Talk:Mason Remey/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Spataro's book as a source

This review in a peer-reviewed journal basically impeaches the source as one-sided and bordering on adoration. Given that the comments here don't seem to support a self-serving source, then it appears that it should come out. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? It "impeaches the source" by stating "it borders on adoration", and that it's one-sided? By this reasoning "Ministry of the Custodians" is out to. If one reads beyond the first sentence, that's hardly the conclusion the review continues, or closes on. In fact, I found it quite complimentary of the work, extolling it as "an interesting window into one side of a controversy". There's nothing in WP:V or WP:RS that states a work can't be one-sided, is there? The policy is that content needs to be "verifiable, not true". _Disarray^General 04:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeff3000, it would be just divine if you could be bothered to contribute as much to these discussions as you do to edit warring. _Disarray^General 04:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION MARussell, you said "Given that the comments here don't seem to support a self-serving source..". Could you explain how you reached this conclusion? Three folks have offered comment to the RFC above, and two said exactly the opposite: "If there are limited, quality references editors need to be more circumspect in how references are used". I put in a RFC, and two out of three concur that not only sources like Spataro, but even your much objected to Brett Mathieu's biography, are entirely appropriate here, as there is no dearth of WP:RS to drawn upon. The one dissenting voice only offered that self-published sources are unreliable, which was acknowledged and duly noted in my summary. Given the lack of insight into the reasoning it begs the question how deeply the matter was probed before offering the objection. The other two who did offer thoughtful explanations stated exactly the opposite of what you're claiming they concluded. Have you had a chance to read them in there entirety, and if so why are you misrepresenting their sentiments here? _Disarray^General 09:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

MARussell, I asked you to elaborated upon your determinations that the review "impeaches" the source, but instead you stubbornly removed the data from the article. Not only does it clearly not, but would you please quote the policy that that says books can't be "one-sided". Let's look as some highlights from this "impeaching review":

1. Spataro’s account of Remey’s life borders on adoration.
2. For three years he researched the life of Remey
3. He gives an economical but clear history of the Faith up to the time of his writing, 1987.
4. Despite the book's many deficiencies [i.e. details of early life], it sheds a bit of light on the complaints of some Bahá'ís.
5. It is an interesting window into one side of a controversy in a very large new religious movement

What an absolutely pleasant review. Where's the "impeaching" part? _Disarray^General 20:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't cite WP:Self in its excision. I noted the support ranging from tepid, other than you, to strong disapproval from the editors opinions you solicited. They based it on WP:RS. Take a look at it: "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." Spataro is a high-school teacher. Biography is hardly his field and he has no standing.

Observing that the book "borders on adoration" in the opening sentence is a withering criticism in an academic review. The review overall is condescending in its tone even if it grants its few merits over "the book's many deficiencies". You've cherry-picked the best that is said, and omit things like: "Precious few details of Remey’s early life are given. The book feels like it is a mercilessly cut-down version of a longer work, skipping sometimes in mid sentence from one thought to another."

Oh, and Ministry passes muster as WP:RS because its author, Ruhiyyih Khanum, is a recognized source on the period. She is used as bibliographic refereces [1] [2] [3] [4]. Outside of your using it here, Spataro is not. This lies directly on the WP:RS point: "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes."

I'm also tediously careful to not use Ministry for anything other than a source for a document or letter that doesn't appear anywhere else. I'm not relying on the synthesis of a participant, much less a high-school teacher moonlighting as an historian/biographer. I'm relying on the extant letters reproduced by one of the correspondents. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Before you hit your third revert, Jeff, look at the comments you solicited. Of the three who posted two commented, one positively, one negatively, and the only vote was to Delete it. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And, come on, do you think I'm blind? Spataro's book is published by his own Remey Society. Of course its self-published. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. So apparently you still haven't bothered to actually read the comments? There's one clear Objection, and two recommending solutions which involve giving these self-published works a place in the article. That's 3 for and 1 against; your vote would still only make it 3 to 2. But what are yours and Yellowmonkey's objections based upon: WP:RS. I didn't solicit comment to breach realiability issues, but rather to ask the wider community for opinions about using self-published and questionable sources in this article. There are guidelines governing their usage, which you continue to willfully ignore by redirecting the conversation away from that question back to WP:RS policy. And now you're talking in complete circles and out of both sides of your mouth. Are you objecting to Spataro because this review allegedly impeaches the book's credibility, or because you're objecting to it being self-published? The book is available on Amazon, for jiminy-crickets. It's notable enough to have been reviewed in that journal, to wit the overall conclusion was "It is an interesting window into one side of a controversy in a very large new religious movement". Creatively spinning this review into an impeachment is patently absurd, and warrants zero consideration. Neither does objecting to it by crying "self-published" for even then it's 100% protected by WP:SELF and/or WP:QS as it's solely devoted to the topic of this article; all of which are something which the contributors to my RFC concur with. To wit: "Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is." _Disarray^General 02:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to keep this in perspective, the sum total of the book's usage here is to express the general sentiment of all Remey's followers being they feel "the Hands set aside the Guardianship". I know, a scathing criticism, right? And the only other thing it's used for is details gleanned from first hand accounts of his son Pepe for his funeral. Noone's asking for "unduly self-serving" usage of this book's content. Removing this content can't possibly be construed as "improving the article", whereas it's providing a service to it by offering the articles sole criticism of Remey's stated enemies (for otherwise there are none), and details of his funeral. Let's try and keep this in perspective, shall we? _Disarray^General 02:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

perhaps each reference should be discussed separately?

All those that accept Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the Universal House of Justice established in 1963. Spataro, a follower of Remey's, later wrote that he believed the Institution of the Guardianship was set aside by the Hands of the Cause, and abrogated by the Universal House of Justice.[23]

This is a quote from the book in question. Stating what some of his supports believed on that issue, by referencing someone his supports consider a notable writer of him, I believe is relevant to the article. Dream Focus (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, the text is not a WP:RS.

1. As a high-school teacher moonlighting as an historian, he has no standing.
2. He’s clearly biased by his own admission as well as the review.
3. Tover Publications is a name plate for the Remey Society, ergo it’s self-published. There is no way to evaluate the editorial review capacity of this "publisher" at all.
4. Neither the book nor the author are cited anywhere else. – This point is a lynchpin for a RS and by itself fatal.

In fact, I can’t find anything else from this "publisher". Self-published works can be used, but only in articles about themselves. This is not an article about the Remey Society. Nor was Charles Mason Remey a member of the society as it post-dates his demise. The WP:SELF back-door is closed here.

