Talk:Mason Remey/Archive 1

Archiving Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Point

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

Successful

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

This is from someone attacking the Faith:

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

This is from a Baha'i source:

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Marangella alone continues to press his faded claim to the position that Remey had briefly bestowed on him and then withdrawn over thirty years ago."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

Another attacker of the Faith:

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

The only seemingly balanced article I found:

"His group became known as "Baha'is under the Hereditary Guardianship." Even before Remey's death in 1974, his followers had begun to split into smaller groups, the largest of which was led by Joel B. Marangella (1918-) who claimed that Remey had appointed him to be the third guardian. On 25 August 1980, I interviewed Marangella's son, Joel Jani Marangella (1947-)... "

(Baha'i: Studies in Contemporary Religion, MARGIT WARBURG, Paperback. 100 Pages. ISBN: 1-56085-169-4) [4]

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, we're not Remey's "enemies" trying to spread dirt around. Up until 1960 Baha'is regard everything he did as a Hand of the Cause as a dedicated servant of the Faith, and he should be recognized for everything he did. There seems to be no page talking about his claim to Guardianshipo in detail, just sporadic and brief mentions over several pages. How about doing this:

1. Background/achievements -> lengthy section on accomplishments including non-Baha'i related things
2. Claim to Guardianship -> Compile arguments from several pages and link to this section as a source for the dispute
3. (some title) -> info about his life after 1960, including his relationship with the rest of the Baha'i world
4. Successorship -> Some brief info about his 3 appointments and the disputes among his followers.

Cuñado - Talk 08:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite keen to remove anything but the basics relating to Remey's split with the Hands of the Cause - it's dominating this article too much and since we have enough on here to actually make a decent article on the man - I reckon we should clean it up to be just that. Successorship sounds good -- Tomhab 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Oh just calm down will you. I didn't even suggest removing anything just that we should look at the layout. Take a look at the article. It's a complete mess - thats my problem. This is quite common in articles that are expanded very quickly and I was just talking about how to tidy it up. You've pointed out the fact you're unhappy with the fact that his page is covered with 'how he supposedly "broke the Covenant"' - if you read what I wrote I was suggesting getting rid of all that. As for why so little was on this page, its because no-ones written anything about him! Wikis suffer in that people can only put up what they know, and not too many people have been willing to write much about him.

Anyway, grab a drink, calm down and read my proposal. I'd have thought anyone who believed Remey's claim would love it. Basically I was suggesting a way of making this page contain only the details about Remey's life and his term as Guardian, making it easier to read and more obvious. You mention the fact that Baha'i divisions is only a "summary" article - well we can make a new one.

Please don't just make flippant comments - I haven't antagonised you - why should you antagonise me? -- Tomhab 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh sorry just realise I contradict myself in the original comment. It makes sense if you read it through almost, but basically the sections 1-4 were what their present form it, not what it should be... -- Tomhab 20:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Heh, meant drink coffee (or water?) but no matter.

Anyway - my point was two fold:

1. The layout at the minute sucks a bit. Some areas are over built and others aren't and theres barely anythign directly on Remey.
2. Remey's relationship to Sans-Guardian Baha'is dominates. In my opinion this needs to get shoved off to some other page (we can talk about where later if everyone agrees). The only reason its here is it needs to be somewhere and sans-G Baha'is (and I have myself to blame here too) put it in an easy place. It has just as much place on the Hands of the Cause, or Universal House of Justice page. If we have them on both then we risk having a POV split (where one side defends a POV and one side attacks it - stupid really as its basically an Encyclopaedia contradicting itself).

We will have to tackle the issue of a second guardian on some page, but I don't think that page is here...

Not knowing enough about Remey means I can't really say what sections we should/shouldn't have but as a general idea for what I'd do:

1. 3-4 line introduction. Baha'i, leader of the Orthodox Baha'is and seen as guardian by all Remeyites (or whatever the correct term is). Small bit about his legacy maybe? Kept short (as all introductions should be)
2. Early life (before becoming completely immersed into the Baha'i faith - I have no idea when that was sadly) 2 -3 paragraphs if possible
3. Pre 1957 Baha'i life (filling the gaps until Shoghi Effendi died) 5-6 paragraphs?
4. 1957-1960 relationship with hands and debate etc - no more than 1-2 paragraphs hopefully with a link to whatever page holds the rest of the details. It should be quite easy to keep this page completely NPOV this way
5. 1960- his Baha'i legacy whilst the second Guardian
6. Successorship - 3 successors? one on each. I can't think of another page this should all go on so for now it should be here but in an ideal world this should have its own page IMHO.

The importance will be anyone wanting to find out about Mason Remey won't be bogged down with detail about a topic that was only a "feature" on his biography. At the minute it looks like (and is) a shooting ground for the two groups of people trying to get their point of view across.

