Talk:Mason Remey/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

CMR.NET and it's use here

I'm going to address my restoring the excised information of the Hair and the Blood packet, the diary entries, etc. with one simple fact that is being completely ignored here, and is the only point that should have to have been noted in the first place. All of the information that has been removed by Cunados recent "various" rewrite (the diary entries, the Hair and Blood packet, etc.) was all information that can be traced back to Brett Mathieu's extensively sourced and referenced bio contained on CMR.net. The fact that it is charlesmasonremey.net makes it a self published primary source about itself, and therefore every single word on that page can be reproduced here PER POLICY. The fact that the diaries entries are contained and quoted there gives them two equally valid sources; the fact that the packette of the Hair and the Blood is discussed and quoted there gives that a source, etc, etc. They can all be traced back to that self published primary source, so everyone of these points are therefore verifiable and reliably sourced through that page alone; all the other justifications I made are as equally valid, so the case for maintaining the attempted censuring of all these FACTS is therefore closed. _Disarray^General 09:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to address individual points on the last revert. Refer to this version as the version you're proposing.

1) The line about being introduced by May Bolles was repetition, under "As a Baha'i", first and third paragraphs.

2) Of all the accolades, choosing the two that use the phrase "son" are unacceptable and original research, trying to casually cherry-pick quotations that imply a literal adoption without explicitly stating it. Besides that, listing `Abdu'l-Baha's praise of an individual is self-serving on any WP article, and fails neutrality. Compare to any other bio on Baha'is, for example `Alí-Muhammad Varqá. It's short, simple, factual. Whether the accolades are verifiable or reliable is not a major issue.

3) Remey's reflection on the W&T. Not sure how this is pertinent to a bio.

4) The issue of hair and blood are referenced from a BUPC website. Completely unacceptable as a source for such a statement. Also, another attempt to throw in the phrase "son".

5) Remey never addressed the issue... in his written statement declaring himself as Guardian. That is how it's worded, and I added as a reference the statement.

6) The broken link is fixed.

7) The websites you added are linkspam. Clear and simple. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You apparently don't get it, but I'm sure we can get on the same page about all this. I didn't "choose" any of the content on this page by "cherry-picking" favorable material, but thanks for the WP:AGF. I rewrote this page back in '05 based primarily on information found a CMR.net, see? The Hair and Blood, if you would have given it more than a cursory glance and checked the reference (not the photo which is not the ref.), you would have been directed to CMR.net which discusses it at length (almost word for word). So guess what? It stays. Likewise with the SoW content. It's not my research but is pointing to the primary self published source about ITSELF. So guess what. It stays. Likewise reflections on the Will are part of details about his finalt visit to the Holy Land, which also are discussed at length on CMR.net. It's not significant that of several million Baha'is Shoghi Effendi called Remey to the Holy Land to be the first to read the Will, and to give him a token relic? Well guess what? Noone cares what you think about it as it's referenced back to CMR.net almost word for word and as with these others, IT STAYS.

And yes, Remey didn't address the issue, but for YOU or ME to say so based on what he didn't say isn't resolved by linking to his proclamation. You do know what original research is, correct? Well because this is the very definition of this as nothing to that effect has ever been published anywhere, to say so is WP:OR by the most liberal reading of the policy. Therefore guess what? It's gone.

There will not be much more to say on this matter, as its matters not an iota how either of you "feel" about any of this, which is what this discussion has devolved to. The policy on self published sources protects these details, which is how they found it onto this page in the first place when me and Tomhab put it all there. Further exerting your will on the matter is futile, so give it a rest. _Disarray^General 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but even if CMR.net were to pass muster as a self-published source, and is not a personal website which is what it really looks like, then it still fails WP:SELFPUB because you're trying to use it to justify inclusion about third parties — namely 'Abdul-Baha.

If CMR.net is bona fide, and because there's no genuinely reliable online source for Remey's statemtns, I'm letting it slide — you still can't use it for anything to do with 'Abdul-Baha.

Put simply: CMR.net can reasonably be used to verify that Remey said that he was the greatest American Baha'i Who Ever Lived. But it can't be used to verify that anyone else thought so too. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

CMR.net is not a personal website; the only info contained on it are directly related to CMR: namely his public declarations and this extensively sourced biography. You're going to "let it slide"? That's rich; I don't believe this requires permission from you as it more than qualifies. The Hair and the blood are discussed there, and therefore pass for inclusion. The published SoW letters are discussed at length there, but as they're published in SoW in the first place they're verifiable. Your concerns of WP:RS for SoW are conjecture and your own assertions; the letters were published so that's that. The details of him being called to the Holy Land are discussed there which include sources in the notes. Comments like your final witty quip aren't necessary or productive as nothing is on the table to that affect. We both know that verifiability doesn't require online links, so this suggestion is patently absurd. It is also merely your conjecture that his published diaries are not a valid source for his own words as they are entirely verifiable and thoroughly sourced. Asserting otherwise with a straight face is clever, but disingenuous. _Disarray^General 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Witty? I was just paraphrasing the use to which you're putting CMR.net.

This is quite simple, Jeff: His diaries are not published. WP:V requires published sources. Cataloged in a libray is not the same. If you think otherwise: proove it.

SoW is hardly reliable for the detailed justification and aplogia to which you're trying to subject it. Not by assertion, but by inspection. Dear Lord, three of the sixteentablets reproduced (hopefully faithfully) on CMR.net identify Ahmad Sohrab as the translator. Including the only one using "my heavenly son" in the greeting.) Three of sixteen are translated by Shoghi Effendi. One's translated by an Azizullah S. Bahadur. That leaves nine of them translated by God knows who. If that's a representative sample of translation, no wonder nobody uses SoW for anything more than an interesting ride through history. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate; how is his proclamation an unreliable source for referencing what he said in his proclamation? _Disarray^General 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Look again, it was a duplicate reference. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a personal website. How could you classify it as anything else? If he uses references, then the WP article should ideally use those references. It's currently used to source that he was raised episcopal, where he went to college, that May Bolles introduced the Faith to him, and that he married in 1932 but his wife died. The policy that you quoted says that self-published should not be used if it is contentious, unduly self-serving, involves third parties, or if there's a doubt about the author. It also says that it can only be used about the author, which is not the case here. Accordingly it could be denied any inclusion. As MARussell mentioned, we are allowing it to reference a few uncontentious points, and include it in the external links because "no genuinely reliable online source" exists. But for anything contentious or self-serving, or in any way questionable, it doesn't qualify. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What organization does CMR.net represent? It's got all of five pages. The "contact us" links to a personal email account. It's obviously personal. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

These objections raised here are entirely vapid and would likely be sloughed off if the roles were reversed. They consist entirely of conjecture and nit-picking mischaracterizations. The diaries are SELF published and by definition don't have a publisher, but are entirely WP:V, and CMR.net contains nothing that isn't related to CMR, so trying to dismiss it as a personal website if futile. _Disarray^General 18:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Read WP:SELFPUB first. If this were Remey's autobiography, then yes it'd be acceptable. As it's not - out it goes.

It's sloppy anyway. It's the Ecole des Beaux Arts, not the Ecole des Artes. Even this engineer knows the difference. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate on which of the 7 points of WP:SELFPUB you feel dismiss the bio on CMR.net, and all of a sudden disqualify it as something other than a source about itself. To suggest it's "out" because it's "by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself" is patently absurd. I will not be swayed by these assertions for they are entirely vapid. CMR's biography was written and extensively sourced by someone we all know has been a follower of CMR's for over 30 years which more than qualifies him as an expert on the subject. Moreover the site is entirely devoted to Remey's public statements, his bio, and an archive of SoW articles about him. How preposterous that two days ago you stated "If CMR.net is bona fide, and because there's no genuinely reliable online source for Remey's statemtns, I'm letting it slide — you still can't use it for anything to do with 'Abdul-Baha." Now it's "out". You sure seem to have a high regard for the weight of your personal opinions around here; one day your permission is granted, and the next it is revoked. I feel these statements speak volumes about how have chosen to treat this matter, as do the rest of your comments here show how creative one can get with interpreting policies.

