Talk:Leland Jensen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Covenant Breaker 2 Covenant breaking again 3 Status of the BUPC group 4 Suggested NPOV statement for the intro 5 declaration of the Hands 6 references 7 Mason Remey 8 Verifiable sources are missing for some sections 9 quote 10 Status as a religious court 11 1969 Conviction for a "lewd and lascivious act upon a [minor] female patient" 12 "Dr." Leland Jensen 13 PD-59 14 RfC PD-59 and the prophecy's interpretation 14.1 Statements by previously involved editors 14.2 Comment by Pairadox 14.3 Statements by the accused 15 New rework of predictions 16 Evidence PD-59 is a first-strike policy 17 Cunado's "various" contribution 17.1 sIBC section rewrite 18 Excommunicate each other

[edit] Covenant Breaker

As it is clearly stated in the Will and Testament, only the Guardian of the Faith has the authority to declare a believer a Covenant Breaker. This is the most serious charge imaginable to a believer, and is never issued lightly. As no Guardian of the Faith ever declared Dr. Jensen a Covenant Breaker before or after his death, it is erroneous to ever state that Dr. Jensen has this stigma in the after-life. Moreover it is irrelevant whether other believers or even institutions "consider" him to be one or not, as they are just opinions and not actually sanctions conforming to the Sacred Will and Testament which is the charter for all institutions governing the Faith. User:Jeffmichaud

OTOH, it's pretty undisputable fact that the mainstream group of Baha'is (what most people mean when they just use the word "Baha'i") regard Leland Jensen as a covenant breaker - indeed, he was the most cult-like of all the Guardian claimants, seeing as how he alone, amongst all the putative Guardians, actually did have sex with several of the women in his cult. PaulHammond 09:33, 16 November 2005

Did any Guardian ever declare him one? NO! The entire world could "regard" him one and it don't mean diddly, guvna. The term is tossed about so cavalierly. Far from considering him a C.B., the Guardian Shoghi Effendi made him a Knight of Baha'u'llah. He spent his entire life promoting the Cause of Baha'u'llah, not the cause of Leland, turning believers towards God and the Cause. Tossing about unsubstantiated charges based on hearsay and rumor is called libel, good friend. To stoop to that instead of using fact seems beneath you. You name me one believer who can say they've turned half as many people on to Bahau'llah and the Faith as Dr. Jensen (some estimates are between 5 and 10 Thousand), and your next cup of Earl Grey is on me. User:Jeffmichaud (UTC)

Well, that would be because Leland Jensen's covenant breaking took place after Shoghi's death, now wouldn't it? If you recall, Baha'u'llah did indeed say that Muhammad Ali ought to succeed Abdu'l Baha, and the Bab did indeed appoint Subh-i-Azal to lead after his death. Just because someone you like says nice things about a person doesn't stop things going pear-shaped afterwards. Jeff, you don't know me very well, so I'd appreciate if you didn't start calling me a "good friend" or speculating about what might or might not be beneath me. I take it that you aren't disputing the fact that Leland served a jail term for lewd behaviour? That one appears to be substantiated fact. I know there's a lot of people unofficially declared CBs by enthusiastic Baha'is, but that isn't the case with Jensen. The UHJ have officially declared him a Covenant Breaker, and that's a fact. PaulHammond 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Paul, you do understand that only the Guardian of the Faith has the authority to make such a declaration, right? The UHJ wasn't given that authority either in the Master's Will, nor in any other Explicit Text. The sans-Guardian UHJ can't "officially declare" anyone a C.B. as far as the Explicit Texts are concerned. So here is where we'll have to agree to disagree. You go on following the sans-Guardians down the road of error, and I'll continue as always to follow the Covenant, the Master, and the Explicit Text. User:Jeffmichaud

Patently not true. The Universal House of Justice indeed has that authority. It was instituted by Bahá'u'lláh, properly elected per the Guardian's instructions at the close of the Ten-Year Crusage, and explicitly identified as the authoritative body on matters not found in the holy books — including determining who is, or is not, a Covenant breaker. 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Himself, is absolutely clear regarding the authority of the House of Justice in the very Will and Testament these people are so fond of selectively quoting:

And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error, ... By this House is meant the Universal House of Justice, ... It enacteth all ordinances and regulations that are not to be found in the explicit Holy Text.

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

MARussellPESE 16:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

All conjecture and debatable. The Master's Words you quote are in my opinion not relevant in this case, for it all hinges on your fantasy that the sans-Guardian UHJ was established according to the Provisions of His Will, which I don't believe to be the case. Another flaw in this thinking is that it was "properly elected per the Guardian's instructions", for this is patently not true. The fIBC was to "efflouresce" through four stages: IBC, World Court, Supreme Tribunal (1st elected stage), and finally the UHJ. I'm not even getting into the whole Guardian, Twin Pillars thing. Your statements, though impressively crafted, are patently flawed. User:Jeffmichaud

I understand that the UHJ has so declared him, and that the UHJ is the authority mandated to make such declarations. The mainstream Baha'is find the term "sans-Guardian UHJ" insulting. You do your level best to deny the fact that the UHJ declare Leland a Covenant Breaker. This is the heart of the issue of Covenant Breaking. You aren't going to solve that issue by editing articles on Wikipedia. PaulHammond 00:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that you've completely missed my point, PaulHammond. First, the statement in question is that "mainstream Baha'is consider [them] covenant breakers". You are one of the champions of referencing. So why is it too much to ask to make a reference to the Institutution making the charge, and documentation to said declaration. I don't beleive such evidence exists, and that it's an urban legend gone awry, or your reference experts would have come forward with a reference by now; so prove me wrong with something weightier than your "understanding". Until you do, your "understanding" and what others "believe" could just be prejudiced hearsay for all we know, which is unacceptable. To be "declared" a C.B., someone or Institution with authority had to do the "declaring", right? Bring it forward and you've won your point and right to say so, okay? Too much to ask?

(This next point is merely an adendum if the above reference can be presented for I understand the policy on this if one of the sans-Guardian Institutions has made such a declaration to it's believers, which would make the following "just for the record".)

Second, I haven't ever tried to "deny" what the sans-Guardian UHJ has or hasn't "declared". I don't keep abreast of those things, for they're irrelevant to me. What I have said, and what noone seems to dare speak to, is that they aren't "the authority mandated" to make such declarations. You can say it is so, and wish with all your heart it were so, but that's not going to make it so. NO EXPLICIT TEXTS MAKE IT SO! Only the Guardian is given that authority in the W&T, not the body of the UHJ. If I'm wrong, then prove it with something more than broad sweeping declarations of your own imaginings. User:Jeffmichaud

[edit] Covenant breaking again

Regardless of how you interpret scripture, the opening paragraph must mention that Leland Jensen is considered a covenant breaker by most Baha'is. Whether or not you agree with it is one thing, but he was labelled a covenant breaker. It's deceiving if it's not mentioned. Someone reading this page might come to the conclusion that Jensen led a group of Baha'is within the Baha'i administrative structure. Cuñado - Talk 18:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This statement "whose followers are labelled by the majority of Bahá'ís as covenant-breakers" is unacceptable. The "majority of Baha'is" have no authority to label anyone anything. According to Wikipedia's Files there are only two individuals who officially carry the title "Covenant Breaker"; one is Mason Remey, and Dr. Jensen's NOT the other one. Provide an "autorative reference" or drop the subject. This statement is just hearsay otherwise. BTW, I've also been "labelled" one by the hijackers on Mt. Carmel. I've used my real name so there would be no confusion about who I am. Why are you communicating with me if you blindly follow the rulings of that FALLIBLE "House of Justice"? Careful you don't get reported on for collaborating with enemies. You could get in trouble for this you know. User:Jeffmichaud

Once again, whether or not you agree with the label, or agree with the authority to give that label is rather irrelevant. Wikipedia's "files" had Leland Jensen on the list as a covenant breaker until you removed him.