The onus is on Disarray to demonstrate that this book is acceptable. Provide any reliable sources that cite either the book or its author, and the objection drops. Till then, it stands. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're going to dictated the terms here? Impartial parties have weighed in on this with comments like: "Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is", and "If there are limited, quality references editors need to be more circumspect in how references are used.". As I previously noted, which you wholly ignored, obviously this book was notable enough to be reviewed by academia as a scholarly work. As far as you "closing the backdoor" on WP:SELF, the Remey society was formed after his death (he became a believer in 1976), so it's patently absurd to argue that since he wasn't a member their works on him aren't covered under WP:QS. This book is is a bio about Remey, and you want to argue it's not a source about itself? Respectfully, your opinion on this matter has been impeached by the comments both my RFC and your AN/I have brought forward. Going round and round this on this will only frustrate us both, so save yourself the aggravation; you're being completely unreasonable and your logic has been found wanting. _Disarray^General 06:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The book is self published by Spataro. It has the virtue of verifiability, but not reliability, and not self-pub of Mason Remey. If I write a book about Mason Remey, does it count for self-pub on the Mason Remey article? Of course not. If the book was used to source anything about Remey it would not qualify. However, it's only use here is to reference Spataro's feelings on the events following Shoghi Effendi's passing, which to me seems to jive with the attributes of the source. Much beyond that and it would not qualify. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've actually been referring to WP:QS all along, but whichever. I guess I have a completely different understanding of what selfpub means by stating they can only be used as a source about themselves. I do in fact think that any self published work about Remey, either for or against, could be used here. Why not? Here's where they should be, as they are presumably about the subject (Remey), being used as references about itself. This means, to me, let's bring them all forward and hear from all sides. Bring forward the UHJ paper, "Mason Remey and those who followed him", the Brent Mathieu bio, Spataro's book, etc. There are specific exceptions as to what's acceptable to use from these sources, i.e. that they can't be "unduly self-serving", "provide for the subject's notability", etc. The policy also states "Any contentious claims the source has made about third parties should not be repeated in Wikipedia, unless those claims have also been discussed by a reliable source.". So short of anything violating these exceptions, why has MARussell's narrow limiting and wholly rejected view of WP:SELFPUB been the final say on how it's to be used here? Esp. when the RFC has brought forward objections to his opinion of how it's defined?_Disarray^General 06:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the "Early life" stuff can be ref'd by Smith's Baha'i Encyclopedia, and we agree that the opinion about the Hands warrants inclusion, so it seems that the last matter is Pepe's account of the funeral. Is this seriously an issue that needs discussing? Someone please explain how keeping this sole account of the funeral out of the article is improving it somehow when it's nothing but straight-forward details? _Disarray^General 07:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Assorted responses to request for comment: first of all, after perusing the Wikipedia policies that might apply here, I think that WP:SELF is the wrong one to look at, and WP:SPS is the one that applies. Under SPS it should be permissible to use the book, provided that the reader is alerted to the fact that the information comes from one of Remey's devotees. It would be likewise appropriate to feature information from the review, but also taken with a grain of salt. MARussellPESE says the review was published in a "peer reviewed journal," which does not appear to be the case. It is on the website of the controversial "International Cultic Studies Association," apparently an outgrowth of the American Family Foundation. These cult/anti-cult battles can be very nasty, and neither side is entirely reputable. So I would suggest including both sides of the story, but being careful not to present controversial opinions as fact. Botox for bunnies (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Struck through posting by sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AGREE I took the suggestions of Botox for Bunnies and Dream Focus and restored the nefarious funeral details with the disclaimer that the details were from a self-published biography. Thanks for the input. _Disarray^General 09:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good catch, Botox. That was the only reference I could find on the book. I was trying to give ICAS the benefit of the doubt. Without a reputable review, that reduces the book's value to nil. I wasn't using WP:Self. I was using WP:Selfpub among others. I agree that WP:SPS is a the policy that applies. And it's pretty clear: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Spataro's book clearly fails on this point.

Disarray says: "Someone please explain how keeping this sole account of the funeral out of the article is improving it somehow when it's nothing but straight-forward details?" This has been asked and answered time and again. This book is unreliable. WP:V, WP:QS, WP:RS, & WP:Selfpub all line up against this book.

I'm an exclusionist on principle and see no value in the "present both sides" argument, however well-intentioned. That was lies the Fox News approach. Presenting both sides implies an equivalence of argument. WP:Undue doesn't allow equivalent presentation when it's not there. Remey's followers' perspective is presented. This dubious source is not necessary to do so.

And, Disarray, WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source …" Consider this material challenged. Now please find a source. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

MARussell has selectively presented the part of WP:SELFPUB that suites his argument, while leaving out the key point that warrants this books inclusion: "Questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

As he has presented nothing that the details of the book violates from this list, and as a request for comment asking whether or not to include self published and/or questionable sources (which clearly this one is) has brought forward impartial opinions in favor of using such sources. The RFC also has confirmed that MARussell's narrow strict definition of "sources for information about themselves" doesn't in fact mean, as he contends, that unless Remey wrote it, it can't be construed as a source about itself. This book is exactly what WP:QS is referring to with this statement: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking....are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions", which would also include "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings", and even patent applications. His argument has utterly failed. Based on the input received from both Dream Focus [Stating what some of his supports believed on that issue...I believe is relevant to the article] and Botox for Bunnies ["Under SPS it should be permissible to use the book"], here, and the contributors from the RFC above, the majority concensus is that of course self-published and/or questionable sources about this article's subject are acceptable from the likes of Spataro, provided they do not violate any of the 5 points of WP:QS. If MARussell would like to exclude content provided by the book based on violations of the exceptions, then that should be considered separately. As it stands, repeatedly asserting the same points about this book failing due to WP:SELFPUB when they have already been shot down by a consensus of contributors to this discussion is in direct violation of the spirit of co-operation expected in dispute resolution. The question has indeed been asked and answered, and clearly the answer is "No MARussell, you're wrong". Perhaps if he wishes to keep asserting this rejected reasoning he should pursue his own RFC. _Disarray^General 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, the concensus I'm refering to includes the following statement:

1. Stating what some of his supports believed on that issue, by referencing someone his supports consider a notable writer of him, I believe is relevant to the article. Dream Focus (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Under SPS it should be permissible to use the book, provided that the reader is alerted to the fact that the information comes from one of Remey's devotees. Botox for bunnies (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
5. 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)

That's one objection, and MARussell's makes two. Cunado even contends limited use, and with the four yeys plus mine, MARussell's reasoning has been rejected. _Disarray^General 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

MARussell and Jeff3000, your opinions on what exactly is fair use of a questionable sources has been considered and discussed, and clearly a majority of others disagree with your definition's limiting use. Dismissing this and deciding that "editors cannot go against policy" in edit comments is assuming bad faith, when clearly the discussion has brought forward others (now including myself) who've determined that you're misrepresenting the policy. The definition the two of you have ascribed to it is incorrect. So in fact, no one is going against policy when you consider that 6 (now 7) editors have, as General Disarray put it, said "No, you're wrong". Being dismissive of these opinions and reverting the page is being disruptive, and isn't part of the steps outlined in dispute resolution, is it? Jennifer Michaud (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's go back to what the policy pages state. WP:SELFPUB states that the only exceptions where self-published sources may be used are the following:

1. When it is well-known expert in the field: "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"
2. When the self-published source it about the same person "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"

The book in question does not fit either of the two exceptions, and based on policy cannot be included. Regardless of how many users state that the book should be used, they cannot override policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning may have been rejected, but it hasn't been answered. It's not a matter of majority rules. Nor is it a matter of opinions — ours or yours. It's a matter of couching an argument based on honest reading wikipedia policies. Jeff hasn't done that yet.

And, no, none of those editors have actually said "No, you're wrong." They've presented opinions about how to skate around the policies with: "Present both sides", "Qualify the source", etc. Wikipedia policies do not so allow, much less require.