I would love to see you attempt to convince an impartial third party that CMR.net isn't a website entirely devoted to the subject of Mason Remey and therefore entirely appropriate to use for reference, but rather a personal website of Brett Mathieu's that could only be used to reference subjects of regarding Brett. In fact, that's exactly what you'll need to do to end this edit war that you've waged and are perpetuating on this page. You and Cunado have attacked this page with a vengeance this past week, offering no compromise to reason, and have been entirely fixated on your own creative interpretations of the policies being discussed. If you wish to propagate this campaign further I suggest you find but one third party who'll agree your slash and burn tactics to this page are warranted. I will not give in to your assertions otherwise and will remain opposed to your efforts until a reasonable compromise is proposed. _Disarray^General 03:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm. Didn't you read Cuñado's above — "The policy that you quoted says that self-published should not be used if it is contentious, unduly self-serving, involves third parties, or if there's a doubt about the author." — or are you too busy looking up new words to attack your interlocutors?

Apparently I have to spell the obvious out. Selfpubs can be used only if:

2 "it is not contentious;" — Both Cuñado and I question the authenticity of certain sections, particularly the biography.

3 "it is not unduly self-serving;" — This is clearly an apologetics site.

4 "it does not involve claims about third parties;" — It can't be used to source "accolades" and other such from anyone other than Remey.

6 "there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;" — I have no idea who Brent Mathieu is or his credentials to provide this source on the bio. I have a clue who Remey is, and his proclamation certainly rings true.

7 "the article is not based primarily on such sources." — There were sections whose sole source was this CMR.net biography.

You're also missing the point. I'm not pitching it entirely. CMR.net is reasonable to use as a source for the proclamation because this is the only source for this document and it certainly rings true.

"No compromise to reason?" What reason? You haven't presented a single argument here beyond name-calling. We've made simple statements tied directly to policies. i.e. "Diaries aren't published so they fail WP:V." Those are trivial arguments to counter by merely presenting a counter-example.

"Slash-and-burn?" Haven't you read "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source ..." from WP:V? How about this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. – Jimmy Wales" also from V?

We don't have to "compromise" on policy. Either the material meets it or it doesn't. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess all you have to do now is convince an unbiased third party on your creative interpretations of this policy and you'll have your way. From where I'm sitting my concerns are valid and being wholly ignored here despite my best efforts to elaborate on them. Two days ago "you'd let it slide", and now it's "out" and you're tagging every other sentence with citations needed? This is improving the article somehow?

• on #2, you've proven yourselves to be contentious against the subject and your considerations are therefore dismissed.
• on #3 this accusation could be leveled against any self published website, and is not a grounds for dismissal as the bio makes efforts to state facts and can't be shown to take "unduly self serving" liberties without references. the objection is meaningless.
• on #4 this issue is not on the table at this time, as I haven't pushed forward with the accolades issue; moot point.
• on #6 it states who authored it; therefore there's no doubts. The policy doesn't say you two have to know him.
• on #7 your concerns about "whole sections" are irrelevant, for this states that "the ARTICLE doesn't rely solely on such sources, which it doesn't; also moot.

As I said your eradicating valid information, and are propagating an edit war over. I object to the notion that CMR.net's bio is "out" and reject your creative justification for doing so. That's all I have to say on this matter. _Disarray^General 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the miscommunication here is that CMR.net is by (says to be by) Brent M, not by Mason Remey. It's thus someone with a personal website writing about Remey. It does not qualify for a reliable source about Remey, regardless if it's dedicated to that subject. As far as reliability, it's equivalent to me buying my own web domain and posting my version of Remey's life on it, so in other words not reliable. It goes both ways. We can't smear or exalt Remey through personal websites. If Remey published information about himself, then it would be self published, and even then wouldn't be allowed inclusion if it was contentious or about a third party. As far as I can tell from our conversation Remey only left diaries in certain archives that are not published. Another category is someone else publishing about Remey. Spataro falls into that category and different rules apply for those sources. Brent's site is on the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. The only person who needs to convince other people is the person pushing for inclusion. Feel free to get a third party to review it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right about one thing; there is a miscommuication going on here, but you haven't summarized it with any accuracy. One, the contact link on the site is not to Brent Mathieu showing it's not his site. The site is dedicated to hosting all things Remey, and this bio is one of those things. The objections to the contents of this sight have only been raised now after they have been in the article unassailed for well over 2 years. The objections haven't even been consistent, but change daily. It has only been in the last 12 hours after this discussion has waxed on for over a week that it has come down from on high that it's value in treating details of Remey's life is zero and the whole bio is "out". It is precisely because of it's value from a scholar on the subject that these details found there place in this article for the last 2.5 years. You claim it's the editor wishing for inclusion to provide the source, right? I did provide a valid source for all this in 2005 when I first contributed it. It is merely your assertions now that it all of a sudden is disqualified based on your own conjectures. This was and is a valid source for information about Remey as it's thoroughly sourced, and no one has EVER brought up objections until now. So therefore the burden for inclusion has been met; it is your self-created dilema that is waxing haughty against it with increasingly creative ways to dismiss it. I'm unmoved. Feel free to find someone who is or drop it. _Disarray^General 07:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

