Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Visitors comments

It seems that around four visitors who came to the page all expressed a similar view: The page is bad. (and this from visitors in favor and against the fof). From what I read: The page is concentrated on what the fof believes and instead needs more info about the fof...And that the editors here are having endless discussions on who's right. I would suggest that we present all views and have a third party (any mediator or experienced editor) write it for us, and let them decide what's relevant and what's not. Or have someone come and evaluate the page and suggest improvements. That's my suggestion. I am going to lower my pointless arguing here as it doesn't matter, since it seems that visitors have expressed that this page is sad and simply not worth it. Aeuio 13:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Vassyana? Mfantoni 13:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is from the deletion suggestion This article is rather bad, completly an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and has seems to be just self-promotion. I don't completely think is is deleteable, but needs a major reworking. Reywas92Talk 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) And guess what Reywas92 is a fourteen year old. Guess what Mfantoni and BD, you have zero understanding on what's relevant to the article and what's not. Let me translate all of this: Readers and Visitors feel that this article is sad and pathetic and it's done wrong, and a fourteen year old is able to figure out that the article is currently an essay and a "self-promotion". For whom is this article directed to? I feel rather silly that I have so greatly underestimated the understanding of average readers, and how just exactly this article was looked at. (This has a bright side - we don't have to waste our time arguing here and can get back to somethings which don't turn out to be a complete waste of time in the long run) Aeuio 16:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would request all editors please keep comments civil and avoid disparaging other editors. Vassyana 20:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeoiu, the comment above from Reywas92 is from March 31. Today is June 3. Mfantoni 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I know that Mfantoni, I was trying to point out that we attributed way too much credit to this page. It wasn't good back then, and it's not good now. And no one is coming here to form their opinion on the fof from this article. If you want to continue spending so much time here be my guest. Aeuio 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Aeuio, you have no idea how much FoF propaganda was in the article on March 31 when Reywas32 said that. I resuscitated the March 31 article: it is here. Take a look - it is amazing. Can you see how much better the article is today? If Budapest had seen the article on March 31 he would have had a collapse. Mfantoni 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still new, but when I got a welcome on my home page someone told me to be bold. They said they liked a quote I used from Gurdjieff and added it to the article. Then somebody took it away, and I don't know why. Made my first "edit" today and put it back and hope no one takes it out again. It's a good quote. Makes more sense where I put it. Su Doenim 00:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Presence and self-remembering

At Omosubi's suggestion, I started adding some quotes from the organization's website, from which it can be seen how sources other than Fourth Way are used on the FOF. Regards, Baby Dove 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sleep and awakening

Continuing with adding more sources other than the Fourth Way as understood by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, I have done it in this section. Regards, Baby Dove 07:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance

This article may not meet WP guidelines for notability [1]. I have place the notability tag at the top of the page. Since there is a backlog of 5,000 articles in this category, this tag will most likely not produce immediate results. --Moon Rising 04:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from being simply ugly, this Notability tag is quite bizarre. Dozens of newspaper articles and nearly as many books are either partly or entirely about the Fellowship of Friends. It more than meets standards of notability and is much more thoroughly sourced than most WP articles. I removed the tag. Nixwisser 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Nix, I was going to do the same. Mfantoni 06:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction and "Beliefs and practises" section

Continuing with the update, I have adjusted the Belief and practises section to what it says in the introduction about a Fourth Way school, different from the one presented by Gurdjieff. I have also deleted the link to the Fourth Way page, for the same reason. Regards, Baby Dove 08:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Baby Dove, thank you for these edits in response to one of our new editors, omobusi. I think they are helpful. But keep in mind that another new editor, Buddhapest, has asked that we make the article briefer. They both have valid points and I'm not sure it's possible to accommodate both of them. Also, some editors did a merciless job a week or so ago to cut back on each of the beliefs and the history to make the article shorter and more encyclopedic. While I understand and agree with what and why you are making these edits, please keep in mind that we don't want to expand too much. --Moon Rising 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, adding makes it longer Moonrising. But perhaps it could be enshortened by taking away less relevant information, such as the Exercises and practises section. Finally, an interested reader can get this information through Burton's books. What do you think? Regards, Baby Dove 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Either they are a Fourth Way school or they are a different school. One part of the article can't say that are, while another says they are not. The fof website claims that they are. If the website can be used as a reference for one thing, it certainly can be used for another. (Don't you have access to the fof wepage, why don't you change it if its wrong?) otherwise that's the official claim Aeuio 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As the site says, every teacher interprets the Fourth Way anew. Some build aqueducts, others live in monasteries, yet others build cathedrals and so on. Rodney Collin's works are about this. The information on the site might not yet be updated, but the one I quote is also from their official site. Regards, Baby Dove 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the FOF says that it is a Fourth Way school different from the one presented by Gurdjieff, Patterson's sayings are irrelevant here. And please, justify what you do in the talk page. Regards, Baby Dove 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

From the fof front webpage "The Fellowship of Friends is a true Fourth Way school based on the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky." and therefore Patterson's sayings are relevant. The site was edited in 2007 so its updated and untill the info is changed you can't say its wrong. Aeuio 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The quotes contradicting what Aeuio understands come from the Newsletter that can be found in the same website, and the evolution in the form can be easily seen. Schools change in time, as they cannot be real and attached to an earthly form. Rodney Collin explains this as a characteristic of the Fourth Way, changing the form any time its goal is reached (The Theory of Celestial Influence, Chapters 15 & 16). From these Newsletter, which are official material from the school, the section on higher states of consciousness was summarized within "Beliefs and practices." This will enshorten the article to almost a reasonable length for encyclopedic information, which may be more useful for the reader. Regards, Baby Dove 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"A Fourth Way school based on the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky" doesn't mean "a Fourth Way school according to William Patterson". By the way, Gurdjieff and Ouspensky never defined how a Fourth Way school should be, so the statement "a Fourth Way school according to Gurjdieff and Ouspensky" makes no sense. Mfantoni 04:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you two talking about? That statement is from the front page where fof is describing themselves, not some newsletter. If it makes no sense than change your webpage. Aeuio 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio, you keep saying things like "your webpage" "you guys from the fof". Once again, please don't make comments about the editors; stick to commenting about their edits. Regarding your suggestion for changes to the website, which you have made more than once, why don't you contact the organization directly, rather than making assumptions about the power of other editors to do this. From their website, the email address is: selfremember@apollo.org <selfremember@apollo.org>. The phone number for their retreat is (530) 692-2245. As far as your comment about newsletters: while the main website might be more or less outdated, the newsletters are published monthly, so would seem to be a valid source for the current teaching.--Moon Rising 07:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the fof website a valid source for the fof or not? It can't be valid at one place, and out of date at another. Aeuio 19:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As with most websites, there are several pages. And like many site, some pages are more up to date than others, so, yes, it can be valid in one place and out of date in another. Also, the FOF Website seems to be the only source for information about their beliefs at this time. I'm sure many of us have looked for other sources and found none. Let's make do with what's available. BTW, if I could change it I would, but I can't. I suspect that's true for all editors here.--Moon Rising 06:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to log on

please excuse this oversight. the last three edits in the article authored by an ip address are mine. --Moon Rising 14:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The principle of payment and Excercises and practises sections

These two sections have been removed. An interested reader can find this out by himself in the FOF site. Regards, Baby Dove 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

BD - when I saw that you did this, my first reaction was to rv. Then I looked at the page as a whole at it looks great! What a good idea. The page is now focused on what seems to be the most important tenets of the FOF teaching and may even meet with approval from 2 of our new editors who wanted a briefer article and more to the point of the FOF than fourth way. Bravo! --Moon Rising 19:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. Moving the Esoteric School sections out of Beliefs was another very good idea. Thanks. --Moon Rising 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I am glad we are incorporating the suggestions of the 4 visitors that landed on the article during the weekend. We are lucky thay the left their impressions on this page - most people that leave a page in frustration don't leave any comment. Mfantoni 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Way schools

Fourth Way schools have always existed, and even Gurdjieff talks about some of these examples, as it has already been quoted somewhere above. Rodney Collin also talks about this in the Sequence of civilizations, a chapter of his most important work. Therefore, if the school claims to be a different form of Fourth Way school, Patterson's opinions on the subject are redundant and parcially untrue, because he only considers as Fourth Way, the form transmittted by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky and their followers, which is a mistake from a historical point of view, considering the the Fourth way predates Mr. Gurdjieff. Therefore, it should be deleted. Regards, Baby Dove 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Petterson follows Gurdjieff's Fourth Way - the FoF follows Burton's Fourth Way. Aeiou, please don't add Patterson again. Also, watch the 3RR. Mfantoni 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, but if you are going to use that as a claim then it has to be in the article as it clarifies a lot of things. Aeuio 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"Fourth Way" Esoteric Schools - I'm not sure how that conclusion was reached, but it is not correct and Fourth Way does not belong in the heading.--Moon Rising 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices cleanup

I used the scissors again, based on Buddhapest's suggestion "no long beliefs, no gossips". See what you think. Mfantoni 04:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Article looks much better. Buddhapest

I learned to make my signature. Buddhapest 07:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, I moved the section "Esoteric Schools" to the "Beliefs & Practices" section. Mfantoni 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhapest: Your first edit in the page is very welcome. But there is no comment in the talk page whatsoever! It would be good for you to try to explain what you did, because without sub-sections it is harder for a newcomer reader to follow the subject of the article. Regards, Baby Dove 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove, I think that Buddhapest's edit makes sense. A single Beliefs & Practices section without sub-titles looks much cleaner. Mfantoni 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The section of Beliefs and Practice is still confusing. there is a very small chance for a person unfamiliar with Fellowship of Friends to understand it. It is more like a collage than a section developed as a whole. Please make it clearer. Omosubi 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Omosubi, your presence here is welcome. Since you and our other new editors have joined in, the article has taken a new turn for the better. I'm not sure about removing the subheadings in the Beliefs section. with the eyes of a newcomer, do you think it helps at all? Do you have enough knowledge of either the FoF or the 4h way to make any more concrete suggestions. A fresh perspective is welcome. And don't hesitate to edit the article yourself.

On predictions and revelations

To predict is something that anyone can do, because it requires some personal skills. Some people predicts it will rain, because they feet ache; economists predict how could a new product be accepted in the market, or whether the inflation rate will grow due to certain policies, or some, as Nostradamus did, predict the whole future for mankind in the coming centuries.

In all cases, predictions are related to personal knowledge and skills. Revelations, however, can actually look quite fantastic, at John's Apocalypse in Patmos, or the children in Lourdes, or the ones attributed to Burton. And the main point in these revelations, is that they just come to the ones telling them.

Predictions, therefore, can be qualified as right or wrong ones. Revelations, however, cannot unless one can prove that the one telling them is lying, which is not within WP reach.

Based on these difference, I have put "he was told" instead of "he predicted", because it makes more sense within the sentence. Regards, Baby Dove 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Mfantoni 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Incoherence

I am sorry if this comment is purely polemical, but I believe the article as it currently stands has fallen completely into incoherence. Vassayana did a nice job with a compromise edit but without the clearly defined sections, I think it has progressed into a directionless and rigorless muddle.

