Talk:Baháʼís Under the Provisions of the Covenant

2009-02-24
this revert has 4 issues.

Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  01:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Apocalyptic disasters vs world-wide catastrophes. It may seem like petty wording differences. They are both used by Balch. Is there an explanation for why you're reverting to one that is less provocative?
 * 2) Location of info on "throne". The sections have a logical flow and it goes at the end. I don't see why this is even a sticking point for you.
 * 3) Adoptions. The bit about Jensen's beliefs about Pepe are noted in Balch's study. The Montana Supreme Court opinion and procedural background in 2005 only mentions that Chase claimed the title of Guardian in a document that summarizes the entire dispute in a neutral manner. This being the only reliable third-party source that post-dates 2001, it does not consider it relevant or appropriate to mention the claim of adoption. The Pluralism reference is a verifiable source of claimed beliefs. To mention that particular claim without mentioning that Pepe had nothing to do with Chase and died 7 years prior to Chase making the claim of adoption absolutely fails WP:NPOV. Despite being verifiable, by leaving out the rest of the story you're leading the reader to a false conclusion. Repeating a controversial claim, that the court findings do not feel even warrants mention in a 2-page procedural background on a case debating Chase's claim to be the Guardian, is unnecessary and distorts the truth. This is clearly described in Neutral point of view "it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias."
 * 4) Guardian. Like I've said several times, this one-paragraph summary of Baha'i divisions is non-disputed and has refs. As far as I can tell, you like your version because it removes the term "shunned" and says "nor did he have a clear appointment" instead of "nor was he appointed", which is just a watered-down version.


 * I'm going with the wording the ref says; Stone says world-wide catastrophes in the ref being pointed to. You worded it the other way; I'm favoring what the ref actually says.
 * Same explanation. You said "okay" above after the 1st time I explained it; what's changed? There are 2 sentences in the subsection of David, so it make no sense to separate it like this when in fact it's one of the "alternative" teachings mentioned in the 1st paragraph of Belief. The other 2 subsections aren't necessarily beliefs at all, whereas this is exactly what the last sentence of the 1st paragraph is referring to. It may be "logical" to you, but as you arranged it this way that's no surprise. Try and consider the fact that there are other ways to view this.
 * This reasoning fails per WP:OR, but more importantly WP:SYN. Your NPOV concerns are entirely incompatible with this example, as all the wording comes from the source's summary of beliefs, so you have no business editorializing this study. It's not that any NPOV concerns can't be addressed. You're not even proposing new wording, or additions to what's there; you keep excising the details altogether and dismissing the reference's reliability. That's what's most reprehensible here. Moreover, the points about Pepe having nothing to do with the council is in fact noted in sIBC. You want it repeated twice? You're not even proposing new wording, or additions to what's there; you keep excising the details altogether. You seem to favor "answering" to every point, and yet when you can't find a published source that does it for you, you're perfectly willing to create the "answering" through synthesizing ideas. We can't per policy, see? Don't accuse me of "misleading the reader" when what you wish the source has said isn't there. The contribution over adoption is essentially stating a belief that we both know is true, but yet you are waging this campaign against well known and established beliefs while waving the banner of "just following policy"? Only as a courtesy have I indulged this with extensive explanations above; refer to them as often as necessary. You have repeatedly attempted to utterly dismiss Hyslop, and you are now using proof by assertion to belabor this point. But yet you still haven't found anyone else to support support you on this, huh? What did Mike say when you asked him?
 * I'm favoring what the summary from the ref explains, and you're favoring your own wording. I put the UHJ decision back it per your concerns; that will suffice. DisarrayGeneral  02:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * pg. 269: "nuclear holocaust"... "fulfill the prophecies of Revelation. In the first hour, they expected a third of the world's population to perish"... "Battle of Armageddon or lesser prophecies that would lead up to the Apocalypse"... pg. 272: "set a date for the Apocalypse"... "a nuclear war would begin"... "catastrophic upheavals that would culminate in the Battle of Armageddon"... "worldwide catastrophes"... The ref currently points to 269. Out of all these, you managed to pick the most mild wording possible.
 * What I was saying OK to was your comment "Okay, I'll be the bigger man here". I was happy to see that.
 * Wrong. Read the policy, it describes exactly what you're trying to do.
 * I tried to rewrite it slightly and left the Smith ref. You were reverting to a version without a corresponding citation in the references.
 * I'll try to round up some other editors. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  15:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do; in the meantime proof by assertion isn't reaching the bar for exclusion. Let's put this into perspective, as a mountain is being made out of a mole hill. The sum total of what we're debating here about Hyslop amounts to a whopping 2 sentences: "Jensen was among the Bahá'ís who accepted Remey as the Guardian. He believed that through adoption he was an Aghsan, and the only son of Abdu'l-Baha. The BUPC accept Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian, who they claim adopted and appointed Neal Chase as his successor.". You're attempting to exlcude this by attacking and dismissing the source. You know the statement is true, but you're attacking it from every angle you can think of. It's not a reliable source? Wrong; according to Jeff3000, MARussell, WP:V, WP:RS, and me it is. It's not NPOV? Wrong, the concerns you've raised about "misleading the reader" are actually told further down the article, and don't need to be mentioned again and again. These two sentences, which you're waging a monumental edit war over, arent' afoul of any policies, neutrality, much less the truth. Moreover, you have all along been fighting for excision of these two sentences, and not as you now claim looking to neutralize the point of view. If you want to in fact neutralize the point of view, attempting to exclude the content by repeatedly reverting isn't accomplishing this alleged NPOV concern you have. Tearing the content off the page isn't a solution to this alleged "violation of policy".