The only way the statement should be removed is if he was not actually labelled as a covenant breaker by the rest of the Baha'is, and that is not the case. Cuñado - Talk

That accusation is insulting and out of order. I could care less who's name is on that list. I was pointing out that Jensen's not on it. I've had nothing to do with editing that list of names, and you have no right to say I have. This statement that "whose followers are labelled by the majority of Bahá'ís as covenant-breakers" is unacceptable. It doesn't conform with the definition, for the "majority of Baha'is" don't have any say in the matter. If it can be shown that he was labelled that by an Institution then say which and reference it, or drop it. User:Jeffmichaud

The way the statement is written is in line with other Wikipedia articles. See Ahmadi and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who "mainstream" muslims (Both Sunni, and Shia) see as heritical. The statement that mainstream Muslims see them as heretical and controversial are in both articles at the top. -- Jeff3000 13:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Status of the BUPC group

Second, I haven't ever tried to "deny" what the sans-Guardian UHJ has or hasn't "declared". I don't keep abreast of those things, for they're irrelevant to me.

The point is, Jeff, however irrelevant it is to you that the main body of the Baha'i Faith considers the BUPC to be a bunch of heretics, it is a notable and relevant encyclopedic fact that ought to appear in this article. This is wikipedia, not your personal webpage. PaulHammond 13:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In the document 1997 Jan 31, Mason Remey and Those who Followed him the Universal House of Justice state their definition of the Covenant-Breaker, and then state that Leland Jenson was indeed thrown out of the "mainstream" Baha'i Faith. Now you might not believe in their authority to do so, but as PaulHammond mentioned you don't believe in their authority in any respect. But the mainstream Baha'is do believe in their authority, and follow the statements of the Universal House of Justice, and thus it becomes the mainstream Baha'i belief that Leland Jenson, and those who followed him have broken the covenent.

Following the lines of the Ahmadi and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (where mainstream muslims don't accept that those people are Muslim, and which they of course do believe they are muslim, and don't believe in the authority of mainstream muslim clergy to call them heritical) there has to be a statement that the mainstream Baha'is believe that the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenent are Covenent-Breaker. -- Jeff3000 14:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we've all learned something here. I've learned some importatnt things about Wikipedia policy (thanks for the help), and how those policies can be manipulated to veil Reality. I've learned that noone (not even the most illumined) can truly defend how the sans-Guardian UHJ is the "authority mandated to make these declarations" regarding Covenant Breaking with any Explicit Texts, for we all know the Writings Explicitly gave that right to the Guardian and none other, right? And, I've learned that noone can justify the statement that the sans-Guardian UHJ was set up according to Shoghi Effendi's instructions, for we all know that his four stage plan was by-passed, the 1st IBC he appointed was disbanded with no substantive reasons put forth, and we went straight to an election of the UHJ skipping three critical stages (not to mention tossing out one of the "Twin Pillars" [the Executive Branch] in the proccess), effectively nullifying any claim they would have to Infallibility, right? I've also learned a little something about each of you participating. And you guys got to learn..well...who knows? But it's been fun. Thanks. User:Jeffmichaud

[edit] Suggested NPOV statement for the intro

I've tried to come up with a couple of sentences that explain the contention between Haifans and Remeyites succinctly for the uninitiated, while remaining NPOV (not assuming which claim is correct). What do people think of this:

...Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant. As a group who believe that Charles Mason Remey was the 2nd Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, they are considered heretical covenant-breakers by the majority of Baha'is. Remey himself declared that the larger group of Baha'is were themselves covenant-breakers in a statement in 1961.

PaulHammond 11:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actual the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Government are not Remeyites. Remeyites do not consider Leland Jenson as the "Establisher of the Fiath", which is one of the main tenants of the BUPC. -- Jeff3000 14:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this, apart from Jeff's comment on the definition of "Remeyite" which doesn't have any bearing on the value of my suggested phrase? I'm trying to built consensus here rather than revert warring - has everyone else has a busy week at work, too? PaulHammond 12:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

~I'm assuming that the major difference in this new suggestion is that the "2nd Guardian" thing isn't neutral since some disagree he was? Reasonable. I've reverted Cunado's statement that BUPC "declare the same judgment on the same Baha'i majority", since it's been noted at length earlier that BUPC believe that only the Guardian has the authoriity to "declare" this. So therefore, they believe it so because a Guardian declared it, and that it's not put forward for reaons of their own. Hope there's no further objections to PaulHammond's suggested opening statement, since it is now the current version. [User:Jeffmichaud] 23:22 04-Dec-05

Right, any article that refers to Mason Remey as "The Guardian" would obviously need a quantifier. I think the intro in this version is pretty good. Cuñado - Talk 06:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] declaration of the Hands

The Hands never said that the Guardianship had ended. They acknowledged that no will or appointment was made, and left the conclusion about further Guardians to the House of Justice. Cuñado - Talk 06:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] references

Another example of deceptive propaganda. You claim that Abdu'l Baha predicts an "establisher" to come in 1963. You reference the page, which says nothing of the sort. I deleted it.

You also claim a ton of conclusions about the satellite that are dubious and overdramatic. Unless you have a reference from a credible source then re-word it. Cuñado - Talk 19:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your kindness exceeds that which we deserve. It's so nice of you to assume these things, rather than jump to the conclusion that there might be something here that's beyond your limited understanding of these matters. This is off the top of my head, and only an effort to enlighten your limited knowledge. I would not attempt to get into a battle-royal over our separate interpretations of the Writings, but here's the thing:

1. Commenting on this "seventh angel", we find in SAQ: "meaning that the Spiritual and Everlasting Kingdom will be established."(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 56). It is this "seventh angel" who will accomplish this:"Voices will be raised, so that the appearance of the Divine Manifestation will be proclaimed and diffused."(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 56). This happening beyond the Master's ministry, obviously.
2. Abdu'l-Baha, commenting on the dates found in Daniel 12, of 1280 years, 1290 years, and 1335 years reckoned the dates starting from Muhamad's Proclamation, Heijera, and death, respectively=1844,1863,1963. When asked for clarification on the 1963 date, he said this "seventh angel" would appear on the millenial anniversary of Ridvan giving the EXACT date for the seventh angel=April 21, 1963. This was the very day that Dr. Jensen arrived in New Mexico, attending the first NSA of the new council. It is the BUPC's belief that this is one of the miriad of proofs for Dr. Jensen's position.

But, you wouldn't know this, for you're not educated on these matters, obviously. So why then are you vandalizing this page? Speaking of references, the bit in the intro you attribute to (Balch) is not in quotes nor attributed with a page number, just (Balch). Is the reader supposed to be psychic? If it's a quote, then put it in parenthesis and reference the page at least. I didn't even know it was a quote, and I've read the work. I didn't change it to "marginalize" anything, smarty pants. I was correcting it from a factual point of veiw, not realizing it was a quote, for it's not in it's current state. User:Jeffmichaud 06:29 23 January 2006

The correct way to source a book is by putting the author's last name in parenthesis after the paragraph where the information came from, then putting the full reference, with publishing information under the "References" section. That's exactly what I did.

