Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Contents

Effects on the community

I deleted this entire section. Someone posted a nice little public relations article promoting the Fellowship of Friends' supposed role as a contributor to the economic health of Yuba County. While this may or may not the case, such a PR piece does not belong in a factual article about the group. Blatant marketing is out of place in a factual article, which is already bloated and biased as it is.

I would also like to comment on Baby Dove's consistent and obvious bias in favor of the Fellowship of Friends. It seems to me that she vigorously opposes the inclusion of any information remotely controversial or critical of the organization. It is hard to see how a neutral article can emerge when people are continually pushing their own personal agendas.Babycondor 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Babycondor, while the points you make above are valid, there is another way to look at the section you deleted. The FOF is located in a small town and in a county that is one of the poorest in California. If the FOF's retreat attracted well heeled members to live in the area, and that improved the economy, then that is noteworthy. As far as being an advertisement for the FOF's subsidiary -- if it were intended as advertising, why would the section mention other wineries in the area, as well as other businesses? I am not familiar with all of the companies named in this section, and it is not possible to tell if some are directly connected in any way to the FOF or its members. Some probably are, some others may be the result of non-members being drawn to this growing economy. There is an annual food, wine and crafts fair in the area. This information is from the fair's website, not the websites of the businesses. So, please reconsider your deletion. The economy is certainly something important enough to mention. If you feel it's an advertisement for the FOF's winery, then take just the winery out if that will make you happy, but please, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.--Moon Rising 02:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Moon Rising, can you cite a reliable source that documents the impact of the FOF on the local economy? If not, such a statement is speculative personal research. In any case, this article is not about the local Yuba County economy. Why there should be any mention, let alone outright promotion, of local wine and food events is beyond me. It's a transparent attempt to draw favorable attention to the commercial enterprises of the FOF. This is called MARKETING.Babycondor 03:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Babycondor, I agree with Moon Rising that you are being too precipitated. You are welcome to think that a section has to be deleted because it is commercial or marketing-oriented, but deleting the whole thing and dropping a note on this page to the rest of the editors saying "I deleted this entire section" is a little too abrupt. It reminds me of the violent times of the past, before Coren, Vassyana and the Draft Rewrite page. Anyway, when I saw that user 71.142.35.214 deleted the section, I didn't know that it was you since you didn't sign in to Wikipedia before the delete, so I reverted the deletion and edited the section for it not to be so commercial. This is the text I came up with:

Since the Fellowship of Friends was established in Oregon House (California) in 1971, several local businesses had been open. This includes a vineyard and winery, directly opened by the organization when they started with their vineyard, and two olive oil manufacturing companies. Several of the products of these companies have received awards in different competitions.

Note that I removed the names of the businesses and the links to their web sites, since that can be considered advertising. Anyway, after my clean up you deleted the whole section again, this time without any edit summary. I understand your concern about promoting businesses on Wikipedia, but it is always useful to listen and discuss other editor's POV before deleting their work. Finally, your comment about Baby Dove having a "consistent and obvious bias in favor of the Fellowship of Friends" is not helpful either. There are several editors here that have a consistent and obvious bias against the Fellowship of Friends and nobody is blaming them for that. Let's respect other people's opinions - this page needs all our different POVs in order to be balanced. Mario Fantoni 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Vassyana, your help would be very appreciated here. Thank you. Mario Fantoni 06:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) We should simply report the facts related by secondary reliable sources. Does the town or county make any commentary about it? Was it the subject of local or regional media coverage? Was it the subject of, or significantly mentioned in, national or other broad market media? Can a book reference be cited regarding it? If the answer is simply no, then we cannot verify the claim and it should not be included. If reliable secondary sources can be found, the section should be written in a neutral tone reporting the facts those sources present. Vassyana 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

After Vassyana's comment, I suggest recreate the section with the text above (no names of businesses or links to their web sites). I also suggest to place "citation needed" tags for the sources to be produced. Comments, anybody? Mario Fantoni 07:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I found Mario's edit of this section made it concise, factual, relevant and in keeping with WP guidelines. What more do we want? The impact of the FOF on the community is a very important facet of its reality. There are at least 4 newspaper and magazine articles that source the Wine products comments. I do not know of any concerning the olive oils, but they probably exist also. Most company's websites have a "press" section, so the Apollo Oil, BuffaloBufalis sites may also have press clippings there. Referencing the press material directly, rather than the company websites, is preferable in order to avoid overt commercial plugs in the article. Apart from the overt plugs in the original text, the only thing that bothered me a bit were references to businesses that have no connection to the FOF or FOF students (e.g. Lucero). Nixwisser 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Designation as a Fourth Way school and Predictions, and Responses

Re: the "Controversies" section, on the issue of whether the FOF is a Fourth Way school, and the intended meaning of Burton's failed predictions. Both sections and the argumentative responses to them should be removed. This article is not an appropriate forum for debating these issues. Babycondor 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that they be deleted, as they do deserve a response. The problem is that the response is not really responding but making some weird and non-related arguments. (Such as the predictions, where the response is not addressing the sources in the criticism, and it ends with a false original opinion.)Aeuio 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This time I agree with Babycondor that the 2 sections should be removed. They are long, pointless, tedious, and confusing. They look more like an exchange between Aeiou and Baby Dove than sections of the article. May I remind Aeiou and Baby Dove that the place for exchanges is this Talk page, not the article? Anyhow, if I were a visitor to the page those 2 sections would give me a mild headache. Vassyana, what is your opinion? Mario Fantoni 05:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Babycondor said to remove only the responses, and it seems that you have twisted it to suggesting to delete everything? I have written it as it's written in the book and therefore it's not my opinion, while if the response might seem like that then fix it. Aeuio 12:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Aeiou, Babycondor said "Both sections and the argumentative responses to them should be removed." That means everything to me. Mario Fantoni 23:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. In that case, that is Babycondors opinion as the arguments are sourced and therefore not a "forum", and they are related to the fof, so I don't see why they don't belong in the article. Aeuio 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire section should be mercilessly edited to produce a neutral tone and clear concise language. Then, the individual sections and claims should be merged into other appropriate places in the article. Separate criticisms sections are questionable, but criticisms that can be reliably referenced are appropriate for inclusion. I suggest that the section is cleaned up and then folded into the article, effectively deleting the section. Just my own opinion. You're welcome to take or leave it. Vassyana 06:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it. Mario Fantoni 06:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't. The designation as a Fourth Way school is very concise. And that part is criticizing the FoF so I don't see how it can be incorporated into the article. The predictions are also concise and sourced. The only things that have a problem are the essay responses, so I don't see a reason to get rid of the criticism just because of them. If something is directly criticizing the FoF then it should be in the criticism section. Aeuio 12:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The section is not neutral nor concise. Significant parts of it rely on a single-sided point of view. It is also very quote heavy, instead of reporting what the sources say in neutral language. Vassyana 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Patterson claims "quote from his book" - you don't consider this "reporting what the sources say in neutral language"? Then please tell how it should be worded. Aeuio 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Beyond those concerns regarding neutrality, the very existence of a separate criticism/controversy section draws undue attention to that aspect of the topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you would be opposed to a separate "Accolades and achievements" or "Why Fellowship of Friends is a valid Fourth Way school". Just same, the opposing view should not be highlighted on its own. I am not saying to remove the criticisms. Vassyana 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing against those sections, as I have many other things that I could add concerning their designation as a Fourth Way school. And why can't it be highlighted? This is the biggest controversy concerning the FoF and it needs to be adressed. The FoF has no connection to other Gurdjieff schools (who consider it a fake), which in other words means that the FOF believes that they are a real school while every other is a fake. And the FoF has been specifically criticized on this, so it should stay together. Aeuio 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I also have nothing against including praise of the Fellowship in the article. Fact is, FoF has been widely criticized in the media but never praised as far as I know. Its "affiliate" Renaissance Vineyard and Winery has been praised in the media for making excellent wines, but FoF itself and its main "business" of being a spiritual school has only drawn critique. The only praise for FoF comes from the organization itself and from Robert Burton. Wine-in-ark 22:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I clearly stated that the section should be mercilessly edited for cleanup and then merged not deleted into the appropriate areas of the main article. Vassyana 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how adding "Burton never had a real teacher and is a fake" into the beginning is possible. It's criticism, (unless everyone here considers it a fact) so it should be in the criticism section - because sooner or later it's going to be deleted piece by piece if it's separated. Aeuio 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, it was not clear to me whether your comments were directly strictly at the "Transmission" sections or at the entire "controversies" section. It appeared to be the latter. If the former, then add a few more grains of salt in taking what follows -

As to a ""Accolades and achievements" or "Why Fellowship of Friends is a valid Fourth Way school" section, it already exists. Nearly everything in the "Beliefs and Practices" section is just that - propaganda from the organization about itself. That does not invalidate it, nor make it inadmissible. The organization's own webpages are certainly a valid reference for describing what it claims to be but for an editor here to claim that it is neutral and the criticism section is biased is absurd. We have worked for a long time to achieve sort of balance between the adulatory first part of the article and the claims of those less enamoured of the FOF. I see no way to magically "fold in" the material critical of the FOF with that which is adulatory.

I am not fond of the Designation as a Fourth Way School, Response to designation as a Fourth Way School sections. The claims made for Mr. Burton's "lineage" on the FOF's webpages are clearly false, but that is not worth an entire page of back of forth, nor is the statement-response format appropriate to WP. The article can do without both of these sections. Some of the language in the Predictions by Robert Burton section could be made more neutral, but otherwise it is concise, factual and well sourced. "Response to critical view of predictions", however, is an editorial which has no place in WP. The relevance of the quotes is entirely predicated upon a singular interpretation held by no-one other than the editor to my knowledge, that hydrogen warfare is meant symbolically. Again, get a clue from WP:RS. If there is an acceptable published work also positing such an interpretation, it might work here, but as is, it does not.

The dearth of acceptable material makes for a poorer article than others that have many dozens, even hundreds of books, articles and television programs to draw on, but that cannot be used as a justification for eliminating the valid material that is available. I welcomed the article quoting Ms. Tulisso, for example, precisely because it allowed us to give another side to the lawsuit and stay within WP guidelines. A "controversies" section is commonplace in WP articles and is indispensable here. Nixwisser 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nixwisser, I don't understand your statement "Nearly everything in the "Beliefs and Practices" section is just that - propaganda from the organization about itself." Can you give examples? Thanks, Mario Fantoni 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, trying to merge the controversies with the article is a waste of time and can't be done. That would make it look like there are no controversies (while the controversies would be mentioned as accepted facts), and this merger is not done anywhere else on wikipedia for a good reason. Aeuio 23:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Aeiou, I added a comment at 23:27 after one from Nixwisser at 21:24. You added a comment at 23:29 between between Nixwisser's and mine. Please don't do this or the logic sequence will be lost. I moved my comment back to where it was, right after Nix's one. Mario Fantoni 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mario, in response to your query above- I do my best to adhere to WP:AGF, but you stretch my credulity. You are being disingenuous at the least. The vast majority of the material in the Beliefs and Practices section comes directly from FOF's own webpages which obviously paint as adulatory a picture of the organization as can be invented. It is, by definition, an advertisement for itself and as such, cannot pretend neutrality. As I said, that does not necessarily mean it is inappropriate material in this context and in this section, but to pretend it is other than organizational propaganda insults the intelligence of everyone here. Nixwisser 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuits

This topic talks about the fact that Burton and the FoF were accused over charges of non-consensual sex, sex with a minor, and brainwashing. This sounds pretty controversial to me, so this topic should remain. Mario Fantoni

Designation as a Fourth Way School

This topic says that William Patterson wrote that Burton never had a genuine Fourth Way teacher, advertises the FoF (a no-no) and is more connected to Ouspensky, not to Gurdjieff. It ends with a short text saying that James Moore wrote that Burton belongs to a group of "pretenders to Gurdjieff's mantle". Since the official letter from the FoF stated that the organization is a Fourth Way group different from the form of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, I don't see where is the controversy in the fact that Burton is not connected to Gurdjieff or the Fourth Way according to Gurdjieff-Ouspensky. It should be removed. Mario Fantoni

Since wikipedia doesn't allow emails to be used as references you could stop mentioning it. In their official website, beliefs, and everywhere is claimed that they are a true Fourth Way school, which is disputed and therefore there is a section on it. Their website states specifically that they are a Fourth Way school, with a connection to Gurdjieff through Alex Horn, which is false and its criticized by others who follow the Fourth Way. Aeuio 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Wine ark also mentioned to you above that you can't use the email. Aeuio 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is quite wrongheaded. The term "Fourth Way" comes only from the Gurdjieff lineage. Burton et al. present not a shred of evidence that they have any source for the concept other than Gurdjieff. Their use of the term "Fourth Way" implies a connection to Gurdjieff whether they insert some clause about "different form" or not. The Fellowship of Friends run the "Gurdjieff-Ouspensky Centres". Further, their website falsely claims lineage to the Gurdjieff work through John Pentland. They recruit members through advertising their kinship to Gurdjieff. But they have no connection to Gurdjieff. This is one of the major controversies and the section on it should stand. Without false claims about a connection to the lineage of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, they would likely have precious few members. Ericbarnhill 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome Eric. The claim that that Mr. Burton has a direct lineage to Mr. Ouspensky and Mr. Gurdijeff is clearly false, but for me the issue is the extreme length this section uses in pointing that out and the inappropriate "response" format which it has invited. In WP we need to try at least to be a little bloodless, and think more in terms of what is appropriate to WP and less in terms of what we think is just. This section could be reduced to a minimum of the assertion,-
Mr. Burton's claim to direct lineage with Mr. Ouspensky (fof web cite) is disputed, as is the general claim that the Fellowship operates in the tradition of the Fourth Way (WPP, Moore cites) -
That is really all that is needed. Most of the remainder of the paragraph was over the top and pushing an agenda. The above sentence would be stylistically bizarre right in the opening paragraph where the FOF is described as being in the Fourth Way tradition, but it fits well at the end of the Esoteric Schools section. Nixwisser 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nixwisser's suggestion. Mario Fantoni 23:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
So, now there is one sentence in a huge muddled paragraph about the connection? And right away there is a response to that? you call that a solution? Aeuio 02:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added the two main paragraphs into the criticism, as a way of shortening the section to the length of others. Aeuio 02:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The section is the same as other in length, while the criticism about a "Fourth Way school" not being a "Fourth Way school" is notable enough to have its own section in the criticism. Aeuio 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Aeuio. It was buried before. A short mention should be under "controversies". This works for me. Ericbarnhill 02:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this section vanished in the night again at the hand of Mario Fantoni (according to the history), without a single mention in this part of the talk page. I'm glad it is back. If there is somewhere else I should be looking at, that impacts whether this section stays or goes, please post it here a.s.a.p. so I know. Also, who added that ungrammatical bullet point of "rebuttal"? It's not the first, they've been cropping up lately, someone is evidently attempting to graft their own shoddy work without consulting anyone. They might not know better. In any case, the fact that Gurdjieff said that the Fourth Way is bigger than just himself does not mean the mantle is open to all who claim it, and Gurdjieff anticipated this dilution by warning a great deal about fake Fourth Way schools. This is covered well last I checked on the Fourth Way page. Maybe a link to that page here is a good idea? Just a thought.Ericbarnhill 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see a comment here about the deletion so I posted the section back. The "response" was added by Baby Dove, and like the other "responses" I don't know how they are responding. Concerning the Fourth Way, the line "according to an email the fof is a different school..." is being used as an excuse here to dismiss the questioning of the fof as a fourth way school (even tough their webpage is quite clear on this). Aeuio 21:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Predictions by Robert Burton

Where is the controversy about Burton making predictions? Astrologers make them, industry pundits make them. I don't understand what is so controversial about Burton telling people that an economical depression will happen when economists do it all the time, that California will be destroyed by an earthquake when scientists have calculated that a large California quake is quite possible within 30 years, and that there will be a nuclear war in the future when there are 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, with a combined power to destroy all life on Earth more than 50 times. This topic is not controversial and should be removed. Mario Fantoni