Thats my preference. -- Tomhab 23:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Well about your Qs:

1. I've always wanted to do an article on the shrine but never had time and don't have much material - theres some provisional drawings available (some by Remey - looks just like the Bab's shrine) available at the Baha'i world centre, but nothing online
2. I felt SOMETHING had to be cut. It did drag on a while. If you agree I'd like to remove it
3. I removed the "sieze the helm" because I also removed the "expelled Remey" bit. Now it just says they mutually excommunicated each other. In my opinion its quite neutral now and shows they just parted ways (and moderately angry terms), rather than plowing into details.

Anyway, if you'd like to write a little about his legacy (what DID he do between 1960 and 1974? I genuinely don't know - looking for things like "travelled the world trying to convince Baha'is of the importance of there being a Guardian" or soemthing) -- Tomhab 09:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Also could you check (and double check!) the bit about WHY he said he was a Guardian - its a sensitive area and I don't want to get my balls busted for making him look bad (as I basically believe he was wrong). If you do change it try extra hard to keep it neutral (as I tried) because its so sensitive -- Tomhab 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Untenability of Remey's Claim

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

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

Sincerely, Matarael 11 March 2006

The revert was done by someone who believes that Remey was the second Guardian. I certainly agree with you, but you have to remember that some people think that he was the second Guardian, so stating that he is in outright violation of the Will (which he obviously was), is equivalent to stating that he was the Guardian, as far as stating facts in an article. The best we can do is state what the Will said, and avoid making either such comment. It should be obvious to an observer reading the article. Rather than put all the details on every page that mentions him, it should be consolidated and linked. I think Remey's biography is an appropriate place, but right now it is covered at length on Baha'i divisions. Cuñado - Talk 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications Cuñado, but surely, the biography of Remey is an essential place to put at least a reference to this. The so-called Baha'i divisions page, is a 'convenience page' if you will--whereas this is the source where most people will look for information on Remey's life. Surely, the fact that someone here believes that Remey is the second Guardian can hardly be the thing keeping essential facts out of an article! - Sincerely, Matarael 12 March 2006

I skim read the edits made. I've done a fair bit of work into Remey's claim and I think to simply say "he agreed one thing, then changed his mind and said he was a Guardian" is misleading, and very unfair. To my understanding, he signed two documents I believe saying "Shoghi Effendi left no heir" and "The hands cannot appoint a new Guardian - we must wait for the Universal House of Justice". His claim was that traditional reading of "Aghsan" requiring genetic relation was flawed and he was already appointed an Aghsan by Abdul'Baha. Although I disagree with him on both points, I believe that holding his inability to make his mind as a minor issue if relevant at all. The Will and Testament does not adequately deal with the scenario that the Guardian does not publically label an heir for an editor to make a decision in a NPOV way. -- Tomhab 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully Tomhab, The Will and Testament does make it impossible for Remey's claim to carry any water. How is it that when the Will explicitly states that the Guardian must declare the successor publically in his lifetime, and the necessity of the Hands of the Cause to assent this decision by universal sufferage, can any other claim be made? Of this, there is no doubt, and it is merely a pejorative form of historical revisionism to state otherwise.

Perhaps as Cunado suggests the clear provisions of the Will and Testament should be stated for the record and leave it at that.

This seems to be the concensus, so I will gladly comply (and also put some "references" in, although I'm curious how it is that primary source materials don't count on wikipedia--absurd!). Sincerely, Matarael 12 March 2006

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

I gutted a lot of this article around 2 months ago. When it came to the section on the appointment I just decided that as little as possible was necessary and I believe it is currently true to that. Cunado's suggestion is a good one, but my first preference would be somewhere like Baha'i Divisions. That way if a war starts on the topic (and it will be contraversial) then it only affects one page. -- Tomhab 12:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

***

These "points" are discussed at length in Baha'i divisions and eloborated upon ad nauseum. They don't belong here beyond possibly linking to them appropriately as Cunado rightly suggested. Furthermore, changes where made to content that wasn't accurate or verified with sources. Jeff March 11,2006

---

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Matarael

Matarael, I think it will help if you realize that there are several hundred people who still think Remey was the second Guardian, they have established a doctrine that helps them believe. So for everything that you point out as Remey contradicting the Will, they will have a response to. As Baha'is, it's not our role to delve into the system of Covenant-breaker beliefs, or to engage them in arguments. Just make sure that the true teachings are not misrepresented. Remey's claim only makes sense if it is taken out of context and with 5% of the truth.

Having said that, I don't agree with some of your edits, and I can understand why you got reverted twice. Making statements like "The funeral was virtually unattended and performed entirely without relgious rites." You need some reference. I'm sure there are books or documents stating this, so you have to find them and provide a reference. If you do that, then it will never get deleted.