CMR.net is by all definitions a personal website. From WP:V, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.". The only exceptions for use of a personal website is if the author is an expert in the field who has published in other sources. This is not true for CMR.net. Thus it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Go ahead and bring any third-party you would like. This is a clear interpretation of policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The contact link on CMR.net isn't Mathieu's? I'd assumed it was. So the site is truly anonymous? That calls the entire shebang into question — including the proclamation — because if the owner(s) aren't even known, how can they have any reputation for anything, much less fact-checking?

Cuñado, Jeff3000, do you think we should pull the site entirely as a personal site, or shall we trust it for the proclamation? MARussellPESE (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From Mason's bio at CMR.net: "Note on author: Brent Mathieu accepted the Baha’i Faith in December 1973 and recognized Mason Remey as its Guardian. This was prior to Remey’s death in February 1974. Mathieu’s first teachers in the Faith were Leland and Opal Jensen of Missoula, Montana. He corresponded extensively with Joseph Pepe, the adopted son and companion of Remey, from 1975 to1993. He maintains a personal collection of Pepe’s correspondence with Baha’is during that time. Mathieu’s collection includes personal correspondence with Donald A Harvey, Remey’s successor, and Orthodox Baha’is Frank Schlatter and Joel Marangella. It contains other individuals’ correspondence supportive of Remey’s Guardianship. The above biography is based on Mathieu’s memoirs, personal letters, and research of credible histories. More footnotes and references are planned to be added. You can contact the author at bmathieu@spro.net, or Brent Mathieu, 1412 W. Washington, Boise, Idaho 83702."

This speculation here is easily resolved by contacting the site's host at the address provided. This site is 100% dedicated to facts, and documents about Mason; most notably the Proclamation which is hosted in a myriad of places such as the OBF site, the bupc site, etc, but I chose this one as its only content is devoted to Remey. Why not contact them with your questions instead of speculating here amongst yourselves? What can that possibly hope to accomplish? _Disarray^General 08:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stating the site is hosted at a specific address and dedicated to facts with a specific author does not do anything to change that it is a personal website that is not acceptable as a source. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! MARussellPESE (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the three of you are the only people that could be convinced that the biography of Charles Mason Remey on charlesmasonremey.net is something other than a verfiable self published source that is perfectly acceptable to use as a source about itself. The point is that the subject of the bio is strictly relegated to the subject of Remey and therefore is entirely appropriate to use reference to itself. It's a creative charade to attempt to negate it because Mason himself is not the owner of the site. As you three have made clear that you deem him a covenant breaker you've perjured yourself to you bias and contempt to the subject. This edit war you have waged against him is against material that has stood since 2005 and will continue to for many years to come. _Disarray^General 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I could create a website named charlesmasonremy.com and post anything I wanted about Mason Remey. The name of the website doesn't make it on official website on Mason Remey, and thus it is a personal website. It's run by an individual thus making it a personal website, hosting content that has does not meet any of the criteria of being a reliable source. The fact that it was on the page for many years doesn't mean it is acceptable; there's a boatload of pages on Wikipedia that don't abide by Wikipedia standards, and that the content was there doesn't make it any more acceptable. I'll continue to abide by Wikipedia policy and remove the content. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you reduced to ad hominem again? Would you please argue the facts.

