Talk:Baháʼís Under the Provisions of the Covenant/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Baháʼís Under the Provisions of the Covenant. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cunado's rewrite

With all sincerity and earnestness, I'd like to say THANK YOU Cunado! You must have spent a fair amount of time working on this page sorting through all the details. I'm not familiar with your contributions to very many other articles, but I haven't known you to be so fair and objective before. I mean no offense by that; just that we've had our differences over content on many similiar pages, and frankly I was surprised to see such an honest and fair treatment of the BUPC from someone who's stood at variance to us stating our beliefs in the past. I trust you won't mind if I comb through it thoroughly and make minor changes here and there. But, after a quick comparison what you've accomplished seems like an enormous improvement. Go on with your bad self. Jeff 05:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If the issue is with the article has been verifiable information, what about this paragraph?:

Chase points to a series of letters in his possession where Pepe refers to Chase as "my dear boy" and "my boy" as evidence that Pepe adopted him in the same manner that `Abdu'l-Bahá adopted Mason Remey. In one such letter he quotes Pepe as asking: "shall I adopt you?". Chase further asserts his claim of appointment with the fact that the Executor of Pepe's estate was enjoined by Pepe's Will to bestow certain artifacts from Pepe's estate in person to Chase, including the "Locks of Hair and Drops of the Blood of Bahá'u'lláh" that `Abdu'l-Bahá had left for Mason Remey upon His death.

The first three quotes have never been verified. We are to take Chase's word on the matter. The same with Pepe's Will. Notice it is stated as a "fact" that the Executor was to give items to Chase, but I know others who have read the Will question that assertion. If other material has been deleted due to unverifiability, how does this section pass the verifiability test? Davecornell 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The section on Pepe's will and the hair and blood is pretty poorly written and unverifiable, but I don't know the details so I left it. I think it definitely needs to be redone. Cuñado

- Talk 05:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

2 things

1) please please put in accents. It's just sloppy and I'm having to clean it up. 2) Jensen is widely known for his 1980 prophecy, which occupies a large part of his biography, is there a reason it was removed? Cuñado - Talk 08:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, I know. I'll try to get better at the accent thing. It's never been one of my concerns or anything but tedious. I know it's a standard you all have set, so I'll try to get better about it. My POV is that it's a nerdy scholar thing that's redundant as the language of origin is Farsi, and our language doesn't imvolve accenting things, so to translate into English, oh never mind. I'll take care of it.
Yeah, the prediction is part of his bio, so why does it need to be here, was my first thought. The second one was that his "headlines" weren't what you wrote they were, and there's more to it than what you summed up so briefly. But, if you thinks it's important, let's just re-insert it.

Thanks again for all the time and energy. It really does look much better and streamlined. I think I got so caught up in adding to the article, that it was hard for me to step back and see how streamlining it could be an improvement. Jeff 08:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, just say that he was widely known for prophecies/predictions and mention the date. That's my thought. Cuñado

- Talk 08:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jensen's predictions are inextricably linked to the BUPC and should be here. He was frankly notorious for them. The first time I ever saw Jensen was on a Michael Moore special c. '95. I've vivid memories of Moore, ever the grandstander, on a pay-phone in Times Square, with a WWI helmet on, trying to get through to Jensen on the date in question. Not surprisingly he couldn't get through and the person at the other end hung up on him.

I don't think that this can really be separated from the BUPC itself. This apocalyptic vision is certainly characteristic and Chase is carrying on the tradition. MARussellPESE 14:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's why I put it back in the article myself, along with a link to it in his article; which you'd have known if you'd have taken a moment to look. I said that I removed it because of it's inaccurate wording. I rewrote it and put it back in the same spot with a link.

BTW, it was correspondent Mo Rocca, not Moore, and what you saw was edited for comdey, with the actual conversation he had with us edited out. He did in fact get through and talk to Neal, for which we have a recorded copy of the call, but that's not what the show aired. He was trying to get a hold of Neal, not doc, because Neal was making the predictions at the time. You may or may not know this, but Neal had predicted the first Trade Tower bombing in a press release that was sent out in late 92' which went widely ignored until the Towers were bombed on the exact day he predicted. It was afterwards that Harpers published a full article on Neal. He was in the spotlight for several years for this, as he made further predictions with specific dates; all of which came to pass, and the history of the events proves that Neal has a 100% track record. That's why TV Nation interviewed us. Don't you think we knew that they'd make a big joke of it all? Of course we did, but it got the message out, as there were more dates to come. The day that Mo Rocca was on the phone with the army helmet on in Times Square was the second date that Neal had given for an attack on the city. That night he was being interviewed on Art Bell's Coast to Coast, and at 11:55 EST a report came in over the AP wire that a pilot flying into Newark, NJ told the tower that, "Oh MY God, New York's been NUKED!!!" What he had witnessed was the Edison Gas Explosion which sent a mushroom cloud 200 ft in the air above the city. The investigation concluded that the incident had involved "foul play". Many believed it was an attempt to sabotage the gas lines and cause widespread destruction through the lines. He got that one right, too, and was on Art Bell when it happened who acknowledged this and said he'd never been so freak out. Furthermore, Neal gave the date of Sept. 11th, 2001 in Aug. of 1999. All of this has been covered in the press, and is the reason why clowns like Moore, publications like Harpers, and broadcasters like Bell have covered our group. So, be glib about these matters all you want, but there are some out there with actual credentials who do take us seriously. Jeff 03:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Leadership section and the "SIBCs"

There is a paragraph that needs cleaning up but I have no idea how to address it. It's the second one below:

After the Trade Tower bombings on 9-11, a minority of the remaining directors (3) led by the treasurer of the sIBC, formed a Committee of Investigation stemming from allegations levied against Chase for issuing a press release entitled “Limbs of Mankind Quake” on September 11 2001. Ninety days later, in December 2001 Neal Chase issued a statement entitled “Jealousy and Envy Must Go!” which these members took to be his proclamation of himself to be the successor to Pepe Remey as the one seated on the Davidic throne as the current Guardian and President of the sIBC [12]. The treasurer responded by issuing an e-mail statement from herself, declaring Neal Chase a Covenant-breaker, in which she claimed to be the “Chairman of the sIBC”, and whereas she was only the chairperson of the Committee.

In response to this action, the sIBC met at it's regularly scheduled meeting time, and issued and injunction upon the treasurer to “Cease and Desist”. In response to that letter from the sIBC, the treasurer and her committee of two other directors met, and declared that Neal Chase was to be expelled and shunned as a Covenant-breaker which one of them wrote later was for the charge of “alluding to be the guardian”.

It says "...the sIBC met at it's regularly scheduled meeting time...." yet the sIBC had already begun to split into two. So which one of the two does this refer to? I think it needs a lead in sentence or rewording but I'm not sure how to do it. It definitely is an NPOV issue because it implies the sIBC that met was the "true" one. Davecornell 13:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

removed quote

I would like to see a good reference for this or leave it out.

On the front of the packet Shoghi Effendi wrote:

“Coagulated drops of Bahá'u'lláh's all-Sacred Blood and Ringlets of His Most Blessed Locks Presented as my most precious possession to `Abdu'l-Bahá’s ‘dear son’ Mr. Charles Mason Remey, (signed) Shoghi March 1922”

Cuñado - Talk 06:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, how about the actual picture of the actual artifact that links to it? What's the problem with this all of a sudden? Are you questioning the authenticity of this? It's a matter of historical record. Didn't you read the quote from Spataro where he's refering specifically to this artifact that we possess? Do you think we forged Shoghi's signature or something? Please explain your concerns.Jeff 07:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume you know who Spataro is, so I'm not sure why he holds any weight at all. In the same book he puts the "Apostolic period" of the Faith from 1863 to 1957, when Shoghi Effendi clearly defined it as 1844 to 1921. Spataro also never heard of the Baha'i Faith until 1976, after Remey died. He is not a primary source or an expert.

Outside of an acknowledgement by Spataro and the image on the BUPC website, there is no mention of it anywhere. There is only a mention in God Passes By (written 1944) that "the locks and blood of Bahá'u'lláh" are in the archives building. (p. 347)

So like I said this section is not well referenced and is only supported by the BUPC image. If the image is real (which I'm not doubting or affirming) then the addition of quotations around the term 'dear son' was probably done during the 50 years that it passed through the hands of people who would gain value from having those marks there. But I'm not hear to argue that.

If there is not a decent source then the section should be written differently reflecting the reality of the sources. Please don't add back the quote and remove the reference request, as it's appropriate to remove comments to the talk pages until they are resolved. It's WP policy stated somewhere. Cuñado

- Talk 08:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. You're going to decide which published authors are credible? Where are your credentials? What about Mason's diaries in the archives of the New York public library. Those valid enough? Spataro's book meets every standard for a reliable verifiable source. There are no issues of sources here, so I'll thank you to stop vandalizing the section; and while you're at it please spare us of your speculation regarding matters you know nothing about. Jeff 09:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

quotes

Actually I made an error in my edit summary. The quote was:

"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"

It was removed, and at the same time I expanded a quote from Shoghi Effendi. This is not a place to compile quotes, and Shoghi Effendi repeated this. Cuñado - Talk 00:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of deleting quotes with the reasoning being "this is not a place to compile quotes" and then significantly expand on another. I would prefer to see the above quote from the Will and Testament left in and remove the part of Shoghi Effendi's that you added. I think you're being disingenuous with your recent edit labeled "various". I think you're trying to put forth your personal POV rather than the BUPC's viewpoint. Davecornell 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

We've gone extremely beyond just stating what the BUPC viewpoint is, and if you would like to add a bunch of quotes then you can't be so selective as to quote Shoghi Effendi say that the Guardianship is essential, and then fail to mention the following paragraph which says the same about the Universal House of Justice.