Other statements like "However, the provisions provided in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá deny any chance of such a possibility." Because there are people that believe he was living up to the Will, you should say something like "The majority of Baha'is believe..." or just state facts. Say that Abdu'l-Baha required a clear, unambiguous transfer between Guardians, a hereditary position, named during the life of the Guardian and consented on by the 9 Custodians. Then the conclusion is obvious that Remey is in violation of 4 clear points. Cuñado - Talk 17:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Cuñado, I will keep your points in mind when I make future edits. For the record, I am not delving into Covenant-breaker beliefs, just trying to provide a more full picture. Even Ficcicia, an avowed enemy of the Bahá'ís in his anti-Bahá'í Polemic asserts that Remey's claim was untenable. I personally feel there is a funny logic going on here which suggests that the information must go in this article, and cannot be counter-balanced with opposing facts. There is an important point: facts are not and neutral--they always have implications. That said, thank-you once more, I will keep your comments in mind. Matarael 14 March 2006

Up until around a week ago this article was - IMHO very neutral and respectful of both sides of the debate. Thanks to all those who've tried to keep it that way, but for some reason it's gutting itself completely -- Tomhab 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you Tomhab. :D Matarael 14 March 2006

All This Successorship Talk

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

Let's not delete the information here. It involves the personalities involved and includes information that Bahá'í divisions does not. That article focuses on the groups themselves and doesn't address the acrimonious disintigration that occurred around Mason Remey's demise. That information is well-sourced here and shouldn't just disappear. As Mason Remey was intimately involved, I don't think that this is out-of-place here. Both articles point at each other and seem even-handed and as sourced as they can be. MARussellPESE 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a well reasoned response; but I am unclear: is it generally agreed that the content should appear in this biography, or rather that the information should not dissapear? If the latter, wouldn't it be better to merge the contents of this with the other article, thus avoiding the unnecessary crosslinks and providing the information all in one location? Matarael 14 March 2006

Latest Revert

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

Actually, Jeffmichaud's revert seems to be an NPOV violation in and of itself. It's not vandalism though. The items are direct quotes, on-topic, and sourced — if inconvenient to the Remeyite POV. NPOV does need to consider all points of view, and he certainly thought he was justified.

However, this article already makes these points:

1. Remey declared himself the Third, and later on, the real Second Guardian,
2. He was declared a Covenant Breaker,
3. He exhibited behaviour and/or characteristics of emotional/mental disturbance.

The passage from The Ministry of the Custodians" may be better placed in Bahá'í divisions.

Barring flat-out errors, like stating that he was an accountant, I leave this page to his various groups of followers. MARussellPESE 03:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for the clarifying links, I now see it isn't vandalism, but an NPOV violation... I meant that all along I guess. I think I will be moving my attention to Bahá'í divisions sooner or later, but can you think of a list of other articles which need some attention? I am willing to work on any subject essentially... Feel free to leave any messages on my talk page or something. Anyway, given that this was an NPOV violation, it's probably ok to revert, right? Is that how it works, do we have a consensus? Matarael 06:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Given the fact that the reason for reverting was based on the fact that the quotes I provided from primary sources had a "POV" we can see clearly that the revert was actually an NPOV violation. The second reason for reverting was based on the fact that my contributions do not come accross as "neutral", I think this is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion given that my contributions were not from me but from primary sources that made the statements, we can now safely revert, to the version which I had last contributed. From there we can discuss the removal of relevant sections. I personally feel the letter submitted to Mason Remey belongs in his biography as it was a significant event in his life. Even Moreso than the discussion about "succession". Matarael 11:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not the quote you provided that's POV, it's "The Guardian had not appointed Mason Remey in his lifetime..." and the rest of YOUR OPINIONS that are at issue. That's not neutral, nor verifiable - IT'S YOUR OPINION! Furthermore, the quotes from the Will are dually noted already on the Divisions page, and now your precious letter from the headless-Hands is too. None of this belongs in his bio. Do you think you've brought anything forward that in news to anyone? All of this was considered and agreed upon by several contributors when we all reached an actual concensus, and agreed upon neutral verifiable wording; unlike this knee-jerk reaction of yours where you've taken something one contributor, MARussell, out of context and run with it. Did you miss the part where he wrote: "I leave this page to his various groups of followers." That's been the concensus from the contributors till you came along thinking you had some new insight. We've all agreed to sling the "verifiable" POV over there, and leave this page to his bio. GET IT? Jeff 10:56 March 16, 2006

Respectfully Jeff, there really hasn't been any consensus discussion here to determine what the consensus positions are. This article has evolved through some give-and-take edits, but we haven't actually had a consensue discussion here. That I leave this page alone, generally, is a personal preference. Cunñado and Tomhab have both edited this page at times. So there's no "hands-off" consensus applicable here.

You have edited this page extensively, and that naturally may give you a sense of property, (We all think our special pages are our babies. I recently re-wrote the Fallingwater article to correct a really sloppy discussion of the structural problems there. And I pity the foo' who tries to put it back. :) ) but this is Wikipedia, anybody can edit every thing. The detachment needed can be demanding at times.

