Talk:Fourth Way

message: Thank you 203.118.120.247 whoever you are.  Division of attention section has the best description of self-remembering I've read so far and I've studied this teaching for 11 years.  DyslexicEditor 06:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you 203.118.120.247

message: This article is really well written, however some work does need to be done to ensure that NPOV is maintained.
For example, the statement "This is not to take away from the remarkable process by which Gurdjieff amalgamated these teachings into a form at once coherent and cohesive unto itself." is laden with implicit evalutations.
--Belfry 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point-of-view? 

message: Aeuio, thank you for trying to fix the reference tags, but they still don't show up in a reference section, which is the problem I was having.  You evidently deleted the section heading I put in for references.  So the references don't show up.  Unless you can fix this (I can't figure out how) we'll need to have the references appear in the text as they did originally. I think readers would like to see more reference tags throughout the article. I would.--Moon Rising 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed them. Aeuio 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I removed the wl when mentioning Don Juan in Castaneda's teachings.  Don Juan is the name Castaneda used for his teacher, and it has nothing to do with Zorrilla's Tenorio or Tirso's Don Juan, neither with the legendary character. Regards, Baby Dove 07:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think that I know Don Juan's theories, but don't know who Don Juan is? Next time just fix the link. Aeuio 01:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities with other teachings 

message: The word "astrology" was replaced by "planetary influences", not to give the false idea that Rodney Collin was what ordinary language calls an astrologer. Baby Dove 09:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rodney Collin and the word "astrology" 

message: If something is not an official source, it can still be considered a reliable source. Even non-academic popular writers are considered reliable sources. At least in principle, they have done research and gone through some form of editorial oversight. Academic and scholarly sources may be considered superior, but that does not affect the status of a popular writer as a reliable source. Official references and primary sources are generally treated as accurate but subjective and biased.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church have not bestowed priesthood and authority upon most of the extreme number of authors who discuss those churches. However, those "outside" and "unofficial" writers are still considered reliable sources of verifiable information. Maintaining a neutral point of view requires including outside observations, material unsanctioned by the "official" group and similar secondary sources. For example, most of the Protestant churches are outside of Apostolic succession. That does not mean they cannot claim to be Christian, nor does it invalidate (from a NPOV) a claim to apostolic Christianity. If other sources contradict their claims, an editor would be free to include that additional information in the article. 
Sources cannot be excluded because the authors are not properly sanctioned or fail to be in a proper line of succession. Groups are not granted exclusive claims over schools of thought. If a group or individual claims to advocate a particular religion or philosophy, they should be taken at face-value. If there are additional sources that reinforce or contradict such a claim, they should be used in the article. However, our personal biases regarding what is a "true" X should not be the standard for inclusion or exclusion of verifiable information. Vassyana 20:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused as what exactly you are trying to say. I am not sure that you understood the debate here. Aeuio 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was spurred in large part by this discussion. For example, Burton and those who are part of his line of succession, are not the exclusive authorities of what Fellowship of Friends is and teaches. Outside authors are still considered reliable sources. If they contradict what official sources relate, this can be taken into account and noted in the article. I hope that clarifies my opinion. Vassyana 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me ask you a question which fits in here. If I were to find some author who wrote "Prem Rawat's techniques have better results if done while eating, and not during mediation". Do you think that I could add this to the Rawat's article, and moreover exactly as quoted without even saying who exactly said this? Aeuio 12:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess not, and the same goes here. The info can be added and sourced, but not in this way. Aeuio 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The overwhelming majority of sources, including secondary and tertiary sources, would contradict such a statement. Again, if there are other sources that contradict the statements, that can be taken into consideration. If it's contradicted by one or two sources, it should probably be included in the article with the contradicting information. If it's contradicted by a large number of reliable references from multiple and sources, it is information we can reasonably assume is incorrect. Also, since you brought up Prem Rawat, that article uses outside scholars and writers for the vast majority of information. Many of the sources speak about topics on which "official" sources are mute or even contradictory, and some of that information is included in the article. Also, please bear in mind that secondary sources are considered more reliable than primary sources. If a few secondary sources, particularly multiple references, support a statement, it should simply be reported in the article like any other fact. If it is a fringe view, or the exclusive claim of only one or two sources, then it should be reported in the article, along with who makes the claim. If someone is mentioned as specifically putting the claim forward, care should be taken to avoid loaded language. I hope this clarifies my opinion. Take care. Vassyana 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am confused about what you are asking, since such an instance would be covered quite clearly by what I said above. Vassyana 23:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As I state above: "The overwhelming majority of sources, including secondary and tertiary sources, would contradict such a statement." That includes references written by supporters, critics and scholarly observers. Since it is "contradicted by a large number of reliable references" with viewpoints representing a wide spectrum, it can easily be discounted as incorrect. Incredible claims require incredible evidence. Therefore, I would not include it in the article. However, it is an obvious example opposed by most sources from nearly all prominent viewpoints. If multiple sources indicated that indeed the Divine Light Mission, and Prem Rawat, taught secretly to perform the techniques while eating, and it was only contradicted by official sources, that would be included in the article. I hope that clarifies my stance. Vassyana 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources vs official sources 

message: When a "citation needed" tag was set in the section about William Patrick Patterson (not Paterson, as it says in the header), it was supposed to make note that his quality as having Lord Pentland as a primary teacher was not proved.  Then, the old tag was replaced by an external link to the Gurdjieff Studies Program, a web site from an organization of which the said person is the founder and current director.  This is not exactly a link giving a required NPOV, because now it is obviously himself who is giving this information.
He is also promoting his own business through the article, given that through the new link one can learn about his four seminars (at this point, the next one, to be held in New Jersey is costing $500), besides the promotion of his books, which can be conveniently bought on-line through a convenient link to Gurdjieff Legacy Bookstore.
:Do you have some sources saying that he has no connection to Pentland? Aeuio 17:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Patterson studied with Pentland just like he describes in great (some might say exruciatingly boring) detail in his autobiography "Eating the I". He's still in contact with the Pentland line, he was in contact with them during publication of "Voices in the Dark." Ericbarnhill 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The source about Patterson can't be Patterson. Is there any other source? Mario Fantoni 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing a simple google search I found only affirming claims about him being Pentland's student. Such as here: "Patterson's credentials to write on Gurdjieff come from being a long-time student of John Pentland, the man Gurdjieff chose to lead the Work in America. Patterson is a clever and absorbing writer..." If you have a reason to believe that everyone is lying, then prove it (and that means saying something like the following "In his biography Patterson says he and Pentland did so and so, but this is a lie due to so and so." or "Paterson was described as a liar by the pentland line here") Otherwise there is nothing contradicting this, so the matter is done. Aeuio 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Mario Fantoni 07:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patterson ref

message: To clarify something Aeiuo, Patterson has not been connected with Pentland or Pentland's students for a very long time. He is not someone who is considered in the line of transmission of the Foundations; I'm not implying anything there about his worth, just the fact that he left, but retains some contacts. Also, I think this section swallows Patterson's rhetoric whole a bit. How about keeping the second paragraph and just the first sentence of the first, changing tense to past? Ericbarnhill 02:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll delete the things from his website. Aeuio 12:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The typical Baby Dove comment - I have no idea what you are trying to prove. I agreed with a reasonable suggestion about deleting something encyclopedic I copy/pasted from a website. (even if he didn't say it, I would have done it myself) And then you are saying that I posted a noncontroversial suggestion to myself (which according to you contradicts my opinion), in order to delete a few weird lines. With that kind of thinking you think that you know who I am and what I believe... unless you have something actual (such as I had when I got an administrator to say that you and Mario are "clearly the same person") please keep your poor conclusions to yourself as i am not interested in participating in your nowhere-leading talk. Aeuio 22:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am fine with the way you wrote it. Aeuio 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patterson cl

message: Last week I moved Transmission before Fake Schools, because both things refer to a different subject.  Transmission refers to the possibility that a given school ceases to be real when the conscious founder dies.  Fake schools refer to the possibility that a school is not real because of not having a conscious teacher. In both cases, however, we cannot judge the situation beforehand.
I also wanted to point out that my move was reverted without any explanation, not even as an edit summary.  This forces one to check the entire article every time, which is more work. It should be remembered that it is a Wilkipedia policy to leave an edit summary.  It says, "An edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?". Providing an edit summary, even if the edit is minor, makes Wikipedia work better by quickly explaining to other users what your change was about." Edit_summary Regards, Baby Dove 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't undertand why the order of "Fake Schools" and "Transmission" is so important. Mario Fantoni 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand why the order of two sub sections is being changed, so keep it as you like Aeuio 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. Mario Fantoni 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmission 

message: ====1: The Foundations====
The Foundations were started AFTER Gurdjieff's death by Jeanne de Salzmann in the 1950's: Source:  Gurdjieff Org.
They were not established by Gurdjieff near the end of his life.
Bennett writes in Witness (page 254) of Gurdjieff APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES: "Letter January 13th, 1949", dictated by Gurdjieff to Bennett in Child's in N.Y.: "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". (see I. Popoff)
====2: Wim Nyland====
Wim Nyland was, after Jeanne de Salzmann, Gurdjieff's closest pupil, appointed "for a special task" by Gurdjieff in the USA. His name is not even mentioned.
 
====3: John Godolphin Bennett====
Missing: Bennett visited Gurdjieff in his Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man at the Château Le Prieuré in the summer of 1923, spending three months at the institute.
The part about Ouspensky repudiating Bennett is unimportant, Ouspenky left Gurdjieff long before and repudiated Gurdjieff. Same goes for subjective interpretations of how Bennett felt at that time. He visited Gurdjieff in 1947/48 for 18 months nearly every weekend and stayed in Paris for 1 month. He founded fourth way schools in Sherborne, UK, and Claymont, W.Virginia, USA. 
====4: Olgivanna Wright and Taliesin==== 
completly missing
====5: Henri Tracol==== 
completly missing
====6: A.L. Staveley + Jane Heap==== 
completly missing   
The latter four are much more important than W.P. Patterson or J. Moore.
 
====7: Lord-Pentland==== 
Lord Pentland was not appointed by Gurdjieff "to lead" the work in North and South America .
 
Lord Pentland was appointed by Gurdjieff as his representative to publish Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson in USA. (see sources given in 1. The Foundations) 
The notion: The man chosen by Gurdjieff to lead the work in America comes from  W.P. Patterson . 
Patterson worked with Pentland, but left the Foundation and gives workshops. Patterson has done some good work
by pointing out the dangers of pseudo schools. Nevertheless his writings are very much coloured by his personal
likes and dislikes and miss an objective approach. He also uses his connection to Pentland, as if Pentland gave
approval to Patterson's teaching. 
 'As some here rightly point at "advertising": 
The notion of Pentland being appointed by Gurdjieff to lead the work in America is similar clannish pride, and wrong.'  
Some information can be found here: Changes in G. I. Gurdjieff’s Teaching ‘The Work’:
However, Gurdjieff also provoked change. If we look at what happened after his death, we can see that although he had united the groups of American and British pupils in Paris after World War Two, he chose not to form a secure line of succession. At the same time he suggested to various pupils that they were the only ones who could carry out his teaching after his death and this was a provocation to schism. (James Moore, Gurdjieff: the Anatomy of a Myth. London: Element, 1991, p. 288.)  
There is no doubt about the unique role of Lord Pentland as president of the New York Foundation.
But the efforts of some to lift/boost him onto some kind of throne as Gurdjieff's chosen successor leaves an elevated/declamatory taste.
Iramsamkeep 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editors don't strike me as boosting anyone. They are just reading the Gurdjieff biographies. Moore's biography says he was chosen to lead the work in America. I read your long explanation on the other page about how Moore is being manipulative. This is original research and therefore does not meet Wikipedia standards. If you have a source that contradicts the major biographers please cite it. Your Moore quote above does not suffice. No one is saying Gurdjieff chose a successor. They are saying Gurdjieff chose Pentland to lead the American work, and nothing less or more, because this is what his biographers say. If you cite a source that convincingly challenges this I'm sure we'll all accept it. Until then the passage should be in accordance with Gurdjieff biographers rather than your original research. Ericbarnhill 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moore changed his own wording from 'appointing as representative' into 'the man chosen by Gurdjieff to lead'. This is all you can quote. Moore never met Gurdjieff. The people quoted by myself (Popoff, Bennett) met him. Which source is more valid? Anyway, which other biographers are you refering to? Pauwels? Shirley? Give me a break. Who are 'they'? Who is 'we all'? Iramsamkeep 11:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ERRORS to be corrected

message: Lord Pentland was not appointed by Gurdjieff "to lead" the work in North and South America .
 
Lord Pentland was appointed by Gurdjieff as his representative to publish Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson in USA. (see sources given in 1. The Foundations) 
The notion: The man chosen by Gurdjieff to lead the work in America comes from  W.P. Patterson . 
Patterson worked with Pentland, but left the Foundation and gives workshops. Patterson has done some good work
by pointing out the dangers of pseudo schools. Nevertheless his writings are very much coloured by his personal
likes and dislikes and miss an objective approach. He also uses his connection to Pentland, as if Pentland gave
approval to Patterson's teaching. 
 'As some here rightly point at "advertising": 
The notion of Pentland being appointed by Gurdjieff to lead the work in America is similar clannish pride, and wrong.'  
Some information can be found here: Changes in G. I. Gurdjieff’s Teaching ‘The Work’:
However, Gurdjieff also provoked change. If we look at what happened after his death, we can see that although he had united the groups of American and British pupils in Paris after World War Two, he chose not to form a secure line of succession. At the same time he suggested to various pupils that they were the only ones who could carry out his teaching after his death and this was a provocation to schism. (James Moore, Gurdjieff: the Anatomy of a Myth. London: Element, 1991, p. 288.)  
There is no doubt about the unique role of Lord Pentland as president of the New York Foundation.
But the efforts of some to lift/boost him onto some kind of throne as Gurdjieff's chosen successor leaves an elevated/declamatory taste.
Iramsamkeep 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editors don't strike me as boosting anyone. They are just reading the Gurdjieff biographies. Moore's biography says he was chosen to lead the work in America. I read your long explanation on the other page about how Moore is being manipulative. This is original research and therefore does not meet Wikipedia standards. If you have a source that contradicts the major biographers please cite it. Your Moore quote above does not suffice. No one is saying Gurdjieff chose a successor. They are saying Gurdjieff chose Pentland to lead the American work, and nothing less or more, because this is what his biographers say. If you cite a source that convincingly challenges this I'm sure we'll all accept it. Until then the passage should be in accordance with Gurdjieff biographers rather than your original research. Ericbarnhill 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moore changed his own wording from 'appointing as representative' into 'the man chosen by Gurdjieff to lead'. This is all you can quote. Moore never met Gurdjieff. The people quoted by myself (Popoff, Bennett) met him. Which source is more valid? Anyway, which other biographers are you refering to? Pauwels? Shirley? Give me a break. Who are 'they'? Who is 'we all'? Iramsamkeep 11:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 7: [[Lord-Pentland]]

message: The quoted book ("Life is Real..."), at least in the mentioned First Talk, does not contain any reference to the term "self-remembering", therefore, it whas been removed. Sekmeth 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it does pg.88 - "to remember oneself" is the same thing as "self remembering". Aeuio 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There's nothing NPOV about presenting information about Fake schools as stated by Gurdjieff. We are not discussing "how one meets fake school" we are saying "Gurdjieff explained that there are fake schools..." Aeuio 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please keep in mind that this article is for those who don't know the fourth way and not those that do. Mentioning the magnetic center like that is out of place and confusing for an outside reader. The focus of the section is that "there are fake schools, and not every school that claims to be a fourth way school is in fact so" - so the section gives the explanation of what those schools do that makes them fake. Concerning the last part: In summary Gurdjieff said "I see something very wrong in you because you are focused on one aspect of my teaching, the same way that there is something wrong with those English guys who focus on only self remembering, the German who focus on blood transubstantiation"...and so on. MoonEagle 12:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake schools 

message: Overall this is a very good and complete article that keeps improving.  I fail to understand though, why there is information about teachers/followers of the fourth way that had no direct contact with G or O.  They are third had teachers.  Like someone has commented often in removing links to other Fourth Way groups, there are countless groups and teachers out there.  It does not make sense IMHO to list 3 and omit the rest.  It would make more sense to list the women in Patterson's "Women of the Rope" who had close relationships with Gurdjieff, than to include information about Patterson, a biographer, who now has a group based on Gurdjieff, but also adding his own twist.  This is not an aspersion against Patterson.  It is just an idea of how the page should go.  I'd add info about Heap and the rest, but I can't find the book right now.  They are more interesting and related to the page, by far. --Moon Rising 02:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that those figures are in the page is because they are the ones that either presently, in terms of the Fourth Way or Gurdjieff, are the most notable as they have the most commosion about them, or their work and books are the sources from which we draw most of the info on these pages. We should have something adressing who they are. And those other figures which you mentioned will be added soon to complete this list. MoonEagle 03:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oldmethod-you don't know a thing about me. If you have something personal to say, please say it on my talk page, this is not the place for it. Thank you.--Moon Rising 22:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Alex Horn started a contreversial movement "based on the Fourth Way" which had later impact, such as FoF, and therefore he is notable to be here. If you can find some sources on Horn then share them, otherwise it's your just your opinion of what's NPOV and what's not. And Wpp didn't disqualyfy "anyone he does not like", he disqulified self proclaimed Fourth Way teacher that think too much of themselves. If you feel that what's written is POV then show some sources which back up your view. Aeuio 19:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I couldn't care less what Horn cares about, and I am very sorry that you feel that Horn is a true fourth way teacher. Like I said before: Gurdjieff advertised his play not his teaching. Regards, Aeuio 00:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we're going to mention Sharon Gans then don't we have to mention the Rosie O'Donnell racism incident? Ericbarnhill 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am tired of this bio fighting. I am turning this into a "Gurdjieff personal student" only zone. Aeuio 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you are mentioning places founded by the students, it might be worth mentioning that Nyland founded a work compound called Chardovogne Barn and that work still continues there. Ericbarnhill 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about upgrading the bios anymore, someone else who actually has an interest in them can do it. Aeuio 17:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later teachers 

message: Has anyone else noticed that there is a dearth of references for this article. While it's mostly a good article, the lack of citation make it seem like original research.  Is there anyone out there who can add some references? --Moon Rising 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of references

message: The first sentence of the Intro is contradictory. It says, in part, G described his approach to self-development as a Fourth Way....The next sentence says G never used the term Fourth Way in his writings. Does anyone else find this potentially confusing to someone who is not well versed in O's writing about G? Anyone mind if I try to clarify this?--Moon Rising 19:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit was a mess. Splitting sentences into sentence fragments is not clarifying anything - I was confused reading that. "The Fourth Way is the name given to G.I. Gurdjieff’s teaching" is not even close to being precise as "G.I. Gurdjieff described his approach to self-development as a Fourth Way". Moreover you wrote wrong information "Ouspensky published a book named “The Fourth Way” comprised of lectures given by Gurdjieff." ...? That book is a compilation of Ouspensky's lectures collected by Ouspensky's students. (You can guess what I am thinking now) Anyhow I rv you because this current lead is extremely well done and it's very precise. The intro of this page is the best written thing among the Gurdjieff related articles. What looks odd to you? Aeuio 14:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to explain what looks odd, so I took a stab at writing it in a way that made more sense to me.  Yes, I really goofed on my description of the book - I've been reading it for years and definitely know better. Don't know what my fingers were "thinking" when they typed that gibberish.  As I said after my original edit - if you don't like it - revert it and you did. --Moon Rising 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I propose that a section be added. This section would address Gurdjieff's chief aim in establishing his system - that is, the preservation of the earth. I don't think I'm qualified to write it, as it would require research, and I don't want to take time away from other editing duties I've committed to. But I wondered if somebody here was knowledgeable enough to write something "off the top of his head." Or her head! Whichever. I do feel it's important, as it is the true basis of his work. Thank you. Jennifer Thieme 19:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't thinks its certain why did Gurdjieff do what he did for there could be many reasons. I don't think that anyone else will know either (not anyone hanging out on wikipedia anyways). The only things that could be written are the possible reasons coming from other authors (or Gurdjieff's stated reason which was something along the lines of stopping war). In my opinion I don't think that either would look too informative, but if you think that it would then by all means add it. Aeuio 13:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Did Gurdjieff Do This?

message: One of the glaring omissions of Gurdjieff's teachings is the issue of karma.  Like many similar burning lights which popped up in the 20th Century (cult leaders, et al.), he was (and advocated) a sort of "lone wolf" approach.  Of course, like the rest, he was and remains that lone wolf, for the most part.  While such a philosophy is in accord with era's-gone-by when the amount of territory to explore (literally and symbolically) seemed unending, it is inappropriate or at least inapplicable in the global era of the 21st Century.  Perhaps not stated by him, though nonetheless implied, one cannot endlessly run from the past, which is one's heritage.  Perhaps the best way to understand him then, like the rest, is within the context of Mankind's quest through the ages, seeking and coming to a synthesis of "Man's relationship to himself", a precursor for a new global era.  Compare also to the Tree of Knowledge  and Law of the Eternal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.123.191 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Gurdjieff: 

message: I've changed several butts to "Gurdjieff taught" to "the Fourth Way teaches."  I did this for 2 reasons: for readability - a little variety makes the article more readable.  And more importantly, because  many people are also interested in the fourth way as it was presented by Ouspensky.  Gurdjieff authorized Ouspensky to teach, and Ouspensky's works and methods are valid, at least to some readers.  I believe that the article is also for those unfamiliar with the ideas, and a complete discussion of the subject goes b
eyond Gurdjieff.  It should not read (imho) as a chapter in the article about G. --Moon Rising (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  G and 4th way 

message: The intro says, G never said 4th way. But later on the article says [or rather, it used to before I removed it] Gurdjieff stressed each individual's responsibility: "The fourth way differs from the other ways in that.... But that para has no source. So... did he say it, or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he said it as documented by Ouspensky and others. I rehrased the intro to clarify. Vitalask (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th way (again) 

message: While searching for The WP:TRUTH I came across http://www.progressiveears.com/frippbook/ch07.htm which demonstrably pre-dates our article (see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.progressiveears.com/frippbook/ch07.htm).
A whole pile of stuff turned up in one edit  ages ago described as Total re-write - original content moved to Fourth Way (book) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: Like it says (cos I added it): cn. Who says so? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmic Laws Gurdjieff focused on two main cosmic laws, the Law of Three and the Law of Seven[citation needed]. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fourth Way. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.gurdjieff.org/mangan1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520191109/http://www.kebzeh.org/publications/bk_Ahmsta-Kebzeh_pb.htm to http://www.kebzeh.org/publications/bk_Ahmsta-Kebzeh_pb.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified