Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Archive 6

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.

Contents 1 New Draft Rewrite page suggested 2 We need no talk/write page! 3 Archive 3 created 4 Response to Predictions 5 Members 6 Sockpuppeting or advertising2 7 Criticism and Response 8 Beliefs and Practices 9 REF vs. Hyperlink 10 Opinions 11 Ericbarnhill unexplained reversions 12 Example merge 13 Criticism/Praise section 14 Talk Page Headings & Archive 15 About History 16 Exercises section 17 Other Beliefs section 18 Beliefs Cleanup 19 History edits 20 Promotion 21 Draft Rewrite: Are we ready? 22 History section cleanup 23 New archive page (5) 24 2nd Lawsuit 25 This isn't working out 26 Centers 27 What's up with this Article 28 About photographs and article improvement 29 Aeiou, please do not bite the newcomers

New Draft Rewrite page suggested

I suggest for us to work on a New Draft Rewrite page until we reach consensus on the Controversies, a very polemic section. Just in case, I created a New Draft Rewrite Page here and copied the text of the current page to it. We have nothing to lose slowing down the current editing momentum. Mario Fantoni 04:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree since there is only two main controversies not worth an entire draft page, but in any case I don't see a reason for deleting the entire "Designation as a Fourth Way school" before we move to the draft page. You don't have the consensus nor the reasons (above). (the fact that it wasn't in the old draft makes no difference...there were many other sections which weren't in the draft) Aeuio 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

All of us wore diapers at some point. We outgrew them. The draft page was helpful for a time, but would not be at this point. It might be nice if this could be resolved without contention, but it won't be and hiding behind a draft page won't change that reality. Nixwisser 00:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nix that we are not infant editors anymore, but I don't believe we are mature editors yet. It is a sign of maturity to try to follow the mediator's suggestions, and that is not happening at the moment. Mario Fantoni 21:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We need no talk/write page!

What we need is a bit of order in the Talk page, because several items are repeated, making it difficult to find other editor's comments. For instance, Criticism by former members is item 9 & 32.5; Controversies is item 14 & 32; Designation as a Fourth Way school is item 21, 30 & 32.2; Predictios is item 30 & 32.3; Response to predictionjs is item 30 & 31, vand it was also within item 32, but Mario Fantoni has deleted it.
Regarding a new talk/write page, is not clever for me, because we cannot create one any time a controversy arises. We have to learn to understand that when an editor makes an observation about a contribution, if we do not answer we only fuel his position. The question regarding Controversies has been posed among five of them. It has been there with no answer and someone deleted what he though it as an agreement. Then, another one came to revert the deletion after giving no opinion on the subject when a question was posed.
As a balance was broken, I put the Response to that again, and someone has taken it away "because it was not in the previous draft page." But reversions are reversions, in the main page or in the draft page. Both things staying is right, unless we want a biased version of a controversy with no controversies allowed. Regards, Baby Dove 05:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove, I totally agree with you that it is not practical to create a new Draft Rewrite page every time a controversy arises, but you have to agree with me that the Controversies section is the most controversial one. On the other hand, I noticed that editors seem to be more flexible when they are working with the draft page because it is not public. Using Mr. Gurdjieff's terminology, they are less "identified". Mario Fantoni 05:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody has agreed yet, I will not use it unless there is this agreement. But I also want to add that a draft page 'can' 'be seen by the public, in case they are determined to become an editor. It is not that difficult... Regards, Baby Dove 05:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What I meant when I said that the draft page is not public is that visitors to the FoF article don't see it. Mario Fantoni 05:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive 3 created

Due to the monumental length of this Talk page, I archived older discussions in the Archive 3 page. Mario Fantoni 05:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Predictions

Predictions section states that Burton predicted

• that an earthquake in 1998 would swallow up most of California
• 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
• that world-wide depression would occur in February 1984
• and a thermonuclear war (Armageddon) in September 2006

The response doesn't address any of these claims at all. It basically states that in Burton's book the predictions were symbolical. The predictions in Burtons book aren't criticized, so the response isn't responding to the criticism. The response has to adress the accusations sourced in the section, not say "some other claims were symbolical". Aeuio 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't know if Burton was talking literally or symbolically when he made his predictions - we can only speculate. Also, the letter from Ms. Tulisso (FoF's president), stated that "Robert Burton's predictions were always considered theoretical and did not form a basis of the teaching." That is why I agree with Babycondor that the Predictions section has to go. It is very good material for a discussion forum, not for a Wikipedia page. Mario Fantoni 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you give up on the "let's delete the entire criticism section". We are not speculating, we are stating what the LA article, the critique books, and the book by the former member say. They are criticizing or affirming Burton's predictions, and that's what the article has stated. This was discussed, and it hasn't been proved that those statements are false or made up. If you think that something is someone's personal opinion then state what it is, and don't use the poor response as a reason for deleting the criticism. Aeuio 03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

I have asked something, and as usual have not received a reply, but rather something else. Could someone please explain why the "The response doesn't address any of these claims at all. It basically states that in Burton's book the predictions were symbolical. The predictions in Burtons book aren't criticized, so the response isn't responding to the criticism. The response has to adress the accusations sourced in the section, not say "some other claims were symbolical"." (keep it to the point) Aeuio 03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So, after Aeuio's new revert, the section on Response to predictions had to be added again. I guess this is going backwards again... Regards, Baby Dove 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How about you answer my question concerning the responses? Aeuio 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

From Burton’s book “Self-remembering.”

The following is posted as a review of the content of the book and comes under fair use provisions.

A cataclysmic disaster may be imminent that could be a prelude to hydrogen warfare. If California fell, there would be no major population center near Renaissance and so the coast would be clear. (53)

Almost all of Christ’s disciples died an unnatural death. We must talk of these things to prepare us for what is to come. Enduring suffering, one takes up one’s own cross. We are chosen to play these roles. (87)

They [C Influence] have given us some prophecies that are facts for them but, until they turn into facts for us, they must be called prophecies. (142)

Influence C ushers us to Heaven’s gate. (151)

We have been chosen by Influence C to awaken, while almost all others have an indifferent fate. That is, they are left alone to a great extent by higher forces. Influence C wants something for us: an astral body. And they want something from us: an ark to survive hydrogen warfare. (155)

Hydrogen warfare seems inevitable, and one no longer has to be a prophet to predict it. Incredible events may happen in our lives, and I will be very surprised if anything but us survives. (156)

We are truly involved in tremendous events, such as hydrogen warfare, and yet these events favor us because they have evoked a school on earth from higher forces. (161)

I still have considerable difficulty transforming negative emotions, primarily due to the violence of the suffering I must absorb to lift a school and humanity out of the chaos of impending hydrogen warfare. (176)

Our school will produce seven conscious beings. Apollo will not reach its peak for centuries or millennia. Our school is one of the greatest schools in recorded history, and that is why suffering is so abundant. (185)

Posted by The King of Clubs [] 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so not only is the response not responding to the predictions, but the response is also misleading. Aeuio 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the response until someone explains 1. why the response doesn't address the sources from the criticism, and it basically states that in Burton's book the predictions were symbolical. The predictions in Burtons book aren't criticized, so the response isn't responding to the criticism. The response has to adress the accusations sourced in the section, not say "some other claims were symbolical", and 2. how is Incredible events may happen in our lives, and I will be very surprised if anything but us survives. and A cataclysmic disaster may be imminent that could be a prelude to hydrogen warfare. If California fell, there would be no major population center near Renaissance and so the coast would be clear and We are truly involved in tremendous events, such as hydrogen warfare, and yet these events favor us because they have evoked a school on earth from higher forces. symbolical? Aeuio 18:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, read Mr. Havens creating a soul, not only the index... Regards, Baby Dove 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Members

The article says "As of 2007, the organization has approximately 2,000 members". The source given doesn't even mention the number. here it just says "With over 2000 members worldwide". I don't see a 2007 anywhere. On top of that here it says "Although it is unknown how many members are left today, at one time, the group claimed it had a 2,000-member association and 60 centers around the world." And per policy, primary sources should be avoided in favour of secondary sources. But anyways, I just put a claim in there to make it npov. Aeuio 14:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Aeuio. Mario Fantoni 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I originally put 2007 in there because the information on this website was accessed in 2007 and I assumed it was current. Wine-in-ark 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Wine-in-ark. Let's revert to "the organization has". Mario Fantoni 06:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting or advertising2

Concerning Baby Dove being a sockpuppet of Mario Fantoni (and Mfantoni), (above "Sockpuppeting or advertising"). Baby Dove has not even tried to explain the situation. And here is from the admins:

“

Clearly the same person, but I don't see a violation of the sockpuppet policy here. If you can show that these accounts jointly violated 3RR, or something similar (including disrupting the mediation on the Fellowship of Friends page, then that would be a blockable offense; but there's nothing to do based on the evidence presented here. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

”

and

“

Again, clearly the same person, but having multiple accounts is permited, as long as they are not used for abusive purposes.

”

Clearly all that's needed to be said, and I just wanted a conformation. Aeuio 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: Instead of getting annoyed and saying I did not try to explain the situation, it will be good of your part to read the answers I alrady gave. On 5/15 @16:22 I said:

I am not Mario Fantoni and I do not work for him. Regarding the IP address, I can presumably have edited from three of them: one at home and two at work. The one I was unsigned was corrected when I saw the edition unsigned. I was supposed to be logged in, but for some reason the connection was lost and the IP address appeared when I signed, so I corrected this when I realized. Curiously, today I turned on my computer, went to WP page and I was already logged in after the whole night! Regards, Baby Dove 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You insisted accusing me of putting the same link as Mario Fantoni, so, on 5/15 @21:00 I wrote:

Aeuio: If you, please, explain better what was the link I supposedly added and when, I can give an answer, but I do not know what are you talking about. Regards, Baby Dove 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you went on with your speculations so I went to the contributions of Mr/Mrs 65.198.192.50 I have found that some pages seem to have been contributed from that IP address. The oldest two contributions are the Tagucci ones, which because of you, I have learnt that they are related to Mario Fantoni; then, the Garden Angelica one (?), and then, several for the FOF article. I recognized the last ones, from 5/15 @00:10 through 00.42. That was when I though i was logged-in.

I use a computer in an office which has a broad band service. They rent offices to many people and I know my IP address varies according to the unit I use, because they seem to have two different providers. This two addresses, plus this one, which is a Dial-up one, should appear if you investigate enough. Also, I did not say anything regarding having simultaneous edits with Mr. Fantoni, because he already did it.

That is all by now. Be well, Baby Dove 01:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are again giving "long-indirect answers" to which I am supposed to reply by keep clarifying what I asked, so that when this becomes long enough, someone can jump in and say "this doesn't help the article, so lets move on please". Please spare me of that as I am not interested. I asked "why did you make a simultaneous edit as Mario half a year ago", and you saying "I am not Mario, and I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in" somehow answers that (or now "Someone else in my company went to wikipedia once and made the one edit which coincidentaly is word for word as Mario's"...yea and I won the lottery). The connection between you and Mario is as clear as day, and it was stated by the administrator. Everybody here knows the full situation and can make up their own mind about this. Aeuio 01:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

STOP! THIS DOES NOT HELP THE ARTICLE. BD and MF have said they are not the same, you/admins say they are, I say who cares - move on, PLEASE. 4.245.120.214 02:01, 21 May 2007 UTC

WOW! I did not see this coming :)! I mean word for word as I predicted it...?? And fine let's move on as this obviously will be prolonged into eternity. Aeuio 02:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is pathetic. Mario Fantoni 02:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Another comment which somehow explains everything. Aeuio 02:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And once again, Aeuio has the last word ;)--Moon Rising 05:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: If the "word by word" refers to the comment of Mr./Mrs. 65.198.192.50 on 5/15 @00:42, I already said it was me. I will re-sign the ones I recognized as mine from 5/15 but tomorrow, because today it is more than 1:30 for me. And please, if you are trying to make me express a negative emotion, keep trying, you are in the right way for that. If you have problems reading long explanations in English it is not my fault. And, since no administrator has confirmed in my page what you say, I won't talk about this again. Salut, Baby Dove 08:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you trying to say that I am making this up, here are the links [1] [2]. Regards Aeuio 13:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

At Aeuio's insistence, here is a copy of a letter I sent to the Administrator involved in Aeuio's sockpuppeteering research:

"Dear Akhilleous,

You say that Baby Dove is the same person as Mario Fantoni. But you are wrong. One of the three IP addresses I have used, seems to be the same as his, However, I am using three different computers in different places. The one I use at home is a dial-up. The ones at the rented offices, are broadband ones and they are used by several people, so they can show different person's contributions. You can check several edits at the same time from Mario Fantoni and myself since April 9th, when I became an editor.

I hope you can clear this up." Regards, Baby Dove 16:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

An I said "You are underestimating Akhilleous'experience in these matters." While he has nothing left to say. (One final question just to be clear Baby Dove, did you make the edits from that ip from home or work?-I can't tell from your response) Aeuio 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: Let Akhilleous get offended by himself if he considers I am underestimating him. The letter was already been sent to his own talk-page before you saw it. It was not offensive at all, and besides, he will have material enough to make his work and verify what I say. In Western Europe and Latin-America cybercaffes are very common, and the IP address analysis can show lots of fake sockpuppeteering. Two of my computers are part of the same system of sharing a server within a LAN. An administratopr can easily verify that 'all' my edits have used only three different servers; also, Mario Fantoni has already said which were, at the day of your accusation, the 5 edits made at the same time, and not a year ago, once last month, and four times this month. You can check this by yourself. My first edit of about 350 was made on April 9, 2007. You are becoming very boring by now with your flood of imagination regarding others. Besides, I never asked you how many computers do you use, where are they located, whether you knew the person from the Toronto area (Mr./Mrs. 65.93.133.54) who invited you to become an editor (on 4/13 at 20:10, after "shouting" in the article's talk page at 19:19 on the same day) before he or she disappeared completely, or whether you have any personal connection with Eric Barnhill, to whom you invited to came to the page.
A reason I had not to ask you about your location is related to simple security. You should not know who I am, and I do not want to know who you are. This are the WP rules and you do not show any respect for others by trying to make them let you know who they are.
About the coincidental edits, note that Nixwisser and Wine-in-Ark does not show any coincidence in the time of their edits, but they gave their explanation and we (including you) chose to believe them. The lack of coincidental edits does not prove at all that they cannot be different persons, but these coincidences are not trivial in the case. Regards, Baby Dove 05:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove, remember it takes two to tango. Save your time and energy for editing the article. Mario Fantoni 07:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, a very long comment when I was expecting one word: home/work. Let me just end this with one final comment which explains A LOT. The same ip address (65.98.192.50) from which you and Mario made/make your edits is register to: United States [City: Oregon House, California]: Fellowship of Friends. Here see it for your self. Since I think that everyone here is smart enough to figure certain things (like lets say that email) out for themselves, so I don't think that I need to continue this. (but I am sure that something irrelevant will be posted to which I need to respond) Aeuio 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, duh! Mario Fantoni 17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear that Baby Dove and Mario are members even without a DNS check, like the one Aeuio did. But so what. Most of us here have or have had some personal connection with FoF, otherwise we would not be so interested in editing here. But anyway, I think Mario and Baby Dove are NOT the same person, because they have different personalities. Their writing tells me more than an IP check. Also, the reason why Nixwisser and I have no simultaneous edits is that, being on the same LAN, all computers on that LAN can only be logged on as one user at a time. So if I'm logged in to Wikipedia, Nixwisser's computer is also automatically logged in as myself when he visits a Wikipedia page, even though he does not know my password and has not physically logged in. This is I think a flaw on the part of Wikipedia. So I have to log out if he wants to log in, and vice versa. Wine-in-ark 19:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and Response

There has to be something indicating what's criticism and what's the response to that. It is very confusing if they follow each other because the reader will automatically assume that the response is in fact the continuing of the criticism. I have suggested the "bullet" as it saves lines and avoids the appearance of a blog. If someone has a better idea please share it Aeuio 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved you comment up as this discussion was started originally in one section and then transfered to another, and now a third section on the same thing doesn't need to be started Aeuio 00:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The responses to the critical sections were necessary in order to create the controversies. With the new title ("Criticism"), I don't see the need for them to be there. Mario Fantoni 03:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Aeuio 03:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Since three of the most active editors (including myself) seem to agree with simplifying the article for the reader's sake, I have merged into one the sections on "Preditions" and "Criticism by former members." This will hopefully avoid the duplication of quotations and their unexpected deletion by some editors. Regards, Baby Dove 06:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the agreement wasn't to combine the two sections. They have no connection to each other and deal with completely non-related topics so they should be separated. The way it stands it suggests that the predictions are the main points of the criticism by former members-which is misleading. Aeuio 15:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs and Practices

I tried to simplify the reading for the visitors, by enshortening the huge quantity of sub-sections. I tried to use my 34-year experience in reading and actively practising the System by partaking of several groups/schools. However, I think the beliefs of the school can be enshortened still. I hope this would take some of the said propaganda away. Regards, Baby Dove 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Patterson's criticism seems to be very firm there, though having nothing to do with what the organization believes, I have completed the picture of this author. I do not think, however, it belongs here so I invite editors to figure out where could it be appropiate. Regards, Baby Dove 01:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

REF vs. Hyperlink

Moon Rising - you have been replacing many hyperlinks with REF codes. I have no problem with that, but I assume you are doing that in response to some WP standard. Can you point me to where that standard is explained? thanks. Nixwisser 03:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources is the appropriate guideline. Wikipedia:Manual of Style is a guideline that may contain additional useful information. Cheers! Vassyana 11:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, I just scanned Citing Sources, but I did not find anything discouraging standard hyperlinks as in-text references, just the request to also make a full formal reference and the bottom of the article. Moon Rising - can you explain the aim/idea/intention ? thanks, Nixwisser 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That was partly my idea. I think it's better, but if many object then I don't care about this aspect. Aeuio 19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nix - sorry I haven't responded sooner. As you can see, I have not been able to edit recently. Anyway, the only reason I did it was for aesthetics. I just don't like the look of the big hyperlinks. Aeuio had made some of these changes earlier, and I liked it. I don't know if it's an official wiki rule, but I'd realllly like to see all the links be the same. The article will look more professional. I saw that you made some changes to wikify links, but have not checked them out yet. What did you do, and what was the result? (size, hyperlink, etc.) The MOS has these guidlines for links and references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Wikilinks - It's item 23 External links. I don't know how to take you right to the spot. Does anyone have a strong preference to the style we use? Is there agreement to being consistent throughout? --Moon Rising 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just used come html suggested in the Citing Sources page. I am not fond of the default arrow icon either. I would like to use that html code throughout the article rather than tacking REF codes on. It retains the functionality of the link but removes the messy arrow icon. I am not sure whether that works for in-text references, but I can try. Same question as Moon - does anyone have particular style preferences in this area? Nixwisser 04:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, if I understand you, though it looks a little complicated for a novice, but I think I can learn it. The links that you did look like the REF links but act like the arrow link? Great! As time allows, I will try to convert links to this "new" standard, and maybe other editors will do the same as they add new links. Since no one's responded, you and I may be the only ones who care about this. Is that true, all the rest of you guys (and ladies)? It's a small thing, but will add to the overall quality of the article --Moon Rising 04:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I did not mean to leave you out Aeuio. We may have disparate viewpoints on many things, but it does feel good to reach consensus on something, doesn't it?

Someone, I think it was Mario, went and changed all the hyperlinks to show the arrow, removing the codes that were carefully put in by me and Nix, for aesthetic reasons. At least all of them were done and the article is consistent, but I'd like to know why? Do you think it looks better? --Moon Rising 21:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinions

As I already explain before, in Criticism, if all these controversies are not allowed as Controversies or Criticism, then they should be grouped as what they are, mere opinions of different persons, usually uninterested in the organization, related to whether the fees are high, the predictions were such or the exercises are mind-controlling. In Aeuio's separation of older edits, many parts have been removed without an explanation, such as the two star references to Cpt. Snow and his background, and Mr. Patterson and their condition of not FOF-related persons.
I guess the reader does not need asn index on what the opinions deal with. I have also recently enshortened the article in the large description of the FOF beliefs, because I think that the interested reader can find many thing out by himself or herself, and because for the ones tending to discredit the organization, it would be seen as unnecessary propaganda.
Regards, Baby Dove 00:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The headings are not allowed only if they are under "Criticism" and/or "contreversies". As you can see there is no such title so the titles are allowed as is.2. There is an argument section for this above. Please don't ignore the huge amount of comments there. 3. Please first suggest(above) such huge edits and see if anyone agrees before you actually completely change the article. Aeuio 00:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would politely request that attempts to cleanup and merge the section of criticisms be kept to a draft page. There's no reason the editors here cannot leave the current article as it is, while methods are tried and consensus is built regarding the section, it cleanup and possible merging. It would be better to have a working draft and consensus than to make bold edits in this case. While editors are encouraged to be bold, that has to be balanced with respecting consensus and avoiding editing disputes. Please keep proposals and major rewrites to sandbox and draft pages until it is clear such efforts can achieve a reasonable consensus, or at least non-opposition. Vassyana 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a "Opinion" above the sections. We purposely get rid of criticism as a way of avoiding pov (even tough it's literally criticism), and now labeling everything as a mere opinion is somehow neutral? Someone please explain Aeuio 02:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just copied the article to the New Draft Rewrite page here. I will experiment with incorporating the Criticism to the article now, as Vassyana suggested. Wish me luck. Mario Fantoni 02:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK - I mercilessly edited the New Draft Rewrite to try to follow Vassyana's suggestion. I eliminated almost half of the content and merged the Criticism into the article. I am sure nobody is going to like it, but it is just an experiment. Vassyana, is that somewhat close to what you had in mind? Mario Fantoni 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this a good effort. You definitely took the knife to a bloated and muddled article and tried to cut out a concise version. Let's see what other editor think of it. Also, I made an example merge, noted below. Vassyana 10:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have gotten the draft page rolling. I am definitely on board with finding consensus there. Meantime, now that company has left I did what I said in the previous Criticism section and reverted Baby Dove's anti consensus edits. I apologize if a couple of more recent touch-ups were collateral damage. Unless I'm mistaken we are supposed to be holding the critical sections as is, edited to fit the MOS, until we have gotten somewhere with the draft. Have a good night. Ericbarnhill 04:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ericbarnhill unexplained reversions

Today at 1:09 Vassyana suggested a draft page, which was created at 3:44. At 4:09, Ericbarnhill reverted the Opinions page to the previous one created by Aeuio, who, in the edits "forgot" to copy the references about Cpt. Robert Snow and Mr. Patterson I added and explained as due more than once. After the reversion, made three hours after the request about the draft page, Ericbarnhill welcomes the draft page he ignored. This was done at 4:16, after the reversion. I ask to gently return to the page previous to Vassyana's request, or I will do it. Regards, Baby Dove 06:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Mario Fantoni 07:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Example merge

I have done a rough draft of an example cleanup and merge. It can be found here. This is a static link to that particular version of the draft.[3] You should also review the history of the page, to see how I went about it. Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana 09:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS GREAT! Vassyana, you put a tremendous amount of work into this. Thank you. Can we use this as a starting point? It's more current than Mario's draft. Do we all agree? It would be a shame to have us all editing different versions. --Moon Rising 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it more than my draft and would be happy to adopt it. Vassyana, thank you for your time. Mario Fantoni 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the draft, and agree on adopting it. (Although I would like it if Vassyana stayed a bit after the draft is adopted to monitor how things go)...and Mario's draft is pretty good too, but he deleted too much info. Aeuio 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Vassyana, it was a very good effort and I really appreciate it. I agree with this page you made. Regards, Baby Dove 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions about new draft:

• Do we need complete consensus of all active editors before we start using new draft?
• How long should we wait before starting to use it?
• Will we be using the page with Vassayna's name on it? Thanks to all editors and our mediator for taking us to this next step.--Moon Rising 22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good starting point although the Movements section sounds like a direct copy of a promotional text lifted from a FOF webpage. Also I liked the new pictures that Mario provided. The predictions fit nicely in the History section. Wine-in-ark 22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wine-in-ark - at some point we reached consensus about removing the section on movement, primarily because it unnecessarily lengthened the article. Your comment brings up two points: 1) this is not the most current draft of the article, which is fine, it's a good starting point. Once we have consensus on using it, feel free to delete that section if you get to it before I do and 2) I'm curious about what you consider promotional material. From my subjective viewpoint, I don't see anything promotional in the subsection. It seems like neutral information about working with the moving center. So, while "promotional" information is not an issue in this instance, I'd like to know what you see as promotional so that we can possibly avoid lengthy disputes in the future. Thank you. --Moon Rising 23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What I find promotional/unencyclopedic about the movements section: the following is stated as if it was objective fact that everyone agrees on: "A single movement can take one outside of time"; the following is poetic, emotionally loaded language: "A unity of limbs, hands and feet in enlightened motion, a dance of awareness into a perfect stillness that only presence creates"; the following is stated as if it were an objective verified fact about esoteric schools in general, plus it uses emotional language: "Schools cultivate physical movement to open the door between the world and the divine"; the following is stated as fact rather than reported as an opinion of the Fellowship of Friends: "Although this is not the only answer in the pursuit of self-development, it is one of the more practical"; the following is stated as fact rather than as a belief: "Eventually movement becomes the servant of Higher Centers". Wine-in-ark 04:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll be more careful in the future.--Moon Rising 23:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the kind words. I am glad my example draft was able to satisfy concerns about merging the information. Are there any concerns about how my example merges the information? What other concerns remain about the article? Vassyana 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you didn't edit the Fourth way Believes, you should copy them from this page to your draft as whats written here in is a more current edit agreed position. Aeuio 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: Is everyone fine with the way that the criticism is incorporated into the draft? Please complain now rather then after its switched into the article. Aeuio 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Last thing, once you copy/paste "Fellowship of Friends' Fourth Way beliefs" into the draft, maybe we should edit the draft for a day or so to see how everyone feels about it. Aeuio 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the draft too and if we use the most updated beliefs section, I have no objections. Thanks Vassayana. Are we free to go make some minor edits to this? I see a couple of typos, nothing more. I hope we can all get our beefs in now, before the switch, to avoid further contention. Ericbarnhill 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the draft as you like. I just did the example in a userspace sandbox to avoid disrupting other drafts and edits. If a conflict comes up or there's an impasse, I'll try to help out. Cheers! Vassyana

Since it looks that the editors liked Vassyana's draft, I went ahead and copied Vassyana's draft into the New Draft Rewrite page. As of now (24 May 2007 03:30 UTC) the New Draft Rewrite is an exact copy of Vassyana's draft except for the addition of the images of the FoF property and Robert Burton. I suggest that we edit that New Draft Rewrite for 24 hours (until 25 May 2007 03:30 UTC) and at that time we move the New Draft Rewrite to the article. Do you agree? Mario Fantoni 03:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't set a time limit on the draft. Just try to revise it, as appropriate. Try to keep the concerns of others in mind while editing the draft. Once it seems like the draft has progressed enough, post a message and see if people are willing to use it for the main article. Vassyana 03:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please wait for consensus before making such a radical step as moving over the draft to the active. I have only had time to glance over it so far and, while the few edits I might find necessary should not take long, it is likely to go over that rather hurried deadline of 24 hours. Thanks Vassyana! Nixwisser 05:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's take as long as it needs. Mario Fantoni 16:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's only been a few days since we agreed to take as long as needed to reach consensus on the draft, but after reading the new page, I'm wondering how other editors feel about the progress. It's definitely not featured article material yet, but it's come a long way. I think we all agree that the merge Vassyana did is a satisfactory way of dealing with controversies. And Mario has brutally slashed the information on the FOF, which reduces what I believe some editors consider propaganda. So, what do you think? Are we close to being ready to "go live", knowing that we will never come to a complete consensus about the article. If you don't have time to edit, would you at least post a comment here so that we all have an idea of what's needed? Thanks. --Moon Rising 23:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the draft History section to what everybody has approved since Vassyana did it. Aeuio's insistence of making a longer History made me realize that adding-up endless POV is not the right solution. Any comments? Regards, Baby Dove 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

BD - I think we are all beginning to agree that shorter is better, when possible, in accordance with encyclopedic style. Weren't some of the things you just removed originally added by you in an earlier draft? The history seems balanced now, with an ever so slight (in my opinion) bias to the negative. I can live with that. Just my two cents. --Moon Rising 23:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the draft rewrite and would like to add my opinion to the consensus in favor of it. Thank you Vasyanna and all for a job well done! Whew! Babycondor 01:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the quotes from Burton's book, due to the same reasons I stated above to which no one answered. Here they are again 1. No one is saying that "based on Burton's book, Girad Harven...have assumed that Burton is predicting destruction". They are quoting Burton himself. (And now 2. In Burton's book there are quotes which affirm the use of war without symbolical meaning) Therefore this section was saying "Burton predicted destruction. However, at some (not all) places in his book he was being symbolical when using the word war".? Aeuio 00:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nix - are you sure you have the correct citation for the evolution of the names of the FOF's retreat. The date of the article you reference is 1981 in the text and 1986 when I go to the LA Times. Since I don't choose to pay to read the whole article, I don't know what it says, but its 21 years old. The sentence you just provided the citation for said the name was recently changed. Did you have a more current article in mind? If not, would it be appropriate to put the fact tag back? --Moon Rising 03:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism/Praise section

I removed the Criticism section and Praise stub section because the entire effort of this draft page is to find a way to avoid such sections. I placed the material in other sections that seemed more appropriate for them. Aeuio - I did not edit any of your material, just moved it, but I hope you will be willing to shorten the material on transmission (Pentland/Horn etc.) It is, once again, excessive and pushing an agenda. Everyone here is making sacrifices in order to get their points across with the minimum amount of words and quote flogging. Please try to shorten this material to its most essential points. thanks Nixwisser 02:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why someone created the "criticism" sections again, but I don't see your logic of moving the transmission stuff under the FoF's believes. As for the shortening, I already have sliced it in half, and then Vass had dramatically shortened it to four sentences, (the first sentence was originally the response to the criticism - delete it if you want). I am not sure why you consider four sentences as being excessive and pushing an agenda. Aeuio 02:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Anyways, I shortened it. Aeuio 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nixwisser that we need to keep the page short and to the point; I am sure it would be more useful to its visitors like that. There is no need to push FoF propaganda in the Beliefs or a long anti-FoF agenda in the embedded criticism. Also, let's try not to depart too much from Vassyana's draft - remember how much effort it took us to come to this point. Mario Fantoni 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said Nix - we are all making sacrifices and it is encouraging.--Moon Rising 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we evaluating the Vassayana page or Mario's paste into the New Draft Rewrite page? Thanks. Ericbarnhill 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mario's paste of the Vassayana page. Vassaynaa said his page was a personal sandbox. Somewhere above, Mario said that the only change he made in the copy/paste process was to change the photo's to the newer photos that had already been approved by at least some editors. Hope this answers your question.--Moon Rising 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly, thanks. Ericbarnhill 11:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Headings & Archive

Does anyone else think it's time to archive the discussion pre-the new draft/rewrite? We are having our discussions now under the example of rewrite or criticism/praise headings, neither of which necessarily apply. Shall we start fresh? Would someone who knows how to archive do this, assuming most of us agree on it? --Moon Rising 03:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I created the Archive 4 and moved the older comments to it. Mario Fantoni 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

About History

After praising Vassyana for his efforts, little by little everybody thought that the History section was not satisfactory... I do not see why such a praise was given, if everybody was unable to leave the page as suggested for a whole day. Vassyana's presentation also left me with some doubts, but, since there was an initial agreement by means of praises of all kinds, I immediately ceased my "small editing war" with another editor about seven or eight hours ago.

I asked whether others had any oppinion about the reverted draft, and then, part of Vassyana's praised draft on the History part was deleted explaining it did not satisfy previous questions on the talk-page.

The History part started being modified, adding some conflictive references. If we let this go on, soon there will remain just few points of agreement. So, I have reverted again to Vassyana's draft on the section, save for Mr. Burton's photograph which was never questioned and a logical explanation of who Karl Werner was, which gives a full meaning to the sentence. At comparing the texts, I saw that the series of names of the organization premises has been added, as well as some personal references to Mr. Burton's and Mr. Horn's figures. I do not think the reader would require such a detailed story. May be I am wrong, but a good explanation on why were all these things added was missing, so feel free to use the talk page to what it is made for. In doing so, also consider if it is worth another editing war. Regards, Baby Dove 06:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing? WE ARE ALLOWED TO EDIT THE PAGE. You are not going to revert five editors like that, and please stop reverting the predictions as there are whole sections up there to which you have not answered. Vassayana was praised for incorporating the criticism into the article, not for creating a perfect page, so this draft is not the absolute standard Aeuio 12:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Though some editors seem to get very annoyed at some of Vassyana's recommendations, and write in capitals, as shouting, I have placed again the final part of Vassyana's History, which once again disappeared without a word about the reasons. I still think the four names provided in the draft for the premises are irrelevant for the reader. Actually I have counted five from the various sources available in the article. They might only reflect the organization's preferences, and unless there is anything important I miss, I would ask the editor who put them to explain a bit better in the talk page about his motives, more than a simple "info added" or similar. For instance, the organization's winery is still having the same name as the premises once had; a member's oil factory the same with other of the names, so nothing seems to be hidding behind this changes, whose detail in the article would simply make it longer without any visible benefit for the reader. I have also sorted the "failed" predictions by date. Regards, Baby Dove 22:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't shouting. You have ignored the comments multiple times (there is a whole section up there about the mentioning of war in Burton's book where you didn't even comment, but have consistently added the info saying "no reason was given") so I put some things in capitals so you'd actually react. Aeuio 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, let's remember the goal here - to create a good article and be polite in the process. Let's not revert to finger pointing. We are allowed to edit, as Aeuio mentions, but it's still best not to shout. And it would be appreciated if editors explained even potentially controversial changes on the talk page. Asking for someone to provide reasons for their changes would be a little more gentle than asking for motives, Baby Dove. Let's not forget to assume good faith, no matter what we think of the #%?@?^*#! other editors ;-)--Moon Rising 23:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Aeuio, for shortening the text. It looks a bit odd in its current position, but I also do not see a more appropriate place for it right now. I made small changes to the history - where a source for a statement is clearly referenced, stating the source in the normal text is redundant. Eliminating multiple instances of this style error is one of the best things Vassyana achieved with the original draft. I retained BabyDove's sequence of predictions and the "war is symbolic" text. Nixwisser 00:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's good, as long as it's clear that the "war is symbolic in his book", is not saying that "(the authors) have interpreted what Burton stated in his book as Burton predicting that there will be a...). Aeuio 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(Comment) The draft I made is completely free to edit, including the one in my userspace. It's not "mine", particularly because I offered it as a potential draft. The only real changes I made were cleaning up the criticism and responses and merging them into the article draft. The remainder of the article still needs a lot of work and cleanup, and I encourage people to keep at it. If a sticking point comes up or there's a dispute about how to handle something, let me know and I'll see if I can help or offer a compromise. Vassyana 05:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since some information can be obtained from Mr.Burton's Self-Remembering, I had re-arranged the History section showi9ng what he says abouit the 44 angels. Regards, Baby Dove 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources mentioning the predictions don't use Burton's book as a source or even mention it, so you saying "they interpreted Burton's book" is original research and I have removed it. I have moved the content of Burton's book to the bottom if you still want it mentioned. Aeuio 01:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is to explain edits I am making to this section. I have removed information about WPP, as it is editorial and immaterial to the article. I also removed the link to him in the WP 4th way article for the same reason and also in compliance with the WP guideline to only use links that are relative to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context I deleted references from Burton's book because they don't do a very good job of explaining, in terms the average reader would understand, the meaning of the predictions, and they don't add to information about history. --Moon Rising 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Exercises section