For the rest, just continue to reference the writings properly and if you state a conclusion with a page number then it better match up. Like:

'Abdu'l Baha said we should all eat grape nuts every day. (Some Answered Questions pg. 56)

is not gonna fly. Your original reference to page 56 said that the seventh angel would come in 1963. The actual page didn't say anything close. Cuñado - Talk 17:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mason Remey

Instead of repeating an enormously detailed argument on a ton of pages, I have been trying to link to a single detailed wikipedia source when Mason Remey's claim to Guardianship is mentioned. This is information that is already repeated on about 10 pages. I re-inserted the wiki link to the divisions page. I would prefer having the argument on his biography page, but that seems to be where the information accumulated. Was there a reason for deleting that link? Cuñado - Talk 06:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually there's a good argument for that information to be there on "Baha'i divisions" because it's a key element in the background of the six or so of his successor organizations. MARussellPESE 21:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiable sources are missing for some sections

See this talk page discussion for the problems also found here. MARussellPESE 06:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] quote

This quote:

"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 of `Abdu'l-Bahá, [1]page 15]).

was just added. It does not seem relevant to the subject. The previous sentence was said: He also believed that a Universal House of Justice without a living guardian was flawed and fallible according to the Bahá'í writings:

The colon would imply that the quote following directly supports the statement of "a Universal House of Justice without a living guardian was flawed and fallible", but it doesn't address that at all. I want to delete it but every time I do Jeff thinks I'm trying to censor information. Cuñado - Talk 02:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid observation. How's bout I reword it so as not to lose the spirit the specific concern being expressed? I wanted to pinpoint, in as few words as possible, why he set out to do what he did, ya know? I'll try and be more to the point. It's good to get outside criticism on these things, cuz you want it to make sense to someone who doesn't know anything about the subject. I can see how that writing can be interpreted different ways, depending on how much or little you read into it. You're right, at face value it doesn't come out an say "a UHJ without a living guardian was...". Let me give that a once over and you jump right in with any concerns you might have. Thanks. Jeff 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status as a religious court

When the Guardian penned his "esential prelude", a cable of 25-Apr-51, the Israeli state was getting on its feet. Their War of Independence was hardly over. During Palestine Mandate religious courts were recognized as they had during the previous centuries under the Ottomans. One would presume that the Israeli state would continue this. Obviously the Guardian did.

They did not. By the time of his death the state of Israel did not recognize "religious courts". That a Baha'i religious court could not be achieved is a statement of fact, not a claim; and pursuing it would have been foolish. Characterizing this as a "failure to achieve this goal" may be what Jensen believed and taught, but it can't be characterized as a genuine failure in an encylopedia. This rendering doesn't give short-shrift to what Jensen believed, just what are asserted as facts.

There's also a passage that repeats, almost verbatim, statements already made. I struck it for that reason.

Also there are a few places where Jensen's assertions are stated as facts. I'm not going to go nuts on these, but I found a doozy. MARussellPESE 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your concerns at length. The changes do make the article clearer and flow nicely. Being the author of most of the contents, I'm by proxy not as aware of having made fact statements that were mere assertions and interpretations that may seem obvious to others. I certainly don't want to be responsible for being sloppy, so I'd thank you for pointing out any other concerns, like the "doozy" you found, and even any other minor concerns, you or anyone else may have. I'll do the rewriting if you want to let me know what specifically jumps off the page at you. Thanks. Jeff 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed some text under "Guardian dispute", since it went into detail which was not relevant to the Guardian dispute, and not really relevant for a biography of Leland Jensen. There is a "main" link to more info, so I thought it would be reasonable. Cuñado - Talk 05:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1969 Conviction for a "lewd and lascivious act upon a [minor] female patient"

This keeps cropping up, and some BUPC members seem to want to smother it.

It's genuine. I found a source: [2]. Putting aside the nature of the crime and its implications, which speaks for itself, this is a bona fide issue regarding Jensen's character.

Looking at the case, it appears that Jensen availed himself of his available appeals and he lost each in turn. The trial court's finding of fact stands.

Rasing this issue isn't the polemics of someone with an axe to grind. It's duly sourced, NPOV, and must remain. MARussellPESE 14:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference you cite isn't relevent to the text of the article. The text reads:

In 1969 in Missoula he was convicted of "a lewd and lascivious act upon a female under the age of sixteen." He served 4 years of a 20 year sentence in the state prison.

But the reference you cite refers to testimony given at the trial, and only one page at that. It would seem more appropriate to cite the part of the document that is evidence for the conviction, not a lone page pulled from the testimony. Davecornell 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I see where the document does mention the conviction. Davecornell 16:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

MaRussell, I was wondering if you could point out where this information was ever "smothered". You've added nothing but a reference to a statement that was already included in every article mentioning Jensen. When was this detail ever anywhere but out in plain site, and who's ever tried to smother it? Bravo, you found a source for a statement that's been in all these articles since there inception. What a strange and completely unwarranted accusation you've made; the point is duly noted everywhere, already. Why would you assume that we would want to "smother" this point, when by virtue of him entering that prison we believe he fullfilled various prophecies? It's a subject matter we teach to new believers in our fireside classes; it's one of the first things they learn about him, silly. Thanks for finding that, BTW. It's going to be very useful in our teaching efforts. Jeff 02:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Davecornell is busy burying this as you speak.

This edit of Davecornell's clearly eliminates the fact that he molested a child who was his patient.

This edit and this edit and this edit all bury the actual court case citation into an offline one.

The first thing seekers learn is that Leland Jensen was a convicted child molester?? And you actually teach that this — person — is the subject of fulfilled prophecies. Keep up the good work, nothing could separate you from Baha'u'llah's teachings more definitively or forcefully. MARussellPESE 06:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good gracious! Did you forget to take your meds today? Take a step back will you. You're straining a gnat here over these edits. First, the statement has always been there and noone's ever denied it or tried to remove it. Second, the edits you're linking to here didn't remove the source, but rather were rewording your sloppy wording. I don't know why he removed the case number, but the link wasn't touched. Hardly any call to blow your gasket over.

How odd that what I said appears to be new infomation to you. I thought you were familiar with this subject. The way you strut around acting like you know what your talking about led me to believe you were at least familiar with the BUPC's beliefs. Haven't you actually read any of these pages? You've apparently gleaned nothing from them. Not that I have to justify anything to any of you, but you see, it's because of these matters that we believe in Doc in the first place. Noone in the BUPC would ever dream of removing these things from an article about Doc. You'll notice that I've been sure to include it everywhere he's mentioned. You think you're so smart way up there on your high horse that you've never bothered to get down and learn an iota about what we actually believe. You have your miniscule understanding about us and prance around like a fool who knows nothing. You keep up the good work, yourself. And thanks again for tracking down that source. Jeff 08:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I've known for years that Jensen was a child molester and by all appearances had a borderline personality disorder.

What's news is that BUPC faction(s) actually consider this to be information that would help your cause. MARussellPESE 03:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so it's not left out there that I was actively "burying" this information:

That first edit you speak of was a new wikipedian's statement that Dr. Jensen was imprisoned "for sex crimes". This was not specific to the charge as had been stated in Baha'i Divisions which read "lewd and lacivious act". And since it was already stated clearly in Baha'i Divisions and people here have a fit when the same info is repeated on multiple pages, I reverted it. Is this the new standard, that we can repeat the same info on multiple pages? I would appreciate an answer to this question.

The reason I changed the citation to eliminate the reference to the court case is that was not how others citations on the page are being listed. The others on the page are just a plain numbered footnote with no citation. I thought that you were being unfair by writing it out as compared to all the other footnotes. But if that's how a footnote of this kind is supposed to appear, that's fine with me. If Wikipedia says something different, than go with that.

And to show further evidence I'm not trying to bury this, I also clarified the specifics of the court case that it pertained to a patient of Dr. Jensen's. Burying? Hardly.

But again none of this discussion about "burying" is relevant anyway because we're not supposed to make or address personal attacks here at Wikipedia, correct? Davecornell 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any footnotes. These articles are chock full of in-line references. I only added pertinent data, in the same form as it is extant. It's not my job to clean up your articles and add detailed notes sections.