WP:V requires, repeat: requires, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source …" [Emphasis is Wikipedia's]. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting after the RFC closes

MARussell is apparently confused about which policies are being discussed here, for he keeps referring to WP:V and WP:RS; neither of which have been challenged by anyone. The policy in question, which he has yet to acknowledge or speak to, is WP:QS, and who's interpretation of it is correct. My RFC spoke to this directly: I contended that questionable sources written by Remey's believers should be allowed use as a source about itself, and 7 editors have come forward in support of this definition of WP:QS. Instead of answering to this reasoning instead Jeff3000 (and MARussell) has attempted to assert that WP:QS states "When the self-published source it about the same person", which is not precisely what the policy states at all, but is rather what they wish it said. Moreover, in spite of direct opposition to their revisionist approach to this policy, they are insisting their POV is the absolute final word on this, and are willing to edit war to defend this rejected POV. A book on the life of Remey by one of his believers is of course "a source about itself", and their objections have provided nothing to speak directly to the challenge of their definition brought forward by the RFC. They don't seem willing to acknowledge that their definition has been shown to be at variance with the common understanding of what WP:QS is referring to, despite 7 different editors telling them otherwise. They are both attempting to wrap themselves in the flag of "protecting policy",when no one's attempting to go against policy here. Except of course Jeff3000 and MARussell themselves, for their 2 against 1 revert war is absolutely at odds with dispute resolution. We've been able to demonstrate here that they're utterly wrong in their wholly unique interpretation of WP:QS, as well as their behavior in carrying out resolving disputes, and they're now relying on proof by assertion to march forward without providing just cause. Wording has been enacted into the article to qualify where the details of Remey's funeral come from so there is no confusion that it's a self published account of the event, so unless there are objections based on perceived violations of the exceptions provided in the policy, this content meets policy by all accounts and it's wording will suffice. _Disarray^General 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, if I write my own book about Remey, as long as it is about Remey it can be used as a source in this article. The policy is clear and the "self" in "self-published" source is Spataro himself, so it can be used to reference things about Spataro, but not about Remey or anything controversial or questionable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:QS are those sources that are not self-published, but have a poor record for fact checking. This section of the policy does not apply to this book because it's self-published, and neither of the two exceptions for self-published sources apply. Policy doesn't allow for it's inclusion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And even if you wanted to apply WP:QS, it states "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves,". Clearly the source is not being used about Spataro, and WP:QS points to WP:SPS about when they can be used. The two exceptions in the policy that allow for it's use (which I've pointed to above) do not apply to this book; it is not by a expert in the field, nor is it being used to reference about itself. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

QS and SPS are essentially the same, as QS enlarges what falls under SPS. Clearly Jeff3000 thinks asserting his point repeatedly will change the meaning of the policy in question.This book and CMR.net are both solely devoted to the subject of this article. It's patently absurd to assert that the Remey society's biography of Remey doesn't meet SPS's inclusion of a source about itself, and the RFC has confirmed my understanding of this policy to be the common understanding. Trying to exclude these sources by repeatedly asserting one's own rejected POV is disruptive and afoul of dispute resolution. Unless this content is "unduly self serving", etc waging an edit war to remove it will only serve to ultimately lead to the warrior's demise. _Disarray^General 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

While WP:QS and WP:SPS are similar, they are not exactly the same. WP:QS is for non-self-published sources that do not have reliable fact checking, and WP:SPS is for self-published sources. What is the same however, are the exceptions for their inclusion. The exception available for using the sources in articles about themselves does not mean in regards to their subject, but to their author. For example anyone could write a book about the holocaust, but that doesn't mean that that book can be used in the Holocaust article, but that that book could be used in an article about the author, pointing to their views of the holocaust. Similarly in this case, the only place were the book could be used as a reference is in an article about Spatoro. The policy is clear. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point in regards to the "unduly self-serving" issue that you brought up. That part of the policy is used to decide if a self-published source could be used about itself. So even if there was an article about Spatoro, a self-published source by Spatoro could not be used in that article if it was "unduly self-serving". Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeff300 is apparently convinced that repeatedly asserting his this rejected POV about how to interpret SPS's will eventually validate the point. It's been asked and answered by the RFC. Nothing unduly self serving, or violating undue and/or NPOV are in question here, so the analogies are irrelevant to this discussion. Repeating this rejected POV over and over is flawed reasoning, and fails in light of the disagreeing concensus. _Disarray^General 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, constantly stating that something is within policy doesn't make it so. And the RFC doesn't prove anything. A majority of users cannot override policy. And the policies of WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV are not in question, and I haven't been using them for analogies, so bringing them up doesn't change anything, and is dishonest. I've been quoting policy, not interpreting it. You on the other hand are going around the policy. Let's go over policy again, and I'll quote it extensively. From WP:V:

• Point a) "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Spataro is not an established expert on the topic and his work has not been published by other publications.

• Point b) "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ..." (emphasis existing in WP:V. (Note this does not say anything about WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE)

Very clear statement that sources can only be used about themselves, not about the topic of the source. Thus Spataro's book can be used about Spataro or the Remey Society, but not about anything else

• Point c) "...So long as 1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Note that this is an AND statement. All of the above has to be true, AND Point b has to be true. Even if the 5 points are true and Point b is false, the whole statement is false, and the source cannot be used.

So since the Spatoro book does not pass A OR (B AND C) it can't be included. That's policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Here again we find creative use of selectively choosing which parts of the policy to hilight for arguments sake, in a bold attempt to impose will over content. Jeff3000 has cherry picked wording to force his rejected POV onto this article. The policy being quoted actually has much more general wording, to wit: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves,". The caveat at the end "especially in articles about themselves" was creatively left out of Jeff's argument for obvious reasons, as obviously the administrators and policy makers leave room in the policy for exactly the reasons being addressed by my RFC. Noone's trying to get around policy here except of course Jeff3000 and MARussell who are perfectly content to edit war to push their rejected POV, and censure content that they both know to be true, and wholly reliable information, yet will gladly make a federal case out of censuring. I have pursued the recommendations for dispute resolution, gotten the answer from the community, and was confirmed by this that in fact of course these sources are information about themselves, and wholly reject Jeff and Mike's definition. The examples of analogy Jeff used was irrelevent for the fact that the example involved pushing undue and NPOV, but he's apparently inclined to argue over rhetoric and detract from the actual discussion, which I will not indulge. My POV on this is shared by users like Blueboar who pointed out here on the discussion page on WP:V that "My point is that there are going to be situations where discussing what a questionable source has to say will be both appropriate and beneficial to the article. To say you can only do so in an article about the source or its author is overkill." My view has been supported both here in the RFC, and there on the discussion page of the policy, and yet Jeff nor Mike cannot point to one diff that supports their's. Proof by assertion is a fallacy of logic, and won't be affective here in resolving the hurdle they're faced with to censure this content. The wording of this policy is clear (and my interpretation is supported by it's makers) that when one looks at the WHOLE of the exceptions and not just cherry pick what suites the needs of the POV, clearly the policy leaves room for SPS to be used both in articles directly about the author himself, or the topic he's addressing: i.e. the Remey Society's biography on Remey is obviously fit for inclusion here, and continued edit warring about this will be reported accordingly. _Disarray^General 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand, but let's go back to the wording you stated I left out. "especially in articles about themselves." That actually reinforces my point. The full quote is "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". I actually used the weaker restriction, and the point I left out makes my argument even stronger. An article is exclusive to a subject. This article is not about Spataro or the Remey Society. GeneralDisarray can you state that this article is about the Remey Society? No! Can you say this article is about Spataro? No! My example is on my point. Anyone can publish a source about a subject, but it can only be used as a source not in the topic of the subject, but as a source about the person's views in an article about that person. And once again this is not interpreation of policy, but exactly policy as it's straight from the policy page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to reinforce why the policy is what it is. Would you allow this page to be used as a source about Mason Remey? Of course not, it's self-published. But it's in exactly the same ballpark as http://charlesmasonremey.net/ and Spatoro, a self-published source whose subject is Mason Remey, but whose author is not Mason Remey. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Jeff3000's rejected POV, parading a host of irrelevant examples and analogies forward won't help him over the hurdle before him. Nothing unduly self serving, undue, or NPOV is being examined here; when there is perhaps he'll want to resurrect these inane examples. Not speaking to the point which editors on the policy's discussion page have stated about this, and being dismissive about the one's who've contributed here speaks volumes to his willingness to willfully ignore the reality of the generally accepted interpretation of this policy. Jeff's pushing the notion that his interpretation of the policy is *the* way it's generally understood, and I've provided diffs from this and other discussions that illustrate the general understanding is aligned with mine. It's not that no one understands his POV, but that it's been examined, considered, and rejected. Explaining it over and over 8 different ways is not necessary. Perhaps considering what contributors to the policy's discussion have said about interpreting it will help elevate the confusion Jeff's suffering from:. Here's some from WP:V's talk page on this very matter:

• "My point is that there are going to be situations where discussing what a questionable source has to say will be both appropriate and beneficial to the article. To say you can only do so in an article about the source or its author is overkill.". Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• The section on questionable sources still said "in articles about themselves" only, so I've changed it to be consistent with the main section. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• If necessary a discussion of the usage on the article's talk page should be enough to justify the usage at reviews. Spelling this out at WP:V is pure instruction creep LeadSongDog (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what's surrounding the discussion on it's policy page, and shows in high relief that NO ONE accepts Jeff and Mike's interpretation of this policy, and they can't demonstrate supporting diffs, so wrapping themselves in the "policy protector" flag is hypocritical and should cease immediately. _Disarray^General 06:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

GeneralDisarray, this has nothing to do with POV, NPOV and so forth and the examples are spot on. Can you through logic disprove my logic rahter than just stating their wrong. Proof by assertion doesn't mean anything. The subsection on WP:SELF in WP:V doesn't say anything on WP:NPOV which is a separate policy. If you want to get you on your side you have to show me through logic how the inclusion of a self-published source can be included. charlesmasonremey.net and the Spataro book are self-published sources about Remey that were published on the web and by a self-publisher after Remey's death. They are not by the subject. Your statements for their inclusion would mean that any self-published source about Remey would be allowed including charlesmasonremey.com. Is that what you are proposing? You are going so far off policy that anything about Mason Remey can be included? Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing regarding the discusion at WP:V. I want to make it clear to you what "as sources of information about themselves" and "in articles about themselves" means and how they are different. "In articles about themselves" is pretty clear, and it means in articles about the author/book; both charlesmasonremey.net and Spataro fail here as this article is neither about Spataro or the book istelf. "As sources of information about themselves" means about the author or book in another article. So for example as the discussion at WP:V noted, if there was another article which spoke about Mein Keimf or Hitler, then Mein Keimf could be used in thar article. This article does not speak about Spataro nor his book. Put in another way there is no discussion in this article about Spataro or charlesmasonremey.com.

So instead of prancing around stating that the talk page discussion proves your point, I think you should go back and read that talk page. It clearly doesn't prove your porint. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

More revert warring after the RFC

For some unknown reason, Jeff3000000 doesn't seem to understand how his examples don't apply as they would be pushing undue and violated NPOV and every exception for selfpub, so his examples are irrelevent. Neither are we discussing WP:SELF, but WP:SPS, so this is really a challenge as we are still not even talking about the same policies. Jeff has failed to provide support for his interpretation, and is attempting to dismiss mine because he has failed to understand how what was discussed in that talk applies here as well. The apparent confusion lies in the fact they used Hitler as an example, but that was but one point in the whole talk, and not the only point made. The caveat "especially in articles about themselves" is explained plainly in this dismissed discussion "The section on questionable sources still said "in articles about themselves" only, so I've changed it to be consistent with the main section. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)", and so is how policy making admins feel about use of selpub'd sources when they're written by someone other than the article's topcic: "My point is that there are going to be situations where discussing what a questionable source has to say will be both appropriate and beneficial to the article. To say you can only do so in an article about the source or its author is overkill.". Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC). But both of these germane points seem to have either eluded Jeff's awareness, or he's willfully ignoring the fact that he's alone in his interpretation of this policy. Either way, the RFC here, and the discussion there both support the use of cmr.net and Spataro. Jeff might take his own advice about when and where to be prancing about, and either clear the hurdle before him, or give up the charade. _Disarray^General 20:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry GeneralDissary that you don't understand once again, but the examples are the reason why the WP:SPS exists. People can't just write something and it becomes admissible in Wikipedia. You state that I have failed to provide support, but I have done so many many times. For a self-published source to be included it has to be by a expert in the field, or be about the subject. And the section in WP:V about topics "As sources of information about themselves" doesn't apply here because we're not discussing Spataro's book or cmr.net. Secondaly, these sources don't meet WP:QS because those are not-self-published sources that are not reliable. Finally, you reverted all of the extra edits that removed primary sources and used better secondary sources. Once again asserting something has been answered does not make it so. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

perhaps jeff could provide the policy that asks to post as many refs as possible onto the end of every sentence. he may feel it improves the article to have 2,3,&4 refs at the end of every sentence, but as one more than suffices, the ocd of adding every ref one can find isn't prudent or appealing. _Disarray^General 08:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The irrelevancy of these examples Jeff keeps concocting stems from the fact that nothing that violates the 5 points of WP:SPS could be used for content in the first place, which is why those 5 points exist. In stead of apologies, repetitions, and more proof by assertion, what Jeff3000 should be pursuing is dispute resolution, as I have done. My RFC rejected Jeff's interpretation of the policy, as have the quoted diffs from administrators who wrote the policy. If the outcome of my RFC (which Jeff didn't participate in) as well as direct quotes from administrators on the matter haven't provided enough support to my position to satisfy Jeff's concerns, then he should consider the appropriate course of action, which by no accounts involves edit and revert warring. I'm confident that Jeff repeating his flawed and rejected interpretations over and over hasn't brought him any closer to resolution on this. I can understand his frustration, for my RFC was born out of a similar frustration over disagreeing with his interpretations which he was forcing compliance to, as we find him still doing. So I pursued the prescribed course, the RFC, and low and behold it turns out my intended use of these sources were supported and upheld, and his opposition should have ceased. Daily barrages of repetitive assertions that have already been explained, considered, and rejected are not advancing his position an iota. He knows better than to be involved with revert warring, as clearly that is not how these situation ever resolve themselves. _Disarray^General 04:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeff300 why do you keep avoiding commenting on what the administrators say about this policy. Seems to me like you're avoiding the parts General brings up that shoot you down, and keep repeating yourself as if with repetition will come compliance. I'd like you to speak directly to the point you keep avoiding about what the administrator responsible for the policy said about it. Specifically "My point is that there are going to be situations where discussing what a questionable source has to say will be both appropriate and beneficial to the article. To say you can only do so in an article about the source or its author is overkill."

You seem to me to be nit picking this to death, and are acting like you can exclude these things on a technicality. You're working against the current on this one. Please acknowledge even one of the valid points General has brought up. Nit-picking about whether it's sps or qs aren't points that will get your ideas to win over anyone. The way I read both qs and sps is that qs goes further than just sps which only allow books, and qs expands this to blogs, wikis, etc. They're all basically self published, and your quibbling over minor details is silly. You haven't addressed the main issue that administrator's comments shoot down your arguement, as does the com mentors who posted here. Speak to these main issues please, and stop the quibbling over these side issues. Jennifer Michaud (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm not avoiding comment on it at all, and have done some many times. Regarding the comment on WP:QS, questionable sources are those that are published by non-self-published publishers which don't have a record of reliable fact checking. Spataro and CMR.net are not published by other sources, and are WP:SPS. And I'm not nit-picking, I'm abiding by the spirit of the policy. Wikipedia includes what is Verifiable, not truth, and it doesn't allow individual contributers to decide what is verifiable or true. It does so based on other publishers decideding to include the material. In Spataro's case, the self-published book just doesn't pass muster. It's not a minor detail as you state, but what Wikipedia is based on because if self-published material was allowed, the standard of Wikipedia's verifiability policy would change. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Disarray's and the commentors have been asked-and-answered. Any valid points would have been acknowledged. You haven't "shot down" a single point. Your arguments are non-sequitur or non-responsive. In answer to the obvious facts that this book is WP:SPS and WP:QS your response is "Well the commentors said to use it." First, not all did. Second, the rest basically said "Qualify it in the text." Unfortunately, that's WP:OR. So, we either don't include this book, or violate two keystone policies.

