apply to books that quote people and draws conclusions and quotes anonymous sources as it does in a newspaper article?--Moon Rising 23:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence began "Former members and others have criticized..." A few days ago, I added the word "objectors" after "other". This word was removed with a comment in the edit summary that extra verbiage was being removed. I just changed "others" to "detractors". The word "others" is vague. "Detractors" is more definitive. After all, who else would be criticizing something. I prefer "other objectors" but since that extra word is too much verbiage, perhaps this will be an agreeable compromise to the intent of the original edit.

Changed heading to lc after first word. See WP MOS "In a heading, capitalize only the first letter of the first word and the first letter of any proper nouns, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Example: “Rules and regulations”, not “Rules and Regulations”.--Moon Rising 06:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Several parts of what was being said, were not found in Robert L. Snow's book. By searching within the book in Amazon by "former", "several", "former members", "rules", or "exercises" it does not give any results regarding "several" members leaving and saying that numerous rules are used to exert control. Therefore, the section has been limited to what it is in the book. Regards, Baby Dove 07:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources - a new question

First, let me apologize in advance if I've put this in the wrong place, and please feel free to move it up to the earlier discussion on sources if it belongs there.

A new reference was added regarding amended articles of incorporation. While I don't doubt that the editor has this in her possession, and could even scan it and create a link for it, is it a reliable source? It seems similar to when another editor wanted to reference court documents, but could not, for what reason I'm forget.

I have not removed the link, awaiting further opinion on it. I took the liberty of moving mention of the information from the introduction to the history section. I did this for two reasons: 1) it seems more appropriate there and 2) the Intro has had so many people inserting phrases and sentences it is not very well written. I will try to fix that too. --Moon Rising 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Court cases were legally sealed away from public, and no one has them. While this on the other hand is not. Ask Veronica to tell you where you can get it. If it's possible to obtain it then it can be used as a source. Aeuio 00:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Case record # was on the article several days ago, but someone removed them. It should still be in the two files of the page, somewhere. As in out-of-court settlements often happens, they have a part which is not available for the general public. But the parts statements should be public and available at request in the corresponding Court House. However, given there was no sentence, nothing substantial would probably be added to what was said.
Regards, Baby Dove 08:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proof of Advertising

I am going to write down what I figured out some time ago but didn't want to point out because I didn't want Coren to see what exactly is happening here. But here goes:

The number one pusher for FOF advertising is user Mario Fantoni.
Mario Fantoni is the same user as Mfantoni. There is no need for a checkuser because he may have used a different computer back when he was on this account, while it's clear that they are one and the same because - beside the obvious same name - if you look at Mfantoni's contributions you will see that he has indeed edited the Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and the Fourth Way article, in particular he was adding the FoF official wesite. [2] [3][4]
If you look at his other contributions (eg [5]) you will see that he was promoting a certain company. After he was adressed about advertising this company he replied on his talk page: "It is not my intention to advertise my company at the Taguchi Method's and Genichi Taguchi's pages at Wikipedia." [6] Please note my. If we look at this company's webpage, well look at that. Mario Fantoni - The President. And what do they do: "A group of marketing experts and Taguchi PhD’s, lead by Mario Fantoni, have mastered the secrets of the Taguchi Method of multivariate testing applied to marketing and advertising." Since he is an expert advertiser, there is no doubt in mind that at least one editor here is either the same person as Mario, or a part of his group (Although, I'll keep my conclusions on this last point to myself)
To give you a brief history lesson: FOF hired Mario Fantoni to advertise the FOF, and Mario is now here doing his job. It was also noticed by Wine-Ark and Nixwisser that the FOF website is considerably changing to better suit this wiki page. Lastly, because it is hard to keep the criticism section down, Mario wishes to send an "email" to the FOF asking them about the negative comments about themselves... Aeuio 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So basically that's who's really arguing here. PS from now on when you are trying to delete negative criticism please refrain from using the excuse "In order to keep Wikipedia's integrity" and so on as this is clearly not your aim. Aeuio 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are concerns of sockpuppetry, please place a notice at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets, so admins can investigate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need, I just wanted to point out that the lead editor is an advanced advertiser who was hired by the fof. (Unless he can prove otherwise of course) Aeuio 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you placed this question in Mario Fantoni's and MFantoni's talk pages before accusing? Because maybe you are making wrong inferences again. As far as I remember, MFantoni has not contributed here... Regards, Baby Dove 05:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Have you checked Mario's talk page? If you did you'd see that I pointed him here before you placed this comment. 2. Why would Mfantoni contribute here? I wasn't implying that Mario is stupid. 3. And maybe you should wait for the response before you comment, because as usual you were wrong. (see below) Aeuio 02:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you Aeiou for bringing me back. I was forced to take a break from Wikipedia because of personal reasons but I got a call today at home saying "You have to see what they are saying about you in Wikipedia!" So, here I am again.