The above quote was removed just on preference because it was repeated in Shoghi Effendi's quote. I have no objection to having it. I made a rational judgment on relevancy and content.

On a sidenote, the requirements for selecting the Guardian were clear and it's referenced. `Abdu'l-Baha left the approval of the Guardian's appointment to a majority vote among 9 of the Hands. You can throw in a hardly relevant quote saying that the authority of the Hands does not overrule the Guardian, but that doesn't address the issue at all. Cuñado

- Talk 06:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

revert

Dave, if you continue to distort the teachings and add summaries that do not reflect the quotes addressed, I will continue to revert you. The nine Hands are given the authority to approve or disapprove of the Guardian's appointment, Shoghi Effendi's quote is not relevant to that issue, and it certainly does not say that they don't have the authority to disapprove. The issue at hand is not even related to this. The issue is that Shoghi Effendi died without having appointed a successor, something not addressed in the writings. Above anything, the Hands had no authority to appoint a successor, only the authority to approve an appointment made by Shoghi Effendi. The quote you added from the W&T was a half-quote which completely distorted its original intent.

As long as you continue to pick away at the article with deceptive edits, I'll be here. Cuñado - Talk 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of this section is the criteria for guardianship. I didn't add any quotes. I took the original wording and changed it to reflect BUPC beliefs while still including the majority's viewpoint. BUPC believe in two criteria, the majority believe in three. I don't see the justification in the revert.

As far as the nine Hands' authority, that's your interpretation - it is not a fact. That's why I distinguished between the majority Baha'i belief on this issue and the BUPC belief. This is the BUPC page and should reflect their beliefs, not focus on the majority's. I think that's why this whole thing started earlier this evening because the current wording of this section goes against BUPC beliefs. The majority's viewpoint on the nine Hands issue is already found on the Baha'i Divisions page and is redundant to have it reprinted here.

But I don't see the justification in a complete revert of the last entry since it reflected the BUPC belief and was not stated as fact the way the current wording is. Davecornell 04:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as the teachings are being distorted, I'll continue to revert. An easy resolution for you is to provide some verifiable evidence from Jensen's writings as to what he taught on the subject. So far it appears that you all put your own personal opinions down and say "BUPC believe such and such..." If this was a major issue addressed by Jensen, then the article should say "Jensen said..." with a reference to where it's printed.

As to the issue being reverted, the Will is very clear and the edits were completely distorting it by taking a half-quote and then adding commentary to lead the reader on. If the entire paragraph of the Will is read in its entirety, then there's no doubt as to what it meant. This has nothing to do with censorship, as Jeff claimed in his edit summary. Cuñado

- Talk 05:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'll notice, the main heading for this section is "Beliefs" as in "BUPC Beliefs". It is not "Majority Baha'i Beliefs". Your continual mucking up this section with your belief that the Hands play a role in determining the identity of the Guardian is a majority belief and doesn't belong in this section. It is not a universally accepted fact.

This situation is similar to your refusing to acknowledge the Will stating that the Guardian is the UHJ's "sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body." To the BUPC "there's no doubt as to what is meant," but you interpret it differently. Therefore it is a difference in belief.

As far as a solution, I'd be fine with a link back to the Baha'i Divisions page where the difference in opinion on the Hands' role is and can be discussed. It seems to me the Baha'i Divisions page is the place where all of these differences in belief should be discussed anyway, not in the individual Baha'i groups' pages.

I'm happy to provide verifiable evidence as to the BUPC's beliefs. But it cuts both ways. I'd like to see you and your contributors held to the same standard on the majority's pages as you hold me and the BUPC to. Davecornell

universally elected

In response to the addition of:

Specifically it can be noted that the Will and Testament explicitly states: "in all countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted, and these secondary Houses of Justice must elect the members of the Universal one."[1] Even today there are not secondary Houses of Justice "in all countries".

This is absolute nonsense and I can't think of doing anything besides deleting it. One of many examples of you mis-using a quote. If you can quote Jensen saying this then go ahead and quote it. See the following quotes which clearly and directly contradict what you are insinuating...

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

Shoghi Effendi said:

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

Bias

Regarding:

for not upholding their vow to "carry out every aspect of the Guardian’s expressed wishes and hopes"[12]

It's in both our interests to make the article look like a factual and unbiased article, and not some kind of pamphlet or personal webpage. It seems like you're just putting down whatever you want to, preceded by "Jensen taught that..." I've never seen a decent reference for what he wrote about what and when, only a link to the introduction of a book which was e-published. If you want to have sentences like the one mentioned, I suggest referencing it straight to what Jensen wrote, or removing it. The way it's written is sloppy, and that's why I removed it. Cuñado 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't post discussion stuff on my talk page.
I don't know about what's sloppy about "believed the Custodians were in error for not upholding their vow...". You apparently had no problem with "beleived they were in error". I've put the statement into several contexts, and none seem acceptable. Let's be honest about whose bias is being shown in high relief here. You just don't want this statement pointed out.
There were two crux issues for him creating the sIBC. First was this one, and second them establishing a body without a legitimate head. The UHJ's head resembles medussa with it's multiple chancellors, or whatever they're called. I'm just trying to establish the purpose for starting over. All the Division groups see these two things as a glaring violation of the explicit instructions that they promised to uphold. They did write it in Ministry. They did promise the Baha'i world this, and failed to deliver. There trite response to this violation is included, so your bias accusation is unfounded. Jeff 07:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article must accurately represent the BUPC position. Which, to me, means that the BUPC gets to say what they want, how they want — but opinions expressed have to reflect genuine statements of its leaders. Citations have to be sourced.

In this case, the BUPC clearly believes the Custodians were usurpers, and that should be easy to document. Unfortunately, Jeff, the Custodians selection you use to support this states clearly that they felt that they actually did "carry out every aspect of the Guardian’s expressed wishes and hopes". That selection is exactly the one I'd use to attack this argument of Jensen's. I think you need to use another source. MARussellPESE 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the quality of references is such that I want to delete most of the page. You're wrong on one point Jeff, I have no problem with you stating what Jensen believed and taught, but you commonly state whatever you want and say "Jensen taught..." The sentence I mentioned is not factual or reference, and like MARussellPESE mentioned, referencing the Custodians doesn't add to the argument, because everybody believes that they did fulfill the wishes of Shoghi Effendi. Cuñado

- Talk 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to go round and round justifying why we don't go along with you all down your path of cognitive dissonance. You believe they did, though they clearly didn't, but they said they did, even though they admit to skipping the statedly clear "essential prelude", and because you've swallowed this obvious violation you think that "everybody" has. "Everybody" doesn't see them as having fullfilled SE's wishes, so why would you make such a statement? Clearly I'm not alone in this concern and criticism of the Custodians, so why are you trying to accuse me of using these pages to put forward my own personal beliefs? I knew nothing of any of this stuff before Doc explained it to me. My beliefs are Doc's beleifs, in a sense. But I was challenged on this accusation early on by MARussell, and I stepped up and tracked down all the resources for all the information in these pages. Don't stand there on your soapbox and threaten to "delete most of this page". What do you want a footnote at the end of every sentence? What exactly is the problem, cuz I'm a little fuzzy on what I should change. I reworded the sentence again today. Is that okay in it's current version? Jeff 04:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes actually I think this version is fine (besides slight grammar to clarify). Cuñado

- Talk 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1969 Conviction

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

Numbers

Is there any way we can get some sort of feel of the membership of various BUPC groups? I see references here and there, e.g. Neal Chase + 24 others formed a group, but I don't see a coherent paragraph which describes the general state of BUPC membership. Can anyone discuss + comment on this? Right now I've no idea if it's 144,000 people or 144. Can any BUPC people comment? k1-UK-Global 11:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Membership data has never been provided to anyone at anytime because there has never once been a survey (David did that once and we know what became of that). There are two places known to state a number, and unfortunately they did little more than guesstimate. This is partly my fault, because when asked by the guy who runs adherents.com I replied tongue-in-cheek that we had "144,000 or so". Anyone familiar with our teachings knows that we believe Dr. Jensen's teachings will save 144K believers from the violation of the Hands in '57, and that then the 4 Winds of Destruction will occur. I didn't think he would have taken my comment as an official estimate, for we don't do that and I made that clear when I said it. Then someone at baha'i library.com decided it was more likely 1/10th of that, which one can only speculate exactly where they pulled that number out of. If this was at all actually important maybe there'd be something about it in the writings perhaps?

I interviewed a BUPC member that put the number at 1000 to 4000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonomous019 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If one reads this article with any amount of care, it's clear the International Baha'i Council has 24 members, not the group. There are not various BUPC groups, as this has been misconstrued here. We'll clear all this up soon enough once the various court cases pending that have muddied the water are ruled upon. Jeff 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

k1-UK-Global, it appears that there are less than 100 people who still believe in Jensen, and among them there are several individuals who are very vocal on the internet making it sound like there are many more. They are also fighting amongst themselves for power. The only thing I could find is that someone documenting every sort of church/religion in Montana went by Missoula and counted 30 people. That's their "headquarters" and I've never heard of any other adherents outside of Missoula (besides our friend Jeff here who lives in Aspen). So there you go, the fact that there are no numbers except blind estimates gives you an indication. They are almost not notable enough to deserve a page on Wikipedia. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Cunado, I can't seem to find one thought in your statements that can be proven accurate. Why is that? After all this time you still seem to have a sub-remedial understanding about the BUPC, yet tout yourself as some who knows diddly. How could there "appear" there are less than 100 BUPC when you yourself admit there are only "blind estimates". A quick perusal of the pluralism report website that you're refering to shows that the project you're attempting to sound in-the-know about never did any such thing as "document every sort of church across Montana"; the study is attempting to document the diversity of religion across the country. When Scott was in Missoula he interviewed one council member, and took a couple of pictures of the office space we maintain. He never "counted 30 people", nor does anything on that sight say he did. The 30 members that you're referring to from that study are the 30 IBC members (24 members and 6 alts.) of the governing body, and not as you presume the size of the entire Missoula community. The fact that you've "never heard of any other adherents outside of Missoula" shows you are utterly in the dark, and proves nothing other than what's already been established: the BUPC doesn't make membership data public. I guess the websites that the Alaska and Colorado communities maintain for teaching efforts could have been a clue that there is more than one community, but to know about those one would first have to be educated about this group. That would also go for the French and British based websites as well, I suppose.