Mario, YOU CANNOT use Linda Tulisso's private email to you as a basis of proof of what the Fellowship beliefs are. This is original research and we only have your word that this is the official FoF position. Even though R. Burton seems to not make it explicit in his book (although I will go and look for more quotes), it is very likely that his predictions were meant to be taken literally, or his second in command, Girard Haven, would not have described them so explicitly and clearly in his book, and his book would not have been designated as "for use by Fellowship students". But I agree, out here in the real world the predictions sound pretty silly, especially after failing to materialize. Wine-in-ark 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Burton is not a scientist or a economist, he is a spiritual leader. When a spiritual leader predicts destruction, which fail to come true, it's ALAWAYS mentioned on their profile. You deleting it would make it seem as if Burton never predicted anything. And there is a difference between a scientist saying "nuclear weapons may cause world destruction" and Burton saying "Eveyone will die in a nuclear war but us." The predictions were criticized at a couple of places and are currently perfectly sourced therefore they are included. Wikipedia is not the place where you hide the stuff you don't like. Aeuio 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Now I read Aeuio's version of Robert Burton's predictions it sounds very funny to me: "Everybody will die but us" is highly probable to be said by someone living in Oregon House CA or Loma Rica CA..! They should not be a target for anybody but Fourth Way dectractors. Besides, the idea of the "civil war" mentioned by Burton sounds very interesting. Maybe Christ himself was talking like this at saying: "I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days."[Matthew 26:61] Did he ever do it? Finally, it was magnified by his detractors in the last hour, when they were thinking that they have destroyed the "fake teacher" completely...
Some say, since a nuclear war did not happen in 2006, "the prophet is a fake one." Are they prophesying that it will never happen? What about the next five or ten years? Finally, 2006 saw how two newcomers joined the nuk-club, Korea and Iran, who were in nobody's plans.
California did not fall, true. But St. Andrew's fault is still there and some day this "big one" (not a Burton's term) seems as something very likely to happen. Again, for Oregon House to be severely affected by such an earthquake, one has to believe in an almost unconceivable phenomenon where most of CA lands are sunk in the ocean.Mario Fantoni
A spiritual leader may have many reasons to say what he says. It is up to the followers to try to understand him, and their understanding may vary. Finally, understanding is quite a personal thing. Regards, Baby Dove 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
From the criticism "Burton predicted that an earthquake in 1998 would swallow up most of California, and that most of the world would be destroyed by a nuclear holocaust in 2006, but that in both cases the organization's headquarters would be spared" Therefore not my version, it's Burton's version. Aeuio 19:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see what is so controversial about a spiritual leader making some predictions that didn't happen. On the other hand, I think that that should be mentioned in the article somewhere. That's why I support Vassyana's suggestion of placing the text in the article. Mario Fantoni 06:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
They are not "some" predictions, they are pretty big. And its controversial because couple of sources have criticized it. Aeuio 13:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you rather move them under the "Beliefs" section? "Robert Burton believes to have received communication from angels that on specific dates in the future, there would be a worldwide depression, a catastrophic earthquake in which California would fall into the ocean, and a nuclear holocaust in which only members of the FoF would be spared." How is that different from scientific prediction? Scientists generally don't set specific dates for such events to occur, and don't claim they have received this knowledge from disembodied beings. They base their predictions on observable data and have some level of consensus in the scientific community at large, whereas Burton and his followers were the only people on Earth making those particular claims. Wine-in-ark 03:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Burton's predictions are not part of the FoF's beliefs. I am not talking about the official letter from the FoF that declared that "Robert Burton's predictions were always considered theoretical and did not form a basis of the teaching", I am referring to the fact that the official web site of the FoF doesn't mention them at all. Because of that, they can't go under Beliefs - I suggest to include them under a new section: "Predictions". Mario Fantoni 04:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fees

This topic mentions that William Patterson wrote that the FoF has been described by some as a "pleasure-and consumer-oriented cult". Patterson also wrote that members pay 10 percent of their gross incomes each month, that several members pay more, and that members make extra donations for the Burton's birthday and special projects. It concludes saying that Patterson and Robert Snow wrote that the FoF's overall worth in the late 1990s was estimated at $26 million, and that Burton's annual salary was at least $250,000. Where is the controversy here? May be it is the part about "pleasure-and consumer-oriented cult". Is it controversial to seek pleasure and consumerism? Most people would say it isn't. This topic should be removed. Mario Fantoni

Then it should be mentioned somewhere else their huge income. Aeuio 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This should be a private information, because it is hard to know by sure. Does Mr. Patterson have an access to IRS database? If so, is he entitled to give this information? Or, has he taken as true someone else's statement based on stolen information or simply someone's imagination? Just wondering. Baby Dove 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

From the full LA article: "Burton commands an annual salary estimated by the group's former chief financial officer at $250,000 or more." Aeuio 02:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason this is controversial is because FoF is a non-profit tax-exempt charitable religious organization, while notably large amounts of money - roughly 10 times average salary for this county - accrue to a single individual, the leader of the organization. It is controversial because of California law. Also, Wikipedia editors are not here to judge whether Mr. Patterson should have written something, but to report the fact that he did write something. Wine-in-ark 03:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
con•tro•ver•sy (n.)
1. A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views.
2. The act or practice of engaging in such disputes.
A controversy means that there is a group of people that believes something and another group that holds an opposite view, not that the FoF is a non-profit tax-exempt charitable religious organization and an anonymous former officer of the FoF told a newspaper that Burton makes $250,000 per year and that an anti-FoF writer used that information in one of his books to attack the organization. Where are the 2 groups here? Where is the public nature of the dispute? Mario Fantoni 05:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The section is called *criticism*Aeuio 14:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Now it is. Mario Fantoni 16:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism by former members

This topic starts saying that former members and detractors have criticized Burton for alleged sexual abuse, excessive control, and brainwashing. No need to go on - it is controversial already. This topic should remain. Mario Fantoni

