Talk:Mason Remey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Point

Removing two words that take a Non-NPOV to the article, the word disintergrated which no Orhtodox Baha'i would ever agree is the case as we continue to grow and have 3rd and 4th generation Orthodox in our groups, and the quotes around the word service as if to indicate that he really did not serve as the Guardian of the Orhtodox Baha'i Faith. -unsigned by 66.219.216.37 19 January 2005

[edit] Successful

Joel Marangella is recognized as the most successful claimant, and by some sources the only remaining claimant to Remey's successorship.

This is from someone attacking the Faith:

"[The followers of Remey] have had limited success attracting new converts, though the advent of the internet has helped their efforts somewhat in recent years... Most of them currently follow Joel Bray Marangella, who claims to be the third Guardian. [1]

This is from a Baha'i source:

"Joel Marangella alone continues to press his faded claim to the position that Remey had briefly bestowed on him and then withdrawn over thirty years ago." [2]

Another attacker of the Faith:

" In 1961 he appointed Joel Bray Marangella as his future successor, and in 1966 publicly handed the authority of the Guardianship over to Joel Marangella. " [3]

The only seemingly balanced article I found:

"His group became known as "Baha'is under the Hereditary Guardianship." Even before Remey's death in 1974, his followers had begun to split into smaller groups, the largest of which was led by Joel B. Marangella (1918-) who claimed that Remey had appointed him to be the third guardian. On 25 August 1980, I interviewed Marangella's son, Joel Jani Marangella (1947-)... "
(Baha'i: Studies in Contemporary Religion, MARGIT WARBURG, Paperback. 100 Pages. ISBN: 1-56085-169-4) [4]

And to top it off, there is nothing that would indicate otherwise. So, once again, Marangella was the most successful claimant, and represents the largest group, and the article should reflect that. Cuñado - Talk 09:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

~Those are "sources"? They look like speculative weblinks to me. THERE ARE NO CURRENT PUBLISHED STATISTICS. Those statements from Cunado's "sources" were current 35 years ago. He probably did have the largest group in the late sixties. I don't believe they've converted a new believer this centrury. From my contact with the different groups I'd say that Shogomonian's "Loyal to the IV Guardian" group has the most numbers. But is that "successful" in and of itself? None of the groups besides the BUPC have active Local, National, and International Councils. None meet for feasts or observe Holy Days, do they? Aside from a few active internet message board posters, neither of the two other groups have any active on-going teaching efforts going on that I'm aware of. Are warm bodies the criteria? Then let's see some numbers, or it's speculative based on decades old information, IMO. Maybe the wording could be made less definitive if it's so important to declare which of the three groups "won out" in terms of successfulness. User:Jeffmichaud 09:37 08-Dec.-05

There's a valid point to the dates of the sources, but other than pointing to that and providing evidence that the BUPC has somehow become more successful, there's no evidence disputing it and I would suggest that you're editing with a strong bias, considering that you are a member of the group we're talking about. Read some articles on marangella, he doesn't even live on your continent, so how are you an expert on the subject? Everything you said about using active internet posters can be applied to you, so be careful whose house you throw stones at. Cuñado - Talk 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

~"Read some articles on marangella, he doesn't even live on your continent, so how are you an expert on the subject?" Does this look like my first rodeo to you? I was in this before you popped your first pimple. Save the lecture Mr. Unbiased I'm-editing-stated-enemie's-pages-guy. BTW, Resident Expert, weren't you the one adding "they are now defunct" to the description of them not so long ago?

