Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Archive 8

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

NEW DRAFT

anyone notice vas created a new draft here? [[1]] PresenceInArk 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

PARDON ME FOR SHOUTING, BUT WHY ARE EDITORS STILL EDITING THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE WHEN VASSYANA WENT TO THE TROUBLE TO CREATE A NEW DRAFT FOR US? The draft if to help us focus on creating an article that is NPOV. Personally, I keep editing the old article because I feel like I need to correct something that was recently changed. If it were changed on the NPOV DRAFT I would then edit there. There's even a separate talk page that's totally empty. Can we agree to take our edits and conversations over there? If you're intentionally not using that page, would you mind telling us why? Thanks, --Moon Rising 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, when you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I'm editing the article as the draft is not being used by active editors. Vassyana will take the draft page down once we extract all necessary links, references, etc. --Moon Rising 21:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

New web site of the Fellowship

I changed the link in the "External Links" at the bottom of the article ("Official site of the Fellowship of Friends") from www.go-c.org to www.beingpresent.org (the new web site of the organization). Love-in-ark 01:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

B E autiful! Thanks to who ever solved my "current website" arguing. We can now move on. My editing here was within the limits of the fof referring to themselves as a "true fourth way school" and so on, so I don't plan on being as active here as I was. (I am sure that makes a couple of people happy here). Don't turn this article into a brochure guys, and Good Luck to everyone. Aeuio 17:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Aeuio. Yes, the FOF no longer says that it is a true fourth way school, but I find it difficult to understand why you put Horn in, since it's not mentioned on the web site, and it is not relevant where he learned the 4th way (person, books, etc.,) as nothing is claimed about lineage. And it seemed unnecessary to add the word "primarily" in the intro. According to its website (the new one) when the FoF was started, it was a fourth way school. Since it doesn't consider itself that anymore, can't you leave this alone? As you know, a WP:RS can be quoted even if it is not accurate. So please don't change what the source says. Thanks, and enjoy! --Moon Rising 03:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I left alone a lot of things here. But "Burton studied under Horn" is not the same as "Burton studied as presented by G. and O.". If you want to use the wiki guidelines then please read the ones that say that secondary sources come before primary sources; in other words, technically, the fof website has the lowest weight here (and you seem to have quickly forgotten what the arbitrator said). There are numerous secondary sources which say that RB studied under Horn so this should be added to solve the dispute. If you have a problem with mentioning Horn, then just leave it as "As a young man, Burton studied the teachings of the Fourth Way" Aeuio 14:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Love-in-Ark deletions

Hi Love-in-Ark; I reverted your deletions because I found them unhelpful.
Why would you want to delete links to the Wikipedia articles on God and Bible? They are pertinent to the subject and make the article more relevant. Why do you assume that most people know what God is? "What is God" has been the subject of heated debate for centuries if not millenia.
You removed my "lopsided" tag, saying "it is not lopsided". I would argue that this paragraph is nothing but positive praise based on emotional opinion. Look: "he has worked to create an environment of inspiration ... that is conducive to awakening", "has striven to be personally accessible to each member of the Fellowship, and has sought new inspiration, introducing fresher approaches to each member’s internal efforts, while providing loving guidance and support". Is that neutral, do you think everybody would agree with that assessment? Can you at least re-word it to sound more neutral and encyclopedic? Encyclopedia is not about your emotions.
Regarding the claim that payments increase when a member is able to verify the basic principles - is that the claim that the Fellowship is making? That a member will not have to pay regular teaching payments until he reports that he has verified what the organization teaches? Or will his payments be raised automatically after one year? At least reword it so that it does not sound misleading.
Thanks, Wine-in-ark 21:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wine and Love:

  • Regarding linking to "God", I checked out a few major religions. They do not link to the article "God". Some have links to their own religion's beliefs, such as "god incarnate". While "god" may be a subject of heated debate, that debate is not pertinent to this article. The same is true for the Bible. Thus, I am reverting your edit.
  • Regarding the section on the teacher being lopsided: while the statements are positive and emotional, they are preceded by "the Fellowship states: and "according to"...which to my understanding (based on advice you once gave to me, as I recall), helps to make the information more neutral. The comments are not stated as facts; the "emotional opinion" you refer to is quoted from the organization and not stated as fact, but what they believe to be true. So I don't see that the section violates WP policies, and am reverting your lopsided edit.
  • Regarding payments: again, the wording is taken from a verifiable source. Your opinion, whether or not correct, can only be included if there is a verifiable source that can be cited. In a situation in which a reliable source is wrong, and a personal opinion is correct (which I am not saying is the case here) the RS must be used. Therefore, I will be reverting this edit as well.--Moon Rising 23:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Moon Rising. Wine-in-Ark, let's keep it simple. Love-in-ark 20:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Still available

I've closed the MedCab case as inactive. However, if contributors need assistance settling some issues or want an outside opinion, I am still available. Vassyana 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This article should be removed

This article is nothing more than a promotional piece for the Fellowship of Friends. It reads like a paid advertisement. Most of the content is taken straight from the recently overhauled FOF web site. I imagine the same people worked on both the new web site and this article.

The sexual abuse lawsuits mentioned briefly in this article are marginalized by including FOF President Linda Tulisso's disingenuous remark to the effect that the plaintiffs produced no evidence. How could they? The cases never went to trial. Also, by settling before trial, the defendants were spared the trouble and expense of refuting the charges under oath. How convenient.

In my opinion this article misappropriates the Wikipedia space to promote the interests of the Fellowship of Friends. It is not neutral. It has been the subject of interminable controversy, edit wars, vandalism and sockpuppetry. It should be clear by now that no amount of rewriting is going to produce a neutral article, because members of the Fellowship of Friends will continue, with religious zeal, to dominate the space. The article should be removed. Babycondor 01:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am new here, but I was reading the talk archives and I saw that the article went through al lot of discussion and 2 mediations. Deletion is a waste of the time and effort of all the editors that contributed to the article. Love-in-ark 15:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No effort is wasted. It's been a learning process for all. I am not new here, and I've read all the discussion archives and contributed to the article. I repeat, the end result of all this effort is a misappropriation of the Wikipedia space to promote the existence, beliefs and philosophy of an organization that charges its members 10% of their gross monthly salary to belong to it. It may be a church on paper, but it is a business (some might say cult) in fact. The product it is selling is "Divine Presence." Caveat emptor, and let the Fellowship of Friends inform and recruit new members somewhere else. Babycondor 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to submit the article for deletion if you wish. Also, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so I suggest for you to look for other channels to express your strong opinions, such as a personal web site or a blog. Love-in-ark 05:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction to Love-in-ark: "I was reading the talk archives and I saw that the article went through al lot of discussion and 2 mediations. Deletion is a waste of the time and effort of all the editors that contributed to the article" - Not quite. The archives and the mediations reflect the work that was done on this article before the fof website was changed. What's currently on this talk page (not even) reflects how much debate and effort there was for this current page. Although this article is pretty much a promotion, there would be a slim chance of it getting deleted as it keeps the main people here happy. Adios Wrathark 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As it was already said, please try it if you please. There were many involved, however, which would not allow that to happen. But nobody needs this kind of "promotion." Regards, Baby Dove 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you back here Baby Dove. I agree that it would be difficult to delete this well established article. I haven't put my 2 cents in earlier, because a request for deletion would probably not be effective, so further discussion on this topic is a waste of Wikipedia space. --Moon Rising 22:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
To discuss if the article should be deleted or not is a waste of time. If somebody thinks the article should be deleted he or she should submit the article for deletion since there is a wikipedia committee that will review the submission and decide. OK, enough of this. Love-in-ark 03:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Love, that's what I was trying to say. --Moon Rising 07:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures and other page improvements

Do any of you have any pictures that could be added? Pictures of Isis would be nice in that section. Some pictures from earlier esoteric schools would be nice in that section. The picture of the teacher could go into that section. Also - I don't know what this box is called, but here's an example [[2]] on the Gurdjieff page. It lists a summary of facts about the subject. Does anyone know how to do this or where to find the info on doing this? Thanks.--Moon Rising 08:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's called an info box. I don't think it's appropriate for the Fellowship of Friends. Pictures would be a welcome addition; sorry I don't have any.PresenceInArk 10:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What about the pictures on the official web site? They all say "Isis, California" so I assume they were taken at the retreat. We can ask the church for authorization for reproducing them here. Love-in-ark 06:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea Love. Do you have time to make the request? I assume they have contact info on the site? And do you know how to add images? I'm html challenged; I tend to botch things up when I do other than minor editing. --Moon Rising 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time right now to work on this. It is a very busy time for me at the moment. Love-in-ark 01:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I was just reading about WP policy on external links regarding another article and re-reading this brought up some questions on the links in the Fellowship of Friends article. I remember in the past that there was some discussion, but I don't have time to research the archives right now. Are there any old editors out there with a better memory than me, or new ones willing to search through the archives? Here is the WP policy: [3]. I note particularly under links to be avoided: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Does anyone recall why the blog link was allowed to stay? Thanks, --Moon Rising 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be stable now after months of mediations, edit wars, etc. I am afraid that if we start changing it we may start a jihad again. Moon, I suggest for you to "drop." Love-in-ark 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry (again)

Love: in response to your accusations about sock puppetry, I will admit that I previously posted to the Talk page only (not the article) under the name Genuflect in April. Occasionally I have forgotten to sign in before posting, but I have always gone back and corrected the omission. That might technically have been sock puppetry but I haven't used the names concurrently and I didn't edit the article under the name Genuflect. Please tell us who you think the sock puppets are. I must admit that I initially thought that you were an SP for mfantoni. Waspidistra 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am happy you don't think anymore that I am a sock of mfantoni, because I am not. Also, I don't see mfantoni editing here so there is no sock puppetry as defined by Wikipedia. Anyway, let's go to the point. Here is the text that Robertoz posted yesterday (curiously enough, nobody commented...):
Well this is funny, after all that chit chatting about sock puppets, Love-in-ark is unable to say anything when asked to give some names and evidence. Seems all she is interested is chatting and attempting to divert the discussion. Well, I just got an email from a well-known editor of this page saying that "PresenceInArk is probably a sock of Moon Rising (SAme ip and same habbit). And Tupac8 and Sitting9bulls are probably socks of Baby Dove (These two did the exact same thing that BD did word for word some time ago)." Robertozz 23:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
PresenceinArk, Tupac8 and Sittin9Bulls are not editing anymore, so Moon Rising and Baby Dove are OK at the moment. The only issue would be if you, Waspidastra, were Moon Rising but you aren't, right? Love-in-ark 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Presence-in-ark posted to say that she was adopting a new name and Moon Rising stated that 9passions/prsence is Moon Rising's spouse. So that's meat puppetry, but as I mentioned earlier, some innocent meat puppetry is almost unavoidable in a small community like FOF members past and current. I am certainly not Moon Rising. Wine-in-ark and Nixwisser are husband and wife too, but neither of them have contributed for a while as far as I know. So that should have cleared the air. Waspidistra 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Chit-chat again. Let's wait for Robertoz's checkusers. Love-in-ark 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
WOW! So all of that talk about sock puppets, and the accusation you make is that MR = Wasp. (I had to read your comments 3 times to make sure i am not misunderstanding). So the whole time you were mentioning socks you were suspecting that the person who dedicated the most of his time in defending the fof, got another username to make valid reasons against the fof. (I am sorry I ever deleted that previous section and prevented you from saying this earlier:) You have a very nice way of thanking your friends! Congrads Aeuio 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I assumed he was joking. Love also said it was curious no one commented on an earlier comment. I wish it had remained commentless - this is a ridiculous discussion and I can't believe I'm contributing to it. --Moon Rising 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Aeuio, I appreciate that you took the time to read my comments 3 times but I am sorry to tell you that it was Wantthetruth who raised the suspicion about MR and Wasp being socks. Just check this to see what I mean. Also, I am pretty sure that you were the one that sent the information about socks to Robertoz (I recognize your writing style, it's unmistakable). You deleted the information after Robertoz added it because you wanted to accuse and remain anonymous. Am I clever or not? Love-in-ark 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, I am the only one here who has his email showing on his user page, and I am the only one here who could make those accusations. It was obvious earlier when some editor said the same thing word for word about what I told him about BD and those socks (and I am pretty sure I already accused MR of being PR). If you know what happened here way earlier then you'd know I don't have a problem with accusing people (especially BD), check the archives. So you are not clever at all (you'd be pretty stupid to think that it wasn't me).
Anyhow, basically, you were asked "who do you keep accusing of being a sockp, and give some evidence", and instead of answering you have opened up a new chat section. And later on, you'll continue saying that "the sockpuppetry is rampant". If you have nothing, then don't bother saying anything. PS I'll tell you a secret: I purposely use the brackets a lot and write the way I do (kind of similar to how BD uses "Regards".) I am very glad that my writing style is unmistakable. Aeuio 02:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well, and I thought I was clever... Aeuio, please never ever leave this page. You are the only editor to my knowledge that is not a current or former member of the FOF. We need some neutrality just for a change. Warmly, Love-in-ark 03:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

When did Nix & Wine admitted they are husband and wife? Baby Dove 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are Nix & Wine? Why are we talking about that couple? Love-in-ark 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone else made the comment somewhere above. It sounds like some editors know the real identities of other editors. --Moon Rising 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that I am Moon Rising is absurd, and I'm not even sure that Want was suggesting that it was me. I mentioned the couple Nix and Wine because they were the main targets of the earlier sockpuppetry accusations. Yes, I know their real identities and they are two people, not one. Waspidistra 08:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Darn. This is the first time that I didn't check the situation more clearly (Want wasn't saying anything about you and MR being socks). O well, since I regrettably didn't see that in time, there's no point in repeating my sarcastic comments, so I'll leave the biggest screw up ever to happen here alone. (I hope that this pointless section is done.) Aeuio 10:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

THIS SECTION IS A CONVOLUTED WASTE OF TIME AND SPACE. ANYONE OBJECT TO IT BEING DELETED? CAN ONE SECTION BE ARCHIVED?--Moon Rising 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

NO. Robertozz 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Love- Brilliant mis-direct and excellent waste of everyone's time - congrats. Wasp - Just so we're clear, didn't accuse you of anythingWantthetruth? 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasp - please be nice.--Moon Rising 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing unpleasant in the tone of my message, Moon. Waspidistra 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Go try Y! chats!!!!! Baby Dove 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)