Spataro's book provides no useful information to invoke the "ignore the rules" clause.

Following policies and reading them honestly is not nit-picking. Jeff3000 and I have aggressively culled poor references on Baha'i subjects all over the encyclopedia. Jeff3000 is personally responsible for upgrading the main page's references almost entirely. I've worked on dozens of articles. Sorry if you don't approve, but WP:SOAP. MARussellPESE (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Insight from WP:V's discussion page

From V's dicussion page; admins comments about use of SPS:

• "My point is that there are going to be situations where discussing what a questionable source has to say will be both appropriate and beneficial to the article. To say you can only do so in an article about the source or its author is overkill.". Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• The section on questionable sources still said "in articles about themselves" only, so I've changed it to be consistent with the main section. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• If necessary a discussion of the usage on the article's talk page should be enough to justify the usage at reviews. Spelling this out at WP:V is pure instruction creep LeadSongDog (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

_Disarray^General 20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also on that page: "So the next question is whether the author's opinion is worth mentioning within the narrow confines of the topic under discussion. That goes to notability. If the author of the self-published source is notable within the context of the topic under discussion, then there is a likelihood that their opinion should be discussed." Neither of the authors of the self-published work are notable in their own-right; neither of their them have had works published anywhere else. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

While Jeff300000 has quoted Blueboar correctly from the discussion on WP:V's talk page, the point clearly eluded him entirely. He's clearly decided this quote from Blueboar supports his POV, but seems to have missed all the other sentences surrounding the one he quoted. Perhaps he should return to the discussion and continue repeatedly badgering the admins there until he receives his specific desired answer he's failed at trying to draw out of them.

Jeff has cleverly ascribed his own interpretation to these comments to suite his needs, but perhaps hasn't read the rest of the discussion. When asked about the comment:"My point is that there are going to be situations where discussing what a questionable source has to say will be both appropriate and beneficial to the article. To say you can only do so in an article about the source or its author is overkill.", Blueboar replied "They do seem to be supported by Slim Virgin's subsequent edit, and no one has yet objected to her edit... so it may be consensus.", so we can deduce that his point is assumingly upheld. His point about whether or not the subject is notable within the context of the article doesn't eliminate everyone who's not published elsewhere. That's not what he said or implied anywhere, and in fact if that is what he meant it contradicts everything else he said on the matter. That conclusion is patently absurd considering the comments that preceded it. The point made was that it's a matter of discretion and to be interpreted case by case. The fact that editors reviewing these works have determined they are fit for inclusion has been repeatedly dismissed by Mike and Jeff, but now we find admins who have dismissed their reasons for doing so in the first place. It is not for them to override what others said about including these works just because it tramples over their WP:TEND. The notion that this policy is cut and dry has been annihilated by these discussions, and to keep pushing this failed POV here is getting ridiculous. Jeff300000 is completely misrepresenting that discussion, and is still under the delusion that it's up to him and Mike what's "in" or "out". No one was ever asking for their permission in the first place.

The RFC has determined that these biographies can and should be included, and the admins support the notion that selfpubs can be included from authors other than the specific person the article is about provided supporting caveats accompany the fact that these are personal self published views, etc. Above Mike said "the rest basically said "Qualify it in the text." Unfortunately, that's WP:OR. So, we either don't include this book, or violate two keystone policies.". I'm sorry to be the one to inform Mr. Russell, but the admins have determined otherwise, and have directly contradicted Mike on this, stating in fact that the exact opposite is the case as quoted from Blueboar above. Mike and Jeff must cease their efforts to force their wills against what every single admin and editor has said about this. These two works pass SPS according to the stated interpretations of policy making admins, and the RFC supports their inclusion here. Therefore all this nonsensical protesting should cease immediately, the revert warring should end, and these references should be left to source the statements they're providing. Neither of them will be allowed to source statements that violate the 5 points of SPS, and therefore Jeff's imaginary concerns about "what if" should also cease, and he should move on to use his creative imagination for other projects. REGARDS _Disarray^General 09:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet again (groan): from WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source …" [Empasis is Wikipedia's]

This material is challenged. The burden is on you to attribute to a reliable, published source. You haven't done anything at all to justify Spataro as a reliable published source. All you've done is cite three other editors who responded to an RFC. That's hardly binding, and their points have been shown to violate both WP:V and WP:OR.

You go off on Cunado accusing him of OR on BUPC pages, yet demand to have your material inserted here? Talk about WP:TEND. MARussellPESE (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And, methinks you are misrepresenting the discussion on V#SPS. Blueboar's not an admin, and nobody else participated in the discussion. And, by the way, Admins are sysops, not policy gurus. That Blueboar disagrees with me when he, himself, identifies his position as representative of his POV means nothing. (Except that we might have an interesting conversation sometime.) If you're going to appeal to authority you need to make sure that what you're invoking is a genuine authority.

This appeal to the RFC's comments are argumentum ad populum — which fails to address the argument still. MARussellPESE (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the discussion at WP:V pointed toward that if self-published sources are to be included they have to be notable in their own right, which is partly what Point A from WP:V notes "be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Mathieu or Spataro both don't meet this definition. If we look at it another way, to see if the sources themselves are notable, we can look at the definition of notability from WP:NOTABLE, which states that notability is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The only real discussion regarding these two sources is the article about the Spataro source that MARussellPESE pointed to which states the book is clearly flawed. The sources don't meet the requirements for addition anyway you look at it; either a strict or loosened reading of policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Distinctly contradictory appointments"?

This line toward the end: "In his later years he made distinctly contradictory appointments for a successor" -- is difficult to understand. It is unclear what is being contradicted. --Botox for bunnies (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck through posting by sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He appointed several different people at the same time. The "distinctly contradictory appointments" is about verbatim from the source, but noting specifically who, what & where would bog down the article and be out of scope. Will try to clarify. MARussellPESE (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Current reverts

The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:

1. The addition of secondary sources to back up the primary source material. From WP:PSTS which is part of the WP:NOR policy, "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." The secondary sources are what need to be there, and the primary sources are only there for convenience.
2. The word "confused" in the sentence "Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor". This is straight from the source.
3. The amount of space for Leland Jensen's belief. He is one of many claimaints; the others including Harvey and Marangella get one sentence; there is no reason why Jensen should get an undue amount of space. The final sentence of the current paragraph about how the smaller groups see the Universal House of Justice applies to all smaller groups and does not need to be repeated for Jensen. Spataro's opinion in this paragraph is not only self-published but is unnotable.
4. The inclusion of Spataro. As noted above the source is self-published and is not published by a reliable expert, nor is the source notable. Doesn't fit within policy
5. The inclusion of the citation template for "A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith". The citiation template for that source is included twice in your version, and it only needs to be there once.
6. Image of Pepe Remey. This again gives prominence to one of the smaller groups over the others, and there is no reason to do so.

