Talk:Bahá'í divisions/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 World Order of Baha'u'llah
2 Guardian/UHJ stuff & equal say
3 American Problems ambiguity
4 A timeout? And some sanity... please?
5 revert
6 "Schaefer dispute"
7 World Order of Baha'u'llah (revisited)
8 The Purpose of this Article
9 Will and appointment
10 Jensen's 1969 Conviction
11 Reworking of Conclusion
12 Expulsions
13 Statistics
- 13.1 another try
14 "Remey and those who followed him"
15 Glaysher's site
16 Concerning the dispute about the Swiss Bahai critic F. Ficicchia
17 Misusing of my IP address
18 Problems in the "Conclusion"
19 False interpretations
20 Court case
21 POV Problem
22 INTRO
23 'Mason Remey and those who followed him' position paper
24 Bias and Misrepresentation
25 In the Hands of the Hands
26 Hands "for life"?
27 Nonsense that the Hands could not dissent from the Guardian's choice
28 Referred...
29 Editing 'Role of the Hands'

[edit] World Order of Baha'u'llah

I added a long quote about the roles of the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice. The issue of which quotes to add and where was becoming an issue on the BUPC page and I thought having this here would be relevant, and avoid the argument being repeated on several pages.

The quote is long, but I couldn't think of any way to shrink its size without removing something critical. Cuñado - Talk 06:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It does open up the question of whether the Institution exists separately from the individual serving in that capacity. Does the institution exist without a serving member? Clearly Remey/Marangella et. al. insist that it does not. Clearly the Baha'is assert that it does.

We should not debate this here. If either posistion can present clear documentation for either position, that should be presented and discussed.

On the oft-quoted sentence from Shoghi Effendi: "Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship ..." (emphasis added), this does not logically support the position that the individual is inseparable from the institution as it does not discuss the individual serving, but the institution and the hereditary principle behind it. If the Remeyite position is characterized as relying on this, then that's perfectly legitimate. But it can not be characterized as proving the point. This page deserves the opportunity for each side to succinctly present its case.

On the Baha'i side, quotations will be needed that demonstrate that the various institutions exist outside the individuals serving on any of them; e.g. the station "Manifestation of God" exists whether or not Baha'u'llah is here or not.

Totally aside, could we remove the Baha'i template? Seems POV on this particular page. MARussellPESE 16:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the following quote is relevant for the section "Roles of the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice" because it addresses both issues of the guardianship and the elected body of the UHJ:

By this House is meant the Universal House of Justice, that is, in all countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted, and these secondary Houses of Justice must elect the members of the Universal one. Unto this body all things must be referred. It enacteth all ordinances and regulations that are not to be found in the explicit Holy Text. By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the Guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body. Should he not attend in person its deliberations, he must appoint one to represent him. Should any of the members commit a sin, injurious to the common weal, the Guardian of the Cause of God hath at his own discretion the right to expel him, whereupon the people must elect another one in his stead. This House of Justice enacteth the laws and the government enforceth them. The legislative body must reinforce the executive, the executive must aid and assist the legislative body so that through the close union and harmony of these two forces, the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm and strong, that all the regions of the world may become even as Paradise itself. (Will and Testament, pp. 14,15)

If Wikipedia is a place for different views to be expressed in a neutral way so that the reader can come to their own conclusions, then I don't see how the above quote can be excluded from this section. What are the reasons to exclude this quote? Davecornell 16:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Beynd being excessively wordy — which editing could take care of — this doesn't identify the Guardianship with the individual. Note that `Abdul-Bahá is referring to the Guardian as the institution, not to Shoghi Effendi himself.

We're not going to convince each other here, but we can keep each other from editorializing into the article things that the documents don't actually say. MARussellPESE 17:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In relation to the flow of the article, its relevant points are that the Guardian and the House of Justice are distinctly different (already covered in WOB), that the Guardian can expel members of the House of Justice (not entirely relevant, point can be added in-text), and you think `Abdu'l-Baha is suggesting that literally every single country must have an NSA before the House can be elected.

To the last point, besides its obvious logical fallacy, the quote simply says that in the future every country should have an NSA (National House of Justice), and that the Universal House of Justice is elected by all the NSA's of the world, two separate points. Not to mention its contradicted by Shoghi Effendi's plans that the ten year crusade would be followed by a series of plans under the House of Justice, and for someone that wrote in incredible detail about the most minute details of the administration, Shoghi Effendi never mentioned this requirement. And if you read on in the Will, `Abdu'l-Baha makes another statement which clarifies that the election is from all countries in which Baha'is are found.

"By this House is meant that Universal House of Justice which is to be elected from all countries, that is from those parts in the East and West where the loved ones are to be found, after the manner of the customary elections in Western countries such as those of England." (`Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 19)

More importantly, Shoghi Effendi said:

"...the establishment of the Supreme House of Justice is in no way dependent upon the adoption of the Bahá'í Faith by the mass of the peoples of the world, nor does it presuppose its acceptance by the majority of the inhabitants of any one country. In fact, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Himself, in one of His earliest Tablets, contemplated the possibility of the formation of the Universal House of Justice in His own lifetime, and but for the unfavorable circumstances prevailing under the Turkish regime, would have, in all probability, taken the preliminary steps for its establishment. It will be evident, therefore, that given favorable circumstances, under which the Bahá'ís of Persia and of the adjoining countries under Soviet rule, may be enabled to elect their national representatives, in accordance with the guiding principles laid down in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's writings, the only remaining obstacle in the way of the definite formation of the International House of Justice will have been removed." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 7)

[edit] Guardian/UHJ stuff & equal say

This is not meant to sidetrack here, but the BUPC (and the rest of Remey's followers, FTM) have a basic belief about all this Guardian/true UHJ stuff, and if I may, I'd like to cut to the chase of it. We believe the IBC with Mason should have by all accounts assumed control of the Faith, and was the legitimate UHJ in it's infant (1st stage) state. That body's authority was usurped (we believe) by the Hands who took control of the situation. Mason said why he went along with them, and yet that's not reflected, only that he signed the declarations, blah blah blah. Now there's a UHJ that didnt go through the specifically stated stages, didn't evolve from the IBC, etc. There's no Guardian as it's president; a clear stipulation in the Will (I know, debateable, I get it). We'd like to have all this reflected as a notable contradiction (that we see) into this page. All attempts to write this in have been sabotaged. There is now ample say from the Haifans as to why we are all so full of it, and confused. But, as we can show that this is what we believe, I contend that it should be in the page. The issue of our beliefs about the first IBC being usurped is not in the page, and to make specific allegations in the BUPC section have been squashed time and again. There are two sides to each of these issues, and yet this page is completely dominated by only one of them. Of all places, this should be the one where this issues surrounding these matters are presented equally. Where can we find peace with this? Jeff 09:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we all need to leave this article alone for a bit while the discussion's going on. I think it was bad form to yank the template without any more discussion than my raising the question.

Jeff, your edit on Jensen's "sign" in the BUPC section is unverifiable as it stands. Please correct the link and provide a page number. (I really want to see one. That's a huge article.) I'm sorely tempted to remove it as unverifiable. (Probably why Cunado did.) If this supports all the Remeyite groups' opinions shouldn't it go in the CMR section? If it's the BUPC's, isn't that already covered there making it redundant here?

I think the CMR section is quite clear on his attitudes viz. the Hands and rest of the community. He's clear that he thinks the Hands were wrong, and that he commanded obedience. It quotes him directly and specifically to the point, so how could it be under-selling his position?

Also, this view of CMR at the head of a 1st stage embryonic house isn't universally shared by all of the Remeyite groups, so I don't think you'd get it past King's followers or the Remey Society if you start quoting Jensen as a spokesman for all y'all on that point. That'd give Marangella's followers heartburn too. That's not "Haifan" censorship, it's your own painful disintegration frankly.

As you all follow CMR, you'll need to quote him and you've already got a place in the article to do it in. (The paragraph beginning "Remey went on to establish ..." would be the place.) But I can't see that saying Remey thought they usurped him adds anything new. It's already crystal clear that neither he nor any of y'all accept the Custodians or House of Justice.

We are way beyond undue weight already. Again there are whole suites of articles that address the various Remeyite groups' history, beliefs, sources, etc., where there's no "due weight" given to the Baha'is that outnumber y'all by orders of magnitude. Nor should there be. Those articles don't concern the "Haifans". But here "equal weight" is just not appropriate. That's not "Haifan censorship" either, that's Wikipedia policy. MARussellPESE 20:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the template, didnt mean to twist anyone's panties over it. As there's 3 or 4 contributors to this page, where one pointed it out, and I agreed, it looked like a no brainer. Don't worry though, MARussell, that'll be the last time I ever agree with you on anything. I won't make that mistake again.

If you'd bother to check, the diddy about the Guardian being a sign is in the introduction page to the book that is linked to; it's not a "huge article", it's a 37 chapter book that our Page 10 Publishing Trust has provided for free on that site. The URL links right to the intro. Maybe I should have quoted it to be more specific:"The Covenant-breakers did away with the executive head, replacing it with a headless monster on Mt. Carmel, and oppress their deluded followers from coming under the true House of Justice that has both the executive branch, or head, and legislative body." I was only paraphrasing in the article. Which would you prefer?
The reason I brought this all up, is simple. I've quoted Ministry where the Hands themselves claimed they "seized the helm of the Faith", and it's been continually removed. That's their own words. I can't (nor do I care to) speak for the other groups on this, but nowhere does this article address the BUPC's fundamental concern of why the affairs of the Faith weren't passed onto the only group with the legitimate authority to do so: the IBC. I'm sure you have a head-full of propaganda to explain it away, but so far noone has in the article. I appreciate your graciousness in allowing this verifiable belief of ours to remain in our section, and I challenge y'all to answer to it. Explaining that the Hands (who like on a body cease to exist once the head dies) took this and that action only goes half way to the core of this particular concern. It's a glaringly obvious violation of the Covenant to usurp powers like this, and just because the magnitude of sheep went along with it doesn't make it right.
Your refutation of our groups is lacking in specific ways, and I intend to point them out in the article, so be prepared. One: you're lying to say that the UHJ was set up according to Effendi's instructions, as he specifically instructed that the IBC would "efflourence" into the UHJ, which it wasn't allowed to do; yet you claim this "election" was following the plan of the 10 year crusade-LIE. The 10 year Crusade involved the IBC becoming the UHJ. Two: your administration has no executive branch and yet makes no attempt to answer to this violation. Three: no writings about the adminstration ever make room for a lack of an excutive branch-in every case they are to work in close union with one another. Omissions of facts are the same a lying. Jeff 08:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Respond to your "challenges"? This talk page is not a debate to convince each other. The page is for verifiable facts, and you have been free to add them at any time, considering relevancy and weight. If I thought that it would somehow contribute to the article, or relieve you of the sickness that is festering in your mind, I would love to give you a detailed response to each point you raised. But logic and emotion are two separate things. Cuñado

- Talk 08:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I could care less what your indoctrinators filled your head with to engage in debates with, I'm challenging you to attempt to address these obvious ommissions in the article. I already know what your responses to these things will be, smarty pants. Does this look like my first rodeo? I'm "challenging" you to address them in the article, not here. They are the crux issues. None of the groups object what the Will says, but y'all have filled this article with your interpretations of the Will and the Writings, and act as if it's NPOV. These crux issues are not in the article. This article doesn't give an honest view of why these groups broke away by omitting and censoring these concerns which are legitimate questions to ask of a Faith that waves the Independant Investigation flag, and yet attacks anyone who questions the authority of these phony institutions. And you clowns are contributing to it. If there's nothing to hide, then what's your problem? Jeff 09:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, it's precisely becuase there are several editors here at the same time that there are no no-brainer edits.

I'm asking for page numbers from everybody. You don't want to slog through Ministry looking for a specific passage any more than I want to slog through Over the Wall. Please observe the exhaustive citations on the Bahá'í material. It's not just Chicago Manual of Style, it's courteous to each other and the readers.

Please refer to WP:NOT. This isn't a place for debate. If we wanted to paste everything ever written and note every last objection, then we might as well post all of Taherzadeh, Ministry, Revelation of Baha'u'llah, you'd reproduce Over the Wall; and we'd all go on ad nauseum. I confined my specifics to two items: the Hands ratification and the possibility of a "Headless" House. These address specific, key, points in Remey's arguments; and are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. They do, in fact, address the "four stage plan" argument frankly. If you feel these are not amply clarified, see what you can do; but expanding the debate much beyond that gets into WP:NOT.

Again, you have plenty of real estate to make BUPC-specific arguments. This page isn't the place for that level of detail for the reasons I've already noted: WP:NPOV#Undue weight and that the BUPC is not the only successor group with an opinion, and they differ from yours.

As an aside, at no time did the Hands collectively or the Custodians claim that they'd "seized the helm of their faith". The only place anything like that expression is to be found is in the preface to Ministry and reads: "[the Custodians] found themselves called upon to seize the helm of their Faith, protect it from dissolution and schism, ..." (p. xix). This isn't authoritative as it's Ruhiyyih Khanum's personal opinion and is explicitly in the context of preserving the plan (which was their job) and responding to Remey's actions (also their job). If you want to add this, it'll need to be in that context. MARussellPESE 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeffmichaud says that the crux of the argument is 1) why didn't power go to the IBC? 2) why was a the House elected without becoming a court first? 3) why is there no executive branch with the House of Justice in Haifa? The true crux of the argument is that Shoghi Effendi died without having appointed a successor Guardian, as he couldn't have without going outside of the guidelines set for him in `Abdu'l-Baha's Will. What to do next?

1) Why would the power go to the IBC? According to Mason Remey, he was the Guardian after Shoghi Effendi, so authority should have gone to him, not the IBC. Otherwise the Faith under Shoghi Effendi would have been incorrectly set up. According to the logic of your question, the authority of the Faith under Shoghi Effendi was vested in the IBC with Mason Remey as president. In addition, if the IBC has the Guardian as its president, then Shoghi Effendi should have been the president of the IBC set up in 1951. And as a follow up, where in any writings does it say that the headship of the Faith should be given to an appointed IBC? The nature of the question is suggesting a reference to the real question: who should have authority in the absence of the Guardian? Your suggestion that it should be the IBC is contradictory with your idea that Mason Remey was the Guardian.

2) Becoming recognized as a court is a reference to the Israeli system in which each religious community in Israel is organized in their own governmental system, even though they live in overlapping geographical areas. Even today in Jerusalem Jews and Arabs have a completely segregated police and fire systems. Two neighbours, one Jewish and one Arab, will call different police organizations when they need help, and they will go to different court sytems. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Druze, and others all have their own system. Shoghi Effendi wanted to establish a Baha'i system in Israel. This part of the plan was completely external to the Baha'i administration, in other words it was dependent upon non-Baha'i entities. In practice this step became impossible and impracticle, and instead of letting the entire administration collapse as a result of non-Baha'i requirements, they decided to go straight to the next stage: an elected body. Nowhere does Shoghi Effendi say that the House cannot be elected without the IBC becoming a court.

3) This answer is simple. There is an appointed/executive branch of the administration. The Hands of the Cause and the House of Justice all collaborated to create the Institution of the Counselors, which has at its head nine appointed individuals (like the custodians), with each of 80+ counselors appointing auxiliaries, which appoint assistants to work at local levels. More importantly, just as Shoghi Effendi never made legislation and worked within his sphere of jurisdiction by not appointing a Guardian outside of the requirements of the W&T, the House of Justice has continued to not perform interpretive functions and has worked within its defined sphere of jurisdcition by enacting legislation on matters not explicitly defined in the text, including the situation in which all male descendants of Baha'u'llah have been excommunicated.

And yet there are uncountable issues that are not addressed by Mason Remey's followers. Then comes the enormous deceptions that Jensen introduced. But like I said, this is not a place for debate amongst ourselves. Bottom line: the article page is for verifiable facts, and your edits to date have been extremely poor referenced and largely irrelevant from the real crux of the issues. Cuñado

- Talk 17:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cunado, you are so good at talking in circles without actually saying anything. I've only seen this level of skill once or twice. I thought I mentioned not to bother trying to convince me here. Just because you can convinces yourself so you can sleep at night was not what I am looking for. I'd like to add these matters to the article:

Specifically I think the 1951 cablegram that announces the formation of the IBC is worth mentioning as he points out that it was this body that was to "efflourence" into the UHJ, and that it was this body that Effendi aticipated becoming the UHJ.
The institution of the Councellors is not a body recognized anywhere in the Covenant; we have Hands creating a Head which is specifically why we feel it's operating outside the Covenant.
Quote from the Will that the guardian is the "sacred head and member for life" of the Body.

None of these answers are simple, except if you're a simpleton. Just because y'all find it easy to dismiss these matters, they are the very reasons for the schism, which is not simple or trite. This page, which should be explaining the divisions is filled with non-essentials about the specific groups, without getting specific about these things. Jeff 18:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, apparently it needs saying here too: Jeff, please be civil. "Twisting panties", "smarty pants", "simpleton", etc., drag the whole tone down.

Each of your three points are well-known BUPC positions. (I presume your second point you meant "Custodians", not "Councellors".) All you'll have to do is demonstrate that these are universal positions for all the Remeyite groups. Unfortunately, I think that'll be hard (Because I think Jensen is the author of all these interpretations.); but please see what you can do.

This article can't possibly deal with each and every groups' unique posistions. There just isn't room. It appears you want to dominate it with your BUPC perspective, which, for the third time, Jeff, you have ample space to do so on your group's various articles.

On your three points: all three are asked-and-answered in Ministry, and clarified in various letters from the House of Justice; but I don't want to drag all of those out for the same space considerations that I think apply to all the Remeyite groups. MARussellPESE 19:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, I'm horrible. I can't control it. It must be due to "the sickness that is festering in [my] mind" or something. Jeff 07:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but your ongoing conduct on the BUPC article and talk page is spilling over to here, and it's not appreciated in either place. MARussellPESE 14:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I would answer those points if it contributes to the article. I was planning on adding things to the article, but I can't do everything at once.

The House's job is to create legislation as circumstances require, to bring flexibility for just such circumstances. The quote about the "member for life" is irrelevant to the discussion. It does not address the situation in which there is no Guardian. Cuñado - Talk 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What about citing the "sacred head and member for life" quote and then say the Haifa viewpoint that "they believe this to be irrelevant because it does not address the situation in which there is no Guardian" or something to that effect?

Also regarding Cunado's statement:

"There is an appointed/executive branch of the administration. The Hands of the Cause and the House of Justice all collaborated to create the Institution of the Counselors, which has at its head nine appointed individuals (like the custodians), with each of 80+ counselors appointing auxiliaries, which appoint assistants to work at local levels."

Is that verifiable, that the Institution of the Counselors with its nine appointed individuals is considered the executive of the Faith, or is that an opinion? If it's documented I would like to see the source and reference. Davecornell 21:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Problems ambiguity

In the section about American problems, the phrase "Effendi expelled them" is ambiguous. To whom does "them" refer? D021317c 17:01, 19 April 2006 (EDT)

[edit] A timeout? And some sanity... please?

Dear friends,

Most of those arguing here accept the authority of the Master and the Guardianship of Shoghi Effendi, and do not dispute their authority to command. Also, the various participants here represent differing views of succession, and therefore are, to each other, Covenant-Breakers. If we all believe in the above two, why are we actually engaging in debate over the details of the Covenant, which Shoghi Effendi asked us not to do.

The Master asked us not to associate with Covenant-Breakers, with Shoghi Effendi allowing for doing business with Covenant-Breakers, as long as we keep to the "business at hand" and do not get into discussions attempting to convince each other. While I am not perfect in this regard, please let us not enter into such debates, in deference and obedience to the Master whom we all love, and to Shoghi Effendi who holds our deepest respect and admiration. The tones of such debates, even beyond their basic impermissibility, cannot but fall into angry condemnation - especially when they are quickly replied-to and given from a place of frustration.

There are plenty of articles that present the views of the participants. These cross-over articles where we all intersect need to be in summary form to encapsulate the argument, allowing for the reader to link through the main articles for details. Please don't respond to this comment with "but he's wrong" or "all I meant to say was...". I don't care. I'm not paying attention, not even to the arguments that I agree with. I'm putting this out there as one who loves Abd'ul-Baha and Baha'u'llah, and would dearly love to see us not make fools of Them, nor act out of a hostile spirit. I am not immune from my own criticism. I have posted more than one comment out of frustration or irritation. I'm personally vowing to stop it - right here, right now, and throwing down the gauntlet to all who claim to love Baha'u'llah.

I propose a small timeout. Take three days and make no edits, re-think the article in the context of summarization of the divergence, with detailed pages on specific beliefs linked to in main templates. This is standard wiki style, good form, and should allow us to stop actually interacting EXCEPT around the specific business of making good wiki articles. We should not, either by Wikipedia policy, nor by Abd'ul-Baha's policies, be interacting with each other in an apologetic fashion. That statement is true whether we are obedient to the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Neal Chase, sIBC, Joel Marangella, or any other claimant to Baha'u'llah's Faith's leadership. We may not think each other are Baha'is, but we believe we are, ourselves, Baha'is. In that case, we should act like Baha'is.

With sincerest regards, Christian Edward Gruber 21:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revert

I couldn't fit it all in an edit summary, so I'll explain here. My deletion of Dave adding a quote from the W&T was because it was very misplaced and in fact irrelevant to the section. The section was about a break in the line of Guardians, and he expanded on the comment that "Mason Remey and his successors asserted that a living Guardian is essential for the Bahá'í community, and that the Bahá'í Writings required it." by adding the quote about the Guardian being the head and member for life of the House of Justice.

The roles of the Guardianship and the House are already clearly defined by Shoghi Effendi himself on the page. The quote about the Guardian being a member of the House of Justice is not really relevant to any of the arguments on the page. There are hundreds of relevant quotes and some discipline has to be maintained. Cuñado - Talk 17:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error... By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the Guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body."

(The Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 14)

The quote from Abdu'l-Baha belongs on this page. It's the basis for the modern-day Baha'i Division--one side sees the necessity for a Guardian as a member of the UHJ, the other side sees future guardians as unnecessary.

The quote should remain in the "Break in the Line of Guardians" for NPOV reasons. There is nothing to contrast against the UHJ quote about the discontinuation of the guardianship. The juxtaposition of the W&T quote against the UHJ statement is appropriate and is what Wikipedia is all about. Every other attempt to insert the W&T quote in any other section has been snuffed.

If Cunado feels there are too many quotes, he can edit the long quote from World Order of Baha'u'llah he inserted in the "Relationship between the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice" section. Davecornell 18:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave, I don't think the "head for life" concept is part of all the Remeyite groups' doctrine. Could you please identify either a direct statement of Remey's, or other sources. I'd have to agree with Cunado's removal unless there is something that says this is universal. Remey's declaration, which is his clearest statement, does not address this. If the "head for life" doctrine is Jensen's innovation, then it belongs in the BUPC articles.

If, and I'd really like to see some documentation on that, this is, in fact shared by all the Remeyite groups, then that is a good place for it. It raises the question, in the context of "belief" that the House then answers. This would enhance the article, again, if the belief is more than the BUPC's.

Dave's done good job presenting basically NPOV edits here. These edits actually clarify the Hands' position and add sources. He even reverts himself. I quibble over some words, and disagree with this one, but on the whole they're sound. MARussellPESE 18:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave, the quote is not "the basis for the modern-day Baha'i Division". Awhile ago the "crux of the issue", according to Jeff, was 1) why didn't power go to the IBC? 2) why was the House elected without becoming a court first? 3) why is there no executive branch with the House of Justice in Haifa?

All these are sidenotes to the real issue, which is Remey's claim to being the Guardian. I'm not even sure how to respond to your proposal that it all hangs on this quote from the W&T. This seems to be your personal opinion. The role/necessity of the Guardian, the Baha'i court issue, the current structure of Baha'i administration... these are all of secondary importance. You don't have free reign to define what is important and what isn't (nor do I), and this has nothing to do with a desire to suppress negativity towards the House of Justice and my own beliefs. I honestly think the quote is irrelevant and doesn't address the issues on the page. The long quote from World Order is relevant in that it defines the roles of the two institutions, and the "divorced from the institution of the Guardianship" was a quote that Jeff wanted to put on every page. Saying that the Guardian is a member of the House of Justice is not the same as saying that the House of Justice must have a Guardian as a member, which is what you are proposing to interpret it as. Cuñado

- Talk 22:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The belief that the Guardian is a necessary member of the UHJ is in "Over the Wall". If I find it in Mason Remey's verifiable writings, I'll reference it. Davecornell 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Schaefer dispute"

I pulled "Schaefer also started a dispute by questioning the concept of infallibility.[1]" for two reasons:

This page is about actual divisions of the Baha'i faith, not about differences of opinion over doctrine that don't rise to that level.
There isn't a citation that identifies this article actually caused a "dispute". Schaefer is a respected member of the Baha'i community around the world.

Mipago, you posted this. Do you have something in mind that addresses both? MARussellPESE 04:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing about this. I'm of the opinion that everything below the "Conclusion" section is irrelevent and off topic, as none of it covers happenings of events that led to a "division". Why stop with that one sentence? Juan Cole? Who cares. He has a page. Disputes? Can we bring all "Other disputes" forward? I don't think any of it belongs here. Jeff 05:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That section appears to be a catch-all for anybody who's ever had a personal gripe with mainstream Baha'i administration. The numbers of people involved in say the Talisman episode (about a dozen if memory serves) is an order of magnitude or more less than the total number of followers in the various Remey successor groups. Talk about undue weight. There're even notes of individuals (Sen McGlinn, Allison Marshall, etc.) whose ideas/activities never raised a ripple in the mainstream community.

However, no mainstream Baha'i could consign this to electronic oblivion without being blasted for bias no matter how clearly they stood on Wikipedia policies. And, having a place here does keep the other various Baha'i articles from being cluttered up with individual items.

This whole section could be carved out into a separate article if it's not to be deleted, but it shouldn't be called "Baha'i controversies" or such. In reality, outside of those involved with Talisman and one national convention, these individuals never were part of the communities collective consciousness. Calling it "Baha'is who messed with Leroy Brown" might actually be closer to reality, but unprofessional to say the least. Before it gets carved out, if that's consensus, could we agree to a name first? Perhaps "Conflicts with Baha'i Administration"? MARussellPESE 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MARussellPESE that any mainstream Baha'i who deletes such a section would be blasted for bias, but really as a handful of people, they are really a very very small minority view, and non-notable for the creation of a new page. I would thus suggest to keep the information here, so that there is no argument of censorship. -- Jeff3000 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay here. If it's on the verge of being deleted, then it certainly doesn't deserve its own page. Cuñado

- Talk 05:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

All good points MARussell. It's just always seemed akward to me that there's a conclusion, and then more about a bunch of nothing. I was just tossing the idea out there in case anyone else felt the same way and hadn't mentioned it. Juan Cole has his page with no less than fifty other pages linking to it. His Talismam site is all but dead. And, as has been noted, these are personal gripes which never amounted to anything. But, if there needs to be a drainage ditch, this is as good a place as any. Jeff 05:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if a "drainage ditch" is a derogatory term, but for me the point is not whether Baha'is should have a place in Wikipedia to keep a list of splits within their ranks, but whether the page is informative to common users about historical or existing divisions among those who call themselves Baha'is. I do not think that individual issues need to be described and considered, only as long as those issues generate a wider response or a real split in the movement. Apart from historical divisions in the founder's family, real schism seems to have occurred mainly around Shoghi Effendi's succession. Talisman, even though it is not a schism per se, is indeed a noteworthy issue because the mailing list has so many members and is a reference point for many people, including scholars. Other individual situations may not reach the sufficient amount of impact in the wider Baha'i or Religious Studies world to be really worthy of quoting them here. --Jdemarcos 23:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder about Talisman's notability. Anybody know what its total membership size was? If memory serves the total number of people dis-affected was less than a dozen. That's really small, even for a small religious community like the Baha'is.

The only effect I observed it having on the wider Baha'i community was at one U.S. National Convention, and that really only rose to the level of scuttlebut shared among the delegates/attendees. I only know of it because I knew a Talisman participant. I didn't even hear of the ripple effect at Convention till the following year.

What's irritating, personally, about that episode, and other people patterning their conflicts with it, is the systematic attempt to portray Baha'i administration as a bunch of storm-troopers who pervasively goose-step all over academics, intellectuals and free-thinkers. I can't begin to count the number of academics and intellectuals I know personally, much less by reputation, who've never — ever — run into the kind of treatment the Talisman participants assert was/is pervasive. The individuals involved were/are very vocal, to say the least, but were really a tiny minority of a sub-set of Baha'i academics who happened to subscribe to a particualar mailing list. And that people have a diferent opinion on subjects of Cole's research than Cole himself should come as a shock to nobody. So, maybe, leaving it here is in fact a positive thing. But I'm still interested in considering its notability. MARussellPESE 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The current incarnation of the Talisman mailing list (talisman9) has around 350 members. --Jdemarcos 21:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Order of Baha'u'llah (revisited)

I've been thinking about the concerns expressed above [in the World Order of Baha'u'llah section of this talk page] and reinserted the quote in an edited form. By citing this quote I am not adding my interpretation to it. I'm only saying this is the first occurrence in the Writings indicating there is a relationship between the Guardianship and the UHJ. If there is a disagreement as to how this is interpreted, well, that's the name of this article - "Baha'i Divisions". I think if each group wants to cite sources for their interpretation of what this means in the appropriate part of the page, that's their right. But for now all I'm doing is citing this quote because it's very relevant to this section. Davecornell 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on the page....

Remey's reasoning was that since, according to Bahá'í scripture, the Guardian is the "sacred head and distinguished member for life"

Cuñado

- Talk 00:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"By this House is meant the Universal House of Justice.... By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the Guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body."

Cunado, a question: In your opinion does the above quote have anything to do with the relationship between the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice? Just trying to understand. Davecornell 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Purpose of this Article

I believe part of the reason this article has been so difficult to work on over the past 8+ months is there is no agreement by the editors on its purpose. In the first paragraph it reads

"Bahá'í divisions deals with the various succession challenges in the history of the religion, and the major arguments on each side."

In my opinion, the keys are a "history" of the "various succession challenges" and their "arguments". This means that it should be focused on historical evidence and not who is right or wrong. This has been the purpose behind my last several edits including the overhaul in the Mason Remey section. If the editors agree to focus on historical evidence for the different claims of succession, this article could get wrapped up sooner rather than later.

If the contributors can agree on the purpose, it would be easier to tell what is acceptable material and what is unacceptable. If we can't agree, then I guess it continues as is.

I realize part of the criticism of this article is its length. If the focus is on succession of the various groups listed, it would shorten the article significantly. Edited material could go to the group's main page or eliminated altogether if it's a duplicate. Davecornell 02:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dave, you began a major rewrite of a controversial article that had been stable for four months without adding any prior discussion. You removed material that was clearly sourced; removed bona-fide, but inconvenient, sources and points; and added material without citing sources.

To wit:

You twice removed sourced quotes that CMR had assumed for himself "status for life as commander in chief of Bahá’í affairs of the world" and that he'd "assumed command" [2] & [3]
You conveniently ellipsed out this: "I expect them to accept me without question as their Commander-in-Chief in all Bahá'í matters and to follow me so long as I live for I am the Guardian of the Faith—the Infallible Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith." from your selection off page 7 of the proclamation.
You removed the reference to the W&T as the source document for the Guardian as the sacred head of the House [4]

You're asserting that your edits constitute focusing on the historical evidence?

Please note CMR used the term "command" or "commander" twelve times with respect to himself in this one letter — something neither `Abdul-Baha nor Shoghi Effendi did in over 65 years of their collective terms of service. Who ever heard either ever say: "I expect them to accept me without question as their Commander-in-Chief"? And his reference to his due "perquisites and emoluments" is apalling considering the deprivations the Central Figures and Shoghi Effendi endured. I'd be more than happy to block-quote each and every reference, but if you can leave these key ones alone, I won't need to pile on.

If one one would argue that that his references to "command" are not relevant to his thinking about his successorship, well: that dog won't hunt. His whole argument revolves around it. He uses the term repeatedly, even putting it in Shoghi Effendi's mouth. He used it six times in the last two pages alone.

Sorry Dave I don't trust your intentions here. You added "citation needed" [5] and then ripped it out as "POV" within hours [6] when someone added it. Very bad form. It's astounding for you to remove citations after you, yourself, asked for them.

One reason this article is as long as it is, is that the Baha'is have be reticent about removing opposing opinions or inconvenient points. Something you seem to have no problem with.

The Baha'i editors have presumed that each side would present the rigorously sourced facts as we see them for the reader's benefit. You've carved up, excised, and spun extant quotes, and then are asking why we can't get consensus? Remarkable. Seems very unlikely that you're really interested in a fair presentation of the facts. MARussellPESE 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

Regarding the major rewrite, you’re probably correct. I could have brought it up in the discussion first. But with no response to my last attempt at discussion, I took Wikipedia’s advice and was “bold” with my edits.

As far as removing sources that I requested, that was a mistake. I appreciated Jeff finding that reference. I’m a little ham-handed when it comes to doing reverts I guess. My bad. Points taken.

I was hoping you would have commented on the main point of this discussion - the purpose of this article:

Bahá'í divisions deals with the various succession challenges in the history of the religion, and the major arguments on each side.

Do you agree that the purpose is to document “the major arguments” regarding succession? To me, major arguments means the evidence provided by the one(s) making their claim to be the successor or head of the faith. What does it mean to you?

Based on this reasoning, that is why I deleted the “command” quotes. Even though sourced, they have nothing to do with Mason Remey’s claim. In other words, he didn’t use these “command” quotes as evidence for succession. He based his claim to the Guardianship on his appointment as President of the IBC. That’s why I cited the quote I did from his proclamation:

”The Beloved Guardian chose me to be the President of the Bahá'í International Council that is according to his explanation the President of the Embrionic Universal House of Justice. Therefore I am the President of the Embrionic Universal House of Justice. When this August body becomes the Universal House of Justice, if such being during my lifetime, I will then be the President of the First Universal House of Justice of the Bahá'í Dispensation.” (Remey’s proclamation, p. 6)

As far as adding the elipsis, the deleted text was not part of Remey’s argument for succession, in my opinion, so I removed it for brevity.

While on the subject of evidence, I believe the following quote should be considered for the article since Remey also made reference to it in his diaries:

”This is the only position suggestive of authority that Shoghi Effendi ever bestowed upon anyone, the only special and specific appointment of authority to any man ever made by him.” (Remey’s proclamation, p. 2)

Regarding your comments about me removing the Remey quotes because I consider it convenient and suiting my purposes, as you can see from my above reasoning that’s a false assumption on your part. But based on your aversion to Remey’s use of the word “command”, I can see how you reached the conclusion you did. But if we can agree the question is “Was Remey using these quotes as an argument for his claim?” then they don't belong, in my opinion.

Regarding the removal of the “sacred head” W&T reference, the way it read was:

“Remey's reasoning was that since, according to Bahá'í scripture, the Guardian is the ‘sacred head and distinguished member for life’ (W&T)”

This is attributed to Remey, but as far as I know there is no evidence he used the “sacred head” quote as part of his claim. I know that Leland Jensen used it when referring to Remey and that’s probably why I was so attached to using it earlier in the article. The reference probably belongs in the BUPC section unless someone can find a source attributed to Remey.

It has been stated in the past that this article has gotten too long and after re-reading it, I agree plus it doesn't flow well. If we can reach agreement as to the purpose of this article, it would make it a lot easier for all editors involved. If I have a major edit to suggest in the future, I’ll bring it up here first. If I don’t get a response after a reasonable wait, I’ll assume it’s acceptable and I’ll insert it in the main article. Davecornell 01:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as formatting, using the <blockquote> tags made it look strange to me, while {{cquote}} made it look nicer. I changed the tags back, since the rest of the article uses them also.

I reduced some of the redundant quotes about "commander" as mentioned above. I also added the quote Dave requested. Cuñado - Talk 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's better. I still don't see the purpose of mentioning Mason's desire to have his proclamation read in Wilmette, especially when it never took place, much less citing a quote from him saying that. It makes more sense to leave it as: "On 8 April, 1960, Remey publicly announced that he was the second Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith in a (written) proclamation." I think the only reason there's a desire to keep it the way it is is because Mason refers to himself as the "commander in chief" again. But I still think it has nothing to do with his argument to be Guardian. Plus there are three other times he's quoted later in that section using "command(er)". Even though I disagree with the purpose for using the "commander" quotes, I'd settle for leaving the last three in the section in exchange for deleting the whole reference about Wilmette. It seems pointless and irrelevant.

A suggestion for the quotes following "The founding of the UHJ" section - provide the reader with the major references regarding the Guardianship, the Hands and the UHJ so it would read:

To understand the transition following the death of Shoghi Effendi in 1957, a background on the roles of the Guardian, the Hands of the Cause, and the Universal House of Justice is useful. (see the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, pp. 11-14, 20,21; World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 24, 147-158

If the above is accepted, I think the two sections "Criteria for Guardianship" and "Relationship between the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice" could be deleted. The information would be covered in the above references plus I think it's POV on the Writings. However a lot of work and debate went into those paragraphs so I won't hold my breath. Davecornell 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we all should have a standing rule to revert anon edits on-sight — no matter how "convenient" they are to our particular arguments, as Jeffmichaud did with this: [7]

The "Criteria" and "Relationship" sub-sections should stay. CMR's claims are grounded in his readings of both of these points, which his "Proclamation" goes into at length. To neglect these in a neutral context, while going on at length with CMR's statements is POV.

These sub-sections are copiously sourced to documents both sides consider authoritative, and directly address CMR's various claims. I penned a good chunk of these and went out of my way to keep the points made there entirely those of the Master and the Guardian — no commentary or sources from from Custodians, Balyuzi, or Taherzadeh. You're about as willing to see those presented as sources on those points as I am to see Jensen.

We've not set up a straw-man here, but have tried to present a thorough picture. This article has gotten long because the Remeyite editors (Sorry if that's taken as a perjorative. Not intended. Denis MacEoin coined the expression, and I haven't seen one that's as inclusive.) haven't seemed willing to let Remey's claims be merely summarized and referenced — which WP:NPOV#Undue weight would require. And also because the Baha'is aren't (at least I'm not) willing to let these detailed claims go unanswered. We'll have to live with the length. This is one place where both sides can present their arguments without going up-side each groups' articles — and that is, in my opinion, the purpose of this article.

On a tangent: there is an awkward flow to the whole "Founding" section. My recent edit removes nothing, but rearranges a bit for flow and chronological order. MARussellPESE 18:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Since we seem to agree both sides can present their arguments, I'm reinserting the main argument Remey used for his claim, edited down to one line:

It seems very repetive considering the previous paragraph says:

His claim was based on his having been appointed President of the first International Bahá'í Council by Shoghi Effendi in 1951.[24] The appointed council represented the first international Bahá'í body. It was to gain recognition as a religious court, be transformed into an elected body, and further effloresce into the Universal House of Justice, with the Guardian as its head. Remey believed that his appointment as the council's president meant he was the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith:

Cuñado - Talk 00:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It also seems repetitive to have the four references to command/commander in chief, but look where that argument got me. If you want to edit the above paragraph but leave the quote as is, take a shot. Davecornell 00:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Now who's mucking up the works? That last edit makes no sense when all I did was add one quote. It was simple, clear and to the point. I like what MARussell said:

This is one place where both sides can present their arguments without going up-side each groups' articles — and that is, in my opinion, the purpose of this article.

Davecornell 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will and appointment

I restored this:

"When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian."

It does not need to specify that the Hands determined... It is just stating a fact that is acknowledged by everyone. Even Remey never claimed that he was appointed implicitly. In fact, he had to write a lengthy letter explaining to people his reasoning behind why he thought he was the Guardian, and that was after three years of everybody believing that nobody was appointed.

Also, I removed the part indicating that he died without a will. That's not entirely accurate. The requirement of Baha'u'llah in writing a will is to 1)designate inheritance of property and wealth 2)write a testament of faith. Shoghi Effendi wrote extensively, and effectively did not own anything. He was required to appoint a successor during his lifetime, so a will for that purpose was not necessary. The point is, I chose to remove the mention of the absence of a will, rather than add another paragraph about it. If someone can think of a creative way to deal with it, go ahead. Cuñado - Talk 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur. MARussellPESE 18:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jensen's 1969 Conviction

Please see Talk:Leland Jensen for details on this edit. MARussellPESE 14:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reworking of Conclusion

The conclusion contains a number of non-issues, in my opinion. The Bahá'í Faith has long envisioned the possibility for temporary challenges to its leadership. The point its sacred literature makes is that the break-offs will never be permanent (or significant). So, the other supposed arguments (which are not present in Bahá'í literature and are easily knocked down as valid arguments) are just red herrings. To take one example from Shoghi Effendi's writings, "A schism, a permanent cleavage in the vast body of its adherents, they could never create." [8] I thus propose removing several paragraphs that go on with pseudo-rebuttals from so-called Bahá'í sources and point out that this is really a non-issue. If there are mechanisms for expelling "Covenant-breakers", then doesn't that admit that there can be some at least temporary challenges to its leadership? Brettz9 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind that this article is not about how the Baha'i Faith evaluates schism in its ranks, but a list of existing or previous and now extinct divisions among people who define themselves as Baha'is. Any comment on the viability of those schisms according to the teachings of the religion belongs to the realm of the religion itself and not to the Wikipedia, which should remain neutral in its approach to this (and any other) subject. --Jdemarcos 10:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I should say that my point is that there are already criticisms on the viability of those schisms on the page (in the Conclusion), with it being implied that the Bahá'í dogma could not accept the possibility of there ever being any diversion of its membership into separate sects; this is simply not true as the quotation above should make clear (I am open to counter arguments, but I don't think anyone can provide any because in this case, it really is a non-issue as the quotation makes clear). Wikipedia is about knowledge; there are gazillions of articles on religions here at Wikipedia dealing with religious topics and describing their various points of view; the point according to Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion) is that descriptions of these beliefs must remain from a neutral point of view and not side, as an article, in favor or against them. Wikipedia has no problems in making known the beliefs, positions, or rationales of various religious Faiths or denominations, as long as the article is not siding with them (read the policies again, not to mention the precedent in countless other religious articles). And, it is only reasonable that someone wishing to get a knowledge of the situation among Bahá'ís with the issue of schism would also wish to know something about its own attitudes toward the topic, especially if arguments are being described against the Bahá'í Faith's (uncited) supposed position on the issue (which I have proven with a citation not to be its actual position). Opposing views can also be described--but my point in this case is that the arguments within the Conclusion (have you read it?) are red herrings implying a criticism that has no basis; if someone actually wants to cite a source stating unequivocally that Bahá'ís believe there can be no even temporary challenges to its leadership, and thus claim that the official Bahá'í position is different from that described in the quotation I cited above (and thus challenging the Bahá'í Faith's credibility by pointing out that there have in fact been some at least temporary diversions of individuals into following their own spin-off version), then they are welcome to do so. Although the evident falsity of the present argument could warrant the first few paragraphs of the Conclusion being deleted entirely, as it seems that some have come to the conclusion that the Bahá'í Faith has this internal contradiction, then I think it is only reasonable that this belief in there being a contradiction and the official Bahá'í point of view be described as well. Brettz9 11:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsions

The current section reads:

Several individuals have resigned or removed themselves from the rolls as a result of these conflicts, while others were removed by Bahá'í institutions. However, some have retained their Bahá'í identity as "unenrolled Bahá'ís", outside of formal membership. The Universal House of Justice does not recognize them as being either Bahá'ís or covenant-breakers, regarding them simply as non-Bahá'ís. As such they are not subject to shunning.

As one example, in 2000 Alison Marshall was expelled from the New Zealand Bahá'í community. She wrote about the situation relating to her expulsion on her webpage.

This seems very poorly written. Anytime a page says "Some people... " it is misleading and it's a weasel phrase that avoids providing references. I think if this movement of Baha'is resigning is important enough to mention, there should be something more here. If there's nothing to mention besides two people being expelled, then that is just irrelevant. There needs to be some mention as to the scope of the "Some people", or it should be deleted. Cuñado - Talk 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as "unenrolled Bahais" this group seems to have had hundreds of messages. I would think anyone starting to research who is and isn't unenrolled could start here. Wjhonson 18:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a the yahoo group has any meaning. That is useless as a source, since it doesn't indicate that those 182 people were actually Baha'is and disenrolled, just that they joined the group, or joined to find out what they're talking about. Even assuming 182 people in the entire world left the Baha'i Faith, that is still insignificant. Cuñado

- Talk 08:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

Before we get into a revert war, a couple things. Adherents.com states two things:

at least 98% of Baha'is are followers of the House in Haifa. Note the wording "at least."
gives numbers of the BUPC (before the split) at 1400.

Another relevant statistic is the number of Baha'is who are followers of the House in Haifa, which based on published reports normally range in the 5-6 million range (let's use the 5 million number). The other divisions don't have published sources in reliable sources, so based on published reports the percentage is 99.972%. But let's go a little further and use some of the other estimates which don't have reliable sources (I'll make what I think are upper estimates, but could be way off):

Orthodox Baha'is: 1000 (this number is what is regularly stated)
Tarbiyat Bahá'í Community: 1 community, let's say 100 (just a guess)
Bahá'í Loyal to the Fourth Guardian: 1000 (no published numbers or estimates, but make it equal to Orthodox Baha'is)
Baha'is who have left, but consider themselves Baha'is: 1000

Using these numbers, the percentage would be 99.91%, which is still equivalent to what is in the article. You could add another 500 to my estimates so the number would become exactly 99.9%. Of course this latter calculation doesn't pass muster in Wikipedia, so we still back up to what the published reports are, which are 99.972%, which is stated as 99.9%.-- Jeff3000 04:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Your lecture is inane. Does your source say 98%, or 99.972%? I just changed the statement to match what the source actually says, and getting into a huf about it seems silly.

You're trying to convince the audience that the source is wrong. It says what it says. Deal with it.
You're linking to a statistic with (3) that is only data for one group, and isn't relevent to the statistic being stated as it doesn't cover the statistics for all the groups of the article as the statement implies.

If you really want to get into it, the insanely inflated numbers of the sans-guardian Baha'is can be called to the mat, for as Adherents.com clearly shows the numbers are from statistics going back 35+ years. The truth is that there isn't a viable number for the the sans-guardians that's current either, but noones arguing your laughable 5-6 million number cuz that's what the source says. So we'll just have to go by what the sources say, right? Jeff 06:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, there is absolutely nothing stating that any Baha'i division has more than a handful of people in 2006. Your own BUPC appears to be a tiny fractured community on the brink of extinction. The source says "at least 98%" in the Haifa group, and it does not say where the 2% come from. I should also point out that adherents.com is not a great source (and you can quote me on that), since they give numbers of Baha'is in various countries that is well over twice what the NSA's publish for those countries. Their estimate of 1400 for the BUPC comes from what appears to be a side thought of the author, saying that their real membership is probably 1% of the 144,000 that they claim. Cuñado

- Talk 08:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry. I was under the impression that we were to use the information found in the sources we choose to include as the foundation for a statement. Is that only when it's convenient for your purposes? Unbelievable. I can't believe it's even nesseccary to waste a second on this. Great source, or not, I wasn't the one who provided it. It was already there. I checked it to see what it actually says, and what it says is nowhere close to what you all keep reverting back to. You've got nothing to stand on here. Get over it. It says what it says. If it said anything like .1%, then it would be a non-issue.

It doesn't say where the other 2% comes from? You're grasping at air Cunado. It's the only objective source that was provided, and you all are being hypocrites by changing what it actually says and trying to justify it. All this reasoning of yours doesn't mean diddly on this one. Both versions give enormously small statistics and satisfy the point that the divisions groups are teeny weeny compared to the vastly enormously powerful empire of the sans-guardians, so why the big nothing over this? I'm only suggesting that the statement reflect what the source actually says. What's the problem? Jeff 09:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows for statistics to be combined in mathematical calculations from sources and stated in articles, and that is what is being done. There are no estimates of any Baha'i division except for the Haifan Baha'is and the BUPC (before the split). As for the statistics of the Haifan Baha'is, there are tons of references that even point to more than 5 million, and these come highly reputable sources including Encyclopaedia Brittanica, but I was conservative and used a lower estimate. -- Jeff3000 14:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note, that that the "at least 98%" from adherents.com also contains the Babi/Azali/Bayani populations (which based on Encyclopedia Brittanica "number no more than a few thousand"). In this article we are just interested in the Baha'i divisions and we need to separate the Babi populations from the Baha'i populations, which the 98% value does not do. -- Jeff3000 15:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really expect a surge of resistence over such a small thing, but whatever; here we are. I would love to see the policy you seem so sure about that says you can make up numbers when none are available. That is exactly what you're doing, and it's just not the way things work. Of course you can combine numbers from sources, but you admittedly have no sources to draw from for these groups, so you are by all accounts just making them up, aren't you? Adherts.com is mentioned in the previous sentence, with the actual statistic conveniently left out, and the following sentence which links to the same source has a fabricated number. You can't just make things up, especially when it comes to a half a dozen separate groups for which you know nothing about. Let's try and find some wording that is inside the guidelines we always work within, shall we? Jeff 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See WP:ATT#What_is_not_original_research, which is set to complement WP:V and WP:NOR. From there "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data ... For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast in an election, it is not original research to calculate a percentage". You should also read the talk page of WP:NOR, which goes into many mathematical calculations. The fact is that the 98% also deals with the Babi Faith which is not the point of this article, and based on published reports we can make a more accurate conclusion. -- Jeff3000 19:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I understand your reasoning for coming up with the percentage you did based upon the above, but where did you get the statistic "Baha'is who have left, but consider themselves Baha'is: 1000"? That seems like a pretty random and small number unless it's supported somewhere. Davecornell 20:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean if there can be 1000 who have left but consider themselves Baha'is, why can't there be 10,000? And if there can be 10,000, why can't there be 100,000? Davecornell 01:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dave, each order of magnitude you suggest becomes progressively less and less likely, by orders of magnitude, as there's no strong support I have seen even for the 1,000 figures that Jeff3000 appears to use here for the sake of argument. MARussellPESE 05:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely negligable on your part Jeff30000000. I've already said all there is to say. YOU HAVE NO PUBLISHED SOURCES! So, your logical deductions aren't logical at all. These numbers that you're tossing around are fabrications of your imagination. You have no idea what the populations of any Babi group or division group is by your own admission. Your making these numbers up based on assumptions. All of your bable about these wiki-guidelines is inane, inane, inane! They have nothing to do with this. Nowhere can you justify this .1% statement with anything verifiable. That source in no way verifies the statement it's linked to. You're assumption is that Adherents.com attributed 1.9% of the 2 to being Babi's. Where is that coming from? The same place your other numbers came from: thin air.

I've tried to reword this four different ways, and you have the nerve to warn me about the 3RR rule on my talk page. I'm trying to be flexible and praticle about this (which I assumed would be a no-brainer), and you're the one who won't even consider the possibility that there could be an error that I'm trying to correct. This is ridiculous. First, you incorrectly attributed a number about the BUPC to all division groups, which was an error on your part. Then when shown your were wrong, you are now just making stuff up. Why all this about nothing? The point can be made a number of ways as I've already attempted several. You are now the one on the verge of violating the 3RR rule, because unlike me you keep reverting to back to the identical error which I've thrice try to reword and make right. I don't care how you word it, but it can't state something as fact and link to a source that doesnt' support it. The statement you keep reverting back to says "Based on published numbers", and yet you yourself admit that there are no published numbers, and ever more the link to it doesn't support the number you're providing. What exactly is the justification? Jeff 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, you want to read WP:3RR. Your edits are effectively reverts.

These "half a dozen separate groups for which you know nothing about" are precisely obscure and next-to-impossible to research exactly because they are so small. Do you know anything of the others?

If your "estimated" 2% value were even in the ball park then there ought to be 100,000 heterodox Baha'is floating around — about 17,000 for each group. (Adherents doesn't credit the BUPC with even 10% of this, nor does it even identify any other group.) That these groups appear to have entirely escaped the notice of anyone interested, strongly suggests that even this order of magnitude is overstated.

If you get out a calculator and do some arithmetic:

Assume the BUPC at 2,000 members. (per Adherents.com but nobody else)
Assume the four or five other Remeyite groups are similar. (An assumption I think you would find generous and have even less substantiation.)

Total = 10,000

Take the least number of Baha'is from reasonable sources: 5,000,000.

10,000 / 5,000,000 = 0.002 = 0.2%

To get to 2% the total number of Remeyite groups would have to be ten times larger — an entire order of magnitude larger than this guesswork can provide. And there's precious little direct evidence to even support that base 10,000 number. Therefore your edits of "estimated 2%" are incorrect on inspection.

All that said, I've never liked presenting a value of three significant digits when there's disagreement on the first significant digit of total Baha'is (5M, 6M, 7M, ???) and nobody can even get a grip on what order of magnitude of heterodox Baha'is are even in the game. (Scores? Hundreds? Thousands?) We have estimates of "perhaps a few thousand", so, if we're going to stick some number in, I don't think we can get any better than "99%+ are Baha'is" or "about one in one thousand are not."

It'd probably be better to read "the vast majority are Baha'is". While that sounds hyperbolic, the best data strongly supports it. And sweeping statements do have a home in here if so supported. MARussellPESE 05:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Praise the lord. A voice of reason. Let me first agree that "a vast majority" is the only sound statement that can be made based upon what's verifiable. I'm the first to admit that I haven't a notion to what proper numbers can be placed in these statements. You all keep coming up with figures that are fabrications based on assumptions. As I pointed out, your extrapolations provide for a number of Babis that's in the order of some 100k. You feel that's likely?

If you look at my edits, I've only been trying to make the statement match what the source provided says. Since when is that out of order? Jeff30000000 and Cunado are being negligable in this case. NOBODY knows what the numbers are, so all these calculations are hopelessly meaningless. I've never argued numbers on this topic. I looked at the link provided, and it simply doesn't support the statement. I'm not married to it stating 2%, or any particular %. I wrote that because that's what the source says. I've believed all along that I've just been conducting responsible editing. I'm in favor of removing the whole sentence if it's not going to reflect what the source provided actually provides for. The sentence should be removed if we can't agree that it state the numbers given by the source. I, like Cunado, agree its a lame source in the first place. Any and all "estimates" for the division group adherents are bogus, because they are baseless assumptions rooted in nothing. The whole notion of statistics with religions is flawed at it core, and an unsolveable mess. Any claim by any group across the board is an inflated smokescreen, IMHO. I move that in this case the sentence be removed and the paragraph end with "the vast majority...". Jeff 06:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another try

This argument of yours is quite ridiculous. There are probably more websites than devoted families in the BUPC, and if you want to prove me wrong then it should be fairly easy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but you have been more than happy to leave an estimate giving the BUPC at 1000 people by someone shooting from the hip on a blog, and now you're trying to remove any mention that gives the scope of the followers of Jensen, to your advantage. Without providing anything readers are left to assume that the divisions are large enough to merit inclusion on these pages. I suggest that the absence of evidence needs to be noted.

I'm going to try another rewording of this difficult subject. Cuñado

- Talk 21:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Then note the absense of evidence in the article. Where do you get off on making up statistics? I'm just dumbfounded that you or anyone feel justified in continuing this nonsense. You were the one who included the statistics for the BUPC in this and the main article. Why are you now harrassing me about it. I've never had anything to do with any of these statistics. I have been advocating following the wiki-guidlines in this matter, and that is all. Where are you coming from all of a sudden. There was an apparent truce on this matter over a week ago when Jeff300 finally did the right thing and worded the intro in an appropriate manner, after MARussell weighed in. If you wanted to participate in the discussion, where have you been. And what's this memory trouble you've been suffering from? I've had nothing to do with the origination of any of these statistics - you did. Since when does Wikipedia allow for making up statistics when none are available? You can't include hearsay in articles in case you weren't aware. Your "1000" number for each group is hearsay/rumor, unverifiable, and therefor unfit for inclusion. GET OVER IT! Jeff 01:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said you added the info. By saying that the size of the divisions is unknown, it leaves it open for speculation, when in fact their size is unknown because they are so small that they virtually don't exist. Let me put it another way, if there is no evidence that a group is over 100 people, then I should be able to note in the article "there is no evidence that there are over 100" of so-and-so. I don't need a reference, because it's saying that there's an absence of evidence, which is impossible to provide a reference to. Do you get it? By insisting that we leave such a reference out, you are twisting it around. The only references to numbers are completely speculative, and I noted that they are without research, and noted what they estimate. Cuñado

- Talk 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently "this argument of [mine]" wasn't that ridiculous to the others who participated in the discussion which settled this a week ago, because mine was the "arguement" that won out, wasn't it? My argument is based on reality, not the fiction of your made up statistics. I've been arguing that any statement which links to that statistic should reflect what that statistic actually says, or not be used at all. Where do you get off on attacking me for standing up against an obvious violation of academic standards. You're a hypocrite and a fraud for taking this stance which cannot be justified in any way.

This is not a matter of logic, and even if it was, you're way off. I'll try and make this simple, for it truly is. You've stated a number (.1%), and attatched a footnote to it right? Why don't you find a reference that actually supports this statement, instead of using one that doesn't? That particular one doesn't support what you're saying, and adding your own speculation to the note doesn't solve this obvious quandry. You are stating hearsay and speculation as fact, and not even in the article. You're burying it in the notes. Riddle me this. Which wiki-guideline allows an editor to adjust the calculations of a source for which said editor disagrees with? I've got another once you solve that one. Which wiki-guideline allows an editor to speculate upon statistics when none exist? Jeff 03:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish Cuñado had not added a specific number to this article, but I do understand why. The total number of all the Baha'i splinter groups seems to be anywhere from 2,000 to 10,000. (The best sources available are already here in Wikipedia; and the dearth even of claims by Marangella's, Soghomonian's, King's, and the Tarbiyat groups should be taken seriously.) The smallest estimate for Baha'is is 5,000,000. 10,000 / 5,000,000 = 0.002, 0.2%, or 99.8% maximum. If, and there's no evidence of this, the estimate of either the splinter groups, or the Baha'is is off by an order of magnitude, that number explodes to all of 2%.

The differences in the populations between the Baha'is and all other claimed splinter groups is an astounding three orders of magnitude. We're talking about tenths of percentage points. Jeffmichaud, you are not really helping the discussion quibbling over this, and Cuñado's 99% figure is certainly supported by the statistics.

My problem with any figure is that it implies a level of precision that is just not possible from the available data. Dividing a number in the thousands having at one significant digit by another number in the millions with one significant digit results in an answer that is significant to one digit. 1x10^4 / 5x10^6 = 2x10^-3, or 0.002. However, when there is uncertainty in even that first digit in either number, any arithmetic involving either is really meaningless.

I do think that this version's first paragraph does get the point across. MARussellPESE 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the page says less than 1%, that would give an important scope to the size of the divisions, but at the same time that means that there are at most 50,000 of them, which anyone familiar with the subject would scoff at as outrageously too high. Whoever is writing at Adherents.com probably ran into the same dilemna, and gave an incredibly gracious and arbitrary figure to avoid implying accuracy, but still at least mention the scope. Given the incredibly fractured nature of religions in general, by not mentioning anything besides "almost entirely contained within one" denomination, a reader could easily interpret that the divisions represent 10-15% (500,000-750,000), a conclusion that obviously favors the people trying to propagate those beliefs (like Jeffmichaud). If I can't footnote an explanation, then I'll just add a new section to the top explaining that the divisions are so small that nobody knows how many members there are. I don't need a evidence to show the absence of evidence, since it can be refuted with evidence. Cuñado

- Talk 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of that language would be argumentative. Certainly *somebody* knows how big each division is. That somebody, however, not releasing numbers, can't be used obviously. I really don't see the need for percentages. For what purpose? "Small", or "slight" or some other vague language is fine. Or use adherents statement of 98%. Wjhonson 20:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Who do you propose those *somebodies* are? They don't even post enrollment claims about themselves that we can even begin to evaluate the veracity of.

We can't really use the Adherents number because that itself lacks credible backup. Cuñado appears to be getting at the point that the total number of all these groups, Sohrab's, Kierullah, and Remeyite, taken collectively is vanishingly small.

Cuñado, I don't think that the expression "vast majority" following the Universal House of Justice could leave anybody with the impression that 10% - 15% of those claiming to be Baha'is are not following the House of Justice; especially if one reads all the introduction in toto as of this writing. Good Lord, we have Denis MacEoin cited here supporting this position. Reading of these groups in turn in this article, one is noted cited as having a thousand or so, one at perhaps a hundred, one with a singe community, and the rest either defunct, or without any idea of their membership.

You also haven't really addressed any of my points on false precision, which is disappointing, but does bear on the presentation. Please let's let the percentage figure drop. MARussellPESE 04:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Who they are isn't relevant. My sole point being that language like "nobody knows" is argumentative because it presupposes some kind of all-encompassing knowledge by the editor. Language such as "these groups do not publish their membership counts" would be a more accurate way to state the situation imho. Adherents is a reliable and reputable site, the issue of whether their number itself is factual isn't our perview. "We report what others say". Saying that adherents says it, is a verifiable statement, and adherents is a neutral point-of-view website. I don't see much need to state any percentages, but we have to be neutral where the situation is unclear. Wjhonson 06:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Wjhonson, it is our purview to exercise some critical thinking and check whether or not a citation is credible. We need to assume some responsibility and evaluate what others say and not just parrot it here and call it credible. NPOV sources and still be wrong and we need to ensure that references coordinate and cross-check. MARussellPESE 04:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're claiming without any evidence tha adherents number isn't credible simply because... you don't want it to be? Parroting is not the same as "calling something crebible". Also credible is not part of wikipedia. You could start a new page on "credible". However what is a part of policy is verifiability, which is why unsourced claims on disputed issues, can't be used. Wjhonson 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The absence of evidence isn't mine — its Adherent's. Adherents isn't credible on this point precisly because it doesn't cite its sources for its "98%" figure [9].

"credible is not part of wikipedia"???? What are we providing here? Incredible data? WP:V and WP:RS both states a clear preference for reputably published sources. Adherents tries very hard, but they don't get there; and that's why its our job to not just parrot anything we trip across online . MARussellPESE 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to be on the cafeteria plan. You want to pick-and-choose what you use off adherents and enforce your opinion of what's credible on others. If you open the door to using adherents as a reliable, reputable site then you've opened the door haven't you? To then say, well part of their site is credible even without sources (since they have almost NONE), and part isn't, without those same sources, is intellectually disingenious. You want to essentially choose what's credible based on your own, personal, preconceived ideas of what you want it to say. That's not a neutral point-of-view. Again I'm not advocating that we MUST use the "98%" figure, only that your slippery slope of "credible" is not a wikipedian idea. Wikipedia asks for verifiability to the *source cited*. We do not have to plumb any deeper, once the source has been vetted as reliable, which you acknowledge. Wjhonson 17:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't consider Adherents.com very reliable at all. It itself isn't any more credible than what it cites, and then you have to look at those. Which, by the way is a wikipedian idea. Would you please read WP:RS for once. You seem to consider anything printed, whether in electronic form or on paper, as reliable. Wikipedai doesn't. I prefer to use my wits and investigate for myself, and do some scholarship; and not credulously cite the first thing I trip across. MARussellPESE 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, I helped write WP:RS so I think I'm pretty boned-up on what it says and doesn't say. I never said anything printed is reliable. But if the adherents site is going to be sourced, it needs to be done so accurately and thus quoting what it says. Instead of glossing what it says to fit your own particular agenda. Whenever someone disagrees with your method, you turn and launch a personal attack on their intelligence. It's really beneath you isn't it? Wjhonson 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Which method is that? Corroborating facts and sources? We've had this discussion, and it didn't fly with you. And 'scuse me, but I didn't call you "intellectually disingenious".

I'm not "glossing" up Adherents it to fit any "agenda" — because, for the umpteenth time, I don't use it as a source, and generally don't consider it reliable. If I've got an agenda it's to check and state the facts. In this case that the Remeyite groups are virtually extinct, and I've got the integrity to use a noted critic of the Baha'is (MacEoin) to make the point.

You helped write WP:RS? You have eight edits on a page with over 700; and two contributions to the talk page. Seven of those edits to the article were on 2006-07-23 and consisted basically of turning a paragraph into a bullet list and correcting typos. I'm duly chastened. MARussellPESE 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And you think quoting and citing a source is "copyright infringement" and think WP:V means "factually accurate". So it's time to get off your high horse and cool your jets. The only thing I did on *this* page is make the citation accurate to what the cited article actually stated. So again what's the basis for this personal attack ? Wjhonson 04:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack? Calling all of us here to exercise critical thinking and present credible sources? Why do you need to take that as a personal attack? WP:AGF And WP:V does say that sources should be reliable. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If that's a high horse, I'll stay there. The view is better and you cover more ground. MARussellPESE 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Undent* And the talk page my dear is archived many times. Are you quite sure you checked all the archives? Wjhonson 04:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

MARussellPESE, I'm not sure if you wrote that before or after this version, but I removed the mention of any numbers, except for the "at least 5 million" of the large group. I did agree with your comments, although I didn't comment on it here. Cuñado

- Talk 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My comments above do post-date your updating the introduction. Apologies for talking about old news apparently. It is difficult to meaningfully contribute to a discussion while editing is going on if one doesn't actually pay attention to the article. My apologies. MARussellPESE 04:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Remey and those who followed him"

This letter is not the UHJ's "position" on the subject. It recounts the well-documented disintegration of Remey's followers. MacEoin and Warburg also comment on these and are cited. The evidence of the BUPC's disintegration is amply described on it's various articles and talk pages here. Marangella and Harvey had choice words about each other, and both thought little of Jensen — to say the least. This source is concise and convenient, and describes documented events. MARussellPESE 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You forgot biased. Which is why it can't be a single source for "what happened". Wjhonson 04:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why it isn't. MARussellPESE 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dearest Michael, you're really taking some generous liberties with the value of that paper. The only thing I think I could agree with you on about it is that it's convenient. "Well documented disintegration"? I didn't know there was any formal documentation from third parties. That is a position paper by every definition. I'm not suggesting anything regarding censoring it in any way. But a least be honest about what it truly is. There's no bibliography and no sources, unless you consider the Hands and Rhuyiah unbiased witnesses. There's basically nothing indicating that third party information was contributed to the conclusions in any way. It's a compiliation of rumors. And the fact that MacEoin and Warburg would refer to it is proof enough of what intellectually bankrupt hacks they truly are, and how valueless anything they have to write truly is. Noone went out into the field to track down this information, and cross-check it's validity. It begs the question then, where's the source of the information. We know what it's based on, and why it was written. It's all hearsay and rumor. Let's call a spade a spade here. Jeff 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Before you throw invective around Jeff, please note that MacEoin and Warburg don't cite the UHJ. Their research is entirely independent and often critical — so that is third-party confirmation. Most of the rest of the data of what these groups think of each other can be found in their respective literature. The only thing this letter does is collect it into one place. MARussellPESE 13:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I misreead. My mistake. But your starting with semantics again. This paper isn't treated as a "what these groups think of each other" retrospective piece. It states this happened then this then this. What each group thinks of each other isn't really the point, and niether does it strenghten your weak position on this to say so. How is what Joel has to say about the BUPC an unbiased source for information about the BUPC. What you're selling here is laughable.

But thank you for confirming what I said originally about this position paper : "The only thing this letter does is collect it into one place". That's what I said. It's a compilation of rumors, the most liable that could be tracked down. It was really sweet of the UHJ to compile all the hearsay into one place so that it's sheep wouldn't have to look any deeper into the matter. Jeff 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael what are the sources used for the paper? You want sources for adherent's "98%" so what are the sources on this UHJ-approved paper. Wjhonson 18:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually after I wrote that, I scanned it for sources. There are "Footnotes" or "Notes" at the bottom which really don't tie to any specific line in the document. And aren't they all one-sided? Wjhonson 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The document is not supposed to be an academic research paper, for God's sake, it was written to National Assemblies following attempts by Marangella to advertise to Baha'is around the world. It was written to Baha'is. The Continental Counselors around the world have been monitoring Covenant-breakers for many decades, and citing them would be a silly thing for the reseach department to do. As far as I can tell there are only two - maybe three - points that are not confirmed elsewhere. To bring up adherents.com again, they say "A useful and fairly comprehensive treatment of the subject (although published by the majority Baha'i body, so it is clearly not without bias) can be found here [link to the document we're talking about]." I think that's how it should be presented here on wikipedia, not as a source of unbiased information, but "a treatment of the subject" by the Universal House of Justice, with a link. Cuñado

- Talk 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, language like "treatment" is fine. "Comprehensive" is arguable as I think we can all agree that the wikipages are many times more comprehensive than this short document. So it would be a bit silly to say "here's a comprehensive" treatment, when we already have one right here that's much more detailed. Wjhonson 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with above. Cuñado

- Talk 00:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson and Jeffmichaud, since I have your attention, I'd like you to observe closely exactly how, why, and where I use this paper as a source here. This illustrates what I expect of contributions here, at least mine. I expect to push through sources to get as close as possible to primary sources and then check to see that they corroborate each other.

This letter is used to source exactly five points:

"Shoghi Effendi's appointed Hands of the Cause unanimously voted it was impossible to legitimately recognize and assent to a successor."
"The 27 living Hands of the Cause (Hands), … signed a unanimous proclamation … shortly after the passing of Shoghi Effendi, stating … [etc., etc.]"
"Charles Mason Remey was among the Hands who signed the unanimous proclamations in 1957, acknowledging that Shoghi Effendi had died without having appointed his successor. He was among the nine Custodians elected to serve in the Holy Land as interim head of the Faith."
"All those that profess belief in Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the Universal House of Justice established in 1963, but amongst themselves have a variety of opinions on legitimacy and the proper succession of authority."
"He was largely abandoned by the time of his death, at the age of 100, and was buried without religious rites."

Items 1., 2., and the first half of 3. are essentially the same point: Remey initially was in agreement with all the other Hands. This point is corroborated in Ministry of the Custodians on pages 28-30, as noted in Note 19. The source for these statements are a "statement" and "proclamation" that were widely disseminated around the Baha'i community. These aren't in somebody's shoebox somewhere. The veracity of the existence and content of these documents are above suspision. An online link is provided in those letters for anybody to see these for themselves.

The second half of point 3., that Remey was one of the first nine elected to serve in Haifa, likewise relies on Custodians, p. 30, and is in the same proclamation.

Point 4. is sufficiently obvious from even casual perusal of these groups' discussions of each other, that this paper's usefulness as a single source is plain.

Point 5. is addressed directly by Ruhiyyih Rabbani in her introduction to Custodians, p. 16, and is corroborated entirely by a Remeyite website [10]which says:

"At the time of his death, Remey had few faithful supporters. Among those steadfast, the author has had acquaintance with Joseph Pepe, Charles Gaines, Mary Magdalene Wilkins, Donald Harvey, Jacques Soghomonian, Jean Miller, and several others that need anonymity.

Remey lived his remaining years in relative inactivity, and his loyal supporters became mostly quiescent. He died February 4, 1974, at the age of ninety-nine in Florence, Italy. After a simple burial, Pepe, with the assistance of some of Remey’s supporters, arranged for a monument at Remey’s grave.:

Now, this letter makes quite a few provocative statements:

"Marangella's excuse for ignoring Remey's formal appointment of Harvey as his successor was that Remey was exhibiting irrational behaviour."
"As the dispute over the leadership of Remey's following broke into the open, however, Carré suddenly emerged as a spokesman for the bizarre and entirely unrelated claims of one Jamshid Ma'ani."
"Meanwhile, in the United States, two more Covenant-breaking factions [King's and Marangella's] had emerged and were bitterly denouncing one another."
"Perhaps the strangest development in this long and confused history was one centering on a person [Giusepe Pepe] who was neither a member of the Faith nor had taken any role in the activities of the various Covenant-breakers."

Probably the strongest is:

"The emergence of Jensen marks a further deterioration in the moral character of the group following Remey."

I expect you both to note that I have not used this letter to make any of these, or any other, points. There are two reasons for this:

First, the letter's notes do not address these. Wjhonson, you asked what the letter's notes covered. Please observe that where I've noted Custodians around pages 29-30 here, the letter's notes cited the same range, and linked to Custodians.
Second, many of these points are made more forcefully independently — either from observing these groups in particular, or reading through the notes already here.

So, bottom line: this letter is useful here where it has cited its sources, but in my opinion is not where it hasn't — which is why I haven't used it to assert any of its other points.

Wjhonson, that is what I mean by not parroting what we trip across online, but pushing through to evaluate its sources. You will notice that that's a standard I put my own religion's works through before it goes in. Ask Cuñado or Jeff3000 if I don't do it to them too. And they've done it to me. I did it right here on the 98.7654321% question. Jeffmichaud, you've found it come to your relief as well in your articles.

Given the care with which I have treated this work evaluating sources, and the even-handed treatment your edits have received, these continual broadsides accusing bias from the both of you don't have legs to stand on.

And Jeff, I'm tired of the cheap shots on this subject. There's nearly 1,000 pages of work, between Taherzadeh's Covenant of Baha'u'llah and Ruhiyyih Khanum's Custodians, for Baha'is to study on this subject. I've read them both. Most of the deepened believers I know have as well. Not one of the Baha'is here have ever made mention of the BUPC's documented practice of revising its eschatological prophecies post facto, much less made sarcastic remarks about them. Neither have we referred to prophecies about the Great Pyramid, which are to be found in exactly none of the writings except for Shoghi Effendi to state that there aren't any to be found in the writings. So tone it down if you please. MARussellPESE 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tone what down? My pointing out what should be obvious. And this is funny: "Not one of the Baha'is here have ever... made sarcastic remarks about them"? I guess you don't keep abreast of all the discussions surrounding the BUPC pages. You're saying, with a straight face, you're not aware of a barrage of cheap shots and sarcasm directed at the BUPC's beliefs? You yourself have never made even one sarcastic comment? And noone else either. It's all me right? And you all are victims of "continual broadsides" and "cheap shots"? ROFLOL!!! Hold on, I'm having an asthma attack from laughing so hard. Okay...First of all, I do believe that I've be honest in my discussions with you; stating clearly when I disagree, and likewise acknowledging your often fair and unbiased approach where applicible. Please tell me if I'm wrong, because I'm as quick to apologise for my misunderstandings as I am to defend my convictions. Is that a fair statement about myself? I can't actually recall accusing you of bias or being disingenuine in the past. Cunado, and Jeff3000000, well, that's different. They often are in my opinion. We're diametrically opposed intellectually, so naturally I'm often at odds with you, but I believe I've always called a spade a spade pointing out both the positive and negative. You sound as if you believe that the times you've been acting in good faith as an editor should be regarded as favors. I never asked you for any favors. I assumed this was a characteristic of your nature as an editor.

Let's rewind what's happended in this line of discussion. I made an edit that I believed was a minor oversight in the article which stated that the position paper was "what happened to these groups"; I changed it to what I believed was a neutral position. After your rebuttal to justify your revert of my edit (which hasn't stood I should note), I stated at the outset that "I'm not suggesting anything regarding censoring it in any way." So what's your problem? I've agreed that we can disagree. Gotta-be-right-all-the-time syndrome? You go through this whole diatribe about how where it's used as a source, and noone challenged those points in the first place. I was just pointing out that not everyone sees this paper as a paper on "what happened". So it's not a neutral thing to say then, is it?

I honestly think it's pompous and self-righteous for any so-called Baha'is around here to stand in judgement of any other. Noone here has remained exempt from ridicule and or sarcasm. The record shows that it's been served up in equal portions. If anyone believes I'm casting the first and only stones around here, they're a hypocrite in my opinion. Jeff 08:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I've dished out more than my share, but nobody's refered to the BUPC, individually or collectively, as: "sheep", made dismissive comments about editors "playing nicely with the other kids", being "cute" and "tattling", or accused you of "making up statistics".

I do get sarcastic when I question assertions and the answer is nothing more than a repeated assertion, but you haven't done that in a long while. It's made it easier to deal fairly with the subject and I appreciate that.

I would point out that one of the most difficult areas to deal with regarding the BUPC is the bewildering array of prophetic statements of Jensen's and Chase's. It's not sarcastic to ask to provide documentation about these have been independently published prior to the events. MARussellPESE 04:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What does any of what you just said have to do with your revert and that position paper? I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. And I'm sure that you don't. What do prophecies now have to do with anything? If you'd like to start a new topic about that stuff, then let's. I have a better idea. Why don't you participate in the already on-going discussions about our prophecies that you're obviously aware of, instead of taking a cheap shot at me about them here where they are not the subject at hand?

Back to the actual kind-of-sort-of-topic (that's now being beaten to death); let's finish our downward spiral into discussing how we feel about the way we discuss things in general. Sorry, but all of your examples of me being rude didn't involve interactions that you participated in, did they? You're bringing up stuff that I said to other editors in the middle of heated discussions that you weren't even involved in; which dissappoints me to know that you were observing them and intentionally remaining uninvolved. I've always felt you have a knack for getting at the root of edit wars and resolving them. To know that you've been watching the ones I've been in and sitting it out makes me think a little less of you.

So I'll assume that you do agree that in dealing with YOU, MARussell, that I'm as quick to criticise as I am to praise your work. Is that a fair statement? Now if you want to isolate my words and try and paint me out to be some sort of tyrant, I'll have to call shananigans on that. It's simply not fair, and you know it. I'm defensive when being attacked by bratty little know-it-alls, just like anyone else. If the kids around here can dish it out, they should be able to take it too. If some people want to try and push me around, then they're growed up enough to get shoved back. That's the way the sandbox works. I've watched these same bully tactics scare away others. Well guess what? I cannot be deterred. I don't have to defend my beliefs, just there right to be a part of Wikipedia. That's all I'm doing here. Noone should take any of it personally. I'm as passionate as you obviously are, so I would expect you of all people to understand. Jeff 06:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glaysher's site

Wjohnson, the correct question is "What evidence merits this site's inclusion?" per the opening paragraph of WP:V.

However, a cursory inspection reveals that this is indeed a personal site and does not represent any organization.

There are no published references to this group.
There are no online references that are not mirrors of each other, or reformbahai.org itself.
Virtually all the blog and usegroup references to this "organization" are by Glaysher himself. [11]
The Open Directory Project has exactly zero pages associated with this after two years.[12] By way of comparison, there's 254 Bahá'í sites, and even the OBF has eight and BUPC five.[13]

WP:V and WP:RS require that editors who want information in must present their evidence. This site is deleted per those policies, particularly WP:V#SELF. These criteria would be applicable to almost any of the "unenrolled" Baha'i sites. WP:External links#Links normally to be avoided, Point 11, is specific that personal websites are to be avoided, unless it belongs to a recognized authority. Hence Cole's website is a good link, but this isn't. MARussellPESE 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the dispute about the Swiss Bahai critic F. Ficicchia

within chapter "other disputes" I read the following about Mr. Ficicchia:
In Switzerland, Francesco Ficicchia wrote a comprehensive pseudo-academic attack, Der Baha'ismus – Weltreligion der Zukunft? (Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen, Quell Verlag, Stuttgart, 1981). His work was financed and distributed by the Protestant Church in Germany. A book by Bahá'í scholar Udo Schaefer, et. al., originally titled Desinformation als Methode (English title: Making the Crooked Straight, 2000), was written to refute Ficicchia's accusations.[49] Scholarly reviews styled Schaefer’s book as “an important contribution to the critical study of the Bahá’í religion”[50] “clarifying many misconceptions” and presenting “a picture of the Baha’i Faith that no future researcher in the field can afford to overlook”[51]. Since its publication the German Protestant Church has disassociated itself from Ficicchia's book[52] and revised its own relationship to the German Bahá’í Community[53], and since then has accepted it as an important partner in interreligious dialogue.

I contacted the EZW and received following reply:

Sehr geehrter Herr XXXX,

eine Aufkündigung der Zusammenarbeit mit Francesco Ficicchia hat es von Seiten der EZW nicht gegeben. Die Forschungen zum Bahai'ismus sind weitergegangen und werden weitergehen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Dr. Reinhard Hempelmann

Dr. Reinhard Hempelmann
Leiter der EZW
Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen (EZW) Auguststraße 80
10117 Berlin
Telefon 030 28395-126
Telefax 030 28395-212
E-Mail hempelmann@ezw-berlin.de Internet www.ezw-berlin.de
Translation:
The cooperation with F. Ficicchia has never been quit on the side of the EZW. The research about Bahaism is going on and will go on.[..]

Therefore this part of the article is false and has to be removed immediately. Seems to be a product of Bahai-defamation!--193.171.99.108 08:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry friend, but the statement appears to be sourced and verifiable. Didn't you notice the footnote? A possible solution to this dicotomy might be to source your information as well and contrast it against the current statement to show the varying opinions about the matter. Jeff 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What is of importance here is that the EZW has disassociated itself from Ficicchia's original book. The question of any further cooperation between Ficicchia and the Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen is not really of interest in this context. Regards, -- Jeff3000 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey com'on
How can you go on cooperating with someone who disqualifies your main work as pseudo-academic?
PS: Wikipedia should find a way to lock mods who are obviously not neutral.
-- 07:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the relevant thing here is that the book exists. Whether the Evangelical Church publishing house supports it or not is as irrelevant as if Udo Schaefer is supported by the UHJ or not. Supports do not give more or less credibility to arguments. Therefore I think that the sentence on the publishing house should be removed, as well as the POV reference to the "pseudo-academic" nature of the book. --jofframes 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good news anonymous contributor, there are no mods here preventing anyone from doing anything. The reason that an obviously biased POV statement like that can be included is because it's from a reliable source, and verifiable. You're welcome to make a contribution to the article, just like the rest of the 6 billion people on the planet. I'd suggest registering with a username first, as there is a quasi-consensus to revert contributions from anonymous authors. Just sign up, and start improving away.

I think jofframes has a great point, but I can guess that the Baha'is here would argue that because of these seemingly careless remarks from the reveiwer Ulrich Ben, that the statement is verifiable, whether true or fair or accurate. I think that relevency here supercedes verifiable though. You have a good point that it's a non issue. And you're right, the "psuedo-academic" statement is POV. Who even said a criticism has to be academic in the first place? It's POV. Remove it.Jeff 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jofframes, agree with removing the slap: "pseudo-academic". I read all three English-language reviews and couldn't find a specific citation. If it's in the Dhen citations, that's only of limited value as a WP:A source. However, Mipago added these German-language sources in this edit, and the "pseudo-academic" tag was already there. This seems clearly un-supported POV.

Disagree, however, with removing the sentence noting the connection to the German Protestant Church's support. According to all three reviews this book was the standard German-language text, and that they've revised their position speaks well of them. There may be a way to phrase this that flows better.

New point: I'm not sure what this entire paragraph is doing here. This deals with external criticism and apologia. It seems entirely out of place here. Does this belong in Baha'i apologetics? MARussellPESE 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about moving it to Baha'i apologetics. I still think that allusions to the Evangelische Kirche are irrelevant. That their current position speaks well of them or not is also irrelevant for the issue. --jofframes 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is the reference to the documented support Ficicchia received irrelevant? He did not perform his research in a vacuum. If the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had sponsored the reasearch producing such a roundly criticized polemic, that would certainly be notable; as would its eventual distancing itself from it. In its German context, the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, of which the EZW appears to be its research office for world religions, is by no means a fringe group.

And once it's on the table that they supported Ficicchia initially, it can't, in any fairness to them, be left there without noting that their position has evolved.

Aside: I have no German, but the the EZW can be translated with some dictionary help. I found [14] particularly useful breaking down the compound word, and [15] helpful with the definitions:

Evangelische - Protestant
Zentralstelle - Central Office
für - for
Weltanschauungsfragen - World (welt) Outlook/View (anschauungs) Issues/Questions (fragen)

That's clearly an office that would be interested in exploring other religions. And of course their research would be continuing. MARussellPESE 12:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the text is about Baha'i divisions/Baha'i apologetics, not about how the Evangelische Kirche regards and treats Baha'is. --jofframes 23:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's an assertion; and it's not convincing. The EKD's involvement, support and ultimate dissociation is clearly pertinent background on Ficicchia's work as it was well known in the German-speaking world. It's omission here would be unencyclopaedic.

But, we are agreed that this paragraph should be moved to Bahá'í apologetics as an example of same? MARussellPESE 13:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey most of you misunderstand the intention of this defamation
It's totally nuts by whom Mr. Ficicchia was supported. This makes his arguments by no means falser. The intention of this paragraph is to disqualify all the works of a severe Baha'i critic. The intention is to reduce all his arguments onto a level of personal fuddy duddy without any objectivity.
It's totally laughing reasding all this excuses like: "OK his work was disqualified by his big spender as pseudoacademic botch, but they enjoy it going on working with him". That makes no sense, it's an oxymoron. 08:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misusing of my IP address

The above user misused twice my IP-address!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I deleted and want to distance from it!

What exactly is your concern? This sentence makes no sense. Can someone here help you in some way specifically? Start with who exactly you're addressing, and how was your IP "misused". Jeff 00:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A user above posted following text:

"Hey most of you misunderstand the intention of this defamation It's totally nuts by whom Mr. Ficicchia was supported. This makes his arguments by no means falser. The intention of this paragraph is to disqualify all the works of a severe Baha'i critic. The intention is to reduce all his arguments onto a level of personal fuddy duddy without any objectivity. It's totally laughing reasding all this excuses like: "OK his work was disqualified by his big spender as pseudoacademic botch, but they enjoy it going on working with him". That makes no sense, it's an oxymoron. 08:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC"

At the end he wrote my IP. I deleted the written IP what´s my one and can be misinterpreted. I never posted into this subject; 193.171.98.134 .

Did I explain clearer? (User: Hangarid 193.171.98.134)

As you may see here nobody tried to manipulate anything except you. The IP who posted it also appeared in the signature: your IP! --Mipago

[edit] Problems in the "Conclusion"

There's more than a bit of uncited material, apologia, POV, and lots of undue weight in this section. This controversial page should be scrupulously cited and meet WP:NPOV. The edit having the same summary as this section is relying on this reasoning. (There's also a passive-voice sentence and those make my teeth itch.) MARussellPESE 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False interpretations

"Since its publication the German Protestant Church has disassociated itself from Ficicchia's book[57] and revised its own relationship to the German Bahá’í Community[58], and since then has accepted it as an important partner in interreligious dialogue[59]."

I have bought and read the sources listed and can tell you that none of these statements is derivable from them - these words must rather be considered to be lies than misinterpretations. I have replaced them by NPOV formulations. --KnightMove 13:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Church has accepted the Bahai Community as an important partner in interreligious dialogue in Germany. No good style to allege lies. --Mipago 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's a fact, cite sources supporting it. The one given doesn't. --KnightMove 07:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Gents. The sources in question are in German and inaccessible to the majority of WP editors. This creates a lot of problems with WP:A and WP:V. There's little that other editors can contribute to either side of this discussion — at least here. If this is spilling over from the German WP, could this go back there please? MARussellPESE 03:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. These statements and sources are not mentioned in the German wikipedia. --KnightMove 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Court case

Hi guys, looks like lots of activity here; please forgive me it's my first Wiki edit. Do you think that this source would help you? It's a current court case involving orthodox baha'is and baha'is of USA. There are two documents, submitted by both parties where they both freely state that the number of orthodox baha'is is roughly 40. Here are the links: - p2 para 2 line 15 http://www.truebahai.com/court/54-1-surreply-brief.pdf and p8 para 2 line 5 http://www.truebahai.com/court/49-1-reply-public.pdf Hope this helps guys! ;) k1-UK-Global 10:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made the amendment to the text at the bottom of the Orthodox Baha'is section of the page to reflect roughly 40 people (and the claims by both parties [O. Baha'is & Baha'is of USA] that they are mostly family). Please see it and change if necessary. k1-UK-Global 11:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The website which hosts those documents is actually not owned by the court, it is an O. Baha'i website. If they were to remove the documents then the references would not be valid anymore. Can someone advise on how to ensure that the documents will always be accessible to wikipedia users? Thanks k1-UK-Global 11:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to contact the court office and ask about copies of the documents either online or emailed to you. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Problem

Hi, I notice that a controvertial statement is presented as fact. Could somebody fix the bit about the first two of these disputes (women and nominations) being explicitly prohibited in the writings. I suggest "The Universal House of Justice says" or words to that effect. I suppose in an article with this title, it could even be "While the Universal House of Justice has decreed.." or whatever and add the but clause after it. However, kindly footnote the attribution for that but clause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.49.9 (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, isn't the title not exactly neutral POV. Wouldn't something like "Baha'i alternatives" be more appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.174.253 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, by virtue of having a keyboard, you're welcome to change anything you see fit. Go for it. I think you're both absolutely correct. The point is contended among different groups that the UHJ has interpreted this incorrectly, so to state it as fact is definitely POV. It's a contentious issue. Obvious the author of this statement feels at face value this is an open and shut issue, where clearly it's not. I don't believe it's even appropriate here to get into the reasons someone would dispute this point, suffice it to say that it's not a universally accepted point among Baha'is; this article contains one of several points of view on the subject. And of course the title of this article is intended to marginalize and trivialize the smaller groups. They think they have a franchise on the name, whereas its been upheld in US courts several times that the word Baha'i, and Baha'i Faith are generic just like the word Christian. But they don't care obviously. They think they own the word in spite of what the Supreme Court and Constitution says. Tuff noogies.

I say we try an reach a concensus for an appropriate title, since this one is nothing short of offensive to the groups it's discussing. Jeff 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking closer at the content of the "Internet based conflict", I personally recall a different set of concerns than those mentioned in the article. My personal recollection isn't why I have just removed the paragraph, but that it's not supported with anything whatsoever in the article that these were ever concerns at all in the first place. This section was obviously penned by an editor using his or hers own personal understanding of the conflict, for no attempt is made to support any of the statements. It could be argued that the whole section be removed as Juan Cole never created a "division" at all, but rather hosted a forum that encouraged critical analysis of the Administration. He didn't form a group though. Why is this even part of this page? His personal views and criticisms aren't even specifically mentioned. This shouldn't even be here, IMHO. Jeff 07:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there is no mission statement of the discussion group, but here are a few links from their archive.

[16] - Cole proposes that the research department gets things wrong and that it hinders scholarly research. He thinks that there should be many translations of the same text, like the Bible. He does not feel bound to follow the guidelines for publication, and continues to refer to "lay Baha'is". That page has long discussions calling the review "censorship".

[17] - Discussions involving publication review and promoting electioneering. Someone mentions the discussions are on "Review , Censorship , NSA reform and the Covenant "

The issue of women on the House is promoted extensively here, here, here, and here.

I would support adding a point that they also discussed the role of science/evolution, but that seems irrelevant and the page currently notes that the ones mentioned are a few prominent points. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You found a whopping total of 4 threads that discuss women on the UHJ? Wow, that's amazing. That hardly establishes this as the brunt of what the Talisman supporters were regularly ranting about. But regardless of reality, this has to be established in the article if you want to state it as fact. A handful of posters discussing it doesn't establish it as the number one issue of the Talisman, which is what the article is implying. One could easily establish that oversight of publications and campaigning were hot topics, but that hasn't been established in the article either. No attempt to source anything they're accused of is in there. Woman on the UHJ is by no means their number one issue. Cole never even weighed in on the subject.

The inculsuion of this topic here is worth considering for deletion altogether. With regard to undue weight, it's larger than 3 other actual Baha'i groups. Taliman was not a division, and Cole never started a "group", which is what this page is about. It could be merged with Juan Cole's bio, could it not?
It is POV to state that women on the UHJ is an open and shut issue. There are various opinions about this, the author of the statement being but one. This has to be changed if this stupid section is agreed to stay.
Baha'i divisions? Why this inciteful name in the first place? Jeff 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article implies that these were the main issues, nor is it possible to sum up the main points of an email group, nor is it desirable to treat this subject with any more merit than it deserves. The article implies (should imply) that these were the points of contention that a few posters resigned over, and the same issues that Cole went on to rant about after resigning. I don't really care whether it's deleted or not, but as soon as it's removed there will be people screaming that we're censoring the accusations of censorship.

Regarding whether or not the issue is closed, I cannot be any clearer than the Guardian:

“

As regards your question concerning the membership of the Universal House of Justice, there is a Tablet from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in which He definitely states that the membership of the Universal House is confined to men and that the wisdom of it will be fully revealed in the future. In the local, as well as the National Houses of Justice, however, women have the full right of membership. It is therefore, only to the International House that they cannot be elected. The Bahá’ís should accept this statement of the Master in a spirit of deep faith, confident that there is a divine guidance and wisdom behind it, which will be gradually unfolded to the eyes of the world.

Regarding your question, the Master said the wisdom of having no women on the International House of Justice, would become manifest in the future. We have no other indication than this.

At present there are women on the International Council, and this will continue as long as it exists, but when the International House of Justice is elected, there will only be men on it, as this is the law of the Aqdas. [18] Directives from the Guardian, pg 87

”

Regarding the title, the other examples on WP are Divisions of Islam, Christianity#Christian_divisions, and several other similar pages using the word "denominations" instead of divisions. There is no precedence for using "alternatives", and that is so POV that it's laughable. Using "divisions" seems appropriate, although I would support moving the page to "Megalomaniacs of Baha'i history". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cunado for providing some perfect examples of how these types of issues SHOULD be handled, and how this article is a perfect example of how NOT do it. Divisions of Islam, and the Christian divisions (which is part of the article on Christianity, not a separate one like this) are both summary articles about ALL the divisions of that religion, not that ONE is the superior correct one, and then a divisions article about all the fringe groups that are inferior and wrong. You obviously don't get it. From the title of the article down this whole thing has been approached as propaganda. Jeff 07:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What's apparent throughout this whole page, and in this section in particular is that the slightest bit of criticism and or concern about the current administration is in every instance met with an explanation and justification for why the world should in fact disregard the subject. There is tedious propaganda against ever subject of this article. It is indicative of the macro scenario of the Baha'is putting up this lily white fascade. One subject after another on this page is met with this same predjudice, as if how dare Juan Cole, or anyone else for that matter criticise or question the Administration.

Cunado, I wasn't asking for you to clarify for me the position of the Women on the UHJ issue. I know full well what the issues are. This is not the place to debate it. What I'm saying is that not everyone agrees that this is and open and shut issue just because of the statements you're providing in the article. It has in no way been "explicitly ruled-out by the religion's founders", and to say so implies that those who oppose the idea are idiots who don't have access to the Writings. You are obviously unaware of the various viewpoints, but there are in fact several points of view about this, and to dismiss them based on this one writing is not fair or responsible. It's in fact POV and will be reworded. Jeff 21:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cunado, Jeff and all. Since the introduction of the article says that Baha'i division is a very harmful thing, this is portraying these alternatives in a very different light than the various churches within Christianity or the various schools of Buddhism, etc. In the context of this very introduction the groups discussed are very harmful, and, that seems strongly POV in my opinion. I think it's one thing to assert the main article "Baha'i Faith" refer only to the most numerous Baha'i group, and quite another to have the article about the other groups titled to support an assertion they're harmful. I guess also there's POV reason to have a look at that introduction and indeed the rest of the article.

I understand religious faith often conveys strong convictions, and wikipedia's policy, as I understand it, is to present information in a neutral point of view. I think it would be awesome if all the Baha'is here can in ideal good wikipedia manners agree by consensus on such neutral language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.129.111 (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This "Internet conflict" section is way beyond the weight it deserves. It is also not the place to dispute beliefs about doctrine. If you would like to include the reasons that the UHJ's interpretation of the writings, then the other side of the issue should be included as well, otherwise let's just leave it to mentioning that a disagreement existed. The content of this article should not be dominated by the views of the majority who oppose these ideas. It's implied that the mainstream Baha'is don't subscribe to these ideas by virtue of them being here. A tit for tat rebutle of every idea herein is not appropriate, unless we can agree to drag out the concerns of both sides, not just the mainstreamers.

As far as the intro goes, I would like to see what your ideas for changes are Anonymous Editor. What do you suggest for wording? Jeff 04:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the whole section as it is way beyond undue weight considering the numbers involved. It doesn't even fit in this page as it never caused a division/group/denomination/schism or however else you want to call it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 13:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that we're tightening up this article's adherence to WP's policies. Well, if the whole talisman thing is kaput because it involved so few people (Seriously, about a dozen tops.) and lacked meaningful citation, then why does Denis MacEoin merit a whole paragraph lacking any sources? (Frankly, this article is about heterodoxy within the Baha'i context. It's not the place for cataloging departures of erstwhile prominent Baha'is.) I've excised that paragraph perforce. MARussellPESE 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] INTRO

The following was lost in a revert done 21:54, September 3, 2007. This contribution by anonymous editor 67.70.29.184 was left unsigned and is being included here by Jeff 06:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, Yes, I'm the same person; every time I come here I receive a different number, but they refer to me. I believe a more neutral point of view would begin with a disambiguation notice, such as the one in the Baha'i Faith article: "This article is about alternatives to the largest group of Baha'is. For the article about that group see 'Baha'i Faith.' For other uses of Baha'i see 'Baha'i disambiguation'".

In my view, a more neutral opening would be: "The passing of each head of the largest group of Baha'is has resulted in the branching of the religion. Most groups so emerging have had a relatively small membership. The passing of the leaders of these groups has not always led to branching though these have some branches. Since 1963 the largest group of Baha'is has been led by the institution of the Universal House of Justice. No one person's death provided opportunities for branching. A number of people have disagreed with Universal House of Justice policies, such disagreement presenting additional alternatives." What do you think? Regards,

Anonymous, I do hope you one day sign up with an account. It'll take 2 minutes, and you'll probably find a bit more weight given to your contributions and suggestions. My first impressions are that you obviously have an innate sense of justice, and a good sense for what's right. Join up and get to work. More people like you are needed and welcome here.

My honest opinion (and mines just one) is that I think the wording in your suggested opening is a bit choppy. It's not flowing yet, but the spirit of it's great. I personally took your ideas into consideration and did a little work on the intro last night. Did you get a chance to look at the recent changes to the article? You can compare the differences between two or more edits under the "HISTORY" tab. Take a look. Your ideas have brought some much needed changes to the page (including the intro, the internet-based conflict, etc.), and it's really shaped up nicely as a result. Feel free to jump in and do some yourself. Welcome aboard, and keep up the good work. Jeff 06:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon, when you register, you'll want to review the various Wikipedia policies. Of particular importance here and elsewhere has been Baha'i editors' reliance upon the Undue Weight policy, which is part of the NPOV policy.

WP isn't CNN where "balance" means everybody has equal air-time. Here its a bit more rational and honest. Balance means each side gets its due weight.

Undue Weight hasn't a clear-cut breakdown with respect to numerical counts. However, there is a huge gap between the memberships of the so-called mainstream Baha'is and all of the other groups combined. Best estimates put the Baha'is in the 4-6 million range and can't come up with estimates of the various splinter groups following Charles Mason Remey collectively.[19][20] If these are in the 1-3 thousand range, which seems to be a very generous estimate considering some don't maintain membership rolls, then that's an order of magnitude difference of ten thousand. That honestly puts these groups collectively in the "extremely small minority", if not the "tiny minority" range.

Per WP:Undue weight this article represents the perspective on this topic that is of some historical interest to the Baha'i faith. However, it just wouldn't be NPOV to say things like "Most groups so emerging have had a relatively small membership" or "A number of people have disagreed …" because these qualitative statements imply membership or disagreements significantly larger than the 0.01%± range that's what's really there. To be accurate they'd need to be: "Most groups so emerging have had a ~~relatively~~ very small membership" or "A ~~number of~~ very few people have disagreed …"

Cheers, MARussellPESE 01:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff and MARussell. I like the wikipedian feel of working together on material. Add very, if you like. Make whatever other changes of style appeal. IMHO, if there's a main Baha'i article elsewhere and this is for the smaller groups, then due weight maybe has already been accorded by that fact. It just doesn't feel balanced to say this article is for the other people and yet have it written from the viewpoint of those writing the main article. For example, is it really true that the passing of each head of the Faith (as understood by the people this article is describing) resulted in additional branching?

Thank you for taking time with this newcomer to the article you've been working on. My intent isn't to just go onto the article and impose my words. It's to provide thoughts, even suggested words that you can hopefully make better. That's how I understand wikipedia works.

By the way, is anything wrong with a disambiguation notice?

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.28.146 (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A disambiguation notice, as per WP:DAB, should be used when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In this case, the tile Baha'i divisions is a not likely choice for more than one title, and no disambiguation notice is warranted. Also please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of your posts. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff. That makes sense. I still feel "Baha'i alternatives" a more balanced and descriptive title. Could you agree to that? Regards 64.230.97.4 05:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No alternatives doesn't work out because no source calls the various Baha'i divisions/groups/schisms/denominations/sects as alternatives, and thus calling them alternatives would be original research and now allowed. Iranica calls the groups schisms, the Ontario consultants on religious tolerance calls them divisions. Furthermore sources relating to other religions call their divisions either division/sect/denomination/group etc, and never call them alternative, so there is no precedent to call various groups within a religious ideology alternatives. Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Actually, I quickly checked wikipedia's articles. Only Christianity has divisions. Judaism, Islam and Hinduism have denominations. Buddhism has traditions. In this light, is it not reasonable to call this article "Baha'i denominations?" Regards,70.49.138.191 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This has started me thinking... If we give the page the name "denominations", "divisions" or similar, it may seem like there are a multitude of baha'i faiths. In fact, I think that the groups other than the mainstream make up in the region of less than 0.1% of the total "baha'is" (given estimates of ~5m and ~<5k mainstream and non-mainstream baha'is, respectively). I am wondering if this means that the non-mainstream baha'is are notable enough to be compared equally to the mainstream baha'is. Is there a case for choosing appropriate wording in the title to reflect this issue (other than denominations, etc.), or is this not worth pursuing? k1-UK-Global 20:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the title, the content is the same. The opening few paragraphs clearly state that there is only one major branch of the Baha'i Faith, and any attempts at alternative leadership have basically failed numerically. I say just leave the title as "Baha'i divisions". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon, "denominations" would suggest that the variant forms have staying power or a notable presence. There is a big difference when comparing Reform Judaism and the Hassdim as Jewish denominations, and the Baha'i faith to the Remeyite groups.

Kayvan, I'm not sure that there's a way to use qualitative language that effectively captures the quantitative reality without it coming off as POV. The quantitative ratio 10,000:1 would almost require superlatives, yet that would get panned out-of-hand unless there were hard numbers to back them up.

Cheers both, MARussellPESE 01:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest keeping the title unless good alternative wording is suggested - at least "Divisions" seems to have support from current editors of this page. k1-UK-Global 14:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Mason Remey and those who followed him' position paper

I was hoping someone might address the value of this position paper, and it's wide usage in this article, and moreover the main articles about these specific groups. I thought I'd ask here, as this page has the widest group of editors contributing to it. It appears to have never been published by the Baha'i Publishing Trust, but is a self-published work in the resource library, correct? It doesn't seem appropriate to use this self-published work to source statements about third party subjects (other than about itself, i.e. the UHJ). It's usage here seems rather limited to statements it verifies with sources from the writings, etc, but it makes no attempt to source its statements about Remey, Marengella, Jensen, or Pepe. Yet, this paper makes sweeping statements of fact about these individuals, and several articles are using this self-published work to source statements like "Pepe Remey denied being Remey's successor"; one of many statements this paper is being used as WP:V. Yet these claims are unsourced in the paper. See my concern? This self-published work is not a reliable source for its statements outside of the sphere of the UHJ per policy on such sources, and furthermore is of no value for stating its presumptions as facts about Remey et al, for it hasn't bothered to source its allegations in the paper itself. These staements about said individuals are unduly self-serving, and about a third party it is attempting to discredit. This is not allowed for these types of unpublished position papers. How can this be reconciled? Jeff 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See above #"Remey and those who followed him" 170.160.9.3 23:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you anon. I actually participated in that discussion, but the questions I'm now concerned about weren't addressed at the time. What concerns me now is that it's a self-published paper that relies heavily on hearsay, and makes no attempt to source things that are now being extracted from it as if they're facts. I'm curious if it's merits are defendable beyond what's been cited above already, because it appears to only be a self-published paper and should only be used as such IMO. Jeff 02:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As of this afternoon the texts that were supported by this UHJ paper have been replaced with new ones by Jeff3000, and I don't believe has accomplished anything except to confuse matters further. First of all this is another self-published position paper by Moojan Momen, and is of absolutely no value to anything in this article as this article is not about said author, so his veiws on these matter are of ZERO relevance per WP:SPS. Meanwhile this "source" is being used to cite a reference to the statement that Mason died abandoned and without religious rites (word for word out out of the UHJ paper), but yet this site only states that he died at 100 years old, and doesn't support this statement at all. Jeff, you haven't replaced these ref's with anything reliable. And your Taherzadeh ref's cite an expanse of 2 whole pages. Could you be a little more specific please, and then find refs to support the allegations the UHJ paper alleged with something that's actually reliable please.

It was brought to my attention recently that unpublished letters are not reliable or verifiable sources, as I was attempting to provide evidence of Pepe Remey's own testimony regarding his views about Mason and his own guardianships derived from a hand-written letter to Jensen which I made available via a scanned .jpeg. I was utterly denied the option of presenting this letter or any other of his many personal letters as sources for his own words and testimonies, as they were deemed by the esteemed and noble Cunado as unverifiable and unreliable; regardless of where these are provided from. I have them on my computer, in a bupc database, and they're all hosted on a public yahoo group. If that is the case that letters are not WP:V or WP:RS then I would assume that self published articles like this, and unpublished and utterly unsourced letters like this and this are in fact just as unworthy of inclusion as sources for they are also self-published unreliable and unverifiable sources. These are negated from usage per WP:V, and especially WP:SPS as they are not being used in an article about the UHJ (or Momen), they are sources for statements about third parties (Mason, Pepe, etc., are obviously unduly self-serving, and considered absolutely contentious by all of Remey's supporters. Not one note of reference can be found in any of the above mentioned letters/position papers. None can even be shown to source one of their libel condemning statements of individuals with any third party sources. This is an apparent double standard to me. How convenient that an un-sourced letter from the UHJ should be allowed usage that makes claims about Pepe Remey, but that an actual letter from him in his own word should be disallowed pursuant to a policy. This seems preposterous to me. After looking closer here, I find in fact this page is relying heavily upon self-published sources, for there are few to begin with on these matters in the first place, are there? So why the double standard? Of course there may be something to all this I'm not aware of and would welcome enlightenment on the matter. Jeff 06:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you are continuously taking about the House's letter, but it isn't used here anymore. Also if you had done a little more analysis on my edit yesterday rather than glancing quickly you would have seen that when I replied the House's letter as a reference with the John Hopkins website I also removed the statement about the lack of religious rites. Secondly the other sources I added a definitely reliable sources as they are published, and two pages are actually quite specific; one page is very specific and I extended it to two pages so that a same <ref> tag could be used for more than one citation. Look the books up, but as a matter of good faith, I present to you a excerpt from some of the books:

"The nine Hands appointed to serve at the World Centre were referred to as 'Custodians of the Faith'."^[1]

"After his [Remey] death, serious rivalries broke out between his lieutenants, who claimed to be his successors."^[2]

So I did do my research when I changed the references when I changed them. Finally as to regards to Momen's paper, Momen is a recognized expert in the field whose work has been regularly published in religious and academic journals and thus WP:SPS allows its inclusion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff. The statement about Mason says he was largely abadoned by his death, which that cited doesn't verfiy. Jeff 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeff. I hope you can see the difference between content loaded on a yahoo group, and books published by a widely published author, who has contributed articles to the Encyclopedia Iranica and Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World. As noted in the last discussion on this, I agree that it's not an academic paper, and shouldn't be used to source anything otherwise unverifiable. The disagreements over edits to other pages revolved around removing an unverifiable hand-written letter about a contentious subject. If you want to remove the "...those who followed him" letter from those pages, then deal with it there. That is not the reason that reverts were happening on those pages. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm contending that it's not worthy to be included under any circumstances anywhere. Please explain why it's a reliable source for anything. I brought this here, because noone else is micro managing any of these divisions pages like you are. I know your 2 cents already, and don't misrepresent what you've argued about over this matter. Jeff 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff3000 for making stronger citations for those statements. I see your point about expanding the refs to several pages. No biggy. The issue of Momem doesn't appear to be as clear cut as you're making it. Obviously he's an expert, per se, about certain matters he's published articles on, but since the article in question doesn't footnote statements it's a bit dicey. It would be hard to argue he's an expert about division groups,see? But whatever, there's no obvious harm being done by it, regardless of its obvious reliability issues.

I sincerely don't want to go off the deep end over these matters, but in the past there seemed to be an informal understanding that since there was relatively little information published about all these characters, that we would work with what we had and not be rigid about these things. I have found recently that these considerations are not being given in main articles, where these same papers are being used here. I don't have anything further, I was just looking for some insight from editors about the usage of these types of papers in general. Cheers. Jeff 20:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias and Misrepresentation

In reading Wikipedia articles associated with the Baha'i religion, I get the distinct impression that the articles are slanted toward the views of the mainline (UHJ) Baha'is.

This would be okay if the articles contained such modifiers as "according to the majority Baha'is," and other similar notifications.

Granted, it might be impossible to present an article that all readers might find completely objective.

Yet, when we read articles in, for example, Encyclopedia Britannica, it is not unusual to find scholarly positions with which we may disagree, yet in which we find no obvious misrepresentations.

What would be wrong with opening the article with a disclaimer: The following article contains statements (and omissions) which are in dispute.

Of course, the intelligent reader will seek alternate sources with or without such a disclaimer. The purpose of the disclaimer would be to preserve the integrity of the Wikipedia. Lutelatner (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Undue for the justification for the current presentations. As the total of the remnants of the Remeyite groups is in the hundreds, they would arguably fall well in the area of "extremely small minority". MARussellPESE (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries Lutelatner, it all has a way of coming out in the wash, doesn't it? You saw through it all, so it's proof that ultimately the truth always shines through no matter how much $h!t you pile on top of it. These "Baha'is" who hijacked the true religion of Baha'u'llah and created an administration outside the Covenant are actually doing their part to serve God's cause. In the end we're all pawns on the board, so to speak.

The smaller Baha'i groups get their say on this page, even if its all the way down at the bottom after the reader has been led around by the nose by the initial content. Even though this page is supposed to be about the smaller groups, it's no small irony that because they are in fact in the minority the undue weight policy allow for it to be turned into a "here's why these division groups are full of it" page. It's laughable isn't it? Thanks for noticing. Cheers. Jeff (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the Hands of the Hands

I'm not sure what we're getting out of this Time article being quoted.[21] I think Jeff wants to point out that Remey thought he may be the Guardian when the Hands were meeting in 1957. Remey said that was the case, and nobody doubts that the Hands deliberated on whether or not a Guardian was appointed (concluding that there wasn't). The actual Time article is riddled with inaccurate statements about the Baha'i Faith. I'm going to reword that part and keep the link as a reference. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good gracious, I didn't even editorialize a word into the contribution. You're questioning my good faith for bringing this forward? Geesh. What we're getting is the ONLY third party non-flowery truthful account from a well respected published source in this ENTIRE article. Whatever your issues with the articles are aside, the quote accurately describes these events from a third party sourc which is something sorely lacking here. This provides the reader an account of these events that haven't been spun by the flowery revisionist history that's been regularly employed to keep the lily white facade intact around your precious Saints (Hands). You're actually questioning the value of this? Now even Time is inaccurate? Unbelievable. Too bad for you verifiable not true overrides you on this, to name but one of a half dozen pillars of policy that will protect it's inclusion. Your "rewording" is inane to say the least, not to mention redundant. Further sterilizing the facts surrounding these events will not benefit the reader. This only compliments the article and benefits it giving it something genuine that didn't come down from the editorial review board on high. Put your creative thinking cap on and come up with something more than you're "not sure what we're getting out of this Time article". And you're questioning my good faith? Good gracious!

The "for life" was removed because it suggests their lifelong title gives them lifelong authority. I know you have to attempt to show they had ANY business doing ANY of this, but this is deliberately misleading. You might *think* they were, and if you can source it then do so, but it's dubious, misleading, and not verified. Which directive are you basing this on exactly? So Shoghi's successor was to inherit his Hands too? LOL. Source this if you can please, for it's my opinion that this is merely your POV. Jeff (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cunado's remark, however insensitively worded, did not constitute an questioning of your good faith. A succession dispute involving Mason Remy directly following Shoghi Effendi's death is the only clear implication of the article, and you placed it there so apparently you want us to be reminded of this at this point in the article. As to inaccuracies, "The Shiite Moslems broke with the Sunnis .over naming the successor to Mohammed; the Babists broke with the Shiites over the successor to the successor..." strikes me as being particularly inaccurate. Cunado did not say that the statement that made it into the article was inaccurate, but rather that the information it presented is uncontested, and he implied that since there are more accurate sources than that article to reference that information to, we might as well use them. That position should please anyone who wants to see this information included. The fact that this is already the case (namely in the Mason Remy section) should please such a person even more. In that section the quotes state Mason's position directly, which is even better. The implication of Cunado's removing the reference, that in no way blemishes the image of those whom you accuse of revisionist history, is that it is superfluous at that point in the article. LambaJan (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For inaccurate statements in the article, see "the Babists broke with the Shiites over the successor to the successor"; "Baha'u'llah ("the manifestation of God") had appointed his son ("the perfect man") to succeed him, and the son in turn appointed Shoghi Effendi Rabbani ("a man under divine guidance")"; "they announced the solution: there would be no new Guardian at all"; "titled 'Hands of the Cause of God on Holy Land'"; "Founder Baha'u'llah decreed that when Bahaism was established in 57 countries, the world's Bahais were to elect a Universal House of Justice with power to make the faith's laws and interpret its teachings."

To add to that, it mentions a "rumor" of two candidates for Guardian. Removing the catchy phrases like "stormy rivalry" and "ransacked", the useful information here is that A) they couldn't find his will B) they deliberated on who should be Guardian C) Mason Remey thought he should have been recognized as Guardian D) they didn't recognize any appointment and waited until the House of Justice could be elected. None of that is unique, and considering that the article has other inaccuracies, the fact that it mentions another candidate for Guardian, not mentioned in any other source, and that it uses sensationalized words to make it more exciting, I removed the unverified mention of another candidate, paraphrased it, and used the article as reference. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

After the dialog that has just transpired below about WP:V, secondary sources outweighing primary one, et al, we can thank Jeff3000000000 for completely shooting down any inane points about censuring this Time magazine statement. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cunado, unless you would like to paraphrase the new WP:V content this article provides, i.e. that there were TWO rivalries going on for Guardian in that conclave, a point further established in Mason's diaries, you're going to have to let it go. Your own peers have gone to great lengths below to point out it's bad faith editing to remove content that's "inconvenient to your POV", as there is no just cause in removing it other than that. This is a verifiable secondary source which establishes several new points previously unmentioned in the article or elsewhere. This idea that it's only value is it's sensationalized wording is a ruse, and can in no way be construed as a justification for it's removal. It's been asked and now thrice addressed: you have established no good cause to remove a bona fide secondary account of these events. You may continue to choose to ignore my legitimate defense of this piece to no avail. You don't even have any support among your peers on this one, as the deafening silence from them attests to. GIVE IT UP. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a crappy source, Jeff. It was likely written by someone in the States or Europe based on third-hand sources at best. That it lacks a byline and is dated over three weeks after the unanimous declaration of the Custodians, is evidence of its poor quality.

Of course it's sensationalist. That sells papers, but it doesn't always reflect the truth. However, "verifiability, not truth" is the WP motto so crap stays despite no credible supporting evidence from other sources. Time can generally conisdered a WP:RS for WP. However, most intelligent readers however know the difference between a newspaper trying to sell advertising and reputable primary sources.

However, that doesn't mean that the sensationalism must stay. In fact, the deafaning silence of credible corroboration requires that it be excised. This edit is preferable. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hands "for life"?

I don't see "for life" in the ref added, and neither does it any longer source that he called them "chief stewards". Could someone please show under what directive are they given authority to ACT in the capacity of Hand "for life", or remove such a misleading commment. Jeff (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference is specifically there for you to look it up. Search for it in Google and you'll see the sentence "the remaining Hands of the Cause who were appointed for life by Shoghi Effendi." -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. The ref attached to the sentence doesn't verify the "for life" statements of the sentence as is implied in the Jeff3000's edit comment which reads "adding "for life" with citation from the journal Religion". Where is the "citation from the journal Religion"; did you forget to actually add it? If this statement is from the "journal Religion", and not from the Writings, then it's even more dubious and misleading than I realized. It is being used here to imply it's provided in the Writings that the authority provided in the writings was granted to them "for life", which is contended by Remey's followers as NOT POSSIBLE.

This is a legitimate concern, and I don't appreciate the dismissive tone in the reply to it. If such a ref exists it should be included to answer the criticism ALL Remey groups have about this. I wasn't aware that "search for it in google" was replacing the old WP:CS. I'm honestly not trying to be a PIA about this (it just comes naturally ;0), but this is important to all Remey groups. Every group maintains that they had 0.00 authority as Hands when he passed. This is not a mundane point and was clearly added to refute this widely held belief. It defies all reason that they would be acting as Hands for life which is the implication in this context; was his sucessor to be bound to have his own Hands instead of appointing new ones? Am I the only one who sees how absurd this is?

I did google "Hands of the Cause who were appointed for life by Shoghi Effendi" and couldn't find anything (aside from this article) on the first 5 pages of results. If such a statement exists from the Writings then Google couldn't find it. Please provide this alleged directive for the article, or remove the comment. Jeff (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a second to actually look at my [22]. If you do you'll see that in addition to the adding of my "for life" text I added a citation to Momen, Moojan and Smith, Peter (1989). "The Baha'i Faith 1957-1988: A Survey of Contemporary Developments". Religion 19. If you search for the title of that article in Google (here, it's the first link). You'll find the quoted sentence there. If you had made more than a cursory glance at my edit you would have seen that. Note that citations don't need a URL link, as it's an optional field; Religion is a published journal. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jeff, I hadn't noticed that ref for the first sentence that you buried at the bottom of the paragraph several sentences down. How did I miss that? Few concerns:

I cannot find the sentence, but the closest one that resembles it being "This group of 27 individuals had recently been appointed by Shoghi Effendi (between 1952 and 1957) and had been designated by him as 'Chief Stewards' of the Faith."
The ref is for "page 19", and the published article begins on page 63.
That is a published source indeed, but the reference is to an institution for which the writings are the final say, not published articles by scholars. It would be irresponsible to try and pass this off as fact if the only reference to this alleged "fact" in the entire world is an obscure off-handed comment by a scholar. Where is this made clear in the writings that govern this institution: implied or explicit? I would concede the title is lifelong, but its contentious whether their authority existed a moment beyond his passing. Everything written about them implies their authority is at the pleasure of the Guardian, and it's not a lifelong appointment at all. Every Guardian would theoretically appoint his own Hands; how absurd to imply the Hands of Shoghi were hands for their life, and not just for Shoghi's life. This is a crux issue that requires something substantive.Jeff (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The cited article states in the notes that "8. Five-year term for all except the Auxiliary Board Member's assistants (usually appointed annually) and the remaining Hands of the Cause who were appointed for life by Shoghi Effendi." Furthermore, the citation clearly passes WP:V, and it is from a published journal that is peer-reviewed, so it's of the strongest type. Clearly, it allows for the the "for life" to remain in the article. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Another point, is that the citation correctly stated pages 63- 91 (but the cite field was marked "pages" instead of "page"; the number 19 is the issue number. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's in a footnote. Very solid. Great, let's bring forward all the evidence and published opinions that it's verifiable from a footnote, but totally unsupported by any of the writings that govern the institution. I acknowledged it's a published source from a respected scholar, but that if it's a true statement then surely there should be ONE writing about implying such a thing. Is there even ONE? Do you really believe this to be a true statement? You all honestly hold that it wasn't just a lifelong station, but that their authority was lifelong? And this belief is based upon the explicit footnote but no explicit writings?

The context here is that the auxiliary board members are re-elected, but the Hands are not reinstituted but are permanently assigned. In the article it's being used to denote lifelong authority which is patently absurd and contradicted by various explicit writings and directives. Let's just bog down the section to answer this dichotomy then, shall we? Jeff (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall I remind you that your comments above are original research. It's not about what I believe or not. The published source meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No you shant need remind me of policies, but thanks. It was a rhetorical question, I don't actually care what any of you believe. What's missing here is establishing that their authority to *act* as Hands existed beyond his last breathe, for the Will clearly states they can only act under directions from the Guardian which these actions moved well beyond. The usage in the article implies something very specific to the context of what follows; that "for life" they'd be allowed to act in the capacity of Hands, even beyond the life of the Guardian they served and answered to for all their actions. This note does not substantiate this implication. You may want very desperately for this to be true, but it's not in the Writings. This flimsy footnote seems to be the only allusion to such a thing in all the known world. What's worse is it's usage in the article has been altered from the context of use in the footnote. I can't believe the only way you can substantiate this is in this flimsy way, and when called out on it are actually defending it. This whole matter is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

Again, I've acknowledged it's a verifiable source, but it's use here is out of the context given it in the article, and is creating a misleading situation. This is not acceptable, and should either be removed or answered to in the section. I'm not suggesting creating original research, but it can easily be shown to be contradicted by other weightier verifiable sources; namely the Writings them self. Contradictions of verifiable facts require being answered to. If you had but one legitimate reference from the writings then surely you would have presented it.. Why don't you start acting in good faith over this, and drop this ridiculous charade. It is patently disingenuous to use this sentence in an entirely unintended way in an entirely new context. This requires an actual Writing specific to this and not this pathetic excuse for a ref; how is that too much to ask? If it's true it shouldn't be a problem finding a writing to substantiate it. But we both know it's not, don't we? Jeff (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is not out of context. The question is whether the Hands were appointed for life; the source clearly states that. How about you find a source that clearly states they weren't appointed for life rather than interpreting the Writings, which is original research. Also secondary sources ,which this what this reference is, is preferred to primary sources, which the Writings are. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is out of the context of usage in this article. Saying it's not is disingenuous. That article cited isn't about these this at all. I'd be happy to bring these things forward. Is that the consensus; you want to use this blatantly misleading statement that isn't substantiated with any Writings, and have it answered to accordingly? It is in no way original research to point out a false statement from a published source. Look at what you're defending here. You can't defend this, so you're invoking these absurd notions implying I'm the one attempting to violate policy? What about violating REALITY?

Isn't the intent of this to create something that reflects what's true? You are now disparately grasping at thin air if this one footnote is the only reference to this in all of creation. This article was written well after the actions in question. Why is it too much to ask to validate these actions with actual Writings? You'd use one if it existed, right? Something must exist for him to have said such a thing, right? Let's see it if it's true. Jeff (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the writings stating that they ever lose any authority, and all of the Hands prior to Shoghi Effendi passing were all lifetime appointments, or posthumous. There is, however, a specific statement that any Guardian must be a male descendant of Baha'u'llah, appointed while the previous is alive, and that the Hands must elect 9 from among themselves, and a majority vote among those 9 approves the appointment of the next Guardian. That is the process of succession. There are no statements about the situation of the Guardian not having appointed, or not being able to appoint, a successor. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, cuz Shoghi Effendi specifically contradicted this idea that the Hands had any choice but that they "must assent" to his choice in the Baha'i News cover article for 2/55 #288 stating "The statement in the Will of `Abdu'l-Bahá does not imply that the Hands of the Cause of God have been given the authority to overrule the Guardian. `Abdu'l-Bahá could not have provided for a conflict of authority in the Faith. This is obvious in view of his own words...'It is incumbent upon...the Hands of the Cause of God to show their obedience, their submissiveness and subordination unto the guardian of the Cause of God; to turn unto him and be lowly before him. He that opposeth him hath opposed the True One'".

Not that it's germane to this, but it's just to point out another example of how Writings of Shoghi Effendi contradict information presented on this page. This "for life" idea is yet another, for its ASSumed and implied true, but is not verfiable in ANY Writings; you're using the omission of something saying they're not appointed for life to say they are. That's quite a stretch that defies reason itself. They are to get their directive from the Guardian; how does it not follow that they would cease to be active Hands beyond the Guardian that appointed them? Was the next to inherit these previously appointed Hands? The question is as absurd as the notion, yet here you are championing this idea.

In fact the Will contradicts this. I don't have to prove this wrong; you have to establish this as fact or leave it out. The context of this footnote is to establish the difference between appointed auxillary members who have a term limits as opposed to the Hands who are appointed but once for life. It's quite another thing altogether to use that statement to verify that the Hands had any right whatsoever to continue acting without directions from the Guardian they "serve and obey".

It defies all reason that Hands can exercise authority beyond the Guardian they serve and get their direction from. It's clear they serve at the pleasure of the Guardian, but that just as your own hands don't continue to function when you die so too did his Hands cease to have the right to act in any capacity without direction from the Guardian himself when he died. You're grasping at thin air trying to convince the world of this, when it's not supported by ANY writings. Jeff (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually, it's up to you to justify that the Hands appointments somehow have an expiration date, especially as this is an institution created by Baha'u'llah. Did Baha'u'llah forget to write this down? Did `Abdu'l-Baha? Shoghi Effendi?

The Auxiliary Boards didn't have terms until the House so decided. "To develop further this vital organ of the Administrative Order, it has been decided to establish a term of five years service for those appointed to the Auxiliary Boards, commencing November 26, 1986. (The Universal House of Justice, A Wider Horizon, Selected Letters 1983-1992, p. 19)

So, it's really up to you to justify this, from the Writings themselves, when every major player has treated them as lifetime appointments. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is moot as far as this article is concerned, since the justification of Wikipedians would be original research. I do agree that the source does state what it states. I also agree however that the way it's presented in the article sounds like a fact, not a cited quotation. As in all controversial cases, we should quote the source and properly cite it to that specific quote to show that this source states this. I'll have to think about how to do it in this case, as it would break the flow of the paragraph. Wjhonson (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Um"? Are we back in 7th grade now? I have justified and fully explained all these things. Not one of you has bothered to even acknowledge any of the logical questions this raises that I've presented. It defies reason that you could believe the Hands could EVER act on their own accord when all the writings that govern them are explicit that they are to carry out directions of the Guardian they serve.

UUMMMM, what about "This body of the Hands of the Cause is under the direction of the Guardian of the Cause of God". Exactly what directives where they following when they organized their secret conclave following his passing? Actually this whole thing raises a litany of rhetorical questions. They were acting on their own accord without *direction*. Nothing further than this passage on page 13 is needed, IMHO, "to justify that the Hands appointments somehow have an expiration date". If they are to be "under the direction of the Guardian", then it follows that when he's no longer alive to give direction............

Wjhonson, it is being slid in as a fact, whereas this is a major crux for every group being discussed on this page. I was taught from day one that this institution was to never act on it's own accord, but served to execute orders from the Guardian. And just like your own hands cease to function when you die, so too did they when their leader died. Their lifelong titles and limited authority are being meshed as one here, and this seemingly small point is hotly contested by every group who's interests are explained here.

I know the Auxillary Board didn't have terms till after the House decided: they invented the institution out of thin air after to replace the void of having no executive. This footnote stating they are "appointed for life" is stating so to provide contrast to those members that have term limits and have to be reappointed, as opposed to the Hands who are appointed but once. This is the only way you can prop up this notion that the Hands had every right to continue to function beyond Shoghi's death? You have zero to rely upon but this flimsy footnote? You wish to invoke WP:V in order to justify taking this statement out of it's plain context to be used here, and haven't even one ref from the Writings, correct? I would laugh if this wasn't so pathetic. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeff you make every minor issue sound like the crux of the issue. This is a moot point and the real crux is that Shoghi Effendi died without being able to appoint a successor because all the male descendants of Baha'u'llah were dead or Covenant-breakers. The Hands were given the specific task of approving, for clarity's sake, the next Guardian, so that no divisions or disputes occur. If they cease to have authority after the Guardian's death, then after Shoghi Effendi died without having appointed anybody and without the Hands having approved of any appointment (as is the explicit process in the Will) then there could never again be a Guardian anyway and you're just blowing hot air. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is of no surprise that you don't understand what is and isn't the issue. This would not be of any monumental concern if all they had done was meet and agree on some points. But they went on take one action after another for 6 whole years acting on their own accord without directions from any Guardian under the grossly mislead assumption that they were Hands "for life". Those conclaves were the first of a series of actions, so herein lies the issue. If they were Hands for life, then they could go on indefinitely, but if they ceased being hands at his death, then everything they did was in error. This is a moot point? Maybe for someone who's drank the Kool-aid, but for the rest of us it's no "minor issue". You truly believe that certain unforeseen circumstances existed that he wasn't "able" to appoint someone? Thanks, but we'll be requiring someone who knows what he's talking about to settle these difficult content issues. Thanks for sharing.

MARussell, the writings refuting this "for life" nonsense abound. If "every major player" accepts this, then how come the only way you can reference it is taking this ONE single footnote out of context? How did all these alleged major players forget to mention it? Abdu'l-Baha reiterated that the Hands cease to function as Hands at the death of the Guardian when he explained that the Hands are "heirs" to nothing: meaning (as an heir inherits only after the death), those who were "Hands" are not heirs to the title "Hands" or to anything else at the passing of the Guardian, and therefore cease to be Hands altogether when the Guardian dies. 'Abdu'l-Baha said, "...The Hands of the Cause in this dispensation are NOT heirs of any name or title [i.e., they cease to be Hands at the passing of the Guardian]" ('Abdu'l-Baha, Lights of Guidance, 3rd ed., 1079, p. 322).

You all can choose to ignore my concerns, ad hominem attack, and revert war with my edits, or you can start acting in good faith and give up this charade. I'm not leaving this alone in case you didn't notice. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the full quote that Jeff mentioned so that the reader can judge for themself what Abdu'l-Baha meant:

"...The Hands of the Cause in this dispensation are not heirs of any name or title. Nay, they are holy personages, the rays of whose holiness and spirituality throw light on the minds of people. Hearts are attracted by the beauty of their morals, the sincerity of their intentions and the sense of equity and justice. Souls are involuntarily enamoured of their praiseworthy morals and laudable qualities; faces turn spontaneously to their manifest signs and traces. It is not a title that may be awarded to whomsoever it pleases, nor is it a chair of honour in which whosoever pleases sits. The Hands of the Cause are the Hands of God. Hence whosoever is the servant and the promoter of the Word of God, he is the Hand of God. The object is the spirit and not the letters or words. The more self-effacing one is, the more he is assisted in the Cause of God; and the more meek and humble, the nearer is he to God."

-LambaJan (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, this line of reasoning is beyond bizarre. The Hands ceased to be Hands at the death of the Guardian? If this is so, then why did they all, including Remey, continue to serve in their posts? Remey, himself, served as one of the nine Hands resident in Haifa for years afterwards. If it's so obvious that the Baha'is are all sluggards for not seeing this, then Remey must have been one too.

The implications for the status of Hands appointed posthumously under this assertion strain the imagination. How does a posthumously-appointed Hand cease being a Hand at the passing of Shoghi Effendi?

The answer is simple. "Hand of the Cause" isn't a job-title. It's a rank. See the above from `Abdu'l-Baha.

Shoghi Effendi consistently refered to Hands, whether living or posthumously, as having achieved the "rank" of Hand of the Cause. Refer to the various appointments:

J.E. Esselmont
Louis Gregory
Agnes Alexander
Roy Wilhelm
Siyyid Mustafa — "His resting place should be regarded foremost Shrine community Burmese believers." Except until Shoghi Effendi died?
Jalal Khazeh
Paul Haney
‘Alí Muḥammad Varqá
William Sutherland Maxwell, Amelia Collins, Valíyu’lláh Varqá, Tarazu’lláh Samandarí, ‘Alí-Akbar Furútan, Horace Holley, Dorothy Baker, Leroy Ioas, George Townshend, Hermann Grossmann, Ugo Giachery, and Charles Mason Remey

By the way, you need to look up ad hominem. I have pointed it out when your arguments strain credulity at best. Other editors have been more charitable. That's not ad hominem. Nobody's called you an ass or accused you of being smarter than a fifth-grader, although you seem to not feel the need for such restraint. That is ad hominem. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How entirely ridiculous that you would bring forward comments I made to other editors, likely more than a year ago and not provide the context of the snide and inappropriate attack towards me for which they were issued. No such things have been said by me here in these deliberations, for everyone has been for the most part civil until Cunado recently referred Mason and his followers as "power hungry", and to me as "blowing hot air" as well as my beliefs being "stupid and idiotic". In fact nothing he's provided has shown any restraint from ad hominem jabs. Thanks for providing the useful link, but I've become quite reacquainted with the concept as soon as he entered these discussions. I blame it on bad parenting (I'm looking at you Mike ;0)

This is really quite an impressive waltz. You said "every major player has treated them as lifetime appointments", yet we still haven't seen ONE other ref, explicit or implied. Not one from any of these "major players", let alone any actual writings. I've never once deviated or danced around my position. It's one thing to retain the title of a Hand for life, and be noted in the history of the Faith as one who carried out directions from the Guardian; but another thing entirely to put forth the notion that this title gave them any authority whatsoever to continue carrying on without directions beyond that Guardian when the Writings themselves are clear that "This body of the Hands of the Cause is under the direction of the Guardian of the Cause of God". NOWHERE are they ever instructed, granted, or assumed to fulfill any role of assuming the Executive functions of Shoghi Effendi. This reasoning is "beyond bizarre"? I'm "blowing hot air"? This dichotomy cannot be addressed directly with ANY reference, which if one existed would surely be presented.

You obviously aren't familiar with Mason's writings, for he made it clear that there were in fact several dissenting Hands who voted against that proclamation, but for the sake of unity when it came to sign it all of those in the losing minority did so. The vote was in no way unanimous. Moreover, he believed himself to be the Guardian, and that in the interest of guarding the Faith kept himself close to it's enemies who had seized control of it. That because they promised to carry out the Ten Year Crusade he went along with them. When they blatantly began deviating from it is when he disavowed their actions. Look at his proclamation. He tells exactly what his issues with the plans for 1963 were, and until they deviated from the Guardians explicit plans he was in favor of keeping unity towards that aim. I'm just relaying what he said about it, for I thought this was more widely known.

This idea that they could deliberate upon and execute executive administrative functions acting on their own accord without their directions coming from the Guardian goes against every consonant and vowel attributed to them in the Writings that govern them. It's being put forward here that these action they took are sanctioned by their "Hands for life" stature which is a far cry from simply owning the rank and title. No one here has established otherwise from any of the Writings or subsequent dissertations about them from the "major players". It hasn't yet been established as a widely held belief beyond you three in any Writings, UHJ papers, dissertations etc.; this hasn't been shown to have any "weight" so-to-speak. But in taking this one pathetic reference out of context we will have to keep this blatant molestation of reality in the article? Then I contend it should be noted that it's contested by these various groups since not even undue weight can be invoked here to censure the many published objections to this notion. I can provide the appropriate references as this is not my own opinion (original research), but a published criticism of this idea. I'm actually in favor of removing the two words for as has been noted its not an established fact which is how its presented. Most of Mason's writings about their actions have this criticism in them, among others. I'm in no further need of any more attempts at persuasion towards these mainstream beliefs, for I reject them outright based on what I've already provided. I'm not participating in any more debates about beliefs, so please restrain yourselves. How would we like to address this in the content of the article? Remove it or answer to it to show both sides? Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither until you can provide references stating that the Writings of the Baha'i religion provide term lengths such as you are describing. -LambaJan (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not going to dictate which verifiable sources are and aren't worthy of inclusion here. This whole thing is over a difference of opinion as to what certain writings mean. You can't even provide on solid ref, Writing or otherwise that they had any right to act beyond the Guardian they serve, yet it's put forth that they had any right at all to continue to deliberating, deciding upon, and executing establishing the Faith; they are specifically "under the direction of the Guardian of the Cause of God"; there's your writing. The fact that it *doesn't* say they can't is circular reasoning. Provide ref that they had any right to deviate from this clear command, and do as they pleased after he died. At the very least such a controversial notion needs to be established that this ability for them to act without a Guardian is even the majorities opinion with at least verifiable source. As of now the context of that reference doesn't even come close to providing that. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Asked and answered, repeatedly, Jeff.

You wanted to know where it states that the Hands are appointed for life? We gave it to you straight from the horse's mouth — nine times. The answer is that "Hand of the Cause" is a station and rank, not an office, so the entire concept of a Hand's "term in office" is not even remotely applicable.
You assert that the Hands are required to be obedient to the Guardian. Absolutely correct — which is why the Ten Year Crusade was followed meticulously, to its last particular, by the very people you and yours assert should have abandoned their posts.

Further discussion is fruitless. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhetoric! You can't show that ANY "major players" feel this way, yet are fronting still with this haughty attitude. You haven't established anything in this discussion except that your own original research on the matter is what bolsters these ideas, and nothing explicit or even implied. What a charade. No Writings, UHJ papers, or published sources express anything you've put forth. Using this footnote is a sham; it establishes nothing towards the ends you're wishing to establish. I care not to discuss any of this either. You can say they "followed meticulously" the Ten Year Crusade, but the content of this very article shows otherwise. I don't care that you choose to follow a UHJ established without an executive by fallible unguided Hands. It's the content of this article that matters most to me, and it's a blatant misrepresentation of reality to suggest these Hands should have carried on as they did cuz they were "Hands for life". You've clearly go no references to show otherwise. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense that the Hands could not dissent from the Guardian's choice

This: "This is not to say they have been given any right to overrule the Guardian on his decision, as the Will was not providing for a conflict of authority in the Faith. Rather they were to ratify the decision." is OR and nonsense at that. That the Baha'i News article noted that the Hands were to ratify the Guardian's choice in no way supports this.

"The election of these nine must be carried either unanimously or by majority from the company of the Hands of the Cause of God and these, whether unanimously or by a majority vote, must give their assent to the choice of the one whom the Guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as his successor. This assent must be given in such wise as the assenting and dissenting voices may not be distinguished (i.e., secret ballot)." (Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 12)

Clealy Abdul-Baha, Himself, considered the possibility that there would be differing opinions, and even dissenting, voices among the Hands, so He required a secret ballot to ensure unity. The idea that the Hands could not dissent from the Guardian's choice is puerile. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The actions carried out by the Hands after the Guardian's death adhered as closely as possible to the plans and directives that he already set forth before he passed. They were not going about willy-nilly doing whatever they wanted. They were following his directions. Shoghi Effendi never appointed Mason Remy as Guardian, and even if he had such an appointment would not be valid without a majority vote of the elected body of 9 of the Hands. Those are the directions and they were following them. Those ones go even back to the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha. The Writings specify that Hands of the Cause be appointed, but of what I read there is no specific term limit specified in the Writings. There is however the example of how it was done in the time of Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah. It's quite possible that there's an untranslated document that covers this but until I hear otherwise I'm extremely reluctant to conclude that Shoghi Effendi broke the Covenant to appoint Hands for incorrect term limits. -LambaJan (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a joke right? Original research? You're REINTERPRETING the meaning of this statement from the Will, and removing the reference from Shoghi Effendi where he Explicitly and plainly explains this exact statement from the Will in the referenced article, and in the same breathe are accusing me of original research? Me including a ref to clarify a blatantly misleading statement is OR? And, you now have the right to have the final say on the meaning of Explicit Writings? I'd like these reverts explained in further detail, and how the accusation of original research is appropriate. Specifially how the stated source doesn't meet the 'no OR' standard of "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.", when the wording provided was practically word for word from Shoghi himself.

Am I correct that one of the objections is the wording that the Hands could only ratify the decision? It should be noted that this exact wording was included in the following section regarding the unanimously signed proclamation from the Hands stating, "they were not in a position to appoint a successor, only to *ratify* one". Where do you think I got the wording for that? Then the rest came directly from Shoghi Effendi.

I am quite certain that everyone here has seen the Baha'is News article? My wording was practically lifted word for word right out of it. Shoghi Effendi said those things, and I was paraphrasing. How much plainer can this get: "The statement in the Will of `Abdu'l-Bahá does not imply that the Hands of the Cause of God have been given the authority to overrule the Guardian."? Should I just put the whole article right in there? Clearly whoever formed this section was intent on MISLEADING the reader to believe that the Hands could override the decision, and that without their assent their would be no successor. And now you will also defend this idea, despite that Shoghi Effendi addresses this in no uncertain terms in the mentioned article. I have no problem quoting the article directly. Whichever. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoghi Effendi's statement clearly says that the Guardian is a higher authority than the body of 9 Hands. That doesn't contradict at all with Abdu'l-Baha's requirement that the Hands vote and make a clear approval of the next Guardian. To say that they could only vote "yes" is stupid and idiotic (sorry, I don't know how else to describe this one). The process is clear and legal and meant to avoid any ambiguity so as to avoid any conflict and division. The idea that someone could come along and declare themself as Guardian, then say that they don't need approval of the Hands because they are the Guardian, is stupid and so clearly contradicts logic that Mason Remey only got a handful of power-hungry people to follow him into the abyss. The statement about overriding the Guardian makes it clear that the 9 Hands can never just willy nilly get together, vote, and overrule some directive of the Guardian. He only made that statement because Abdu'l-Baha actually gave them the authority already mentioned in the Will, confirmed by Shoghi Effendi in the same statement. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you attempting to translate Explicit Writings for me? Your original research is of ZERO concern to me. I'm not in need of a child to teach me the subtler aspects of the Faith, but thanks. I have done my part in refraining from the personal attacks here, and I'll thank you to do the same. This isn't about what YOU think all this means. This article will greatly benefit from you refraining from your deep desire to have YOUR version of the Baha'i Faith woven into these things. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Referred...

See the reference in on page 29: They specifically state:

"WHEREAS in accordance with the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha) 'the Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number nine persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important services in the work of the Guardian of the Cause of God' ; ... We nominate and appoint from our own number to act on our behalf as the Custodians of the Baha'i World Faith ... to exercise-subject to such directions and decisions as may be given from time to time by us as the Chief Stewards of the Baha'i World Faith-all such functions, rights and powers in succession to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith"

So they actually did use the sentence from Abdu'l-Baha, as they quote it in their statement specifically, as a reason for their authority. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd have taken even a cursory glance at this edit you'd notice that the statement you're referring to was not in question. That ref verifies that statement, but this recent addition by MARussell amounts to WP:OR as they never made any ref. to that writing in said reference. I requested reference for it in the comment box without first removing it, and then removed it as the ref provided which supposedly justified removing the {{Fact}} tag doesn't verify the new contribution, let alone that "For their authority...referred to" those two documents. No writings provided verify that them turning to the Will was done to exercise any alleged "authority" they might think they had to assume command. The quote from the Will shows they were forming the Custodians in accordance to the Writings and not as an excuse to exercise their alleged authority. These writings provide no such authority, but what's relevant is they didn't publish anything to the affect that "For their authority". It's by all accounts original research. Some rewording is apparently necessary, and at the very least removing this new statement by MARussell.

I believe this paragraph a bit redundant considering the previous one states almost the same thing regarding electing nine Custodians. Is it even necessary? I'd like it to be reworded for neutrality's sake, as it's an editor's choice of wording, and not supported by the ref. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You should actually read the material before you shoot your mouth off, Jeff. Unfortunately its not the first time you've done that. Ministry documents exactly where the Hands derived their authority. They spell it out repeatedly. But, if you want one spot so that you don't have to read much, read their 15 October, 1960, letter to all National Spiritual Assemblies. (Ministry, pp. 231-236.)

Remeyites have been screeching for years that the Hands had no executive authority to do what they did, yet when a direct statement from the Guardian, himself, is cited stating that they, in fact, do have executive authority within limits: you revert it out calling it OR. Nonsense — It's a direct quote from a published source. hat's as WP:V as it gets, Boyo. As its presence is inconvenient to your POV, excising it amounts to bad faith editing.

Your removal of the Ministry and Lights of Divine Guidance references — published sources both — violates WP:V. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with verifiable sources. I asked for someone to provide one that verifies they referred to that directive which is how it's written: "For their authority the Hands referred to....". Well if that's what happened then establish it. By definition you adding a random writing to bolster the claim, but not providing they actually referred to it the way it's written they did, is original research in it's plainest form. My rewrite wasn't in bad faith, as I didn't remove anything that wasn't redundant.

Indeed this writing is a verifiable source; I didn't deny it was. Its rude to suggest removing it was in bad faith because it's inconvenient to my POV. That's not very nice. It's not referred to in any of the newly provided sources, but is being brought forth from your own original research which is why I removed it. If it can be shown that the Hands referred to it in a published source "For their authority", then provide that for the statement. Otherwise it's not a matter of my POV, but that your own ideas about this are not allowed in the article.

Your so-called "reference" makes plain what I've been saying, but we interpret it different, for what stands out to me is not the "executive authority" bit, but the "in so far as they carry out the work of the Guardian" bit. Our diffences lie in interpretations (namely that you think they carried out his Ten Year Plan accordingly when they admittedly missed the mark), but that I don't wish to attend to those things right now. The germane issue is that you can't add that reference in the context of "For their authority they referred" to it without showing they ever actually referred to it. Don't ask the reader to familiarize themselves with ever detail of the writings; I simply asked that you just provide the references and their's really no issue. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"So-called 'reference'"? The Guardian is a "so-called reference" on the subject of the Hands' executive authority? After trumpeting that the Hands had no authority, you dismiss a direct statement from the Guardian stating unequivocally that they do, quite in fact, have exectutive authority as a "so-called 'reference'"? And you accuse the rest of us intellectual dishonesty.

I gave you four letters to read for yourself. You couldn't possibly have found them and read them in the 57 minutes it took you to revert.

How about this:

To All National Spiritual Assemblies, C/O BAHÁ'Í WILMETTE

JULY 26, 1960

ENTIRE BODY HANDS OBEDIENT PROVISIONS WILL TESTAMENT CENTRE COVENANT COMMUNICATIONS BELOVED GUARDIAN ENJOINING THEM PROTECT HOLY CAUSE ATTACKS ENEMIES WITHIN WITHOUT ANNOUNCE BAHÁ'Í WORLD MASON REMEY COVENANT BREAKER EXPELLED FAITH STOP ...

(Ministry of the Custodians, p. 223)

and

No. 2 The Hands of the Cause will have executive authority in so far as they carry out the work of the Guardian.

(The Light of Divine Guidance v II, p. 80)

That's not simple enough? The Lights of Divine Guidance reference is directly on-point. How many other communications of the Guardian's do I have to troop out for you when WP:V says I only have to have one? MARussellPESE (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's entirely my fault for not being more explicit about what I considered an oversight. Terribly sorry to have troubled you so over this. What I thought I'd made clear has been taken entirely in the wrong direction. You didn't need to "troop out" four ref's in the first place. I'm actually quite familiar with all these references; why would you presume I wouldn't be, or to the very least assume I don't have an Ocean search engine to track down what I need?

There's obviously been a misunderstanding here. Let me just get right to the point w/ no editorializing on the overly dramatic reactions to my edits/reasoning, and then state plainly what I believe is the solution. You added to to the existing sentence "and the Guardian's own notation of the Hands' executive authority in carrying out his directives." with link to the ref supporting this notion. The sentence starts off with "For their authority, the Hands referred to.." such and such in the Will, to which you added "and the Guardian's own notation of the Hands' executive authority in carrying out his directives". The reference needed here is not that this directive exists, but that they "referred" to it "For their authority". It's verified with a ref already that they pointed to the Will, but your addition still isn't supported, even by having trooped out these four ref's. Those don't support you contributions at all and should be stricken, as they are redundant in that they're duly noted in the ref at the end of that sentence. The issue I brought up isn't as to whether or not that's a legitimate verifiable source, but that it wasn't ever "referred" to "For their authority" in any of the ref's currently attributed to it. Please provide one, or possibly reword the sentence so that it doesn't read in the misleading way it currently does. You can kick and scream about this till the end of time about how on-point you think that is, but you adding this to that sentence is what YOU believe validates and exonerates their actions (ie it's WP:OR). You're not allowed to soap-box any more than I can or I could just start piecing together my own ideas on these matter like you're doing now; you need to use things from published sources, especially regarding something as specific as "For their authority [they] referred to....". The bottom line is bring forward a ref that "they referred" to it like the sentence states they did, or reword the sentence.Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My, can you split that hair any finer? You aren't actually reading this argument at all are you? The Hands refer to "COMMUNICATIONS BELOVED GUARDIAN ENJOINING THEM PROTECT HOLY CAUSE ATTACKS ENEMIES WITHIN". Remeyites claim that they had no "exectutive authority" to do this. The Guardian states that they do have it. What else could they have been referring to?

I chose "Referring to their authority" to keep it toned down, but if that's not enough how's this: "Based on their authority explicitly defined by `Abdul-Baha (W&T) and Shoghi Effendi (LDG) they expelled Mason Remey as a Covenant Breaker (Ministry)."? "Relying upon their authority …" works too.

Three statements, each clearly supported by an explicit statement from published sources. Satisfactory, or would you rather it stay more neutral as is?

MARussellPESE (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeff3000 has fixed it with a simple rewording-continued next section Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing 'Role of the Hands'

MARussell, we seem to have devolved into mis-characterizing each others stated beliefs and intentions. I do it too. It doesn't serve the discussion in any way. I actually laughed out loud when I read "You aren't actually reading this argument at all are you?" cuz I was just thinking the same thing about you moments before reading it. We've taken ample space to make our respective points clear, and we should now agree to disagree as the difference comes down to interpretation. We agree they clearly were given executive authority to act upon the Guardians directions, and disagree upon their right to carry on beyond his death. As is now quadruply noted I don't accept they could as obviously they weren't under his supervision or direction, and these instructions to the Baha'i world make clear they are *under his direction*. I'm fixated upon the unresolved notion they should have turned to the body SE established which was later intended to assume command (IBC); whereas the Hands were never meant to function independently of him, and the IBC was to evolve into exactly that role. Ooops, I'm on my soapbox again. I'm not beyond the ability to comprehend your side; it's just not plausible to me for these and many other reasons previously unmentioned. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your beliefs; I understand where you derive them from better.

Can I just make a suggestion and observation. It's really not my intent to clutter up this or any other section with countless unnecessary footnotes. I asked for reference to the new statement from LOG, and the four provided in footnote 25 are superfluous, redundant, and duly noted in footnote 27 (Page 29 of Ministries). It doesn't require all those ref, one suffices. Actually note 27 from Ministries pg 29 is more than specific enough that they referred to the Will; that one suffices and the four added today as note 25 are redundant. I'd say the same about the 2nd paragraph; one ref would suffice. I rewrote this today not to mess with this section in bad faith, but after reading through it saw that the 2nd paragraph and the "For their authority" sentence could all be put together for one cohesive thought. It was reverted for no plausible reason; why? I think some sort of version of what I created this afternoon would read better. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the way something reads: rewrite it. But it's not your call to remove bona-fide sources, no matter how many footnotes it generates. WP:V and WP:NPOV are keystones of this place. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are cleanups to the references, and where they are cited, go ahead and fix them. I'm sorry if I reverted a previous change, as it was my oversight. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did rewrite it, and the sources I removed were ones already duly noted. That's why I asked why it was reverted. I assume it's cuz the Lights of Guidance was part of the deletions? Was there any value in what I was attempting here? Sometimes I think it helps to read the article in it's entirety for perspective, and this part read a little choppy to me. What about that wording, with the "The Guardian had written that the Hands had executive authority in carrying out his directives" in there? If it's not an improvement in any way, then no worries. Whichever. Cheers. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true. You did not rewrite anything. Your edits [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] on this amounted to nothing more than attempts at censoring inconvenient statements contrary to your POV. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem? Why are you still laboring over this? I wrote that 5 days ago simply asking if rewording it this way read any better than the way it is now. Did you even look at the link? There are two separate paragraph that I combined. What are you talking about I didn't rewrite anything? I put it out there as a suggestion.

Why are you bringing this up again? The removal of the LOG statement was completely justified as the way you contributed it didn't have any support that "For their authority...they referred to" that LOG statement in any way, and was absolutely your own WP:OR by every definition. Jeff3000 rewrote it which is why I dropped the matter, and started this new section of discussion. The inclusion of the LOG at all is by definition WP:OR for it's not referred to by them ever in any writings. Of course it's a verifiable source, but throwing together a mish-mosh of writings that supports your POV is by def. original research. I thought you knew better. Then when pointing out what you were doing couldn't be supported cuz they have never "referred to" that writing, you say I'm splitting hairs? LOL; what a farce! It shouldn't be included even in it's present form as it's not referred to in anything they published about why they felt they had jurisdiction, but has been brought forward through your own research. But the fact is I just don't care any more. Say whatever you want about your beloved infallible Saints/Clergy.

There is nothing inconvenient to my POV about this LOG reference. The fact that you keep stating so when I've explained it six different ways makes me wonder if your senility is setting in already. I see it as another of many verses which prove the point that their executive authority did not exist except for when carrying out directives coming directly from him. I fully accept this LOG ref as making my case, and reject how you loosely interpret it's value to defending them breaking the Covenant. The way you interpret it and use it here is misleading as there are critical differences of opinion about how they continued on without him, the changes they took liberties to make to his Explicit plans when they saw fit, and flagrantly decided to just carry on making their decisions on what to do where Explicit Guidance was lacking. You need to get over yourself about how they followed his 10 Year Plan to the letter; it's a ruse and is sharply rejected by everyone this page discusses (present company excluded). We both know the others positions, so I'll thank you to stop mis-characterizing mine.

This petty cheap shot is completely unprovoked and uncalled for. I dropped this over a week ago and started this new discussion to see if there was any agreement that the section could be worded better. Don't worry, I won't make that mistake again if this is the reception my suggetions will get. Take care.Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "rewrite" did not attempt to untangle a passage you found difficult. It removed a salient point. It's not a petty cheap shot to call that out. It speaks for itself when made plain. (Five plus edits removing sourced statements is pretty plain.)

"The inclusion of the LOG at all is by definition WP:OR for it's not referred to by them ever in any writings." — Not true. See the above 26-Jul-60 cable for just one example of the Hands referring to the Guardian's various directives for their authority. The bulk of Ministry of the Custodians addresses their considering their authority and justification. There was considerable variation in their thinking until Bill Sears' letter of 30-Jun-60 finally cleared the air. It's not original research to cite sources supporting the position taken by an entire book. You would do well to read it.

I take extreme exception to calling me senile. That is most definitely a personal attack. I've dissected your logic, but not attacked your person. This is a low for you. An apology is in order. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My aren't we the victim? This is a personal attack: "The fact that you keep stating so when I've explained it six different ways makes me wonder if your senility is setting in already."? I didn't "call you senile"; there's clearly a difference. Surely you can see I'm frustrated and annoyed over having my concerns incessantly railed against- my point was a far cry from a direct personal attack. I'm at a loss and frustrated that no matter how many ways I've explained my intentions, beliefs, and concerns you consistently and systematically go back to the same mis-characterization of them. Besides, your "Boyo" to me still stings a little, so maybe we're even?

Mike, go back and reread the first post I made to this newest section. I put aside the preceding differences that had just occurred, and as diplomatically as I could be made an honest attempt to have a neutral discussion over content. Your reply was condescending and rude. I then explained what and why I did what I did and you called me a liar. There are no victims here Mike. Get over yourself. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee. Excuse me. I told you to rewrite something instead of deleting verifiable material contrary to policy. Yes, how terribly rude. Condecending too, I must say. Also, stating that your statement wasn't true was most certainly calling you a "liar", instead of perhaps merely mistaken.

Oh, and "boyo". How unutterably rude. An informal Irish and Welsh word for a man. A direct assault on your person to be sure. Despite actually being Irish, how could I possibly have been so thoughtless of your feelings. My mistake. But you're never mistaken. I can see that now.

And I mistook "your senility is setting in already" for genuine concern over a condition you might think I have. Really? How kind. Ah, yes, it's coming back. If I'm not senile I don't have to worry about my senility as it's already setting in. Wait. Does my senility setting in already mean I'm not senile? Or is it that I'm not senile if my senility has set in already? I'm losing it. What if my senility hasn't set in yet? Am I senile now? Didn't Kant say "I think therefore my senility has set in"? Or was that Shakespeare?

I get it now. Clear as a bell. Using an informal ethnic word was terribly insulting, noting that something you said wasn't true was most definitely calling you a liar, but your wondering if my senility was already setting in was not saying I'm senile. Thank you. Truly, you have a dizzying command of the language. I feel better now. You've brought such clarity to my evening. Maybe some warm milk and toddling off to bed to get over myself. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)