Why do we have to get personal here? I'm not even advocating declaring a "most successful" group at all. I clearly said by your definition of "successfull" I believe the 4th Guardian people have more numbers than anyone. I was just pointing out that the BUPC are the only "active" group, and the only group with any kind of teaching effort. So "successfull" to me, and to you, and to each reader of this page may be different. You've taken it upon yourself to decide for everyone what "successful" means, so verify it. I don't think it should be mentioned at all, since it implies the end of an era and leaves no room for future changes. More importantly, I don't think it should be mentioned at all since it can't be shown true with Verifiable Sources. You do want to follow the Guidlines, don't you? I wouldn't object if it were true, but I don't believe it is. And, THERE ARE NO PUBLISHED STATISITCS. End of discussion. Verify the statement, if it's possible, since this is obviously really important to you for some reason, or stick to the guidelines and leave it out. User:Jeffmichaud 00:52 09-Dec.-05

[edit] Cleanup

I've noticed a lot of stuff has been added (which is good) but not with any real thought gone into how its been dumped on. I'll take a more thorough look into it (and the encyclopaedic value of the content) in a mo, but provisionally, it seems to be (or perhaps should be) in several sections:

  1. His relationship with the sect that was led by the hands (and now the Universal House of Justice in Haifa), and the issue about his claim to Guardianship
  2. His (non-Baha'i) life, acheivements
  3. His life as the second Guardian
  4. His successorship

Now strictly speaking, only sections 2 and 3 above should be covered in any depth on this article, and the others should be no more than small features. (The reason for this is that, for example, on the Joel Bray Marangella article, a lot will be repeated - best to keep it all in one location hence why we made up Bahá'í divisions).

Now obviously this is just my opinion, but I think section 1 should be merged with Bahá'í divisions or some page similar, and possibly most of 4 as well, leaving the real meat about Mason Remey himself.

Thoughts? I hope you guys at least understand why I bring this up... -- Tomhab 21:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

~I'm sure I understand why you bring this up. Let me tell you why I added what I did. His 60+ years of service to the Faith, the acolades and praises from the Master and the Guardian, and the proofs for his claims are to be found nowhere else in Wiki. This is his bio. Where else should these achievements be noted? They somehow got left out of the one paragraph bio on Joel Marangella. What an absurd proposal. Joel turned on and attacked Mason openly for the last five years of his life. And, the Baha'i Divisions page is statedly a "summary" page. Why doesn't Mason deserve his own bio? Is there something about the truth of his person you want hidden? Why don't you take that "mo" and actually read what's on this page. His "Backround" was two paragraph's long before I expanded it, and it mentioned little but his schooling and then attacks on his claim. Not one mention of the relationship with the Master or the Guardian which spanned decades. Not one mention of the tireless work of designing and overseeing the erection of temples around the world. There was more space devoted to showing how he supposedly "broke the Covenant", than to what he actually did do. You can trash his good name on your own sans-guardian websites, but this site is dedicated to NPOV, right? If you can figure out how to scale down his 60+ years of dedicated service to the Faith in fewer words, then do it. How convenient to tag something for cleanup just because of your oposition to the subject, without even taking a "mo" to read the contents. This is his bio. Why should his enemies be allowed to dictate it's content to stand for all time? GMAB User:Jeffmichaud 00:29 14-Dec.-05

First of all, we're not Remey's "enemies" trying to spread dirt around. Up until 1960 Baha'is regard everything he did as a Hand of the Cause as a dedicated servant of the Faith, and he should be recognized for everything he did. There seems to be no page talking about his claim to Guardianshipo in detail, just sporadic and brief mentions over several pages. How about doing this:
  1. Background/achievements -> lengthy section on accomplishments including non-Baha'i related things
  2. Claim to Guardianship -> Compile arguments from several pages and link to this section as a source for the dispute
  3. (some title) -> info about his life after 1960, including his relationship with the rest of the Baha'i world
  4. Successorship -> Some brief info about his 3 appointments and the disputes among his followers.
Cuñado - Talk 08:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm quite keen to remove anything but the basics relating to Remey's split with the Hands of the Cause - it's dominating this article too much and since we have enough on here to actually make a decent article on the man - I reckon we should clean it up to be just that. Successorship sounds good -- Tomhab 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

~Aren't "covenant breakers" enemies of the Cause. If you've labelled him that, and he you, then you're each others enemies. RHETORIC!

