Introduction


Robert Earl Burton founded The Fellowship of Friends in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1970. Burton modeled his own group after that of Alex Horn, loosely borrowing from the Fourth Way teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. In recent years, the Fellowship has cast its net more broadly, embracing any spiritual tradition that includes (or can be interpreted to include) the notion of "presence."

The Fellowship of Friends exhibits the hallmarks of a "doomsday religious cult," wherein Burton exercises absolute authority, and demands loyalty and obedience. He warns that his is the only path to consciousness and eternal life. Invoking his gift of prophecy, he has over the years prepared his flock for great calamities (e.g. a depression in 1984, the fall of California in 1998, nuclear holocaust in 2006, and most recently the October 2018 "Fall of California Redux.")

But according to Burton, Armageddon still looms in our future and when it finally arrives, non-believers shall perish, while through the direct intervention and guidance from 44 angels (recently expanded to 81 angels, including himself and his divine father, Leonardo da Vinci) Burton and his followers shall be spared, founding a new, and more perfect civilization. Read more about the blog.

Presented in a reverse chronology, the Fellowship's history may be navigated via the "Blog Archive" located in the sidebar below.

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Find The Fellowship of Friends on Wikipedia (no, really)

[ed. - A former Fellowship of Friends member (and lead defender of the Fellowship during 2007 Wikipedia edit wars) has returned under the pseudonym "UltraEdit" (aka "Cult Survivor") to create a new Fellowship of Friends Wikipedia page free (thus far) from the partisan debate of the past. Compare the current article with the contentious 2007 draft versions: Find The Fellowship of Friends on Wikipedia (or maybe not)]

The photo of Robert Earl Burton in the Wikipedia article comes from the Fellowship's "Apollo Cavalier" Instagram page.
(It appears the Fellowship's true "Inner Circle" may be comprised entirely of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels!)

Robert Earl Burton's Fellowship of Friends cult Wikipedia page
Screenshot of Fellowship of Friends on Wikipedia

[ed. - Some background on the current Wikipedia project.]

"Cult Survivor" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 1, 2019:
Solartype is too consistent, persistent and organized to be a single person, so I agree with Jess (see comment No. 24) that we are dealing with a group of FOF members working together. We have a precedent: The “Wikipedia octave” ["octave" here roughly means "project"] back in 2007, when 4-5 members (one of them full-time) worked for 3 or 4 months “fighting former students in Wikipedia”, to the extent that Wikipedia decided to delete the article because it was taking its administrators too much time to monitor the page with the constant edits (see link below). A few days after the deletion of the FOF Wikipedia page, I was having lunch with Abraham Goldman, the main lawyer of the FOF at the time, and he told me with a smile, “We won the Wikipedia battle, we wore them out”. Sadly, “Abe” Goldman had a tragic end – he committed suicide in 2011 (see link below).

Still on the topic of lawyers, another lawyer of the FOF, a person named David Springfield (originally David Lubbers), sent a letter to the Board of Directors in 2009 announcing that he was not going to represent the FOF legally anymore because of “a combination of crime, gross carelessness and ignorance of almost all Board members” and “serious crimes have likely been committed and are possibly continuing to be committed by current members on the Board”. His letter also mentioned that he would no longer “Investigate/Monitor the Blog/GF/PR (Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, Greater Fellowship forum), etc.” implying that he or somebody connected to him had infiltrated this blog and the Greater Fellowship site. The FOF was able to have the letter removed from this blog threatening the hosting site (WordPress) with legal action, but a few days later the letter was posted on Wikileaks and it’s still there challenging the bullying tactics of the FOF (see link below). David Springfield/Lubbers was disbarred in 2015 for stealing $100,000 from a client and the last thing I heard is that he is a fugitive in Canada (see link below).

In summary, based on the past history of the FOF, it makes sense that Solartype is not the name of an individual but of an “operation”.

References:

Find The Fellowship of Friends on Wikipedia (or maybe not)
https://robertearlburton.blogspot.com/2007/06/find-fellowship-of-friends-on-wikipedia.html

Abraham Goldman, Fellowship of Friends attorney, commits suicide
https://robertearlburton.blogspot.com/2011/08/abraham-goldman-fellowship-of-friends.html

Censored Fellowship of Friends cult letter from former legal council David Springfield, 2009
https://robertearlburton.blogspot.com/2007/11/lawyer-abandons-ship.html

That Awkward Moment When You Discover a Former “Professor” Is Disbarred
http://sandjack.tv/2017/02/10/1l-awkward-moment-discover-former-professor-disbarred/

"Cult Survivor" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 15, 2019:
Here is an idea: Should we create again a Wikipedia article about the FOF?

I don’t think that this time the FOF will allocate a team to the “Wikipedia octave” like they did in 2007 — their resources are very depleted — so the article probably won’t be deleted (the previous article was removed by Wikipedia because it was taking too much time for the administrators to mediate the “edit wars” between current and former members).

I think it’s worth a try.

We could start with a copy of the previous article that was saved on the Internet Archive (link below) and start editing to see what happens.

Deleted FOF article on Wikipedia:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140118222956/http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/User:Vassyana/FoF/NPOV

Any thoughts?

"Golden Veil" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 15, 2019:
112. Cult Survivor – February 15, 2019 [above]

I think that an article about the Fellowship of Friends belongs on Wikipedia. I disagree with your assumption thatit would not be challenged though; an article about the Fellowship of Friends would likely instigate a back and forth edit war.

I have edited Wikipedia articles and created two entire articles – that are still up – on topics that are not related to cults. Both articles are about people and were initially challenged regarding their notability. The challenges come not from “administrators”, as you call them, but other editors. These editors can be absolutely anyone writing on Wikipedia. Some people with more experience especially take it upon themselves to scrutinize new articles – and assist new writers.

I looked over the old Fellowship of Friends article on Wikipedia that you linked and there is a BIG problem with it: there are almost no footnotes. EVERYTHING in a Wikipedia article must be footnoted and from a “credible” source. Personal, first hand experience and personal opinions are not acceptable. Also, quoting from blogs like this one, the Robert Earl Burton Blog, the various podcasts and videos, and the Rick Ross and Steve Hassan cult websites – none of these would be considered credible sources and should not be quoted from. BUT all of these “non-credible” blogs and websites are remarkably good sources to find what would be considered credible sources, mainly newspaper articles written about the Fellowship of Friends.

I only skimmed the article you linked to look for footnotes and haven’t read it, but if you think it is a good article, you could start with it and simply edit it – rewrite it as needed – and seek supporting sources for ALL of the information already written and add in footnotes. Documentation of sources are needed for literally for every sentence in footnote form. It is best to use a varied number of sources; don’t use one newspaper article for all your sources.

If you really want to take this on, I suggest that you write it offline first. The next step would be to put it on a draft form on Wikipedia in a sandbox and enlist the assistance of an experienced editor to help you. You could write to one of the main editors of the Heaven’s Gate article on Wikipedia, for example. Once it is published and no longer in your sand box, anyone at all can make changes. A factual and neutral tone is best. I recommend that you read the Wikipedia article “Wikipedia: Your First Article” – especially the sections entitled “Gathering References”, “Things to Avoid” and “And Be Careful About…” Most editors create a user profile first and then start out by editing existing articles – before writing an article themselves. The work of people who write without a user profile is usually eliminated. Most people write using pseudonyms, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28religious_group%29

"Ames Gilbert" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 15, 2019:
Regarding another Wikipedia page, I would say, why reinvent the wheel?

If one is interested in the history of the Fellowship of Friends, I can make no stronger recommendation than robertearlburton.blogspot.com [this site]. It is searchable by subject and tags, and organized by date, has tons of accompanying images and videos. It would be hard to duplicate the density of useful information and the man–years that have gone into creating this site, IMO.

If one is interested in lively to–and–fro, arguments about the FoF from both sides, the early pages of this blog (2007-2010) are worth going through [see links to "Fellowship of Friends Discussion" in sidebar]. The later pages have very little input from followers because they were given a ‘suggestion’ by Girard Haven (which then turned into a ‘task’) to not engage on the blog—that fact speaks for itself, of course.

If one wants to keep these sites at the top or near the top of the search results, they have to be active and have ‘good’ links to and from them. The particulars of Google’s search algorithms are a ‘secret sauce’, of course, but it is known that they rank links by ‘quality’, based on traffic, the links to them and their ‘quality’, and so on.

I’m an average user, so I start with something like Google Search, key in “Robert Earl Burton Fellowship of Friends” and up comes the REB site. I look around for anything new, then end the session by going to the left of the page and clicking on the latest entry on this blog, and thus arrive here. After catching up, I go on to Google News, very briefly since there is usually nothing of actual value to me there. I’m just registering my presence on the most important news aggregator and establishing a strong link from this site.

That way, I have a chain of strong links to and from the websites I’m trying to ‘train’ Google Search to rank higher.

The more folks that do something along these lines, the higher up the rankings for both these sites.

And anyone who knows how to improve search rankings for these sites (without paying for adverts), please chime in!

I know it is petty, but I am always encouraged by Linda Kaplan’s supposed comment from a decade ago,
"The Blog is the worst thing that ever happened to the Fellowship”
Linda, I know we can’t agree on much, but I can certainly agree with you on that!

"Cult Survivor" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 15, 2019:
113. Golden Veil [above]

You said: “I think that an article about the Fellowship of Friends belongs on Wikipedia.”

Yes, it does. It adds credibility to this blog and Tim’s REB site. People tend to think that what Wikipedia says is “official” because it can be challenged. Besides, Wikipedia is much more succinct and organized than this blog and even Tim’s REB site, even if this last one is pretty well organized. Finally, Wikipedia has an air of “neutrality” that this blog and Tim’s REB site lack.

You also said: I disagree with your assumption that it would not be challenged though; an article about the Fellowship of Friends would likely instigate a back and forth edit war.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. I asked my friend that is still in the FOF and she told me that of the 4 people that were in the “Wikipedia octave” in 2007, 2 are out of the school, one passed away and one is in his 80’s and lives now at a center. She agrees with me that the FOF doesn’t have the resources and the energy to engage in another Wikipedia war.

Thank you for the tips about how to create an article; I created a couple of articles myself in the past so I have some experience.

I will go ahead and create the article. Let’s see what happens.

"Cult Survivor" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 15, 2019:
115. Ames Gilbert [above]

You said: “Regarding another Wikipedia page, I would say, why reinvent the wheel?”

It’s not my intention to reinvent the wheel, it’s more to add credibility to this blog and Tim’s REB site, as I said above. For the FOF, it would be like adding insult to injury, so to speak.

You said: “I know it is petty, but I am always encouraged by Linda Kaplan’s supposed comment from a decade ago, 'The Blog is the worst thing that ever happened to the Fellowship.'”

My aim recreating the Wikipedia article is for Linda to say “The Blog is the worst thing that ever happened to the Fellowship, and on top of that the Wikipedia article is back. Oh boy.”

"Ames Gilbert" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 15, 2019:
Cult Survivor, I salute you for making this effort, and wish you every success. And it seems like you know what you are doing, and are not naïve about the work it entails.

As for the value of my advice—when Tim Campion suggested starting up the REB website, I recommended against it…

Ha! So much for my wisdom and foresight! I’m very glad he didn’t let any naysayers get in the way of his vision and the actualization of that vision, and I’m sure countless others are as well.

Again, best of luck!

P.S. my supposed wisdom and foresight led me right into the Fellowship of Friends. You could hardly find a better example of why I or anyone else should disregard such!

"Cult Survivor" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 15, 2019:
118. Four Days of the Fourth State

You said: “For a long time many dozens of people posted to this blog. Then the moderation changed and the traffic dropped off to the handful that haunt the place now.”

How many thousands of postings telling about the abuse that happens in the FOF you need? After a certain number becomes overkill IMO. That’s another reason to have a Wikipedia article: People could have a general overview of the FOF on Wikipedia and then visit this blog, Tim’s REB site, Rick Ross’ site or Steve Hassan’s site for more details. That’s what people usually do when they want to know about something.

By the way, besides informing people that are interested in joining the FOF, this blog is also useful for us to share information about new developments, like Asaf Braverman’s “school”. Other FOF offshoots may follow Asaf’s example, who knows.

"Cult Survivor" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 15, 2019:
119. Ames Gilbert [above]

“Cult Survivor, I salute you for making this effort, and wish you every success. And it seems like you know what you are doing, and are not naïve about the work it entails.”

Thank you, Ames, I’m sure I’ll need a little help from my friends…

“My supposed wisdom and foresight led me right into the Fellowship of Friends. You could hardly find a better example of why I or anyone else should disregard such!

Your wisdom and foresight also made you leave the Fellowship of Friends and donate your time and energy here for years in order to help others not to go through the damage, pain and suffering that you went through. I salute you back for making this effort.

"Golden Veil" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 15, 2019:
118. Four Days of the Fourth State – February 15, 2019

Anyone at all can post on this discussion; the moderator does not pick and choose. Although there is a time lag and an action needed on the moderator’s behalf before a first post will show, the moderator does not screen ensuing posts by the same person.

The moderator will only ban someone for extreme abuse, and if you look over the posts from the last couple of pages and its many harangues and nasty comments, its clear that “critiquing” someone is definitely not considered abuse worth banning someone for!

Extreme abuse is usually the posting here of massive tracts published elsewhere like poetry, song lyrics, post after post of such things by the same person, clogging the blog. We all like a song or poem now and then, but too much is abusive when a poster starts treating the discussion like it’s a personal Facebook page.

"Golden Veil" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 15, 2019:
120. Cult Survivor – February 15, 2019 [above]

“Besides, Wikipedia is much more succinct and organized than this blog and even Tim’s REB site, even if this last one is pretty well organized. Finally, Wikipedia has an air of “neutrality” that this blog and Tim’s REB site lack.”

Your point about “neutrality” is indeed correct, Cult Survivor. But when you work on this article you will treading a very thin line. It must be written in a way that it will not be considered an advertisement for the Fellowship of Friends. That is one of the main things that you need to overcome. I didn’t mention it in my prior post, but you can draw from Fellowship of Friends books and websites for article sources – and a mix of varied sources are crucial, even for the opening paragraph.

Sections about the many students who have left and allegations of sexual abuse, human trafficking and financial improprieties, etc. would all be best put in separate chapters with a heading that includes the word Controversy – and only if published documentation, not hearsay, is referenced from a mix of good, credible sources.

121. Cult Survivor – February 15, 2019 [above]

“…People could have a general overview of the FOF on Wikipedia and then visit this blog, Tim’s REB site, Rick Ross’ site or Steve Hassan’s site for more details. That’s what people usually do when they want to know about something.”

Yes, but people who are not ignorant know that Wikipedia are written by people who could be anyone, not scholars, experts, or published authors. It is a popular pastime for retirees with time on their hands, worldwide.

"Golden Veil" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 15, 2019:
Addendum to my above post 123, section 121. Cult Survivor:

I wrote “Yes, but people who are not ignorant know that Wikipedia [articles] are written by people who could be anyone, not scholars, experts, or published authors. It is a popular pastime for retirees with time on their hands, worldwide.”

Actually scholars and experts could be writing, too – but you’ll only know it if they reveal who they are in their Wikipedia profile. Of course all the authors of an article (typically under pseudonyms) are revealed if you click on the tab “View History” at the top of any article, including the one linked below that is a good one to read if you are going to undertake writing an article on Wikipedia. Things may have changed since the last time you wrote an article. By the way, if you click on the “Talk” tab at the top of the Heaven’s Gate article you’ll get to see where discussion sometimes can be found on a contentious Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

Writing a Wikipedia article is an enormous and complex task, especially for type of topic you propose!

"Cult Survivor" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 16, 2019:
124. Golden Veil [above]

Writing a Wikipedia article is an enormous and complex task, especially for the type of topic you propose!

I fully agree. My intention is to copy the draft of the article that was removed with some edits and see what happens — if the FOF starts a time-consuming edit war then I’ll see what I’ll do. As I said before, the chances that the FOF will engage are very slim because the members of the so-called “Wikipedia octave” [ed. - "octave," in this case, means "project"] are either out of the school, too old or dead, and it would be extremely difficult to find a team of members that will dedicate several hours a day like they did in 2007.

I forgot to mention the fate of the two “octave leaders” in this case
of the FOF Wikipedia task force in 2007: Abraham Goldman, the octave leader, committed suicide in 2011 and David Springfield/Lubbers, his faithful assistant, left the FOF in 2007 and is reportedly a fugitive in Canada.

Doesn’t seem to me that the FOF has the resources for a Wikipedia war these days.

"Golden Veil" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 16, 2019:
126. Cult Survivor – February 16, 2019 [abover]

“My intention is to copy the draft of the article that was removed with some edits and see what happens…”

Okay, well good luck!

Recap of my suggestions:

It must be written in a way that it will not be considered an advertisement for the Fellowship of Friends.

Maintain a factual, neutral tone, with all information documented with footnotes from credible sources. Drawing too mush from your subjects website will be perceived badly. You might be accused of being too close to your subject.

Good idea to edit articles on other cults before you bring your article up. Mention in your profile that you are fascinated by cults, or something like that. DO NOT mention that you are a former member of the Fellowship of Friends. That would disqualify you from writing an article about the cult.

Documentation of sources are needed for literally for every sentence in footnote form. It is best to use a varied number of sources; don’t use only a few sources for all your footnotes.

I suggest that you write it offline first. The next step would be to put it on a draft form on Wikipedia in a sandbox and enlist the assistance of an experienced editor to help you. To figure out who is experienced, read profiles. An editor will often say they like to assist with the creation of new articles. Good idea to get someone with an interest and experience in writing about cults on your side to go to bat for you with other editors that may want to take the article down.

Keep all controversies in separate sections, further down the page, as I wrote above. Only include information that you can footnote.

Footnotes, footnotes, footnote – everything!

"Cult Survivor" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 21, 2019:
I started working on a draft of the Wikipedia article on the Fellowship of Friends. Here is the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UltraEdit/sandbox

Let me know what you think. Also, you are welcome to edit the draft since it’s a “sandbox”, not the final article. I had the aim to keep the article short and to the point, since the previous article that was deleted was fairly long. We have to remember that WIkipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog…

My plan is to start editing articles about destructive cults, then submit the draft of the FOF article to an experienced editor for suggestions and finally publish the article (estimated time frame: 2-3 weeks).

Since the original article was deleted in 2010 (see link below), it’s necessary for the Wikipedia admin that deleted the article to give his approval for the article to be published. The issue is that that person (his name is Cirt) left Wikipedia in 2016 so another admin would have to give the authorization. I’ll keep you posted.

FOF Wikipedia article deletion log:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fellowship_of_Friends_(2nd_nomination)

"Ames Gilbert" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 21, 2019:
Cult Survivor, thanks for your hard work on resuscitating the Fellowship of Friends Wiki page.

Golden Veil, the standards of ‘reliably independent sources’ seem to be set unreasonably high, IMO, so I need help to understand what this means in practical terms.

Would references to court documents involving Burton and the FoF, that ‘anyone’ can check out, qualify?

What about newspaper articles written about them over the years? Print only, or web?

And if these don’t suffice, why do quotes from some book make the grade? Again, print only or do e–books qualify?

What about notarized declarations and documents?

What is the standard for references to internet sites?

I can understand editors being a bit wary, because they are so easy to set up, and they come and go—but then Wikipedia is an internet site, and if it doesn’t match the description of ‘changeable’ and ‘unreliable’, I don’t know what would!

Please, don’t spend much time on this, but if you can share your experience, this might help Cult Survivor and anyone else who might want to contribute to a stable Wiki page on the Fellowship.

"Golden Veil" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, February 21, 2019:
39. Ames Gilbert – February 21, 2019 [above]

Ames, I’m so glad that you brought up internet accessible court documents, etc. “that anyone can check out.” If you can provide some links here for Cult Survivor, that would be great.

Yes, the bar for credibility is set rather high by Wikipedia. Hearsay is not allowed at all and blogs such as this one, the Robert Earl Burton blog, and the Rick Ross and Steve Hassan blogs, and also podcasts – would not be considered credible sources – but as I wrote before, these blogs may all be good sources for Cult Survivor’s research; they may find material; that leads to credible, third party sources.

Newspapers are excellent. It would be great, though, if someone can suggest more than the two articles Cult Survivor has already been depending on. Not all sources need to available online – but online sources are more easily verifiable and preferred. Published books and e books may be referenced that are by cult researchers, and scholars – and even books by Robert Earl Burton and Girard Haven, but as I wrote before above, the article should not read as a promotion or vanity page for the subject. Clearly that is not a problem in Cult Survivor’s article!

Currently Cult Survivor’s article has an undocumented Payment section that must be removed – unless they can get a reference for those claims.

Please see the many more details about writing a Wikipedia article in my posts 122 – 124 and 128 that are on the previous page here, 167.

See also:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

How to make footnotes and insert and document sources on Wikipedia:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Ames, If you have any sections you could contribute to the article, why not just post them here, with your source. By the way, I think that video interviews could be sourced (I have used some myself) – but only if they were archived at a university or library collection (that somehow deems them credible!)

Cult Survivor wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, March 11, 2019:
WIKIPEDIA FOF ARTICLE UPDATE

I received the following reply from Wikipedia after my submission of the FOF article for review:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fellowship_of_Friends



Submission declined on 8 March 2019 by Robert McClenon (talk).

This submission’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fellowship of Friends (2nd nomination).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fellowship_of_Friends_(2nd_nomination)

In order to show notability of this organization after the deletion discussion, please either obtain a copy of the deleted article at Requests for Undeletion for comparison to demonstrate that this draft is substantially an improvement, or request Deletion Review.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the “Edit” tab at the top of the window.

• If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.

• If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.

• Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.

Declined by Robert McClenon 5 seconds ago. Last edited by Robert McClenon 5 seconds ago.

Reviewer: Inform author.

Resubmit: Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again.
Comment: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fellowship of Friends (2nd nomination).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fellowship_of_Friends_(2nd_nomination)

See WP:Markup for how to mark section headings. Section headings are delimited by equal signs (=), which are used to construct the table of contents of a page. Please edit this draft as specified before resubmitting. Do not use bold face in headings. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)



I’m planning to reply to the person that sent the message with the following points:

1. I’ll implement the cosmetic changes he indicated.

2. I’ll mention that from the list of Parcast podcasts of 40 cults below, only the Fellowship of Friends and the River Road Fellowship don’t have an article on Wikipedia (in bold below).

3. I’ll create a Wikipedia article for The River Road Fellowship (its leader Victor Barnard was sentenced in 2016 to 30 years in prison for sexually abusing 12- and 13-year old girls).

Any suggestions?

LIST OF CULT PODCASTS ON PARCAST

E01/02: The Manson Family – Charles Manson
E03/04: Heaven’s Gate – Marshall Applewhite & Bonnie Nettles
E05/06: Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God – Credonia Mwerinde & Joseph Kibweteere
E07/08: The Family – Anne Hamilton Byrne
E09/10: The Ant Hills Kids – Roch Thériault
E11: The Children of God – David Berg
E13/14: FLDS – Warren Jeffs
E15/16: Aum Shinrikyo – Shoko Asahara
E17/18: The Branch Davidians – David Koresh
E19/20: The Peoples Temple – Jim Jones
E21: True Russian Orthodox Church – Pyotr Kuznetsov
E22/23: Nuwaubian Nation – Dwight York
E24/25: Sect of Nacozari – Silvia Meraz
E26/27: Apostles of Infinite Love – Michel Collin & Jean-Gaston Tremblay
E28/29: Church of Euthanasia – Chris Korda
E30/31: Rajneeshpuram – Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh & Ma Anand Sheela
E32/33: The Brethren – Jimmie T. Roberts
E34/35: Twelve Tribes – Gene Spriggs (Yoneq)
E36/37: Oneida Community – John Humphrey Noyes
E38/39: The Moonies – Sun Myung Moon
E40/41: The Narcosatanists – Adolfo Constanzo & Sara Aldrete
E42: Leopard Society
E43/44: Order of the Solar Temple – Joseph Di Mambro
E45/46: Raëlism – Claude Vorilhon
E47/48: Church Universal and Triumphant – Elizabeth Clare Prophet
E49/50: Sahaja Yoga Movement – Nirmala Srivastava
E503: The Hernandez Brothers’s Cult – Magdalena Solís
E51/52: Lumpa Church – Alice Lenshina
E54/55: Mankind Project – Arthur Bell
E56/57: The Kirtland Cult – Jeffrey Lundgren
E58/59: The Church of the Last Testament – Sergey Anatolyevitch Torop (Vissarion)
E61/62: Church of Satan – Anton LaVey
E62/63: The Way International – Victor Paul Wierwille
E64/65: Freemasonry – The cult that built America
E66/67: Kashi Ashram – Ma Jaya
E68/69: Fellowship of Friends – Robert Earl Burton
E70/71: River Road Fellowship – Victor Barnard
E72: The Sons of Freedom / Doukhobors – Peter V. Verigin
E73/74: The Workers’ Institute – Aravindan Balakrishnan
E75: New Vrindaban – Kirtanananda Swami

"Golden Veil" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, March 11, 2019:
Cult Survivor – March 11, 2019 [above]

“Article contains nothing resembling a reliable source regarding this organization.” is the very first sentence here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fellowship_of_Friends_(2nd_nomination)

One Comment that concurs with the above:

“I agree that the present article contains no information from reliably independent sources.”

I had mentioned to you in a prior post that the podcasts and blogs would not be accepted as credible sources.

And also beside the critique of no credible sources, this is especially an article killer – if others agree – that the cult is not notable enough for an article:

“I believe the present article is worse than nothing because it contains no indication of significant information that might be considered what actually makes the group notable.
Your information your article provides is very, very thin – the sections appear to me to be so sparse as to be presenting as an outline – with each section to be expanded on.

Cult Survivor, did you ask an experienced editor to help you by looking over your article – before you published it?
*** . I think that your best bet would be write on Robert McC*****’s Talk page about it. Tell him that you realize that the article wasn’t ready and you want to continue working on it, give the article more credibility and prove that the cult is notable. That you have found a more experienced editor that is helping you – and to please not delete the article – but allow you continue to work on it in a Sand Box (a draft that is not published or visible).

I think that your point about all the other cults having articles is a good one.

But credible sources and notability are the hurdles you will need to clear. Although the introduction is good at top, most other sections of the article are way too thin – it looks like an outline for an article.

Good idea to re-read what I wrote in the prior posts on page 167 or so about writing an article – read the Wikipedia articles I linked on how to write an article. I also suggested that you remove the Payment section. You cannot include information like that without a source.

I would also suggest that you request that the blog moderator remove your post – and at that point say that I agree that this one should be removed as well.

This is your (Third Party) footnote for the non-profit status, IRS.gov page:

https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/displayAll.do?dispatchMethod=displayAllInfo&Id=191508&ein=237233321&country=US&deductibility=all&dispatchMethod=searchAll&isDescending=false&city=Oregon+House&ein1=&postDateFrom=&exemptTypeCode=al&submitName=Search&sortColumn=orgName&totalResults=19&names=&resultsPerPage=25&indexOfFirstRow=0&postDateTo=&state=CA

"Cult Survivor" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, March 11, 2019:
63. Golden Veil [above]

Thank you for your suggestions, I’ll read again the ones you gave me in the past. By the way, the person that sent the message is not an administrator, he is an experienced editor (I followed your suggestion of submitting the article to a senior editor for review before publication).

"Golden Veil" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, May 18, 2019:
It would be very supportive of the Wikipedia article if someone other than its original author would add in a sentence or two about the Renaissance Winery that existed from the sometime in 1990s to 2015. There is an excellent article about it that has the bonus of being recent, August 23, 2018 and in The San Francisco Chronicle. Especially click on the link in the first , “a project that I’ve been working on for many months” within the article that leads to “Ruins” for more information

https://www.sfchronicle.com/wine/article/The-original-cult-wine-13175429.php
Link to “Ruins”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/wine/article/The-lost-civilization-of-California-wine-13174708.php

"Artemis44" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, May 17, 2019:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellowship_of_Friends

"Golden Veil" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, May 17, 2019:
Artemis44 – May 17, 2019 [above]

The Wikipedia page is absolutely fantastico!

"Golden Veil" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, May 17, 2019:
Artemis 44, did you see in post no. 36 footnote (24)? Its references could be used in the Wikipedia article. I reprint here:

(24) An example of a cult masking as a Fourth Way group is the Gurdjieff Ouspensky Center, also known as the Fellowship of Friends. The organization refers to its studies as a Gurdjieff/Ouspensky teaching (although Ouspensky is clearly their major inspiration) and claims that it has expanded the scope of these teachings by introducing cultural and philosophical material from the world’s great spiritual traditions and thinkers. This organization differs from most Gurdjieff groups in their active recruitment of followers; and there have been a number of serious allegations about the organization and in particular the leader of the movement, Robert Burton. See James Moore “Gurdjieffian Groups in Britain” (Religion Today, Volume 3 (2), 1986, pp. 1-4), Theodore Nottingham “The Fourth Way and Inner Transformation” (Gnosis No. 20, Summer 1991, p. 22) and William Patterson Taking With the Left Hand (Fairfax, California: Arete Communications, 1998).

"Artemis44" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, May 18, 2019:
Golden Veil [above]

I’m not an editor of the Wikipedia article.

"Insider" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, May 18, 2019:
47. Artemis44 [above]

Thanks for sharing the Fellowship of Friends new website. On a sub-page called “Robert Earl Burton,” is written the following:

* * * * * * * * * *

Robert Burton, born in 1939, founded the Fellowship of Friends on New Year’s Day, 1970, after a period of study with the Fourth Way teacher and theater director, Alex Horn, who was affiliated with the Gurdjieff Foundation in the 1960s. Alex Horn also studied with English writer and playwright Rodney Collin, Peter Ouspensky’s pupil, late in Collin’s life, in Mexico.

* * * * * * * * * *

Burton managed to found and operate the Fellowship for over 35 years without ever being sure about his own “lineage” connecting back to Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. The missing link was always Alex Horn, and where and with whom Horn studied. (And what in the world does it mean that Horn was “affiliated” with the Gurdjieff Foundation? Is that supposed to validate Burton’s claim of an unbroken lineage?)

Note that Horn apparently never mentioned meeting or studying with Rodney Collin. If he had, Burton would certainly have heard about it during his time with Horn. Why would Horn withhold this information, unless it never happened?

When Horn died in 2007, a Fellowship member took it upon himself, or was asked, to look for and to come up with this missing link. The member was Hugh J@mes, a Ph.D. in philosophy, a prolific writer, and (we now know) a very “imaginative” researcher.

Here is the “report” that Hugh presented to Burton in 2009:

* * * * * * * * * *

Shortly after Alex Horn’s death a man who had known him at the University of Chicago in the early ‘fifties published a short obituary on the internet. It included some fond memories of their university years, but no information about Alex as a teacher or conscious being.

More recently another man, who had been at the University of Chicago at the same time, posted an anonymous response. This man had only a very external idea of the work, and no idea of the level Alex reached later in his life. He claimed to have been a close friend of David Daniels, who had been one of Alex’s closest associates at university. During the early ‘fifties both Alex and David became involved with the ‘Compass Players’, which was a theater group loosely affiliated with the university. The third man would often go to watch their rehearsals and performances.

He wrote that, at a certain point, a number of the Compass Players … “took an ‘esoteric’ trip to Mexico, on account of Horn’s interest in Ouspensky biographer Rodney Collin, who had settled there.”

Clearly the writer had only the vaguest idea of who Rodney Collin was, or what the group might have been doing on their visit, and this very fact gives the ring of truth to what he wrote. I deduced the date of the Compass Player’s trip to have been 1953 – three years before Rodney Collin’s death. Alex would have been 24 and Rodney 44 at that time. Additionally, Alex almost surely knew Rodney Collin before having invited his friends on the trip.

There was nothing else of interest in the posting and no further mention of Rodney Collin. But what once appeared to be a strong possibility now seems to be a fact. So, from this point of view, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Collin, and Horn each had one fully conscious student, and the ‘Fourth Way’ lineage to ourselves is direct.

* * * * * * * * * *

It is obvious to me that Hugh’s weakness as a researcher consists in the fact that he begins with assuming various conclusions, each the product of relentless repetition (brainwashing) courtesy of Robert Burton, then finding “facts” to support them. E.g., (1) Alex being a “teacher” and a “conscious being;” (2) the high “level Alex reached later in his life;” (3) the high level of Rodney Collin, the “writer” having “only the vaguest idea” of this; (4) Alex having surely known Rodney Collin before going to Mexico; and, very conveniently, (5) Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Collin and Horn each having had “one fully conscious student.”

Yes, Alex Horn did go to Mexico sometime between 1953 and 1955. And, before this trip, he might have mentioned that he would like, someday, to meet Rodney Collin. But Horn’s trip to Mexico had nothing to do with trying to meet Rodney Collin, or even going to Mexico City. The trip to Mexico with a number of fellow actors from Chicago was not “esoteric,” but rather related to the study of new acting techniques.

We know this from a chapter in a book, “Birimisa: Portraits, Plays, Perversions: The Work of George Birimisa.” The chapter in question was written by one of the Chicago acting students, Caty Cook Powell, which she titled, “Memories that Bless and Burn.” Here is what she recalled about Horn’s “esoteric trip to Mexico” (my comments in parentheses):

* * * * * * * * * *

In 1954 or ’55…George (Birimisa) entered…into my life. I was then a neophyte actor living on the South Side of Chicago and helping to start Compass Players, the first glimmer of an improvisational movement that led later to SNL (Saturday Night Live) and Second City. A young and impoverished Elaine May was our teacher…Elaine knew charismatic and controversial director Alex Horn from earlier days, so throughout the summer she told us about the doings of some “real” New York actors who had gone to Mexico with Alex planning to work for a year on their craft with no interruption and then create the greatest theatre ever seen…However the artists only lasted in Mexico for a few months due to fights or backers backing out, though they reportedly did do some wonderful work. Toward the end of summer one day into our workshop like a tornado blew George with Jerry Cunliffe, both bronzed from the tropical sun, wearing Mexican worker pants and sandals…Elaine turned the class over to them and they put us through a series of newly developed acting exercises. I was smitten. Turned out that George and Jerry were the vanguard of the Mexico group, now down to a handful but still coming on like an army of conquering heroes. Alex, Anne Raim and Charles Bennett soon arrived and set up a collective, living together, pooling their money for the eventual theatre…

* * * * * * * * * *

It’s been thoroughly documented elsewhere that Horn did not “study” with John Bennett or with anyone else previously connected to Gurdjieff or Ouspensky. And it now seems beyond any doubt that Horn never met or studied with Rodney Collin, although he may well have known about Collin. Horn was an actor who primarily acted the part of a “conscious being,” whatever that might be. And Burton has been doing the same for nearly 50 years now.

No comments:

Post a Comment