Since in the introduction, it says that the Fellowship's task is enabling its members to awaken and develop a soul that can survive death and achieve independent, immortal existence in the universe, exercises towards the aim should be more relevant than not breeding pets, riding bicycles or dying hair. At the end of a very general presentation of the said exercises, Nixwisser puts this examples from someone who has not claimed to have interviewed any representative of the organization. All Chinese and many Dutch may feel they are not able to become immortal conscious beings just for the sake of the their bicycles... I don't think the reader would be interested at all in having this kind of examples. Regards, Baby Dove 09:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

BD - I agree that hair dying is a small thing, but there are editors here who feel the need to point out those things. Hopefully readers will see it for what it is. Since most of the editors here seem to have some acquaintance with 4th way methods, they know that the teacher needs to help students work on will. One would think they would understand that (if this is the case) telling a woman not to die her hair, for example, would be directly related to work on will and other areas of mechanics. It looks sensational when quoted out of context in a book designed to denigrate someone/something. But WP requires multiple points of view, even if they don't make sense to each of us. It's a small thing. Don't worry - be happy. --Moon Rising 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio, you made some major changes to this section, only noting in the edit summary, ch. Your change seem a little off point and NPOV. If you want to include the abuse, do it somewhere else. It has nothing to do with school excercise. The section before you changed it was more informative about the type of exercises. It would also be nice if all the editors took some time before making major changes. I am writing this here to try to understand why you made the change, rather than reverting it. There is always time for that if I don't understand your explanation. Thank you.--Moon Rising 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A controversial edit to the Draft Rewrite page with no explanation on the Talk page or on the Edit Summary has to be reverted. I just did it. We either play by the rules or there are no more rules. Mario Fantoni 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove pointed that "little things should be removed", so I put only the "big things". Aeuio 22:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. Mario Fantoni 00:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reading capabilities don't seem to be too high. But whatever the matter is done as I included it at a way better spot...thanks for the suggestion. Aeuio 00:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What are the "big things" you refer to above, and what is the way better spot? This discussion seems to be scattered. BTW, another reminder about wikipedia guidelines not to make personal attacks and to be polite. thank you. --Moon Rising 00:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added some examples of potential exercises taken from the founder's book, Self-Remembering, enlarging the list quoted by Robert L. Snow, since it might be interesting for the reader. I have also added a couple of quotations, also from Mr. Burton's said book, which can introduce some relativity about this subject. Regards, Baby Dove 09:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Other Beliefs section

This section has had the Stub tag for a long time. I suggest to remove it. The current text "Robert Burton is believed to be a conscious being who awakened in 1976 with the assistance of higher beings" doesn't belong here. Mario Fantoni 03:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The average reader, I would think, does not care when Burton "awakened". The article already includes information on Burton's relationship with higher forces. If there are additional beliefs and practices to be added, let's create a section for a particular belief or practice, like exercises, payments, etc.--Moon Rising 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"The fof incorporates other sources into its teaching" - I created the section for you to list those sources (wine-ark mistook it for something else). Aeuio 22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to add other sources, then they can create a section with a specific heading at that time. I will remove the heading you created as there doesn't seem to be a need right now.--Moon Rising 22:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph says "it currently incorporates other (than 4th way) sources into its teaching." then there is a "Fourth Way beliefs" section...can we have the other sources section? Because these statements are contradicting themselves Aeuio 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. At some point, someone may want to explore this. In the meantime, in the interest of keeping the article neat and clean so we can move it from the draft page, can we leave it out? First, the FOF is primarily in the 4th way tradition and secondly I suspect that if there were documented reliable source someone would have added other beliefs by now. I don't personally know of any such sources, others might. But if there are no sources, it doesn't make sense to have the stub.--Moon Rising 22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The only source I can think for "other than 4th Way sources" are the FoF newsletters. It is a fact that the current web site has fallen behind the teaching. Mario Fantoni 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a part of the fof, you should know...so write them yourself. As long as its not controversial or challenged to be wrong with a source, you don't have to source it. Aeuio 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that doing what you suggest would be a violation of Wikipedia's "No Original Research" and "Verifiability" policies. [4] Whether or not you or MF or anyone else is a member of the FOF, the Republican Party or the NY Mets is not a matter for discussion here.--Moon Rising 00:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I take my suggestion back...it would end in a edit war about who is telling the truth Aeuio 02:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed heading "Fourth Way beliefs and practices". This is an extraneous heading and just takes up space. If non-4th way material is added later, there is still probably no reason to have 2 separate headings for 4th way and other beliefs. From the documented information currently available, the FOF has one teaching, which incorporates knowledge from multiple sources. If additional information becomes available, we can determine at that time if separate headings for different sources of the teaching need to be separate or treated as a whole.--Moon Rising 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs Cleanup

Following Vassyana's suggestion that "The remainder of the article still needs a lot of work and cleanup, and I encourage people to keep at it", I did a cleanup of the sections "Self-Remembering", "Sleep & Awakening", "Higher states of consciousness", "C Influence", and "Esoteric schools". Let me know if I deleted something that should be in the article. Thanks. Mario Fantoni 04:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thorough job of cleaning up - almost too thorough - you removed some information I think enhances the article. What you left, however, is clear and encyclopedic. Rather than revert your edits, I'd like to review it later and see if I still feel the same way.--Moon Rising 21:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC) ps- The esoteric schools section is the one that I think needs more information - JMHO. --Moon Rising 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs - the section on Patterson's criticism - I just don't think it belongs here. I understand that since we no longer have a separate criticism section, it's difficult to know where to put this paragraph, so I have not moved it, but I'm asking for suggestions about where it should go. I think the history section makes as much sense as beliefs. --Moon Rising 21:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I say to move it right under the "Fourth Way believes"...of course we should then put above it the info that's directly connected to this from other sections. Aeuio 22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Cute, I didn't know you had such a good sense of humor ;-)--Moon Rising 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get the joke... Mario Fantoni 00:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a silly suggestion, and that Aeuio knew that when he made it. I don't mean any offense, Aeuio, it's just the way I took it. --Moon Rising 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved paragraph on Patterson's views of FOF/Burton to the history section, since it refers to lineage. Lineage is history, not belief. Information on "promotion" is connected to how the FOF conducts itself, as well as how it may be perceived as a school in the Fourth Way tradition. This also seems more like history than beliefs. --Moon Rising 06:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

History edits

I edited the History section, Since it is there that most of the controversial issues are, please tell me if you disagree with any of my edits and I will explain the reasons behind them here. Mario Fantoni 04:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Like your other recent edits, you have done a good job of removing extraneous verbiage without changing context. I did add back Troy Buzbee's name, as I think this is material. Moon Rising 21:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasons behind removing Troy Buzbee's name were two: first, I don't think visitors to the page would care about the name of the person who sued the FoF; secondly, I am not sure Mr. Buzbee would like his name on the page. Let's see what other editors think. Mario Fantoni 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. For those reading the article who are familiar with the FOF, there would be interest in who the plaintiff was. Since his name is part of the public record, there is no problem with showing his name here (no libel issues). Including it for the benefit of the reader is more important than sparing his feelings.--Moon Rising 23:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that 99% of the visitors to the page won't be familiar with the FoF - that is the reason why people check an encyclopedia. Anyway, let's see what other editors think. I am fine with Mr. Buzbee's name remaining or not. Mario Fantoni 00:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Its useful info for some, and its only two words...leave it be. Aeuio 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading Mr. Haven's Creating a Soul, at the quoted page 581 he says nothing regarding that Isis would be spared, so I remove it. Regards, Baby Dove 07:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I put it back with the source and proper wording. Aeuio 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All the accusations leading to the lawsuits with no sentences were repeated several times, so I wrote them in a more understandable way. Regards, Baby Dove 07:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please quit trying to use the "however" which is pushing towards the view that what Linda says is absolutely true. Aeuio 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Aeuio's edit stating Burton was a former school teacher in 1967. That is not what the source says. If you feel this information is necessary, which is questionable, please be accurate. Thank you. --Moon Rising 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The source says "Burton was a former Bay Area elementary school teacher before founding the Fellowship in 1970." which literraly means that "he was a school teacher before he founded the fof." I re added it and left the date out to be accurate. if you feel some rewording is necessary for accuracy then reword it. Aeuio 21:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To respect Aeuio's fervor on the accuracy of what sources say, I have left them as they are, but moved Burton's statements before, because the reader should know first what he said, and later what others interpreted. Regards, Baby Dove 05:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Nixwisser considers that showing the work of an author is a commercial reference, and he removed the provided links, he questions many things in this article. Captain Snow is someone who published a book where he damages other people's image. If a link to all his books is a commercial reference, because it definetely proves his background (questioned by some when I first noted it, some days ago), then it is so with the links to all the quoted books and papers. In the meanwhile, I have put the quotations back, until hearing from you in this talk page, since some editor put ther fact tag, which forces the corresponding citation. Writing here is a WP policy and it should be respected, as well as the efforts of whoever gets a link, using his time to do it. Regards, Baby Dove 06:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your original research above...which you ignored as usual. Aeuio 11:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual, Aeuio ignores what I sasy and claims that he has asked somewhere before. I wrote the justification of what I was doing at 5:16 and at 6:45. He "responds" at 11:52 the same day... Regarding the editioin, since Burton talks about the 44 in a different way than it was commented, I have moved it again to a suitable place. Nobody told me where it should go otherwise; instead, without any due comment someone has taken it away several times. I thou8ght about Nixwisser's idea on commercials, so, instead of a link I have provided a reference only. Regards, Baby Dove 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

BD - I just reverted you most recent edit. I agree with other editors that we don't need give background information on authors or anyone else - the article is about the FOF. Readers can look up those people. While my personal feelings towards those authors is probably the same as yours and I think that what they say is a bunch of horsepucky, that is not material to the article. Regarding the placement of Burton's quotations - I don't think they belong in this section at all. They are not related to history and, for the average reader, they don't really explain what was intended by the predictions, etc. Most readers are unlikely to relate to higher forces. It adds unnecessary bulk to the article, in my opinion. --Moon Rising 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have quoted what Burton says because that was what he said. The other comments make connections between subjects in a sensationalist way. I have written things like these in a paper. I know how it is done. Among the History page, it suddenly seems that Mr. Burton was hidding that he thinks that the FOF has these 44, when he simply said it differently. I asked for opinions twice, but some of you did reversals. If Burton's quotations do not belong here, I have also asked where do they belong and, in any case, then the books from Captain Snow and his terrorists and cults and Mr. Patterson and his Fourth Way lineage do not belong either. But if they belong here, it is better to say what Mr. Burton has actually said before those 4th category articles were even written. Regards, Baby Dove 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Baby Dove, In my opinion, adding quotes from Burton does not neutralize the sensationalist way the subjects are presented. It would be better to work on the presentation, rather than add information that can be confusing. Some of the things in the history section, assuming the authors quoted are correct, are somewhat sensational. And if the authors are not correct, then there needs to be a reliable source contradicting them, which, as much as I would like that, doesn't seem to exist. Regarding where to put the quotes - I don't think they would help the article, no matter where they are placed. Mario slashed the beliefs section, Nix, Aeuio and I have slashed the history. The article as a whole seems much closer to WP standards in terms of size and NPOV. As mentioned somewhere on this page, we have all made sacrifices. I think it's a good article as it is, and really doesn't need much more editing. Does this help?--Moon Rising 00:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Moon R. The way that BD has added info is only making the article more confusing and unreadable, and we should focus more on the presentation and conciseness. Aeuio 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The history also says that the President of the organization has said that the plaintiff(s) failed to produce evidence on the accusations. If you have an evidence on the contrary, please add it. Regards, Baby Dove 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotion

I added a link showing that Mr Burton defends the use of the bookmarks, and nothing is hidden on this subject. Mr. Patterson has a website which is almost a personal one (founder and director of the organization in the site), showing the books, their prices and even where can they be bought. When Gurdjieff and Ouspensky talked about promotion, they were referring to Influence C, not to a given organization. With a bookmark, one still has to find Influence C by oneself. Finally, as Fourth Way changes methods and forms every time their temporary aim is achieved, one cannot know how will it be next time. G&O belong to the beginning of last century, so, they did not consider building a cathedral as a trasde mark for having a fourth way school. Regards, Baby Dove 01:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio, you reverted my edit informing readers that Patterson promotes himself on his website by selling books, and asked, in the edit summary, how this is advertising. In my opinion, the web site promotes his teaching (which you did not revert) and the books promote his teaching - indirectly. Since at least some of his books criticize "the competition" if you will, selling them on HIS (your caps) website can be construed as advertising and self promotion. If we are going to use him as a source to discredit Burton for doing the same things he is doing, it seems appropriate to mention this. I looked at the FOF website and while they may mention books by Burton and others, they don't sell anything. I hope by responding you will not revert this section again without further discussion. Thank you. --Moon Rising 01:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide sources which state that Patterson has somehow advertised his school? where he said "my school is the best...and so on" (By these standards we should add into the paragraph that the fof advertises itself own its own website...since you consider that advertising) ps Patterson and Burton aren't doing the same thing as you said Aeuio 02:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the wording of this paragraph. Please see if it meets with your approval. It is not my intention to prove that he is advertising, as the edit will show.--Moon Rising 03:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's worded fine, and if you feel the need that it has to be in there, then fine. Aeuio 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As I started with this Patterson advertising staff, I can add that there are some advertisers who advertise by saying "we are the best." Patterson, instead, uses the worst of advertising: disqualifying others, which is even forbidden by law for advertisers in some European and Latin American countries. He writes books on his teaching, and books on how other's teachings are not real, and he sells them in appropriate places where you will finally find him. Regards, Baby Dove 06:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source where he says "the fof does this and is fake, but we do it the right way"? If not then that's your own assumption about his advertising method. And he doesn't disqualify others, he disqualifies some which are already regarded by many as tricksters. Aeuio 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Searching for "Gurdjieff" on Google display's Patterson's paid ad on the column on the right. Clicking on that ad (I am sorry for Patterson to have to pay for my click) one is taken to Patterson's landing page. Clicking on the William Patterson link on the left menu one is taken to a page that states that: "Mr. Patterson has written five books on the teaching and directed, written and narrated the award-winning video trilogy The Life & Significance of George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff: Gurdjieff in Egypt, Gurdjieff's Mission and Gurdjieff's Legacy." Clicking on the "five books" link takes one to Patterson's bookstore where one can choose from 50 books and music CD's from Gurdjieff, Patterson, Bennett, Lord Pentland, C.S. Nott, Maurice Nicoll, Meister Eckhart, and many others. Just click on "Add to Cart" and use your VISA/MasterCard. At Patterson's web site it is also possible to register for one of his seminars for $550 ($450 with the Early Bird discount). Just click on "Add to Cart" and pull your VISA/MC. If this is not advertising I don't know what advertising is. Mario Fantoni 06:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He is promoting his books (not school) on his website, which is not the same as what the fof does. Aeuio 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The paid ad in Google is not part of Patterson's web site, it is an "electronic bookmark". Also, what about his "Gurdjieff Study Program"? Petterson says that "Students in The Program participate in Group Work, Seminars, Days of Exploration, weekly meetings, meditation, exercises and tasks, and private interviews. Participation is also possible for those located in areas where active groups are yet to exist." If that is not a school I don't know what a school is. Mario Fantoni 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The fof is using the "electronic bookmark" as well as they are using many other things. And you described what his school says about themselves...I don't see a "we a true conscious Fourth way school" or "Patterson is conscious". The stuff about himself advertising is included in the article, so I am not sure why are you still discussing it and prolonging this page. Until that's removed, give this up already. Aeuio 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to "give up", and I don't expect you to do so either. We all show the reasons behind our opinions and try to reach consensus for the page. If we can't reach consensus, we ask the mediator. Pretty civilized, isn't it? Mario Fantoni 01:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps fortunately, I don't quite follow the above arguments. Currently, the link points at the WPP section of the Fourth Way WP article, which is valid. If there was a link to his personal web page in the FOF article, I certainly agree it is not relevant to this article. Attacks on WPP are also not relevant here or the focus of the article get hopelessly clouded. For that reason I took those items attacking WPP out. I left in the references from "Self-Remembering" about bookmarks as they are sourced and relevant.

Although this next bit impacts the entire article, this is as good a place as any to bring up the unfortunate tendency to radically over-reference sources in the text itself. Either WP:RS or the Citing Sources guide explains that sources need to go in the text when a wholly subjective personal statement is made e.g. "Sally Sunshine is an idiot" it not permissible, but "Professor Eli Elbowpatches expresses the opinion that "Sally Sunshine is an idiot"", is, though somewhat extreme. If a newspaper article says "Sally Sunshine claims she is still a virgin", that text goes as is with the citation in an appropriate spot supporting the claim. Constantly restating the same thing the citation expresses in the text itself is horrible style and lengthens the article to no good end. For this reason, the WPP reference needs to be in the text, because it is a wholly subjective author's statement appraising Burton. Newspaper articles and books base statements about excessive control etc, on various statements from former FOF students. They are reported speech, not subjective claims of the author. If you can find a reference e.g. from Snow "I think Burton has lousy shoes", then that would be need to be prefaced as a personal opinion of the author.

Vassyana, your input would be appreciated on this issue as I am sure I have not explained it very clearly. It is a subtle issue, but familiarity with journalistic and encyclopedic style make it easier to follow. Thanks Nixwisser 04:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nix, I agree with your recommendations above, they sound like common sense and good style to me. Regarding the argument above regarding Patterson, it seems to me that it is an issue that Aeuio is pushing alone, since no editor supported him so far. Mario Fantoni 05:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, I said there's no argument here as the info is mentioned...you said let's argue for arguing sake. No one knows what you are trying to push. Aeuio 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nix - I agree too. Since you made this comment and related edits, both BD and Aeuio have made several changes. I recommend going back to your edits as they were the most concise. They are in the spirit of WP guidelines. --Moon Rising 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You agree to what? And the way he left it is practically the same... I aminly undid Baby Dove's original research Aeuio 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nix did several edits to the History section that left us with a clean, concise and well written article, similar to the type of edits Mario made to beliefs. Then BD made some changes, then you changed BD's and so on. It is not the substance of what you wrote that had me refer back to Nix's edits - it is the style. His seemed a little more polished, thats all. Hope this explains what you were asking. --Moon Rising 23:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The way Nix just wrote it, I am fine with. Aeuio 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess this also applies to Promotion - Baby Dove, you keep putting back commercial links to Amazon. This is a big WP no-no. The whole line is questionable and seems to exist only as an attempt somehow to discredit Snow by showing he has written many other books. The logic of that escapes me, but even if the text remains (obviously, I see it as irrelevant), you need to reference the books in the standard method, not by plugging Amazon. Nixwisser 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

agreed--Moon Rising 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And BD...you keep putting back radically and obviously non-NPOV text rife with weasel words. Your edits this evening are abusive and indefensible. Get a clue Nixwisser 06:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Aeuio 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I am really confused. I thought Aeuio wanted WPP's personal site linked. Now BD is linking it. In any event this is irrelevant and commercial and will be axed. Count on it.Nixwisser 06:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the "who advertises and sell his own book in the Gurdjieff Studies Program site,[12]" - No, I don't want it. I think it stupid to describe in such detail every person who criticizes the fof, before the criticism is even mentioned. Even tough BD doesn't understand, this will be interpreted as promotion of Paterson and not criticism of Patterson by the readers... "click here to see his books"...? Aeuio 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If I followed the same rules of writing as Baby Dove then I could write "...to use them because Mr. Ourspensky met Mr. Gurdjieff through a newspaper advertisement. However, note that Ouspensky wrote that he met Gurdjieff through his friends M. so this is false"...and hundred other things where I would make the text confusing. Aeuio 15:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Burton said that, not me Aeuio. And yes, Patterson's books on other teachers are part of his promotion, do you have any doubt? Regards, Baby Dove 00:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope everyone had a nice holiday. Patterson's historical books on Gurdjieff and the Fourth Way are recognized widely as legitimate scholarship. If you need a recent example go look at the most recent biography of Frank Lloyd Wright, "The Fellowship", available at any mainstream bookstore near you, which uses the now-standard trilogy of Webb, Moore and Patterson, side by side with the secondary literature like that of the Benetts and Hartmanns, to source lengthy chapters giving one of the best recent accounts of Gurdjieff in print. Patterson's histories, especially his excellent chronologizing in "Struggle of the Magicians" or his transcripts of Gurdjieff in "Voices in the Dark", are now a standard source for anyone referencing Gurdjieff. Categorizing him as some sort of shady self-promoter is a view at odds with contemporary publishing. To get to the point, I think leaving his name totally bare as it stands now just looks a bit odd. I think a clause should be added, "William Patrick Patterson, author of numerous books on Gurdjieff and the Fourth Way,..." etc. Second, I'm not sure why Troy Buzbee's name is gone again -- can't see where that was okayed in the discussion -- but now an extra comma sits there. I vote for adding his name back in but at least delete the comma. Lastly, I object to the statement that Alex Horn "is said to" have been a Pentland student. He wasn't one. So at the very least "claimed" to be a Pentland student is a more appropriate phrasing. Other than all that I vote to put the page up. Ericbarnhill 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A very nice holiday, thank you. Starting in reverse order:

• The page does not need to be perfect to go up - we will continue to edit just like any other article. It's the integration that's key here, and we agree on that. Waiting for total agreement would mean a possibly permanent delay. So, will you add your vote to a firm "yes"?
• Connection to Pentland - the FOF website says there is a connection. This may be right or wrong, but in my opinion, this article should quote the website. I have wanted to change the wording to remove "is said to" and replace with he is connected to. The current wording is a compromise with what you would prefer and what the web site says, and that I would prefer. Can we agree to leave it?

• Buzbee - I was the one who put his name back in the first place, but then felt it was not necessary - just 2 extra words here and there add up. I agree with Mario - does anyone really care? But if you do, would you explain why? Sorry I left the comma in, and that I neglected to mention my reasons.

I would say that the name is interesting info, and would agree on putting it back. Aeuio 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Patterson - commenting about an author's qualifications or disqualifications is about the same thing, and I don't think either belong.

Just my two cents. --Moon Rising 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created the Patterson page so we can use it as a link. Aeuio 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a reasonable solution to the immediate issue, but, in reviewing the WP Guidelines for creating links, I wonder if WPP deserves an article. Those interested Gurdjieff might think so, but that is probably a fairly small audience. The Guidelines, regarding what should have a link say: "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question." The italics are Wikipedia's. [5] I would suggest this article be considered for deletion.--Moon Rising 02:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your quote fully supports a link to WPP, whether to his article or his section on the Fourth Way page. Concerning the deletion, I doubt it as there are articles that have way less (ex. this article was suggested for creation here), and even if it gets deleted we can turn the subheadings to tubtitles on the fourth way page and link it to there. As you said "this is a reasonable solution", so let's go with it. Aeuio 03:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree here. There are sources such as Patterson who directly say that he is not a student. I don't really see why the website is the most absolute source on this particular point. Instead of writing arguments back and fourth, I think that saying "claimed to be" would be sufficient enough. Aeuio 01:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio - I moved this from the middle of my edit, because if it remained where you put it, then the things I said above your edit would not have a signature. The point of my comment was that the way it reads now, it is middle of the road - not as strong as being definite (as in the website) nor as critical as using "claims". I could just as easily change it to quote the web page, then you would change it to claims, and back and forth. The current wording is a compromise. Let's hear from someone other than you, Eric and me on this, ok? Thanks.--Moon Rising 03:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask Vassayana. Aeuio 03:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This does seem a reasonable compromise. Anyone seriously interested in researching further is likely to go to the WPP book cited and get the details there. And Aeuio and Eric (just assuming as the above seems a continuation of your discussion) - it seems you are on the same LAN, so you need to be careful to double-check the login ID at the top of the page. If one person on a LAN is still signed in as an editor and another person tries to sign in, the second usually acquires the login ID of the first.Nixwisser 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1.Can you clarify your stance on Horn. 2. I don't know who Eric is in real life. If I did I wouldn't have asked him about WPP's book...If you think we are on the same LAN then you are welcomed to do a check user to verify the situation. And if it was the LAN mistake like you said, I would have answered Moon's first bullet directed towards Eric. Aeuio 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2- Relax, Aeuio, just offering advice. I could not care less whether or not you know Eric. It is totally irrelevant. Until WP improves it's technology enough to really determine whether multiple editors use the same actual machine, the whole ID check tool is complete nonsense and only causes problems, as we have seen well enough here.