You struck reference to the specific court case. That's burying it. MARussellPESE 03:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I forgot to come back to this and further explain the fact that we do teach new comers about this period of Doc's life in our Proofs for the Establisher fireside. I didn't want anyone reading this to misunderstand what I meant by that. You see, noone who's accepts Doc believes he was guilty of this conviction. There's more to the story than the one snippet from the court transcripts that MARussell has provided, too much to get into here. Just that none of us believe he was guilty for this crime, but that because of this he fullfilled prophecy. And just to clarify, he wasn't tried for being a child molester. If he had been, that crime in Montnana would have had him in jail the rest of his days. We believe, that like Joseph of the Old Testament, he was put in jail by false accusers for crimes he didn't commit. And, that by entering that prison falsely accused, he fullfilled Biblical prophecy (specifically the prophecy of Zechariah 3 in this case). We also believe the date at the end of Daniel 12 (the 1335 date) that Abdu'l-Baha explained was specifically April 23rd, 1963 pertained to Doc alone (explained to Esselmont in Baha'u'llah and the New Era). These are a few of the many Baha'i and Biblical prophecies which pertained to him alone. You can find all this and more explained fully in the Establisher fireside for anyone who cares to learn the whole story. Jeff 07:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Need to correct the term, but beg to differ on the conclusion. Jensen wasn't a child molester, as the law defines the term, but he was a child abuser. Per the California Penal Code:

"§ 11165.1. Sexual Abuse Defined. Sexual abuse means sexual assault or sexual exploitation including any of the following:

(a) Rape, statutory rape, rape in concert, incest, sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts upon a child, oral copulation, sexual penetration, or child molestation." [3]

Doubt that Montana' that different.

He may not have been sent away for life for molestation, but the law lumps the crimes together as child abuse. Today, many state would certainly require him to register and account for his wherabouts for the rest of his life.

The "snippet" provided wasn't some newspaper clipping announcing that the end is nigh. It a summary of the Montana Supreme Court upholding the appellate court and denying the appeal.

And that nobody of the BUPC believe that a man who lost every appeal was wrongfully convicted shouldn't suprise anyone. MARussellPESE 20:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What thoughtful and kind words; but I would expect no less from a Baha'i. I merely was attempting to clarify that noone in the BUPC would condone or support something of this nature. We simply don't believe he was guilty of this for a number of reasons: none of the 12 witnesses were patients of his is the most obvious one that comes to mind (a broader insight is given in the fireside); and the State denied his right to appeal-they weren't "exhausted" but never even presented. (Read your snippett a little more closely; the part before the dirty stuff you got hung up on). And, anyone who would take the time to look further into this case, beyond this excerpt of a 631 p. transcript might see it as we do. There are two sides to every story, right? Surely on the surface this doesn't look positive in any way. We believe it was all in God's plan that things happened the way they did. "Man plans, and God plans, but God's the better planner", as Doc used to say. Jeff 09:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dr." Leland Jensen

The academic honorific is inappropriate per the MOS. Will clean this up around these articles. MARussellPESE 02:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't believe I was aware of this. I will make sure not to create anymore sentences with the title in his name. Cheers. Jeff 06:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PD-59

This sentence: "It did however mark the first instance where the U.S.'s nuclear forces were "to contribute deterrence from non-nuclear attacks" as well as nuclear." must have a source definitively supporting it, which I don't think exists. It implies that no President since Truman considered the nuclear deterrent limited to nuclear attack. In fact Truman's use of the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was exactly intended to deter a conventional force.

Carter's PD-18 clearly indicates that nuclear targeting was part of a comprehensive military strategy. Particularly, read paragraph four: "To fulfill this national strategy …", as well as the third-to-last paragraph "The Secretary of Defense will undertake …". MARussellPESE 03:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. Why then did Carter need to draft this new directive, if as you presume these things were already in place? He started off as a "minimum deterence" president, and finishes his term with this little jewel. And you want to imply that it was an exercise in redundancy? You decided to drag this out to try and negate the explanation provided. The fact is that when the Cosmo satellite crashed in Canada in 1978 Carter said launching another of these would be considered egregious, hostile, and an act of war. They did it anyways, and on the date Jensen predicted, which was derived from Bible prophecy. That act happened on the same day of the prediction, so going off about what PD-59 was or wasn't implying is a red herring, and a diversion from the real issue, and you know it. What you choose to accept or deny is little concern to me, but where the heck are you going with this section adding all this stuff about PD-59? Its plainly there to refute and rebuttal to claims he made. Is that the purpose of these bios, to try and discredit the subject whenever possible? Qualified citable sources should be used for these types of things, wouldn't you agree? There are several published sources of material available, so why not use them to achieve these aims, or give it a rest. You're not a verifiable source, and the one you're providing is all but 3/4ths blacked out by the censor.

The fact is that this PD-59 stuff is not relevent here. I know you felt obligated to the public to further explain since it was mentioned in the statement quoted from, but it's hardly such a notable point as to close with in the context of this section; certainly not worthy of the space dedicated to this. The point is that the prediction was made, and a provocative act occurred. Since you can't dispute this, you're grasping at this little straw? That's all you got? Jeff 06:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jimmy Carter: the war-monger. Actually, it's Neal Chase who's tried to connect these dots and is twisting PD-59 into something that made the world a worse place. (The world was already a pretty bad place as any of us old enough to remember the 70's remembers. But it was getting better. Those who remember the 50's & 60's remember it being even worse.) Unfortunately, informed observers don't agree with Chase, and do rebut these gymnastic re-interpretations. This is why the last paragraph must open with the contradiction "however". That's not POV. That's good English writing.

World War III has not happened, and far more provocative events than a missile launch have occurred both before and after. Call to mind the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, Korean Air Flight 007 and the Invasion of Grenada to mention a few. Ever heard of Able Archer 83? This prophecy of Jensen's is indeed failed. All of the neutral secondary sources call it failed. Calling it "apparently failed" is certainly more charitable and NPOV than providing no qualifiers at all. MARussellPESE 03:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you all were put in charge of qualifiers. Who appointed you, and more importantly why have you deemed them mandatory?

I'm actually all for using someone who's actually an informed observer. I quoted in the article the source you're citing in the notes from Matthew Oyos who notes that PD-59 was putting Carter at a notably distant stance from the one he had when he took office, and that this directive in particular was a step away from SALT I&II. What is with your selective reasoning? Why would you remove that when you brought it forward into the notes? It appears that you only want to provide this section with information that contradicts Doc and Neal. Am I wrong? Jeff 05:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This section is about Doc's prediction, right? So why are there two paragraphs getting into the details of PD-59? It's a red herring. What if both Neal's comment, and your rebuttal to it are stricken, for neither are really the point. It's diverging and getting beyond the point. I'm stiking them both. Jeff 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say this clearly: It is by no means off-topic. In World Civil War Neal Chase deliberately or inadvertently misrepresents PD-59 to try to justify this failed prophecy. He brought it up. He made it a point. The point deserves to be answered.

You do not have the right to strike bona fide sources.

You don't have the right to strike inconvenient facts, especially direct quotes of your own leader's writings.

Be advised, I've disengaged for a time and used the talk page to resolve this. Now, I have opened an WP:RFC/REL. MARussellPESE 16:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC PD-59 and the prophecy's interpretation

The crux of the matter is this edit by Jeffmichaud which strikes both a statement of the group's current leader on a specific action of then-President Carter's (PD-59) in an attempt to reinterpret the prophecy and countervailing opinions of historians.

[edit] Statements by previously involved editors

• The statements are WP:V. The historical notes are also WP:RS. MARussellPESE 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Pairadox

Looking at the diff, I agree with the removal of the text. The biggest problem is the reliance on a BUCP document to assert the motivations of Pres. Carter, and the rest of the removed text hinges on that assumption. Pairadox 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How about removing the entire reference to World Civil War? The partial quote is cherry picking BUPC statements. MARussellPESE 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire section seems to be made up of "cherry-picked" quotes, so I'm reluctant to wade into it until it's cleaned up more. Any attempt to prove the predictions have been fulfilled (or prove the opposite) needs to be supported by reliable third-party sources, meaning that BUCP should not be used for this purpose. Pairadox 22:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements by the accused

Thank you Pairadox for your thoughtful insight into this matter.

I honestly think the removal of the text solves a litany of issues; the crux being that it's entirely off topic to tit for tat over what Carter's PD-59 is or isn't about. This section is about a prediction made, not our views on PD-59. So to counter what our views are on that policy is inane. The recent contributions are in fact WP:V, but they are a tangent from what this section is about which was a prediction by our leader. The relevant statements of the World Civil War press release are that on the date of our prediction said event occurred. This was originally contributed by me after this section was created by Cunado who only included one side of the coin and brought forward nothing but defamatory views about this matter. There are in fact two sides to this issue. We happened to have created a press release with our side of the story, so I thought it relevant.

The point of this section has zero to do with what PD-59 is or isn't, so whether the contribution is WP:V or not is irrelevant. This is a recent contribution that has brought this section completely off-topic, and by scaling back what's quoted from the press release it nullifies any need of it. I truly believed that a normally inciteful and level-headed editor like MARussell would see the logic of my edit in question, and I'm frankly surprised is opposing it. I can't see what including all this stuff about PD-59 accomplishes. I don't think it's inconvenient facts at all frankly, but rather irrelevant and off-topic.

I will definitely take Pairadox's comments into consideration, and try and rework this section accordingly. As always suggestions are welcome. Cheers. Jeff 23:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to show the accuracy of predictions are always tricky and should usually be avoided in Wikipedia because so many of them amount to Original research and/or depend on sources sympathetic or antithetical to them. How's that for a general comment on the section? Pairadox 23:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree. I believe this should be included, but it's current form could used a rewrite. I would suggest that the quotes from the authors be referenced in the notes, and this whole section be relegated to a summary instead. I would even gladly give those honors to someone else, maybe Cunado who has recently been struck with a knack for remaining impartial and to the point (I thought last night's edits were just fine).

I would strongly urge consideration that this section return to facts about the prediction. I would be curious to know who else feels that quoting from PD-59 "is by no means off-topic" when it's goal sheds no light on this prediction? Why exactly does "The point deserve to be answered"? It was an aside made after the actual point about the event fulfilling the prediction, it wasn't made by the subject of the article, and it could easily be striken? Should the whole press release be included and then answered point by point? Where does it end, really? I included the line when I contributed the piece which was intended to clarify how we feel the prediction was fullfilled. I'm happy to remove the PD-59 comment if it can't stand there without being "answered". What's the problem with removing it, and what exactly is our purpose?

If we cannot agree and this tangent must remain then I feel it necessary to include the comments of critics of PD-59 to counter these "opinions" that have been deemed so relevant of note. There are many from that era who were of the opinion that this was in fact a first-strike policy; that our "countervailing strategy" had couched in it new measures for dealing with conventional threats to our interests. I would like not to go there and further turn this little section into what's becoming a debate of perceptions rather than a section of facts. Jeff 05:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Statements by the accused"??? My, aren't we the victim?

Agreed, arguing about prophecies on WP is hardly encyclopaedic. But, prophecies are a staple of the BUPC and it's almost impossible to discuss one without the other. In fact, without their prophecies achieving coverage in the academic and public press, it would be hard to argue for their notability as there's vitually no third-party coverage beyond that. OR is very difficult to avoid.

If we're really going to enforce WP:V then the World Civil War apologia should be excised entirely as self published. With respect to the other third-party citations, these passages could easily be sent to the notes without harm to the article. MARussellPESE 19:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Victim? I was just being funny, geez. So now its a self-publishing concern you have? Make up your mind. World Civil War absolutely stands up on it's own to every exception for using self published work: it's relevent to the notability, it's not contentious as no one contends the event of Cosmo 1176 (just how we perceive the event), etc. It could be argued that the statements about PD-59 are claims about a third party and it "involves claims about events not directly related to the subject" so should be striken. That comment and it's rebuttal should be stricken. I agree with the rest of the suggestions; but World Civil War is a keeper as it meets the exceptions clause as well as gives a clear point of view that's not acknowledged by the other researchers who's stated aim was to prove their theory of cognitive dissonance. They are third parties, indeed, but who would argue that theirs is the only point of view worth noting? Jeff 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to give you some options. If World Civil War goes per WP:SPS, then so does the discussion on PD-59. However, if World Civil War stays on a tenuous assertion that it is not "unduly self-serving" and in an artcle about itself, then the discussion must too.

Sorry but your logic that the two are distinct is non sequitur. Chase himself claims explicitly, and emphatically, that PD-59 is directly related to the subject in his defense of this prophecy. (His use of all-caps in World Civil War is a clue.) That he uses a reading of PD-59 (as a policy of "FIRST STRIKE LIMITED WINNABLE THERMONUCLEAR WAR" — emphasis is Chase's) that is not supported by the facts must be presented for completeness and clarity. If World Civil War is to be used as an apologia/rehabilitation of this prophecy, then its arguments are subject to independent analysis.

Lastly, the argument that World Civil War fails WP:SPS is simple. This is an article about Jensen — not the BUPC or Chase. Maybe it belongs in the BUPC article, but then the PD-59 discussion, as above, comes along too. MARussellPESE 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that sure is a lot of "musts" for someone who hasn't formed any consensus. You're giving me options? That's rich. You haven't come up with ONE good reason why PD-59 "must" be included in the first place; nor can you find a supporter. The first person from your request for comment to come along agreed with me, that a simple striking of the comment nullifies these concerns. Are you going to keep this going ad nauseum and asking the same thing different ways until you get your way? Why, as you say, "must" it be included exactly? It's not unduly self serving to have an answer for the critism included. This World Civil War is a 12 page document, from which 1 paragraph has been included. I'd love the whole thing to be included here, but that would be unduly self serving, wouldn't it? Neither I nor Pairadox seem to see your logic, for which you've had ample time to come up with some. When he disagreed you even started bickering with him. Now you don't seem to care and are persisting with this still?

The fact is that there were critics of PD-59 who were saying it was a first-stike policy, and that "countervailing" could be used as reason to use tactical nukes in a limited way against threats: both nuclear and conventional. But, as a view that's not related to the subject (i.e. how the prediction was fullfilled), it doesn't even belong here or elsewhere. The PD-59 statements aren't related at all to how the prediction was fullfilled. We believe it was a reaction to the event, nothing more. With such frequent usage of the term non sequitur, you of all people should know one when you see one.

Besides, these "opinions" you have found are just that, and are easily countered by opposing views who were quite concerned that about changing our MAD stance. You have conveniently left those out of your presentation of "facts". Your facts are little more than what the Administration told you to believe. This however would bring this off on such a tangent that one could hardly keep track of where we started. However, the point I was making by bringing forward the statement in the first place was that on that day said event occured. We didn't even know it occured until an Air Force Captain at NORAD sent the Baha'i Center a telegram titled "You Got it Right!!!" telling us Doc was right; that the exact time he predicted (5:55 EST) was when the satellite was launched. Unforutnately I can't source that. So believe what you will about all this, but there are two sides to it.

I'm going to attempt a rewrite of the section since this discussion is reaching beyond productive, and noone else has volunteered to. I will do my best to keep in mind your concerns and make an honest attempt at creating something acceptable to all. Jeff 00:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I guess Cunado will decide. I'm going to remove any mention of PD-59, period. It's off-topic and the RFC commentor agreed. Cheers. Jeff 03:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New rework of predictions

I tried making some improvements, but I left the issue alone about the quote from Chase. It's a hard one, cause he makes clear factual errors in his description of events, and I almost want to add an {{uncited}} tag on his comments. I agree that the quote absolutely cannot be included without clear statements afterwards showing that he was wrong, but that is hard to do without looking like you're dragging him through the mud. The quotation should not be excluded either because Chase's statements are themselves so noteworthy that they need to be included as a follow up to the story of Jensen, and evidence of the continued attitude of the group that followed Jensen.