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Then only the 2ndary are needed, like I said.
2. Whatever.
3. There aren't many claimant; there were two. Then, there's Leland, who wasn't a claimant, but aparrently was notable enough to recieved volumes more coverage, whereas the two claimaints have all but one sentence written about them in the whole library of Congress. The whopping total of 3 sentences provide are all WP:V and WP:RS. Nothing has been provided here to warrant these exclusions.
4. Wrong. They were challenged, and the RFC noted both Matthieu's and Spataro warrant inclusion. The subsequent discussions have shown that they should have been allowed all along.
5. Wrong. Stone notes he was his adopted son. Inventing reasons to slash and burn content and WP:V is disruptive, and all of these reasons have assumed bad faith. _Disarray^General 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Disarray, you're presuming bad faith here. Consider yourself warned. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, how you say only secondary sources are needed and then keep removing them. And comments like 'whatever' show your general attitude to editing. And your interpration of discussion is funny. Show me what makes your self-published sources notable, based on Wikipedia's defintion of notability. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:47 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While none of this was intended for the sake of Jeff's amusement, clearly his edit warring behavior is all a big game to him. While he hasn't addressed any but one of the points that were courteously responded to for his understanding, he's choosing to continue acting like he owns this page and unilaterally revert without acknowledging the responses. I'm sure he knows better by now that he can be blocked for this behavior, and if he wants to act like this is all a game to amuse himself with, we can see to it that he gets blocked from editing this page indefinitely. He doesn't appear to understand that the Stone references are the only ones that aren't synthesizing ideas, so are thererfore the only ones required. These are secondary sources by definition, and the type that wikipedia prefers. Adding references that don't outright state the conclusions is by all accounts WP:SYN, and should be avoided. He's also removing reliably sourced information about the BUPC because he has decided it's up to him what WP:RS information will and will not be allowed it's place here. This tendency towards ownership of this page, and utter unwillingness to consider other editors valid points and concerns is exactly what will eventually lead to his block. _Disarray^General 18:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! As if Jeff3000 doesn't have better things to do? As if I don't either? As if it's fun to justify ourselves again and again and again? As if presuming bad faith is at all productive? As if this latest is actually on point? As if it's fun get called names? As if this sanctimonious use of the third-person is productive? As if it's fun to get threatened with blocks? (Well, considering the number of blocks the two of of us have taken combined and the number you have, it is a bit funny for you to threaten that.) MARussellPESE (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Stating something does not make it true. I responded to all of the points in my previous points.

1. WP:NOR is clear that secondary sources are to be used, and yet you are arguing for their removal. The article is bettered with them in, and is in line with policy. There is nothing in WP:NOR that states that secondary sources are needed only for synthesis; it states it is a must for synthesis and should be the bread and butter of everything.
2. You removed wording that is right from the source.
3. While Jensen's group received more notoriety than the other two groups, this article is not about what the BUPC received notoriety. The reporting on the failed prophecies is not associated with who claimed to be Remey's sucessor which is what is the point of the subsection. The various groups are all of similar size and need to be dealt with in a similar manner.
4. It's a self-published source, and thus needs to be notable even within the most liberal reading of WP:V. The sources have not received any secondary source coverage to make them notable except one that states that the source is not reliable.
5. I'll add back the Stone portion on Pepe to make it complete.

And all your comments regarding my conduct, if true for me, are far more true for you, as you have reverted at least two and half time more than I have. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Disarray, you are also pushing POV here by unbalancing the BUPC presence. WP:UNDUE comes into play. That applies to both the content and the picture.

Let's check out WP:OWN shall we? You've over 150 edits to this page. That's more than Jeff3000, Cuñado, and me combined. In fact, you have more than a third of all the edits ever made to this article. You should be a bit more circumspect with the accusations of WP:OWN and WP:TEND. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

MARussell's concerns here surely have evolved over time, but while all of them have been answered to and shown incorrect, he continues to protest. Why is that? He challenged the contributions from cmr.net, and in a direct response following dispute resolution a RFC was used to address this challenge. The RFC came back against his opinions, yet he still feels it's his right to challenge this indefinitely as the result wasn't in favor of his opinion. He's sadly mistaken, but persists. Then he sternly declared that "it's not majority rules; policy doesn't allow it". It's been pointed out repeatedly that in fact no one but him and Jeff interpret SPS the way they have demanded it be viewed, and that the discussions on the talk page of the policy itself show that the generally accepted interpretation of SPS is nowhere near to their stated views on it. In fact, I've provided three separated quotes from a related discussion that show exactly the opposite is true, and that my understanding of how to apply SPS fits perfectly into this article. Yet they still feel they can protest, and dismiss these facts for they run against their predetermined understanding in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. MARussell has again and again applied his own self-prescribed use of these policies, and is refusing to attribute any value to the RFC or the definitions illuminated by admins. In fact he's utterly dismissed both, and feels he can challenge these sources indefinitely.

Now Jeff is twisting the spirit and meanings explained in that discussion on WP:V, and insists that unless Spataro and Mathieu's can be shown to be notable to his satisfaction, they're still out in spite of all that's been revealed in these discussions. That's not what Blueboar said, for he was speaking to the statement about unpublished sources being used as a ref about themselves, and not the clause of experts in the field. These protests are ridiculous. MARussell produced a review which he said impeached Spataro's book, but closer examination of the review establishes both the books weaknesses and values. The reviewer said of the book: "It is an interesting window into one side of a controversy in a very large new religious movement", which solidifies the source's value here. The content has been supported by the RFC, and upheld by the discussions here and on WP:V, yet they both Jeff and MARussell remain unyielding and continue edit warring over it with the same excuses that I've repeatedly shown to be in error.

As far as Pepe's picture goes, he was Remey's adopted son, and Stone states as much. First MARussell said there's no evidence for the relationship, and now that it's been provided his protestation jumps to WP:WEIGHT. Protesting to this picture is nonsensical, and has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT. It's a picture of him with his son, but the presumption is that I'm adding it in bad faith to create undue weight? Charming. Likewise a link to the paper from the BUPC on Remey's life and beliefs has as much a right to exist alongside the UHJ paper on him in the External links. If the BUPC paper is going to be repeatedly removed, then they both will be excised. They either both stay or both go, for it's a double standard to defend the UHJ's, and protest the BUPC's. _Disarray^General 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words; Mathieu and Spataro are self-published sources which have no proof that they are notable, and thus don't fit even the most lenient exclusions to the self-published rule in Wikipedia. That's policy. All other points regarding undue weight are very germane as well. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mine either, thank you very much. You never actually provided a source stating that Pepe was adopted, so I was stating what was apparent. His pic is still out of balance to the other Remeyite groups.

As to the RFC: these are not binding and didn't present new arguments. Policy discussions are not solely carried out by admins, nor do admins have access to "secret knowledge" about policies. They can block, ban, delete, and undo. That's about it. And, Disarray, policy discussions are not statements of the policies themselves.

It's been easy to "hold out indefinitely" in the face of this since you haven't actually presented an argument beyond stating ad nauseum "I'm right, you're wrong." That's not an argument. It's argumentative. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1. RFC's are part of dispute resolution; something I alone have attempted to pursue. My position has been firmly and repeatedly established, supported by the RFC & policy discussions (which are now also being dismissed), and the notability of Spataro is acknowledged by the review. Until the editors waging their perpetual objections to providing Pepe's account of his father's funeral into the article provide something other than their wholly rejected interpretation of WP:SPS, then their minority opinion on the matter will continue to be ignored.
2. I did provide a source stating Pepe was his adopted son- Stone & Hyslop both confirm this well-known fact. Mike can't be bothered to follow up on the content being provided so then apparently the relationship doesn't exist? Both Stone and Hyslop note the relationship, not to mention the fact that it's trite to pretend not to know that their relationship was a widely and well known fact. What a ruse. Objections to providing a picture of the subject with his only son should be provided in the form of policy objections; the matters of opinion about weight, being "out of balance", etc, are nonsensical and bordering on absurd. Considering that their relationship has nothing to do with the "other remeyite groups", and that it's been established by two 2ndary sources he was his adopted son then clearly these objections are in vain.
3. The link to the paper from the BUPC on Remey's life and beliefs has as much a right to exist alongside the UHJ paper on him in the External links. If the BUPC paper is going to be repeatedly removed, then they both will be excised. They either both stay or both go, for it's a double standard to defend the UHJ's, and protest the BUPC's. This paper is being removed repeatedly from the external links without even a mention as to why in the edit summary, let alone acknowledging why here. There is no reason a link to a paper on the BUPC's views of this subject can't stand along side of the UHJ's condemnation piece. Maybe they should both go?_Disarray^General 07:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Spataro and Mathieu are both self-published sources that don't meet the verifiability or reliable source policies for inclusion since they are self-published. The most liberal reading of the policy would only allow their inclusion if they are notable in their own right which they are not, since the only secondary source that writes about them states that it is completely biased and unduly self-serving.
2. The point that Pepe is the adopted son is in the article. Having the picture is undue weight compared to the other claimants.
3. As regarding the link, I'm up for removing all the external links.