In summary, my proposed Controversies section has the only 2 controversial topics: "Lawsuits" & "Criticism by former members". Mario Fantoni 05:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou, I am asking you again to stop inserting your comments in the middle of other people's comments. Please reply below their comments. Thank you. Mario Fantoni 04:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not a blog. I have edited only under each of your points. I am not going to go back and forth to figure out what you mean. And in this case you have only answered to one of the predictions (and if it's not sorted properly it seems that you answered for both). Aeuio 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see that "Designation as a Fourth Way School" and "Predictions" are controversial topics for Aeiou only. Since no other editor thinks they are controversial, I removed them. Mario Fantoni 07:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The sources cited believe that they are controversial so they are restored. Others believe so too, and you can't make the decision as to what's a controversy and what's not. If a reliable sources criticized it, then its a controversy - regardless if you like it or not. Aeuio 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sections "Designation as a Fourth Way School", "Predictions by Robert Burton" and "Fees" for now until the editors agree on their form. As they are now, with the many citations and the responses, they are very confusing to visitors. We may have to go back to the Draft Rewrite page. What do you think? Mario Fantoni 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please don't revert my edit - let's agree first and then copy the text to the article. Thank you. Mario Fantoni 21:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mario, you did not make an "edit", you made a deletion, a very major one, repeatedly and without substantial accord from other editors. When you act this precipitously, you invite revision. You have a history of making such sweeping changes without accord and then requesting everyone else be calm and discuss and not change anything back until we reach accord. The predictions section is short, highly relevant of the history and tone of the FOF, and well sourced. I need not honor the "re-interpretation" of hydrogen warfare with rebuttal - the more cogent point is that is it an essay, a highly personal opinion without valid sources and has no place here. I would welcome anything such as Mr. Tulisso's comment within this section if you can source it validly, until then, the section should return to its prior status. Nixwisser 22:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
We may need a Draft Rewrite page again in order to experiment. Any addition to the Controversies section is going to be "controversial" (of course) and Aeiou and Baby Dove didn't ask the rest of the editors before adding new topics and writing long paragraphs. We should also ask Vassyana for his opinion. Mario Fantoni 23:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I just asked Vassyana for his opinion. Let's hold our horses a bit to see what he says. Mario Fantoni 00:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad Nixwisser does not honor what he called the "re- interpretation" of the hydrogen warfare. I believe it is a more consistent one than believing that someone can predict when a war will start or when an earthquake will occur. A spiritual leader is supposed to talk to higher parts in a man, not about things anybody can read in the media. But the main point for me, is that the other interpretation (the one changing the words "hydrogen warfare" to "nuclear holocaust") is a personal opinion as well, though reflected by a sensationalist writer who seems that he has never met Mr. Burton. Go to someone with the inner battle version and he will look at you as a madman; go to him with a "failed prediction" and he will congratulate you for giving him a way to get an extra money in the market...
Regards, Baby Dove 00:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a new draft/rewrite page - I'd prefer not to, but it seems we've reached an impasse, so I guess I'm for it. My two cents - I don't see that quoting the web site is advertising. It's just that sources are limited, as previously noted. I think the criticisms sections are wordy and there is a bit of essay going on. I also agree with Vassyana to remove the Criticism title, but not the text (pared down). I hope we can leave out the long discussion on Designation as a Fourth Way School - Nix condensed it all into a few powerful words. So powerful, I'd like to move it to the criticism section, if there is one <grin> Hey guys - let's get this nice and clean and move on. --Moon Rising 00:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you delete what you don't like and then propose a draft page? It doesn't work like that. I have reinserted the predictions as they were a part of the draft. Aeuio 02:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that you didn't ask anybody before adding "Designation as a Fourth Way School" to the Controversies section. You know that the Controversies section is a polemic one (the title says it all) so you should ask other editors before adding a topic. I noticed you just added the "Designation as a 4W school" topic together with the "Predictions" one. The "Predictions" was part of the last version of the Draft Rewrite page so it is fine to add it, but the "Designation as a 4W school" and the "Response to Predictions" were not part of the latest Draft Rewrite page (check it here). This means that the "Predictions" can stay but the "Designation" and "Response to the Predictions" have to wait for consensus. I removed them. Mario Fantoni 04:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You have to wait for consensus before deleting them. Aeuio 13:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that keeping the sections short and to the point as me and Baby Dove have done for once, is a very good idea and possibly a solution. Aeuio 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the format of criticism and responses please see how it's done elsewhere where criticism is a major aspect, which format is also supported here. We should follow their example as it is concise and most readable. Aeuio 03:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
So you want us to use the pages "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" and "9/11 conspiracy theories" as models for the Controversies section of the FoF page? Are you serious? Mario Fantoni 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
As models for the format. Those pages have the most criticism and responses, and can't you seriously see that? Aeuio 13:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