If I had been hired by the Fellowship of Friends to advertise the organization I would be fired by now after taking a 4 day break in the middle of a mediation! So my answer is "No, I had not been hired by the Fellowship of Friends - or anybody else, as a matter of fact - to advertise them on Wikipedia or any other medium." I am not being paid; I am only following my conscience and doing what I think is best for Wikipedia.

Regarding my previous ID (MFantoni), I used that one back in November last year to edit a page about a Japanese technique to test ads (the Taguchi Method). When I saw links to some companies that use the Taguchi Method on that page, I added a link to my company on it, but an administrator removed all the links and told all the editors that added them, including me, not to advertise on Wikipedia. I also added links to the FoF site on the 4th Way, Gurdjieff and Ouspensky pages under that ID (I saw several 4th Way groups listed there) but the links were removed on the same day by another editor for no reason so I stopped editing those pages. If I were a sockpuppeteer, the choice of ID’s (Mario Fantoni and MFantoni) would not be a very smart one!

Finally, thanks for the compliment but I don’t consider myself an “advanced advertiser”. I do own a company that uses the so-called Taguchi Method to test ads; since I don’t write the ads, I just test them, I have a very limited knowledge of marketing or advertising. I am a mechanical engineer, by the way, and everybody knows that engineers are terrible at advertising. Specially the mechanical ones.

OK, enough of this, let’s do some edits. Mario Fantoni 06:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Coren, I completely agree with Aeuio on his statements above regarding the proof of advertising. I would like to believe that all editors are contributing to a balanced reporting of what is occurring in the Fellowship, and that they are contributing to this effort in good faith, but every time I look at the page there's another legitimate detail removed from the Controversies section. These details are well sourced and relevant to the article... Why are they being removed? I have to step in and support Aeuio in his comments. Artnscience 23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Coren, what is your take on this? Mario Fantoni 23:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Artnscience - give the guy a break - he says he's not paid - assume good faith. He's an editor just like the rest of us, period, if you take him at his word, which we must. As far his previous advertising goes, I followed the links Aeiou gave and it looks like when he was asked to remove a link to a commercial site he did, even before his competitor. It seems innocent enough and probably would not be an issue with anyone not involved in this article. Let's focus on the article here, in good faith. --Moon Rising 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"We must take his word for it" - Why exactly is anyone obligated in this situation to take his word for it? That was the only reply that he could have given, otherwise he would have said "Yes I am hired". Aeuio 15:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is obligated to do anything. You are right, he could not have replied otherwise. However, for those who are reluctant to take someone's, anyone's, word for what they say here to be less than true, in my opinion, shows a transparent lack of good faith.--Moon Rising 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Artnscience - when you said above that "I would like to believe that all editors are contributing to a balanced reporting...but...it implies that, just because someone made and edit that you don't agree with, that they do not want a balanced article. Please assume good faith. I do my best to, although I admit it sometimes can be difficult.--Moon Rising 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I prefer the section headings the way they were before you or Mario changed them. I think they should be reverted, but I don't want to act too hastily, so I'll sleep on it before reverting. As far as what was removed from the controversies - I haven't followed the editing that closely, but it looks like a lot has been cut out of the article as a whole and is more readable and easy to follow. I don't know who did the edits of which sections, but the article is much shorter than it was a day or two ago. Bravo! If you feel critical material has been deleted, why don't you discuss here what you'd like to put back in, rather than ask why? Then we can discuss it in a nice civil manner.--4.246.81.190 01:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC) The above comments are mine, I forgot to sign in, sorry--Moon Rising 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm just supporting Aeuio's comments, and I think I'm being very civil in doing so. Additionally, although I don't know Aeuio, I can see that he also doesn't want a dispute here. Like me, he just wants a balanced article, that's all, so that the reader can make his/own decision about the Fellowship based on the content of this article. There are numerous changes in the Controversies section, and I don't have the time to detail every single one right now. But one example was the removal of the info about Franklin, Christ, and Plato. The section describes "higher forces" and we can't assume the reader knows what the term means. The material about Franklin, Christ, and Plato is well-referenced, and it gives the reader a better idea who and what higher forces are and how they connect to the predictions. This is an important part of that paragraph. Anyway, I really don't want things to escalate. We're all trying to create the article that we feel is appropriate. But please have more restraint in deleting some of this material. I've certainly shown restraint with much of what I've seen in the other sections. Have a good night everyone. Artnscience 02:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm just reminding Artnscience that, assuming good faith, all editors don't want a dispute here, and like you, "just wants (sic) a blanced article, that's all, so that the reader can make his/own decision about the Fellowship based on the content of the article." Just because the edits made do not support your view of a neutral statement, can you allow for the possibility that another editor truly believes that the edit they are making supports the goal of a balanced, neutral article, in their opinion. These differences of opinion is what is making this such a long, time consuming process. I would imaging that ALL editors would like to reach a consensus and get on with their lives. The reason that I'm here is to work towards the same goal as you, and, I try to have an open mind and assume it is the same for all editors. So, in the future, when you are talking about "not wanting a dispute" and "just wanting a balance article" please be so kind as not to single out certain editors that you think have this goal. Try to think in terms of "we're all in this together." Maybe we'll reach consensus faster if we stop pointing fingers - which is what your comment implies. Thank you for your consideration.--Moon Rising 21:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou made a serious accusation against me and posted a message on my user page asking me to explain the situation. I already stated that I have NOT been hired by the Fellowship of Friends to advertise them. Looks like Artnscience decided to abandon the assume good faith directive from the mediator (and Wikipedia, by the way). Should I assume that Artnscience has been hired by somebody to attack the Fellowship of Friends? I don't see how the mediation can work with this type of attitude. Mario Fantoni 04:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit it works both ways, but as long as I'm here pitching in, I'll continue to criticize anyone's deletions when I feel they are unjustified. This is partly what the talk page is about. Let's see what Coren says. He's had some very good suggestions. You know why I'm here -- to make sure it's a balanced presentation. Leaving the Controversies section intact is important to maintaining that balance. One thing I think both of us agree on... We don't want an editing war. We both want the site to "one day" be stable and stand the test of time, without dozens of deletions and additions each week for weeks or months on end. As it is, I've made several concessions since I've been here, and so have some of the other editors, and that's partly in the interest of maintaining some harmony here. Artnscience 05:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mario if you can prove who Artnscience is, and prove what her occupation is (that is that it can involve countering FOF advertisement), then it works both ways. Otherwise it can't. Aeuio 15:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading this, these are true: Although unfavorable to Baby Dove, Mario is indeed who I proved that he is. In other words (his web site's words) he is "the creator of the Taguchi-based methodology for advertising and marketing optimization." To this you replied that "That is me", "I have not been hired" and "I am only following my conscience and doing what I think is best for Wikipedia." Quite frankly, what ever is true in your situation concerning your connection with the FOF, that is the only reply that you could have possibly given. You have been accused by Wine-in-Ark, Veronicapoe, Artnscience, me and possibly others, of advertising or pushing for FOF-propaganda, and now I prove who you are and that these claims are completely valid and possible ... so I don't see one good reason to believe you and I won't. Then in order to appeal to Coren or someone watching this page you say "lets assume good faith." and "lets just edit the article" (this in all possibility will be your reply to me). If you want to move on that's fine with me, just don't try to do something controversial concerning your identity, such as that email where I have stated what I believe is happening. Aeuio 15:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio:

Take a look at the first version of the page, before judging that whether others are "advertising" or just trying to take some ex-students personal opinions away from the article.

From March 19 through March 25, nothing has being said in favor of this supposed "propaganda", and the main editors have been Wine-in-Ark and the cult-buster Rick Ross, who brought his own material from the 90's to the new article created in 2007. By March 25 (or earlier), the Animan Recro link has been used to quote whatever an unidentified person wants to say regarding his complaints on the FoF.

It was in this site where the "Esoteric Sheik of Inner Confusion" invited other unidentified people in the blog to "correct false information concerning the FoF." I can get the quotation if needed, but the blog is so long and full of neverending repetition of the same (subjective personal opinions of a few former members), that I do not know how many blogs have been produced by now. I guess they are seven, but may be more.

After you have taken a look on these subjects, you might be entitled to accuse others for trying to promote the Fellowship of Friends. Regards, Baby Dove 16:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already seen all this long time ago. I don't know why you constantly think that I am missing something and confused. (I just have more efficient means of knowing these things) And for the record, I am not skimming others comments, it's that I can read really fast Aeuio 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If somebody has a proof that I have been hired by the Fellowship of Friends to advertise them on Wikipedia, please show it on this page. The fact that I own a company that tests ads doesn’t prove that I have been hired by the FoF to advertise them. If there is no proof, let's stop the false accusations and end the issue. I am not going to comment on this subject anymore. Mario Fantoni 20:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio, please, please chill out. This is not helping anyone. I have huge issues with many of Mario's edits and the rationale's behind them, but the simple truth is you haven't a shred of evidence to support your charge. Mario clearly has the aim of presenting as positive a picture of the FOF as is possible. That is his right, as it is yours to present material which you find needful. We really have enough to work with here in reaching for something like a balanced article without hurling unproven and inflammatory charges against each other. And note I say that having had a few tossed at me. We need to get past this kind of petty infighting. Please. Thank you. Nixwisser 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

AMEN! You got this point across beautifully. Now let's all get some agreement on the article itself.--Moon Rising 01:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well pardon me for refusing to believe that someone's conscience directs him to hire a lawyer in order to get some files so that wikipedia stays neutral. Anyways I have not continued this after Mario's last response so I have no clue as why you are editing this section, and asking me to move on after I did. Aeuio 02:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles

This may end badly, but these articles cost money to be viewed, while we are pointing to a free version. Is this even legal? Mind to explain WMConey how you got the free version, or is this a link to the version that you purchased? Aeuio 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aeuio. I actually didn't know of the paid versus free versions. I went to the main Sac Bee page, then Lifestyles, then Food. There it was , second article down. I posted that link. I've gotten back to the article a few times that way, though I haven't checked it recently. Maybe it reverts to paid after a week or so? NYTimes does that after 30 days, I think. Hope this answers your question.WMConey 20:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That link is in the official site of the Sacramento Bee and made available to the public. I see no problem with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's made available only if you pay for it: "Purchase and Download Complete Article ($2.95)" (see first link), so I assume that we are linking to the version that WMConey purchased. But if you say that that's fine then there's no problem. Thanks for clearing this up Aeuio 01:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: As you made me have a doubt, I searched Sacramento Bee in Google and found the main page at: http://www.sacbee.com/. Today it says: "Fallen tree branch kills Carmichael man in Miller Park." On red, there are severalk buttoms. When you put your mouse on them, they show the contents. In the Lifestyle bottom, it gives the "Food&Wine/Taste" option. Cicking on that, now you see several articles. Now the link says http://www.sacbee.com/161/index.html. The first one says: "Salad Days"; the second one is "Dunne on Wine: Renaissance perseveres in the Yuba foothills." This is the article and the address says http://www.sacbee.com/161/story/164200.html.
To those living in the Sacramento Area is not that weird to have access to this. Of course, you have to know where is the article, but any reader of the Sac Bee, even in paper edition would find it... and it is free
You can try now, because next week it will probably be more difficult to find without a link.
Would you verify your doubts next time? Regards, Baby Dove 05:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Many many sources require payment. We always use them when they're the best source. Most libraries have access to a database of newspaper articles--university libraries to very comprehensive ones. It is of course even better to find an equally good free source. And in any case try to list some free sources if possible.

Another good thing to do with unfree sources is to insert in the articles a short quotation--and if necessary for backup a longer one on the talk page. A paragraph or two is always fair use. . I can generally help for most US newspapers, and so can others. DGG 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives