Talk:George Gurdjieff/Archive 1

message: i sorta found no mention of group work in this profile
Gurdjieff emphasized working in a group 
fcking2000@yahoo.com 08:53, March 12, 2005 (UTC)
:I sorta agree.TheMadBaron 07:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Group work

message: 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 Work redirects to 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Too much detail, not enough perspective 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: Neuilly is a disambiguation page. In which particular Neuilly did Gurdjieff die? TheMadBaron 03:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuilly 

message: Every so often a spammer using an IP address that starts with 64.228.225. spams links to bogus web sites. I have tracked down and reverted all I could find, but I'm getting a little sick of tracking all these articles on my watchlist (it's up to 263 pages by now). Can I ask the regular, frequent editors of this article to keep an eye out for this person? If they hit again, please revert the edit and warn the spammer. If you have the time, check out what other edits they made that day and revert them as well -- or just let me know and I'll do it.
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)
thread_title:  Help wanted to deal with a [G. I. Gurdjieff] spammer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Critics Position 

message: 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:
# The work of gurdjieff is unfinished.
# The cults and sects related to Gurdjieff teachings. 
# A real reference of critics of his work.
# The new age movement.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.245.70.50 (talk • contribs) 22:13, August 22, 2006.
:I had to remove your double entry, because there was an entry on both bottom and the top.  The problem is that you're not going to find some with a neutral point of view. Typically, people don't have these types of points of view. Hopefully we can get a neutral article. 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. You might be an example of this. I'll answer your questions below.
:# No, it was not. Except in the sense that "The Work" or what have you is never finished, his work was in fact finished. This is a great example of those outside the circle not knowing what they are talking about. All and Everything encompasses absolutely everything someone needs to know about the Fourth Way to follow it as far as Gurdjieff himself could have guided someone. All that remains is someone who is capable and willing to help you interpret A&E.
:# Sure. Do it. That is an omission ... not a point of view issue. Be sure to note which of these "cultists" were actually in line of transmission with Gurdjieff. Better yet ... why don't we make a graph of the line of transmission.
:# 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.
:TheGunslinger 23:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critic does not mean necesarily a lie or an attack. Neutrality 

message: 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 J. G. Bennett). --PeterKristo 09:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Idries Shah

message: 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)
thread_title: This summary is too superficial

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: French Wikipedia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Cool, help us out. =)Yeago 13:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know something reasonable and wish to add it then do so. Aeuio 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticism

message: 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)
thread_title: Moon Theory

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Aeuio's link removal 

message: "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)
replies: text: Ditto to Aeuio --Moon Rising 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticising Ciriticism 

message: I added some new content. Have at it. :) Ericbarnhill 18:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally fully read this and can surely say that this will turn out a lot better. I'll be back later tonight to edit Gurdjieff article again. Thanks Eric Aeuio 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New content 

message: Since we are rewritting here, how about changing the "travelling dated history" to a more general history where it is explained where and when Gurdjieff met different pupils and what happened. That gurdjieff.org source up there is more than enough for this kind of change. I think it be better and more interesting than simply saying where he was and when. MoonEagle 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I expanded a bit - and it already sounds somewhat better and more interesting. Aeuio 11:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is looking much better! Verbs should all be the same tense though. I am sorting out my thoughts on the "ideas" section but will notify editors about a draft before any editing. One problem is how much overlap to have with the Fourth Way page. The same question arises for Beelzebub's Tales - how much to put on this page and how much to put on the other page. Ericbarnhill 02:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that here there should be an overview of the info from other main page - such as the Fourth Way. Concerning BT, it's too soon to tell how this will turn out. Aeuio 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: O and the page is getting much better!Aeuio 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see these two concerns as related. I think it would be great to have an "ideas" section that references Beelzebub frequently, and leave the Ouspensky quotes more for the other page. I'll try to put that into my draft when I get to it. Ericbarnhill 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Ok, we have the artist template (currently in the article) and the philosophy template. Is there anyone that prefers one over the other? Aeuio 12:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is Religious leaders as well (not very suitable in my view). The main drawback of the Philosopher template is that you have to assign a region, and only four are available: Eastern, Jewish, Persian and Western. Since this is the top field, it looks odd if you leave that blank. Now Gurdjieff is difficult to assign; his mentions of Nassr Eddin (= Mullah Nasrudin) and Bogga Eddin (= Baha'uddin Naqshband) would suggest Persian (= sufic), but then he is also distinctly Western in his terminology. He mentions Christian sources as much as Indian fakirs etc. So I would be unhappy to see him restricted to any one regional category. To me, that is the main drawback of the Philosopher template; otherwise, it looks ideal. Perhaps we should take it up with the makers of that template? Jayen466 13:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the religious leaders template above was wrong, have now fixed it. Jayen466 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the instructions on the template page, those four are the options to be used. They tie in with categories. As you say, you can write anything in there and it will show up on screen, but there won't be a corresponding category. And I still find it difficult to think of something meaningful to put that is not restrictive and squeezes the man into some box he doesn't belong in. It's kind of daft to put something just for the sake of putting something. What attracts me a little about the Philosopher template, on the other hand, is the possibility to enter "Notable ideas" (e.g. self-remembering), and "Main interests". And the use of the Artist template also does not link with any category here. Its only advantage is that you can have the name at the top, without having to invent some contrived category, and that you can list "famous works" -- the Philosopher template does not allow for that. Also, listing famous works is a lot less likely to cause disputes than listing "notable ideas". Cheers, Jayen466 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that ME's suggestion is very good and agree to it. esoteric (read first paragraph) would fit pretty well in here. Concerning "notable ideas" I would just put Fourth Way there. While Gurdjieff's books are mentioned at two or three places and is linked throughout the article, so I don't think that it's a big deal whether or no it's in the template. Aeuio 23:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've moved him from the age of enlightenment into the 20th century. Hmmm ... am still not convinced by Esoteric Philosophy. :-)) It's just not an established term with an agreed meaning. I like the "influenced by Mullah Nassr Eddin" bit though. :-)) I guess my problem is that I see Gurdjieff as a mystic, not a philosopher. There is a difference. More centres involved. ;-) Jayen466 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O, I defiantly agree to mysticism over philosophy, I just wasn't sure if that template is allowed to say mystic instead of philosopher. Is it? Anyhow do you think this template could be made better than the artist one? If so, then I'll upgrade the info in the template to be more accurate and precise. Aeuio 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: Eh?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeago (talk • contribs) 06:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page looks clearer to me. Aeuio 15:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does everyone feel about that last edit? (removal of list of books and dvds) 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I am wondering if this article needs a Pupils section. Gurdjieff seems to have had a lot of direct pupils, some of noteriety. How should we deal with them?
The latest addition of the Finnish Psychologist is probably not noteworthy but still an interesting inclusion as an item in a list.
Of course, there are all those book-publishing pupils who are dying to get their name in his article. What to do?Yeago (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pupils section 

message: Re Gurdjeff's origins: have a look at affined bibliography (such as here or The Gurdjieff Foundation) before deleting stuff.
Karnak, please join the discussion. This is a point of common confusion and edit-warring doesn't help.Yeago (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  His origins. 

message: I suggest we should gently and judiciously rephrase parts of the biography; at present, some passages lean too closely on Moore's chronology (merely substituting past tense for historical present). Jayen466 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Terrific. Then simply blockquote him. If you see material that constitutes as a source, please tag it as such. It would not be so much copyvio as merely misleading to present the perspective of one biographer as encyclopaedic.Yeago (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is here; the content of that page is a straight lift from the Chronology in Moore's book. I've done a little bit of rewording in the para that bore the greatest resemblance to Moore, hopefully without doing harm to its readability. I guess we could add citations to Moore's book. Cheers, Jayen466 01:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The plain fact is that its not a copywrite vio if its sourced. Lifting the material and putting it here without a source is just journalistically irresponsible. Anyway, thanks for noticing and doing the legwork.Yeago (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographical material from Moore

message: This article is about a mystic named G.I. Gurdjieff. All content in this article must be notably related to him. All links must be directly related to him, as there are too many derivatives to chronicle here. Without a clear boundary, all claimants of the Gurdjieff Tradition have a causeway to place their links here (and there are MANY).
This is one of the most linkspammed articles I watch. While I cannot say that your sources are non-notable and don't belong on Wikipedia, I can say that 95% of links added here are not notable to G.I. Gurdjieff and do not belong in his specific article. Please feel free to create separate topical articles that meet regular WP guidelines and add those links there.Yeago (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of links 

message: These references should be removed. They are sourced, but the source contains no information about them. It is a brochure for some new-age conference that definitely doesn't mention Gurdjieff and doesn't seem to mention Paneurhythmy either. I'd add personally that I've looked at paneurhythmy videos on YouTube and they look nothing whatsoever like Gurdjieff movements. These references should be removed for irrelevancy. Ericbarnhill (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Do it.Yeago (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it. I also rearranged some of the information in "groups". Ravindra is in the line of Gurdjieff pupils and affiliated with the Foundations, while Patterson had very limited study at the Fdn and founded a breakaway group. So, I didn't think they should be in the same paragraph. Ravindra is in with the Fdns and Patterson is in with the independents. Ericbarnhill (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paneurhythmy/Bogomilism etc. 

message: *Islam in Inter-War Europe. By Nathalie Clayer, Eric Germain (2008), Columbia University Press, pp. 207ff. Jayen466 22:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much.Yeago (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful source 

message: Whats the source for the greek name? Did Gurdjieff ever use this name himself? Ii find this translation of his name to greek as "Georgiadis" abit improbable. Kotika98 (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may just be that some Wikipedia editor has seen that he was of partial Greek descent and thought that alone justifies having his name rendered in Greek. I don't know how common it was for Greeks in the interior of the Caucasus region to still use Greek in everyday usage, or whether Greek names were used in birth certificates, baptisms, school registers, etc. There was a Greek book published - in the 1990s (I think) - about the Greek community in Kars which might contain such information. Meowy 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The question is not whether Greek was used by Greeks in the region, but whether "Georgiadis" is authentic or not. If that were the name by which he was known in modern greece, then the name would not be wrong but it would not be useful to include it on the english page. If that were his name at birth, we should include it and emphasize the fact. However, I have checked that the greek language article says "Γεώργιος Γκουρτζίεφ", so i will delete the greek as well as armenian spellings. Kotika98 (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Name 

message: Not enough is mentioned about his music. Some expert guidance is needed on the issue of whether it is his music, or one should consider Hartmann as the true composer of this pieces. In any case, unlike occult philosophies, the music is actually good - in recent years a string of notable performers have recorded the music. Jarrett, Tsabropoulos/Lehner and Cecyl Lyttle recordings are all works of sublime beauty. Kotika98 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I thought his name was usually given in English as "Georges" rather than "George".  What are the reasons for using "George" in this article?  Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  George or Georges? 

message: Excuse this posting- it's not quite on topic here but this is the best place I could think of adding this notice. The lengthy biography of John G. Bennett, who wrote several book on Gurdjieff, was almost entirely copied from other websites and so it had to be cut down to a stub. Perhaps someone watching this page would be interested in writing a fresh biography.   Will Beback  talk   18:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  John G. Bennett 

message: The article seems to imlicitly deny that Gurdjieff was a Tsarist spy, and it might be right, but I think it should be mentioned that his disciple Bennet thought that he was involved in espionage in some way; and Bennet can be presumed to be cluey about these things. Gurdjieff in Meetings for Remarkable Men refers to carrying letters for underground groups and the like.
Bennet also more than other disciples emphasised the political, social side of Gurdjieff's work.  However heretical this may be to some it was clearly there, and referred to in the most direct terms in his postscript to Beelzebub's Tales. Bennet compared the Gurdjieff groups to mammals in the age of dinosaurs. He is sometimes reminiscent of the ur-anarchist Proudhon (even down to the sympathy for the tile) Jeremytrewindixon 05:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely an interesting direction. Do you have any sources?Yeago 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You are welcome to expand the article on this subject Jeremy. Aeuio 14:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, explicitly, were Gurdjieff's political affiliations, positions, views? Or did he even have a political philosophy? Shanoman (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't have one. Only driven statement by Gurdjieff concerning politics is that the worst kind of people are in power...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalask (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gurdjieff and Politics 

message: What is the source for:
: An aspect of Gurdjieff's teachings which has come into prominence in recent decades is the enneagram geometric figure. For many students of the Gurdjieff tradition, the enneagram remains a "koan", challenging and never fully explicated. Lord Pentland only allowed very limited use of the figure. There have been many attempts to trace the origins of the enneagram; some similarities to other figures have been found, but it seems that Gurdjieff was the first person to make the enneagram figure publicly known and that only he knew its true source.[citation needed]
Lord Pentland only allowed very limited use of the figure is particularly obscure William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  enneagram 

message: Fairly good article on a very complex subject. Congratulations to all involved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.24.98 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Job 

message: The "Criticism" section consists mainly of peoples recorded "Responses" to Gurdjieff and his teachings and writings. There is little actual criticism. To move WP towards accuracy I have renamed  the section. If you change it back pls remove all the "non-Criticism" material from the section first. Or at least provide a rationale for misleading readers. 124.148.164.7 (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section: renamed 

message: I don't see a reference to Georgette LeBlanc's work, "La Machine a Courage," which is at : http://www.gurdjieff-bibliography.com/Current/07_leblanc_la_machine_2004-07-02.pdf and discusses her experience of working with G. in Paris. (It might, also, reading between the lines, suggest a kind of ?marriage counseling or a series of "relationship nurturance" sessions with a woman she is said to have been attached to at some levels, possibly as a partner, Margaret Anderson. Both are named in the discussion and the allusions seem to be to something new starting in her life, although they might not be explicitly relational, too.96.233.98.79 (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Another suggestion

message: I've recently read the last chapter in James Webb's biography "The Harmonious Circle", titled of masters and men where he sums up Alan Watts' criticism of guru-organizations. I think this is a very good criticism of the Gurdjieff work and Gurdjieffs projects and it also includes the current argument under the criticism section. I do not now to which extent this book is available among you - but if some of you could read this section and see if you agree with me? Could a summary of the main points here (1, 2 and 3) be a good thing for the article? Or maybe it should be sorted under the fourth way article? --PeterKristo (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: "In 1919, Gurdjieff established his first Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man. He was thought[by whom?] to be greatly influenced by Niko Marr, a Georgian archaeologist and historian.[citation needed]"
:Was GIG influenced in the setting up and/or the naming of the institute by Niko Marr?
:Or is this just poor layout or bad editting - an unsourced claim, misplaced and productive of confusion? 124.148.164.7 (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Niko Marr" will be Nikolai Marr.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.27 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  meaning in juxtaposed sentences? 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check.  Tom Ruen (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on George Gurdjieff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120829231045/http://www.gurdjieff.org.uk:80/gs6.htm to http://www.gurdjieff.org.uk/gs6.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140907034300/http://www.cafes.net/ditch/motm1.htm to http://www.cafes.net/ditch/motm1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article had a multiple issues tag, the tag claiming content "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" and "may be written from a fan's point of view". However, there is no associated discussion on this talk page that would explain what content this tag concerns. If editors are not told of what problems might exist with the article, how are those problems meant to be addressed? Also, there does there seem to be any recent talk page discussion that indicates a problem that would justify the article being tagged in this way. For that reason, I find the tag to be not productive or justifiable, and I have deleted it. If another editor wants to restore the tagging, would they explain exactly what content issues support the tagging. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple issues tag

message: I have no knowledge of Gurdjieff being an influential composer, as stated in the introduction.  He was a composer, but I don't know that he was influential in it.  I had added a source saying he was influential in the other things, but my source says nothing about him being an influential composer.  Therefore I  removed composer.  But someone has added it back.FourLights (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  composer 

message: I've just reviewed this page and came up with a number of suggestions for content. I thought I would post them here in a series of bullets -- assuming I can figure out how to make them -- and if editors are cool with it, I think I could put in some work on them next week.
*Fourth Way versus Gurdjieff Work. I don't think the highlighting of the term Fourth Way as opposed to Gurdjieff Work is historically appropriate. Gurdjieff only used that term very early and sources don't mention it after he left Russia. By the time of the talk replicated verbatim by Stanley Nott in "Teachings" which represents the 20s, or the talk "From the Author" in Beelzebub, the term is no longer being used. Nor is the term present in the rest of All and Everything. The term Fourth Way is really better associated with Ouspensky, who made the concept central to his teaching to the end of his life. I propose changing the relevant passage in the topic sentence to "Gurdjieff Work or Fourth Way", and perhaps opening the section on ideas/teachings with a brief paragraph on nomenclature that mentions the different ways Gurdjieff referred to his teaching.
::Beautifully said. Aeuio 17:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would object here with this sourcing. Many accounts of Gurdjieff teaching are from personal lectures which Gurdjieff taught to individual students or groups. His teaching may differ as presented by him from student to student, as he might have altered it to suit a specific group. But Belzeebub's tales was Gurdjieff putting his ideas for the public and everyone in general. It would therefore be a lot more reasonable to use BT as a primary source for Gurdjieff's teaching, and other accounts as back up and for diversity of the teaching. MoonEagle 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty good suggestions - I agree with all of it and I think that it would make a better page. (the first bullet was the best). Aeuio 17:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Aeuio, I said next week and I meant it! :) I won't have time to do a worthwhile job with much of this until a week from now. Editors uncomfortable with the floating headings should just cut them for now. MoonEagle, neither I nor any other editor should be having a discussion about Gurdjieff's "purposes", to use your word. This is an encyclopedia talk page not a discussion forum. Our job should be to enumerate what Gurdjieff did as sourced on the historical record not speculate about his purposes. Your vague objection to something that hasn't happened yet makes me nervous. Thanks for contributing and I hope you'll continue to give your opinion as we add some content. Ericbarnhill 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the best I can do is ten minutes here and there so I will leave it till I have more time. Aeuio 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My comment to you was inappropriately aggresive. Apologies and I will bow out of posting here until I have the time to think about what I'm writing before posting. Thanks for the feedback and your opinions on the section will be welcome when I add it. Ericbarnhill 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions for content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George Gurdjieff. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825063745/http://provost.ucsd.edu/marshall/lytle/home/list.html to http://provost.ucsd.edu/marshall/lytle/home/list.html
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) 23:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on George Gurdjieff. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219040514/http://www.gurdjieff.org.uk/gs9.htm to http://www.gurdjieff.org.uk/gs9.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061031072357/http://www.gurdjieff-movements.net/newsletter/2003-03/06_gurdjieff_istanbul.htm to http://www.gurdjieff-movements.net/newsletter/2003-03/06_gurdjieff_istanbul.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030402192646/http://www.bmrc.berkeley.edu/people/misc/School.html to http://www.bmrc.berkeley.edu/people/misc/School.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620031630/http://www.seekerbooks.com/book/9780835608404.htm to http://www.seekerbooks.com/book/9780835608404.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) 17:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section supposedly about group work, is an endless rant about how various people, most of them unrelated to Gurdjieff abused LSD - a drug invented long after Gurdjieff death in 1949. This situation invites quick deletion, unless some rationale is forthcoming. AFAIK, Guerdjieff himself nor his groups were never known for drug abuse. Kotika98 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the section "group work". The point of that section is that Gurdjieff emphasized groups rather than individual methods. This should be covered in the article Fourth Way, it doesn't even belong here. More importantly however from what I can see is that that section was there only to make Gurdjieff and his groups look like drug abusers. And it's filled with false statements. If you have a source for supporting that nonsense then add it to the criticism section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalask (talk • contribs) 15:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group work/drug abuse 

message: When the page for the book Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am' was deleted the link was turned into a redirect to a section of this article. The link within this section was a redirect to itself, which was not only useless, but confusing. This link has been removed ("de-linkified"), and the redirect target is supported by an Anchor template.
It would be better IMHO if there was a page to support this book, but as noted, it has been previously deleted.  XyKyWyKy aka raffriff42 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Circular Redirect

message: Influential in humanities search for understanding self-knowledge (today).cited and referenced.Arnlodg (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Referenced "The Gurdjieff Foundation New York" to lead; Arnlodg (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary lead sentence 

message: I'm not seeing where in the citation given that Gurdjieff was influenced by Müller, but that Gurdjieff's student Ouspensky was.
Quote from  source: "P. D. Ouspensky, a Russian former Theosophist and follower of the Greco-Armenian thaumaturge G. I. Gurdjieff, was inspired by Müller's lectures on theosophy in the formulation of his own mystical system."
The commas would indicate that the sentence means Ouspensky was both:
-"a Russian former Theosophist and follower of the Greco-Armenian thaumaturge G. I. Gurdjieff,"
-"...inspired by Müller's lectures on theosophy in the formulation of his own mystical system."
I'll be removing that bit from the "influences" section.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Müller? 

message: Whether Gurdjieff should be referred to as Russian has been brought up on here before but I think it needs more clarification in the article. While it is true that many sources refer to Gurdjieff as being Russian, in my view this is misleading even if, arguably, this was technically correct at the time of his birth (but it wouldn't be now). The extent to which Gurdjieff can be considered "Russian" is questionable as, both culturally and ethnically, he was mostly Armenian and in my opinion he is more correctly an Armenian than a Russian. I strongly suggest that this needs to be more adequately clarified in the article. As with articles on some other people whose nationality is complicated for historical and personal reasons, I suggest that his nationality is not mentioned in the opening sentence but the issues regarding this are mentioned further on in the article. Ontologicos (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Russian" question revisited 

message: ...and if there is a consensus of opinion, add that to the first paragraph using plain English, dividing the name into syllables and using an accent mark to put emphasis on the dominant syllable? Most Americans familiar with the name say "Gur-jeff," and I don't think that's quite right. It looks like three syllables to me. But I will go with the consensus. Thanks. 2600:8801:BE24:1A00:2D1A:5328:950:E44B (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @2600:8801:BE24:1A00:2D1A:5328:950:E44B  I have always heard it pronounced Grrr-gee-eff (with1st syllable accented). Blainster (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (which is also how the IPA pronunciation has it) Blainster (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a conversation going on how Gurdjieff's last name is pronounced?