Talk:Bahá'í divisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Discussions from this page are archived under the following headings

• /Archive1 - June 2005 - November 2005
• /Archive2 - Dec 2005 - Apr 2006
• /Archive3 - Apr 2006 - Jan 2008

Contents 1 Rewrite of BUPC section 2 Resolve to condense BUPC section 3 Vision of this article has been lost 4 Bogged Down by History Lessons 5 More on reverts 5.1 length 6 Source

[edit] Rewrite of BUPC section

I've rewritten portions of the BUPC section to address some of the content that's not accurately reflecting what the few sources I have to draw upon actually say. Specifically:

1 Word for word from "Expecting Armageddon" it states in the "Summary of the BUPC on p.271 "In 1964, after becoming disillusioned with the infighting among Remey's followers, Jensen and his wife Opal moved to Missoula, Montana where they opened a chiropractic clinic." which I've used as an opening sentence. The previous version has no merit or reference, whereas this is WP:V.

2 Some time ago this sloppily worded unreferenced POV sentence was added: "According to Jensen, this title [of Establisher] signified a status higher than that of the Guardian, but lower than a Manifestation of God.". It's not accurate, verified, or derived from anything published but apparently the conclusion from the original research of Cunado, the sentences creator. I believe adding "what he called the Establisher" should suffice in establishing Cunado's desire to show this is not a station assigned in the Covenant, but one unique to Doc.

3 The statement summarizing the BUPC's teachings is a run on sentence and not wholly accurate, but again was the result of Cunado's POV from his own original research and not anything from a published source. I remember making at least a dozen attempts to reword this clear WP:OR previously, but to no avail, as apparently anything short of strict adherence to wording he creates is clearly deemed unacceptable and met with obstinate reverting. Our sources about ourself regarding views specifically about the Guardianship clearly state otherwise for which I've made the appropriate changes.

4 I've scaled back and toned down the previously mentioned specific issues Jensen made public about the UHJ from two sentences to this: "He believed the Universal House of Justice in Haifa to be flawed and fallible, as it is without a living guardian/executive, and by his interpretations not elected per Shoghi Effendi's instructions." This is here to establish why exactly he formed a new council to begin with, as it's not inherent to any other group. Firstly none of them has a Council w/ a Guardian, and 2ndly no other group has published this even if they agree with it. This has been discussed at length previously, but quoting him directly that "without the guardian, the UHJ in Haifa is a fake fraud and an imitation" was met with opposition, and this watered-down "flawed and fallible" idea that MARussell proposed was acceptable enough. Now Cunado is maintaining that his clearly well documented beliefs and reasonings about this have no place in a summary which is attempting to establish why he took the actions he did? Absurd. No such sentiments are expressed previous to this group summary, nor implicitly implied. Cunado apparently assumes that since all groups reject the UHJ these ideas are implied? This is a well documented point of contention specific to the BUPC, and nothing previously mentioned makes these specific allegations. There is no justifiable reason for repeatedly removing this long-standing poignant statement. If you'd rather me refer to the original wording to express this point about Haifa's UHJ being a "fake fraud and an imitation" I'd readily agree to that. Otherwise there's no way this wholly unique WP:V is being censured. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1, the fact that he was not re-elected is referenced in the first instance of saying it, above in the article. Expecting Armageddon is about what happened 15 years later, and the researcher has no authority about what happened in the disputes of the 1960s. In reality Jensen was part of the infighting, so to say that he left because of the faults of others is misleading. I chose to ignore the subject by just saying that he wasn't re-elected and left.

2, I didn't write that sentence, and you're right it's unreferenced and I'll leave it out.

3, The only thing I changed was the structure of the sentence. The only wording I changed from your version was removing "Along with the basic tenets of the Baha'i Faith", which is obvious and repetitive.

4, As I've mentioned many times, all these groups have an emphasis on the continuing guardianship, and it's obvious (and already in the article) that they all reject the validity of the UHJ established in 1963 in Haifa. There is nothing unique about Jensen's beliefs on the matter.

5, and the point you reverted back and didn't bring up on the talk page is the quotation of Spataro's book. He was a die-hard follower of Remey and is clearly biased, as noted by several book reviews you can find online. The statement you quoted was that the Universal House of Justice "abrogated the guardianship". His book is actually useful as a reference for events in Remey's life, but not for his personal opinion on the legitimacy of the House of Justice. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your personal feelings and opinions about verifiable sources is irrelevant and will not be required for consideration. You have not cited anything from published sources to reject these contributions, but are proposing anyone give a care how you feel about VERIFIABLE and entirely on-topic and relevant statements. Child please. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there's no justifiable reason for reverting my changes aside from how you feel about them. That's really too bad for you, friend. I'm just going to address these points you've raised as clearly and concise as I can, and if the spirit and intent gets lost in translation at least I've made the effort.

1. Using ideas proposed in a Findings of Fact brief that are being debated, objected to, and yet to be ruled upon in an on-going unresolved court case fall several miles short of over-riding what a published source like Expecting Armaggedon have to say on the matter. As an aside it has been contended, and upheld by Frank Schlatter's testimony that Doc left the group before the 1964 elections, so I'd prefer to go with what Balch wrote (which I copied almost word for word) in Expecting Armageddon. This has nothing to do with whether or not "the researcher has no authority about what happened in the disputes of the 1960s". That's you POV, and your own original research is not welcome for contributions. Even less welcome are you uses of contested and objected to Findings of Fact briefs as a source to override what a well respected researcher stated in a published research paper. Your rewrite of the sentence doesn't at all reflect what the reference you left in place says. Balch's research doesn't require your own WP:OR to bolster the findings.
2. I don't agree that "it's obvious (and already in the article) that they all reject the validity of the UHJ established in 1963 in Haifa.". Where *exactly* in the article are these sentiments expressed? I was right that you believe it's implied. Well this statement makes it explicit the reasons Jensen went forward and established a whole new council, and show how he solved this "obvious" dilemma. This thing is so watered down and sterilized and one-sided that little to zero justice is being served for these groups POV. You're not going to further sterilize the BUPC section of this article. This point has been there for over 3 years after a quasi-concensus was reached on it's wording. You can't justify this, so leave it alone. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The court document states initially "Facts set forth in bold-face type are agreed by all parties," so they are not debated, objected to, and yet to be ruled upon." Being a published source does not mean it has authority on any matter within its walls. A reference has to have authority on the subject that it's being quoted about, and the author is writing about Jensen's failed prophecies 15 years later. I reworded the section to be more neutral, I think you'll find it appropriate. In the same way Spataro is being quoted about the validity of the House of Justice, and it's not mentioned that he was a follower of Mason Remey. That is misleading, for one, and an unacceptable reference for the quote in question.

We've gone over this a dozen times. It is obvious and mentioned already that "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." The first paragraph under "Further development of Remey's followers." This is a point that is not necessary to repeat under every section heading, and it's not a unique thing that Jensen came up with. Remey himself denied the validity of the House of Justice in 1963. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're actually abreast of what's going on that proceeding, then stop misrepresenting it. That brief is from Joel and Frank's response to the NSA's accusations, whereas they are but one party in the court. The BUPC's response unequivocally rejects that very idea, and Frank Schlatter's own testimony stated that after the infighting that took place Jensen "LEFT THAT GROUP", so to say that he left because he wasn't re-elected it disingenous, not true, and rejected by eye-witness testimony. This is not a done deal, so POV statements like that Jensen and King weren't re-elected aren't appropriate.

We've not gone over this a dozen times regarding Jensen's beliefs about the UHJ. That statement stood for several years until your rewrite. This is explicit and not redundant, but entirely on-topic. You haven't presented anything in this discussion with any substance to justify any of this sterilization of the content. It's all about what YOU feel and believe is relevant. I'll thank you to leave be the cited statements of VERIFIABLE source, and give up the charade of why you think certain PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS don't deserve inclusion. Your POV and WP:OR are of 0.00 concern here. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The document is between the NSA and the Orthodox Baha'is, and the uncontested point was that Jensen was not elected to the NSAUHG in 1964. I wasn't trying to imply that he left because he wasn't re-elected, that doesn't matter, but your wording left the assumption that he wasn't part of the infighting, which is false. My rewording was neutral and only mentioned that he was on the 1963 NSAUHG, thus maintaining the connection. Being published doesn't mean that it has authority in any context or on any subject. I've mentioned this several times while you ignore the issue. By the way, linking to a policy page doesn't automatically make your argument correct.

I objected to your wording and placement of the sentence about Jensen's beliefs and the House of Justice a long time ago, but I didn't press the issue. Length of time on the page is irrelevant. In this edit I actually left in the points that you so desperately wanted, but improved the structure and wording. I have a feeling you didn't actually look at it before reverting.

Likewise, in the same edit I moved Spataro's reference to where it would naturally flow in the article, but you reverted. I have been civil and compromising since we started this issue a week ago, and you have called me a child and belittled me. This article is not worth your soul, so please get a perspective on things and focus on a resolution. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I was operating under the assumption that you were abreast of the issues surrounding this court case, and I'm sorry that I implied you were acting in bad faith. The argument the NSA is making is that Jensen was acting in privity of the injunction, and our lawyers have objected to and established in several ways that Jensen left that group at the end of the 1963 fiscal year; something Schlatter testified to, Doc always maintained, and further supported by Balch's research paper. So naturally you can see that it does matter to some how something like that's worded.

Brian, I have nothing against your beliefs, your person, or your convictions. You are right, you have been civil throughout this discussion, but I'd say that "comprosing" might be a stretch. You reverted back to your original rewrite without compromise until only just last night, so let's call a spade a spade, shall we? I have been repeatedly harsh in discussions mainly because I feel that since day one (which was 11/05/05) I've been being attacked. That's the bottom line with where I'm coming from. I've never seen your actions here as in good faith or that you've extended that assumption to me. Frankly they words and actions all appear to me to be intent on marginalizing and minimizing to the absolute lowest denominator the beliefs of these groups. It doesn't help the mainstream's cause to constantly hold aloft this lily white facade you all are part of maintaining, IMHO. That aside, I do respect you beliefs, and admire your conviction. I'm sorry for belittling you in the process of making my points. I shouldn't react that way when I feel my concerns are being ignored. Thanks for taking them into consideration now. This isn't personal, but it seems easy to forget that. Cheers. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resolve to condense BUPC section

It doesn't seem necessary or prudent to continually expand and add to the summary of the BUPC. As has been duly noted this should be a summary, right? As Cunado has recently reworded and expanded upon the already elaborate summary, I don't feel it should be of any surprise or unreasonable to expect that I would weigh in and wish to add clarity, or make adjustments? Yet I'm continually unilaterally reverted? How is this reasonable by any stretch? As we all seem to have the same resolve, these types of stand-offs are increasingly aggravating and unproductive.

Today I have attempted to condense certain elaborations, neutralize apparent POV wording, and fix the inaccurate wording about his predictions to reflect what those researchers actually wrote in the provided ref. Yet this series of edits is met with a unilateral revert? Undoing this improves the article how exactly?

I remain in opposition to removing the oft objected sentence regarding his specific issue with the sans-Guardian UHJ. It's mentioned previously that "All those that profess belief in Mason Remey as the second Guardian did not accept the Universal House of Justice established in 1963". IMO, this falls short of making Jensen's specific concerns redundant. For instance nowhere is it established or even eluded that anyone believed the UHJ was "not elected per Shoghi Effendi's instructions", so I object to removing that wording here. In fact it is implied that every detail in establishing the UHJ was done to the letter, which is something the BUPC vehemently object to. Furthermore none of the other groups have formed a legislative body to make up for the specific shortcomings mentioned, which is what these two sentences are establishing. Without this it reads to me like he had no good reason to form the sIBC, but with this concise statement it makes clear that he was doing what he did for a purpose. These specific allegations are mentioned nowhere previously, and yet are concisely relevant, and on-topic. I can see no good cause for removing them if the interest of this article is truly to reflect the various views.

I feel the section can be summarized efficiently, and is in need of the changes I've have made today to remain accurate and neutral. I'm perfectly willing and capable of addressing changes here and avoiding extraneous reverting. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 07:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're getting reverted because your edits are soft-selling verifiable facts and peddling POV positions regarding the current state of the BUPC. Jensen was not accused of sexual molestation and then convicted of something else — he was convicted of molestation as lewd and lascivious is the crime's name.

And, to an outsider, the latest in the string of Remeyite splinterings is by no means as cut-and-dried as your selling it here. MARussellPESE (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you could take a moment to look at all that you've unilaterally reverted, that would be swell. Could you be specific about what you think is my POV here? If I could ref. these things, which is easy enough, would that help? I have the same concerns; that your POV is dominating the content, and its lacking the alt. views. Please consider:

1. the wording for his predictions doesn't at all accurately reflect what the source actually states. I've made the appropriate alteration and you reverted it back to Cunado's sloppy non-sensical wording.
2. those are two different crimes in MT, and because those researchers carelessly tossed in that language you all are insisting both are included. The actual crime he was convicted of is in the one source, which if you were as sincere about accuracy as you claim would suffice. I can where you all are coming from here, and I'm not trying to suppress anything. But a conviction of molestation is a much harsher crime, which doesn't' allow parole in MT. He wasn't charged or convicted of that, but whatever. It's not big issue either way, except of course to you all.
3. His Firesides tell his side, and it hardly seems unreasonable to mention he and his followers believe the charge was unjust. That is verifiable for which I provided a ref.
4. You haven't addressed anything about my specific concerns about the UHJ concerns the BUPC have. Why, when I've fully elaborated our sound position above is this being ignored and removed?

Again, it would be just swell if we could work this out here, as we clearly all have the same willingness and resolve to unilaterally revert each other. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 16:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

True "Lewd and Lascivious" doesn't exist anymore in the Montana Code. Today, the code appears to be much more streamlined. Now the conviction would be for sexual assault (MT 45-5-502) and he'd be required to register as a sexual offender for ten years minimum after release (MT 46-23-506). So "child molester" is not a conflation of his conviction.

Re-read WP:UNDUE. NPOV does not mean you get equal time. So extended treatment of BUPC visions of the UHJ are POV. As your wildest membership numbers aren't 1/1000th of the Baha'i community's you'd have a hard time getting disinterested parties to recognize the BUPC as more than a "tiny-minority". That's borne out by the silence of any research into the BUPC beyond the doomsday curiosities.

Jensen's firesides aren't WP:V so they aren't of use, even if they had a place. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The prediction about the comet was that on the day mentioned Haley's comet would lose its normal orbit and begin to circle around the earth, changing tides and generally wreaking havoc while dropping debris. Exactly one year after the date, the comet was supposed to collide with the earth. My summary was "begin to collide with the earth on April 29, 1986" and your version was "begin to be pulled apart and pelt the earth on April 29, 1986". Mine is more accurate, in that it mentions a collision with the earth. It is not a "sloppy non-sensical version."

Regarding the oft removed phrase about his objection with the UHJ, I think it is not only mentioned that all the Remeyite groups object to the UHJ, but it is clearly mentioned in the section that Jensen believed he was chosen by God to re-establish the Faith after what he considered to be a corruption of the system. The oft removed phrase is poorly worded, and appears to me to be nothing more than a POV jab at the House of Justice, unrelated to the story of Jensen. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Some clarifications and revue of these policies being tossed about is apparently in order, for they are being entirely misrepresented here.

1. From Undue weight- "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them". Furthermore Jimbo states that tiny minority views do not belong in articles "except perhaps in some ancillary articles". I don't thinks anyone would argue that this is an ancillary article? Views of these groups would not be appropriate on the Baha'i Faith page, but to suppress them here is a violation of policy. This policy clearly states the EXACT OPPOSITE of what MARussell alleges it states: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented *except* in articles devoted to those views". This is an articles summarizing the views of the groups found in it, so it defies logic to argue that their stated beliefs which spurred their separation don't warrant inclusion. Not only does it defy logic, but also the stated policy. This policy has been unfairly leveraged to make the case for expanding all the details for why these groups are misguided and mislead (which is divergent from its intended purpose), while at the same time being used to suppress their criticisms. Invoking this policy every time inconvenient criticisms wish inclusion in this *ancillary* article specifically devoted to these minority views is not how this policy is to be exercised, and will no longer be a consideration for inclusion of matters regarding these groups stated *views*. Case closed PER POLICY.
2. As far as "Jensen's firesides aren't WP:V so they aren't of use" I believe a review of the policy is also in order: "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves". As the only purpose for the ref was to verify that the ON-TOPIC claim that he "attempted" to teach new believers his not only that his conviction was unjust but the it led to him fulfilling prophecy. It hardly seems unreasonable to mention he and his followers believe the charge was unjust. Not only is it what he taught and what we believe, but there are extensive teaching materials maintained by the BUPC to verify this is true. Case closed PER POLICY.
3. As far as the prediction the wording I chose was practically word for word off the page that was referenced, so if this is so darned relevant for inclusion, the GET IT RIGHT.
4. Cunado *thinks* "it is mentioned that all the Remeyite groups object to the UHJ"? I quoted already the one mention of this. It blandly states that "All those that profess belief in Mason Remey as the second Guardian did not accept the Universal House of Justice established in 1963". The statement in the BUPC section isn't about countering views but rather establishing the motives for the actions taken. This has nothing to do with cheap shots at the UHJ, for in fact his stated view is that it's a "fake fraud and an imitation". This isn't the point, which I've elaborated upon in my opening remarks, and I'd appreciate them being considered at some point in the conversation. Let's review them again if we must. IMO, this falls short of making Jensen's specific concerns redundant. For instance nowhere is it established or even eluded that anyone believed the UHJ was "not elected per Shoghi Effendi's instructions", so I object to removing that wording here. In fact it is implied that every detail in establishing the UHJ was done to the letter, which is something the BUPC vehemently object to. Furthermore none of the other groups have formed a legislative body to make up for the specific shortcomings mentioned, which is what these two sentences are establishing. Without this it reads to me like he had no good reason to form the sIBC, but with this concise statement it makes clear that he was doing what he did for a purpose. These specific allegations are mentioned nowhere previously, and yet are concisely relevant, and on-topic. I believe it's a extremely overly dramatic to characterize this ONE SENTENCE as "extended treatment of BUPC visions of the UHJ". Any reasonable person can see this an obvious exaggeration bordering on absurd. It's far from unreasonable to ask it be left alone.
5. I'm not interested in expanding this section further, but rather streamlining it which is what I was attempting by cutting out some things in the last couple paragraphs. If thats a concern for some reason then lets work with it. I find it chocked full of inane details that can be found in the main article, but thats may be just me?_{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 07:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, neither of your "answers" are valid. You've missed the point of the the policies I cited.

1. This article is about Baha'i divisions, not Remeyite postions on Baha'i divisions. The majority position is the Baha'i position. As such your opinions are indeed tiny-minority ones — even here. Therefore, your insisting that it be "established or even eluded that anyone believed the UHJ was 'not elected per Shoghi Effendi's instructions'" be included is inappropriate. You've already got pages to make your own points.
2. This isn't an article about Jensen's positions on Baha'i divisions either — so your self-published works aren't appropriate here. They may be on BUPC pages, which is why I've never had an issue with them there. MARussellPESE (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tried to include material from the Firesides. It's not a necessary requirement. But how is it unreasonable to state he taught his group he wasn't guilty? This is bordering on absurd. This is an article about the Division groups, and you're reinterpreting these policies to try and say that the exceptions that govern minorities to share their views in articles devoted to them don't apply? Please! If not here, then where?

I've elaborated my concerns for four separate issues, and they are being obstinately reverted unilaterally? You reverted much more than the perceived "undue weight" statement. How is this productive when only but one or two are being addressed here? Can we separate and deal with them one at a time please. The present course is unproductive.

1. Is it unreasonable to mention the verifiable fact that he taught his conviction was unjust but led to what he believed was the begining of his mission?
2. I believe it's extremely overly dramatic to characterize the ONE SENTENCE about Jensen's the specific concerns which motivated his forming the sIBC as "extended treatment of BUPC visions of the UHJ". That's hardly even the point, and until recently hadn't been an issue, for this statement has been there for over 2 years. All of a sudden it's an "extended treatment of BUPC visions of the UHJ"?
3. As far as the prediction the wording I chose was practically word for word off the page that was referenced, so if this is so darned relevant for inclusion, then GET IT RIGHT. You keep reverting back to inaccurate statements that don't match what clearly stated on the referenced pages.
4. What exactly is the problem with cutting out some things in the last couple paragraphs? They seem repetitive and redundant. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The revert comments and minimal explanations here have made no attempt to address all the content being removed, which began with Cunado (who's contributed zero here), and continues unabated. What little has been offered defies the policy exception given for when minority views can be place. This has not been reconciled by the skillful word-smithing here which is attempting to subvert the right of these groups to be accurately depicted. There is no such "extended treatment" of these minority views being attempted here. These scant explanations are patently absurd, and if that is all there is to consider, then the long standing comment of Jensen's view has no business being removed 2 years after the fact, and the same holds true for the 3 other points above. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So apparently noone but me in interested in discussing edits? I've fully explained myself, and with no contribution to the conversation Cunado feels free to again unilaterally revert all of my contribution with zero consideration for the clear concerns and reasons I've provided. It was he who removed the long-standing comments to begin with, and yet can't seem to defend excising them with anything more than his personal feeling about it. To bad policy provides otherwise. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course nobody's going to be interested in "discussing" edits after your argument's been asked and answered. For the third time, on this unbelievably convoluted talk page you've started three different threads on, your edits fail WP:Undue which is a sub-set of WP:NPOV. The points your trying to shoe-horn in here are already covered on the various BUPC pages and external links. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe what's got me so perplexed is that I've asked about 4 separate issues, to which 2 have still not been acknowledged, and the outright dismissal of the till recently long-standing motives for Jensen's actions defies the policy exception given for when minority views can be placed. Until recently it hadn't been an issue, for this statement has been there for over 2 years. All of a sudden it's an "extended treatment of BUPC visions of the UHJ"? Cunado's only contribution is to hit the revert button, and MARussell's is to redefine policy. Three of these questions haven't been answered to much of any extent, even though I've explained the concerns as many ways as I can imagine; yet they go ignored. The fact that there's two separate discussions going on here has nothing to do with anything. No one's forcing anybody to burden themselves with following one or the other; the two are entirely unrelated. This discussion is clearly reaching a crossroads. I'm suggesting that the Jensen fireside comments are germane, that the predictions wording is afoul of what the provided ref states, and that condensing the last two paragraph's will make it read easier. Can these 3 matters be acknowledged and resolved here and now? What are the concerns that are causing the reverts to those three, for I truly don't understand. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 03:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All of your issues have been addressed — repeatedly: They all fail WP:Undue. I don't know how many times that has to be said.

I don't have to "redefine" a policy to make it clear that the particular positions of a group of a few score people is a tiny-minority viewpoint with respect to that of a group of a few million. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolving to condense two paragraph's fails UNDUE? Resolving to correctly attribute the details the provided ref actually states fails to meet UNDUE? The three points I've just asked about have been have been "addressed- repeatedly" have they? They've been set aside, ignored, and have been reverted with zero consideration. Not that they're issues to cut our teeth over, but you're honestly telling me that these three specific things I've asked about have been repeatedly addressed and fail to meet UNDUE? LOL> Sorry to trouble anyone over these matters; I didn't set out to aggravate. Cunado's recent edits and rewrites raised concerns for me, and instead of a needless back and forth of reverts as is common, I figured I'd set out to resolve them through discussion. He isn't participating, and you're being dismissive and curt. They don't meet UNDUE? Unbelievable.

BTW, this has not been resolved to any satisfaction: ""Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented *except* in articles devoted to those views"". The sentence has laughably been described as "extensive treatment of the BUPC position", but yet only recently after two years has become a monumental concern that it needs excision? Why has no one attempted to touch this fact: ITS ALWAYS BEEN THERE! This has only been "addressed" by curtly dismissing it as "UNDUE" all of a sudden, or by exaggerating it as "extensive treatment". Meanwhile anything I've tried to contribute to the section is being reverted as well? Oh that's right; it's all WP:UNDUE right? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 05:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What exactly have you tried to "condense" here? Could you please show an edit that resulted in the BUPC section being noticably shorter than its previous state? If you want to condense it, then by all means do so. The other groups' sections are noticeably shorter. There's a yardstick.

Oops. There's this and this edit. Except you weren't condensing the BUPC section. You were, twice, condensing the history section by deleting the entire discussion on the criteria for Guardianship and the role of the Hands — both points that directly rebut Remeyite claims. And you're the victim of policy-smithing and have the temerity to ridicule me when I cite WP:NPOV? Yes, I most certainly must be torturing that policy beyond all recognition.

Sorry you feel I'm being curt. Simple arguments deserve simple answers. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Its become apparent that there is no interest in compromise or consideration of these concerns I've expressed. I've asked direct questions that have gone ignored, and the only thing being offered is this rhetoric that just frustrates the issue; you just linked to two edits and completely mischaracterized them. It should be equally as apparent that just resolving to revert my contributions unilaterally without consideration has gotten nowhere at resolving this disagreement. Cunado decided to remove a germane on-topice statement that stood for years, and hasn't bothered to weigh in with more than "it's a cheap shot at the UHJ". I have no intention of letting this go because you all say so. I wasn't asking for your permission by starting this discussion. I thought we could reach a compromise that was agreeable to all. Evidently the only option you'll consider is your will or nothing? Oh well. I tried. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 01:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vision of this article has been lost

Upon meditating the contents of this article, it's clear that in an attempt to answer the stated concerns of the "Division groups", that this article has come to be dominated by a history lesson about the succession of leadership from Shoghi Effendi, to the Hands to the UHJ. This material would be more appropriate in an article about that subject, and stands out as entirely inappropriate here. This articles title indicates it's about the Baha'i division groups, and not the mainstreams groups perceived succession of leadership. I'm removing the extraneous content in order that this article return to it's intended purpose: summaries of divisions. I am aware that there may be a knee jerk reaction to dismiss this concern and revert my edit. I would request that the question first be considered and reviewed as a legitimate concern. Please review the way the article reads now, and if just cause can be shown as to why all that extra superfluous off-topic content warrants inclusion, then please state so here.

Anyone is free take this removed content and merge it into an appropriate article. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 08:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the appropriate article for the history of the divisions. There is no other article that it is due weight for. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; this is the appropriate place for "the history of the division". What isn't obvious is why a reader should endure 4 sections of a history lesson about the perceived succession from SE to the hands to the uhj. What started as a summary of those events has come to dominate the pages contents when that is not what this article is about. Just stating emphatically "IT IS APPROPRIATE" doesn't make it so. I doubt any sound case can be made for it. Please do if you can.

I explained my edits in the BUPC section above, and they are a separate issue. If anyone has an issue with them then the CIVIL thing to do is participate before removing them. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Necessary background, and quite germane to the understanding how the divisions occured. Making a statement that it is not appropriate doesn't make it not appropriate either. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't even glanced at the edit, for you've twice removed contributions I made to the BUPC section. You're welcome to participate in that discussion above if you have an issue with those edits.

A summary would be "germane". Four sections of intimate details debunking the actions of these groups without allowing the same is a rebuttal. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:Undue. The Remeyite groups' collective membership is sufficiently small that, as a tiny minority, its collective position would not merit inclusion. However, the BUPC, Tarbiyyat, Hereditary Guardians, and OBF all have decidedly different positions here, so their inclusion individually has even less merit.

Instead of "streamlining" this "history lesson", you've been excising it. This is a repeated pattern of yours Jeff. That's why you're getting reverted. Please stop and do something constructive. If you think the belongs in another article, then start it, move the material over, and leave a link in this one. MARussellPESE (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

One might suggest you yourself need a review of WP:Undue, for you're becoming increasingly creative in how you choose to interpret it. How much clearer is "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented *except* in articles devoted to those views"? This article meets every exception. I defy you to find an third party who would disagree. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 19:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the article, if you please. This is not an article summarizing the positions of Baha'i splinter groups, much less the Remeyite ones. If it were then these groups would be treated much earlier than section four. Those are articles in and of themselves if they were notable.

This article chronicles the phenomenon of the formation of Baha'i splinter groups at various stages of Baha'i history and provides appropriate background. Those splinter groups are remarkably small and transient. As such they are tiny-minority views except in articles explicitly about themselves. That's not "creative interpretation". Its a plain reading of the article. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bogged Down by History Lessons

In an attempt to answer the stated concerns of the "Division groups", this article has come to be dominated by a history lesson about the succession of leadership from Shoghi Effendi, to the Hands, to the UHJ. This material would be more appropriate in an article about that subject, and stands out as entirely inappropriate here. This articles title indicates it's about the Baha'i division groups, and not the mainstreams groups perceived succession of leadership. A summary would be "germane". Four sections of intimate details debunking the actions of these groups without allowing the same is a rebuttal.

This article, an ancillary article to Baha'i Faith, has become, IMO, completely bogged down by four large sections which attempt to explain every last detail of about what the mainstream groups perception of proper succession should be following it's leader Shoghi Effendi. It was after his death that the majority of the Division groups formed, which is what this article is intended to cover. It now has an extraneous amount of details that are not about these division groups, but rather a rebuttal to them. It is my opinion that this one article devoted to them should not begin by a 14,000MB rebuttal. I suggest this alternative which attempts to stay on-topic [1]. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the sections you removed and why they are quite germane to the article:

• Criteria for Guardianship:

1. Mason Remey specifically responded to the need for Guardian to be an Aghsan
2. The Hands were the ones who expelled Mason Remey and used what they believed was scriptural authority.

• This section gives the necessary background to both of those actions, and is needed for the reader to understand what Mason Remey was claiming, and how the group of people who followed Mason Remey separated from the rest of the Baha'is.

• Relationship between the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice

• I don't care much for this section, but I believe it was you who wanted it in a long time ago. The quotations in my mind should be removed, and the rest of the text can be fit into the "Decision of the Universal House of Justice" section.

• Role of the Hands of the Cause

This section again gives the necessary background for the rest of the article including (a) how the Hands came to have executive power, which the smaller groups state was wrong (b) why the majority of the Baha'is didn't believe that a Guardian could be appointed right away (b) the statements by the further divisions as to why the House was in their mind not correct since it didn't go through the four states they claimed

And it's not 14000MB, but 8000 bytes. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/Jeff3000. The "Relationship" section, if memory serves, was a direct response to Jeffmichaud's attempts to overlay Jensen's POV which are directly rebutted by the quotes. I'm perfectly happy with their elimination and the section's cosolidation if we aren't going to have to then re-rebut BUPC POV here. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we'll have to rely on more than MARussell's memory; it's having issues as of late. That quagmire was formed by user Dave Cornell. I had nothing to do with it, nor does it have any use here. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 23:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Watch it Jeff. It was two years ago or so. But I certainly got the "what" didn't I: shoe-horning Jensenite propaganda into the article and being forced to rebut. If we don't have to rebut your undue weight material, I don't have a problem culling it down. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming some fragment of this laborious "Relationship" section must remain? Is that the concern? Jeff3000 stated "I don't care much for this section", and MARussell concurred adding "I don't have a problem culling it down". How did that become "rv-Discussion is germane and WP:V, inconvenient to the editor's POV, but germane and verifiable"? If it's so important (which I don't see how it fits here at all), the quotes could just be summarized. I don't see it's value at all; but that has nothing to do with its "inconvenience to my POV". It just doesn't have a context in the flow of the article.

Another point which I believe is a strain on the article is the extensive use of quotes which can be summarized and referenced. This has gotten a bit out of hand in almost every section. Also, the Manual of Style specifically singles out the {{cquote}} template used throughout this article as inappropriate stating: "Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for "call-outs", which are generally not appropriate in Wikipedia articles)". I think several of these long quotes can be summarized and referenced, and would be happy to do so, along with any other consensus points reached. I thought believed we had that with the "Relationship" section, but I must have been mistaken? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 07:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You want to streamline the article? That's streamlining.

These three edits of yours ([2], [3], and [4]) all eliminate, without discussion, entire WP:V sections that rebut your POV and have been here for years. That's not streamlining. Jeff, you demand that your tiny minority view be heard, but your edits repeatedly tried to eliminate sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 — all of which address key points in this episode from the Baha'i perspective? Wow! That's brazen. Makes me wonder what you think "equal" time would be.

For discussion with those interested: which of these sections is extraneous or overly long?

3.1 Passing of Shoghi Effendi

This three paragraph section sets the stage for the controversy.

3.2 Criteria for Guardianship

This three paragraph section states the criteria around which the controversy swirled.

3.3 Relationship between the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice

This one paragraph section addresses a key point raised and pressed hard by Remey and his various successors.

3.4 Role of the Hands of the Cause

This eight paragraph section describes the actions taken by the Custodians and their justification. As their actions have been the subject of heated attack by Remeyite groups, including notation in the BUPC section that they'd been "corrupted", they deserve to be detailed.

3.5 Charles Mason Remey

This nine paragraph section describes Remey's actions and justifications during this period. One point has a Custodian's response, but there isn't a better place that I can see that doesn't interrupt the flow.

3.6 Decision of the Universal House of Justice

This is two paragraphs long and sums up the closure of this period.

3.7 A break in the line of Guardians

This raises and then rebuts a point made by all the Remeyite groups. As it's made by the Universal House of Justice, it seems to fit nicely following their 1969 decision.

MARussellPESE (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job; I think that's what I just suggested doing in my last comment, and I volunteered to do it if there was consensus. I think it looks and reads a lot easier that way. Good job Michael; you're an inspiration!

That cuts out more than half the extraneous content, and its great. Your descriptions of them describe their current state, for they were all tediously burdened with quotes before your last edit. As you've duly noted, these sections I've brought this attention to ,sections 3.2,3.3, & 3.4, are "rebuttals" to the POV of the groups that follow. Moreover they're rebuttals to views that haven't been presented in the article. For instance if one doesn't know that the Relationship section is a rebuttal to the "without the Guardian the Baha'i World Faith would be permanently mutilated" quote, then it has no context. That view is not present. The Criteria section is debateable, as the mainstream Baha'is choose to ignore the Baha'i News quote from Shoghi Effendi where he denies that the Hands have a right to overrule his choice; yet that has been repeatedly objected to inclusion. All three of these sections, as well as 3.6 & 3.7 are not about the "phenomenon of Divisions", but as you state, rebuttals. And they're rebuttals to views that haven't been defined on the page. You're now confirming my original criticism which is that there are several sections dedicated to rebutting these groups, which ventures off from this articles subject. There isn't a need for extensive treatment to either side's views or the rebuttals. I haven't suggested "equal time", but you've created an environment where these groups have "no time". _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 20:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on reverts

Regarding this edit, I reverted changes by Jeffmichaud.

1) Jeff removed "served four years of a twenty year sentence in the Montana State Prison". That is relevant to the story. Having served 4 years in state prison for molestation is a significant event in any person's life.

2) Added sentence about Jensen's fireside classes. Doesn't really add anything useful, just that he thinks he's not guilty.

3) Prediction/Prophecy. There is a whole section in Stone's book dedicated to how Jensen and Chase dealt with failed prophecy, and prominent among them was to say that they were only making predictions, and therefore they aren't false prophets. Anyone can make a prediction, right? It's a way of watering down what was said. The only third party source clearly uses the term "prophecy", and that's what should be used here.

4) Jensen's expectation was that the comet would begin to enter earth's orbit on a given date, and collide with the earth exactly one year later. By removing the word "collide" it waters down the prophecy and almost makes it meaningless. Debris falling on the earth is no big deal, but a earth shattering collision with a giant comet is another.

5) The sentence introducing why Jensen set up the council in 1991 is well worded and concise. This has been beat to death, and all the main points have been met. The version that you used is just not a good version.

6) The paragraph about Neal Chase almost deserves its own section, as he represents virtually a new division group. Combining the paragraph and watering down the controversy is just not going to fly.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (seriously), for sharing your reasoning. I don't wholly agree with it all, but thats fine. As you have basically set aside every detail entirely, I hope will at least consider these replies individually:

1. Agreed; I just saw it was implied stating he was convicted and later paroled that time was served. The details in here seem extraneous in places. No biggy either way if its deemed important.
2. I don't know if the point has ever been elaborated upon to any extent to clarify this rather significant tenet of our, so let me try now. Basically we believe he was wrongly convicted/sentenced, but that it was this very thing that led him to be forced into that prison on that date, and these two things were fulfillment of prophecy. There also happened to be a group of Mormons who pioneered the Deer Lodge Valley that believed the return of Jesus would return there on Aug. 8, 1969, which happened to be his 1st day in prison. A Mormon named George Williams had had vision to that effect, and we believe it was a pinnacle point in the story. It happens to be why we believe in him- because he didn't choose these matters, but was forced to comply. I suppose this could be elaborated upon in his own article. It's not a trite point for us though, as its the very reason we believe- the date and address match the prophecy, in our opinions. I'd ask this point be reconsidered in that light, if as you've noted, "significant events" in a persons life are being compiled here.
3. The page you provided for the ref has specific details that read a bit less bizarre than you've worded, that's all. I think both our versions could be more carefully worded. I'd like to separate the predictions (prophecies-whatever), from the sentence about his teachings. Its running-on, and they're distinct issues.
4. Why is this all of a sudden so monumental after all this time, please? I know that you 'believe' the main points have been met, but as I've noted the 'one' sentence about all this says none of the groups that accept Remey accept the UHJ. I maintain that's hardly the point here, as these two specific things were the exact reasons he set out to form a new council- something no other group has done, see? This was well established long ago; why all of a sudden is this so crucial to excise?
5. These matters about Neal can stay as they are- I just thought it was all a bit cumbersome. The Judge has actually ordered that the members of the sIBC convene a meeting and settle the difference over the council table (very Baha'i, right?). He's not going to rule in either party's favor. I just thought since it's addressed at length in the article, that the extensive details here were overdone; but whatever.

Regards. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 07:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Compare these two versions. I pruned down a lot of the wording, as the section was too long. I removed the mention of "fireside classes", which is not necessary or even interesting, while maintaining the relevant info that he claimed innocence. I removed the extra line about him thinking the House of Justice wasn't elected properly, which is already duly covered. I separated the bit about Neal Chase into a sub-section. These are clearly improvements to the article. Please stop reverting. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This self-congratulatory "improvement" has barely scaled down any of the size at all. The fact is that it's recently grown to be so large due to additions you brought forward. Mentioning his firesides is hardly expanding the section, but is there to mention that he taught he fulfilled prophecy by entering the prison- entirely on-topic whether or not your POV is that it's interesting. You keep claiming the criticism of the UHJ is "duly covered", but refuse to acknowledge that 1) this was there for several years prior to your recent attempt to excise it, and 2) that it's not duly covered AT ALL. The one mention that anyone on this page has an issue with that body blandly states they "don't accept" it. I've explained above in plain simple terms the justification for its inclusion, and I'll thank you leave it alone. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Jan. 23rd this attempt to excise Doc's criticism has been characterized in more ways than I can count, and yet they all reek of BS. Cunado reworded what was said on Jan 23rd in his "major rewrite", and I have been adamant that the 2 year old version remains. There's no reason whatsoever that Cunado's Jan. rewrite is any more worthy of inclusion than the one the has stood so long, so I'm replacing it with the original wording if they cannot both remain. There's no just cause why it's acceptable to state he believed a "perceived corruption" took place versus just plainly stating the motives for creating his IBC. Obviously WP:UNDUE is not the issue, but a charade of a campaign to shield readers from any specific criticisms of the lily-white facade Haifan's uphold. It was never an issue until Cunado decided to excise the specifics and sterilize the statement with his own version. There's no just cause for supporting one version of that opening sentence over another; the original version shall suffice. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the versions here:

Jensen believed that the Bahá'í administrative order became corrupted following the death of Shoghi Effendi, and that he was chosen by God to re-establish the administration.

Jensen believed that the Universal House of Justice in Haifa is flawed and fallible, as it is without a living guardian/executive, and by his intrepretations not elected per Shoghi Effendi's instructions.

The first version sounds more encyclopedic, has the main points, and is actually more accurate and informative. Jensen did believe there was a fallout, not just with the House of Justice, but among the followers of Remey. In his own world he was the only one who could save the administration and he claimed that his authority came from God. It doesn't make sense otherwise that someone could come along and try to re-create an International Baha'i Council. Once more, if the council had gained recognition as a religious court in Israel, he still would not have believed it to be authoritative, so the last part about "not elected" properly is irrelevant. The statement "without a living Guardian" is a treacherous way of stating as fact something that is contended by Baha'is. The role of the Guardianship is maintained by not filling the function that was exclusively the Guardian's to fill, the same way Shoghi Effendi intentionally left several issues open for the House of Justice to decide on, as it was outside his authority to do so. On every point the first version is better, and stop throwing around accusations of promoting my POV, as that one can be thrown back on you tenfold.

And by the way, it's a lie to say it was "never an issue" for years. You first added it 14 April 2006, then it was removed, added, removed, added and reworded, removed, added, removed and moved, added back, and all within 5 days. My fingers are hurting from all this copy and pasting, otherwise I would add the dozen or so other times that I removed or reworded it between then and now. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate participation in a discussion about this, I don't think the exaggerations are necessary. Neither is calling me a liar. All that you've demonstrated by providing links to those edits is how whatever I contribute to this article is met with obstinate unilateral reverting, and that whatever content I have managed to provide here has been through edit warring with you. As well it never fails that you eventually come along and attempt to "improve" the content with your superior word-smithing skills. In fact your improvements are nothing more than homogenizations of any well deserved criticisms schismatic groups have with your fallible UHJ. I would like to see any of these "dozens" of other removal/additions that you imagine took place after that initial round. It in fact has stood there undisturbed until you came along with your "improvements" in Jan. Since then there's been a dozen a week, mainly because you're so bent on your will winning out every time that compromise is apparently not in your operating program.

These concerns you raised, while logical on the surface, are yet another of many attempts at justifying sterilizing direct criticisms. The concept of there being no living guardian on the UHJ is addressed above, so there's no apparent threat in mentioning that he rejected them in spite of the universal acceptance of this preposterous notion. The rest of what you're proposing involves presuming the right to speculate on hypotheticals, and a whole lot of original research. Not necessary. I haven't attempted rewording the original statement for no one has shown any willingness to compromise on this issue; so neither have I. I disagree that your wording is any sort of "improvement". I do like that it mentions he was chosen by go to do this, but I don't think it fully encapsulates the issue enough to warrant excising the previous statement. I actually like the way it reads with both statements together; I thought that was the best of both worlds, personally.

He didn't just think the Administration had "become corrupted" after Shoghi, for it didn't exist until the Hands created their headless House. The issue was that it was established outside the four stage plan, and that it had no guardian. Maybe this could be worded without a complete disregard for these concerns? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is astoundingly frustrating to continually have to engage in revert wars, and to time after time have your stated concerns and ideas obstinately ignored. So Cunado, no compromise is acceptable? Your's is the only version acceptable? Okay then. Good luck with that. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A fresh view to this may be helpful - compromise means accepting that you can't have exactly what you want, and accepting something less than perfect in its place. A clear example is Baha'u'llah's picture on His page - which is there on the insistence of non-Baha'is! The sections on all the different groups are on the whole very fair and well balanced, not to mention factual and informative. You can't expect much better, can you? Personally I find "your" section disproportionately long - I would rather see a brief summary replacing it. You have a page specifically on Baha'is Under the Covenant, after all, where you can have precisely the wording you want.Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective here. The BUPC section is not accurately characterized as "my" section per se. In fact, the section has grown to that size due to Cunado who felt the need to get the most out of having purchased Stone's Armageddon book by cramming in as many details as he could into the section. At one time I had taken liberties to expand the section to a larger scope, but eventually all that content was moved to the BUPC, and Dr. Jensen pages and the section was scaled back to about the size of the OB section. Cunado rewrote this section in Jan., and expanded its size considerably, while at the same time decided that the sentence currently in dispute was "improved" by removing the specific concerns of Doc. It now appears that only that ONE version is acceptable, as I've rewritten it several ways to consider both of our stated concerns. Reverting back to that Jan version is all he is apparently willing to accept. So here we are. What do you suggest Soundofmusicals? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 07:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] length

Wow! All this over this edit? Can it get more petty? (Maybe somebody will start demading to see British spelling soon.)

Jeff, Cuñado's version of this passage is better written. Using the same verb in consecutive sentences is poor style.

On the other hand, while details of Jensen's prophecies and pyramidology do impeach his credibility, they do bog things down here. The whole BUPC section is 50 - 100% too long. Enough detail should be left to characterize Jensen and his beliefs, but we should rely on the articles themselves where Stone and other references are well established.

1. "Of course" he pled innocent - Redundant.
2. Pyramidology - Extra weight.
3. Disasters and holocausts - Redundant with later reference. (We could use either one, but both seem redundant.)
4. The "After the death of Jensen ... " - needs a WP:RS. Besides this is covered later.
5. Rearranged the second paragraph to flow chronologically.

MARussellPESE (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on the relevancy of the prophecies and pyramidology, since that is what makes him notable, but I can see why it's not necessary on the summary of followers of Remey.

I tried to rearrange again after your edit to make the ideas flow better and remove some wording that wasn't necessary. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source

In the Further developments section, the 3rd para cites, note 48, a publlication of the UHJ, ie his enemies. This cannot be regarded as a reliable source for such statements under WP policy. The original source, or some secondary reliable source, must be found to back these statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.229 (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point; the issue of the heavy reliance on primary sources has been duly noted previously, and unfortunately entirely dismissed despite the clear policies governing reliance primarily on primary sources. Without them this article might not exist, for aside from a couple of scholarly works almost everything in this article is basically from primary sources and strung together in a collaborative WP:OR that a few editors collectively agree upon. Little to nothing in this article comprises works from secondary sources. For instance, there are over a dozen references to Ministry of the Custodians, a book authored primarily by one arguably self-serving and biased person, and published by the very group whose actions it defends. Here it is used as if Biblical, per se, and entire sections rely solely upon it without EVER providing secondary sources to back it up. This is by any stretch a clear violation ofpolicy to wit: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Entire sections, like "Role of the Hands", are violating these policies, for almost nothing from secondary sources exist in them.

You are correct that Note 48 is an unacceptable source and should be fixed. Likewise, all the UHJ papers are actually unpublished sources, so none of them warrant inclusion as sources. One could make a case against the rest of these primary sources as well for primaries should be backed up with secondaries per policy. In the past when this question has arose, there has been some creative dances around the subject, but the issue has never been fixed to the satisfaction of the policies. I wonder if these points have secondary sources? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's no objection then? I've stricken the statement from the UHJ paper as it's clearly against WP:PSTS. I'd be interested in seeing some of the other sections reinforced with 2ndary sources, like Role of the Hands, which are relying entirely on primary sources as well. Is anyone aware of secondary sources that could bolster this section? If not its evaluations and analysis should be culled. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:OR and then read the article. This article is basically a series of declarative points each supported by readily identifiable sources. By definition that's not original thought. There's a dearth of secondary material that goes into depth here, so the article is stuck with primary sources if its to have any detail. Using primary sources is not ideal, but not a violation of policy. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can see what you're saying. I do believe the Anon User has a valid point about the UHJ paper. Any suggestions on a better way to present that? I don't believe Cunado's edit fully resolves the matter. I doubt anyone would disagree it's a questionable source at best for such a strong and damaging accusation? Here it's going beyond providing "information", and straight to the heart of challenging his credibility. That's obviously the point of providing it, and I happen to agree with the points the Anon raised that such a bold attack on his character warrants a reliable, published, credible source. Is there one?

As to the extra points I raised, I could be misunderstanding these matters (wouldn't be the first time ;), but I understand the policy is that evaluations and analysis should be avoided and the information from primary sources should stick to reflecting the information presented and avoid conclusions. Am I misinformed about that? I wouldn't suggest Ministry isn't a valid source, but it's being heavily relied upon as a sole source for a lot of details, and it often ventures into "evaluations" and "religious analysis". Isn't it possible to present the information without that, or rather rely on 2ndary sources for this if it's in fact necessary? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 05:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The points raised in the UHJ letter, unfortunately, haven't received much coverage outside of the religion. In my opinion it presents a picture of Remey's disintegrating mental state that is sympathetic to observe. While I am certain that these letters exist, WP:SELFPUB, point 4, is pretty clear that references to third parties is out-of-bounds.

This article goes into a great deal of detail. Much of it directly in response to another Remeyite editor who disputed each-and-every point, and each-and-every event of the timeline. I had to document every single turn - and Ministry is the only book that does that that in that detail. Taherzadeh's Covenant of Baha'u'llah and Eunice Braun's March of the Institutions are not nearly as detailed. However, mindful of WP:OR and WP:RS, I tried to be scrupulous and avoid relying on any of the Ruhiyyih Khanum's discussion, and keep the citations pointed directly at the correspondence and letters that document the statements in the article. Her analysis and discussion as a prinicple player in those events would be a poor source here per WP:RS.

To my reading there's very little "evaluation" or "analysis" that isn't pointing directly to an external source for citation. Little of Taherzadeh is quoted directly. As Covenant does go into deeper analysis than Ministry perhaps we should be citing it more consistently.

A minor note: It appears to be that there are a whole lot of books noted as "References" that aren't cited, may be redundant, or address the subject only tangentially. I'll clean that up. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)