Talk:George Gurdjieff/Archive 1

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.

i sorta found no mention of group work in this profile

Gurdjieff emphasized working in a group

[email protected] 08:53, March 12, 2005 (UTC)

I sorta agree.TheMadBaron 07:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be great if this article started with a short paragraph describing his relationship to the world. Also, the text seems to uncritically accept a devotee's viewpoint of Gurdjieff. There are other viewpoints. E.g., http://skepdic.com/gurdjief.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.34.65 (talk • contribs) 06:23, April 7, 2005

I propose that this article be split into two sections - this one dealing with straight biography (to include more detail of early travels and influences) and another dealing with G's ideas and teaching - 'The Work', or the 'Fourth way' - complete with skeptical criticism. At present,

The Fourth Way, which is described as a non-fiction book stub (ie. pertaining to Ouspensky's book on the subject). How about a dis-ambiguation page for 'The Fourth Way'? TheMadBaron

17:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, especially the inclusion of skeptical criticism. I like some of his ideas but the article seems to be largely written by fans. Personally, I see him as something of a mystic charlatan and his organization have cult-like aspects. Make room for the good insights but also nail the unsavory aspects. WpZurp 18:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? "Good" insights and "unsavory" aspects are necessarily points of view. Shouldn't we just present what is fact on Gurdjieff, and let others decide what is unsavory, not you? TheGunslinger 08:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from his writing that Gurdieff detested war, and would have had little time for nazis. TheMadBaron 07:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed now. Foundation of the Vril Society is atributed to General Karl Haushofer, a student of Gurdjieff. TheMadBaron 18:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There has NEVER been any substantiated link between Gurdjieff and the Nazis or anyone who went on to become one, and furthermore, what IS recorded is that Gurdjieff was responsible in occupied Paris for sheltering and feeding Jews in hiding (see William Patrick Patterson's VOICES IN THE DARK for one source).—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 68.171.36.80 (talk • contribs

) 06:26, March 8, 2006 .

Can somebody find the publication year for the couple of books that are missing one? Then we can sort these into chronological order. Failing that, alphabetical order by author. TheMadBaron 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless you're as lazy as me, you can get the years from

amazon.com. You can even snag ISBN numbers if so inclined. Hmm, did older books get assigned ISBN numbers? WpZurp

23:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Another problem is that many of the books, such as All and Everything which are said to be "published after Gurdjieff's death" were in fact published before his death, but only to a small group. Gurdjieff, in his visits to America, would constantly (or so I hear) have read the chapter "America" from All and Everything :). While this chapter, like all the others, is written in allegory, it is reputed to have soured the temperament of some in attendance. So yeah, the books were "published" multiple times, sometimes wide, sometimes not. It'd be next to impossible to illicit exact dates of the smaller releases of the publication of Gurdjieff's works. TheGunslinger 06:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm far lazier than you. Trust me on this. :)

Problem is, Amazon lists the publication date of a given edition - the original publication date isn't always available. Still, I've filled in the gaps with the best data I could find quickly, and in so doing, split Orage's 'On Love' and 'Psychological Exercises' into the original seperate volumes - I haven't checked any of the dates originally listed, or bothered to add ISBN's. I'm FAR too lazy for that. TheMadBaron 18:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"Georges Ivanovich Gurdjieff (January 13, 1872 - October 29, 1949), was a Greek-Armenian mystic and 'teacher of dancing'. The teachings were about working on oneself to awaken conscience and create a soul to withstand death. The teaching is preserved by Gurdjieff's and his pupils' books and many groups for practicing and disseminating his teachings."

To my mind, this sounds confused now. It sounds like the final sentence refers exclusively to dance. Gurdjieff did introduce himself as a teacher of dancing when he was in Russia, but the mystic dance movements he passed to his followers do not feature in his written work, and constitute only a small part of his legacy. We might as well describe him as a carpet salesman. TheMadBaron 10:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Gurdjieffs birthdate is disputed. Some say 1866 (biographer James Moore thinks so), others 1877 (Most quoted birthdate in encyclopedias etc.). The 1872 birthdate is according to James Webb. I've added a question mark after the his birtday.

user:peterak 13:28, September 30, 2005

The link they like to add to this article is [http: // www angelfire com/me2/sutras/gg html A Selection of Gurdjieff Quotes]. The real point of the link is to build search engine rankings for the commercial links at the bottom of the page; the same spamdexer is linking similarly bogus pages for Hindu mystical figures and U.S. country music stars -- all with the same links at the bottom of the page.

The spammer also recently created an account, User:Borgengruft.

For more info, see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive117#Link-spamming from someone in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive118#Update -- now using Borgengruft?
• User:A. B./To do list#Abusers

Thanks for your help.--A. B. 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A new critics position just got done being written. Besides the horrid grammatical errors (which perhaps I am not free of either), and the spelling errors, there were other problems that I fixed.

- First off, a critics perspective is not an editorial license. The critics perspective can be rightly used to illustrate what the critics say, not simply pass them off as fact. Mentioning Storr a couple of times as saying things, and then proceeding to write his claims in declarative form for the next two paragraphs is not an appropriate NPOV approach.

- Secondly, some of what was written is analysis of Gurdjieff's work. An example of this was a declarative statement about Gurdjieff's cosmology. I can assure you, that if you think that Gurdjieff's cosmology is contemptuous of "ordinary people" or something like that, that you have no understanding of it whatsoever.

- Thirdly, there were references to Fourth Way cults. There is no doubt that there have been many groups (Alex Horn's ... for one example) that have said to be Gurdjieff's teachings, that have been nothing more than cults. This, of course, is true of everything from Christianity to Islam, tons of wacky spaceship theories, science fiction novels, and countless other sources. To pin Gurdjieff with the responsibility for what others do with his work is like blaming Christ for the KKK. I'm not saying that Gurdjieff's work has not be held in hand by many at the helm of a cult, I'm saying that it is, and should not be noted as such, a value he himself endorsed.

- Lastly, some of what was there was so incomprehensibly written, it had to be removed all together. I apologize if English is your second language, I do not mean to personally attack you, I only mean that is was unintelligible. This leads me to believe that some who have written in this part of the entry have little or no point of reference when it comes to Gurdjieff. I will be happy, in the near future, when time presents itself, to overhaul this entry in a manner that I hope will suit both sides, in the mean time, I hope that those who do not have an understanding of Gurdjieff (whatsoever) will not interject simply what they have "heard" about him, nor what others seem to be saying. Simply citing what someone says does not make it true. There is someone who has said just about anything about many public figures, citing this people means nothing. Simply because there is precedence to an opinion, does not necessarily lend to it's validity.

TheGunslinger 11:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph, if you read it a couple times, doesn't actually make sense.

"The nature of Gurdjieff's activities and philosophies as presented in his writings is disputed. His critics seem to fall into one of two camps. Some regard him as a charismatic master, who brought new knowledge into Western culture and whose "operational readiness" concept is valid and applicable in modern psychology^{[This quote needs a citation]}. Others assert he was simply a charlatan with a large ego and a constant need for self-glorification.^{[citation needed]} His Biography and other writings offer plenty of material supporting both views, depending upon perspective and entrance for both classifications."

How is it that "the nature of ... Gurdjieff's philosophies ... is disputed." I don't really understand what this is getting at. I mean, the nature of almost everyone's philosophies is disputed. I just ... I dunno, I sounds kinda stupid. Then the other part that doesn't make sense, is that these "critics" who are supposed to fall into "two camps" as it would turn out are not both critics, and they're a highly polarized view of Gurdjieff, which most people don't actually hold. Then it goes on to state that "His biography and other writings ..." which is an ambiguous statement almost making it sound like Gurdjieff's other writings somehow support that he was a charlatan, which would be a hard case to make.

TheGunslinger 17:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, I do not readily understand what exact parts of the article are currently under a neutrality dispute. Can someone please clarify why the tag is currently there and what would need to be done? AdamDobay 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Let's see who the person is who put the tag on the page.

(cur) (last) 18:32, 20 June 2006 64.131.201.238 (Talk | block) (→* NPOV - article seems to be written by Gurdjieff's followers *)

That annon editor (IP) only made a few edits[1], perhaps the NPOV link is just spam. Do we have a consensus on that? Alex756 01:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand either what exactly is disputed. It seems a reasonable enough write up to me. I don't necessarily think it is important to present "both sides" as it is to present a balanced look. Presenting both sides of Gurdjieff is like presenting both sides of any controversial figure. I think it is reasonable to think that people looking him up would be more interested in what his teachings say (which he claims to be true) rather than what people who believe them to be false say. With someone like Gurdjieff, who's teachings are still in practice today, it would be a mistake to label what is contained in this page "factually inaccurate" simply because it is a reflection of what Gurdjieff claimed to be one of the ways to enlightenment. Let us not forget, Gurdjieff, like many other teachers, never claimed his way was the only way. TheGunslinger 08:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to delete the POV tag. If someone really cares and wants to put it back up. Fine. TheGunslinger 20:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Critic does not mean necesarily a lie or an attack. Neutrality

This article need to be witten in a neutral point of view. Whithout the fanatic and esoteric bla bla bla!

Some facts need to be described:

1. The work of gurdjieff is unfinished.
2. The cults and sects related to Gurdjieff teachings.
3. A real reference of critics of his work.
4. The new age movement.

—The preceding

TheGunslinger 23:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"The problem is that you're not going to find some with a neutral point of view. "

Good, but im not looking to find someone neutral, im looking to create an enciclopedic article and not a cult propaganda!.

"What you don't seem to understand is that those outside of the Gurdjieff esoteric circle, most of them, have no clue whatsoever about his teaching."

Are you telling me that nobody "ouside de Gurdjieff esoteric cicrle" has the capacity to describe him or his work? That only Gurdjieff "fans or teachers" can talk about it? and what about the cientific comunity? Sociologists and Psicologists? Tel me who are we to decide this?

"No, it was not."

Sorry but, there is evidence that many things are incomplete in his work. "I left you in a real mess" he said just before he died. There are big holes in his phylosopy that only Gurdjieff and God know what they realy mean, and tooked to his tomb. His work left to many questions and has to many ambiguos interpretations. His school was shotdown just a few years after his death. Todays schools are only copys. etc.

"Except in the sense that "The Work" or what have you is never finished"

Why there is always double meaning for every word in the Fourth Way?, "Unfinish is not unfinish". Let me tell you my theory of why your perosnal "work" does not end ever, thats because someone has brainwashed you to believe that, and to believe some day YOU will be realy YOU! and not your other YOU´s! and for that you have to depend on a book, a bizare and pragmatic cosmology, and some kind of buddha.

"Be sure to note which of these "cultists" were actually in line of transmission with Gurdjieff."

Sure, maybe we could differenciate them. But i think they are the same thing. what was first the egg or the chicken?

"Find one without an axe to grind, a politic to push, or a doctrine to sell - and properly represent their view and you won't hear a peep out of me."

I will.

Ok, this is stupid. It's stupid to login without an account, plunk up a NPOV tag, bitch about how the article is written by fanatics, and then proceed not to do a damn thing either on the talk page, or the page itself.

Tags like that are there to let people know there is an ongoing discussion about the accuracy of the article, not for some person who doesn't necessarily agree with what is on there to just kinda "swing" by and stamp it with his personal seal of NPOV.

If you're going to actually contribute or discuss this, then do it. And for God's sake, quit putting up NPOV tags. (and sign your comments too)

TheGunslinger 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is highly controversial among most Gurdjieffians: "Some authors such as Idries Shah have asserted that the source of his teachings are the Naqshbandi Sufis .See also The Teachers of Gurdjieff by Rafael Lefort." Idries Shah is commonly acknowledged as a "trickster teacher", in all biographies i have read. Rafael Lefort is an anagram for "A real effort" - and this book have no credibility whatsoever. If no one disagrees - I will remove all information about Idries Shah (This man is much more relevant to the life of the Gurdjieff follower

It should not be in the Intro, and as written looks like POV. But OK to mention under Reception, as one of several theories about the origins of G's teachings. There needs to be more on those theories, such as Ouspensky's claim that the technical vocabulary was first formulated in early 19th century Russian Freemasonry, Mouravieff's claim that it is esoteric Christianity, Murat Yagan's claim that it stems from Caucasian Ahmsta Kebzeh, etc. Jedermann 10:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how to do it myself so can someone please make a link between Gurdjieff's books and the articles on wikipedia about that book. (eg. Beelzebub's tales article exists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelzebub%27s_Tales_to_his_Grandson)

nevermind i did it

I am new to this so i don't know the wikipedia's policy on pictures, but i thought a profile should have a picture so i added that one. I don't know the license for the picture because it can be found on many sites. So if anyone knows it please added it.Aeuio 03:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do the legwork, my friend. Your picture will be gone soon, predictably (and no, I will not remove it). =).Yeago 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture was taken in 1924 by an unknown photographer, and today it can be found on many websites. I don't think that there is a copyright for this picture.Aeuio 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it your aim to make this picture remain? Then legwork my friend! "I don't think" won't cut it to the copyright nazi's! =). If you think I'm crying wolf, please ignore me.Yeago 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Finding something was actually easier than I thought. This site http://gurdjieff1949.tripod.com/ says at the bottom:

Copyright© 2006-2007 by Philip C. Norfleet

All Rights Reserved. Published in the United States of America. Essays and digital photographs, provided at this web site, may be reproduced for nonprofit personal or educational use only. Any commercial use of these materials is a violation of United States copyright laws and is strictly prohibited.

And if you click on G.I.Gurdjieff in the introduction then that picture pops up. This site is apparently under construction so I just hope they don't remove the picture, but its no problem if they do because they have others.

So I guess we are done with this whole copyrights business.Aeuio 03:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the last sentence - I just read something about wikipedia's rules on nonprofit personal or educational use images. Apparently you knew what you were talking about when you said "copyright nazi's".Aeuio 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not speak if I hadn't seen it done a dozen times. =). Its only a matter of time before a bot comes along and flags it for deletion. That's great you found that text. Did you apply it to the uploaded file? Yeago 20:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I did (click on the picture)- while it's still there. Aeuio 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As a person that has studied Gurdjieff for some forty years, I find this summary of Gurdjieff's ideas very superficial. Charlatan he was not. Any account of Gurdjieff's ideas should have some account of the notion of self remembering which is central to understanding him. Gurdjieff claimed that mankind is asleep and he advocated that we begin to awake by observing ourselves. Although we commonly assume that we are able to do, have will, are able to observe ourselves at will, in fact an earnest attempt to observe oneself will show that this is very difficult to achieve. Try observing yourself every time you go hrough a door over the next 24 hrs and see ifhow many doors you catch. This is an exercise commonly given to new students. Everything is automatic in sleeping man. Gurjieff claimed that we are born mechanical beings, which meant that if we simply accept what we are born with, and do not work intentionally towards evolving, with right ideas, we will be prey to circumstance and our intellectual, habitual and emotional life will be driven by random events as they occur. When a man (woman) develops a capacity to observe themselves then they create an opportunity not to be mechanical - that is to have some ability to not be prey to circumstantial events and begin to have some choice about how they react. At first this capacity is much more limited than the ordinary man might assume (as we errorsomly ascribe ourselves the ability to control our actions) but as the being continues to work rightly then this capacity to have some freedom, some choice expands. Self remembering has two levels. The first or lesser self remembering is when one catches oneself in the middle of some mechanical reaction (such as reacting to some critical remark) and sees, perhaps stops the mechanical reaction - (perhaps to be offended, indignant, hurt etc) and simply observes. Only with self remembering - a form of impartial awareness, can one alter ones mechanical reactions. The second form of self remembering is very rare - it is when the being's consciousness comes in contact with the source of their being. I shall not say much of this here, except one must take great care not to fall into delusion - wish fulfilment or the seduction of the accompanying vivaciousness of images. If anyone wishes to understand Gurdjieff's work, I would recommend first reading Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous, which will give an overview of G's early ideas, then read Maurice Nicholl's (also a pupil of Jung) Psychological Commentaries on the teachings of Gurdjieff. Nicholl's work is an excellent way to learn how to see oneself directly. Only after this tackle Beelzebub's Tales - Gurdjieff's masterpiece, as this is deliberatly obtuse to reasoning and the modern academic approach to ideas, as he makes clear in the first chapter. It takes another kind of cognition to understand this work, one far removed from reasoning as it is commonly understood. Their are many poorly understood misrepresentations of Gurdjieff's ideas - such as this entry. Lastly I will draw attention, very briefly to an allegory that plays an important part in the Work. A being is compared to a horse, carriage, driver and master. In this allegory the driver represents the thinking mind, the horse represents the emotions, the carriage represents the body or habitual mind. It is said that in common man the driver is distracted, the horse is badly educated and does not obey the driver, the carriage is rusty and in a poor state of repair. Because each of these centres (intellectual, emotional and moving or habitual centre) ar at odds with eachother and disfunctional, the master - or real I, that is the author of the being, does not sit in the carriage meaning does not play a part in the ordinary consciousness of the being. Instead the assembly acts as a Hackney carriage, that is the being is subject to any whim that occupies the attention of the current moment, and is constantly running between here and there with no real purpose. Further discussion of this allegory can be found in Ouspensky's book quoted above, and in the final chapter of Beelzebub's Tales. Work must be done to balance these three 'centres'. This is much more than gaining an intellectual undestanding of his ideas, it is emotional work and work on habits that is also required. With work on all three centres, then balance and a sense of focus on the real issues of living develops. Gradually, one becomes able, to achive a sense pf proportion, to understand what is really important in one's life, to develop a real sense of spiritual purpose. Gurdjieff did not require any form of blind faith or false personal commitment from his pupils, rather it is better to be critical in approach, to find the value of his ideas in oneself, to the satisfaction of oneself, only in this way can realwork proceed. Gurdjieff would constantly try to shrug off those that wish to idolise him. Gurdjieff is no cultist in the sense of trying to hypnotise followers to follow him, rather he insisted that pupils attempt to de-hypnotise themselves from the conditioning that modern education and culture has implanted in their psyche. If you are to understand your being, then you must understand that by the mechanism of inheritence there is a great deal more to your being than simply what has been provided by your experiences since your birth, but how can you understand this question? What language is the history of your inheritence written in? Would it be in the language of modern thought? The language of the syllogism? If you do not understand the language of your inheritence, which has given you the outcomes of the efforts of all your ancestors, then how can you claim that you can account for yourself? One may be extremely clever, perhaps a person well respected in philosophical circles or in the field of psychology, but can you understand the importance of your own being, are you living on the surface of yourself, merely collecting intriguing ideas, but acting without a true connection with your inner being? Can you sense, without indocrination, filtering by concept, dogma or creed, what is truly important to the evolution of your being?

I think that you might have been refering to this

Centers (Fourth Way)

Law of Four

The Laws (Fourth Way)

Ray of Creation

There are some others as wellAeuio 04:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeago don't rv things without giving a good reason

1(rv) I am putting the "see also" back cause I have no idea why you would get rid of this section. Nearly all articles have it so I don't see what's POV about this article having it.(If you think that some other links should be included then feel free to add them)

2(rv) I don't know why you reverted this also. It says "Symathezers regard him as..." so therefore its not POV for me to say how they regard him (I could easily say that the "Critics regard him as..." is POV pushing.) PS just so we are on the same page could you please explain to me what "operational readiness" means.Aeuio 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for giving the impression I was being hostile.

As for the See Also. Sorry, I didn't realize it removed with that revert.

I think the 'sympathizers...' section, which flaunts G's system as being 'far superior to modern psychology' is vague drum-beating (just as the opposite critics section would be). I think a more specific and less value-based description of the pros and cons of G's system would be more apporpriate. Of course sympathizers and agree and critics disagree--the name alone says that. What more can we say here?

As for 'op readiness'--I have no idea. That's why I was in favor of the cite tag being there.

Yeago 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I just got confused when you deleted the "see also". Anyways, I suppose then that the "op readiness" should be changed. I went through the history of the article and it seems that the user 148.245.70.50 who was pushing for critics on Gurdjieff, is the one who first wrote "operational readiness", AND he is the one who later put the tag after that sentence (I could be mistaken because this sounds very strange).

Since what I wrote does sound flaunty, something else which says that sympathizers believe that Gurdjieff's psychological and cosmos explanations are better than the modern science ones, could be inserted instead. Aeuio 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Well there is plenty of material although most of what I can think of relates more to Ouspensky. I haven't read G extensively. Anyway, I definitely look forward to your contributions. Also, I'd definitely like to know where "op readiness" came from. Googling it, the only link between the phrase and Gurdjieff is mirrors to this article! Probably a good thing it was removed.Yeago 16:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I reword it, and if you think that it should be further reworded then feel free to do it. Concerning the "op readiness", since it was written by a user who was pushing his view on Gurdjiff based on what he read in Storr's book "Feet of Clay", it most likely came from that book.(I am not positive on this because I haven't read that book) Aeuio 20:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Much of the article, while clearly based on sources, reads like OR because the sources or references are not cited. The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research –

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

For further detail, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

So paradoxically, while we have an absolute wealth of sources in the links, bibliography, etc, much of the actual article itself is unsourced.

I propose we do some work on providing such sources, and where none can be found, unceremoniously dump the content as OR. I've made a little start with inserting references in the text. Jayen466 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this citing sources movement. If you did that then the entire references section would be filled with either Meetings, Miraculous or Beelzebub, because most info in this article can be found in those books. (the critic references would also be monotone if not even worse.) Therefore I think that just leaving a bibliography is more suited for this article, but if you wish to source things then go right ahead as long as you don't delete anything - because all of the info could be sourced if you are willing to go through every book and every related website. Aeuio 02:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability -- the onus is on the editor who contributes material to provide sources. And there is no doubt in my mind that the article will be better and more useful to the reader if the statements in it are sourced. It also helps stability -- edits are less likely to be reverted by another editor if they are properly sourced, and the page isn't a free-for-all for everyone's personal opinions about what Gurdjieff said, was, meant etc. Hence, e.g., personal websites and the like should not be used as sources either, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources – I think these guidelines are sensible. Besides, looking for sources often proves fruitful in more ways than one. For an example of a well-sourced article, see Rabindranath Tagore. Surely you would agree that that is somewhat more "encyclopaedic" than what we have here right now? Jayen466 11:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Providing sources it not the end-all-be-all of WP. Certainly they're helpful and suggested but to a point. For example, you don't see anyone putting a fact/source tag on article Duck where it claims that ducks have bills, do you? Moreover, people can produce a source for anything, so even if sources are placed, it doesn't necc mean anything. You're not going to just dump everything that isn't sourced. You want to put source/fact tags on it, that's fine with me. But this article is quickly becoming an unreadable, unelegant mess.Yeago 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I second this. If there was an edit war on the article, such as there usually is on "war related articles" on wikipedia, then sourcing things from reliable sources would be a solution. Since no one is pushing for their POV right now on the Gurdjieff article I think that the article will only worsen by sourcing everything. Its true that who ever wrote the critics pov on Gurdjieff didn't know anything about Gurdjieff and I could easily prove it all wrong. But that would make it look like there was no opposition to Gurdjieff's ideas - which is very false.

Besides, I could very well source everything about Gurdjieff's teaching from

Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson

. This would be dumb because there would be no critics who could verify this.

If you are going to source go ahead, but don't delete or major change things.Aeuio 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Besides, I could very well source everything about Gurdjieff's teaching from

Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson

. This would be dumb because there would be no critics who could verify this."

Hi Aeuio, I believe you misunderstand the point. This page is about G. Its function is, in part, to describe G's teachings, and his works therefore are a primary source for this article. What sourcing does here is ensure that critics will be able to verify that when we say G. said XYZ, he actually did say XYZ. Our personal POV on critics' lack of understanding also has no place in the article, as you say (another purpose of sourcing). If it has any bearing on this matter, please be assured that I hold Gurdjieff in the highest possible regard. Jayen466 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you do, but we're not arguing about the pro's and con's of G. We're arguing about the pro's and con's of the approach to Wiki-editing that says 'cut out everything that isn't cited'. I've seen several good morsels removed over the past few days because of this. Sure, some of it appeared anecdotal but that's no reason to cut it out.

What I am stressing, and Aeuio seems to concur with, is that readability is just as important as verifiability. Personally I have no sympathy for the Original Research witchhunt that has taken over WP this past year. While of course we don't want blatant errors in our pedia, but.. what about READER BEWARE? You're not foolish enough to go pick up prostitutes without bringing condoms, now, are you?

Just so, expunging all questionable content from WP just so people who don't wear mental condoms can play safely here is making articles like this unbearable to read. Yeago 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I am unable to follow your reasoning when you say that "expunging all questionable content ... is making articles like this unbearable to read." Nor do I think your comment on picking up prostitutes is particularly germane here. And if so, what about WRITER BEWARE? However, I think the main bones of the article are now sourced. :-) Cheers, Jayen466 00:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say that I don't see your reasoning behind adding sources to this article, but nevertheless since you didn't delete nonsourced facts this article didn't turn into what Yeago called unreadable. Aeuio 02:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits, Jayen. Looking at [diff] I'm sad to see some things go. I'll give it a once over to make sure it actually tells a story instead of being a jumbling of well-sourced, totally atomized facts, as these articles tend to turn into when the Original Research mob shows up. Anyway, thanks a lot for your work.Yeago 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying1483, can you provide sources for Gurdjieff's influence on the individuals you mentioned in your edit? Jayen466 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I just went over the Gurdjieff article on french wikipedia and I realize that its a serious case of POV and terrible format. (if someone wants to verify this but can't understand french that well google "french wikipedia gurdjieff" and have google translate the page) So I think the link to the french version page should be removed. Aeuio 23:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's an appropriate solution. I'd just flag it NPOV over there and let the frenchies deal with it.Yeago 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your idea does sound better, so I tried doing that and it seems that if I did that then I would have to go and argue over there or otherwise they'd remove the {npov}(That's what it sayed on their weird french NPOV tag). I don't speak french that well to go and do that, and judging by the discussion over there the NPOV thing was already tried and failed (What's even worse is that there is an administrator pushing for an anti-gurdjieff view overthere). Anyways if you or someone else wants to restore the link to the french wikipedia then do so. Aeuio 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that many links that are in the article, and the ones that are trying to be added, are links to various Gurdjieff foundations, eg: Miami, Florida, UK... I was thinking of either deleting the minor ones and leaving the major ones, or organize it better, or create a separate page just for those links. I would agree with the third option the most, since people are going to keep adding those links. Aeuio 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Recently removed the Memphis, among other regional and study-group links. I feel that including them in the article makes it cluttered. Also, groups see them and decide to make vanity edits. Yet interested, local members would be interested in Gurdjieff sites, potentially. I suppose that's what Google is for?Yeago 04:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, duh. This has been started already. If some other site wants to be an international group index, we'll link to that. Till then, only the "notable" groups get links (those started by him, those involving famous people, etc)Yeago 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, I already agreed [2] (I just forgot to mention that here) Aeuio 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Pentland link

Contains no info, just links to purchaseable books.Yeago 05:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Anyways Yeago, we ought to fix the links on Ouspensky's page. Either you do it (or at least start it), or I will when I get back. Aeuio 14:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Doing some of it now. They're all a messYeago 14:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining why you deleted it. That makes total sense. We'd like to turn the site into something more informational that would qualify as Wikipedia-worthy, we're just getting started. Can I email you when we are done to see if you think it's a sufficiently informational link? In the meantime, do you think the "commercial sites" is an acceptable fit, even though all the money goes to the Work/Foundation? Ericbarnhill

You ought to make the site go into Detail about the connections between Pentland and Gurdjieff/his work as well as the connection with other Gurdjieff's groups. (as well as some info of Gurdjieff on the side). If it has this info it wont be counted as "commercial". And just post a message here when you make the updates. Aeuio 00:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of linking is not so much an ethical concern over where the money goes. The first thing you may work on is establishing Pentland himself as being notable. I've never heard of him, but I'm open to the idea that he's notable. Tell us who he is, and why his take on Gurdjieff is enlightened. Secondly, even if he is Jesus, a site with strictly premium content isn't really that useful to Wikipedia, so consider including some free, quotable, citable content. But the commercial sites I left kept either a) "exclusive" Gurdjieff writings or b) historical documentaries--perhaps of interest to researchers/interested people.Yeago 03:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know,

this is who we are talking about. Ericbarnhill, since you know some info on him you ought to expand this page. Aeuio

19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism as it appears now, I think, is rather unencyclopedic - both in language and partly in issues. Some of these criticisms seems to site A.Storrs article on Gurdjieff in "Feet of Clay", but in this book Storr (which suprises me) also suggests that Gurdjieff was schizophrenic and a madman. He bases this on a rather lengthy theory where he among a few other things mentions that Gurdjieff makes up his own words (Heptaparaparshinokh, Heropass etc) with his own personal definitions - according to Storr a proof that Gurdjieff could suffer from Schizophrenia... Well. I don't find Storrs argumentation convincing. Even IF Gurdjieff was schizophrenic, it would not invalidate his theories as such. The criticism as it appears now is too polemic, and the endwords "These observations from the literature do not close the question; they can open it wider" is simply a sentence that should not appear in a encyclopedia. People click the Gurdjieff biography link in Google to find a concise and objective biography of this man, not a discussion. I've read through the German article, and i think the criticism there is consise and to neatly summed. (Pardon my bad spelling).--PeterKristo 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't know what to do with that section. If you do then feel free to change it. (Just avoid weird Storr theories) Aeuio 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section appears to be not really criticism at all, but rather a defense of Gurdjieff, including an unnecessary, very long quote from Mr. Gurdjieff which takes up most of the section. Many have accused Gurdjieff of being little more than a charismatic

Cool, help us out. =)Yeago 13:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you know something reasonable and wish to add it then do so. Aeuio 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the section needs a major rewrite. As a follower of Gurdjieff, I do not see myself as being able to write it in an unbiased fashion. Someone who is more critical of Gurdjieff ought to do it. Please see P. Washington's Madame Blavatsky's Baboon for an extremely critical (yet reputable) discussion of Gurdjieff. Algabal 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true for me too, and that's the same reason why I said "I don't know what to do with that section". I am fine with anything as long as its reasonable and with evidence to back it up (in a way that sounds kind of cheap). Aeuio 20:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added this into the article (although I couldn't figure out into which section to put it in). I was surprised to the fact as how many people have this backwards, (even by some who claim to "know a lot about the Fourth Way"), so I have added this as it clears up many things and accusations. Aeuio 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou, I noticed that you removed the link to the Fellowship of Friends page from the "External links" section because "the fof article doesn't talk about Gurdjieff". Can you explain then what the link to The Dog is doing there? Thanks. Mario Fantoni 00:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I'll remove it. Aeuio 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just found out that links to Wikipedia pages should be placed in the "See also" section, not the "External links" section. Mario Fantoni 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

fof article doesn't talk about Gurdjieff, except of what they interpret from him. While, the president of the fof even said that they aren't a Fourth Way school as presented by Gurdjieff, while every Gurdjieff school today regards it as fake, and there is no connection between fof and any other Gurdjieff school. So let's not start a big argument here. Aeuio 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see "The Dog" is gone. I removed 2 commercial sites: Gurdjieff Movements, a site that sells books, CD's, DVD's, etc., and FourthWay Info, a site that lists a lot of groups that nobody verified if they are connected to Gurdjieff (anybody can add a group) and makes money with Google ads at the bottom. Both sites were developed by the same people. Mario Fantoni 02:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"These claims by Gurdjieff have been interpreted by many to be a total disregard for the value of mainstream religion, philanthropic work, and the value of doing right or wrong in general." Let's not guise our personal attacks so obviously.

Can you clarify please? Aeuio 22:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to Aeuio --Moon Rising 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof whatsoever about G.I. Gurdjieff having established the Foundations during his lifetime. Neither during the lifetime of Jeanne de Salzmann, Gurdjieff's closest pupil, nor during the lifetime of her and Gurdjieff's son Michel de Salzmann did either mention this.

Iramsamkeep 11:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure how "Gurdjieff appointed Pentland to lead the work in America" would fit in your explanation. Aeuio 12:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To keep the personal debate down, I copy/pasted info from a website. MoonEagle 12:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shure you're not shure: Gurdjieff did not appoint Pentland to lead the work in America, he appointed him to "literary executor" for North America. Quite a difference. This was in spring 1949.

See: 1949 spring: Announcing Beelzebub's imminent publication, G. nominates three literary executors (J. G. Bennett, Lord Pentland, and René Zuber). He sails for France (Feb.) in Queen Mary with large entourage (including Iovanna Lloyd Wright).

Source: Gurdjeff.org

Iramsamkeep 13:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What of James Moore biography, p. 304. - do you assert he was in error? Ericbarnhill 14:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

James Moore writes about Pentland being appointed to publish Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson. Difference to being appointed to LEAD HIS WORK in USA. Bennett writes in Witness (page 254) of Gurdjieff APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES. Moore is secondary source, it is better to study accounts of pupils who witnessed what was said. See also "Letter January 13th, 1949", dictaded by Gurdjieff to Bennett in Child's in Paris: "I need three representatives for France, England and America." He named Bennett for England, Lord Pentland for America and R. Zuber for France. To Wim Nyland he said: "For you I have special task". (Iramsamkeep, 10 June 2007)

+ Same source Iramsamkeep provided [3] also says "Gurdjieff then appointed him to lead the Work in North America." Aeuio 23:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes this secondary source not reliable then, better check in primary sources. I know a person who was there when Gurdjieff appointed these four (Nyland being #4) (Iramsamkeep, 10 June 2007)

Whoever you are, you didn't sign your post with 4 tildes..but yes there is an account of this same meeting in one of the student memoirs. You may know that particular student, it slips my mind who it was. In any case if a major biographer asserts this, that's a solid source and it's Iramsamkeep's job to make his case for the contrary. Ericbarnhill 11:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Cannot insert tildes now. Added my signature in brackets. There is nothing to make contrary as Moore's words are clear and proof my point. Read p. 304 again. It is as I stated. James Moore writes about Pentland 'being appointed to publish' Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson. A publisher is not the leader, he is a publisher. The Gurdjieff Foundation was established 1953 in New York and he became president. Thats a difference. Are you a believer or do you verify? Neither J.de Salzmann nor her son Michel spoke ever about Gurdjieff appointing anybody as his follower. Don't you think he was clever enough to see what this might lead to? Iramsamkeep 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack me all you want Iramsamkeep, I just want you to justify your position with sources. My book is not here but 304 says something to the effect of Pentland being appointed to lead the work in America. Anyway, I think the language in the links section, assuming that was your change, is excellent and have no problem with it. Nor has anyone changed it back. So I don't know why you're pushing this argument with me exactly. To the extent you continue to make constructive changes to the page they will be welcome by all. To whatever extent you want to engage me personally, I will ignore you. I hope you will bring your knowledge of source & history to help us make a better page. Ericbarnhill 19:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel attacked? Why? There is always this aspect of verification. Verification is not just reading in books but more. Whatever you understand by being 'engaged by others personally': it is you yourself who engages: personally or essentially! Ignorance is the easy way out. I take accounts written by people who attended personally that bit more serious than accounts written by people who heard such and such, no matter how important they might see themselves. Go on reading at least until p. 306 of Moore's book but with a grain of salt. If you subtract your opionion and read less influenced you might find within these pages 'not an answer but maybe more questions'.

P.304 is Moores personal interpretation, p. 306 are the same words as in Bennetts book witness: '

literary executors

'. But expand your attention towards the colours he's using towards Bennett. He is very manipulative. Best example later on when he actually lies about Bennett's past. He knew he was lying but couldn't stop. Few years ago he even apologized to Bennett's sons for doing so. But never in public (yet).

Let us now have a closer look into Irmis Popoff's book 'Gurdjieff Group Work with Wilhem Nyland':

p.3: 'As I understood Mr. Nyland to say, it was at an organizational meeting called by Mr. Gurdjieff shortly before he departed for Paris, never to return, that several persons where given special tasks representing the Work, among them: Lord Pentland, representative in the Americas and Canada; M. Zuber, representative in France; J.G. Bennett, representative in England; and Mme de Salzmann, general groups representative. But pointing to Mr. Nyland, Mr. Gurdjieff said, '"For this man I say nothing, because he will have to do very important work for me later on."' My personal opinion is what I hinted at with #4. No question about Mme de Salzmann. Pentland, Bennett and Zuber where still young, had potential, where "men of the world" as well. But as much as Bennett moved away from the work for some time, so did Pentland when removing Nyland from the Foundations. He gave way for a club for a short time. Source

Nyland charged nothing at all (Did you read GURDJIEFF: A MASTER IN LIFE by Tcheslaw Tchekhovitch for comparing, how Gurdjieff himself dealt with money and poor people?)

Accounts are different and things changed. But there is no place to discredit people in the wrong way (Bennett, maybe even Patterson) nor leave some out (Nyland, Tracol, Heap, Staveley, March, Zuber, among others) and place others in some sort of secretative hierarchy. Iramsamkeep 08:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, let's calm down here - if one of you has a problem with the current wording then comment here, otherwise if you want to continue this discussion then do it on your talk pages. Aeuio 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)