As an aside, the newspaper references are very poor. It would help to have more details, and if possible a link to the entire article. It's easy to cherry pick information without the full source. If you have copies of them, you might want to scan them in. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

these edits don't sit well with me. For the reasons I mentioned above, removing the quote does a disservice to the reader, and I also disapprove of the following sentence: "Jensen maintained that this event was a "provocative act" which occured on the day he predicted, and therefore claimed his prediction wasn't failed at all." There is no reference to what Jensen "maintained", in fact the only references are from the researchers and from Chase. Similarly, the article in the Missoulian is fishy because it was written after the failed prophecy, and more current articles printed in the Missoulian have been written by BUPC adherents. The reference for that Missoulian article is actually the World Civil War document, which in itself is not a good reference for what the newspaper printed. If that can't be verified, then it should be removed, and the verifiable sources that currently contradict the printing (saying that Jensen prophesied of a nuclear fallout, not in wishy washy terms) should be used exclusively. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I wrote that final sentence to wrap up the section, for you ended it going on about the history of the Cosmos missions and end on nothing.
2. I don't know what "The reference for that Missoulian article is actually the World Civil War document" means? That Missoulian article is from 1980 as the ref clearly says & WCW is from 97. Is there another article you're referring too, cuz the one from 4/30/80 is the only one I see? BTW, World Civil War was a press release, so actually it makes sense that the press would use it as a reference, wouldn't you think?
3. You removed the tag that said there were too many quotes, and then left half of them in. I understand why, but the points can be made in summary and noted, which I did hence making it "more encyclopedic".
4. Neither you nor MARussell have brought forward ONE good reason why this ridiculous tangent about what PD-59 is or isn't should be included. He even requested comment and got a "leave it out", yet persists. It's not relevant to the subject, i.e. it's extraneous, isn't necessary, and answering it brings this section off-topic. Please see my previous elaborations for why this will NOT be included. Jeff 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oi, Jeff, don't you read these posts?

For the umpteenth time: Analysis of PD-59 is relevant because in WCW Chase draws a bright, clear, direct, unambiguous line specifically to it as a direct result of the Cosmos launch and the key step in the inevitable nuclear holocaust — which never happened.

Asserting that PD-59 isn't relevant is not an argument. Repeating that assertion over and over doesn't make it one — it makes it argumentative. But, I've been here before.

PS - Read this contemporary analysis from the Federation of American Scientists. The article "PD-59: A Strategic Critique" (pp. 4-5) and the editorial "Presidential Directive 59: An evolutionary Step Backwards" (p. 7) are both clear on the point that PD-59 was not some monumental escalation in the cold war as Chase claims — but an gradual one. Abandoning MAD was not something that Carter did unilaterally on a specific date in response to a specific threat, but something the country was gradually abandoning over time as our paranoia was wearing thin.

Cuňado, you're confabulating the satellite types, but the old site used in the article is confusing.

• Cosmos 1167 was a US-P EORSAT [4] These were solar powered.
• Cosmos 1176, Chase's pet, was a US-A RORSAT [5] These were nuclear powered.

However, you're absolutely right: Chase cites no source at all in WCW that draws even an oblique line between Cosmos 1176 and PD-59. Or that our response to additional RORSAT launches would be treated as an act of war. Actually, I have a source that says the opposite. MARussellPESE 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I started a new section break several comments back. To clarify what User:Pairadox mentioned above, s/he supported removing the text because Chase makes conclusions in the quote that are not substantiated, and the article was using him as a quasi source of information. Quoting our friend:

The biggest problem is the reliance on a BUCP document to assert the motivations of Pres. Carter, and the rest of the removed text hinges on that assumption. ~Pairadox

That is basically exactly what I said, that it's hard to quote him because the reader will believe what Chase says as fact, and MARussellPESE has pointed out with references that Chase makes errors or introduces unsupported ideas. Pairadox didn't mention relevancy.

This still remains difficult to deal with. I think in principle Chase's quote should be used because it's relevant to the continuing attitude of the followers of Jensen. However the facts of the situation should be clearly articulated, and even if that means directly contradicting what Chase says, then that's the bed he made and he has to lay in it.

On the satellites, the type of power seems irrelevant, but I agree that I missed that nuance. The point I was trying to make was that they were all ocean surveillance satellites, and their abilities to monitor appear to be the same in all the references so far. The point also needs to be made that there is nothing to indicate that our government considered launching a nuclear powered surveillance satellite as an act of war, and that there is nothing connecting the satellite with PD-59. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Chase makes the distinction in that Cosmos 1176 followed Cosmos 954 in that particular series of satellites. The failure of Cosmos 954 is one of the most spectacular nuclear space accidents ever. However, he is on the hook to demonstrate any link between Cosmos 1176 and PD-59, or a resultant escalation of the Cold War in general. He doesn't, because it isn't there — but that should stand in the way of good hyperbole. MARussellPESE 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also to clarify, the Missoulian article is quoted inside the World Civil War document from Chase. The current reference points to (Missoulian, Vol. 107 No. 311 April 30, 1980) with no link or full text. It was my assumption that whoever added that quote took it from World Civil War. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence PD-59 is a first-strike policy

MARussell, it has occurred to me that you haven't bothered to look any deeper into PD-59 than the first page that Google presented you, but are postering here as someone who thinks they know what they're talking about. Based on recent comments by you and Cunado, its evident that you haven't found any of the critical revues of the lasting effects PD-59 has had, nor any of the immediate concerns it drew at its inception that would have caused Chase to come to the conclusions he drew. Your attacks on WCW imply that Chase has invented these positions, when if fact they are widely accepted. Let me present for the sake of discussion a breif synopsis of the evidence we would have to present to counter your party-line propaganda. Forget the fact that you can't present one good reason why we "must" answer this and present your naive veiw of the matter when this section is about the prediction and not our view of PD-59. Rather this is only to show why I'm insisting that this tangent would run amuck were we to try and present it. I contend it's off-topic still, but your concerns of "inconvenient facts" are not at all what concerns me about your so-called WP:V. My concern is that it's misleading to only present your limited view, but to even go there is unfathomable to me. If you were to include your "verifiable sources" in the section, then it would be prudent to include:

“By issuing Presidential Directive #59, the Administration in Washington, DC, has shifted its nuclear war strategy from deterrence to "first-strike" capability, maintaining that a "limited and prolonged nuclear war" could insure security. Directive #59 moves from the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), primarily targeting Soviet cities and industrial centers, to a policy of counter force, targeting Soviet weaponry and sheltered command centers. The Directive encourages rather than deters nuclear war. Finally, its implementation would divert vast sums of money towards a further escalating arms race.”found here

“and by Carter's Presidential Directive 59 that made plans for a first strike nuclear war.”found here

Or how about "P.D. 59, as it is called, substitutes the targeting of Sovlet missiles for the targeting of Soviet cities, thereby formally committing the United States to a “counterforce” strategy [i.e. first-strike]. At the same time, the new doctrine also accepts the idea that a limited nuclear war can be fought and won, thereby lowering the threshold of resistance to starting one...There simply is no palpable national-security reason for the United States to repudiate its strategy of deterrence. But even if there were, there is even less of an excuse for taking such an action during an election campaign. The world moved one giant step closer to nuclear war because Jimmy Carter wanted to serve another four years as President." (Alan Wolfe, p.609 The Nation, 12/06/1980)

Or what about this, this, ,or this?

There are about a dozen or so such quotes to choose from. The gist of most of these articles is that PD-59 was a dramatic change from MAD to this "counter force" first-strike policy. This is how the Russians saw it as well. The idea that we have always had a “counterforce” policy is vacuous political rubbish. You seem willing to go to any end to play down the accurate 1980 prediction of the spy satellite which culminated in PD-59, as well as play down the tremendous shift in policy from MAD to PD-59 which alarmed everyone at that time. Your accusations and allegations against Chase are completely ignorant, uncalled for, and have become downright rude. This is my final contribution to this discussion; it's time to drop it.

I'm not sure what more there is to accomplish with this section? I feel compelled to ask cuz there were some changes made the other day, and now we're still discussing, well...what exactly? You've been posturing as a champion of truth this whole time, all the while utterly veiled of all the facts. This page was just fine before your recent "contributions" to it, yet I've been trying to be cooperative none-the-less. Chase's WCW press release says what it says. It doesn't have to be demonstrated to you to be true for it to be used as a source. Neither does it require being answered to by you, for it's not the subject of the section. You all have shown direct opposition to every idea and belief we have. We're not going to go around and around about writings, statements and beliefs we have making sure they stand up to your version of what's true; nor do any of them have to be "answered" by you. Doing so brings in your POV as if its absolute truth. Oh I know, let's go through the whole press release point by point while we're at it. Where does something like this end? This sort of thing would never be tolerated anywhere else.

Meanwhile, while you boldly claim PD-59 didn't escalate the cold war or MAD's disposal (but that it was "slowly phased out") as if an authority on the matter, we have the Wiki page on MAD naming PD-59 as directly responsible for replacing MAD's policy with this new countervailing one. Then as we're reducing ballistic missiles, we're not reducing arms at all, for we're introducing tactical MIRv and Cruise missles to replace them while they boast about ARMs reductions. So there's clearly two opposing veiws to this, your's being but one; the populace one being "The world moved one giant step closer to nuclear war because Jimmy Carter wanted to serve another four years as President."

But regardless, the WIKI policy is clear that the source's statements don't have to be demonstrated as true (to you or anyone), just that there's a source that they were said. I thought the follow-up that was added to it was fine. It all looks good to me. WCW only point for inclusion was to share our side of the one side-side perspective originally included, and source the statement that it's sourcing: that we believe the prediction was fullfilled. That's all. You don't have to accept the statement, it's just a source for the comment. I see this matter as closed. Jeff 08:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cunado's "various" contribution

Please don't be surprised that deleting long standing relevant details and rewriting this article from top to bottom might draw concerns. I am not opposed to everything you've attempted to change, but get your finger off the revert button for a second and lets discuss these newly formed concerns of yours. They are quite extensive and include deleting details that I feel are worth noting. Please elaborate on "various" would you? Jeff 07:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just attempted to reinsert wording that was removed in my unilateral revert. These were things that are clearly intended at making this a better and more encyclopedic article.

I have to take issue with removing the "Blessed is he" stuff. We went around this rose bush before, and I really feel it gets to the heart of his biggest boldest claim: that he was the one the Master was talking about. This was a specific prophecy from the Master that had a specific date easily verified by the writings and esp. Esselmont: April 23,1963. He claimed to be this one, something no one else ever did. If the sans-Guardians have an explanation for this clear cut no BS prophecy lifted right out of the writings on how they think it was fullfilled and would like to "answer" this big fat claim, then by all means have at it. But this one's staying. Jeff 08:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And likewise I expected you to revert, and I expected to revert back. I don't see how to include the "blessed is he" part. There are a number of problems with presenting it the previous way, one of course is Jensen's own distortion of the texts being quoted. I thought rather than have another back and forth stating facts that contradict what Jensen taught, I would just delete it. That section in particular seems very un-encyclopedic. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Edit warring is a strategy you are now employing? You're saying you intend on having them? Obviously you can't answer to whom "Blessed is he" might be, or challenge anyone's claim to it, for you guys have not one candidate for who this could be. It's as if the Master never mentioned it. I'll rewrite it and include it in a note, okay? I reintroduced 2/3rds of your rewrite, but I guess only 100% compliance to your will is acceptable to you? That's okay, I know how to play that way too. Jeff 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no candidate because it is not a prophecy about a person establishing the Kingdom, it is a prophecy that any person witnessing that year will have witnessed the establishment of the Kingdom. This is the crux of why I am removing that rather than argue and get accused of "dragging him through the mud". I don't see any third-party commentaries on Jensen's beliefs, and the sources so far about his beliefs are of questionable reliability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The first two out of three dates in that paragraph from Daniel 9 are for the Bab and Baha'u'llah, but the third one is "blessed is everyone alive in 1963 to see the UHJ"? LOL!!! Do you have that explanation in the Writings of the UHJ, or are you just winging it now? Either way it's hilarious. I actually do have ref to establish it's one of his teachings. There are third party notes on him believing the rest of the Bahai's were decieved, and that the Hands violated the Covenant, so we'll just let those stand, Kay? Jeff 02:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cunado, you can remove the "UHJ was fatally flawed" stuff as often as you want, but sterilizing how Doc felt about what the Hands did isn't an acceptable replacement. Try something a little more honest, or leave my wording alone.

I'm only just catching my breath from laughing about the UHJ being the fullfillment of the coming of the Kingdom. It's been established now? Oh dear, that's funny. Could you please cite your source for this? I'd love a point counter-point on this one actually, so if you can answer this, lets. Jeff 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sIBC section rewrite

Just to reiterate, the rewrite of the SIBC section is not in good faith to the subject.

1. saying Pepe publically denied being Guardian is true, dually noted by it's source. Saying he "confirmed it privately" is also true and I have no less than 2 dozen letters to choose from to confirm it. Any of these can easily be linked to as they have been scanned and uploaded in there entirety. The former cannot be mentioned without the latter, for both are true AND verifiable. I chose this handwritten letter as it is one that was handwritten, rendering its authenticity undeniable. If there is an issue with this choice, then we can settle on another for a source, but the statement is staying alongside the "publically denied" statement.
2. The "fatally flawed" statements in here were agreed upon at an earlier date, yet are now under attack. At MARussell's suggestion the elaboration was put into the BUPC article, with links to it from this one to clean up the duality. The wording of the "fatally flawed" sentence was composed by him. This link and the statement is now being repeatedly removed at every attempt to reintroduce them. Unless a plausible reason to now censure this wording is given, I will continue to insist they remain.

The rewrite of this section was not necessary, and the new version presented accomplishes nothing but sterilizing the whole issue. Its impossible to believe its being done in good faith, or creating a better article. Its a complete dumbing down of his pointed feelings towards the actions of the main stream, and all he was attempting to resolve by taking these actions. Furthermore removing the link to these specific concerns in incomprehensible. None of these matters are in any way acceptable to me, and if there are plausible reasons for committing these omissions then please state them or leave them be. Jeff 07:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

On #1, there is no way to source that without using BUPC sources, which are not reliable sources. It is also a strong interpretation, since they can be cherry-picked. Jensen's failed on getting Pepe to join him, that is verifiable. That's what the article says.

On #2, I don't care so much about how this is worded. This is a point that can be easily summarized into something like this: "Jensen thought the majority of the Baha'is were deceived, and that the Universal House of Justice set up in 1963 was flawed." You have tended to run on that point as long as you can. That point is incredibly obvious and almost doesn't even need stating. Pleas stop calling my edits censure. I could easily call your edits propaganda, but I would rather just make an accurate, concise, and verifiable article.