1. I think "is said to be" is a reasonable compromise between differing "truth-claims".Nixwisser 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Relax, Aeuio, no need to be defensive. At this point we are all like old friends here. Mario Fantoni 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am relaxed most of the time, I guess you guys put to much emotion into this. Anyways I guess the "said to be" should be kept in this case. Aeuio 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page on promotion is very long..! Since promotion is an issue, I have added an ext lk to Patterson's website, where he promotes and sells his books. Regards, Baby Dove 22:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Do us a favor and don't do this again. If you are not going to read the discussion then don't edit the section. It was agreed here that there would be a link to WPP and that's it. If you want to add how he advertises, then I will add how his work is used as a reference and how he writes about Gurdjieff. It was agreed to leave both out, so don't add one like that under the reason "this section is long" Aeuio 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a game that someone makes money out of criticizing others for doing what he does. Mr. Patterson's work belong to his page, not the FOF, and promoting his work here would be inappropriate. It nhas been sufficiently proved here, in this talk page, that Patterson sells his books and seminars in the Gurdjieff Study Groups page. The seminars are offered against a high rated price, and since they are to teach, its mentioning there is definitely promoting his teaching. But I do not see it as something bad. What I have already said I consider bad, is that his marketing includes disqualifying others for doing so. For further details on him promoting his teaching, please re-read Mario Fantoni's contribution on May 28 @6:21, or Moonrising's one on May 28 @1:18. I do not care whether the seminars are good or not. I have to accept that they could be good if people pays for them. But he is selling his teaching. And according to Ericbarnhill, in his contribution on May 25 @2:53 in the Fourth Way talk page, he is not in the famous lineage, but he accuses others not to be. In this talk page, it is even being discussed whether Horn studied with Pentland or not, but the one asserting this is the very same Patterson. You want things to be as you are, and everybody does. But please, do not do as Patterson and hide behind an agreement that was only in your imagination. Only Nixwisser agreed with that. Nobody else, in this Promotion discussion has said anything like that. You want the WPP link, I want the ext lk. Regards, Baby Dove 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is not fof sources only, and others who wrote about them are allowed to be mentioned - regardless oif what you think. You are again bending the comments to agree with you, as what you wrote doesn't summarize the situation at all. You are the only one who wants this to be added. I, Moon Rising, Nixwisser and Eric have come to an agreement not to mention any qualifications or disqualifications, so your edits are against everyone. Until someone else comments here I have added Patterson's qualifications. Aeuio 11:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about his qualifications? I never discussed he knows about what he teaches, but he disqualifies others to make money out of it, that is what it means to write Talking with the Left Hand and selling it. I have quoted wher Moonrising and Mario Fantoni say that he promotes his teaching, where do they say the agree with having him disqualifying the FOF? If you do not want the truth about hm, then, I will delete his sourcing. Regards, Baby Dove 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Who cares about his qualifications?" - Who cares about his disqualifications? :Either mention both or none. Most editors here now agree not to mention either (you being the only exception) so that's what will happen. Aeuio 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding William Patrick Patterson, Baby Dove's reversion, Aeuio's reversion and my reversion: Many opinions have been expressed, but I don't recall any agreement, and this discussion has become too confusing to follow. I will restate my opinion, which is: we should neither extol his virtues nor condemn is faults. The reader is free to go to the link to his article, that you created, Aeuio for this purpose. (I still think he is not sufficiently noteworthy to have his own article, and that a link to the 4th way article mentioning him should be sufficient, but I will let that go.) In any case - this seems the most balanced compromise. And Baby Dove, pointing out that "he disqualifies others to make money..." is a form of condemning his faults. I fully agree with your opinion about WPP. I just don't agree that it belongs in this article. Itcan be frustrating when editors keep reverting each others' edits, but we can all be thankful for this opportunity for transformation. Would both of you stop reverting? If you don't agree, let's ask for help. Thanks. --Moon Rising 15:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree (but you forgot to revert BD's disqualification...I'll do it). Aeuio 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea - why don't you take this issue about WPP to the new article about him. It's more appropriate than either here or the Fourth Way article. I just added tags to show this is a stub article. Hope you like them, and change them if you find something more appropriate.--Moon Rising 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: Stop accomodating what others say to your imagination. Before your unexplained reversion, Mario Fantoni and Moon Rising acted in the page and did not remove this Patterson's site where he sells his teaching as seminars. Do not say that they just forgot. I also showed where did they say he is selling his teaching. If you want him in the page, you have to accept it completely, not only the part you personally like. And please explain why he is not promoting his teaching, not by saying others do, but telling why do you think that making a web site offering your own books and seminars is not promoting a teaching. Regards, Baby Dove 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

From MR's comment right above "Baby Dove, pointing out that "he disqualifies others to make money..." is a form of condemning his faults...I just don't agree that it belongs in this article"... I am not sure how exactly you interpret this. 2. MR clicked undo on my edit, so he judging from his comments did forget (this time I'll make a minor edit after I add the info so this "mistake" doesn't happen again). Anyhow, so you disagree with Moon Rising's suggestion. Ok, I am fine with both his qualifications and his disqualifications as being mentioned. Aeuio 01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC) To save some lines I moved my reply to BD's question directed solely to me to his talk page. Aeuio 01:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Patterson has no place in the "History" section, we have to remove all references to him there and include Patterson's book in the "Criticism" section. "History" means historical facts, not opinions of Fourth Way followers about Burton and the FoF. Why are we spending so much time discussing this? Mario Fantoni 06:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just did it. Look how much better the "History" section looks now, without all that "Patterson says that Burton is not a real 4th Way teacher because Horn never studied with Lord Pentland, and Patterson also says that Burton promotes the FoF and that is not appropriate in the 4th Way tradition, but Patterson also promotes his books and seminars (go figure), so dear reader if you can understand this part means you are either Aeuio, Baby Dove, Moon Rising or Mario Fantoni, because not even Nixwisser has a clue." Mario Fantoni 06:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved to the appropriate place (where Vass had originally put it) as it questions the beliefs of the fof. Please don't simply delete like that. If you have a problem with "location" then how about moving it and not deleting it. Aeuio 12:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks better in the Beliefs section than in the History one, but the text was still very convoluted (see above) so I did a cleanup. Mario Fantoni 15:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit is clear and to the point, and removes both the positive and negative biases that we have been disputing for what seems like a very long time. Hopefully other editors will agree and we can stop going around in circles. Thanks for this bold step. --Moon Rising 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Draft Rewrite: Are we ready?

Dear Editors, should we copy the Draft Rewrite page to the main article and continue from there? Mario Fantoni 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - we have accomplished the main goal - integrating criticism into the main text. Everything else can be edited on the regular page.--Moon Rising 17:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The way it is now, I agree. But the way that BD keeps unreasonably changing it, I don't. Aeuio 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

BD's changes are fairly minor and we can go back on forth with them for a long time. They are not a reason to hold back the changeover. Remember - the main reason for the draft was integration, and it seems we've all agree on the current format.--Moon Rising 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks ready. And Mario, a belated thanks for the "beliefs" sections editing. It is very clean and concise now. Nixwisser 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, Nix. Let me know if there is more text to cut - you know how much I like to use the scissors. May be the History section...? Mario Fantoni 03:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, because I see no practical difference. Since your question it has chaged many times, and so has the main page. Regards, Baby Dove 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just copied the New Draft Rewrite to the main article and placed a message on top of the Draft Rewrite announcing that. Let's start working on the main article from now on. Congratulations to all editors and special thanks to Vassyana for his mediation efforts. By the way, Vassyana is a candidate for Admin; if you feel like expressing your opinion about that you can do it here (the process ends on 31 May 2007 at 09:26 UTC). Mario Fantoni 02:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank Mario - looks good. I'd like to get Vassyana's opinion on it too. It would be great if we could get it upgraded to a "B" article, or know what we have to do to get there. BTW, I already gave him a vote of support for being an Admin. --Moon Rising 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support :) I'm in the process of reading the article and discussion in depth. I am working on a review of the article, using the GA criteria as a reference point. I am taking my time to make sure it is a fair and accurate review of the current state of things. Vassyana 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

History section cleanup

I did a cleanup of the History section. Let me know what you think. Mario Fantoni 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Much more encyclopedic. Wish I thought of these edits first <grin>! --Moon Rising 18:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! It looks a very good page now. Regards, Baby Dove 21:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Baby Dove and Moon Rising liked my edits and Wine-in-Ark and Aeuio made several edits without posting any comments on this page, I changed the page again to the more suscint (or encyclopedic) version. Mario Fantoni 05:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing all the info which you personally don't like and say that you think that "it's not relevant" - it's very relevant and short so leave it. Aeuio 14:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't tell other editors "please stop", we tell them "why did you do that"? Mario Fantoni 17:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have (below), and all you replied was "you are not working out" and went on as if nothing happened. Aeuio 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed sub-headings for Burton and FOF; the two are tightly interwoven. Aside from philosophical connections, the information combines the two, for example, the lawsuits that name Burton and the FOF. These subheadings seem to be just a waste of space, and since no explanation was given as to why they were created, I deleted the. --Moon Rising 23:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are the dates irrelevant? They are part of the predictions, and the fact that "the fof would survive" is an even bigger part of the prediction. Why is this deleted? Aeuio 23:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

When I made the change, I asked you to explain your reasons for reverting this change. You responded by asking me a question. That is not an answer. You have now reverted this several times (I have not counted), but failed to explain why you think the dates are important. Care to do so? --Moon Rising 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In the sources the full quote is that the "fof will survive" as well as "the given dates" are mentioned. So this is relevant and part of the predictions, and not mentioning it would be only sourcing a part of the predictions. Aeuio 01:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your question is partly answered by some of the questions asked by our new editor, our very own sacred law, Triamazikamno. He came here looking for negative information. He came with a bias and wanted information to support that bias. We are trying to avoid showing our biases in the article. For the "average" reader, one without an agenda, they want something quick, and the dates don't seem important. This is not an article about the history of the British Empire, where dates, and detail, are critical. It's about a couple of thousand people doing something most of the world doesn't give a hoot about. I'm not even sure why there is an article about it. It's just not that important. Since you've asked Vassyanna to respond to this issue, let's see what he says.