Matareal, the argument is one of shading here, I think. "Shoghi Effendi did not appoint a successor during his lifetime" is a position that the vast majority of observers would agree is a fact. However, Remey asserts that his appointment was "indirect": his presidency of the IBC, "my son", etc. While this "indirect" line of reasoning approaches the impenetrably obtuse, his followers consider it to be a fact. I don't think it just opinion. But becuase it's disputed it has to be discussed. That's why Bahá'í divisions is so explicit as to the content of 'Abdul-Bahá's and the Guardian's wills, and the Hands actions, so that it is clear that this is not a POV assertion, but shown in verifiable sources that it happened this way. That article is the best place, I think, to have this material placed.

This article is fairly clear that he asserted a claim to the Guardianship, was rebuffed by all but a handful, and his community began to disintigrate and abandon him before his demise. All enough to give a sense of what happened to the man. MARussellPESE 20:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

External links

From WP:EL, avoid links to "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research," and to "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject." These both apply. The links were to the schisms' main pages and didn't have further readings about Mason Remey, thus they were merely advertising for the groups linked. Notice that I left the links to articles about Mason Remey, even though they are from sympathetic authors and of questionable reliability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be a challenge for anyone to characterize Mathieu's Bio of Remey "questionable reliability" as it's replete with sources and notes. This so-called "published paper" (which was never published anywhere) by the UHJ on the other hand has provides zero reference for anything it claims in sections 2&3, and amounts to vapid propaganda bolstered by conjecture and hearsay. It should therefore be stricken as well if these are the litmus. _Disarray^General 06:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur w/Cuñado. They're WP:LINKSPAM. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And now we're back to a classic debate. There aren't sources about Mason Remey and his followers that are reliable, in the Wikipedia sense of the term "reliable". If you're suggesting that we remove all primary sources from the articles, I completely agree. The topic of the moment is about three specific links being included in the external links of this article, and I think that's settled. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all good, but I didn't suggest "that we remove all primary sources from the articles". Nothing in these replies is relevent to my points about this UHJ "paper" that's linked to here and elsewhere which doesn't provide any references whatsoever, and according to the rigid compliance being enforced by our friend Cunado about the policy governing links it appears to fail as by every account it is "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" and does't belong in the External links, right?

If it's not to much to ask, I would appreciate an explanation on what qualifies these group sites as WP:LINKSPAM, as none of the specific definitions in this policy seems to apply to the sites being linked to. It also appears quite commonplace in myriads of other religious articles to provide links to groups that adhere to the beliefs being expressed. There are several objections being raised about them, creating inconsistencies in what's actually objectionable about them. _Disarray^General 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed to death here. As I recall everyone agreed that it was not a research paper, that it would not be used as a reliable reference, and that it should be listed as a treatment of the subject by the House of Justice. As such, being from a research department from an established organization, it stands above some of the personal websites that you tend to support as reliable. On this article it represents the official position of the Baha'i administration on the subject of the article. To remove it would seem silly. Links to the main pages of the personal websites that I removed were not treatments of the subject of Mason Remey, they were advertisements. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

These are responses to issues that haven't even been raised here. How is this "paper" anything but "unverifiable research" when it doesn't bother to provide one reference for anything in relation to it's treatment of Remey in sections 2 & 3? These tangential statements are obviously attempts to avoid this direct question, and it's seems safe to assume that it fails by the very parameter the other sites do. Obviously it's a treatment of the subject, but according to this guideline more than that it required, isn't it? If it bothered to provide reference it could be deemed research, but what's being asked here is to presume it is based on the reputation of the organization; the same organization that regularly attacks him and his followers in courts, right? The question remains: how does this "paper" meet these guidelines (which were raised to eradicate these other links) by any measure besides adamant assertions from the present company? _Disarray^General 01:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ample time has passed to provide even one justification that's supported by guideline or policy for removing these group links; the mere declaration that it's an advertisement or spam is an empty assertion, for these are neither by any definition provided in the hot-linked guideline articles. These guidelines can be interpreted many ways it seems, and the rigid view being used here would deem every EL here worthy of removal.

Moreover the groups are treated in the article, and are followers of the subject. They have been in this article's External links for several years without issue. It is reasonable to ask that if they are in fact a violation of a policy or guideline that it be pointed to directly, or left alone. Hot-linking an article in one's assertion falls short of justifying the assertion; none of the definitions in WP:LINKSPAM or WP:EL characterize these links. Therefore there's no reason they can't stay as they have for several years prior. _Disarray^General 03:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Please stop reverting the article. My version uses much better sources and removes unverifiable material. If you have a constructive way to improve it try editing over or talk about it here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Much of the content of this article was the result of compromises involving Tomhab and others several years ago. Statements like the Haifans declaring he was a CB and vice versus were agreed should remain NPOV, so attempts to alter this neutrality will be reverted. To state he has "at least 100 adherents" by stringing together those two sources isn't showing any good faith in this matter. What has been done with them is WP:OR, for one is for OBF and the other for BUPC numbers. As there are several groups that still follow him, and none of them publish data it's not possible to make any statements about numbers. Removing the accolades of Abdu'l-Baha's also seems inappropriate for the sources are bona fide, and it's entirely germane. _Disarray^General 01:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The largest two groups are documented. Between 40 and 100, plus 86, plus a small community in Las Vegas that is small enough not to be noticed by anybody. After that there are a few individuals. It is not OR to say that there are at least 100 people. You have consistently tried to avoid showing the relative size of Remey's followers, and it's biased to leave it out when there are clear references. Do you have a suggestion on a better way to word it? Perhaps "between 100 and 200."

I don't know what accolades you're referring to. I removed a few things that were unsourced, and I removed the references to him calling Remey son. There is no reason to add that unless you're trying to twist an out of context quotation into a literal adoption, which you obviously are. If you want to deal with that issue, you have to do something other than provide the quote without an explanation or source of who is providing the synthesis. Try writing it and referencing Mathieu as a follower making the adoption connection after the fact. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding the compromise you talked about, that doesn't mean anything. The previous wording was unacceptable as it implied that most Baha'is even know who Remey is or what he did. The fact is that Remey and his followers play no part in the thoughts and activities of Baha'is, while the thoughts and lives of Remey's adherents are dominated by the activities of the larger Baha'i community. Saying that they have "mutually-excommunicated" each other is a lie, implying an active part by the Baha'is. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cunado, I'm sure changes and improvements can be made to this article that are agreeable to everyone, as you've contributed several already. You asked to have objections discussed here, so I've raised a few. If they are all to be met with this same indignation I'd rather not bother. I'll assume good faith if you can also. Accusations at one another have never proven productive so I cannot see what purpose they can have here.

1. A bona fide source doesn't exist specifically for his adherents, so by all accounts your educated guess about there being "at least 100" is original research, not to mention a bit weaselly. The refs provided are for two different groups (separated by 20 years) and amount to as many as 300 believers, and at the very least 200. So why have you said otherwise? But to string together conclusions is original research by the most conservative definitions and as such will have to be avoided. Merely declaring it's not doesn't vindicate you from stringing together known sources to draw your own conclusions. I object to be characterized as having "consistently tried to avoid showing the relative size" as it's on record that what I've opposed is the WP:OR nature in which numbers have been procured, and when actual published numbers have been obtained they have found their place in their respective articles. Here is another example of where numbers are being created where none exist. Why is it "biased" to leave it out? There is no "it" that is WP:V. What I'd like to be shown is where is the standard that demands these numbers in the first place that has created this obsession with providing them even when none exist? Your "refs" make no mention that one is twenty years old. Are we trying to establish today's numbers? Isn't that then a mutable statement that will change with time? What about using the numbers that existed at the time of the proclamation? Thousands of believers voted for the members of the first NSAUHG. While we're on the subject, why remove that the French NSA threw in with Mason? It could be argued that it's biased to eradicate that bit of fact; what's the reasoning for this?
2. It has been previously agreed that it in in no way NPOV to say the mainstream Baha'is declared Mason's believers CB, without stating the obvious vice-versa as its in Mason's own proclamation. No citation has even been provided for the POV statement in the first place. Is the reader to assume the UHJ deliberated and voted on this, or is there an actual proclamation beyond the one the Hand's made? Mason declared those who didn't support his claim were to be excommunicated from the Kingdom of Abha in his proclamation. These details feelings and opinions of yours Cunado may in fact be shared by a majority here, but the fact is they run afoul of WP:NPOV. Therefore, this current version of Cunado's is not acceptable. It can read the way it has for the last two years, or we can revert to the previous version of the intro:"Since the vast majority of the Bahá'ís did not accept his claim, those who followed him came to be labelled as covenant-breakers by the Universal House of Justice, and are shunned by the Bahá'í majority. Remey himself declared that being the Guardian gave him the exclusive right to declare who was or wasn't a covenant-breaker, and that those who opposed him and followed the Hands of the Cause were covenant-breakers."
3. The accolades I'm referring to are the two published in the Star of the West that were eradicated; most notably the Tablet to Corrine True. Moreover the quotes from Mason's own published diaries of his last visit with the Master are more than appropriate in his bio, as are the details of his 8th pilgrimage to the Holy Land to read the Will and receive the packet of the Hair and Blood. These omissions homogenize this bio, and leave out pertinent details of his prominent years. Lets just assume these were stripped from the article in the interest of brevity, and let's put them back onto the table for consideration. Since this is Mason's bio, the facts should fall as they may, right? _Disarray^General 06:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On 1, I already covered this. Proposing a new wording is one thing, but if you continue to remove any reference to relative size I'll continue moving it back. There are references and it's not OR to add two numbers together.

On 2, already covered. It is not accurate to say that there is mutual ex-communication. In fact Baha'is avoid Covenant-breakers, while Mason's followers have been known to seek out Baha'is and try to advertise their beliefs. That aside, given the relative size this is entirely misleading to say that there is some common understanding between the two.