I have tried to keep this article about Jensen and his life. The majority of beliefs were consolidated previously to the BUPC page, and I have avoided expansions here. I have also tried to remove anything unencyclopaedic, including what appears to be emotional arguments, or anything unverifiable sourced from BUPC websites. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all it is censuring by definition to repeatedly remove the reliable source of a scanned copy of the handwritten letter to Jensen without any justifiable explanation, and to insist that the UHJ's version of the truth is the only one to be noted. The link I provided is a .gif on a database to a public yahoo group, so the argument that I'm attempting to use bupc.org as a source is inane (I can only assume you didn't bother to check it out). Neither is it an honest assessment of the policies governing these things as self-published sources about the subject are acceptable sources per policy. We've gone over this repeatedly, and bupc.org content is most certainly reliable to verify beliefs, so don't even go there. But the fact is that this statement most certainly IS verifiable, as it's a letter to the subject about this subject, and moreover is a scan of the actual letter. Everyone who ever corresponded with him can provide letters like this one. If you don't like my "interpretation" then we'll just quote it. To say Pepe denied these things is disingenuine in light of the fact that with your own eyes you've been shown what he said privately about the matter, and are now attempting to censure this fact with flimsy arguements about policy. Furthermore, the wording about the "fatally flawed" condition of the UHJ was not my own, and was reached through a series of compromises, with a link directly to the specific concerns. As we are clearly very close to something acceptable to us all, I suggest a little more rewording in these two areas, for they are not things I'm willing to have vanish into thin air. I'm not opposed to alternate wording, so long as the spirit is there. I'm genuinely concerned about stating Pepe publically denied being the Guardian as fact, without answering to that with a quote from one of about 30 or so letters stating his true inner feelings about the matter. What do you suggest? Jeff 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Jeff 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not confused that you're interested in wrapping this up shortly? I believe we are on the cusp. So, if what you say is true that "I don't care so much about how this is worded", then I'm in favor of an honest approach, as opposed to this watered-down candy coated one. BTW, the "main article:bupc#IBC isn't a main article at all as the sIBC has an article about itself. The link I had in the version you keep reverting was fine. I don't understand the opposition if you don't in fact care how its worded. I'm going to just go ahead and write this with a new "interpretation of what I believe conveys Pepe's attitude, and hopefully it's acceptable. I you're interested in discussing them, by all means jump in anytime. Jeff 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care so much... as long as it's not grossly overstated and unduly self-serving to your interests. The issue can be easily summed up without looking like BUPC propaganda. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe your one line summary of "asserted that the administration that the majority of Bahá'ís followed after the death of Shoghi Effendi became flawed." does any service to the issue of him feeling the Hands broke the Covenant. Adding a line or two of explanation following that statement can hardly be described as being overstated. The wording I included for this is neutral, concise, and void of "propaganda". I attempted to get straight to his specific concerns in as general a way possible. Are you opposed to any mention of these crux concerns that led him to creating the IBC. Is there a reason you keep removing a link to the BUPC page that gets into the specifics? This link was created after it was decided not to repeat these issues on every page, but rather link to one that has all of them in one place. Why have you repeatedly removed it since your rewrite? I'm not opposed to alternative wording about this, but these deletions of yours are not productive, and are not showing a willingness to 'create' something of value that's fair and honest. Rather you're showing signs of someone who wishes to cover something up, whereas we both know you feel confident this is all hogwash. So if it is, then why this insistence on omitting an explanation? It makes no sense, and as this is his bio, here of all places should warrant an explanation for exactly what all his fussing was about. Two lines of explanation can in no way be defined as "grossly overstating" the issue. Jeff 04:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back, the long standing wording before the 9/15/07 overhaul of this page said it all just fine. There was no plausible reason to scale down the already concise explanation. Saying he "announced to have a station higher than the Guardian" makes no sense to anyone including observers familiar with his claims, but is apparently attmpting to summarize a somewhat complex issue in 10 words or less. As this is his bio, we're not overstating the issue by explaining it plainly. The original wording we all agreed upon states fact including a source (something your versions leaves out), and says it all in two sentences. That wording was fine. Jeff 05:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, can scanned, handwritten letters really be viewed as authoritative sources? Is there an appropriate policy that would support this? k1-UK-Global 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about a policy that supports or negates the use of handwritten letters. Are you concerned about it's authenticity? I can't think of a more reliable source to convey the truth about this than by using Pepe's own words and verifying them with a scan of an actual letter, can you? The UHJ has put forward the idea that he denied being the Mason's successor without even sourcing the statement, but the fact that we can verify that they said it allows it's use, even though it's an outright fabrication and total propaganda. It's a complex issue because he said to some one thing, and to others another. They find his denial convenient to their ends, so choose to go no deeper into the matter. It can in fact be shown with a litany of examples from personal letters to no less than a dozen believers that he knew he was Mason's sucessor, and would have taken up the call "at a moments notice" (in his words) if the Baha'is were to ever realize the huge mistake they made in not accepting Mason. He even appointed a sucessor when it was apparent this wasn't going to happen in his lifetime. So, one way or another this is going to be reflected in the articles, and I thought this particular scanned copy was an undeniable iron-clad example of what I'm talking about. Jeff 20:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's hand-written doesn't mean it's verifiable or authentic. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous and you know it. I'm not even dignifying that with a response other than to say you left it alone for the last week, and even moved it once. Now you have an issue with it? Please. You'd better take a closer look at the verifiability page, and it might clue you in as to why this is NEVER coming off this page while that nonsense propaganda from the UHJ sits there. Jeff 08:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I realized that it's stored on a yahoo group, uploaded by a random individual, and is no more reliable than any other BUPC website. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're either totally full of it, or don't bother to read this discussion page. I specifically told you it was on a public yahoo board the first time you removed it when you claimed it coming from BUPC site invalidated it. Try and keep it straight. All of those letters from Pepe, as well as Mason's, were all uploaded by the group owner 'american baha'i' who is Brent Madison Reed who is the only one who can upload files into the database, and not one of them has had it's authenticity questioned. It's not a questionable source (unlike the UHJ paper which makes no attempt to source it's allegations), and neither is that database (where one can easily observe that the bulk of it is there to point seekers to accepting Shogomonian, and not Pepe) which is why I used that neutral one instead of any of ours. Jeff 15:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you have absolutely no regard for any of the concerns I have, nor do you intend to address even one? I've gone to great lengths to explain my concerns with your rewrite, to present alternatives compromises, and to try and see this from your perspective. I have spent hours each night rewording alternatives and explaining myself here to have you completely ignore all of it and revert again and again. You won't even do me the courtesy of acknowledging my direct questions, or considering my ideas? Your ONLY contributions to this article since 9/15 are to revert back to your version from 9/15. You said you don't care how the sIBC section was worded, but apparently you mean so long as we go with your words. Your rewrite is misleading, and void of any depth or perspective. I've explained my issues with your wording, and presented several alternatives. You have unilaterally reverted every contribution I've made in the last week, offering not even one alternative but your ONE and only version you've presented. I am assuming your unwillingness to work things out on this discussion page nor answer to ANY of my concerns means you have no intent on cooperating or working in good faith. So be it. Cheers. Jeff 07:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excommunicate each other

In the bit where it says "he claimed to be the successor to the guardian and this caused both sides to mutually excommunicate each other", I'm not happy that this represents a fair view - this sounds to the lay person as if the two sides were equal, whereas the Mason Remey followers were relatively small. Anyone disagree with me re-writing this and saying something more accurate? k1-UK-Global 16:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This wording was created by Tomhab per a consensus over neutrality issues. I don't beleive the whole thing needs to be rehashed. Your concerns are somewhat skewed as the undue weight policy wouldn't apply to this case. The differences in scope of the groups sizes is already noted, and has nothing to do with the verifiable fact that Mason declared all the sans-Guardian Baha'is Covenant Breakers. So, it's a fact that all of Remey's followers have shunned the sans-guardians since that decree, and vice-versa, so this wording was chosen to remain neutral. Size is not a factor in this; being bigger doesn't make you righter, does it? You are welcome to review the previous discussion about this on Mason Remey's talk page. Jeff 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. Anyone else with a view on this? Cheers, k1-UK-Global 11:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)