The dates are interesting and a common part of reported prophecies. Speculation on dates for less exacting prophecies is widespread. So, it would seem to be likely interest from an average reader. I would say that if the FoF was supposedly a chosen vessel (or protected group) within these prophecies, it is certainly relevant and interesting information. Of course, all such information needs to be attributed to reliable sources. Just my two cents. Cheers! Vassyana 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New archive page (5)

Since a lot of writing happened on this Talk page during the last 10 days, I moved the older comments to the Archive 5 page. Mario Fantoni 21:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

2nd Lawsuit

Question to Vass - is it okay to reference the 2nd suitcase concerning the fof with the images that Rick Ross uploaded.[[6]][[7]][[8]]. I know that his opinions can't be referenced, but this picture is a court file and I don't see a problem as it is a picture and it doesn't reflect RR. Aeuio 01:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it is a primary source, great care must be used. It is greatly preferable that a secondary source reporting on the case be used. Additionally, the third page provided is not signed, which seems suspect and makes me question the validity of the source. A case number and the judge's name is provided. I would suggest using those to find a better source for the information. Vassyana 18:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vassyana, Given the fact that photocopied reproductions can be altered so easily, how can the be considered reliable, whether from the web site or original court documents? --Moon Rising 19:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That altering happens to be highly illegal, and with the enemies that RR has he could get sued and end up in prison. No one is dumb enough to alter court documents and put them on a personal website with his name on it. Aeuio 23:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If the documents can be provided directly from a government site or reliable source, they could be considered reliable information, for what they provide. However, it would still be preferable to have a secondary source discussing the case to provide context and commentary. Vassyana 20:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have foud that Rick Ross has already been sued here [9], and [10], to make it short. Finally, Mr. Ross has already been found guilty of charge here [11]. Do you have other information? Regards, Baby Dove 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

? Was he sued and found guilty of altering these court papers. Do you have this info? Aeuio 23:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not guilty of altering court papers, but convicted for conspiracy and felony:

1974 Conspiracy Conviction: Concerning illegal trespass with the intent to commit a crime, (stealing of furniture and appliances from model homes) Ross was caught in the act by the Phoenix Police and arrested. He pled guilty to Conspiracy and was sentenced to 10 days in jail and put on probation for one year.[12]

1975 Felony Conviction: Concerning grand theft and second degree conspiracy, before his probation period expired Ross was arrested for a diamond robbery involving 306 items valued at $100,000. Ross spent 6 weeks in Maricopa County Jail after his arrest and was later given a suspended sentence of 4 years, fined $1,100 and placed on probation. A subsequent psychiatric evaluation reduced what might have or should have been a prison sentence to a probation sentence.[13]

Mario Fantoni 12:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit dismissed, should not be there. I deleted that. Sekmeth 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou reverted my contribution without explanation... If a lawsuit is dismissed, there is no sentence. If after more than ten years there is no sentence, I guess there will never be one. If that is so, all these old articles are only trash about not proved accusations, so I insist that there is no place for this stuff in the article. Sekmeth 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with. The lawsuits were settled out of court. The fellowship of Friend's president says that they are dismissed. This is exactly what Baby Dove was saying word for word, and it was stated by the old mediator - Coren- that they should be mentioned. It is also supported by the many editors here. Wikipedia isn't a place where you hide facts. These court cases happened and are notable and sourced to different sources. If you feel that these old articles are trash, well that's your ópinion and keep it to yourself. If there is no source allowed to be mention in this article on the fof, then this article should be deleted. So please stop deleteing this and go read the archives where this same thing already happened. Aeuio 22:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The archives give a file # for the case. If you are interested in proving that the President of the Fellowship of Friends was not telling the truth, please get the public records and prove that things are as you say. If not, since you cannot prove it was the way you say, you should accept that accusations could not be proved, because it is a legal fact that nobody is guilty of charge until there is a sentence confirming that. So, meanwhile, accusations are not supposed to be used to discredit anybody. I do not care whether the plaintiff withdrew the accusations or he had other reasons to quit carrying them ahead. In any case, he did not get a sentence favouring his accusations and he obviously preferred not to get one. Please, be reasonable and do not make a third reversion on the subject. Sekmeth 07:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting point, Sekmeth. The mere mention of the lawsuit is a discredit of a living person.--Moon Rising 07:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't working out

This new page isn't working out. I, Wine-ark, and Nix have added info which is constantly being deleted because "it doesn't belong" or "cleaning-up". This is ridiculous, currently mentioning: 1. the dates for RB's predictions - this gives a clear view, and not the appearance "he might have said something about some destruction". Mario is deleting the dates because for some weird reason he feels that they are not important, (and then I am sure BD will then delete the whole thing saying "doesn't belong in the history); 2.the fact that RB was a elementary school teacher - provides background info for the reader about the founder; 3. what WPP stated - provides how some other Fourth Way followers regard the fof. This has been reduced a pthetic one sentence, and now some of it was deleted because "WPP is judging the fof"; 4. RB's claim about fof being a best school - provides fof's self-image. All the believes have "according to RB" but somehow this is irelevant... This is creating a one-sided article and is in no way "incorporating the info into the text", but rather "we agreed on the draft so that now we'll delete all criticism piece by piece". Could we please stop this. If Mario and BD have a problem with adding info from other sources, then I am going to propose we go back to the style of the old page.Aeuio 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not working out. Mario Fantoni 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you rephrase this comment? It could be construed as an personal attack. --Moon Rising 17:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean that you don't tell editors "please stop" and "this is not working out", you tell them "I disagree with your edits because etc., etc., etc". Aeuio has a long story of being unpolite and attacking other editors and I am starting to lose my patience. Mario Fantoni 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You see the big paragraph above Mario - it's my reasons of why and what I disagree with, and your only reply and reason for the adding of the info is "You are not working out". You have a history of adding such little comments which don't apply to the discussion so that the comment would be disregarded. ps you don't say "clean up" and go delete all the criticism. Aeuio 17:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that editors refrain from commenting on other participants. A very nice level of civility had been achieved here. Let's try to stay focused on polite and civil discussion. Vassyana 18:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The information from the media about Burton's profession is irrelevant for the reader and second-handed. Regards, Baby Dove 18:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Any info that provides the reader with greater understanding is relevant to the article. This sentence provides the reader with a some background knowledge on the founder of the fellowship of friends. (PS And being "second hand" makes no difference here.) Aeuio 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey...I'm may be new here, but what's this about? "William Patrick Patterson, claims that Robert Burton and the Fellowship of Friends are not connected to the Fourth Way lineage, and that the Fellowship of Friends does not operate according to the Fourth Way. [2]." It's out of context and the guy sounds like a gurdjieff guru who does the same thing as the folks on this site. So why does he get to put them down in the middle of things, out of context? To me, it's like picking up a brochure on Ford Trucks and having a quote from Lee Iococa saying "Ford sucks". Su Doenim.

Since it's adressing the claim by the fof right before it it's not so out of context. Where exactly would you put it? Aeuio 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Su Denim. The opinion of an esoteric group on another esoteric group will never be objective. Omosubi 21:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And for that reason it shouldn't be mentioned? Where did you get that idea. Aeuio 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Omosui. Frankly, I don't understand the objection to to the Fellowship of Friends. As far as I can tell, the Fellowship of Friends adheres to the Fourth Way tenets as introduced by Gurdjieff and systematized by Ouspensky. Plus, it even adheres to Gurdieff's idea that one must study the specialty of the teacher. Here's what he says in "Fragments" - "But speaking of schools, there are only special schools; there are no general schools. Every teacher, or guru, is a specialist in some one thing. One is an astronomer, another a sculptor, a third a musician. And all the pupils of each teacher must first of all study the subject in which he has specialized, then, afterwards, another subject, and so on. It would take a thousand years to study everything." Gurdjieff is not saying he's got the only school. So where does this guy Patterson get off? Su Doenim.

Frankly, I don't understand where the fof gets off calling themselves a Fourth Way school...so what? Aeuio 23:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. Su Doenim is new and may not know about the WP guidelines to be polite and not to attack other editors. Now he/she knows. --Moon Rising 00:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about Fourth Way. Why is it so important to discuss about the Fourth Way in a Fellowship of Freinds page? I think the page should be on the Fellowship of Friends. Omosubi 07:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Fellowship of Friends uses ideas that are also part of the Fourth Way system, so the ideas are important to include here. As I said in an earlier response to one of your questions, there is little or no documentation about other beliefs of theirs. If you want to know more about the Fourth Way, then you can click on the link to that article. This article intentionally only gives a brief overview of the Fourth Way, partly because it's described more fully elsewhere, and partly because the FOF has its own perspective of the Fourth Way. If you truly want to know about the FOF, you can go to their website. There are several links throughout the article, or you can click here [14] --Moon Rising 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Centers

Since the Fellowship of Friends considers the lower centers as being four, not three, as in the most ancient teachings, the references to the definitions given in Fourth Way (centers) could be confusing for the reader. The same with mental body, term that is often found under amazing unverifiable definitions within many B influence writings. The FOF just talks, in general, about "higher centers." Regards, Baby Dove 17:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the quote above. The language is not familiar to me. Could you please use a simple language that everybody can understand? Omosubi 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Omosubi! In the Centers (Fourth Way) wikipage, there is a confusing mention to "Moving", "Instinctive" and "Sex" sub-centers. This information might be talking about the parts of each center, but if it is so, it is incomplete and mixing up things, such as emphazising that "this center is is implicated in abnormal human development" which for me it is, at least, taken out of context, and it seems to be just an interference of the instinctive center talking about the sex center. Besides, it says that Mr. Gurdjieff talks about three centers, which is true. However, the FOF uses ancient methods to describe centers and their parts, such as the deck of common playing cards, the minor arcana in the tarot, and so on.

The mentioned Centers site also talks about higher centers, relating them to astral and mental bodies. Since Burton does not talk about a mental body, but about a higher intelectual center, it does not seem appropriate to quote this confusing site. Regarding the astral body, he effectively mentions it. However, it is beyond the reach of an ordinary person to see whether an astral body is appearing during a third state of consciousness, or whether someone else could have an astral body or not, so I guess it is enough the quote of a higher emotional center. I hope this would answer your question. Regards, Baby Dove 23:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but everything is too confusing for me. I thought this was an encyclopedia. People check encyclopedia only to have basic information. If they need to go deeper in a subject they should go study in appropriate books. To understand this page people needs to know the subject before understanding it. This page seems to be not enclyclopedic. Omosubi 07:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are very right, Omosubi. This is a talk page, not the article, and I only first wanted to support my deleting of a link (in the article) to the editor who consistently creates links to this page. Then you came to the page, asking, and I thought you deserved an answer about why not to have that link, so I made it too long to explain myself. This Fourth Way page is so far from the viewpoint of the Fellowship of Friends that I really wonder all the time why is all this information being consistently brought to this page.

But some editors do not seem to see the difference, and, since it is a free encyclopedia, we have to learn how to tolerate them, even when it sometimes makes the easiest thing difficult. I guess that to learn about the FOF beliefs, the corresponding section in the main page is even more than enough. At least, this article is what remains after filling the archive with 5 files of endless discussion about its content. Regards, Baby Dove 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If Fellowship of Friends comprises many different teachings, why are there so many references only to the Fourth Way? Omosubi 20:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is currently little, if anything written about the Fellowship of Friends concerning the "many different teachings" you ask about. Or at least, nothing that the current editors can find. Besides this dearth of printed information, WP requires that all information in the article be from a reliable published and verifiable source. You can be sure if we find something, it will be included. And please feel free to edit the article at any time, and continue to ask questions or make suggestions on this talk page. Based on some recent comments, we need all the help we can get.--Moon Rising 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Omusubi, it is confusing. The official web site of the Fellowship of Friends states that they are a Fourth Way school based on Gurdjieff and Ouspensky's teaching but a recent letter I received from the organization declares that they are a Fourth Way school NOT based on Gurdjieff and Ouspensky and that they incorporate other teachings as well (there is no mention to this on the official web site). My conclusion is that the teaching of the organization is changing and that the official web site is not current, so it may be that the Wikipedia page on the Fellowship of Friends is a better source of information about the organization than the official web site. Mario Fantoni 06:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you're confusing me.... --Moon Rising 06:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed link to article on higher centers since this article presents a theory that is not incorporated in the FOF, and therefore not relevant to this article. --Moon Rising 14:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What's up with this Article

This article is presenting the information about the beliefs of the fellowship in detail and clarity, while the negative stuff is berly mentioned and bent; presented as if it's not contreversial. I am guessing that the fellowship is trying to advertise themselves....again. Even the stuff about Burton claiming to be conscious and the fellowship being a greatest conscious school; mentioned right on their webpage; is not mentioned here. Why is there one thing written here and another on their page; which btw is current and was edit in 2007. Why is there no info on who robert burton was before he opened his school, the many raging former members, the predictions where the fellowship would be the only surviving thing on Earth-mentioned partly- and so forth? Is this page supposed to give an overview of the fellowship's teaching, or the many things about the fellowship? Triamazikamno

Triamazikamno, please do yourself a favor and read the 5 archive pages of this Talk page. Take your time. Mario Fantoni 07:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the mediation is to help the editors learn how to bring this article up to wikipedia standards. One of the important points for WP is NPOV - or neutral point of view: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." See this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Try this also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article%3F. Click on the links in those pages and they will give you a good idea of the standards.