I doubt even Fellowship members would approve of the beliefs section. Its main thrust is that it takes beliefs from lots of places. First of all, are not the beliefs a lot more important than where they are supposedly gotten from? I could see some reference to sources to back up a section on beliefs, but not as half the section. This is not a section on beliefs but rather "claimed sources of beliefs". An encyclopedic article would, it seems to me, primarily enumerate the beliefs. Second, every single claimed source is controversial, and isn't that worth noting? The claims that Tarot authors, Gothic architects and Sufi practices are signs of esoteric schools, is to say the least, hotly disputed by scholars in those subjects. Would Christians, Hindus, and Jews agree that their religion is an esoteric school? Shouldn't that be mentioned in an objective accounting? I have my opinions that maybe some of them are, but my opinions don't matter here. These assertions by themselves are not at all encyclopedia-worthy without noting that experts in those fields don't agree.

I also don't understand the ongoing assumption that a Wikipedia article about an organization should take what that organization at face value, and opinions critical of it violate NPOV. Yet I've seen this from a variety of sources, many genuinely neutral. I have to say, it makes no sense. The FoF's claim that it is a Fourth Way school is to say the least heavily disputed by nearly everyone who had any living connection to Gurdjieff who lived long enough to see it arise. It has been heavily disputed in published form. To eliminate the Patterson quote because one feels he made a "historial error" or because he is himself involved in the Fourth Way is miss the point. The point is he said what he said. That's the fact to be reported. How we feel about it is of no consequence. I am certainly no Patterson supporter overall. But his book is surely the most widely disseminated evaluation of the FoF by any outsider, the only competition being the newspapers about the lawsuits. Recent treatment of Gurdjieff by scholars has validated Patterson as a source. But his essay now doesn't merit inclusion?

All this article is right now is a wayward half-baked essay with the occasional stray fact introduced as a non-sequitur that only makes sense if you know the history of this article. This article had its problems, but it was certainly a lot better. Ericbarnhill 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it has become, but it has descended. I just added a cleanup tag to the top of the article; maybe newcomers to the page will take this into consideration as they proceed to get confused. --Moon Rising 07:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I just reinserted the section headings, in the hopes that it will focus efforts to clean up the article. Regarding the ongoing concerns from those who have had a living connection to Gurdjieff, and those that have published disputes: they are entitled to their opinion. The FoF is still free to use the term if they feel they are operating in that tradition. Thanks for your input. --Moon Rising 08:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you talk just to say always the same things? I became interested in the article these days, whey it was talking about how to fight sleep. But it was changing all the time, discussing about what the Fourth Way is. I want to know what to do every moment, when I am not dancing or practising thai chi chwan. Krishnamurti died, Gurdjieff died, Ouspensky died, Rodney Collin died, Mahatma Ghandi died, Meher Bava died, Lord Pentland died, and you discuss who was right? I want to do it now. I want to have a third state all the time. Is there a way to come closer to this state, without speaking difficult words. I have read in internet about heptaparasomething and triamaziki... How can I start working if I have to go to a dictionary every two words? Manuel 05:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact - this page has become a blog. Mfantoni 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Manuel, this article is confusing. One possibility in your quest might be to go to the FOF website, see how they work with creating the third state, and if you think they might be able to help you "do it now". Try reading some of the newsletters too. --Moon Rising 08:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To Ericbarnhill: I do not think scholars, as a group of people, can even suspect what is an esoteric school. Of course, some of them might, but one thing is certain: the majority would call esoteric to anything but what it is. People in the outer circles can be very well trained in researching certain subjects, but they are not likely to see the truth. And, of course, millions of members of the greatest religions in the world are not concerned about the esoteric part of their religions; this is why Christians take off the hat to go to church and Jewish put it on when they go to the temple, or Muslims take off their shoes when entering the mosque.

About Patterson, he has a biased idea of what the Fourth Way is, if we consider what he says taking Rodney Collin's point of view. As you know, he says that fourth way schools are behind every one of his western civilizations, creating a new form every time. But it is not this bias what makes it superfluous to be quoted in the page. If the FOF says it is a different form of a Fourth Way school than the one introduced by Mr. Gurdjieff, then it is irrelevant to say that Mr. Burton does not belong to the lineage established by Gurdjieff. And when he says Burton's teaching is a distorsion of the Fourth Way, well, it is simply a judgmental statement (which allowed him to sell some more books to get some more money, indeed). Catholics think that Luterans and Calvinists, and Anglicans distorted the True Faith. One has to convert to the Catholicism if one wants to have a communion with them, in case one is a Protestant. But I have never seen the Catholic Church putting their own opinion on the Faith in the other churches' articles, not even in other religions' ones (even when they claim, as some Fourth Way people, that they are the Only True Faith). If you do not think that the Fellowship of Friends is a Fourth Way Sschool, you are free to do it, but it resembles more to the witch-hunting church in the middle ages, than to the one who was the origin of the Western Civilization when the ADs were starting. Regards, Baby Dove 06:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is any source allowed on this page - what is this? If someone says "fof is a" you simply say "according to me he's wrong" and lets not mention him. Aeuio 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-sense

The Fellowship of Friends is a small weird religious group and this page has zero interest for the general public. It is a miracle that the article hasn't been deleted already (it may be soon, since it is on the AfD list). There are thousands of religious groups the size of the Fellowship that don't have a page on Wikipedia. Why does the Fellowship have a page then? Because it is an arena for bitter ex-members, devoted members, and occasional hard-line orthodox Gurdjieffians to try to destroy each other. Administrators, if you are reading this, please do the Wikipedia community a favor: delete this page and end this non-sense. Will Shortz 05:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Astute observation. Let's see what happens.--Moon Rising 07:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see this article on the AfD list. Can you point it out? I'd like to contribute to the discussion. --Moon Rising 07:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary I find this remarkably un-astute. Do you really think a group of two thousand people doesn't merit a page on Wikipedia? When every South Park episode has a page? And is Wikipedia really about what's of interest to the "general public"? The general public probably wouldn't be interested in most of the Britannica. I don't know who posted this reasoning but it's hard to believe it's the Will Shortz of crossword fame.
I also don't feel like anyone is trying to destroy me and I don't feel like I am trying to destroy anyone. And anyone who thinks they can deduce that an editor here is a "hard-line Orthodox Gurdjieffian" or any other sort of person is being stupid. If I'm implicated, all I can say is anyone who actually knew my beliefs would not think this, but defending myself against accusations like that is certainly not why I came here. Nor was I in this for any battle, I actually thought we were close to a balanced page. Perhaps the page will need to be deleted -- it was always too essayish -- but I don't see Moon Rising's value in this back-of-the-hand sneer. Ericbarnhill 12:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No backhand sneer was intended toward you or any other editor, including myself. I'm sorry that you took offense. Usually, you and I are two of the more civilized editors. If we can agree on nothing else, let's agree on civility. --Moon Rising 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Moon Rising, if you don't see the article there, given the phony name, I think this comment is a troll. And sorry for not signing the previous post until just now. Ericbarnhill 12:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising, the article is listed for deletion here. Ericbarnhill, don't be in denial. The article is 10KB big (and shrinking) and this talk page is 725KB (and growing). Can you imagine what would happen with Wikipedia if editors would spend 99% of the time editing the talk page and 1% editing the article, as it is the case here? It would be finished in no time. And I am not talking about administrator and mediator's time wasted on this page. If people want to fight about the Fellowship they can do it on the Fellowship blog. This page is an abuse of Wikipedia's resources - it is a parasite and it has to be deleted. Will Shortz 13:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess none of my arguments were worth your time to rebut, but it was worth your time to accuse me of being in denial? If any other editors want to engage with Pseudo-Will Shortz's vitriol and psychologizing, feel free, but I will not. Pseudo-Will Shortz is an indicator to all of us that as crazy as this page's path has been, we have been able to keep the dialogue mostly at a civil and constructive level.Ericbarnhill 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not worth my time. I have a day job, something that by the frequency of the posts on this talk page most of the editors apparently don't need in order to survive. By the way, I never called you a HOG (Hard-line Orthodox Gurdjieffian); you included yourself in that category. Will Shortz 16:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would polite request that you cease these unhelpful and aggressive comments. I would particularly warn you to avoid personal attacks. If you believe the article should be deleted, feel free to nominate it for deletion. Please do not use article talk space as a soapbox. Thanks. Vassyana 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Vassyana, thank you for your recommendation. Let me explain. I don't know how much you know about what is behind this page, but I assure you that it exists for a different purpose than to inform people about the Fellowship of Friends. You see, editors are divided in 3 radical groups:

Fellowship Devotees: They want to post pro-Fellowship propaganda - will use "official letters" from the Fellowship and will even change the official web site of the Fellowship to suit Wikipedia needs. Editors in this group:

  • Mfantoni
  • Moon Rising
  • Baby Dove

Former Fellowship Members: Their aim is to include anti-Fellowship propaganda based on inside information they have about the Fellowship from the time they were members. Editors in this group:

  • Wine-in-Ark
  • Nixwisser
  • Veronicapoe
  • Babycondor
  • Artnscience

4th Way Followers: This group wants to discredit the Fellowship based on books written by anti-Fellowship authors - will join the Former Members group to combat the Devotees. Editors:

  • Aeuio
  • Ericbarnhill

Is this what Wikipedia is for? I understand that editors usually have different opinions, but this page is a battlefield for the 3 different factions and I thought that the place for that kind of activity were blogs and discussion forums, not Wikipedia. Please tell me if I am wrong. Will Shortz 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your description about us is right. But that's not a good reason to delete the page. I think that the main problem is that this page is disallowing sources because of editors personal views, while some email is the main source. Aeuio 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If Will Shortz has a proof that Moon Rising, Baby Dove or I edited the FoF official web site to accommodate the Wikipedia page he should present the evidence here. If not, he must stop his gratuitous personal attacks immediately. Mfantoni 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop making broad generalizations and disparaging comments about other editors. Generally, what you describe is common on religious subjects. Very often you have followers, sympathetic observers, former followers and opposition. Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and rules of etiquette are intended to help these various POVs work together to create a neutral article. Vassyana 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would also ask that you assume in good faith that the editors here are simply trying to work towards what they believe is the "best" article on the subject. Vassyana 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is funny, "Will Short" has a "deep perception" at classifying editors, to be such a newcomer that he does not even has a greeting in his user page! He should have studied the talk page and article a lot to group the editors that way. But his first contribution to WP was to request the deletion of a page, that makes me think of what his plans are? The FOF site is not changing, what changes are the newsletters quoted there. They are issued monthly, and they seem to reflect certain changes compared to the static part of the page. But, since they are available there, they are certainly an official voice. We have all worked a lot to improve the page to get it suddenly deleted because someone does not like it, and it also does not want to improve it to whatever he thinks it is fine. Finally, at classifying editors, he forgot to say that Aeuio and Ericbarhill seem to try to promote the Gurdjieff Foundation by attacking their competitors (they have also attacked Alex Horn and Boris Mouravieff, for instance). Regards, Baby Dove 22:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The bloggers are coming!

I have been wondering why after months of very little traffic suddenly lots of people are finding (and editing) this page, some of them in a pretty uncivilized way. Today I found this blog and suddenly everything made sense (just read the opening paragraph). I heard that that site gets 1,500 visitors per day. Mfantoni 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but there's nothing you can do about that, and I still think that some of these editors are socks. Aeuio 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite interesting blog. Has your name in it at a couple of places - you were the best man of some Kiran (Babycondors cm), so they are definitely former members. This is going to be interesting if they come here. Aeuio 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Aeuio, I didn't understand your comment above. Can you explain? Mfantoni 23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If you follow Babycondor's messege you will see Kiran's comment about you. Using edit/find/mario I recently saw your name in another place where someone asked you and Peter I. (BD or MR I suppose) to explain why you are trying to hide information (such as that RB's predictions were literal and not symbolical) about the fof. I thought that that blog was by people who were lying that they were in the fof, but it seems that they are really former members. That's quite interesting. Aeuio 23:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am glad you find the FoF blog interesting. You may want to contribute to it - I suggest for you to start with the Patterson vs. Burton thing. Mfantoni 23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No need, red HIV center, the members in the fof, and what goes on in there... are way more then what Patterson has to say. Aeuio 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's a common fact between you members that RB was never symbolical in his predictions, good to know...- Try finding negative info on other Fourth Way schools (rhetorical question only meant to present a view and not prolong this discussion) Anyways Welcome Bloggers, anyone has a right to edit Wikipedia. And it would be very nice to have someone from the fof stand up to false claims which are being used here as justifications. Aeuio 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, welcome bloggers, let's turn Wikipedia into a blog! Mfantoni 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
AEUIO - I DON'T LIKE TO SHOUT, BUT PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, STOP SAYING "YOU MEMBERS". I'VE ASKED THIS MANY TIMES. YOU MAY THINK YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, BUT YOU DON'T. AND EVEN IF YOU DID, IT'S A FORM OF ATTACKING AN EDITOR. Thanking you in advance, --Moon Rising 05:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Aeuio, stop calling us "you members". It sounds like "you blacks" or "you jews". Mfantoni 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Who are you to say that someone is not welcomed to wikipedia? If someone wants to edit then they can and you can deal with them when they come. And this article and talk page are already a blog. Aeuio 23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the new editors only edit the discussion page, not the main article. That's what I meant by turning Wikipedia into a blog. But what the heck, if Vassyana is OK with that (he is an admin now) I am also OK. Mfantoni 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Waw! This is a really good idea for someone without nothing to do! I followed the link to the blog, and I found a Paypal donation bottom. If only 1,000 visitors in a month pay $5 each, that makes $60K a year... Good idea, whoever it created this! Sekmeth 21:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sekhmet, the blog displays Google ads too. It's big business. Mfantoni 23:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a joke compare to the fof income and business - and why is this on the talk page... to make new people hesitate about editing? Please stop this Aeuio 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Aeuio, the FoF blog is included in the "Criticism" section of the article, so this discussion is relevant. Mfantoni 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio, you are bringing a blog to WP to show who is the best man of an editor? I understand now how it is that you are so interested in fourth category books talking about what others say of a person. I do not care who is Mfantoni's best man and this information should have never been allowed in WP by an experienced editor... Regards, Baby Dove 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, predictions were symbolical, but it seems that some wanted a Nostradamus, not a teacher to teach them how to awaken... And your reference to HIV is far from being polite and civilized. Also, "then Patterson has to say" should be "than", with an "a". Regards, Baby Dove 00:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The bloggers are here - they are us - it's just more obvious with the new influx of editors. This talk page has become a blog with strong opinions about other editors, veiled and not so veiled insults, and opinions about the subject of the article - all blog material. This talk page is to be used for discussing how to improve the article and how to reach consensus about the article, not on the merits of the subject of the article. The FOF blog has asked bloggers to come to WP and actively edit, so we will no doubt see more editors who are uneducated about WP policies and guidelines. As more senior editors, we can try to educate newcomers both on their talk pages, on this talk page and most importantly, set a good example by our actions. This page has gone through cycles of more or less contention, but we have reached a new low. I would suggest that those editors who want to rant about the fof do so on the fof blog, and those who want to improve Wikipedia, get back to work. --Moon Rising 06:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration?

OK this is has gone out of hand. The following that's criticizing the fof is not allowed here and "is irrelevant":

  • That it costs every member 10% of their income to join (mentioned on their own website as well as in a LA article and two books)
  • That Robert Burton’s (top leader of the organization) annual salary is estimated to be $250 000 (mentioned in a LA article and two books)
  • The fact that Robert Burton has written in his book that “the Fellowship is the greatest school in history”
  • That cult-buster Steven Hassan has labeled it as a cult because of the control that the fof has over its members.
  • That a Fourth Way writer and student, William Patrick Paterson, has written that the fellowship doesn’t operate as a “true fourth way school” and "uses advertising means to succeed". Note that fof website on their front page of their website writes that "The Fellowship of Friends is a true Fourth Way school based on the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky". In this case what Paterson says is irrelevant because even the fof website is not allowed to be used here because it doesn't support the email that one of the editors received (where it says that fof is different from the school represented by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky).
  • That Robert Burton and the fellowship have been sued for sexual abusement and brainwashing by former members. According to the sources "the cases were settled out of court with undisclosed outcomes". Another source says that "The Fellowship of Friends' president stated in a newspaper article that one suit was dismissed and two others were settled by the organization's insurance companies to save the costs of litigation". This has been deleted under the claim that "because you can't prove what the president claimed is wrong, the cases were dismissed, irrelevant, and discredit a living person."

Other things which are wrong here and can't be solved:

  • An email is being used as a reference here, while the fof website is considered outdated only at places where it doesn't support the email (Even tough the website is constantly changed and modified)
  • Criticism as a separate one section is not allowed to be on the article. When it’s added, someone says let’s incorporate it into the article as suggested by the mediator [2] [3], and then someone says “not relevant to the section” (this time the same editor[4])– this is ridiculous and every time criticism is deleted in this way
  • Other than the last sentence, the entire article is based on the fof sources. While the sources criticizing them are not allowed to used as sources for information – they are considered trash, old or irrelevant.

Since the last time I wrote something about "this article not working out", I was told by an editor that "You (Aeuio) are not working out", so this time I have written this same thing to two arbitrators and asked them to state what's relevant and what's not. They have absolute power on wikipedia and what they say goes, so wait for their comments here. If they don't want to comment for some reason then I will file for arbitration. Aeuio 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: I have copied your comments below so that I could respond to each:
  • The fact that Robert Burton has written in his book that “the Fellowship is the greatest school in history” I don't see how this addition would improve article; I think you're the only editor focused on this point--Moon Rising 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the leader's claim about his school and it should be relative to the article. Aeuio 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That a Fourth Way writer and student, William Patrick Paterson, has written that the fellowship doesn’t operate as a “true fourth way school” and "uses advertising means to succeed". Note that fof website on their front page of their website writes that "The Fellowship of Friends is a true Fourth Way school based on the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky". In this case what Paterson says is irrelevant because even the fof website is not allowed to be used here because it doesn't support the email that one of the editors received (where it says that fof is different from the school represented by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky). there is no email quoted in the article; an email was mentioned as some point on the talk page, but that's all--Moon Rising 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You are refusing to use the fof webpage for certain points becuase it doesn't agree with the email. You can't do that, and whatever it says on the webpage should be counted as current and reliable. Aeuio 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Other things which are wrong here and can't be solved:

  • An email is being used as a reference here, while the fof website is considered outdated only at places where it doesn't support the email (Even tough the website is constantly changed and modified) as explained above, different pages of the web site are more current than others; I'm not personally aware of any changes, but since it is out of date, it makes sense that it would be updated periodically; I don't understand the repeated accusatory tone used when you mention this
You can't say the fof webpage was updated in 2007 so their claim about their total members is up to date, and then say at other places "you can't quite the website because it's out of date. It's not out of date - I seen it yesterday and it has quite a few changes. It was last edited in 2007 so it can't be out of date. On top of that when someone asked about the fof's beliefs, you told him to go see their website.? Aeuio 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Criticism as a separate one section is not allowed to be on the article. When it’s added, someone says let’s incorporate it into the article as suggested by the mediator [5] [6], and then someone says “not relevant to the section” (this time the same editor[7])– this is ridiculous and every time criticism is deleted in this way this is one editor; some editor's biases show more than others, on both sides of the dispute--Moon Rising 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Other than the last sentence, the entire article is based on the fof sources. While the sources criticizing them are not allowed to used as sources for information – they are considered trash, old or irrelevant. the reliable sources about the fof are apparently limited. there are a a couple of cult buster websites, a couple of books and a few newspaper articles, and the fof website. all are needed for balance--Moon Rising 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this help to clarify things and allay your concerns?--Moon Rising 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I answered your responses and to keep this clear I deleted the ones you just copied for balance. Aeuio 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at the article today and it looks quite good - probably the best it has ever been. No long beliefs, not gossip. For the first time it looks like an encyclopedic entry. I am sure the bloggers will disagree. Mfantoni 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks like advertising copy to me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Jpgordon, can you explain? Thank you. Mfantoni 22:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure. It could have been lifted bodily from promotional material from the organization. There's nothing critical, nothing analytical, nothing from any external points of view. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see that paragraph was added back since I started writing this. It's more balanced with that there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What a load of crap! Will Shortz says it best....... "The Fellowship of Friends is a small weird religious group and this page has zero interest for the general public. It is a miracle that the article hasn't been deleted already (it may be soon, since it is on the AfD list). There are thousands of religious groups the size of the Fellowship that don't have a page on Wikipedia. Why does the Fellowship have a page then? Because it is an arena for bitter ex-members, devoted members, and occasional hard-line orthodox Gurdjieffians to try to destroy each other. Administrators, if you are reading this, please do the Wikipedia community a favor: delete this page and end this non-sense."

Stop wasting your time.......delete and be done!!!!!!!!pdouspensky Forgot to say that if you don't delete then you need a bigger description of what they believe.

Wine in Ark:

I donot say former members lie. I say they present themselves as imparcial, which is not true. To get an impartial article current members and former members should contribute with their own views about the same matters. This is not so, and then former members try to bring sources where they are never contradicted. Go to a cult-buster with any sort of sources proving they are mistaken and see what happens! Of course, their business thrives with having people concerned with that friend or relative's honest (and different) beliefs, and they stoke up their concerns with words arising their fear. Quotes from a blog where former students discuss their views on the organization cannot be considered an impartial source. Even papers and media cannot be taken as impartial all the time. When they get a news affecting someone's image, they can decide to put it in the first page, even with big characters. Six month later, if iut happens at all, they apologize on page 19, column E, in the middle of a group of miscellaneous news. But the article is now changed again, so all this is old and a waste of time. Regards, Baby Dove 05:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this is not about Wikipedia editors deciding about who is to be believed. Our job is to report from what we have agreed are reliable sources, regardless of your opinion on whether they seeing the situation objectively (and no, the blog has not been quoted as a reliable source to my knowledge, it can only be an external link because it is specifically related to the topic, but we agreed we would not quote it). Wine-in-ark 21:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

FoF's self image

Moon Rising, I would agree with Aeuio that if Burton claims "we are one of the greatest schools in recorded history" and similar, this is very relevant information to the page as it reveals the organization's self-image; it is a rather strong statement that is hard to gloss over. That is not to say the article should say "FoF is one of the greatest esoteric school in recorded history" but it should say "FoF sees itself as one of the greatest esoteric school in recorded history".
As for pdouspensky, the only reason I see for deleting the page entirely is so that the organization itself would not have to deal with it, and once again most information would be available only from the FoF official website. The topic is notable because it has been reported on in newspapers, because it is a world-wide organization with thousands of members and ex-members, advertises widely, many people are coming into contact with it every day through its open and prospective meetings held in major cities in North & South America, Europe and Asia, and some of these people might want to find out more about it. Wine-in-ark 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wine: Why it does bother you so much whether they say they are "one of the greatest schools in the recorded history"? This would require that you know greater schools to give a thought contradicting it (and you would also need to know the Fellowship in person, not by references). Baby Dove 00:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Baby Dove: It does not bother me. On the contrary. I feel such a strong statement about yourself merits inclusion in the article. I have no intention of contradicting this statement, unless valid sources can be found that directly criticize it. Wine-in-ark 01:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Meher Baba said he was the Avatar, Jesus said he was the Son of God, and many, many kings in the history of mankind were "gods", and the Pope claims his infalibility. Hiro-Hito stop claiming this after August 9th, 1945. Of course, nobody knows how did he kept feeling about this up to his death. Baby Dove 00:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, excellent. Whenever someone claims about themselves that they are infallible, or the greatest something on Earth, or that they have an important role in the history of humanity, this should be included in an article about them. The issue is not whether they are really so - we are merely reporting that they perceive themselves to be so. Wine-in-ark 01:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
So, this quotation is really minimal compared to those cases. Unless you are trying to "save others" from an eventual "fall in California." That would be another story and I doubt you are able to do it. All Fourth Way schools say that "Man cannot do", so it is a Waste-of-Time. Baby Dove 00:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the papers, they were obviously called by former students to get a satisfaction by complaining about what they thought it was a loss for them. Papers sell news, you take one, and they publish it. Regarding the books, they also are a source of money, and a certain "prestige", and they mainly do as papers do, or they simply quote them. Of course, a plaintiff choosing not to go on with his accusations is no longer news for them, whatever his reasons are. Baby Dove 00:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
We are reporting on all the information that exists in the world about the Fellowship of Friends. As an observer, you would be biased to assume that former members are ONLY lying and current members are ONLY telling the truth. Both and all points of view need to be included. Also, our role is not to instruct Wikipedia readers about who to believe, because we trust them to be adult enough to decide that for themselves. Wine-in-ark 01:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The deletion of the page is something you seem to be worried about. You were the creator, after all, and the current page does not reflect what you had on it when you first started. But since everything dies, so I cannot share your concerns. My concerns are that, to be objective, the article cannot invent the beliefs of the organization. The only reasonable source is the same organization and it seems that, for some reason, they are having trouble in updating the homepage to what they say in their more modern Newsletter. I do not know whether they will solve these problems, but let us hope they do. Of course, we cannot expect them to do it just because of this article. Baby Dove 00:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The current page shrunk considerably when current members started deleting any non-adulatory information with the excuse that it is "irrelevant" and "of no interest to readers". It does worry me somewhat that they would reduce the content to such an extent as to argue that the article should not exist. It worries me in the name of free speech and control of information. I find censorship offensive, you see. But don't worry, Baby Dove, I will survive even if the article is deleted. :) No one was inventing the beliefs of the organization BTW, we were quoting from published books produced by Fellowship members and its Teacher. You have tried to prevent that on many occasions because it made you feel silly. I understand. Wine-in-ark 01:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What I really don't understand is why former FoF members spend so much time criticizing the FoF on this page. It seems to me that they are so negative that they need to spend many hours per week editing the Wikipedia page to make sure that everybody that visits the page feels as bad as they do regarding the FoF. My only explanation is that they loved the FoF so much and the separation was so traumatic that now they feel as people feel towards a former spouse after a divorce. Alleswisser 07:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Finally, you talk of thousands of people reading this article. C'me on..! I would really be amazed if more than 200 people read it (mostly former students). One way would be to have a hit counter, but even so,how to consider duplicate readers? This is not important at all.  : Regards, Baby Dove 00:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't. Read it again. I was saying that there have been thousands of members, and that many people all over the world come into contact with the FoF through its advertising every day, and that some of these people might want to find out more about the organization. Don't you want prospective members to read it? Wine-in-ark 01:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wine ark, we are here to report on important information concerning the fof and not simply remove them because of personal views. Aeuio 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said before I obtained the bulletin from Fellowship of Friends. I wanted to know more about Fellowship but Wikipedia article is too confusing. It speaks about the esoteric schools but they are not explained those schools I mean how fellowship uses those schools. It speaks about sleep and consciousness but it does not explain what are they and how Fellowship works with those ideas. The history part have 4 lines on history of Fellowship and 9 lines on the lawsuits, the sexual abuse, and the wage of founder. How can you to say this is good article for the people that want the general information about Fellowship of Friends? I do not understand. Buddhapest 01:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not, as it has been stated by the admin and the arbitator that this page needs a rewrite. You raised a good point and that is : Keep the believes more generally understandable, and how they directly relate to the fof Aeuio 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Aeuio, I think you meant "beliefs", not "believes". Alleswisser 08:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeio: Why you write in dark characters? Believes of the FOF are what the FOF say, or you know better. Page is not about what you believe. Is about what they believe. Why all niks are similar? Nixwisser, Alleswisser, Wine-in-ark, PresenceInArk. Why Arkansas is so famous here? And Budapest said good: Where is the story here? Manuel didn't allow me. Manuel ita 09:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly did I add the believes that I believe? I said that it is about what they believe, and I don't understand the rest of your comment. Aeuio 11:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Manuel, you are a newcomer to this page and you deserve some background information. You see, the nicknames of the editors reveal a lot about them. Every anti-FOF editor has a pro-FOF alter ego. For example, "Wine-in-ark", the creator of the page, is an ironic reference to the fact that the FOF owns a winery and that Burton, the founder of the FOF, stated that the FOF is an ark, so this person is certainly a former FOF member with a negative attitude towards the organization. "PresenceinArk", then, is the current pro-FOF editor. “Nixwisser” ("the one that knows nothing" in German) is also a former member of the FOF with a negative attitude; "Alleswisser" ("the one who knows everything") is the pro-FOF editor. "Babycondor" is another former member with a negative bias, so "Baby Dove" is the correspondent pro-FOF editor. "Aeuio" (the positioning of the 5 vowels on the keyboard) and "Ericbarnhill" (the name of a music and movement educator in real life) are anti-FOF editors not connected to the organization so they are neutralized by all the pro-FOF editors that take turns working against them. Finally, "Buddhapest", "Omusubi", "pdouspensky", etc. are all pro-FOF editors; they are probably current members that were sent by the organization to work on the page or sock puppets of the pro-FOF editors. Yes, I know, I know, "assume good faith", "we are all working together for a neutral page", etc. The problem is that I know too much. Remember, I love puzzles. Will Shortz 13:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicely said. PS No one is stupid here/Everyone knows the situation well- "assume good faith", "we are all working together for a neutral page" are lines used to appeal to the mediators or outside admins. . Aeuio 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Please let's stop the blogging and concentrate on the article. Thank you. Mfantoni 12:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Review

Based on the criteria for good articles.

  1. Well-written. The article needs a solid rewrite. The quality of writing is a bit inconsistent and also a bit fawning of the topic at points. Effort needs to be spent on better integration of the text.
  2. Factual and verifiable. The article seems factual. However, the article relies heavily on primary sources, web sources and poorly documented references. There is a great need for more secondary sources and more traditional print sources. References that vaguely allude to a "document on file" are not easily verified. Book sources should at least have a publisher and year of publication in the cited reference, and an ISBN number would be highly desirable.
  3. Broad coverage. The coverage of this topic is very spotty. An uninformed reader would not come away with a clear understanding of the group. The beliefs and teachings of the group need better coverage, particularly in forming a complete overview of beliefs and practices. The history section is a bit spotty and definitely could use more relevant details.
  4. Neutral. The article has a few bones to the opposition, but largely reads as though it is written from a distinctly sympathetic point of view to the subject. Much of that can be corrected by reporting the facts in a more neutral tone. Some of the correction needs to come from better documentation of the FoF's conflicts with counter-cultists and other Fourth Way figures & schools. It should be said that this does not mean that the barbs traded back and forth should be documented. Rather, a neutral overview of the disagreements should be provided.
  5. Stable. This article is not at all stable. Considerable effort must be expended to reach a reasonable consensus on this article and it will likely require some compromise & flexibility from all parties.
  6. Images. While Robert Burton is the central figure in the FoF, it would be more desirable to see an image of FoF property or gatherings. I am not sure if free images are available, but I would encourage editors to look around. I would also encourage those who support the FoF to take some relevant photos and upload them under a free license. :o)

Overall, this article needs a rewrite based on more (and better documented) references. Better references and secondary sources would allow many of the article's flaws to be repaired, such as spotty coverage. They would additionally provide a better base to build a neutral article from and additional facts that can be used to better integrate the writing. Achieving neutrality and consensus will require effort, both in discussing changes and finding sources. If anyone has any questions about my observations/opinions, please feel free to ask. Cheers! Vassyana 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have began some editing, and I have added the criticism section. The section should not have subsections as you stated, but there should be "criticism" section in the article. Nearly every page on wikipedia has one. If you feel that there should not be a criticism section, then explain why; and where you think that the info is more suited for. Aeuio 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to our new editor, PresenceInArk. I see you have done some homework about the history of this article, and are also not entirely new to Wikipedia. You have certainly taken Vassyana's request for more information about the beliefs of the FOF to heart. I haven't had a chance to read it all, but I'm hoping they are all well sourced. One thing you may want to consider for future edits is that the language needs to be encyclopedic, first person pronouns ("one", "we")are not encyclopedic. You may want to review the WP Manual of Style [8] and try to fix your edits, or else another editor will need to do it. I don't mean to deter you - you've taken this article a big step forward in Vassyana's plan. Please keep up the good work. Thanks for the help. We need it.--Moon Rising 04:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MoonRising. Will do. PresenceInArk 04:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PresenceInArk, I hope your contribution is sourced enough. The page looks good, though long yet. But good work to be your first one. Regards, Baby Dove 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

User 66.167.110.31 tried several times today to remove the official site of the FOF from the External Links section and added a personal site there as the "unofficial site of the FOF". The same user also removed 7 sites today from the External Links section of the Fourth Way page and added a personal site there as "The Fourth Way System". Let's keep an eye on him/her. Mfantoni 12:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mfantoni is a member of the destructive cult the Fellowship of Friends: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ArkansasBob/ , wikipedia should keep an eye on his activities here because they aggressive recruit naive victims. fourthwaysystem (wikipedia ID)
Reverted more of the same vandalism a little while ago - new IP I think? Ericbarnhill 16:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio puts the Criticism section back

Today I noticed that Aeuio re-introduced the old "Criticism" section after he and all the main editors had agreed with the mediator (Vassyana) that the article was going to incorporate critical comments in the other sections of the article and spent a lot of time working on a New Draft Rewrite page that didn't have a Criticism section. This means that mediation is useless for this page. I am sorry, Vassyana, we all know how hard you tried. Mfantoni 12:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using Vass as an excuse. When I added it, you said let’s incorporate it into the article as suggested by the mediator [9] [10], and then later you delete the same section [11] saying "its irrelevant". This is quite a dirty trick to eliminate all criticism towards the fof. I am sorry that Vass's draft (where everything was incorporated) is being used in such a low way. I already said this up there and you have not even responded! So please don't try this kinds of things. Vass and the arbitrator have said that that article needs more views and criticism, and don't ignore that and try to make me look like I am unfair here. Nearly every wikipedia article has a criticism section (if there are sources), and this article is no exception. Aeuio 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I will again state that I strongly dislike criticism sections because they place a spotlight on those facts. However, the Manual of Style is a guideline and if circumstances prevent integration at this time, then we should do what is best for the article. Great care should be taken to ensure the criticism section (and indeed the whole article) adheres closely to a plain reporting of facts. I will also say I would very much like to see the editors here invest the kind of energy shown in continuing the content dispute into finding more reliable secondary sources (and therefore information) for this article. Vassyana 19:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to laugh every time I revisit this page. It's as if a bunch of children are playing in the sand. One builds a sandcastle and someone else smashes it. Architects and engineers are brought in to advise the children on how to build better sandcastles by cooperating. The children try it for a while, but fall to squabbling over the placement of the turrets and moats. Then a big wave comes and washes away the castle. A new group of children arrives and begins the process over again.

Look, this is a controversial topic. "Neutrality" is a pipe dream, folks. Members of the Fellowship of Friends are religious believers who feel called to expound and defend their faith (and income stream!) Former members, for the most part, recognize that the group is a cult. A person who is considering becoming a member might want to know what some former members have to say about it. (For this, the Animam Recro blog is a good starting place.) A person who is neither a former nor a current member probably could care less, but might be amused by the antics of the contributors to this article (and even more so by this Discussion page!) In closing, I offer the words of Meher Baba, who said, "Life is a mighty joke." Don't take it personally, dear editors, but this article is a mighty joke too. I know you're probably rather attached to it by now, but remember that big wave. Nothing lasts. Love, Babycondor 16:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Babycondor for your insights. --Moon Rising 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
BabyCondor: have to agree with that assessment. :) Wine-in-ark 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fresh Start

Dear Friends, This talk page is out of control. Can we mutually agree to stop personal bickering and posturing and focus on the article? I will try not to edit this page unless it is specifically related to article improvement, and hope you all will do the same. Except for the comments from Vassyana and Jpgordon, which provide direction, the page should be archived, IMHO. Thank you. --Moon Rising 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally something I can agree with. Mfantoni you are into archiving. Could you enact Moon Rising's suggestion? This article reached a nice point a few days after transferring from the draft rewrite and has descended to Riquiroz levels of infantilism since. Nixwisser 05:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I just created Archive 6. Unfortunately, I made a mistake and deleted the text instead. Since this is my first time archiving, I just archived a fraction of what needed to be done (headings 1-8) as a test. I will try to figure out how to request the help of an administrator to restore the missing text. Please assume good faith. In retrospect, I know what I did wrong and I assure you it was entirely unintentional. My computer experience is limited. My apologies, and thank you for your understanding.--Moon Rising 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC) PS - I just left a message on Vassyana's talk page asking for help in restoring text.--Moon Rising 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I did it right - if not I apologize and someone correct it. Aeuio 23:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least you did not delete anything (I don't think, I didn't check). There were several sections I would have left in, at least in part, because they had valuable insights from Vassyana and jpgordon that would be good to keep handy. These sections are (if I can read my own notes): Opinions, Example Merge, About History, Draft/rewrite, History cleanup, 2nd Lawsuit, Not working out and Visitors comments. If it's not possible to just extract relevant information before archiving then this probably makes sense as it was done, and perhaps even more. Thanks for taking care of this Aeuio. Perhaps a more experienced editor can answer this.--Moon Rising 01:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Aeuio, I just looked over the archive you did - it looks very complete. Were you able to retrieve the data I lost? --Moon Rising 22:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe so. Aeuio 12:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs - providing better coverage while maintaining neutrality

In his review of the article, Vassyana said: "The coverage of this topic is very spotty. An uninformed reader would not come away with a clear understanding of the group. The beliefs and teachings of the group need better coverage, particularly in forming a complete overview of beliefs and practices." An editor (I forget who) added a considerable amount of text, and another editor tagged almost all of it with a NPOV tags, commenting: "neutrality disputed - these are pure Fellowship BELIEFS being expressed as objective truth - please neutralize." Since the article is about the FOF, wouldn't the reader expect that the beliefs expressed in the article are "pure Fellowship beliefs?" I will remove the tags until we have consensus on this subject. --Moon Rising 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the following changes: replaced first person pronouns with alternative text in accordance with MOS; incorporated some of the removed text into existing text without having redundancies, added back some of deleted text explaining why it was connected to the article, removed some POV tags as the article is about the FOF and the heading is beliefs: of course the beliefs are from the point of view of the FOF; in some cases added "according to the FOF" but use of this phrase in every instance of a deleted tag would hinder the readability of the article.--Moon Rising 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Moon Rising;I will assume that you really don't understand why the text on the page is not neutral. I think it is a common human trait that we tend to not see from the perspective of other people and then our own opinion seems obvious truth. Let me try to explain why the style of the article is very bad for an encyclopedia.
I am not objecting to listing Fellowship beliefs in the article, I'm objecting to them being expressed as absolute truth. Remember this is a world you share with 6 billion people but only 2,000 people share Fellowship beliefs, plus perhaps some other Fourth-Way followers. So you need to be writing the article from a point where you will not assume that anyone's beliefs are more true than anyone else's beliefs.
In that context, you can not tell readers what is "most important to understand", you can't speak about how "Robert Burton often reminds us" (this is pure Fellowship member perspective), you can't state as if it is a fact that certain feelings mean "this is the higher emotional center beginning to emerge" and that some other thoughts "are perceptions from the higher intellectual center", and you can't say "all esoteric schools throughout history have always taught" the same thing as the Fellowship of Friends teaches. Outside the Fellowship of Friends, there is no empirical evidence for such a statement, so it can only be expressed as the opinion of the FoF or of Robert Burton (who also relies on personal insight to understand these things). You are also in no position to tell worldwide readers that something "is the hidden meaning and purpose of life on Earth" :) and "the most real thing of all" - this is something taught by the FoF, it should not be expressed as a universal truth. There are many concepts in the text that only exist within the 4th way and FoF world so you either need to introduce them as such, or avoid them altogether. Please go through the text and see how many statements of truth it contains, then rephrase them with terms such as "is said to be", "is believed", "is understood as", "is taught by the FoF" etc.
Thanks. Wine-in-ark 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for assuming good faith and taking the time to explain. Your explanation is helpful. While you were writing this, I had already made some edits and was adding the comment below explaining what I did. I will take another look at the article as you suggested, and make a few more changes. I just can't do that right now. Unless you feel it's necessary to take your time to put back all those tags, can you trust me to come back very soon to make more edits? Then, if you still disagree, go ahead and add the tags. Your choice, it doesn't matter to me. --Moon Rising 22:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I just made several more edits in accordance with Wine-in-ark's suggestions. There are more to be made, but this is all I can do now. Please feel free to jump in and help. --Moon Rising 01:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Higher Centers and Higher States: the newly created subheading "higher states" was merged into a new combined subheading, and the text was reverted. The edit by Wine-in-ark was summarized as "style, meaning, coherence, explanation of unfamiliar terms". While attempts to define unfamiliar terms and make the article more coherent are welcome, care needs to be taken to not change the meaning of the information in the process, which is why I reverted. This is not to say that the section could not be improved. Also, higher centers and higher states are so closely connected that it is confusing, IMHO, to have two separate headings. Perhaps another editor can take a look at this.

Valuing Presence: 2 changes were made by Wine form NPOV. In addition to making 1 NPOV change, the language was reworded for stylist reasons, which did not seem necessary. I left the NPOV edit, which makes sense, but reverted the other 2 which did not. I also deleted my signature from the middle of the heading on this page. I use the icon to sign and my signature will occasionally pop up in all sorts of places where it doesn't belong by an errant twitch of a finger on the mouse. oops!--Moon Rising 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

MOON RISING: Why is saying "it is possible to fail to see its significance" not NPOV and why do I keep correcting it? You seem to think it is my stylistic choice. But I claim that "fail to see its significance" is POV, for 2 reasons: it implies failure on the part of a person who does not see it, and it implies that we all agree there is a great significance to this state (described in the previous paragraph as the hidden meaning of life on Earth). Imagine that I'm writing an article on, say, levitation, and I say: "The teacher of this school says that levitation is the hidden meaning of life on Earth. Because so few people have actually achieved levitation, it is possible to fail to see its significance." Would you not feel that I'm expressing an opinion by saying "fail to see its significance"? As if its significance has already been agreed upon by everybody. Wine-in-ark 03:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Wine in ark: I have read and reread the two different wordings and your explanation many times. I see the original wording as more delicate and your wording having a slightly negative and dismissive tone. I don't see the original as having a point of view, but rather, your edit has having a point of view. I have reverted. --Moon Rising 04:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Historical information does not belong in the introduction, and so it was removed. The information is already included in the history section. Also the citation for the information in the intro was put back. Deleted "February" as there is no way to know when the web site (where the info comes from) was last updated, unless the editor has some inside knowledge, and can provide a source. Also replaced "Oregon House" with "Northern" California, as most people on the planet are more likely to relate to the latter, and have no clue where the former is.

Article draft

I have created an article draft to demonstrate how I feel the article could be rewritten to better reflect our NPOV policy. I have (so far) rewritten from the lede through the Many I's. Thoughts? Feedback? Vassyana 10:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice and neutral. Aeuio 12:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Vassayana: very nice, thank you for all that work - I know it takes time! I am making a few changes (see history). Wine-in-ark 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana - Thank you. It sets a good example to follow. If I have any questions, I'll let you know once I read it more thoroughly. --Moon Rising 03:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. Is this supposed to be a rough guide? I think you deleted too much information and I just put some quotes back beacuae they make the article make more sense. Did you delete them because of the point of view or the lenght of the article since it is more important to have accuracy than a short article. Vass, what do you thin. You asked for feedback, so this is mine. But I don't want to start a fight so what's your opinion?209.59.43.143 09:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As usual, a very good draft, Vassyana. However, I guess it is confusing to have a draft and an article at the same time, because some editors use one, and some the other. If I can contribute, the Many 'I' section seems too long, with lots of details on the idea of the many 'I's, which seems to be a Fourth Way idea the organization mentions very seldom in the last two years.
The source dates from September 2004, end, curiously enough, the organization has only mentioned the idea again in September 2006 (nine months ago), and the article only mentions them because it is about how to separate from them. So, I think the issue should be shorter, to give way to more practical items, such as how to promote presence. I will try to get this done. Regards, Baby Dove 00:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Baby Dove, I just reverted edits you made to the introduction. The paragraph, as written, was provided by Vassyana as an example of how a neutral article should be written. If you look at articles about other religions, you will see the same type of negative information, along with the positive, in the introduction. I took out the sentence about "federal and state authorities" since the first sentence says that the FOF is a non-profit religious organization, so the sentence was somewhat redundant. I would rather have the paragraph written as you edited it, but we are striving for neutrality. Hope this helps. --Moon Rising 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Moonrising: I respectfully disagree on that quoting the church's legal status is not neutral. But I agree that there was a repetition of information (the article does not show this), so I wrote the beginning differently to include the legal status there, where I think it does belong, especially when there bis an editor who questions it. Sekmeth 03:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sekmeth, I respectfuly disagree with you. I think the extra information is cumbersome and not of general interest. But right now it's two against one, so I won't revert it. But think about it with and without the extra words, and maybe you'll see what I mean.--Moon Rising 04:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The principle of payment

Odysseo12 has added unsourced information, probably based on personal research, so it was removed. Regards, Baby Dove 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

BD - yes, this did need to come out, but we're now editing a new draft page. See Vassyana's comment above, and also the note on your talk page. --Moon Rising 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I inserted the new information about the payment based on my personal experience, I'm a member of the FOF and I've worked few years in the payment department. The informations that we need to provide in relation to the fellowship activities must be complete, say that "To join the Fellowship, members are asked to pay a tithe on their gross monthly income" is not true and not a complete information. Please let me understand what does it make an information a "sourced information". Thank you. O12

Odisseus12, this is just what WP calls personal research, and this is why I deleted it. WP is not to write one's own experiences regarding a given subject, but to search for published material and present it in an encyclopedic format. Besides, these POVs would collide with other contradicting POVs, and it would be just impossible to have any article at all with them. Maybe some pay a lot, but it also maybe others pay very much less. The thite information is what the organization publicly provides, and personal experiences can differ. Also, the talk page is to explain edits one can make in the article, not to discuss personal opinions. But, since you are a new editor, I guess someone has to answer your question. For further info, please visit [Wikipedia:Five Pillars] Regards, Baby Dove 18:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We do have published source on these "special donations" and "paying more than 10 % of income". Although Odisseo12's interesting exact numbers can't go in as I don't think that anyone wrote about them, the fact (emphasis on fact, especially now) that many pay more should be added to the article. I'll look for the sources soon and add that info. Aeuio 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reply, and the one on my talk page, in relation to that I have another question as new editor: if an organizaton is good enough to keep his idea and practise protected by copyright and secrecy, they can claim anything, since they publish what they want on their web site, and, since all the experience of member or former member does not have any value, how we know what is the reality of what the article claim? In relation to that, the purpose of offer a reliable material is conpletely defeat from my point of views. So please let me understand, if this is the matter, maybe is enought to elect this article for being deleted. It is not really possible to be sure what is real about the article if the only source accepted is the Fellowship public documents, this could make the material very partial. Thank you.

Odisseo12 04:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Odisseo12: Yes, this is a "problem" involving the whole Wikipedia. It looks like a problem, though, because each of us tend to think of our contributions to be objective, which is not so (and this is particularly a Fourth Way idea). The experience of a former member can only show a partial view on the school, as anybody else's experiences. Then, a given former member shows an aspect of the organization, and another former member talks about another aspect, and so forth. This is also true for current members or other kind of contributors, of course. But it seems that it is also something related to all the articles, and that is why personal researches are not admitted. It seems that WP does not like articles saying, "This is black" but "it can also be white."
Thus, when an accepted source contradicts other accepted source, both can be quoted by saying, "It is said that this is black", but "others think that this is white." As it happens here on the History section, even with sources quoting second-handed information.
Contradicting the Beliefs and practises section is, somehow, more difficult. If you go to the Roman Catholic Church site, for instance, you may find some questionable sayings there, without anybody questioning them, though the subject has even arisen a historic schism, such as "Catholics place particular importance on the Church as an institution founded by Jesus and kept from doctrinal error by the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit, and as the font of salvation for humanity. The seven sacraments, of which the most important is the Eucharist, are of prime importance in obtaining salvation." Of course, none of the "Separate Brothers" question there the "presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit", though this was (and still is) the major controversy in the said schism. So, it seems unquestionable that the beliefs of a religious organization should be plainly accepted as the organization describes them. And the payment section, every now and then is receiving a new contribution based on only a personal experience, which can differ a lot of other equally valid personal experiences.
As I said, this is not a chat section. So, if you really feel you have some sourced information to add, please do it. And if you think, the article should be deleted, please ask for it. Actually, it was originally started by Wine-in-Ark just to depict his own personal view of the FOF, and that is why some people started correcting this information. Others, however, had even said that the whole article was a "Fellowship's propaganda", but I do not think that the organization needs to have this article at all for whatever communication it wants with the general public. But the news is that this editor (Wine-in-Ark) has been the one defending the article from deletion, so, you may find this more difficult to be done. Regards, Baby Dove 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Rule of Thumb

I'm not sure what the rule of thumb is, so I may have violated it when I copied the definitions for SR and DA from the Fourth Way page. Is there a WP rule against this? The FOF website does have definitions, but the one's on the Fourth Way article are more complete and more clear. I thought that everything in WP was copyright free (I forget the words) so that it would ok to do this. I've added the citation for where the FOF says they use it. So, let me know what the rule is and I'll fix it. Thanks. I really did like your edit in the history section. --Moon Rising 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In the first mediation, the mediator suggested that if something was already mentioned in the Fourth Way article, it shouldn't be copied to the fof article (as it is stated that the fof uses the Fourth Way teaching). Although the changes that the fof developed to the teaching should be stated on the fof article. Therefore I think it be more suited that if it is said on the fof article how the fof regards self remembering and what is their exact definition of it. Aeuio 21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I remember now. The only reason I put it in was that Vassyana requested it, and there is so little written by the FOF that I didn't think it was worthwhile. In practice, there is no difference, just the quality of the definition. --Moon Rising 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the fof uses them as described, so me and you are basically giving our personal research and opinion on the matter. It makes more sense to give information from the fof on this article and describe how they view the concepts (as this is describing the fof beliefs) Aeuio 01:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "the fellowship teaches...(their teaching)" as this suits the section better than "the Fourth way teaches". Aeuio 01:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Corrected nowikitags from Moonrising, please do not create them here!

Categories and nowiki tags

This is what it saaid, but with nowiki between tags:

Added nowiki tag keeps the category tags from taking, so they can stay there but not work while the article is a draft, and that we don't forget about them when the page is done. This is something Coren did when we had our very first draft.Baby Dove 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

the tags are supposed to make the text be invisible except in edit mode; the way I did it, they show up above the categories box. In case you guys haven't figure it out, I didn't even know what html code was until I started editing here. If anyone knows how to fix this, please do. Thanks. Baby Dove 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC) I don't know why the 4 tildes and the icon are not working, but this is Moon Rising making a mess of html once again.

Esoteric schools (changes made yesterday and today, not appearing due to open tag)

Beliefs - Esoteric schools

This cm was invisible since yesterday due to undue nowiki tags setting

I have introduced some slight changes to enshorten the section, which is still too long. Regards, Baby Dove 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted videos

This was also invisible about an hour ago...

Videos from Robert Burton are copyrighted material, and no official material from the organization invites the general public to visit a you-tube page to watch them. In case there was no piracy involved in this setting of videos in you-tube, please correct me. But by now, they were deleted. Regards, Baby Dove 23:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The videos were taken by former members and put on the youtube video site (see the fof blog). Therefore there's no pirating and there's no copyright on the videos as the owner had put them on youtube for the general public. This also doesn't violate any laws and should be allowed to be liked to the page. Oldmethod 01:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Divided attention and self-remembering

The last two years, the monthly newsletter from the organization site, is focussing less and less in these ideas from Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, and centering its attention on methods on how to promote presence through work 'I's. Since these ideas were qualified as an "exoteric form" of the system (see Esoteric Schools in the article), they have been removed. I am for removing the entire "Divided attention and self-remembering" part due to the same reason, but since it quotes official material from almost three years ago, I think it could be considered with some more detail before deleting it. Regards, Baby Dove 00:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

BD - I agree, but while you took a few days off, Vassyana created the heading as a stub and said that it should be added to before we go back to "regular" mode. I think I'll ask him what he thinks, and copy the draft into the article. And based on my recent html fiascoes, would you know how to do that? --Moon Rising 00:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

more on copyrighted material

Regarding the copyright, there is an older convention that requires that one must add the Copyright notice, with the © symbol and the date, the owner and the reading "All Rights reserved." But since the newer Berne convention, signed by the United States in 1989, copyright exists automatically, even when not declared. And most countries have signed this convention.

In copyright myths it is clearly stated all these. Besides, it is well known that even in the case one is entitled to have a copy for oneself, let's say by buying it, one does not have the copyright to publicly distribute it. So. the link was deleted again.

Of course, hidding in WP (or in a blog) behind a nickname it is very easy to feel comfortable and powerful to violate international laws. However, rented DVDs and VHS never cease warning that copyright violation is a federal felony. In any case, this would be one more reason as to consider the article for deletion. More material can be found in Copyright Regards, Baby Dove 08:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

When someone puts his own video on youtube he is publically releasing it. The copyright is NOT OWNED by the fellowship! If you can provide some laws where it states that one is not free to record Robert Burton, then do so. Please read the USA freedom laws. Otherwise you simply don't want the link so you are removing it under poor claims, because you don't want anyone to see how RB teaches. Oldmethod 12:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is that theft is illegal. There is nothing wrong with the videos per se. Permission would need to be granted by the organization to use them. Personally, I rather like them, but that is not material. Also, please remember that this talk page is for discussing the article, and not the FOF or how anyone feels about it.--Moon Rising 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Publicly releasing a copyrighted material is only legally a decision of the owner of the copyright. The owner of a copy cannot do it. Of course, this is a problem of youtube, who accepts any kind of downloads. I sincerely do not care whether these videos are in the web or not. Actually, nobody cares. In a six billion people world, I do not think they would have an important audience. However, law was violated there and I just wanted to point out to this. There are some countries where one can buy all sort of copies of copyrighted material, which shows that this is a lost cause. But since the organization did not release any video to public domain (try to get one in any video distribution company), the download to youtube was a criminal offense. Regards, Baby Dove 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We are in a poor source situation, and these videos provide objective info for the reader. So let's keep them. And Baby Dove, there is no law broken here - if you take a video of me (especially if I allow it), the copyright doesn't belong to me. In the same way this video doesn't belong to RB. Aeuio 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is something typical of misinformation. This is what the Library of Congress has to say about the said videos: they were registered by the Fellowship of Friends under PA-1-083-100, on 12/3/01; P-1-1083-106, on 12/3/01; PA-1-106-774 on 6/13/02; PA-1-106-776, on 6/13/02; PA-1-106-777, on 6/13/02; PA-1-106-778, on 6/13/02; PA-1-106-781, on 6/13/02; PA-1-106-782, on 6/13/02; PA-1-108-611, on 6/13/02;and SR-311-604, on 12/3/01, at least. This is what the public records show about videos and DVDs when searching for Fellowship of Friends copyright. Do you still believe what someone says about being entitled to put these videos in youtube? Do you have a way to know how did the "owner" of the video got it? In any case, the organization had these videos at their own copyrighted website,and they withdrew them, meaning they did not want the public to see them any more. They never invited the public to go to youtube to see them, and whoever made the download was not obviously entitled to made them public. Therefore, the link is deleted again, not to cover a felony here. Regards, Baby Dove 22:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Then provide some links of the exact page of library of congress where you got that info. Aeuio 23:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Not every written document is available on the internet. It looks like BD did a lot of research to find this information. If he could find it, then I'm sure any interested party who did not believe the research already done, could search the Library of Congress to find the same information. --Moon Rising 02:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: Your question sounds as coming from lazyness. Go to Library of Congress, click on Copyright Office and search for whatever author you are interested in. They will tell you more on the works, such as what kind of work it is, when it was registered, who claimed for the copyright, when was it published, if it was, and so on. Regards, Baby Dove 02:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, when you have a problem with JAmes Moore's quote, you take it out of the article and request the exact page number. And now you tell me to go find the links myself... I am pretty sure then that you are therefore hiding this, and it's a shame that you are hiding your teacher's lectures Aeuio 13:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can put whatever they want on the lbrary of congress, and I have put the videos back as it is ovious that you are making thing up. And don't delete it unless you provide links to the page where it specifically says that the fellowship has copyrighted and registered those videos. I can't believe that you are going so far to remove videos of your teacher teaching, I guess you don't want the readers to see what it's like. Oldmethod 18:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really Barbarous... OldMethod. The link to the search page is here, to feed your lazyness. Click on Books, music, etc. and search under Fellowship of Friends as a claimant. There will be shown several records and the organization is the results #3, 4 &5. As you will see, it was on the dates I said: copyright records. Unfortunately, there is no link straight to the results, so, just in case, I reproduce them here (only the video-related files):

1. Registration Number: PA-1-083-100 Title: Meetings with the teacher : vol. 1. Description: Videocassette ; 1/2 in. Claimant: acFellowship of Friends, Inc. Created: 2001

Published: 4Jul01

Registered: 3Dec01

Title on © Application: Excerpts from academy teaching meetings 2001; Apollo Pearl anniversary 1971-2001.

Author on © Application: video recording of live telecast: Fellowship of Friends, Inc., employer for hire.

Special Codes: 4/X/D

2. Registration Number: PA-1-083-106 Title: Meetings with the teacher : vol. 2. Description: Videocassette ; 1/2 in. Claimant: acFellowship of Friends, Inc. Created: 2001

Published: 4Jul01

Registered: 3Dec01

Title on © Application: Excerpts from Galleria Apollo teaching meetings 2001. Author on © Application: video recording of live telecast: Fellowship of Friends, Inc., employer for hire.

Special Codes: 4/X/D

3. Registration Number: PA-1-106-774 Title: Salon dinner, Sept. 1, 2001 : no. 83. Description: Videocassette ; 1/2 in. Claimant: acFellowship of Friends, Inc. Created: 2001

Published: 2Jan01

Registered: 13Jun02

Special Codes: 4/X

4. Registration Number: PA-1-106-776 Title: Salon dinner, August 25, 2001 : no. 81. Description: Videocassette ; 1/2 in. Claimant: acFellowship of Friends, Inc. Created: 2001

Published: 25Aug01

Registered: 13Jun02

Special Codes: 4/X

5. Registration Number: PA-1-106-777 Title: Video Academy meeting, September 2, 2001 : no. 84. Description: Videocassette ; 1/2 in. Claimant: acFellowship of Friends, Inc. Created: 2001

Published: 3Sep01

Registered: 13Jun02

Special Codes: 4/X

6. Registration Number: PA-1-106-778 Title: Academy meeting, August 26, 2001 : no. 82. Description: Videocassette ; 1/2 in. Claimant: acFellowship of Friends, Inc. Created: 2001

Published: 27Aug01

Registered: 13Jun02

Special Codes: 4/X

7. Registration Number: PA-1-106-781 Title: Video Academy meeting, Sept. 9, 2001 : no. 87. Description: Videocassette ; 1/2 in. Claimant: acFellowship of Friends, Inc. Created: 2001

Published: 10Sep01

Registered: 13Jun02

Special Codes: 4/X

8. Registration Number: PA-1-106-782 Title: Goethe Room dinner, September 3, 2001 : no. 85. Description: Videocassette ; 1/2 in. Claimant: acFellowship of Friends, Inc. Created: 2001

Published: 4Sep01

Registered: 13Jun02

Special Codes: 4/X

9. Registration Number: PA-1-108-611 Title: Academy meeting, August 19, 2001 : no. 80. Description: Videocassette ; 1/2 in. Claimant: acFellowship of Friends, Inc. Created: 2001

Published: 19Aug01

Registered: 13Jun02

Special Codes: 4/X

10. Registration Number: SR-254-753 NOT A VIDEO

11. Registration Number: SR-311-604 NOT A VIDEO

12. Registration Number: TX-3-354-347 NOT A VIDEO

13. Registration Number: TX-4-416-723 NOT A VIDEO

14. Registration Number: TX-4-424-006 NOT A VIDEO

15. Registration Number: TX-4-424-007 NOT A VIDEO

16. Registration Number: TX-4-472-455 NOT A VIDEO

17. Registration Number: TX-4-718-318 NOT A VIDEO

18. Registration Number: TX-4-718-321 NOT A VIDEO

19. Registration Number: TX-5-152-616 Title: The foundation of real work. Description: Website. Claimant: acFellowship of Friends Created: 1997

Published: 1Jun98

Registered: 11Jan99

Miscellaneous: C.O. corres. Special Codes: 1/B

20. Registration Number: TX-5-866-579 NOT A VIDEO

It is true that anybody can claim whatever they want, but only as long as it is not registered. That is why a copyright office exists. But all pirates use the same argument as you did. Regards, Baby Dove 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BD - you've done a tremendous amount of research and put a lot of time into explaining how to find what they need to know (since it's not as easy as clicking on a link). I hope that you're efforts have not been wasted and that those editors who continue to have concerns follow your detailed instructions before their next revert. Thanks a lot. --Moon Rising 23:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


I think the material on youtube falls under fair use provisions, is not in violation of copyright, and therefore the link to it need not be removed.

Fair use: 1. It was not made available for commercial purposes. 2. It is not substantial in length (around 1 minute), of the total of 1 hour meetings. 3. It does not supplant the needs of the normal consumers of this material.

The youtube videos should acknowledge where they were copied from. Wine-in-ark 03:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

About fair use, Wine-in-Ark is using a common form of disguising the truth. The videos in the organization's website, the copyright of which is also provided among the records above, were a minute long, so their unauthorized reproduction is 100% of the material. Besides, the videos were taken within the organization premises, and they are not public meetings, so any unauthorized reproductions of these material may also be a violation of privacy, besides the obvious violation of copyright. Several felonies are hidden behind these aparently innocent episode, and it is questionable that the article promotes them under the guise of liberty of information. Besides, the two videos, effectively the ones in the organization's website, say nothing about who has done the download. He or she hides behind a nickname, as almost all the material in the site. Regards, Baby Dove 07:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you BD for your further insights. There is another issue, besides the legal one, and that is the value of the videos. Since they are obviously quite old, both by subject matter and the appearance of someone who passed away many, many years ago, they no longer reflect the current teaching of the FOF. At some point in time, it is hoped that the FOF will be able to provide more current information. Someone mentioned that some editors do not wish others to see how Robert teaches. From the point of view of this editor, that is not the issue at all. If they presented the current teaching and were approved for use by the FOF, then I think they would be a nice addition. As they are, they are misleading and not representational of the teaching. I don't understand why those who are deliberately and vehemently trying to denigrate the FOF want these rather lovely clips included. --Moon Rising 16:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Non profit

Can someone please explain how the fof is a "nonprofit" organization? I wouldn't say that RB's 250 000 annual or the 5 million that the fof makes annually, or the amount taht each member pays counts as non profit. Aeuio 23:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. You will need to go elswhere to find an answer to this question. The information you deleted was properly cited by a reliable source. Please check the link if you have questions.--Moon Rising 01:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It is a non-profit organization as most of religions in the world are. It is its legal condition and it should be checked by Federal and State corresponding authorities. Are you suggesting that these authorities do not do their homework? Aeuio, if you are impressed for the volume of the income, it mathematically shows the average contribution of the members. Profits depend also on expenses. Yesterday you were very interested in data which would be far above this new number. Please, do not enrich this already long discussion with questions you can solve by yourself, because this is not a blog on the article. Regards, Baby Dove 02:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As Veronicapoe gently downloaded the 1979 Ammendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the Fellowship of Friends Art. of Inc. & 1979 Ammendment, this seems appropriate to answer Aeuio's concerns about the character of "non-profit" organization. This document establishes, at its chapter VII, that "... no part of the net income or assets of the organization shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer or member thereof or to the benefit of any private person." It is further established that, "Upon the dissolution or winding up of the corporation, the assets remaining after payment of all debts and liabilities of this corporation shall be distributed to a non-profit fund, foundation or corporation which is organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes..." All this mean that the organization cannot ever make a personal profit to anybody, even when it is dissolved. Hope this answers many questions. Regards, Baby Dove 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by Scottduncan44

Since the editors have agreed in Vassyana's draft page and the article was totally changed by this new editor at please, I have deleted all his article, replacing it by the draft. I have taken away parts of the introduction and a reference to false prophesies already discussed above. The church does not say it is an organization based on the 4th way, but it only say it uses part of the exoteric form introduced by George Gurdjieff, so the discussion on the subject is irrelevant. Concerning the said "false prophesies", it has been agreed that the Founder has said he has had certain revelations. In this sense, a revelation cannot be measured by the same rules governing a weather's forecast. The monthly newsletters that the organization publishes and distributes worldwide through its official web site, do not say a word on this so called prophesies since they started. This is another new event proving that the article should be deleted, since it only misuses WP's resources with its extremely long chat-page, which only satisfies certain individuals trying to blame others for their personal frustration, even at the cost of felonies, such as copyright violations or quotes from Canons they cannot have at sight. Regards, Baby Dove 09:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The same or very similar edits were made by an unidentified user and were reverted. To whomever is doing this: your hatred for the FOF is clear, but the rules of WP need to be followed nonetheless. Please familiarize yourself with them. Thank you.--Moon Rising 22:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The state of the current article and recent vandalism: We, the editors of the Fellowship of Friends article in Wikipedia, have been working together, sometimes with the aid of mediators and/or administrators to achieve a balanced, neutral article. It has been a long and sometimes contentious process, but after 2 mediators, 2 or more draft articles, and a lot of compromises, we have something fairly stable that neither "side" is entirely happy with. This is typical of a good compromise, and has taken months to achieve.

Recent edits made by our new editor show a lack of knowledge about WP's rules regarding citing verifiable and reliable sources, no personal essays or original material, no personal biases and other rules and guidelines. If I try to assume good faith, as requested by WP, then I would grant that the new editor is innocent of any malevolence. However, though I faithfully try to adhere to this rule, when new information is inserted regardless of context, major sections of the article are deleted, (sections that passed through a rigorous review by a mediator), and are so deliberately hateful, then it seems clear to this editor that the changes are pure vandalism. Two vandalism warnings have been placed on the user page of the new editor. A welcome tag was also added which includes an introduction to WP rules, on the chance that these errors by our new editor were due to lack of knowledge, rather than malicious intent. --Moon Rising 21:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Scott---take a break....get a life...be productive...make love not war....get the picture? PresenceInArk 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Scottduncan44 I feel sorry for you. Pdouspensky 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The many 'I's and the Work 'I's

Since the organization is moving away from exoteric descriptions of the lower nature of man, towards a more active way to promote presence of the real Self as ancient traditions did, the section was enshortened in the previously too long description of the many 'I's, incorporating the more current notion of the work 'I's, taken from more udated official material. The section was accordingly renamed. Regards, Baby Dove 10:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The canons

The Canons of the Fellowship of Friends is used as a link in the article, and was described by editors as a reliable source. "Canon" is defined as "The written rules governing church policy, structure and procedure. There are national canons and each diocese has its own. Ok here it is [[12]] (click PDF on the left side). This source is not ridiculing or criticizing the fof at all, but it is stating their principles of creating an ark, the teacher receiving help from higher forces and so on as TRUE princliples and believes of the fof...as well as all the fof's claims and tremendous info on the fof, their aim, members and so on. This source was referenced to by the president of the fof, so it's quite reliable on them. (and it seems that it was written by someone in the fof). Aeuio 01:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least now one can read what do the canons say and what do they not, because some vandals have recently tried to change their language at will. The only detail is that they were downloaded on 6/5/2007 by Veronicapoe (mail to: veronicapoe@gmail.com), which is not a member of the Fellowship of Friends, and I wonder where and how did she get them. This information is provided in the xml file in the same site where the canons were downloaded, in Download of Canons. There is more material downloaded there, such as ther Articles of Incorporation, and an Ammendment to them. The pdf files provided there, are obvious photocopies (which is especially visible in one of the three files I mention, the 1979 Certificate of Ammendment to the Articles of Incorporation, where the pleats in the first page are visible. Everything is old information, which looks reasonable for a non-member, who cannot probably know whether other ammendments exist or not.
To my knowledge, all this information is not public, but I might be wrong. Please, if so, let me know, but with facts, not with vague opinions, as in the case of the videos. Regards, Baby Dove 08:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference tages, hyperlinks, et al

I changed all referenced links back to just a link (removed reference tag) if the reference showed as just a number and arrow (that is, it didn't say something like "glossary"). I tried to copy formating to have the references not be blank, or to use the "cite" template, but those of you who are acquainted with my html "skills" will understand this was a fruitless effort. So, while I don't think what I've done is the best alternative, I think it's better than having blank references. I invite any of you to put back the refs and add the cite template as it looks much better and is more accurate. --Moon Rising 05:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Undefined terms

Aeuio - I searched the article and didn't see a definition for either higher forces or conscious beings. I may have missed it. Anyway, if it's there, go ahead and put your edit back. I would suggest changing "teaches" for "believes". I think it sounds better. If it's not there, then I think some explanation is needed.--Moon Rising 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Higher forces" doesn't need an explanation. If you really want one then: 1. We can add the quoted Jesus, Plato... from other sources, or by all means you can explain "higher forces" anywhere in the article. "Conscious beings": it's explained in the article at a few spots "According to the organization's teaching, no one is automatically aware of himself, no one is conscious of himself..." If you feel that these terms should be further explained in the article then we can easily do that. Aeuio 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Pardon my sleep. Hope you don't mind if I fix the grammar a bit.--Moon Rising 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Court case quotes

The first quote from L. Tulisso brings balance to the item of the lawsuits. The second one is excessive and clearly not NPOV. One might claim that it is true that the former members presented no evidence to support their claims. One could just as easily claim "The Fellowship failed to produce any evidence refuting the charges". As far as the public record goes, there was no evidence presented by anyone, affirming or denying so this second quote is a malicious twisting of the publicly available facts that has no place in WP.Nixwisser 09:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The news media is out for profits. They spin their own view and it's naive to think otherwise. They are hungry for controversy and whatever will get attention and sell. Thus, articles about the FoF are written. To single out this one sentence as being a "malicious twisting of ...." is absurd. Entire articles twist the facts. Just because this one allows the FoF a little dignity in the end does not minimize the quote. It's just not sensational, anti fof headline getting propaganda. Leave it alone already.--Moon Rising 09:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nixwisser, it is your comment that twists the truth. Robert Burton and the organization were the accused ones; if they cannot be found guilty of charge, they are legally to be found innocent. Were the plaintiff able to prove his case, he would not withdraw the charges, so what was said by Mrs. Tulisso is true: the case was not proved at all. Regards, Baby Dove 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No-where does the WP article state that Burton was found culpable. No-where does it state that he is not innocent. It states a simple fact: a suit was brought and BOTH sides agreed to drop it. There is no record of any evidence or testimony given formally. LT's claim that the case was settled to save litigation costs is, of course, unverifiable since the details are sealed. But I am willing to let that quote stand in order to give balance and because it is not too far-fetched. The second quote is a lie, pure and simple. No-one presented evidence, no-one proved anything one way or the other. It is a gross distortion. Self-righteous posturing about how terrible those nasty media types are has no place here either. Stick to encyclopedic style and stick to simple neutral balanced reporting. Nixwisser 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nix - a few points: 1) how do you know it's a lie? were you one of the litigants? If not, then you can't know. 2)Check out WP:Verifiability [13] which states, in part, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." This quote if verifiable so it does not matter if it is true (which is not to say it is not) and 3)if you feel the statement is not NPOV, then find something to contradict it; don't delete it. --Moon Rising 19:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you are both right.
Baby Dove says, paraphrasing: "It is true that Linda Tulisso made that statement."
Nixwisser says, paraphrasing: "That quote by Linda Tulisso was intended to twist facts. She said that the plaintiff failed to present evidence. However, the case was settled out of court before the plaintiff ever had any chance to present evidence, and before the FoF had a chance to present evidence to the contrary."
Both is correct.
Linda Tulisso is making it sound as if the plaintiff couldn't prove what happened, when in fact the plaintiff never got the chance to prove what happened, because the Fellowship PAID him to stop him from bringing the case to court.
And yes, Linda Tulisso did in fact make that statement.
We can include it in the article, since it is a factual quote, and it will be up to the readers' intelligence to be able to see that her statement is misleading. Wine-in-ark 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wine - while bias is allowed on this page, the fact is that (according to the newspaper report) the insurance company paid, not the FoF, as you said. So, the FoF was not able to bring their case to court either. You are making the assumption that the Fellowship did not want to go to court. We don't know this from the facts that we have. Perhaps you can shed some light here if you are one of the litigants?--Moon Rising 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wine i Ark: How do you know that the FOF PAID (your capitals)? Were you there? The fact is that the said plaintiff asked for $5 million (a whole year's income from donations, as someone said here without a real proof), and if the case were not even started there was no accusation from which to defend. Therefore, has a commercial affair been brough as a lawsuit for sensationalism? Was the realpurpose of the plaintiff to withdraw the accusation before he had to bring any proof, but after calling LA Times to witness the event?

You do not know, you are only guessing. The only thing which is certain in this lawsuit, is that there was not guilty of charge sentence, so to bring this up after 11 years, when the right to go to court has ceased, is not exactly what I would call playing fair. If the plaintiff chose not to go on with the pretended lawsuit, it is his privilege, and it is not yours to bring it back. He could not or chose not to present the required proof, it is the same. He withdrew the accusation, end of story. Even if the insurance companies pay "to save the costs of litigation", they surely paid even less than that, unless they are companies from Mars. So, even the whole case should not be there. Regards, Baby Dove 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading what I wrote, I remember I wrote something similar about two months ago. Old editors should spare other's people efforts by not bringing back the same issues over and over again. Regards, Baby Dove 22:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

websites

Ok, the variability not truth game? BD and Mfantoni kept pushing about the fact that WPP promotes himself on his website (also variable). Two can play that game: "The fof website promotes itself on their (very current) website to be a "true fourth way school"." I am putting it in. Aeuio 19:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a game; I'm sorry you think it is. This is rather tedious work, and we should try to be adults about it, and the "tit for tat" editing is childish. --Moon Rising 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Tell that to BD. Aeuio 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Aeuio: WPP is paying the price to discredit others: others fight back. When he withdraws its buttom to collect payments for his seminars, and his links to the library selling his books on-line, he might be free of this accusation. In the photo he provides, he does not even look of age as to have been a Gurdjieff true follower, in the sense of having met him. So, he is a second-handed disciple and the Fourth Way could have moved somewhere else after Gurdjieff's death, which is what he says through Mr.Ouspensky. Regards, Baby Dove 22:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
When the fof removes their marketing of themselves as a "true fourth way school" from their website, then they might be free of their accusation. I am not doing this "out of spite", I am quite serious. This article is somewhat representative of their true and current beliefs, but them saying that they are a true "fourth way school" is a deliberate lie to draw students who are interested in the fourth way to their school. Their website has changed many times and this "old misinformation" has remained. Aeuio 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Did it ever occur to you, Aeuio, that this information may not be a deliberate lie, or a lie at all? If the website is not as current as it could be, could you allow for other possibilities? If they have beliefs about what a forth way school is that are not the same as yours, does that make them liars? It is not necessary to always see "the glass as half empty". Going through life acknowledging that it might be half full at least some of the time is quite a joy! You seem identified with preserving an imaginary title known as "the fourth way", which you frequently say was not even created by Gurdjieff, but rather his student(s). It would be nice if someone there would make our lives easier by taking out this information you find so disturbing, but I'm sure they have better things to do.--Moon Rising 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If the website wasn't current and if it remained as it was a month ago, then I would allow for other possibilities. But when the president of the fof is informed of these internet activities, when the fof members are visiting wikipedia, when the fof webpage keeps changing... it's ridiculous to say that "they are unaware of their own webpage". Aeuio 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: The website has not changed for years, what you see as changes are the monthly newsletters. Those newsletters are far more updated than the old website, which might change when it is finally updated. If you find contradictions in the teaching shown in these newsletters in the last two years, please let me know. It is you who keeps bringing this information of the not updated website over and over again. Be consistent, if you think that a fourth way school should not promote itself at all, please quit trying to use a person who collects money in advance through a buttom in his website, to sell his seminars, where he gives his own teaching (since he has left the Foundation). Regards, Baby Dove 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wine and Nix have also stated that the website keeps changing - you are the one that's keeps talking about some newsletters. If the website is not a reliable source on the fof then it should b removed. Aeuio 12:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

They make the same mistake as you do. Visit the site and look at the Newsletter. Regards, Baby Dove 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio: please stop reverting the link to the FoF's website to say "out of date" and "not what they currently believe". There are many reasons why your edits are incorrect, the most important of which are Wikipedia's rules on verifiability and reliable sources, none of which can be found on this talk page. Aside from WP rules, it is not possible for editors to know if it slightly or significantly out of date, what parts are out of date, what's current, etc. BD has said that the newsletters, which are updated monthly, give insights into the newer aspects of the FoF teaching. Have you looked at them, not that it's important? Above you questioned the truthfulness of the organization for not updating the parts that upset you. I am sorry you're upset, but maybe they have other things to do. But as long as they purport that it is their site, it meets WP guidelines as a source and your edits claiming that it is not valid border on vandalism. Please stop.--Moon Rising 21:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"But as long as they purport that it is their site, it meets WP guidelines as a source and your edits claiming that it is not valid border on vandalism" - then I should be able to reference to it without you reverting me and saying that it's out of date. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT'S SAYING THAT IT'S OUT OF DATE. (emphasis not shouting). If it's their "official website" then what they say on it, according to what you said and wiki rules, should be allowed to be stated here. You reverting me by saying "their official website is wrong" is vandalism. Make up your mind: 1. Is the website out of date. Yes or No? If yes then we'll say it's out of date (and put a link for their current newsletters) and end of story. If no then the website is current and what says on it is their official claim. You are not going to go between these answers according to what suits you so choose one. Aeuio 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Now Aeuio will have the chance to choose a website. They are actually the same still, but soon you will find your problems solved. Meanwhile, stop vandalizing the article with childish behaviours, you are the only editor concerned in talking about what the sitye should say to have you satisfied. If thing can be different, they would, but by now, this is what you can see. If you find contradictions, they will be solved soon. But nobody will be in a hurry just because you are not happy. Regards, Baby Dove 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No hurry needed, (that is: I am kind of guessing that your comment is saying that a new fof website is under contraction, in which case take your time). The rest of your comment is funny that it's coming from you:). Anyhow, I am not sure if that "temporary" is in the right place, but whatever, at least we are getting somewhere finally. Aeuio 01:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please sign in before editing

Over the last several days there have been many edits on both sides of the discussion where the editor has failed to sign in. In trying to assume good faith, I will assume that these are just "senior moments" which I too have been guilty of. However, looking at some of the edits, it appears the editors are intentionally trying to be anonymous. Please be brave enough to reveal yourselves. This is just my opinion, I don't think WP has any rules about it, but it would be nice to be able to have a dialog with a "person". Thanks--Moon Rising 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am NOT a coward. I don't NEED a username. I LIKE numbers. 209.59.36.99 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Usernames are tricky. Who is Baby Dove? From a viewpoint, it is the same as signing as 65.98.192.50, but it creates the idea (imagination?) of a "real" identity. I would use my real name, therefore, but after having Mfantoni openly defamed in a blog where 95% of contributors show only AKs (as the host of the blog does), I guess I should be careful in doing so. But I wholeheartedly try not to break a law hiding behind a nickname, or to cause others a hard time at talking about them to outsiders. Even here, for those of you who are editing this page for some time, Baby Condor revealed her own name and condition because she was being harassed by others. So, I guess Baby Dove can be said to be cautious, but not a coward. Regards, Baby Dove 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What's an AK? I didn't know that MF and BC were harassed. What a shame. --Moon Rising 22:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AK is a short name for "Acknowledged", as I understand; it is used by the police when someone is filed by a crime and has used some other name in his activities. Regards, Baby Dove 23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)