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The sources meet WP:SPS, which sets aside all these other policy objections. Two editors continually dismissing the RFC, and the interpretations of the admins and other editors of the policy is indicative of an unwillingness to contribute to dispute resolution. Their chief concern is apparently that their predetermined conclusions were found to be in error. Accussing me of being argumentative for wishing to uphold the conclusions of the RFC is a pathetic attempt at dismissing the opinions of 7 contributors to the RFC, not to mention the quotes from the admins responsible for writing the policy in question. Moreover the notability attributed to Spataro by the review, to wit "It is an interesting window into one side of a controversy in a very large new religious movement" puts to rest these petty objections about notability.
2. The picture has nothing to to with the other claimants. These vapid concerns about weight are a vain attempt to redirect the discussion to an imaginary policy violation that doesn't exist. Its a picture of the subject with his son, period. It can be moved if need be, but no policy is being violated to warrant it being removed altogether.
3. All three of these external links are appropriate and germane. What's inappropriate and unacceptable is continually removing the link to the bupc's paper knowing full well doing so is blatant censorship. Not to mention it's repeatedly being removed without cause or explanation in the edit summary, but is tied into other edits as if the excision would hopefully go unnoticed. One time could be considered an honest oversight; after 6 its obviously a premeditated ommission. All three of these links are germane, and they will all remain. _Disarray^General 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Stating that the source meet WP:SPS doesn't make it so. The section states that the only way that a self-published source can be included is if produced by an estabilished expert which Spatoro is not, or whose work has been previously published by by other reliable third-party publications, and Spatoro has not been published by any one else. Spataro has no notability for his work to be allowed under WP:SPS. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof by assertion flies in Disarray's land. So do petulant statements like "They will remain." expect to be obeyed. Unfortunately, we'll just have to hold the line - despite the nausea.

Only, repeat: only, Jensen and the BUPC make anything of Joseph Pepe's relationship to Remey. (I'd lost track of all the Remeyite ersatz "adoptions" and forgot that this one actually happened.) Even Pepe himself distanced himself from Jensen et. al., and made no claim to Baha'i authority, if he even claimed to be Baha'i, so his insertion here unbalances the general Remeyites' discussion in the BUPC's favor, ergo WP:UNDUE. It should come out. Put it in the BUPC pages. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Somehow Mike manages to find subtle ways to insert personal attacks and/or bad faith assumptions into his replies, yet is the first to make a federal case out of any and all he perceives as offensive. Apparently maturity doesn't automatically come with aging. If only he could be bothered to spend that same energy on constructing sound arguments instead of relying solely on discrediting my intent. He accuses me of being argumentative for upholding the views of the majority of contributors to the RFC, while he dismisses the quoted interpretations and opinions of admins interpreting the policy, and wholly dismissing the will of nearly every one who commented on the RFC. Yet I'm the argumentative one? He's projecting his own inner conflict into accusations of me making petulant statements when in reality he stands before us here alone in his interpretation of sps, demanding his rejected interpretation be upheld in spite of all the opposition it has received from the RFC. He can't answer to the quotes provided from the policy discussion, so he dismisses the commentators as irrelevant. We are now informed he intends to persist in refusing his permission for using sources that the RFC deemed useful to the article indefinitely without bothering to participate in dispute resolution.

He's apparently refusing to deign his permission for the use of Pepe's picture as well, declaring it "out", for he has determined that a picture of the subject with his adopted son has no place in this biography for it allegedly provides weight to one of the groups views? We have now officially crossed the boundary into the land of utterly bizarre objections. Even moving the picture away from the section discussing views won't suffice, because "only, Jensen and the BUPC make anything of Joseph Pepe's relationship to Remey." That's Mike own sole opinion, for I'm quite sure most folks consider the relationship with their adopted son 'something' and a notable aspect of their biography. I'd challenge him to provide a sound example of ANY biography that considers a picture of a father and son as objectionable for any reason. Mike's bringing his own WP:OR to the table and attempting to connect the BUPC's views on Pepe to the relevance of the picture in an attempt to withdraw his permission for it's use. There are no comments attempting to be included that reach the conclusions Mike has stated about what Pepe did or didn't participate in, but rather he's attempting to redirect the debate with imaginary concerns. It's merely a picture of Mason with his son, and Mike's approval for it's inclusion isn't required. Provide something other than this imaginary weight violation, or give it a rest. _Disarray^General 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Disarray, you're a scream. You want to be taken seriously, but these "The kettle is black!" statements are hilarious. You start with proof by assertion, continue with argument by repetition, crescendo to issuing imperatives ("These will remain - snort!"), and then accuse the other side of doing the same.

Both Jeff3000 and I have, since this began, couched our arguments entirely on plain readings of the policies. There's nothing arbitrary about that.

Let's see, if you think that Pepe's picture is relevant to his family or personal life, why did you put it in the BUPC section, when there was one? Why do you insist on it being in the "After Shoghi Effendi" section, whose subject is his defection and the subsequent splinterings of his followers? Hmm?

And it's not my "personal opinion" that only your group makes anything of this. It's obvious to anyone with even passing familiarity with the others — because they don't mention him. Your group, however, absolutely has to have him in place, because without him, how can Neal Chase advance a claim on guardianship except by claiming an "adoption" by Pepe?