Why is there noinformation on who Patterson was before he started studying with Lord Pentland? It is not relevant what someone was doing before, after forty years! Regards, Baby Dove 00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a source on what he did? Aeuio 01:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to our discussion, Triamazikamo, Su Doemin, and Omobsubi - quite an interesting group of names! Anyway, just wanted to let you know that we are in mediation, so a lot of unanswered questions will soon have a response from an disinterested third party who is an experienced wikipedian. I can tell that you are all new editors from looking at your user pages. I put some hints on using WP on Su Donims talk page. Go there if you need a quick tutorial. And Aeuio, sorry for lengthening this page, but I don't think it hurts to welcome everyone together. I did not revert the last time you moved my welcome - please don't do it again. Thank you.--Moon Rising 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove: I am not sure why that would be on this page; but it should definately be on paterson's page. And is this how you welcome everyone? Please learn from Moon Rising, Moon Rising: Thanks for the warm welcome!

When I came to this page I was hoping to see the different aspects of the fellowship and the fellowship's responses to them - and maybe even learn something new. Unfortunately, all I found was the nicest points of the fellowship's teachings and a mesely section on the fellowship itself; I thought that the fellowship would atleast clarify some of their "not so easy to accept points" but it seems that they are simply not mentioned. Maybe there is a wiki rule for that? My wife told me about this article, and she said that she was suprised that there is so little on it - she skipped the teaching section as she is not interested in "guys idioticy" as she calls it. I didn't believe her as usually wikipedia has a separate section on the teaching and the main article is about the given title; especially when there is as much as there is on the fellowship, but this is not the case here. I suppose the mediation is for this improving? Triamazikamno

Triamazikamno, please tell your wife to read the 5 archives of this Talk page. We worked a lot to get to this point. Mario Fantoni 07:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in a way. The purpose of the mediation, as far as I understand it, is for the mediator to guide the editors in bring this article up to wikipedia standards. The mediator might suggest, for example, that an certain edits show a bias, or in other ways may not be appropriate to WP. The editors would then need to come to try to use his suggestions. One of the important points for WP is NPOV - or neutral point of view: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." See this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Try this also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article%3F. Click on the links in those pages and they will give you a good idea of the standards. So, you see, things are not black or white. We need to work together, which we do with greater or less success at different times. Hope this helps. --Moon Rising 01:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Triamazikamno! I wass adding to my information but I had and edit conflict with you, twice. So, here is what I was trying to say:

Welcome Triamazikamno, you ask about Burton's profession before meeting Mr. Horn. I say , Why is there no information on who Patterson was before he started studying with Lord Pentland? It is not relevant what someone was doing before, after forty years! Besides, nobody said that the Fellowship would be "the only surviving thing" on earth. This is misinformation for the reader, who can know by himself what Burton says or not simply by reading his books. A potential "big one", that since the 50s it was being (and still is) predicted by scientists, could not be likely to destroy a worldwide organization; regarding a potential nuclear war, it is difficult to think that Oregon House CA would be a target, other than for former students or members of other Fourth Way groups. All these quoting is similar to what the Fourth Way page, when it says about people ridiculing Gurdjieff by saying that "man will be eaten by the moon." When people take things literally, they are able to make a mock of anything. Go and see pages out there ridiculing some verses in the Bible. Regards, Baby Dove 00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, let's go to the Wikipedia page on the Catholic Church and quote its founder (Jesus) as saying: "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35) A very good quote for the Catholic church WP page, it tells visitors a lot about the organization. Mario Fantoni 13:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Triamazikamno's curiosity, there are now five files in the archive with all this discussions. Feel free to look at them. Regards, Baby Dove 01:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1. If you have a source where it says what WPP did before, I won't stop you from adding it as it is very relevant to his article. Is this the only reason why "him being an elementary teacher" is deleted - because a newly created stub article doesn't have the same thing? 2. I already asked you to clarify the predictions, and until today you still haven't done so (so that is your unexplainable unsourcable research) and please stop using it. Aeuio 01:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC) ps welcome newbies, but please keep this page short

Good point Triam. Someone interested in what has happened with the fof organization in general, and doesn't care in it's philosophy can only waste his time here. Aeuio 01:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If we follow your reasoning, somebody interested on fof's beliefs and history and not concerned about lawsuits, predictions, and other 4th way groups opinions will only waste his time here. Mario Fantoni 07:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

When an editor inserts a comment other that in the end of a section, when the page is long, it becomes very difficult to find it. Please, make efforts to avoid these insertions, especially if you want an answer. That is, partly, why we have already 5 archives (with repeated contributions) in three or four months. Regards, Baby Dove 01:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was 5 archive pages in 2 months. Is there an award for that? Mario Fantoni 07:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Inserted 2 comments above in this subheading, as a response to other comments by BD and Mario. Wine-in-ark 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove: "his books"? How many books has Robert Burton written? Answer: none. "Self-Remembering" is a compilation of short extracts from things he said at dinners. That's it for his books. Burton did not say that there would be just a big earthquake sometime, he said that California would "fall into the ocean" on April 12, 1998, and that Apollo would become oceanside property. He did not mean that the Fellowship would survive in the sense that members are all over the world, and therefore some would survive - he urged everyone to move to Oregon House by September 2006, where they would be safe. The winery was supposed to be a fallout shelter. I know it can be embarrassing having to justify these predictions as a member. But please, this website is about objectively reporting what the man said, not about making yourself feel better. Please don't buffer his statements and let's get on with it. Wine-in-ark 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wine-in-ark, did you hear all that from Burton directly or did somebody tell you? Mario Fantoni 05:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is not alive today and some would say he doesn't have much to do with the present day Catholic church. Quoting the pope would tell us a lot about the catholic church, just like quoting Burton tells us a lot about the beliefs in the Fellowship. Burton is the decision maker in the FoF and the one who says what its beliefs are. He is very relevant. Wine-in-ark 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If comments are inserted in the middle of a conversation it is very hard to follow the page, so I have moved them where they belong. This is not a blog, to answer immediately to what someone says. I have requested this several times, but some of you become too emotional about your own important opinions and make the talk page a very compliucated one. Please, insert your comments below the previous ones. Regards, Baby Dove 03:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To WineI: Well, if he did not use a typewritter or a computer, they reflect what he said, and nobody questioned him saying they were not written by him, so they are his books. They are copyrighted. And they are two, go to the web and get informed. Regards, Baby Dove 03:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To Wine II: The Pope represents Jesus, or so they say. And he says what the beliefs are, as well. Please, go to the Catholic Roman Apostolic Church site and try your commnents on him not representing Jesus there. Regards, Baby Dove 03:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

About photographs and article improvement

The photo of a text can be easily a touched up one. From changing the text to inventing it, everything is possible. I had first deleted it, because it was illegible, but then I realized it was a thumb. Then, I saw it was a copy of an unknown and unverifiable source, so I deleted it again. Regards, Baby Dove 02:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, Veronicapoes's image broke 3 rules: it was not relevant to the page, had very low quality, and violated WP's copyright policy. Mario Fantoni 07:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for English. A friend sent me today a bulletin from Fellowship of Friends and I arrived at Wikipedia to obtain information about the organization, but page is not good to me. I am not interested on the belief and the practice (I can learn about that from the www.go-c.org site), I want neutral information about the organization. Also, it seems that editors expend large part of their time arguing on this page instead of improving article. How sad. Buddhapest 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A clear "photograph" coming from a visitor to the page. Mario Fantoni 12:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand "photograph' Buddhapest 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Budapest, I apologize. It was a play of words with the title of this section ("About photographs") that in the Fellowship of Friend's terminology means "observation from another person about our behavior". I meant that your comment was very appropriate, since it came from an external observer and I believe that the editors of this page (including myself) have so many personal agendas that they tend to forget the purpose of the article: to inform its visitors. I would like also to tell you that you Wikipedia recommends for all editors to sign their articles with four tildes (I am not sure if you know what a "tilde" is, but you can see the instructions on the small box above the main editing area). Anyway, I am happy you found this page and please don't be too hard on us. :-) Mario Fantoni 14:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, but I think that this page does not help people to know the Fellowship of Friends. I presented the page for deletion. Buddhapest 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean you requested for the page to be deleted? Mario Fantoni 14:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Buddhapest 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I respect your decision, but I think that a better solution would be for you to help the editors to improve the page. Are you willing to help? Mario Fantoni 14:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not have time which is necessary to edit. Exactly what I wanted is a certain general information about Felowship of Friends. Buddhapest 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Buddhapest, thank you for your candid comments. It certainly does take time to edit, but if you would be so kind as to better describe what sort of information you are looking for. It is a religious organization, so it seems important to talk about its beliefs and practices. And it's a small organization, so it seems reasonable to have a limited section on its history. Furthermore, as I mentioned in a response above to Omosubi, there is not a much published information about the Fellowship itself. There are a couple of books about cults that present sensationalized comments from former, dissatisfied members. In my opinion, this is not information about the organization, rather, it's information about how a few unhappy people feel about it. So, if you have the time, what do you think should be added (or deleted) from this article to improve it. Thank you. --Moon Rising 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is good article:

• What is Fellowship (including short beliefs).
• What is history of Fellowship.
• 15-20 lines maximum (no long beliefs, no gossip).

Buddhapest 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Buddhapest, Thank you once again for your suggestions. Before responding, may I suggest you sign your name with four tildes (4 of these ~) which will generate an automatic signature? Regarding your suggestions:

• Short beliefs - we (the regular editors) have been gradually making this shorter, and will continue to do so (at one point, this article was many, many times longer - there were more beliefs and each went on for many paragraphs). We need to be careful not to delete too much, as that would distort the teaching and be just as bad as too much (in my opinion).
• There is not too much written about the history of the Fellowship in reliable sources (remember that WP has strong policies about souces). Much of the available history comes from books and newspaper articles quoting disgruntled former members.
• 15-20 lines is wishful thinking, but I get your point - brevity. The gossip, I'm afraid, cannot be deleted because it comes from books published by reputable publishers, and mainstream newspapers, which WP considers reliable sources. I don't know if I'm doing a good job of explaining the dilemmas we face in this area. I appreciate your support and will see what can be done about verbosity in the article (I'm obviously not very good at controlling it on the talk page). Thanks for your patience. --Moon Rising 06:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Article is much shorter now and I like it more. I do not understand the "wishful thinking". Buddhapest 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou, please do not bite the newcomers

In more general terms, one can also avoid being accused of being a "biter" by:

1. Avoiding intensifiers in commentary (such words as terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, good, and so forth, and exclamation marks).
2. Modulating one's approach and wording.
3. Striving to respond in a measured manner.
4. Accepting graciously another person's actions or inactions in a given situation or context.
5. Acknowledging differing principles and a willingness to reach consensus.
6. Opening oneself towards taking responsibility for resolution of conflicts.
7. Reciprocating where necessary.
8. Listening actively.
9. Avoid WikiLawyering. When linking to polices or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.

Try to use standard welcome/warning messages, which are both cordial and correcting, such as those in the first two columns of the chart at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Warnings. Other greetings can be found at Wikipedia:Welcome templates.

Consciously choose the steadfast ground. Strive to be a responsible Wikipedian. By fostering goodwill, one will not provoke or be provoked easily, and will allow new Wikipedians to devote their time and resources towards building an encyclopedia that everyone is encouraged to improve. Mario Fantoni 12:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou, you moved my comment above to your User page and added a comment on my User page saying "Please don't answer someone's comments with one line which gives a question, and therefore automatically dismiss their argument." So in the past you attacked me several times publicly on this page of being paid by the FoF to advertise them and of being Baby Dove and now you are suggesting that we use our User pages for critical comments? How funny. Mario Fantoni 13:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you look at this suggestion as a "critical comment", I thought it was a friendly advise; and I moved it because you were commenting on the length of this page. Since this is a "critical comment" towards me keep it here for all I care. Aeuio 15:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Mario Fantoni 15:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

However (though you have asked me not to use this word, here it goes well), it is the second time, Aeuio, that you delete comments in this page. You did so on June 2, at 23:09, when you deleted Moonrising's welcome to Sue Doenim and Omosubi, avoiding them to even see the welcome. Deleting comments from a talk page seems to me a vandalic behaviour. Please, do not delete any more comments, since the lack of any comment in the talk page, can make someone delete contributions to an article. Besides, they are always in the history page. Regards, Baby Dove 01:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)