What's most amusing about the smear tactics of so-called Baha'is around here is that they keep trying to paint the BUPC as irrelevant and un-notable while at the same time their own NSA is spending their hard earned donated funds on a legal team fighting us (miserably) in two separate Federal Court cases. These are the latest in a series of cases that wouldn't exist at all if we weren't relevant or worthy of note, would they? Jeff 05:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The pluralism project (Harvard University) seems to have documented Baha'i communities around Montana.

"255 individual Baha'is live in Montana, with 18 adult members residing in Helena. 25 active participants live in the Helena area. Assemblies are located in Helena, Butte, Missoula, Kalispell, Billings, Mission County, and Ravali County."[2]

As well as here:

"A community that is particularly unique to Montana is the Baha’is Under the Provision of the Covenant... In correlation with groups in Denver and Alaska, they have established the sIBC, the Second International Baha’i Council, which is located in Missoula, Montana."[3]

And they also tried to document Baha'is around the country, as well as Buddhist, Christian, and others in Montana. And of course they mention the following for Missoula:

"Membership/Community Size:30"

Regardless of what you say, this is the only reliable source so far to indicate the scope of the BUPC, and it sounds like they have 30 people in Missoula, and some people in Denver and Alaska. Assuming a best-case scenario that there are also 30 people in Denver and Alaska (probably much less), it would be safe to say that there are less than 100 BUPC adherents. Your personal experience is worthless as a reference for this. We have gone back and forth on this issue before and I don't really care that much, but the argument goes like this: I say that there is an absence of evidence, therefore they are small; you say there is an absence of evidence, therefore they are large. The page does not say either, so just cool it and go back to cutting celebrity hair. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Really no need to be testy here. You came out of nowhere on the offense. I'm just pointing out the obvious which somehow consistently escapes you. I'd never dream of using my personal experience as a reference here; not sure where that's coming from. Neither have I ever attempted to make any reference to the size or scope of the BUPC; large or small. That is simple ASSumption on your part. You can take what you want from that report, but neither was Scott given any indication of the groups size; only the size of the council. Proof for me of his lack of listening skills is that there isn't one member of the BUPC in Denver. We simply have never once provided any membership data to anyone, period. We just don't keep track of membership; it's an unorganized religion remember. Being a Baha'i is a matter between you and God, and the number of voters is not what constitutes the group size, is it? If it were, then according to documents received in discovery from your NSA the lastest tally for people who actually cast votes during the last elections was just over 4,000 members. Does that mean you only have 4,000 believers in the U.S.? We should probably update that on your statistics page, right? Jeff 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuñado, there are more criteria for WP:Notability than raw numbers. The OBF doesn't meet any; but Leland Jensen does, and the BUPC by association. Whether they have 100 or 1000 followers they've received extensive, and unwelcome to the BPC, notoriety for the repeated failed prophecies. My first direct experience with Jensen et. al. was the memorable TV Nation episode (five) in August '94. My recollection of Micheal Moore in Times Square wearing a WWI doughboy helmet and trying to raise Jensen on the phone on the appointed day & hour still raises a chuckle.

Jeff, "ASSumptions"(?) — uncool. MARussellPESE 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my last comment. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Too Long

I think the article is too long and could do with being shortened - for such a small group to have this long an article seems unbalanced. Can I get out my pruning scissors? k1-UK-Global (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more constructive to think about quality rather than size or extent of an article. If you see untrue material or material that cannot be backed up in independent, reliable sources, then remove it! And if you can make the article clearer by making it more concise--i.e. shortening the text while retaining the same content, then that also will greatly improve the article. Removing adequately sourced content, however, is not appropriate. The sole judge of whether something should be contained in wikipedia is whether it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources--not whether people think it's "important" or not or whether or not it's a "fringe" topic. Cazort (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Disarray, you have reverted three times. Before I move it back and let you have a 24 hour cool down, is there anything you need to address? I made massive improvements to the article's clarity and flow, removed unreliable sources, and added solid references. Did you think your revert to a sloppy version would work out? Has it ever worked out? Give me something to work with or your reverts won't be taken seriously. The editor pushing for inclusion has the responsibility to meet policy for V and RS. As I noted over two years ago, the references for the hair and blood do not suffice, as they are from BUPC.org, a website with ambiguous authorship and unreliable for such a statement, and Spataro has no personal knowledge of the subject. The only other statement is from Shoghi Effendi stating in 1944 that they are in the archive building 23 years after they were supposedly given to Remey. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my most humble apology for having offended thee. A thousand apologies, and thank you for your "improvements to the article's clarity and flow", for replacing references with citation needed tags, adorning the page with those fancy quotation marks that are entirely discouraged from use, and for beefing it up with copious amounts of your own personal original research. I wasn't aware that we should have asked your permission to use our own main webpage to reference our beliefs. Again, a thousand apologies. I'll go cool down and await your approval for the change that I suggest. Thank you for this opportunity to indulge your "improvements". _Disarray^General 06:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The useful information I got out of that was that you don't like the cquote template. Done. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

the quote from Doc about what happened in the prison cell was a direct quote from Stone's book and ref'd as such; you replaced the ref with a CN tag. Solid work!
the rewording in the intro replaced the differences that contrast BUPC with the BWF with your own jab for no apparent reason. It's no improvement and isn't acceptable.
Again you replaced references to the court case documents delineating the appointment of the IBC with CN tags. That's an "improvement"?
According to MOS:QUOTE decorative quotes such the one's provided from the cquote template are only to be used in Pull quotes. They go.
The Hair and Blood is dealt with extensively at bupc.org, and the contentions that the authorship is "ambiguous" isn't an actual issue as the site is a group site and is acceptable for using in statements of belief held to the group. Your counterclaim regarding what Shoghi Effendi wrote about other Hair and Blood relics that allegedly exist doesn't belong here as it's your own personal research that wrought those conclusions. That's out. If rewording the section will satisfy your concerns that's fine, but excising it will never fly. _Disarray^General 07:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the court case in montana has been settled, and there's now one IBC, with Neal as the president. The judge's order was that a meeting be held by all interested parties to resolve the dispute; he basically didn't make a judgment. Anyhoo, you'll notice their old bupc.montana.com (other IBC) site is now down, and should be removed from the external links._Disarray^General 07:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1, the quote was in the middle of a paragraph with a note at the end of the paragraph for stone p271. Direct quotations need clear sourcing.

2, I added no jab, I only removed the mention that "there are few differences between" the groups. Provide a reference. There are significant differences in understandings.

3, be more specific. I combined two sections and reorganized it.

4, already fixed.

5, WP:V is very clear...

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

You're confusing two issues by saying that anything put on the website is protected by the self-published clause, being about itself (the BUPC). That argument ignores that such a source is "largely not acceptable", especially when it is "unduly self-serving", "contentious", or about "claims about third parties". This is a website making a claim about a third party. The website is not reliable, and therefore there are no reliable sources stating that Mason received the gift, and especially that Pepe gave it to Neal. Therefore, it may be removed. I mentioned the reference to the archives to show that there is no record of such an item other than in the archives in 1944. It is part of a polemic argument that can't be debated in the article with unpublished and unreliable sources such as a website that anyone can put on the web. One way around this is to put the information on the Neal Chase article in a neutral way with sources about what he claims, but that is dependent on providing self-published sources that clearly represent him as a source, which BUPC.org does not. You might want to think about merging this article into the two articles on Jensen and Chase.

If the court case was settled then provide a reference. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that a lot of this rewrite is an improvement, and much to my surprise was treated more neutral than possibly anything else you've ever contributed to these pages. I would like to point out that the details of the court case were extrapolated upon to such a large degree mostly because you brought it forward as a must-include. I never thought it warranted 2/3rds of the page, and am frankly glad to see it scaled back to reasonable size. The dilemma with sourcing the court case is the only documents available have been the supreme court documents; the documents from the state proceedings were never a matter of public record. I happen to have all the filed documents, but I haven't ever bothered to comb through them as sourcing them is a challenge. What we've had available and find in this article are what was filed with the supreme court which amounts to the appellant brief, our response, and the court's opinion. Then it was remanded back to the judge who first heard the case. His decision was to force the IBC to meet with everyone in attendance and sort this out. There is no source to point at for how this has all been resolved. The wording can be changed a bit while keeping the current details in place about how it all went down. I can't imagine how exactly to draw a conclusion to the matter, so I guess it has to read as open ended until I resolve the verifiability issue.

I would like to extend the olive branch of peace to you and assume your intentions with this rewrite are what you claim they are. I will make some revisions, but for the most part it looks better. I think the details of the "two IBC's" could be scaled back even further, for frankly it's a giant bore to read about. That a schism occurred has been addressed, and the extent of the details about it are bordering on mundane. In looking back on how this page has evolved I believe it grew to it's recent size largely through point/counterpoint contributions between the two of us. I believe what you've accomplished in this new revision has eradicated a lot of dead weight off the page.

I'm not in favor of the "merger" you suggested, but the suggestions around what to contribute to the Chase page are valid. The Hair and Blood relic, and other endowments from Pepe are address in the Victor Woods affidavit on the "Response Brief" and as you've pointed out should likely be addressed on Chase's page. The rest I'm sure can be rearranged and sorted out without any drama or strife. I'll put on my NPOV/WP:V/WP:RS hat and make an honest go of it later. Regards. _Disarray^General 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the dilemna of the court and verifiability. It could be left open ended or you could give a date for the lower court's decision but leave a {fact} tag after it, without any details of the decision. Even if those files were posted online you would still need at the very least a mention of the case from a reputable state site. I think you understand the issue here.

I should mention that the respondent/response briefs aren't stating verifiable facts, just claims and allegations of the parties. They are verifiable sources for what the authors claim. I don't think the personal websites are verifiable at all. The court's opinion however was written by the court and is verifiable and reliable. The referencing on those are a bit sloppy still and needs cleanup. Stone's book is also verifiable and reliable. The court opinion and that book seem to me the best sources, while the briefs are verifiable sources of self-published material. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing problems

There are more than a few citations that refer to court filings. These are documents filed by one or another party to a court case. Sometimes these are also filed by interested third parties.

These filings are not findings of fact, which are determined by the judge or jury. Nor are they findings of law by a judge. They are the opinions of the interested party. As such they are, by definition, representations of a particular POV.

These are not acceptable sources per WP:V as these are not published by responsible publishers.

These are not acceptable sources per WP:RS for the POV bias already noted.

In this article these findings were installed to respond to {{fact}} tags. Since these sources were the only ones in response, I'm treating these as stale tags and am prepared to remove them here and on related pages. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The court case and it's transcripts as sources were dragged forward by Cunado, and all of the court case content was initially created by him. I added some of the material to counter-balance the one sided portrayal of the incident which he created. For the record, it was YOU who initially brought the subject and links forward on Baha'i divisions for you felt it imperative to include at the time, and then Cunado took up the mantle and ran amuck with it bogging down this whole article with it's details. Now you're objecting to the content. Please make up your mind. _Disarray^General 20:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if its Cunado's content, or yours. I think he was trying to actually find something to justify the content here - especially y'all's lovely little fallings out. If that's the best that can be done, then too bad.

I think Cunado's understanding of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB has matured along with mine as we've policed the blather on Baha'i articles.

Historically, I could have cared less about these trivial BUPC articles. I took a look at the sources in the Mason Remey article and noticed these problems with using court filings as sources. Your stellar comments there are what have attracted my attention. MARussellPESE (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

He was actually following your lead. You *insisted* on wedging details of the court case into the summary on Baha'i divisions when you found them obviously hoping to shed a disparaging light on Neal, for there was no other value in mentioning it; then he took hold of the court documents and jammed every bit of dirt he could find within it into this article. How can you say the understanding of these policies has "matured" in regards to what should and shouldn't be used as sources? The Chicago court case references were just inserted by him into these articles by him this past summer. Nice try though. Clever. It probably works for the credulous. Sorry, I'm better informed. _Disarray^General 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I've almost never edited this page, and never edited Chase's. The only court documents I've ever cited on these is Jensen's "lewd and lascivious" conviction. I really could have cared less about y'all and your fallings out. It was you who attracted my attention here.

How can my undertanding mature? I read the policies. MARussellPESE (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Will you please tone it down and get a grip. You're not even reading what I've written. You decided it imperative to include the reference to the court case on Baha'i divisions back in 2005; YOU added a summary about Neal and the sIBC's case into the BUPC summary on Baha'i divisions, and if you can't recall your own participation in the matter that's just sad. You found the case, wedged it into Baha'i divisions, and then Cunado started combing through it and began adding copious amounts of details from it to this page. Now all of a sudden you're ready to swing the hatchet at this page for Cunado's use of court documents as references. All caught up now? Good. Now explain to me how Cunado referencing the Chicago court case as recently as August demonstrates how much he's matured in his understanding....Hold on; I'm going to need some popcorn for this one. _Disarray^General 06:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What references to Chase in court on "Baha'i divisions"? Care to provide some diffs? If it was there, it's not there now. Perhaps because the sources aren't appropriate? Which would bring this discussion full circle. Court filings are not statements of fact by third parties. They are assertions by first parties.

If you think Cunado hasn't reassessed, then we'll see if Cunado is interested in reinserting these. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who found and added the Montana court documents. MARussellPESE had nothing to do with it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I made an honest mistake and mixed up the order of events that took place that afternoon two years ago. I thought MARussell brought forward the court case, and Cunado created the details. It turns out Cunado dumped the link onto the page [4], and a few hours later on the same day MARussell cleaned up the wording [5]. I should have done my research and I wouldn't have erred so grievously on those tediously minor details on what exactly each of your levels of participation was. I'm truly sorry for that. The point still stands as valid though, doesn't it? It was you guys who dragged these details and court documents forward, word-smithed them, and fought more than one discussion and edit war to maintain their inclusion. But now that MARussell has decided to reinterpret our policies to suite his present disposition it's time to undo all that you fought so valiantly for Cunado. We really should consider just renaming this place Mikeipedia, cuz it really always just boils down to what he decrees shall be anyways. I mean really, who cares that there's no specific policies stating explicitly how court documents can and can't be used; Mike has declared what shall be, and so it shall be. _Disarray^General 08:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop making this personal. I made arguments based on policy. Your job is to make counter arguments based on the same. Please try to do so.

Unfortunately your pattern is rather to presume bad faith (appeal to motive), name call (ad hominem), and kvetch about how much of a victim you are (Poisoning the well). (Oh, and the argument that "you people added this in the first place" is an Appeal to tradition.)

Since that course doesn't actually address the question, then perforce my arguments will take the field — any valid argument will stand in the face of that. It's not my fault the course you've chosen to take. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So sorry; I thought when you said "What references to Chase in court on "Baha'i divisions"? Care to provide some diffs?" you were asking for an answer and examples. Are you offended and flying off the handle (as usual) because I provided one, or because I was correct that it was only because of you two in the first place that this "sourcing problem" exists in the first place? Funny that you didn't bother to comment on my evidence supporting my contentions, but rather decided to launch the usual ad hominem. If you don't like having your contradictions and double standards pointed out to you don't ask for difs and example to bring it front and center.

I've said all I have to say about this, and I edited out these "problems" that Cunado created; go ahead and take the last word and jab that you always have to have. Regards. _Disarray^General 07:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your diff and it pointed to a document that doesn't exist anymore. How can I confirm your accusations then? Was it a decision? I'd have had no problem with that. Was it a filing? By whom? When? In what case even? The world will never know.

Actually the discussion has gotten quite confused. Originally, I had a general problem with any court filings and was not paying close enough attention to what cases were being used where. By your own reasoning the WP:SELFPUB sources here should be used because the articles are about themselves. These are Montana cases directly involving current members of the BUPC.

In the Remey and Divisions articles those are different cases that don't invovle the subject, so court filings have to stay out over there. Ah, but here … you have a point. (And I wish you'd made it bloody-well sooner instead of presuming bad faith and all the sturm und drang. We'd have made some headway.) I'll try to restore the material you want in. Decisions would still be better, though. Have these succession cases resolved? MARussellPESE (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the difs do show your contributions though, don't they? I don't think I ever said I *wanted* all that dirty laundry that Cunado placed into this article; I just said it was here because of him (w/ your aid and approval). Unfortunately the links to the briefs are now dead links. I'll try and find there new location, and if it's okay with everyone concerned include the information in a summary style as oppossed to the play-by-play tit-for-tatt manner that turned the whole thing into 50% of the article's content. As of now the information has no referenc; I'll find them and summarize it all, okay? _Disarray^General 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, the refs are all blank now. I was going to just flag them with {{fact}} tags. I hope you can find new ones - preferably decisions. Summary style would be better anyway.

Actually, take a look at the history. You and Davecornell added the vast majority of the court case references in this article in the Mar to Apr 2006 time-frame, apparently as the split between Chase and everybody else was underway. Unfortunately, those histories are about to go away, hopefully, because of the security concerns noted below, but please take a look at that time-frame before they do. You're not really justified in blaming Cunado, or me, for detailing the tit-for-tat, or the insertion of these documents. I certainly would never have been aware of them, and I doubt Cunado would have been either. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Upon closer examination I have indeed overstated and exaggerated these points. I knew without looking into the history that I had added and contributed to the scope of the trials content in this article, but as you can see from the edits I contributed they were to counterbalance the one side that was being portrayed; namely the accusers. I was adding content from the defendants side in an attempt to shed light on the opposing side. But seriously: whatever. I apologize for making an mountain out of a mole hill; I have indeed been a *jerk* about much of this. I think this and the other articles that have been cleaned up lately have been improved by your efforts MARussell. Keep up the good work, and I'll try and stick to my New Years Resolution not to be such a *jerk* :) _Disarray^General 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM

Disarray, you've got a much bigger problem here. The reference: "From State filings -enter ID # D077896", inadvertently allows one access to the personal information of BUPC directors, including Chase, as well as possibly allowing one to tamper with the BUPC's business registration with the state.

You added these refs a very long time ago. As dynamic as state government URL's are (Believe me, they are quite.), I'm certain that you had no idea that these were that kind of security breach.

I've deleted the references, and replaced w/{{fact}} tags to preserve the data. But you really need to get some admins to purge all the old versions of this, and any other articles, so as to scrub these links. I'd try WP:AN. (Done, but you'll want to follow up.)

This is the current, purged, version.
This is the first edition of the article I can find where this appears.