On 3, the accolades that you provided were almost entirely unreferenced. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

These responses make no attempt to address the points I've raised but rather are dismissing them. 1) the two numbers are about two different groups (and add up to 300 not 100), and are separated by two decades eradicating any validity that they could be used to attempt to make an accurate claim that's current. It's weaselly and Not acceptable. 2)I did revert the intro to it's previous wording and removed the "mutual excommunication", yet you've reverted that also? One or the other will be used; your version violates NPOV as was previously agreed. The alleged seeking out of Baha'is by Mason's followers is mute and benign; these types of opinions are useless. 3) The refs in the "accolades" which are from Mason's diaries have actually been tracked down by MARussell through the NYC library and checked out which should alleviate these concerns. I see now that I have to track down and provide the Star of the West issues for those quotes, but they are all germane and relevant, and will remain as they have for the past 2.5 years. _Disarray^General 06:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's get something straight, the references for numbers are 1994, 86 members, with evidence of decline following that time, and another group with 40 members in 2007. How do you get 300 out of that? and where are the two decades separating? Besides that there is no evidence of more than a few individuals, and saying "at least" leaves it slightly open ended.

I added back part of the intro you had. The references need to be better than a date of authorship. Until they are referenced there's no need to talk about anything else. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 13:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's get this straight: you're contribution regarding the numbers of "at least 100" is a blatant violation of WP:SYN, so drop it. _Disarray^General 15:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, that's talking about synthesis of ideas and I'm talking about adding two numbers together. If you want to have less synthesis then I could change it to "about 126" but having an unrounded number implies an accuracy that doesn't exist. If you're serious about this I'll do an RFC. I think you're totally wrong on this one. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from being a poorly worded nonsensical un-encyclopedic statement, the relevant portion of WP:SYN states: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion...then the editor is engaged in original research.". The one source is 20 years old, adding to it's insignificance. Attempting to push this forward is futile.

A point that would seem is obvious but is apparently necessary to point out is that the Baha'i treatment of this subject is accomplished in Baha'i divisions, whereas this is his bio and doesn't warrant the same treatment. His bio of all places is where these accolades in question belong, along with details of his proclamation. To continue to treat this from the perspective of the Baha'i view of Mason violates the basic premise of biographies. This is not the place to attempt to marginalize and dismiss him with the mainstream Baha'is views. That's been accomplished elsewhere. _Disarray^General 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition is not synthesis. If I've got this straight, WP:V sources add up to less than 150 people. At least 100 is a strange way to present this. Christianity has at least 100 members. Much more precise to say "around 150."

That we have to reach back 20 years to find all of two sources that even try to enumerate the Remeyite membership is not evidence of the insignificance of the sources — but evidence of the insignificance of the subject matter.

The "accolades" are not encyclopaedic at all. The article is clear that he was well-regarded in his tenure. Adding them in the absence of comparable statements regarding his perfidy is POV-pushing a minority view.

Details of his proclamation via extended quotes are likewise unencyclopaedic. We'd have to include enough to show the thinking staggering from one point to the next. Clearly his dementia was already taking hold. Even if it weren't WP:OR it's better to leave it all out. MARussellPESE (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

MARussell, while I can appreciate much of what you're sharing, I have to object that the way this number has been derived runs afoul of the very definition of synthesis: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion...then the editor is engaged in original research.". No source exists that puts a number on the whole of his followers. Furthermore it barely accounts for 2 of the 4 known group of followers, and even then doesn't reflect what the sources actually say which is 100 for OBF, and another 100 for BUPC. These numbers are separated by a decade and the oldest is 2 decades old. This is all original research as nothing specific has been published regarding the whole of his followers. It's not possible to argue these sources are directly related to this matter (they're only relevant to those groups), and again they're not all inclusive. The Shogomonian list server has over 200 members, yet they're not included in this tally. Rex's group claims around 50 believers. I believe I can account for the total number of believers at the time of the split, which would be a preferable way to address this "need for a number" hangup, for any numbers suggested beyond that are changing and don't stand the test of time. I would prefer a 1961-1963 number which I believe can be accounted for in the recent Chicago court case (which we all won :) _Disarray^General 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the numbers you just used are wrong. The sources cite 40 OBF in 2007, and 86 BUPC in 1994. Some sources say that OBF is the only group. E-mail list is meaningless, and there is no reference for Rex's group and no evidence of activity. If the court documents give a number for 1961 then provide it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I mention we won? But anyways, not quite Cunado. These speculations again are irrelevant and not necessary. He states for the BUPC that he estimated at one time there were 200 and that at the time of writing was more likely 100 (15 years ago rendering it irrelevant as to "current"). Check again; the "86" was derived from the local phone list he obtained which was only for the Missoula community. The OBF source from the Chicago Tribune also states 100. Where are you getting your numbers? As to the concern of disregarding that other groups exist and attempting to willfully omit their numbers in this original research being constructed, it appears there's no legitimate justification for omitting them. Not acceptable given that dismissing them is merely out of the inconvenience of not having accurate numbers to include them with.

Oh, and then there's still the unsolved dilem of the policy you're willfully violating: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion...then the editor is engaged in original research." All in all, Wikipedia wants articles to "stand the test of time", so by that standard these 15 and 20 year old numbers have to be noted as such and can't be represented as current as we currently find them in the article. BTW, did I mention that we won the court case? _Disarray^General 08:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. You're verging on outright lies. One source is 1 year old, and another is 14 years old. He said that since 1980 BUPC membership has fluctuated but never exceeded 200 nationwide, then he said that the 1994 membership list showed 66 members in Montana and less than 20 in other states. He never mentioned any numbers after 1994, and never mentioned 100. This was a researcher who spent many years studying the group and it's published in a respectable source. Following 1994 there is clear evidence of decline, also mentioned in Stone's book, and after the book was published there was another schism in 2001.

The other groups' lack of verifiable documentation is a fact that establishes their non-notability. How do I know that there are ANY left? One way I dealt with this was saying "at least", and giving room for unaccounted individuals, while still keeping the relative size. I still prefer that version.

The policy is clearly for synthesis of ideas. Adding two numbers is called addition. You won't win this so drop it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This was not explained in talk, and is egregious.

1. Stating "about 150 believers" is not accurate base on the refs themselves, accounts for only 2 of the 4 groups, and not acceptable be the most liberal renderings of "Wikipedia should stand the test of time", just to name a few reason.
2. The addition of the Star of the West articles was to reference the statement provided, something Wikipedia expects. They're not in the text of the article, but are in the note since no database is available to link to. Please elaborate since when has it become "unencyclopedic" to add references?
3. The one quote from Mason's diary about his final visit with the Master is entirely germane, verifiable, and on topic. Not to mention yet another of a dozen bits of information which has stood for years and is now for some reason being excised. This one example of their relationship belongs here. This bio is back to being treated as if it's the Baha'is view of Mason and his actions, when in fact its his bio.

The number is ridiculous, the refs are bona fide, and the diary entry is germane. Please show otherwise with something more than useless assertions or cease this edit warring. BTW, did I mention Neal Chase and his pro bono lawyer single-handedly won the court case for all the orthodox groups? _Disarray^General 15:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You edited over me here. Thank you for asking and I appreciate the WP:AGF.

"Standing the test of time"? Since one has to go back twenty years to find the second source that hazards a guess at Remeyite membership, then it actually argures for downplaying the figures not inflating them. WP:Soap comes to mind.

You object to addition? Well we can certainly say that: "Verifiable references for these groups' current membership are not available. Dated ones place some of the group's memberships at less than a hundred each in a few of the surviving groups."

Diaries are the antithesis of WP:V. Out they go.

"Accolades" are obviously not encyclopedic. WP:Soap again. We don't have acclamations in Shoghi Effendi. Those passages illustrate Abdul-Baha's hints at his eventual station. These on Remey are no different from anything in Memorials to the Faithful or other letters of encouragement he sent to believers. They have no business here. MARussellPESE (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cunado, This will be the one and only warning you'll receive to be civil, so don't push it by calling me a liar again. You provided the source from Momen's Covenant article, yet you keep referring here to the numbers provided from the Chicago court case (which we won, btw); yet that's not the source you yourself used. The Momen source, which you seemed to have forgetten you provided, states "no more than 100". Get it straight. This isn't a competition I'm trying to win; I'm attempting to stave off the onslaught that's been engaged in misrepresenting and marginalizing him when you excised mostly all the positive attributes of his prominent Baha'i life and left behind this sterile homogenized carcass of his bio.

MARussell, I'm not trying to antagonize this situation with my comments, but trying to illuminate that what I believe are valid concerns are being dismissed without cause; I'm used to my contributions being wholey ignored and unilaterally reverted without considerations, so I'm sorry for making presumptions in this case.

I disagree with your assessments about the numbers for the reasons stated above, with the diaries for they are not someones diaries per se, but archived in several dozen libraries around the world, and are thus "from the horses mouth" so to speak. As this article is about him, his own words are appropriate; they're not regular old diary entries. The Star of the West articles are references, and not in the text of the article. The defense for removing them is pretty weak. _Disarray^General 18:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but diaries are anything but up to scratch as reliable sources. That they're archived in libraries does not mean that they're editied and published. They're not even WP:V.

Star of the West is notoriously sloppy and fuzzy. The piligrim's notes, bona fide letters, and reminiscences are so intertwined — and the editoral control so weak — that Baha'is haven't relied upon it in years. May be V but certainly not RS.

You've tried to add some clearly reliable information on his writings and architecture so a simple revert is not appropriate, however, I'll be editing out SoW and his diaries as per above. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree and am vehemently opposed to these proposals. The reference to SoW is tagging a sentence in the context that he was mentioned favorably by the Master in it, and the refs provided are examples of many. If one was attempting to use it as a secondary source then your points are valid, but here the context is simply that letters between them were published, and therefore here's supporting reference.

I'm sorry as well that all of a sudden you all have decided to wage this edit war over what amounts to sterilizing downplaying his notability as a one of the most prominent Baha'is outside the Holy Families. His journal entries are entirely verifiable, and he's most certainly a reliable source for what transpired between them. Given that he's the subject of this article they more than meet the exceptions for using self published sources about himself. Sorry, but this one entry is germane and entirely on-topic. I resolutely stand opposed to either of these contributions being excised. _Disarray^General 00:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Typical. Someone cites policies and ties their edits to them — and you vehemently oppose without providing any counter-argument.

His journal entries are not published. That's the key component to WP:V. Please read it. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Diaries stored in a library's basement don't meet this. Frankly, neither does SoW.

There's no evidence that Abdul-Baha held any special preference for Remey over any other western believer. Your adding these — out of context — unbalances the facts and is clearly an attempt to tie in the "apopted son" argument. Remeyites may think he held some special place, but fair consideration leads to the conclusion that he was one of many. He was one of twelve Hands appointed by Shoghi Effendi in the first contingent, and one of 32 ultimately.MARussellPESE (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

???I did provide an explanation for my opposition; are my comments here going unread? SoW is not being used as a secondary source here, but as to source the statement that mentions the publication; this has never been acknowledged but you keep asserting its not reliable. Are you actually trying to make the argument that it's not reliable enough to source it's own existence? As far as his diaries, as a [WP:SELFPUB|self published] source they more than meet the requirements for verifiability. This isn't one diary rotting away in a library basement as you're implying. Due to his obsession with the "catastrophes" he believed eminent, he created and archived a total of 95 complete sets of diaries in libraries on every continent. One, I might add is, in the Baha'i archives themselves; so they are by all accounts a self published document, and not a typical "diary", and as such are a completely valid, verifiable, useful source for his own biography, PER POLICY. It was due to this that these things were included when me and Tomhab were involved in rewriting this bio over 2 years ago and it stood until recently. Let's get clear on how this has all come about; it was Cunado who started hacking away at this article recently, not me adding soapbox material. There is still no just cause that's been presented outside of the opinions of you two as to why these things are a problem. I'm not going to debate you on his prominence nor give any cause for you to further trash talk him here. The policy I stated and the reasons I've provided are more than cause to include these things. Continuing to ignore them is not how we're to resolve issues. _Disarray^General 18:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This article has little interest to me. It's on my watchlist and I saw you reverting Cuñado here, and apparently adding material from earlier versions.

If you're trying to use SoW as a primary source then that fails WP:OR, WP:V & WP:RS. A trifecta. Out it stays.

You don't seem to understand what "published" means. Diaries being collected in an archive is not at all the same thing. Likewise these fail WP:OR, WP:V & WP:RS. Another trifecta. Out they stay. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

These are just your opinions and amount to proof by assertion. My edits only became "adding material from earlier versions" after Cunado decided to castrate this article; this only after a disagreement over the external links transpired which by all accounts brought on the inspiration to sterilize this after surviving over 2 years without a significant contribution. I couldn't be less interested in participating in this any further. Thanks for sharing. _Disarray^General 07:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cute. Except proof by assertion is trivially easy to disprove. Merely provide a contrary example. In this case:

• Demonstrate that you're not using SoW as a primary source thereby violating WP:OR. That'll be tough when you're quoting is as one.
• Demonstrate that SoW is a reliable source of authoritative statements. Both Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi refferred to it as a "magazine". Not a ringing endorsement.
• Demonstrate that the diaries are published by providing publication, and not library indexing, data.

Cunado has a life. That it's taken him this long to get here shows that. I'm along for the ride, which shows that I've got one too. MARussellPESE (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Diaries

I removed the quotes from the diaries in the refs. As mentioned, adding too much praise isn't neutral, nor is too much criticism. It seems like you're trying to portray him as special, and it is slightly out of context given that Abdu'l-Baha talked to everyone that way. The quote using the phrase "I have adopted you" is obviously a sly reference to imply a literal adoption and isn't appropriate to quote without a lengthy treatment of the subject. Jeff, you're the one waiving the "no synthesis" flag, and this time we're talking about synthesis of ideas, which is what the policy refers to. I also removed his personal thoughts on reading the W&T. Doesn't seem relevant to the bio. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point that no matter what contributions I make they're unilaterally reverted without consideration. 1) you just restored a dead link I removed to the OBF findings of fact. It doesn't exist. 2) You just restored an unsourced statement that was created trough original research about how Remey never address being an Aghsan.

The matter of the external links was not settled merely because you asserted your will on the matter. The diaries are noted by John Hopkins Univerity [5]to have been copied (self-published) and provided to libraries around the world, with the originals residing in Iowa State University. But alas, as even my edits removing dead links to nonexistant sources will be reverted, I wonder what use it is to bother discussing these matters. I'll just follow your lead and do as I please. Thanks for sharing. _Disarray^General 08:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How utterly amusing. You've now twice restored the dead URL to the OBF findings of fact while unilaterally reverting my contributions. What purpose does that dead link serve exactly? And on what ground are you restoring the statement that he didn't address not being aghsan? Where is that published? _Disarray^General 09:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)