What's wrong with the page as it is? If you acknowledge his efforts till 1960, then they should be mirrored in his bio. You treat his and the divisions pages as if the only reason they should exist is to discredit their claims. IMO, they should mirror all sides of the truth, neutrally. User:Jeffmichaud 01:32 14-Dec.-05

Oh just calm down will you. I didn't even suggest removing anything just that we should look at the layout. Take a look at the article. It's a complete mess - thats my problem. This is quite common in articles that are expanded very quickly and I was just talking about how to tidy it up. You've pointed out the fact you're unhappy with the fact that his page is covered with 'how he supposedly "broke the Covenant"' - if you read what I wrote I was suggesting getting rid of all that. As for why so little was on this page, its because no-ones written anything about him! Wikis suffer in that people can only put up what they know, and not too many people have been willing to write much about him.
Anyway, grab a drink, calm down and read my proposal. I'd have thought anyone who believed Remey's claim would love it. Basically I was suggesting a way of making this page contain only the details about Remey's life and his term as Guardian, making it easier to read and more obvious. You mention the fact that Baha'i divisions is only a "summary" article - well we can make a new one.
Please don't just make flippant comments - I haven't antagonised you - why should you antagonise me? -- Tomhab 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh sorry just realise I contradict myself in the original comment. It makes sense if you read it through almost, but basically the sections 1-4 were what their present form it, not what it should be... -- Tomhab 20:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

~Thanks Tom, but I don't drink. Point taken. JFTR, I wasn't trying to be flippant, and I wasn't trying to antagonize anyone. Cunado's two faces get the better of me sometimes. Somethings he shares in discussions are very "I'm the poster boy of NPOV, what's your problem?", whereas his actual editing of Baha'i divisions is maliciously biased seems to be leaning towards censorship. I do "react" instead of "responding" sometimes though, and hope you haven't been put off. IMOD, every edit, expansion, and contribution I've made has come under fire by Haifan Baha'is, so forgive me if I'm a little shell shocked.

I've reread your first post several times. I'm still not sure how we could improve it, but I'm all for making it better. What specifically should we do? User:Jeffmichaud 15:47 14-Dec-05

Heh, meant drink coffee (or water?) but no matter.
Anyway - my point was two fold:
  1. The layout at the minute sucks a bit. Some areas are over built and others aren't and theres barely anythign directly on Remey.
  2. Remey's relationship to Sans-Guardian Baha'is dominates. In my opinion this needs to get shoved off to some other page (we can talk about where later if everyone agrees). The only reason its here is it needs to be somewhere and sans-G Baha'is (and I have myself to blame here too) put it in an easy place. It has just as much place on the Hands of the Cause, or Universal House of Justice page. If we have them on both then we risk having a POV split (where one side defends a POV and one side attacks it - stupid really as its basically an Encyclopaedia contradicting itself).
We will have to tackle the issue of a second guardian on some page, but I don't think that page is here...
Not knowing enough about Remey means I can't really say what sections we should/shouldn't have but as a general idea for what I'd do:
  1. 3-4 line introduction. Baha'i, leader of the Orthodox Baha'is and seen as guardian by all Remeyites (or whatever the correct term is). Small bit about his legacy maybe? Kept short (as all introductions should be)
  2. Early life (before becoming completely immersed into the Baha'i faith - I have no idea when that was sadly) 2 -3 paragraphs if possible
  3. Pre 1957 Baha'i life (filling the gaps until Shoghi Effendi died) 5-6 paragraphs?
  4. 1957-1960 relationship with hands and debate etc - no more than 1-2 paragraphs hopefully with a link to whatever page holds the rest of the details. It should be quite easy to keep this page completely NPOV this way
  5. 1960- his Baha'i legacy whilst the second Guardian
  6. Successorship - 3 successors? one on each. I can't think of another page this should all go on so for now it should be here but in an ideal world this should have its own page IMHO.
The importance will be anyone wanting to find out about Mason Remey won't be bogged down with detail about a topic that was only a "feature" on his biography. At the minute it looks like (and is) a shooting ground for the two groups of people trying to get their point of view across.
Thats my preference. -- Tomhab 23:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

~Those are all reasonable and well thought conclusions. I could actually do most of that work on the article myself, and would be happy to. As soon as I get five minutes strung together where I'm not reverting or defending my contributions from Cunado's relentless attacks, I'll get right to it. Thanks for the input. User:Jeffmichaud 02:00 15-Dec-05


Right, done my work - I'm quite proud of it. Mostly moving stuff about, I cut out two or three sections as they were largely redundant. I had to totally redo the Successorship bit as it was duplicating a lot of what it was saying. I think the tone is relatively neutral now. Funny enough it barely mentions the san-guardian Baha'is..... -- Tomhab 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


~Good Golly! You should be proud of it. I was meditating on it throughout the day, and now I see it's all been done. It looks better than I had envisioned it would be.

  1. did you want a red link to "Shrine of Abdu'l-Baha, cuz I removed the brackettes for purely visual reasons. easily put back though.
  2. Maybe the Juliette Thompson paragraph and quotes is extraneous?
  3. I always thought the "sieze the helm"/you're out of your defined authority statement from his proclamation was important only because it countered the declaration from the Hands and showed both sides. I see you left it as Unecessary? in the edit page. I added all that recently after Cunado dragged out the whole issue to greater lengths, so I wanted the balance struck. Let's leave it out if noone else objects.

GREAT WORK! User:Jeffmichaud 21:00 15-Dec-05

Well about your Qs:
  1. I've always wanted to do an article on the shrine but never had time and don't have much material - theres some provisional drawings available (some by Remey - looks just like the Bab's shrine) available at the Baha'i world centre, but nothing online
  2. I felt SOMETHING had to be cut. It did drag on a while. If you agree I'd like to remove it
  3. I removed the "sieze the helm" because I also removed the "expelled Remey" bit. Now it just says they mutually excommunicated each other. In my opinion its quite neutral now and shows they just parted ways (and moderately angry terms), rather than plowing into details.
Anyway, if you'd like to write a little about his legacy (what DID he do between 1960 and 1974? I genuinely don't know - looking for things like "travelled the world trying to convince Baha'is of the importance of there being a Guardian" or soemthing) -- Tomhab 09:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Also could you check (and double check!) the bit about WHY he said he was a Guardian - its a sensitive area and I don't want to get my balls busted for making him look bad (as I basically believe he was wrong). If you do change it try extra hard to keep it neutral (as I tried) because its so sensitive -- Tomhab 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Untenability of Remey's Claim

For some reason, when I edited the article the other day to point out the fact that Remey's original claim is in direct violition to the provisions of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, this point was reverted "to remove POV". This, of course, is entirely unjustified. Any scholarly text should establish the facts, and the fact in this case is that Remey could not justifiably make his claims and stay loyal to the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha.

As such, I would appreciate it if next time instead of reverting the change, that the author in question kindly suggests why such an essential, obvious observation does not deserve to be shown in the article and we can discuss about it here in the talk section; otherwise I will simply revert their censorship/vandalism.

Sincerely, Matarael 11 March 2006

The revert was done by someone who believes that Remey was the second Guardian. I certainly agree with you, but you have to remember that some people think that he was the second Guardian, so stating that he is in outright violation of the Will (which he obviously was), is equivalent to stating that he was the Guardian, as far as stating facts in an article. The best we can do is state what the Will said, and avoid making either such comment. It should be obvious to an observer reading the article. Rather than put all the details on every page that mentions him, it should be consolidated and linked. I think Remey's biography is an appropriate place, but right now it is covered at length on Baha'i divisions. Cuñado - Talk 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications Cuñado, but surely, the biography of Remey is an essential place to put at least a reference to this. The so-called Baha'i divisions page, is a 'convenience page' if you will--whereas this is the source where most people will look for information on Remey's life. Surely, the fact that someone here believes that Remey is the second Guardian can hardly be the thing keeping essential facts out of an article! - Sincerely, Matarael 12 March 2006
I skim read the edits made. I've done a fair bit of work into Remey's claim and I think to simply say "he agreed one thing, then changed his mind and said he was a Guardian" is misleading, and very unfair. To my understanding, he signed two documents I believe saying "Shoghi Effendi left no heir" and "The hands cannot appoint a new Guardian - we must wait for the Universal House of Justice". His claim was that traditional reading of "Aghsan" requiring genetic relation was flawed and he was already appointed an Aghsan by Abdul'Baha. Although I disagree with him on both points, I believe that holding his inability to make his mind as a minor issue if relevant at all. The Will and Testament does not adequately deal with the scenario that the Guardian does not publically label an heir for an editor to make a decision in a NPOV way. -- Tomhab 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully Tomhab, The Will and Testament does make it impossible for Remey's claim to carry any water. How is it that when the Will explicitly states that the Guardian must declare the successor publically in his lifetime, and the necessity of the Hands of the Cause to assent this decision by universal sufferage, can any other claim be made? Of this, there is no doubt, and it is merely a pejorative form of historical revisionism to state otherwise.
Perhaps as Cunado suggests the clear provisions of the Will and Testament should be stated for the record and leave it at that.
This seems to be the concensus, so I will gladly comply (and also put some "references" in, although I'm curious how it is that primary source materials don't count on wikipedia--absurd!). Sincerely, Matarael 12 March 2006
The problem is that this is just your opinion. I think you can accept that the Remeyites would disagree on at least some of your assertions there, so we can't use that in Wikipedia.
I gutted a lot of this article around 2 months ago. When it came to the section on the appointment I just decided that as little as possible was necessary and I believe it is currently true to that. Cunado's suggestion is a good one, but my first preference would be somewhere like Baha'i Divisions. That way if a war starts on the topic (and it will be contraversial) then it only affects one page. -- Tomhab 12:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
***
These "points" are discussed at length in Baha'i divisions and eloborated upon ad nauseum. They don't belong here beyond possibly linking to them appropriately as Cunado rightly suggested. Furthermore, changes where made to content that wasn't accurate or verified with sources. Jeff March 11,2006

So, it seems summarizing these discussions that there are two issues at stake.

1) "The problem is that this is just your opinion. I think you can accept that the Remeyites would disagree on at least some of your assertions there, so we can't use that in Wikipedia."

Which assertion? The explicit text of the Will and Testament? Are we avoiding putting this relevant information into the article because Remeyites disagree with it? That hardly seems right, even according to Wikipedia's postmodernism.

2) These points are discussed in Baha'i Divisions already.

This is true. Therefore, seeing as the reverts keep happening I am going to try a different approach we should remove all the non-biographical sections entirely and refer the user to Baha'i Divisions. I will attempt that here.

Sincerely, Matarael

Matarael, I think it will help if you realize that there are several hundred people who still think Remey was the second Guardian, they have established a doctrine that helps them believe. So for everything that you point out as Remey contradicting the Will, they will have a response to. As Baha'is, it's not our role to delve into the system of Covenant-breaker beliefs, or to engage them in arguments. Just make sure that the true teachings are not misrepresented. Remey's claim only makes sense if it is taken out of context and with 5% of the truth.
Having said that, I don't agree with some of your edits, and I can understand why you got reverted twice. Making statements like "The funeral was virtually unattended and performed entirely without relgious rites." You need some reference. I'm sure there are books or documents stating this, so you have to find them and provide a reference. If you do that, then it will never get deleted.
Other statements like "However, the provisions provided in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá deny any chance of such a possibility." Because there are people that believe he was living up to the Will, you should say something like "The majority of Baha'is believe..." or just state facts. Say that Abdu'l-Baha required a clear, unambiguous transfer between Guardians, a hereditary position, named during the life of the Guardian and consented on by the 9 Custodians. Then the conclusion is obvious that Remey is in violation of 4 clear points. Cuñado - Talk 17:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Cuñado, I will keep your points in mind when I make future edits. For the record, I am not delving into Covenant-breaker beliefs, just trying to provide a more full picture. Even Ficcicia, an avowed enemy of the Bahá'ís in his anti-Bahá'í Polemic asserts that Remey's claim was untenable. I personally feel there is a funny logic going on here which suggests that the information must go in this article, and cannot be counter-balanced with opposing facts. There is an important point: facts are not and neutral--they always have implications. That said, thank-you once more, I will keep your comments in mind. Matarael 14 March 2006
Up until around a week ago this article was - IMHO very neutral and respectful of both sides of the debate. Thanks to all those who've tried to keep it that way, but for some reason it's gutting itself completely -- Tomhab 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you Tomhab. :D Matarael 14 March 2006

[edit] All This Successorship Talk

Does all of this talk of successorship belong in a Biographical article of Mason Remey? I'd appreciate your thoughts. (And also if someone could organize that merge icon notice for me until I learn the ropes). Sincerely, Matarael 12 March 2006

Let's not delete the information here. It involves the personalities involved and includes information that Bahá'í divisions does not. That article focuses on the groups themselves and doesn't address the acrimonious disintigration that occurred around Mason Remey's demise. That information is well-sourced here and shouldn't just disappear. As Mason Remey was intimately involved, I don't think that this is out-of-place here. Both articles point at each other and seem even-handed and as sourced as they can be. MARussellPESE 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a well reasoned response; but I am unclear: is it generally agreed that the content should appear in this biography, or rather that the information should not dissapear? If the latter, wouldn't it be better to merge the contents of this with the other article, thus avoiding the unnecessary crosslinks and providing the information all in one location? Matarael 14 March 2006

[edit] Latest Revert

Could someone tell me what made my last points worthy of a revert? I feel that "removing POV" is not a justifyable reason--as how could one state that quotes from primary sources are merely POV? If there can be a consensus here, I will accept it, otherwise, I feel justified to revert the vandalism. Thank-you. Matarael 06:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jeffmichaud's revert seems to be an NPOV violation in and of itself. It's not vandalism though. The items are direct quotes, on-topic, and sourced — if inconvenient to the Remeyite POV. NPOV does need to consider all points of view, and he certainly thought he was justified.
However, this article already makes these points:
  1. Remey declared himself the Third, and later on, the real Second Guardian,
  2. He was declared a Covenant Breaker,
  3. He exhibited behaviour and/or characteristics of emotional/mental disturbance.
The passage from The Ministry of the Custodians" may be better placed in Bahá'í divisions.
Barring flat-out errors, like stating that he was an accountant, I leave this page to his various groups of followers. MARussellPESE 03:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you for the clarifying links, I now see it isn't vandalism, but an NPOV violation... I meant that all along I guess. I think I will be moving my attention to Bahá'í divisions sooner or later, but can you think of a list of other articles which need some attention? I am willing to work on any subject essentially... Feel free to leave any messages on my talk page or something. Anyway, given that this was an NPOV violation, it's probably ok to revert, right? Is that how it works, do we have a consensus? Matarael 06:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

~Thank you MARussell for your neutrality and effort to put these matters in there appropriate place. The placement in Baha'i divisions seems to work, for his biography is not the place to attempt tearing down his beliefs.

FTR, I'm not sure how closely what was written has been scrutinized, but the wording between the W&T and the letter was entirely POV, and was justifiably removed. I've chosen to completely revert to previous versions because not one contribution from Matareal has attempted to remain neutral; there's been nothing to work with to reach any compromise. None of these contributions from Matarael have had a semblence of neutrality; rather they are antagonistic and arrogantly demeaning. Although, I do admire the tenacity and zealousness of these works. Bear in mind that the views and beliefs of all parties involved are well known by all. Two thirds of the Baha'i Divisions page is now dedicated to dismantling, maligning, and marginalizing Mason and his followers. And now we have another dozen kilobytes recently added thank to these concerns of Matareal. At least what MARussell contributed to the divisions page was fair and neutral. I'd never take issue with honest contributions. Obviously we all have our own POV and agenda's, but when it comes to the wording in contributions, stating someone's wrong for reasons A,B, and C is never going to make the grade. That's what personal websites and message boards are for. Jeff March 16, 2006

Given the fact that the reason for reverting was based on the fact that the quotes I provided from primary sources had a "POV" we can see clearly that the revert was actually an NPOV violation. The second reason for reverting was based on the fact that my contributions do not come accross as "neutral", I think this is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion given that my contributions were not from me but from primary sources that made the statements, we can now safely revert, to the version which I had last contributed. From there we can discuss the removal of relevant sections. I personally feel the letter submitted to Mason Remey belongs in his biography as it was a significant event in his life. Even Moreso than the discussion about "succession". Matarael 11:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not the quote you provided that's POV, it's "The Guardian had not appointed Mason Remey in his lifetime..." and the rest of YOUR OPINIONS that are at issue. That's not neutral, nor verifiable - IT'S YOUR OPINION! Furthermore, the quotes from the Will are dually noted already on the Divisions page, and now your precious letter from the headless-Hands is too. None of this belongs in his bio. Do you think you've brought anything forward that in news to anyone? All of this was considered and agreed upon by several contributors when we all reached an actual concensus, and agreed upon neutral verifiable wording; unlike this knee-jerk reaction of yours where you've taken something one contributor, MARussell, out of context and run with it. Did you miss the part where he wrote: "I leave this page to his various groups of followers." That's been the concensus from the contributors till you came along thinking you had some new insight. We've all agreed to sling the "verifiable" POV over there, and leave this page to his bio. GET IT? Jeff 10:56 March 16, 2006
Respectfully Jeff, there really hasn't been any consensus discussion here to determine what the consensus positions are. This article has evolved through some give-and-take edits, but we haven't actually had a consensue discussion here. That I leave this page alone, generally, is a personal preference. Cunñado and Tomhab have both edited this page at times. So there's no "hands-off" consensus applicable here.
You have edited this page extensively, and that naturally may give you a sense of property, (We all think our special pages are our babies. I recently re-wrote the Fallingwater article to correct a really sloppy discussion of the structural problems there. And I pity the foo' who tries to put it back. :) ) but this is Wikipedia, anybody can edit every thing. The detachment needed can be demanding at times.
Matareal, the argument is one of shading here, I think. "Shoghi Effendi did not appoint a successor during his lifetime" is a position that the vast majority of observers would agree is a fact. However, Remey asserts that his appointment was "indirect": his presidency of the IBC, "my son", etc. While this "indirect" line of reasoning approaches the impenetrably obtuse, his followers consider it to be a fact. I don't think it just opinion. But becuase it's disputed it has to be discussed. That's why Bahá'í divisions is so explicit as to the content of 'Abdul-Bahá's and the Guardian's wills, and the Hands actions, so that it is clear that this is not a POV assertion, but shown in verifiable sources that it happened this way. That article is the best place, I think, to have this material placed.
This article is fairly clear that he asserted a claim to the Guardianship, was rebuffed by all but a handful, and his community began to disintigrate and abandon him before his demise. All enough to give a sense of what happened to the man. MARussellPESE 20:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

~Thank you sir. Level headed as usual. Is it just me, or does the fast make everyone a bit edgy? I don't want to be misunderstood, and give the appearance that I feel this page is "hands-off". Good point that it's been a "give and take" to make this page, and not a drawn out concensus. I have felt that the general concensus from the other Baha'is is that the divisions page would elaborate on all these matters, and the main articles would point to it. That's certainly an acceptable compromise instead of Mason, OBF, BUPC, etc. pages repeating both sides ad nauseum. But in general, this page has been left alone for some time aside from minor wording, etc. I worked on it to expand it to include his years of service under Abdul-baha and Shoghi Effendi, among other matters, for there was little else beyond what happened in 1960 and beyond. Tomhab deserves the credit for it's current state, not me. His tireless work at creating neutrality on this page looks flawless to me. If someone has something new to add to it's value, who would oppose such a thing? Not me. But, these recent edits are hardly "contributions" to the page, miles from neutral, and add nothing new to the subject that's not already noted in divisions. Thanks MARussell for finding the appropriate place for these things on Baha'i divisions. Happy fasting. Jeff 22:14 March 16 2006

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/s/Talk%7EMason_Remey_93c3.html"