The argument is simple:

1. CMR.net is a personal website with anonymous owner(s). (Statement of fact.)
2. Therefore, it has no reputation at all, much less as one for reputable fact-checking. (Simple logical step. Anonymous people can have no reputation by definition of "reputation".)
3. It fails WP:V and WP:RS. (Simple conclusion as both policies require the author to be known by independent confirmation. Publishing is the standard.)

That is a line of reasoning that is trivial for you to refute. I'll lay it out for you.

1. Show where the identities of the owner of CMR.net may be found, then
2. Show that that owner is not an indvidual, or
3. Show that, if that owner is an individual, they have a recognized reputation for scholarship. (Homeopaths and high-school teachers aren't historians or biographers).

All you need are two verifiable factoids and poof there goes our argument.

That the material's been poorly sourced since '05 doesn't make a difference. It's up to you to justify this and you haven't presented proof to refute the argument. The material's already gone per policy and will continue for many years to come. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research

I don't know the sources for the few seemingly WP:OR statements in this article, or I would reference them myself. Namely that he didn't address being an Aghsan in his proclamation. From what published source is this derived; linking to the proclamation doesn't resolve it's WP:OR nature. Also that some of his followers believed he suffered from dementia. Where's this biting accusation coming from exactly? The info on the 3 groups is entirely vacant of sources as well. How can we resolve this? _Disarray^General 18:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy. Delete it — unless its got a WP:V source. I've swung the delete hammer heavily enough on Baha'i topics around WP, I'm more than happy to see it done here.

• Brent Matthieu is out - WP:Selfpub, by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself. See above.
• Diaries are out - Not published.

SoW is out - Unreliable

Peter Smith's Encyclopedia is published and at least lists Harvey, Marangella, King and Jensen, so these people won't be lost entirely, and the article will be streamlined considerably.

MARussellPESE (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jeff. Those sections are entirely unreferenced or rely on an unacceptable source.

If you've got a better source for the biographical data — add it. If you've got any WP:V sources on the other "Guardians" add it. I've got a valid 3rd-party source (Smith) as per above and can rewrite those sections combining them into one. But I thought I'd flag them for needed references first in case somebody's got some. I can rewrite it sooner if you'd rather. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Spataro

Jeff, how is it that the details of Remey's family history, early life, education, death, and interment are all on the same page (p. 31) of Spataro's book? It's a forty page pamplet and it takes thiry pages to get to his life story and crams all of these details onto one page? It strains credulity that this source is being used appropriately. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could squint your eyes and look a little closer. The book is used to reference a wopping total of 3 statements; theres one on page 25, one minor note from page 31 and 31 again which gives elaborate detail to the funeral. It's not used to source his family history or his early life; Remey himself mentioned those on page 2 of his proclamation Which is where ref 5 points to. He's used for note 17 which mentions page 25, and then the details of his funeral are given from Pepe himself on page 31. The first paragraph of page 31 makes reference to him first hearing of the Baha'i faith while in archetecture school in Paris at Ecole de Beaux Arts, so I used that to reference that one sentence in "Early life". See? The book's barely touches on his early life, but focuses on the details of his adult Baha'i life. It's not a biography or I would have been able to put it to greater use here. _Disarray^General 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing the proclamation confirms is that he was Epicopalian. So none of his early life has a source. Bad form to elminate a fact tag when your source doesn't address them all. It's still odd that his education and death are treated on the same page in Spataro. If this is true, it must be a strange book. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

His education isn't really "treated" per se. In summarizing the last days of his Baha' life, details from the 1st days are given, as he first heard of it while in school in Paris, that's all. _Disarray^General 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing problems

Sourcing problems are going to be an ongoing problem in this obscure subject. Several sections have had absent or inappropriate references. It's overdue time to clean these up.

I struck the "Rex King" reference as it is WP:SELFPUB used in an article not about itself. ist verboten. Unfortunately that's the only reference in the section leaving it "unreferenced".

All of the unreferenced sections covering subsequent claimants should be blended into one — but finding a source that even names these that isn't selfpublised will be difficult. In fact this article itself showed up as the first hit for "Shogomonian". The most succinct discussion of these, especially the bizarre appointments of Marangella and Harve, is the House's letter - but that's also out-of-bounds as SELFPUB.

Warburg talks about some, but not all of these. I'll tighten the article up to conform.

The Pepe Remey section should be struck. He was not a claimant. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph about the formation of his NSA is entirely germane and credibly sourced, and yet you haven't provided a reason for it's excision or even mentioned it here. Was this was an error in these overly zealous deletions? It now implies that nothing happened following his proclamation except that two other groups formed. As this article has been culled to a skeleton as it is, it really calls to question the good faith of anyone seeking to further excise credible information when so little of the full story is being portrayed. I object to the extent of these edits as it has removed reliably sourced information. You have to admit, though, that it's rather amusing that the sources which grant inclusion for this information is coming from transcripts of a lawsuit your own NSA maliciously ensnared us all in, and then LOST. LOL. _Disarray^General 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You accuse of failing to assume good faith and then launch a specious attack? My, we haven't grown up yet have we? Will check the court case to see if it actually says what you're using if for. MARussellPESE (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry. Your "source" is a court filing, not a court opinion. So, it's probably the worst example of WP:SELFPUB as there's no third-party editing at all. And I finally get this subterfuge:

• Make specious allegations in a court filing.
• Scan the filing and post it on your website.
• Refer to the filing as if it were independently corroborated.
• Presto-chango: specious allegations become independently corroborated facts.

Clever. It probably works for the credulous. Sorry, I'm better informed.

The court filing is out as not WP:V, not WP:RS, and effectively WP:SELFPUB. MARussellPESE (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently your understanding of being civil comes with a double-standard clause where you can name call? I was pointing out that without mentioning it you removed an entire paragraph that had a source which was provided by Cunado and never questioned in the past. Removing it effectively removed any pertinent information about what he did with himself and his followers beyond his proclamation. It was the only thing left after your last round of hatcheting this article, and you excised it and yet failed to provide any mention or explanation. If you now all of a sudden have decided to take issue with these types of sources, then why don't you ask your pal to stop providing them. I had NOTHING to do with EVER bringing forward any court documents as sources, so I'll thank you to tone down the accusations of "subterfuge". What an entirely preposterous notion; none of these court documents are hosted on our sites, and I never claimed they were "independently corroborated". What are you even ranting about? It was YOUR NSA that brought the court case forward that has been used as a references here and elsewhere, and then in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE it was Cunado who referenced back to it, but yet you're attacking me and making outlandish allegations about me using it inappropriately. And I'm the only one being jerk, huh? _Disarray^General 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've generally left this article alone. Your WP:OWN here was quite plain.

I explained my edits, cited policy, and got my good faith questioned and took a cheap shot for my trouble. Yeah, you were a jerk. It's another word for incivil. MARussellPESE (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Now the martyr? If what you say were true this discussion wouldn't have taken the turns it has. You NEVER explained or even mentioned why you removed the paragraph about the formation of the NSAUHG. You explained about the claimants, but failed to mention why a sourced paragraph was included. Now I understand your positions, but you didn't state it at the outset, so please spare us all this victim routine. Yes you had "generally left this article alone", until earlier this summer when you and your crew waged a 30 day edit war which effectively had reduced this biography to rubble. Now you're apparently still not done gutting it's content. The only actual victim of these circumstances around here is this article, and it has you to thank for destroying it. _Disarray^General 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's current state is a vast improvement over the POV-pushing state it was in before. Horribly sourced. None of them tertiary sources. Worse references. Sorry if that trips across your WP:TEND. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

These objections about the NSA's Chicago case are entirely inane, and removing content from this article based on this faulty reasoning is out of order. Since these circumstances are not clearly defined by the WP:V policy, and instances of court documents are not clearly established on what is and isn't acceptable, we find ourselves again at the mercy of your interpretations. You have launched this assault on this and other pages removing content based on this charade about the court docs being a primary source, when in fact it clearly states at the outset of that document that the items found in BOLD text are not objected to by any parties in the case, and so are therefore considered undisputed facts as they are uncontested. To wit, it states just before point #1: "Facts set forth in bold-face type are agreed by all parties." They are facts laid out in both sides recounting of events. Furthermore the details lifted from the Findings of Facts document that are being used here are simply series of events, and not statements about beliefs or hearsay. Please examine the document and see for yourself that the points in BOLD are uncontested FACTS. So this assault against its use here is entirely inane, and absolutely afoul of logic and reason. I am therefore restoring this entirely appropriate verifiable source. _Disarray^General 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of telling you to read WP:V. Sources have to be published by reliable third parties. Court filings aren't. Period. Full stop. MARussellPESE (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You know the process here. One editor makes an argument. Others who disagree make counter arguments. I've made mine, and am still waiting for you to stop name-calling, presuming bad faith, and actually make an argument based on policy.

This is easy. I've asserted that court filings are not WP:V because they aren't published by reliable third parties. They aren't WP:RS because, by definition, these are biased by the POV of their respective authors. Please disprove both points and stop the WP:TEND. MARussellPESE (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You're accusing me of having an axe to grind here for trying to keep undisputed facts about the group that followed Mason from being censured from this page? That's really the position you want to take when you've spent the better part of '08 blotting out as many details from this article as you could get away with? Now you're blotting out something as simple as the details of the formation of his council from his bio, and I've got the axe to grind for trying to defend this material? You're a real piece of work.

Clearly this material is fit for inclusion and meets ever requirement for "questionable sources as sources on themselves". The policy page makes mention of things as obscure as blogs, vcast, and even patent applications as questionable sources which can be used in articles about themself, so clearly there's room in what can be defined as a "questionable source" for something like these filed court documents in Federal Court that can be accessed through the web. What you're attempting to censure here isn't disputed by your own NSA's account of events, and there's no sound reason to object to these details being included in this article. It's frivolous, as is this grandstanding about WP:V and WP:RS when you know darned well exceptions are made for these types of sources. _Disarray^General 07:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Facts need sources — even "undisputed" ones it's in WP:V. We even need to source that the earth is round and over 4 billion years old. It's what makes a good article.

These '66 and '07 court cases don't involve Remey directly, so I don't think they get over that bar as they're not "about the subject". (Nice to see that you're reading policy though.) The '08 case wouldn't fly in the BUPC article either, as it doesn't involve the BUPC. If you can point to any decisions' findings of fact on point, then I have no problem with that reference going in here. In fact, what objection could I raise then? It's only the out I've had on the table from the beginning.

However, you might have a point in that the current unrelated BUPC cases in MT may actually fit into the BUPC, Jensen, and Chase articles. Pity, I was about to clean up the Chase article's references to his suing his estranged wife. I thought it a bit gratuitous in a BLP, but if you insist … MARussellPESE (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Questionable Sources

Relatively small amounts of published sources exist on Remey. Much of what has been published has been from the presses of those he opposed during his life. This biography was written some years ago by one of his followers who provides an "about the author" at the bottom of the article. He has referenced the article wherever possible, although he has relied heavily on first hand knowledge. I have contended that although it's clearly a self-published work, that the entire site is dedicated to Remey, and much of the information in this bio meets all the exceptions for "questionable sources". The arguments against any such use of the biography are outlined above. I'll concede that what I'd argued at that time was for information that can be considered "unduly self-serving", but in the process of excise that material, the use of this biography became nullified and completely objected to for details as dubious as what his parents names were. I contend that this bio hosted at charlesmasonremey.net should be allowed use as a source about itself. _Disarray^General 18:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT At this page I found a sentence that said, "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." What I think that means is that we should not get too caught up in what any particular policy does or does not sanction, we should think about how to improve the encyclopedia. Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is, but perhaps wise to accede that they are going to be if not "self serving" exactly then not overly critical. As the article does not rely solely on this material I think it's use can be justified. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, it's noted in the summary that it's self-published, so by definition not reliable. The question posed was that automatically disqualify using material like this, or do the exceptions granted in WP:QS allow for this type of material? _Disarray^General 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - site was unavailable when I went to review it. If there are limited, quality references editors need to be more circumspect in how references are used. If necessary qualify the source so that readers understand and can made their own judgment regarding reliability. --^StormRider 01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)