(Outdent) Two topics marked as controversial, one of which is a failed good article candidate, are not good examples for comparison. If appropriate good articles or featured articles can be found, that would provide a good basis for comparison. I believe I have made my own opinion clear that the entire section should be cleaned up and then removed with the content merged into the article. However, if consensus indicates retention and use of ideal models, then appropriate models recognized as well-written and neutral should be used. I would also recommend that any rewrite closely follow the style manual and neutral point of view. I would also recommend being strict with references and verification. Obscure references that are difficult to verify should be excluded. Primary sources should be avoided in favour of secondary sources, per policy. Just my two cents. Vassyana 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but I have to respectfully disagree. When the designation as a fourth way school was "reduced and inserted into the article" it was a clear example of what would happen with the info. I have to agree with Nix when he said that this insertion would is an impossible magical fold in. Neverteless, I believe that the sections are greatly improving. Aeuio 02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe we have to try to follow Vassyana's suggestions before we "respectfully disagre". I agree with Vassyana that the Controversies section should be cleaned up and then it should be removed with the content merged into the article. Mario Fantoni 05:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Vassyana, unless you would like to see Wikipedia articles on controversial topics reduced to not much more than propaganda outlets, your proposal is ill-advised. There are numerous Wikipedia articles with seperate sections for dissenting and contrary views about the topic at hand. The FoF has from its inception been a tremendously controversial organization. There is abundant evidence of behavior there that is completely at odds with their professed public image, and this fact itself needs to be recognized separately to do the subject justice. Relevant behaviors include questionable (some might say bizarre) predictions, lawsuits by sodmized former members, legal injunctions against their bookmarks which they continue to violate to this day -- I can right now go down to East West books on 14th street, pluck out some of their illegal bookmarks, and mail them to you -- and false claims and implications about lineage, method and legitimacy. To do justice to this topic a controversies section needs to be maintained and the facts listed in those sections need to be protected from being constantly erased. To "mix" it into the exposition is to terminally dilute an important point central to any objective entry about the organization. I think the controversies section has been boiled down quite well, is well-sourced, and gets right to the point. I think you would do better to focus your attention on the essay-ish exposition than the controversies section and I have no idea why you would push to gut it. Thanks for listening. Ericbarnhill 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Eric - first, I'd like to compliment you on your writing style; it is quite articulate, and to the point. I wish we could all learn this from you :). If I understand you and Vassyana correctly, he wants to remove the section heading "Controversies" but not the material in it, while you want to leave the heading. His reason, I believe, is that the title draws unnecessary attention to the information in the subsections, which could be perceived as npov. You, on the other hand, feel the abhorrent nature of the FOF's "sins" need to be highlighted, or rather, not diluted. Do I have this correct so far? The force of your arguments to maintain the heading reveals a distinct bias, which is of course your right. Using that bias to create bias in the readers, however is not. I therefore support Vassyana's suggestion to merge - not delete - the information. I also support his many suggestions on ways to wikify the information. --Moon Rising 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: 1.Keeping the criticism in the criticism section is biased, while letting on that there are next to no controversies around the fof is neutral? 2. You are ok with adding the info "as is" (and not one sentence which would be thrown into a pile) into the article as facts Aeuio 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1) not suggesting that "there are next to no controversies..." - just agreeing with the mediator, Vassyana, about deleting the heading. 2) Vassyana suggested cleaning up this section and making sure it is appropriately sourced. At the moment, I am not commenting about the content as it is written, just that, whatever ends up being the final content should be merged. Since this is such a hot topic, I just want to be clear that "cleaning up" content and "deleting" content do not mean the same thing. --Moon Rising 22:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Postings like the one above from Ericbarnhill show why we need a mediator. Mario Fantoni 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed--Moon Rising 22:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
So we need a mediator to monitor people telling the truth about things? The fact that Baby Dove has not tried to explain (Not even "you are wrong")in "Sockpuppet or Advertising" (above) shows a lot more. Aeuio 22:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, BD did say: "Aeuio: I am not Mario Fantoni and I do not work for him." That's pretty clear. The subject seemed to be closed when you said "but it seems that I am right so I don't really need an explanation anymore." Well, I don't know if you are right or wrong, but you have still not let go of this issue, even after both editors deny your allegations, and your request to WP to see if they are sockpuppets has not turned up any wrongdoing. Please let it go -- let's work on the article and not on the editors! Thanks.--Moon Rising 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Report: Wrong doing:no, my accusation about socks:yes. And you are accusing Eric of something? Aeuio 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Accusing is a strong word; it implies some sort of condemnation, and would not be respectful of another editor. I don't think I have accused anyone of anything here, or at least I try not to. Offering observations of differences of opinion does not constitute an accusation, in my opinion. Again, Aeuio, please focus on improving the article and not on the editors. We have better things to do with our time, don't you think?--Moon Rising 22:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If those were the real intentions here than this socks thing would have never happened. In fact, mario ridiculing Eric wouldn't have happened either, now would it. Aeuio 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post now. I disagree with Moon Rising's interpretation of my post. My position has no relation to my feelings on the "abhorrence" of anything done by FoF. I have never had any involvement with FoF of any kind and only know what I read both in the news and related discussion fora, and don't really have a personal reaction to it. The issue is that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a recruitment brochure for the FoF. FoF makes claims about what it does. There is an exposition in the article devoted to this. However there is abundant evidence on the public record that their actions are in contradiction to what they claim they do. This suggests a section devoted to information contrary to that produced by FoF is warranted for an objective evaluation, and it is worth labeling as such. I think the "controversies" section captures the relevant issues well and economically, and have no idea how gutting it will improve it; most likely it will bury it. In short, I see the issue not as objectivity versus my bias. I see the issue as something approaching propaganda versus an objective accounting of what the FoF *is*. And nota bene, attempts to turn the discussion towards me will be ignored, I have neither time nor interest and will only discuss the entry. Ericbarnhill 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
First Ericbarnhill tries to convince the mediator that the FoF is an evil organization. When questioned, he admits that he has never had any involvement with the FoF of any kind and that he only knows what he read in the news. This explains everything. Mario Fantoni 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
So this is another one of those little comments which somehow cancel the argument? I am sorry that you feel that newspapers can't be used as sources, and that everyone here must be in the fof in order to edit. Please show some wiki rule about that. Otherwise this is a poor attempt to discredit a comment Aeuio 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that newspapers can't be used as sources - of course they can. I don't think that one has to be a member of the FoF to be an editor of this page either. What I am saying is that to have a very negative attitude towards the FoF based only on information from newspapers seems a very subjective position to me. We all know which kind of news newspapers like to publish. Mario Fantoni 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Somehow the argumentation regarding this section continues to get more Byzantine with each iteration. I mentioned "related discussion fora" and not just newspapers -- through my time in the Work I have heard plenty about the FoF, and by "related" I meant related to the Fourth Way not just related to the news. But in deciding what is appropriate for Wikipedia I most definitely stick to the public record. The fact that I am making my arguments strictly from the public record is what I think makes my position less biased and more objective than yours or Moon Rising's. "Don't believe everything you read" strikes me as just about the worst argument possible for deciding what stays and goes in an encyclopedia. Unless you have a more objective argument to make, I recommend you let the section stand and stop deleting it without comment in the middle of the night. There is an exposition and a section devoted to contrarian views. It works. It covers the ground nicely. It should not be gutted. I hold to my opinion. Ericbarnhill 19:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Eric, thank you for the explanation - I apologize for my initial impression that you were a biased editor influenced by the news media. On another note, congratulations for the impeccable command of the English language; may I suggest that you apply your skills to the improvement of the article? It needs it badly . Mario Fantoni 04:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I will again repeat that there should not be a seperate criticism section. It is against the Manual of Style. Additionally, the founder of the project has spoken against such sections:

And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.

– Jimbo Wales

The best idea would be to follow the guideline that specifically addresses how the article should be written. Vassyana 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And I will repeat that many here believe that that can't be done. This time you suggested a separation: So what deserves to be in the criticism and what should be merged with the article? Why doesn't someone please go to the draft page and show us how they imagine doing this. (remember: merge not delete) Aeuio 00:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have not suggested a seperation. I have consistantly suggested that the criticism be cleaned up and merged into the article, removing the separate criticism section. I have seen no convincing arguement that it cannot be done. Rather, I have seen the argument that it would essentially dilute criticism. My response is that it is not the place of Wikipedia to highlight criticism and that our policies and guidelines instead prohibit such highlighting. The dilution only occurs in relation to an unbalanced spotlight on those issues. There is no reason criticisms and controversies cannot remain in articles as part of the data presented. So, no information would be lost, only the POV focus on loosely collected negative facts. Vassyana 00:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What you are saying sounds nice in theory, but here is the reality. The entire designation as a Fourth Way school was reduced to one sentence which was buried and followed by the same response it has now. The next step would be the deletion of that as it is confusing/out of place, and I am sure you wont be here to say anything when that happens. Your "no info would be deleted" is a magic line which is only supported in order to get rid of the criticism. Aeuio 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If the only problem lies in the major section titles "Criticism" and "Controversies", I would be happy to drop those titles and simply leave the sections as they stand. They have appropriate titles (lawsuits etc. ) already. I doubt it is that simple, however. Vassyana keeps asking for the material to be merged. Again, this is quite impossible: "The fellowship believes in supporting the spiritual growth of its students and it's leader has been repeatedly accused of non-consensual sex with them" Is that the kind of merging you had in mind? I am not trying to be polemic, but the sections describing FOF beliefs and practices cannot possibly subsume a section like "Lawsuits". There is some material, such as the belief in 44 discarnate beings which, though in no way critical of the FOF, seems to be controversial among some of the editors. I believe that HAS been merged. I am certainly in favour of generally improving the literary style of the article, and it seems that nearly every editor has made efforts in this direction in recent days. Great! There has been a lot of improvement in the last week, so I really do not understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth on this talk page. Nixwisser 03:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, I agree with Nixwisser and Aeuio that current evidence weighs against the merger. Your objection that the Manual of Style recommends against this is significant. But Aeuio is right that there is already evidence that a merger would go badly, and Nixwisser is right that no one has come with an even hypothetical way that it would work. At the very least someone should get a draft version up that we all can sign off on before any moves are made on the main page. If such a thing is already underway perhaps someone could indulge me and link to it. Until an acceptable draft that refutes the current evidence against the merger is produced, ideals about how articles should go are nice, but a merger is practically speaking still the wrong decision given the facts on the ground. Ericbarnhill 03:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Very good point Nix. Simply moving those sections out of the "Criticism" is the best solution I heard. Aeuio 03:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit that it is not clear to me how we can merge the critical sections into the article, but Vassyana seems very firm in his position - he is referring to Wikipedia’s MOS and is even quoting Jimbo, Wikipedia's founder. Since Vassyana happens to be the mediator, I believe we should try his suggestion in order to support the mediation process. One way to end the current impasse would be to experiment on the New Draft Rewrite page and see what happens. We can always discard his proposal if we don't like the final result. Mario Fantoni 03:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should be tested in a sandbox first. It is my experience that there will inevitably be some disagreements over how to integrate the material. It is best to work those out in a sandbox and find some agreebale consensus. I do not believe because it can be done poorly that there is any indication in cannot be done well. Why not give it a shot and see what you can work out? Vassyana 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Until/(if) that draft is done, I am going to remove the "criticism" and "controversies" headings, so that way it is not against the wiki manual. Aeuio 15:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unified the Criticism section trying to follow the simplification spirit shown by the mediator. I personally think that the space for criticism cannot have such a level of detail, unless the only purspose of the article itself is to discredit the organization. Regards, Baby Dove 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You have combined "Predictions by Robert Burton", "Designation as a Fourth Way school", "Criticism by former members"... all different topics... under the title "Opinions"??? Please show where the mediator has suggested this (or even where this was suggested at all). I have reverted your edits as "this huge edit" wasn't even discussed and you have ignored this entire section. Aeuio 00:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Baby Dove, you act to ensure that we will never get this material integrated when you instigate sudden, inflammatory major edits. I don't see how you could possibly think this was in accordance with any kind of consensus. Please keep it to the draft page, as the mediator has suggested, until we have hammered out an appropriate group solution and it has been affirmed as such, or you'll just get a revert war going. Ericbarnhill 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Baby Dove, I see you have thrown up your radical changes a second time without any notification in the talk pages. Are you losing it? So far I have tried to keep my involvement to the talk page and trusted in the Wikipedia process. But this is unacceptable. I've got company, but at the end of the evening I am going to go revert your edit if I can figure out how to cleanly. Do us a favor and replace the previous section until we have had a chance to talk about this. I spend enough time here already. Ericbarnhill 00:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: Mario created a draft/rewrite page; Vassyana suggested we use a sandbox to deal with these highly controversial issues. Right now, the draft page is a day or two old and bears little resemblance to the current article. Without passing judgement on BD's changes, I think they would be considered less inflammatory if they were made in a draft or sandbox. Since we seem to have entered a new round of heated edited, can we agree to do it stop using the article and move to the draft rewrite? Just a thought. --Moon Rising 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Connection