Since pictures draw attention to the subject matter, adding one that includes Pepe attracts an undue connection between the two. As the BUPC is the only Remeyite group claiming descent via Pepe, that places an undue connection between Remey and the BUPC. A picture that crops out Pepe would avoid this. Since the duo pic is in the public domain, that should be easy. Done. MARussellPESE (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently nobody has ever bothered to tell Mike how totally obnoxious hot-linking to the words in a statement he assumes only someone of his intellectual caliber would already be familiar with actually is. It's a clever ruse for speaking down to others while still maintaining one's own superiority complex, but ultimately exposes one to be a poser. He's actually the first and only editor I've ever witnessed to have the ego to even do it. But then as the owner of so many Wiki articles he does have an image to maintain. His inability to speak to specific challenges here in this discussion hasn't weakened his resolve to edit war over these losing battles. His "plain reading of policies" have been contradicted by quotes from admins responsible for writing these policies, to which his reply has been to dismiss the value of anyones interpretation of SPS which contradicts his own- to which there are many. Great strategy; and yet it's me relying on proof by assertion. Perhaps i wouldn't have to repeat myself if Mike would accept that his position has been challenged and contradicted repeatedly by a number of contributions to this discussion. He alone maintains, through mere will alone, that he is right, and the rest of us who disagree are wrong, and then chastises me for refusing to accept his rejected opinion. Priceless. We have yet to see Mike reply to any of the quote from the policy discussion, but only his dismissal of there value. As well he in one fell swoop dismissed all the contributions to the RFC as meaningless and "non-binding", as he persists with his "the policy doesn't allow it" mantra. The 5 quoted interpretations from the policy discussion weren't enough to convince him otherwise, as so I'm not sure anything will. Likewise he persists with this bizarre objection to Pepe's picture with nothing to defend it other than conjecture, bad faith assumptions, and personal attacks. He insists that in fact noone makes "anything" of the relationship, when in fact two sources have been provided that show otherwise, not to mention that it's patently absurd to even suggest that any father/son relationship is utterly meaningless in a biography, even if in fact no one has made "anything" of it. How utterly absurd. I've stated that the picture can go where ever would please the court; the location of After SE was appropriate for the obvious reasons that the adoption took place in the time frame covered in that section. These transparent attempts to cast these aspersions that Mason died alone and dejected are in vain. These alleged weight concerns are imaginary, and nothing has been presented to show that this picture violates any policies. It's time to give up the charade. _Disarray^General 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not allowed. How many times do we have to point you the policy page. The exceptions don't apply to the sources you are pushing (published by the subject of the article, or expert in the field). The discussion at the verifiability talk page only stated that a further liberal reading allowed the source if the source or the author of the self-published source was notable, and that also does not apply; Spataro and Mathieu and/or their books are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeff's hot-linking skills haven't yet reached the sophistication of his mentor Mike, for he's linking to the notability of an article when referring to author's notability. It take an intellectual giant to use hot-links appropriately, but he's showing promise. He also obviously considers himself clever in contributing to edit warring over a picture being discussed here while not bothering to speak to it in the discussion. This is a recurring pattern of Jeff's: to excise material from articles without making mention of it in the edit summary, or in the discussion. How clever. The edited picture of Mason that excised Pepe's existence from it solves nothing, but merely shows in relief the willingness to follow policies when it pleases these two, while willfully evading it when it doesn't. Besides imaginary made-up weight concerns about the father and son photo, the only other matter being presented to consider is that no one has made "anything" of the relationship, as if the absence of the self-evident importance of this manner of relationship deems it unworthy of observing. How utterly preposterous. This photo has no business being edit in the manner proposed, and it's insulting to the subject to even propose it. Short of any actual policy concerns, persistently excising it in an edit war isn't going to resolve anything. There's no reason, aside from the obvious personal coflicts Mike and Jeff have with it, to censure this, so give it a rest. _Disarray^General 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen many editors hot-link to pertinent articles as a short-hand way of incorporating that material into the discussion without the tedium of repeating it. It's a method of streamlining the discussion.

Once again, Pepe's picture is not germane to anyone but the BUPC. It's certainly appropriate to edit the picture to provide a balanced presentation.

Now, do you have anything to say, Disarray? Otherwise would you please refrain from another round of ad hominem personal attacks? MARussellPESE (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mason Remey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120062722/http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm to http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mason Remey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611160534/http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm to http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060329143552/http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ to http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Persian Hands

Jammu58, with this edit you're making all kinds of accusations that are not reflected in the source provided. Clean it up or it's out. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Cuñado , Gazelle55 , Serv181920, In a new sub heading the “Role of Persian hands…” I tried my best to present fairly ::the material as in the source (Johnson’s book, Bahais in Exile) considering viewpoints of Remey and Ugo Giachery but for Cunado coverage ::of point of view other then his groups is invalid. He removed it without giving any valid reason. I would request the editors that they ::themselves read the content of Johnson’s book (page 12) and tell me whether removal by Cunado is justified ? In fact, in the “Daily ::Observation of Mason Remy” it is given with more clarity.Jammu58 (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few specific problems with your contribution,

• You deleted the reference to page 34-35 when you added the ref to page 10-12
• "One of the biggest controversies in Baha’i history" is a quote from Eric Stetson on p. xxxi of Johnson's book. That is a bold statement and Stetson is not a reliable source for that.
• "asked by Shoghi Effendi to always sit on the left side of him during meetings, could not gather support of other hands." this is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the issue of Guardianship or the transition.
• The whole paragraph about the role of Persian Hands is highly contestable and sourced from Mason Remey's memoirs. There is no indication that Johnson believed it to be true, he was just sharing what Remey claimed. Nothing in Remey's claims can be described as true on Wikipedia if it is contestable.
• The whole edition is a very obscure fact in a large story. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The issue gets a page mention in a 240 page book on Baha'i schisms, but it is not mentioned on a biography of Remey by one of his supporters. There is actually much more material from Johnson on Remey's senility than there is on the role of Persian Hands of the Cause.

I think the only role in mentioning it would be a sentence in an expanded section on Remey's views of the transition. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok fine, I take some of your points, will make the corrections and add the matter again. Regarding 'Mason Remey's memoirs', it could be contestable from the Haifa Baha'i angle but it should be acceptable by mentioning that it is sourced from his diary. Regarding your statement that it is 'very obscure' - fine - it could be obscure but the followers of Baha'u'llah are also obscure and the sects following Remey are much obscure (only in thousands). I never said Johnson believed in Persian hands role, I did wrote 'Remy said' and gave support of Ugo Giachery from same Book. For every statement Wikipedia needs a reliable source which i had provided. Remey's statement for article related to Remey are not up to Wikipedia standard and you find only Smith and Momen to be reliable, that's very surprising!!!. I believe it should be retained as a sub-heading.Jammu58 (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Johnson is a neutral academic source and, with a few exceptions, what he wrote in his own voice can be used in the wikipedia voice. Remey is not a neutral source and what he (verifiably) said should be used selectively, in context, and attributing the ideas to him. The weight of ideas on the Wikipedia biography should loosely match the weight of those ideas in reliable published sources. Adding a section dedicated to Remey's views on the Persian Hands is undue weight. A section on the transition from 1957 to 1960 that includes Remey's views and others on many of the issues of the time, could work. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, I think this part has POV issues - "One of the biggest controversies in Baha’i history was that it lost unending chain of infallible guardians when the first guardian died without clearly designating a successor.[31] It is that how a well-known American Baha'i, Mason Remy who was President of IBC and one of the Custodian Hands was asked by Shoghi Effendi to always sit on the left side of him during meetings, could not gather support of other hands." The Second Paragraph can go into the article.Serv181920 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Cuñado ,Gazelle55 ,Serv181920,I have edited and added the following lines After Cunado wrote on the talk page “A section on the transition from 1957 to 1960 that includes Remey's views and others on many of the issues of the time, could work. Cuñado”. Serv181920 wrote “The Second Paragraph can go into the article.Serv181920”. After following their suggestion I added with Remey’s view with Johnson's reference and deleting the first paragraph. Still cunado has removed it.Below is my Edit:

"Remey writes in his Daily observations, In the meeting of the Hands on November 20, 1957, Rehmatullah Muhajir, the Persian Hand, proposed that the Will and Testament of the Master, Abdu'l Baha be pronounced BADA (God changing His plan) and that the Guardianship be ended forever. This was immediately supported by all the Persian Hands who spoke supporting this motion, each repeating practically word by word the same argument.It was suggested by Ugo Giachery that the matter was decided beforehand during night-hours when these Persian hands met at Bahji. Since Ruhiyyih Khanum was with the Persian hands, majority of the hands approved the suggestion."[28][3]Jammu58 (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, I haven't followed the debate but it looks fine to me, I don't see why this shouldn't be included in Remey's own article. Also, I'm not sure what to replace it with, but the section heading "As a Baha'i" seems POV to me – from a secular point of view he was still Baha'i after, just not in the mainstream Baha'i group. Gazelle55 (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)