I would hope that, once and for all, this demonstrates my good faith here. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Heavens to mergatroid; when the heck did they change that account page? For years it was just hosting the information for the officers. Now apparently you can change and/or delete info from the records. I hadn't checked that link for a while, and obviously they've updated their database to be able to make changes via the web instead of only through the mail. Even if they won't go back and change the history, at least it's not in the article anymore. I was just trying to provide as many refs as I could to the article; I didn't foresee such a potential debacle. Seriously, thanks for finding that, and for the the notice to AN. Thank a lot. _Disarray^General 03:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect?

Cunado, redirections are done through concensus or by administrators. You have neither going for you on this page, which qualifies your attempt as a form of vandalism. As the group is the subject of various published studies and works, and is entirely notable and relevent on it's own right, I barely even care what your reasons might be. It's not going to happen simply by your will alone. Go find a consensus, and or an administrator to support this entirely bizarre idea. As of now the notion is completely impotent. _Disarray^General 02:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As the same information is mostly repeated on three pages: BUPC, Leland Jensen, and Neal Chase, there is no purpose in having this page. I moved any unique information to the pages on Chase and Jensen. Besides that, the only verifiable and reliable sources are the research by Balch and the opinion of the Montana Supreme Court, both of which indicate declining activity and membership. Balch states there was a membership list with less than 86 members in 1994, and he further says that the rate of defection accelerated in the 1990s. The relevance of these pages stands primarily on the failed prophecies, and the research published in Stone's book, which is focused around the individuals of Jensen and Chase, not as a coherent religious community. With a complete absence of verifiable and reliable sources indicating that there is currently a community outside of a small handful of individuals, I don't see how you can justify keeping this page. The historical relevance and presence of a schismatic sect is entirely contained in Leland Jensen's article and the Baha'i divisions page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You have no consensus, or support for this; it is *you* that can't justify it. Find one or the other. These concerns are shared by you alone. After contributing hundreds of edits to this page all aimed at marginalizing this group for you to all of a sudden manifest these hollow arguments is pathetically transparent.

Your synopsis is disingenuous and entirely overly-simplified and you know it. This article has only partly to do with "historical relevance"; the group exists in the present, and this research which you conveniently failed to acknowledge (and even attempted to remove on 1/18/09) demonstrates there are communities is three different states. Also, the groups stated beliefs are not found anywhere but in this article; while the other two are biographies. Moreover given that your own NSA has deemed us relevant enough to drag us into court on four separate occasions in the past 6 years your argument against our relevance is quite vapid. You have absolutely no right, or grounds, to do this without the support of a consensus or an administrator, so find one or the other and it won't matter what I think. It's really quite simple: short of either you're out of line and SOL. _Disarray^General 07:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think MARussell virtually put these concerns to rest above: "Cuñado, there are more criteria for WP:Notability than raw numbers. The OBF doesn't meet any; but Leland Jensen does, and the BUPC by association. Whether they have 100 or 1000 followers they've received extensive, and unwelcome to the BUPC notoriety..."MARussellPESE 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC). _Disarray^General 09:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur — with myself. (The penultimate in academic hubris.) I don't think that a redirect is justified. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

diffs

I removed the paragraph about beliefs regarding "fakes, frauds, and imitations" as that is not mentioned in any of the third party sources as being a noteworthy belief. For the same reasons I removed a sentence about two Messiahs. I also added back the well referenced section about the court dispute. All these are legit. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Based on notability requirements for non-commercial organizations, I don't think there is justification for 3 separate pages on Leland Jensen, Neal Chase and Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant. I suggest either merging the biographies into this page, or merging the info on beliefs and adherents into Jensen's biography, which constitute most of this article. The policy states,

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)
Additional criteria are:
Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.

Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead.

The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.
Even though the parent organization may be notable, individual chapters of national and international organizations may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article.

Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process.

The criteria for notability of people says,

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

These are the third-party sources mentioning Jensen or the group that followed him,

Expecting Armageddon (Stone, 2000), a published 14-page study spanning 16 years by different researchers from the University of Montana. It focuses on the failed prophecies and cognitive dissonance among the followers.
2005 Montana Supreme court Factual and Procedural Background.
Pluralism project example of a Harvard student passing through Montana in 2004 briefly documenting every religious group he could find in the state.
religioustolerance.org - mentions 5 sentences about the group among a list of Baha'i divisions. It says the group's membership is approaching 144 thousand (obviously wildly wrong)
TV Nation video from 1994, spends 2.5 minutes of the show interviewing and mocking Leland Jensen and Neal Chase, and at the end Louis calls Neal from NYC on the day that he claimed the city would be destroyed.
Mentioned on the Art Bell show (reference?)
Mentioned in articles in the local Missoulian newspaper.
Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him, published by the House of Justice, includes several paragraphs on Jensen but hasn't been used due to claims of bias.

Stone's book and perhaps the court document are the only reliable sources of any depth at all. The local newspaper articles don't count for notability, neither does the pluralism project or religious tolerance (each was trying to tally the existence of groups, and neither represents independent notability). Jensen was studied by researchers because he was making prophecies about a nuclear holocaust and gave specific dates. From this perspective, the notability from Stone's book should qualify for the biography or the group page but not both. This is why I'm proposing to merge the two pages, since the information and sources are repeated on each page. Currently the biography has details of the prophecies/adherents and summary of his teachings, and the group page has details of teachings and summary of prophecies/adherents. Both are primarily sourced from Stone's book.

Numbers and longevity do matter, as mentioned above in the guidelines for notability of groups. Stone's book mentions that there were never more than 200 members, that after the debacle of 1980 most of them left the group, by 1994 less than 88 were on the membership list with a high rate of defection, and infighting in 2001 that went to court. All this points to very weak notability, which is another reason why merging is appropriate here. The fact that Neal Chase is a living person involved in an apparently unresolved dispute over leadership of the group, and one of his supporters has been brazenly distorting these pages to Chase's advantage adds to the prudence of accurate information on these pages. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT Leland Jensen and Neal Chase's articles are biographies about themselves, and even a cursory glance at the three articles shows that nothing is duly noted in any of the articles. The BUPC are a group with many self-published books and websites about themselves, but this article does not solely rely upon them. In fact very little is found in any of these three articles that relies upon them for references. Both the research published by the Harvard Pluralism project, and the research published by Stone deal with both the group and these two leaders separately, and the information for them is divided between the articles accordingly. The biographies about the leaders are separate and independent of the article about the group. Cunado has not provided any difs to support his assertion that these three articles "all basically repeat the same thing". The Neal Chase article survived speedy deletion on 12/7/05 based entirely on the fact that his notability was firmly established during the discussion. Concerns over his notability are therefore entirely vapid. The issue of the notability of the BUPC was addressed and shot down by administrators in it's AFD discussion, so rehashing the reasoning here, as if it wasn't already addressed, is futile, not to mention disingenuous. There was a consensus in that discussion that this group "meets WP:ORG and WP:RS standards". Cunado above claims "The local newspaper articles don't count for notability, neither does the pluralism project or religious tolerance". This is preposterous. The Harvard Pluralism project research published by Columbia University Press which even a cursory glance reveals they dealt with the group's origins, beliefs, and distinctions. The notion that the Missoulian isn't a WP:RS is equally absurd. As this was already explained to Cunado in the AFD discussion by more than one administrator, it's odd to see this whole reasoning being resurrected here. As for contributors to this page Cunado stands alone with any of these concerns, for as MARussell has twice noted in discussions above, "Cuñado, there are more criteria for WP:Notability than raw numbers. The OBF doesn't meet any; but Leland Jensen does, and the BUPC by association. Whether they have 100 or 1000 followers they've received extensive, and unwelcome to the BUPC notoriety..."MARussellPESE 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)." Cunado has no support for this here by contributing editors, nor from administrators who were asked to look into it. _Disarray^General 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The guideline says coverage that is local in scope does not support notability, in and of itself, neither does self published material. The Pluralism project did not find the group notable by itself but documented them in an attempt to document every religious group in Montana, including all the regular Baha'i communities in the state. By itself it doesn't provide notability. Notice that this is a merge and I'm not proposing to delete information. Notability is established by Stone's book, so the information should stay, but organized appropriately into 1 or 2 pages instead of 3. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not true; in your first attempt at redirecting the page (without any discussion) copious amounts of details were lost in the transition. Again, since the administrators in the AFD discussion disagreed with these very same vapid notability concerns, and concurred that the group meets WP:ORG and the content is WP:RS, it's odd to see this whole reasoning being resurrected here almost word for word. They utterly rejected your interpretation of this policy, so it begs the question that if even the objections of administrators will be wholly and willfully ignored, then who's will be given credence? _Disarray^General 00:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

By God, you sure know how to twist things around. The recommendations in the AFD suggested changing the forum to a merge proposal, since the notability is established to have some kind of article, which I agree with, and my proposal was after all to merge one way or the other. And your accusations of me deleting RS material are just accusations. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

REJECT No valid reason has been established why an article on the group itself isn't warranted, as per the AFD discussion they more than meet the requirements for WP:ORG. Details about the group itself aren't seen to be mirrored in the biographies in question, and as those are biographies they shouldn't be used to deal with information on the group itself. As administrator JulesH noted in the AFD discussion which 1st wholly rejected this proposal "Wikipedia policy is generally to move content away from articles about people and into articles about the events they participated in. This would suggest merging in the opposite direction to your proposal." I concur. _Disarray^General 02:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting merging the biographies into this page? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly nothing of substance has been proposed or established for why any of the 3 articles should be merged in the 1st place. They each pass the measure of notability. It's misleading to have suggested that these three articles "all basically repeat the same thing". Nothing has been proposed to warrant any mergers. _Disarray^General 04:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want me to walk through it. The background, history, beliefs, disputes, and size are all repeated to different lengths. The only unique sections are the sections on prophecies in the biographies, even those overlap quite a bit, and the domain name dispute is unique. I have written and rewritten these articles several times, I should know what's in there. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I asserted in the recent AfD on Bahá'ís_Under_the_Provisions_of_the_Covenant that all three of these subjects should retain separate articles; Leland Jensen and Neal Chase are both notable enough for their own biographies, and the BUPC is notable as an organization and for its place in Bahá'í religious history. Setting that argument aside for a moment, it looks like we have two merger proposals to consider:

A merger of BUPC into Leland Jensen would mean that Neal Chase and other articles dealing with the Bahá'í faith (edit:or other articles in general) would not have the support of an article that deals specifically with the BUPC. Only the details of BUPC history which are relevant to Leland Jensen would be appropriate in his bio, so other subjects would get short shrift.
A merger of Leland Jensen and Neal Chase into BUPC would be unwieldy. The Jensen and Chase bios are both significantly longer than BUPC, so their merged content would overwhelm the combined article, which should focus primarily on the institution rather than on two notable members of it. Moreover, the two bios are about 16 kilobytes long apiece, and BUPC is about 12K (at the time I write); even after removing redundant material, a combined article would likely be longer than 32K, which means it would be considered a long article. The recommended remedy for a long article is to split out sections via WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which in this case would mean recreating the bio articles.

All in all, I don't think either merger proposal would present the material more effectively than the current article structure. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT IMHO the three Articles can stay separated. I suggest some copyedit to shortener the double infos, in the sections that already have a {main} to a bio. A ntv (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

Cunado, there has been a concerted effort on your part to remove any and all of the content of this article that is referenced back to BUPC's self-published work. I'm sure by now you've familiarized yourself with the policy, so why do you continue to persist in excise all of the material in this article that is referenced back to the group's own websites, when by all accounts this is 100% permissible in cases where the material is referencing statements about itself? Is it too much to ask that you explain these types of concerns when you find yourself being reverted for removing well referenced material? If you have a concern, just address it. It's entirely juvenile and unproductive to just repeatedly revert back to your revisions when clearly there is opposition to some of them, and should be discussed. Specifically, reducing the "Beleifs" section to a two sentence paragraph (in this edit), and removing the beliefs that specifically distinguish this group from others is hardly an "improvement". What's the problem? And in the sIBC section, you've also twice removed reliably sourced details. The statement about the Hands being considered covenant breakers is almost word for word from Hyslop, and removing the criticism ain't happin'. If you were as willing to participate in discussion as readily as you are revert warring then perhaps all of our concerns could be given greater consideration. Right now I see your efforts as antagonistic; is that not the case? _Disarray^General 07:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned perhaps a hundred times the policies don't support it. WP:SELFPUB says "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." And such sources cannot be used if they are "unduly self-serving", "involves claims about third parties", or "involves claims about events not directly related to the subject." Since you have consistently ignored policy over the years, and reverted me on edits that apply policy but that you dislike because it removes your propaganda, I have come to pay less attention to your reverting.

To be specific on the last edit, some information was repeated in different paragraphs so I removed it where prudent. I also removed your synthesis of ideas about the progression of the council, a point that is not mentioned in any sources other than mentioning that Jensen modeled his on the first IBC from 1953. The article previously had the mention of believing that the majority of Baha'is were deceived in 3 places. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, see and all this time I thought you knew what you were talking about. You're quote is from WP:V, not selfpub. Continuing to repeat this misunderstanding of yours "a hundred times" won't eventually make it true. What selfpub actually says is (here's the part you should be paying attention): "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article; 2. it is not unduly self-serving..."

So you're saying that you didn't even look at any of the changes I made in the fourteen edits that you just unilaterally reverted? Charming. Real mature; that's some solid editing. You clearly are absolutely uninformed about this policy, yet you're brazenly quoting it here as if you have a clue. We absolutely have every right to use our self-published sources here, and will continue to do so. Don't like it; tough. There's hardly anything self serving or contentious about stating our belief that Baha'u'llah and the Guardians continue the line of David. And the criticism of the Hands comes word for word from Hyslop. If you're removing every change I made in those fourteen edits over these two points, you're abosulutely out of line. I'll consider your concerns about synthesizing ideas, but you're serious about completely ignoring my contributions here and intend to revert without concern, then we have a bigger problem then your ignorance about policy. Keep on edit warring over with me and not discussing your concerns here, and see where that lands you. _Disarray^General 16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I'm quoting the wrong policy? Take a look at where WP:SELFPUB redirects to.

The paragraph I removed about the second Messiah and Throne of David are repeated a few paragraphs further in the section titled "Throne of David." The other paragraph removed was a synthesis of ideas using primary material. The pluralism mention is essentially repeated in the intro first paragraph and in the "establisher" section. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

These semantics are going to get you nowhere, so why are you bothering? I know selfpub is part of verifiability, but you're willfully ignoring the specific exceptions, so I quoted them for you. Specifically (please pay attention): "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field,". You therefore have no grounds for removing anything regarding our beliefs referenced back to our site.

If that's all you removed that would be one thing. Your revert has also removed reference fixes, new references, spelling, and minor wording adjustments as well. Again, real solid work you're contributing here. I changed the sIBC from a subsection of Beleifs, to it's own section, and made Leadership disputes a subsection of sIBC; is there some reason this is a problem? I thought this was an obvious improvement, as clearly the sIBC doesn't fall under Beliefs, and the dispute is a subsection of the story of the sIBC, and doesn't make sense as a section unto itself. My fix makes more sense then the way it was.

As far as you categorizing the explanation about the IBC evolution as "my synthesis", you're actually refering to wording you created, which I conceded to through compromises. You wrote that paragraph, and now you're accusing me of synthesizing ideas. Priceless. Thanks for showing me in high relief what compromising with you gets me for my troubles. I'll be sure not to make these same mistakes in the future. _Disarray^General 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As I'm not interested in engaging you in your rhetoric here's the specifics:

You didn't remove repetitions about Baha'is being decieved, but removed the criticism entirely. You can't count something mentioned in the intro, and say the points already been made. The intro is a summary, and it follows the details will be found below. If you're now objecting your YOUR synthesis of ideas over the progression, then fine, but the criticism from Hyslop doesn't get tossed with it. It says.
Changing the sIBC subsection to it's own section only makes sense, as explained above. I'd prefer my change over the current version.
I went through the article an consolodated replicating references where two and three sentences in a row were being referenced individually to the same ref. My edits consoladated this obvious oversight, and should stand for obvious reasons.
The Beliefs section had the core beliefs excised from the section, so I put them back in, and quoted the bupc main page in the ref. I also expanded the Throne of David section, but this duplication you were concerned about didn't already exist. If this is really an actual concern, we can remove one, but you've removed both. The Beliefs section has been coderized by your "contributions",and as we can ref our beliefs with our own site, and you're out of line with these empty objects. Leave the beliefs section alone. _Disarray^General 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How clever, you mentioned that self-pub sources can be used as refs about themselves while not finishing the sentence, "... so long as, 1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article; 2. it is not unduly self-serving; 3. it does not involve claims about third parties; 4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 5. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity; 6. the article is not based primarily on such sources;"

The material from BUPC.org has no authorship and even if it was proven to be owned and controlled by Neal Chase, there are verifiable and reliable sources showing that the community is a handful of people with disagreements over leadership and cannot be "represented". How can the article accept a questionable website as representing what Leland Jensen actually said and did? Such a source fails all the points mentioned except for 6. Just because the domain name says BUPC doesn't mean that it represents the subject of this article.

As I mentioned, the criticism was repeated in 3 places, not 2 as you suggest.
done
I don't think that's how you're supposed to use refs.
I don't recall that Balch even mentions the lineage of David (maybe wrong). Since Baha'u'llah never taught that he was the heir of the throne of David it needs to be worded carefully.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How clever indeed. Nice try, but as the contact information is for the BUPC's International center, you can lay all these nonsensical fabricated concerns to rest. Likewise, as this article is about the BUPC, then your concerns over whether or not the teachings on the mainpage are actually truly Jensen's teaching, well that's an equally vapid concern, as it' being used to source the group's beliefs; the same way it has been for four years. To all of a sudden erect this nonsense now is a new low, even for you. As far as what you think Baha'u'llah did or didn't teach, it's a distinguishing core belief, enumerated in practically everything we've ever published, so your WP:OR won't be necessary in the article. What you believe is of absolutely no concern to this article. The statement about the Throne of David in Beliefs is clear that this is a distinguishing belief that no other Baha'is believe. You don't have to concern yourself whether or not it's true, because the policy of "verifiable, not true" already protects our beliefs from your editorializing them. _Disarray^General 02:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

These concerns that I've all of a sudden "sythesized" ideas is ludicrous. I'm going to remove these "sythesized ideas" that were word-smithed by yourself which were answering to our criticisms. Turns out since they are your WP:OR, they shouldn't be there at all. Thanks for pointing them out for me. The criticisms stand alone just fine without your WP:SYN. Thanks.

I can only find 2; one that's general in the intro and one that's specific in sIBC. Don't see 3.
great
Wrong; you're referencing every single sentence in the article, often times with the same exact ref over and over for consecutive sentences. If a reference covers all the content of a whole paragraph, it's only need at the end of the last sentence. You can't seriously be this confused about how to create articles and use refs.
You were correct that the intro to Beleifs had repititions found also in the Throne of David subsection, and I've fixed that. I don't understand your argument against it under Beliefs as if you want it excised out of the article completely, when it was also repeating the info below. Very confusing. BTW, this matter of our beliefs doesn't need to be referenced to Balch, or anyone else, as selfpub allows us to indulge this here with our own self-published sources. I didn't say Chase was the owner of the site; it's owned colletively by our unorganized non-profit religous group as the copyright at the bottom of the page indicates. Neither am I require to satisfy your concerns about wording; whether you think Baha'u'llah taught about this or not is irrelevant. It's a distinguishing core belief of ours, and just as it has since day 1, it will have it's place in this article. Now if you are really ready to make a federal case about this, I should clarify that each of the concerns you stated above are easily dismissed. I can reference the Throne of David bit with Jensen's self-published Most Mighty Document, or up to a dozen others. We can word-smith over details, but to attempt to take this on over technicalities when you know darned well it's a core belief is patently absurd. It's never going to happen.

It's really quite charming that after combing through this page week after week for 3+ straight years you can still keep fabricating new concerns. You really are an inspiration. _Disarray^General 06:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cunado, are you even serious w/ this edit [6]? This has been part of this article from day 1, and now you're seriously going to make an issue of this? You honestly think I'm going to budge one inch over this? You've got no grounds to take this position on, as this a a verifiable belief, and doesn't have to be proven to be true or not. It's our state beliefs, and this is our article. It's not proselytizing it, but simply stating it as a matter of fact. We no longer have a laundry list of all of our stated beliefs, as you've managed to whittle it down to this. You're completely diluted if you think you can keep badgering this page daily with your bias and prejudice. You can keep edit warring with me over these increasingly insignificant details, but I'm afraid on this one you're straining a gnat. _Disarray^General 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs and Guardian sections

I'm removing all the WP:SYN and WP:OR that seems to have crept into this article. At one time it was believed that the bupc's beliefs needed to be "answered to" in order to avoid prejudicing the reader, but as it turn out the way this has been approached here is contrary to the stated policies about synthesizing ideas. Unless it's been published somewhere by a third party, it has no business cluttering up this article. With that in mind, I have culled the "explanation" of the actions of the Hands from the Guardianship section as it's a compilation of ideas from various sources, amounting to WP:SYN. The summary I have replaced it with are what can be found explaining these events derived mainly from Smith's summary of the episodes in question. The details of our beliefs about the adoptions, etc, come from Hyslop's summary of the BUPC, effectively removing all WP:OR from the section. I have also added details to the Beliefs section found in Hyslop's pluralism project. In the future, any hopes to "answer" to the bupc's beliefs will need to be derived directly from published sources. The content of WP:OR that has plagued this article will no longer have a place here. _Disarray^General 19:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cunado, my contributions to this article are being unilaterally reverted by you, as if you're giving them zero consideration. I provided new information found in the Pluralism project regarding specific beliefs and structure of the group that has been removed by you. Why? Your version you've reverted back to of the Guardianhship section removed a summary from Smith's Encyclopedia to your own synthesized version of these events. Why? You're essentially removing verifiable and sourced information that wasn't previously there, while at the same time replacing documented accounts of events, for your own synthesized version compiled from various sources. That's some solid editing you're doing here. You claim there are three place (intro, establisher, sIBC) that I was putting the criticism of the hands into the article, when in fact I took it word for word from Hyslop and only put it into the sIBC section. It can be removed elsewhere (btw, I don't even see the Establisher one), but you're removing the one place it's provided with a reliable source. Again, solid editing! Do you expect any of this to be considered something other than vandalism, or is that now the goal? This is now the fifth time in two days I've tried to engage you in conversation in pursuit of dispute resolution. Not sure if you're interested, but some clarification from you would be peachy. _Disarray^General 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-crickets chirping- I guess I'm now conversing with myself, but in the spirit of resolution, in my most recent edit I have tried to address concerns Cunado has recently raised.

In Beliefs I added what amounts to mentioning we have local, national, and int. councils, which is verifiable through the ref provided (Hyslop), so there really should be no grounds to remove this.
I finally figured out the "repeated in three places" concern regarding the belief of the Hand's being covenant breakers. The one in the intro is germane. Instead of restoring my wording to the sIBC section, I went ahead replaced the generic wording that was in the "Establisher" section with the detailed explanation right from Hyslop.
Any concerns about the ownership of bupc.org (if that's seriously now something in question) can be referred back to Hyslop's pluralism project which confirms at the top of the page that bupc.org is indeed our main website which is entirely appropriate to reference our beliefs back to.
As stated previously (and obviously ignored entirely), the section of the Guardianship was a collection of hand picked ideas from various sources, which effectively amounts to WP:SYN. Using details from Smith's encyclopedia I was able to reword the summary of events from this published source, while at the same time not losing any of the key points of the previous version. Along with that, I felt it perfectly germane to add details from Hyslop's Pluralism project regarding our stated (and WP:V/WP:RS) beliefs about the adoptions between the Abdu'l-baha and the Guardians. Since this is published in Hyslops research, there's really no ground to object to including it here. _Disarray^General 08:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit... "and have established local councils in their respective communities, as well as a national and international council" - since the source was just interviewing someone in Missoula and repeating whatever they said without verification, and our real source for information shows that this is actually false, it doesn't belong in the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is likely the funniest thing I've ever seen from you. Hold on I'm having an asthma attack I'm laughing so hard. You actually think that this is remotely acceptable? You honestly believe that we need to consider how you feel about published sources? And that the use of this Harvard study, published by Columbia University press, which meets the strongest and highest standards of WP:RS is subject to your whims and opinions? I'm going to actually need my inhaler, I'm laughing so hard. I'm sorry to be the one to have to inform you, but your personal opinions about reliable sources that have published information about the BUPC is absolutely irrelevent, and warrants ZERO considerations, here or anywhere. I'm sure you're just pulling my leg, right? BTW, I'm on our local council here in Aspen, so even if the Pluralism Project wasn't arguably our strongest WP:RS, your opinion on this is still failing in reality itself. Thanks for the laugh though.

Please save yourself further aggravation and embarrassment and familiarize yourself with this discussion where Jeff3000 made the original case for the use of the Pluralism Project, and established it as one of the most WP:RS on the BUPC in these articles. Turns out he was right on this one. _Disarray^General 00:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there's four specific concerns I noted above, which you've conveniently ignored, and have reverted yet again. If you're so convinced that your position is rock solid, then lets here it. Your removal of details from the pluralism project, like the adoptions and the Hands being covenant breakers, are amounting to vandalism as these are reliably sourced germane points. This can't possibly be justified and you know it. You're reverting reliably sourced information, and restoring synthesized ideas in place of actual published accounts. How is your version better when it's grossly violating policy? Since when are your WP:OR views about this group to be given greater consideration than actual published details? _Disarray^General 00:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cunado, you are by all accounts actively edit warring, and avoiding participating in dispute resolution. You haven't bothered to address the points raised here with even one valid rebuttal, and can't justify removing information referenced to Smith's Encyclopedia, or Hyslop's Pluralism Project, except to say you think you know better than what that researcher published. What exactly do you think you're accomplishing by reverting valid contributions and improvements to the page without comment? By refusing to engage in discussion over this, there's no other light to see your reverts in except as vandalism. Keep up the good work. _Disarray^General 06:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cunado's Reverting w/out discussion

Let's break this down one more time, and see if we can't get Cunado to explain specifically what's prompted the 10 unilateral reverts in the last 2 days. As I know Cunado knows better, and is well aware that his behavior is in complete violation of the spirit of cooperation expected from all editors, I'm hoping he soon comes to his senses and refrains from what amounts to vandalism of contributions to this page.

In "Beliefs", Hyslop explains that in 2003 when he compiled his research, that he observed local, national and int. councils. In 1994 when Balch finished his research a decade earlier these things hadn't yet been established, so "the real source for information shows that this is actually false" doesn't mention this fact, as they hadn't yet been established. In 2003 when Hyslop's data was compiled, they had, and the ref verifies this. There's no grounds for removal.
Referring to bupc.org to reference our beliefs is not only perfectly valid here, but should be expected as it's germane to the article to list off our distinguishing beliefs. Reverting the link to the genealogy, and rendering it to the ref is silly, as the link is providing direct access to the source. There's no reason to keep it tucked away in a ref, unless of course the reason is personal in nature, in which case that reason has no merit here. The link stays, and so does the ref link to bupc.org. Articles call for references, yet for some reason you keep removing reliable sources.
The summary I've rewritten for the Guardian section is two paragraph's, both reliably sourced. The first is a summary of Smith's accounts of the events around 1960-63, and the whole paragraph is ref'd to his encyclopedia. The second is a verifiable bupc belief about the adoptive relationships back to Abdu'l-Baha from Hyslop. It's clear from the wording that this is referring to our beliefs, and not presenting them as facts. The paragraph this is replacing was a compilation of synthesized ideas. This new version keeps all the same points, but in the wording provided by Smith. Both paragraphs are verifiable and reliably sourced, so have no ground for removal. If there is some specific issue with wording, that can be discussed but in no way warrants reverting to the previous synthesized statements.
The info in the "Court" subsection has no reason to be separated from the "Leadership disputes" section, as the court case is the dispute. The disputes are a subsection already, so separating the court case further with another subsection makes no sense, for as I mentioned the court case is the leadership dispute. Two subsections are not warranted here. I removed "Court" as it all belongs under one subsection of "Leadership disputes".
The wording in Establisher being reverted back to is not what's found in the ref. The wording I provided is a synopsis of what's found regarding our belief that the Hands broke the covenant. It's what we believe, and it's duly noted from Hyslop, so there's no grounds for revising the wording for a watered down version that has no semblence of what the bona fide source states. It's the refs wording, so leave it alone.
I removed the subsection of "Throne of David" and just put the two sentences under Beliefs. It has no business having it's own subsection any more as it's been reduced to two sentences, and is essentially explaining a distinguishing belief. Putting the details under "Belief" is the appropriate place for the details, and no subsection is necessary.
I'm changing Guardian and Establisher from being subsections of Beliefs, as it makes no sense to have them organized this way. They are not Beliefs, per se, and warrant being there own sections. _Disarray^General 07:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your hilarious opinions about using information from Hyslop's Pluralism Project, please familiarize yourself with this discussion where Jeff3000 made the original case for the use of the Pluralism Project, and established it as one of the most WP:RS on the BUPC in these articles._Disarray^General 09:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

JFTR, The contributions I'm talking about here, have now for the umpteenth time been reverted by Cunado without discussion, or so much as an edit comment. This is apparently his version of dispute resolution. _Disarray^General 20:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference doesn't fit the claim. Hyslop did not and could not have verified the information you're using him as a source for.
Using a ref tag is entirely appropriate and your attempt to make the link more prominent is a clear example of the promotional nature of your edits in general. I don't recall that I removed the ref you're talking about, only that I put it in a ref tag.
Regarding the synthesis you're claiming, that's preposterous. The version I used is a summary of Baha'i divisions and provides a one-paragraph intro to Remey and his claim. The only real difference is that you deleted the reference to the decision of the House of Justice, and added a sentence about adoptions. The adoption bit simply isn't sourced by anything reliable and the pluralism reference is simply repeating what someone in Missoula said, so is verifiable but not reliable. It verifiably repeats what someone in Missoula said in 2003. It doesn't provide a source for what Jensen said and did, or what the BUPC as a whole believes. Since the notability of this article comes from Balch's research, which spans from 1980-1996 and then foreshadows a coming schism involving Neal Chase, which actually happened in 2001 (reliably sourced from court documents), the pluralism reference could be used to verifiably state the beliefs of Neal Chase, since it is obviously a promotion piece for him, but even that connection is weak since the source doesn't even know enough about the group to mention who he was talking to or the existence of a dispute over leadership. Try using Balch's research or the Montana Supreme Court findings of fact to source things. Nothing else is reliable.
Wrong. The dispute was a long running issue (as noted by Balch) and only ended up in court in 2001.
My version is worded better and has the same information in it. Also, refer back to #3 regarding the reliability of pluralism.
It doesn't follow the flow of ideas to put it at the beginning. Read through the entire beliefs section and it would naturally go at the end.
I entirely disagree with the section re-arranging. It makes sense in a single section and there is not enough content for individual main sections.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. [PA deleted - WMC. GD, consider yourself warned for civility; further similar vioaltions will result in a block William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)]

You have a serious hurdle to overcome regarding your views of Hyslop, and his published research. I'm honestly struggling to fathom where you get off wholly dismissing a reliable published source. Honestly, who do you think you are to declare "Hyslop did not and could not have verified the information". What exactly has led to this conclusion? The onus is on you to verify this from something published, for I'm afraid the measure of WP:RS has been met, as clarified by Jeff3000 here. What's funny is that you were the first to establish it's use on the page in 9/07 to source the group's size, which it's apparently a reliable source for, but your argument is that everything else it states is unreliable? How convenient for your WP:TEND. As Hyslop has noted the bupc maintains "Local, National, and International Councils" in the report, it's alarmingly preposterous that you'd attempt to dismiss this, and everything else published in the report. As it's from 2003, and Balch was from 94', it's the most current source there is, and actually trumps Balch in this way. If you're indeed so convinced your position is rock solid, I'm challenging you to go find one other person on the planet who shares your patently absurd views. Find one and we'll talk; until then you're vandalizing reliably sourced information.
Of course putting that in the ref is "appropriate", but linking directly to it is also. The same argument can be made that your refusal to consider allowing a link to it directly shows a petty bias in your approach to this article. The ref you keep removing is the direct link to the bupc mainpage which is how this paragraph is sourced. We're expected to provide ref's, remember?
What's preposterous is that you think you can approve or deny which reliable published sources this article is going to use. There's only a couple to begin with. As Hyslop's research is the most current, and the points I made in #1 have to date remained unanswered, you have not provided anything to consider. 1) You're removing a summary of the events from a published source in place of your own WP:OR which is a compilation of ideas. Smith summarizes this perfectly, and trumps your WP:SYN. 2) Hyslop is a reliable source to explain our beliefs about the adoptions, which is a belief that was always in this article until you culled it per WP:V. Now that I've found a reliable source to ref the belief you're still objecting to it's inclusion with these entirely outlandish attack on the source itself. This shows in high relief your biased WP:TEND, and if you wish to continue this charade I suggest you buckle up for a long ride all the way to arbitration. I'll save you the aggravation of any further protests from me if you can find even ONE person who'll back you up on this; you can even get Mike if you need to. Trust me, you're fatally confused if you think I'm going to budge on this after enduring you making a Federal Case out of every contribution I've made, challenging the verifiability of every sentence here, and having to compromise the myriad of points I don't have sources for. I don't care if I spend the next 10 years doing it, there isn't a snowballs chance in Hades you're going to get an inch of compromise out of me on this one. I suggest you look deeper into what your own colleagues have said about the pluralism project, and whether or not it meets WP:RS. I'm confident in going to the highest authorities to defend content ref'd to Hyslop; are you?
Good grief; what an elaborate exercise in straining gnats. The only "long running dispute" that the section is referring to is what eventually led to the court case. Read the section; the 1st paragraph says "In 2001 a long running dispute...". Balch isn't the ref here, the Court Opinion is. Nothing prior to the 2001 dispute is noted, so what in heaven are you talking about? The whole subsection is about the court case, so having both Leadership dispute and Court subsections is nonsensical. You have read this section before writing this rebuttal, right?
You said "My version is worded better"? Really? Mine version comes from a reliable source; where's yours from? Oh yeah, I forgot: your WP:OR. Since these details were previously objected to per WP:V they were removed, for otherwise this would have been here since day one, just like the mention of the adoptions. Both were previously removed, but we both know they are two points that are vital concerns of the bupc and should have been here all along. They weren't until now because of your protests, but now that we have a reliable source confirming these two beliefs, your protests are impotent. The wording I wrote is practically word for word from the source, and in case you missed it the first 6 times I linked to it, your own comrade has established the argument for it's usages. Too bad for your WP:TEND, but this is yet another where you have no grounds for objection.
Oh I see, the way you arranged it all is the better version, so why would we consider doing it another way. The paragraph under beliefs ends on "The differences between the BUPC and the Bahá'í Faith are essentially over leadership, although certain teachings introduced by Jensen do differ greatly, which are not accepted by the wider Baha'i community." Having the next point be the David paragraph is exactly the type of "certain teachings introduced by Jensen" that the previous sentence is talking about. Are you even considering what I'm proposing, or just blindly objecting on principle? So far 0.00 on the compromises. Okay, I'll be the bigger man here, and attempt to resolve this while considering both our concerns, since compromise is obviously beneath you.
How does making every single category a subsection of Beliefs make it work better? Cuz you say so? Oh, there's not enough content? I can fix that. Thanks for the input.
BTW, your unilateral reverting is undoing spelling corrections, typos, new refs for previously unref'd statements, and grammar clarifications. Real solid editing your contributing here! _Disarray^General 08:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG
enter missing policy or guideline here
you keep referencing a discussion about using pluralism to ref 30 members in Missoula, which fits the source. You're trying to take the source out of context: he was documenting the existence and claims of religious groups all over Montana, including all the normal Baha'i communities and everyone with any religious belief of any kind, and he was not doing a study or research of the BUPC as a whole. He repeated facts that he heard and that's what makes it a verifiable source of claims, but not reliable. You're the one pushing for inclusion so it's your responsibility to get support.
OK
OK. BTW WP:TEND is an essay
OK
Yes because I say so.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

From Redflag: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.". 1) It's hardly an exceptional claim to say we have councils, and that we believe in the adoption. For one thing they're both points our website makes. 2) Studies published on University presses are considered to be the highest qualities sources. You're going to continue to make a federal case out of us stating we believe in the adoptions (something you know we in fact believe), and that we have councils? If that's the case, this is truly going to be an exercise in aggravation for you.
Ditto. It can go either way.
There is no "out of context" for this source. I have gotten the support already, and it's by all accounts WP:RS, and as MARussell called it in an edit comment, "a bona fide source". Let's quote Jeff3000 here: "If you read the about page of the project [7] it is a decade-long research project at Harvard University, and in fact has been published [8] by Columbia University Press in 1997, 2002, and 2008. As you may know, the verifiability policy states that the university presses are one of the most reliable sources.". You can't even get one of your own sans-Guardian Baha'is to back you on this?
good
I'll take the "okay"
good
Good One! You got me to laugh. It still doesn't make sense, to me though. _Disarray^General 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we're down you excising this: "Jensen was among the Bahá'ís who accepted Remey as the Guardian. He believed that through adoption he was an Aghsan, and the only son of Abdu'l-Baha. The BUPC accept Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian, who they claim adopted and appointed Neal Chase as his successor.<ref name="pluralism" />"; you want to replace this WP:V for only mentioning Pepe. Nope, not going to happen. You know darned well how this is going to play out, for Hyslop supports my version, so save yourself the aggravation. It's not going to happen. I have an idea; accept my challenge to find one person on the planet who'll back you, and poof, my objections vanish.

BTW, you said "okay" on the David subsection. Have you changed your mind, or over looked this? _Disarray^General 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I used Smith's summary, and added the UHJ decision like you were concerned about. Why do you keep reverting back to wording you created in place of a published source. I've put the UHJ decision in there, so leave this be already. Upon closer examination, you haven't upheld any of your "okay's". Let's start over, as you apparently have a different version of what "okay" means than I do. _Disarray^General 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As of August 2009 a new claimant to the BUPC Guardianship has emerged. If an experienced editor would like the information to be added to the article I can forward some letters that delineate the origins of the claim. He has a small following but probably as notable as Neal Chase's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonomous019 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)