Just curious, am I right to assume that that there is a connection between the line "Fourth Way schools always have an aim and a task" and Burton once saying "FOF's aim is to create an ark..." Aeuio 23:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess so... Mario Fantoni 05:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Movement

A new section was added on the subject of movement. Aeuio deleted the first paragraph stating in the edit summary "Gurdjieff taught movements which aren't followed by the FOF, so this should be edited to better suit the section)". While there is no indication that the FOF teaches G.'s dances, it does not follow that they ignore being present to movement, which is what this section is about. I would request Aeuio reconsider the need to remove the comment from Gurdjieff. Does anyone else find that mentioning something G. said about movement not to be suitable? Thank you. (Moon Rising)

Moon Rising, you posted the comment above on the main article. I moved it to the Talk page. Mario Fantoni 09:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes it's just so obvious when we are not present to our actions. Thank you for correcting my edit made in sleep.--Moon Rising 09:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The section says "Gurdjieff taught movement as a means of awakening", the fof website says

"Do you do Gurdjieff movements?

No."

Can you not see the connection? I replaced Gurdjieff there because of the said connection, and because the section is about the FoF teaching. Aeuio 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, Aeuio, I see where you are coming from.
It seems you are equating the word “movement” (singular) with “movements” (plural). You further equate the word “movement” to be the same as “Gurdjieff Movements”. It is true that the FOF website states that they don’t practice Gurdjieff Movements.
To help clarify the original entry, I have added quotation marks to the first sentence, which is taken verbatim from the most recent Newsletter published by the FOF. Furthermore, within that sentence is a quote from Ouspensky taken from “In Search of the Miraculous.” I have added those quote marks too and added a page reference for the quote (p. 112). For your information, Ouspensky begins the discussion on p. 104 of the book and says “The next lecture began precisely with the words ‘Know thyself”. What follows is a discussion of the centers taken from Gurjieff. If you go to the page references in Ouspensky’s book, you will see that this chapter deals with self observation in relation to the four lower centers – instinctive, moving, emotional and intellectual. There is no mention of using dances, or “Gurdjieff Movements” in this chapter.
Since it is inappropriate to change the wording from a quotation, even if you don’t agree with it, I hope you will stop reverting this section. I also hope that my explanation of the difference between the word movement and Gurdjieff Movements helps you understand what this section is intended to convey. Finally, there is nothing wrong with the FOF referring to Gurdjieff. Somewhere I read that they consider themselves a Fourth Way school in the Gurdjieff tradition, or something like that. If you would like me to search their website for the exact terminology I can, but I don't think it's necessary as both the article and talk page mention this. I know "your" article on the Fourth Way deletes references that do not agree with your strict, biased view of this ancient teaching. Can you try to confine this type of editing to that article? Thank you.--Moon Rising 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, Moon Rising, if you wish to keep adding information because you personally wish to prove to the reader that they aren't aware of themselves - and furthermore not even mention what that part has to do with the FoF - then go right ahead (you done it in the past and you are doing it again.) Aeuio 02:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is incredible that one cannot read a whole paragraph without being asked to include a quotation! The movement section was reproducing the last issue of the FOF Newsletter. There was a full stop, but the article quotation continued, but a part was deleted on the idea that nobody can work with the moving center except the Gurdjieff "official" school.
I do not care whether a given quotation is repeated, because at this time I have got accustomed to this, but I guess the reader will suffer with too many quotations... it seems to heavy to be read sometimes.
The organization says they started as a Gurdjieff-Ouspensky school, and now they are not even allowed to mention them? I guess all these reversions are really unnecessary movement. Regards, Baby Dove 05:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

For me the whole section on "Movement" is unnecessary. We can't just paste whole paragraphs from the FoF newsletter and expect that the text will be "encyclopedic". This whole section should be removed (and we will be avoiding a lot of unnecessary discussions on this page also). Mario Fantoni 07:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your usual blunt perception, Mario <grin>. I respectfully disagree. Now that the paragraph is moved to the section on functions, it expands this thought. Eventually, I'd like to see this expanded for all 4 centers. I think the text shows the reader, in a powerful way, the difference between presence and the absence of presence. I also disagree with it not being encyclopedic. But, since you've removed other things you don't like, if you feel strongly, go for it. But please wait a few days and think about it. Thank you. --Moon Rising 13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for being blunt, Moon Rising, but before you joined this page an editor added very long sections taken verbatim from FoF newsletters that looked more like FoF propaganda than Wikipedia information. Several other editors advised him to make those sections shorter and more neutral but nothing happened. Later Wine-in-ark placed essay tags on those sections but the long partisan sections stayed on the page untouched for another 10 days or so until Wine-in-Ark and I got tired and spent a long time shortening some of those sections and removing most of them. But that was at the early stages of the article - we don't have time for that anymore. Mario Fantoni 04:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Mario - I really like the text I added. However, since we are all trying to be good Wikipedians, and part of that involves cleaning up a simplifying the article, I went ahead and deleted it. It's a small step to reaching consensus. --Moon Rising 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)