I've offered solutions, and a willingness to meet half way on all of the 4 points above, but you've just dug your heels in and keep reverting back to your version of how you insist this article must read. As is usually the case, you seem unwilling to consider compromise on any points, and even when I attempt to rework an area, like adding the UHJ decision to Smith's version of events, you stay dug in and revert back to your synthesized wording. Fine. I'm standing here ready to meet you half way, but if that means giving up more content that's by all accounts true, WP:V, and WP:RS it's just not going to happen. Why don't you propose a solution that takes into account the concerns I've offered, and give up this crusade to completely excise these two nefarious sentences. Cuz that, my friend, is not going to happen in my lifetime. DisarrayGeneral 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto on everything. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  19:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto on everything? That hardly makes any sense. So you're concurring that you're being unreasonable going to these ends over one sentence comprised of something we both know is true, verifiable, and reliably sourced? And that you know you can't exclude this information, so your repeated reverts removing the sentence are amounting to vandalism?


 * Thanks for making my point for me about you digging in your heels and remaining unwieldy while I'm offering solutions. If that's in fact your answer to my specific points about you excluding the adoptions over your RS/NPOV concerns, instead of trying to work it out in a reasonable way, then I guess you should start attempting to clear the hurdle before you, instead of badgering me about it's existence. You will indeed need to find support for excluding this nefarious point from the article, for as I've explained, your own peers support it's reliability as a source, and your NPOV concerns are actually answered already elsewhere in the article. You've attacked this from every angle, changed your approach over and over, and the concerns have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. Your job is done here. DisarrayGeneral  19:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "proof by assertion", "a mountain is being made out of a mole hill", "you're attacking it from every angle you can think of", "repeatedly reverting", "alleged", "dug your heels in and keep reverting back to your version of how you insist the article must read. As is usually the case, you seem unwilling to consider compromise on any points", "you stay dug in and revert back", "the concerns have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. Your job is done here". These are all weasel phrases that avoid the content debate. This isn't a game where you compromise then I compromise and let you have your way with the content. I just showed you a policy that clearly explains that just because something is verifiable, including it may violate NPOV. I'm rather tired of listening to you act like a victim, so please refrain until we get some other editors. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Cunado. I'm sorry to let my emotions spill onto this page, and cloud the actual issue. Here's the brass tacks the way I see it. This mountain of discussion is essentially over one sentence about the adoptions. You seem to now concede to the reliability of the source, and are now arguing against the neutrality. If this isn't accurate, please correct me. But the reliability was established by Jeff300 and MARussell. What I gather is that you think the claim about the adoptions should be answered to directly in the Guardian section. Would you rather the points being made about this in the sIBC section be moved up to this area to quell your concerns? I don't feel it should be in both places if that's what you're contending. But as your argument has shifted from the reliability of Hyslop, to this NPOV one, I'm wondering what will satisfy this policy concern. Your answer has been to try an exclude the information altogether, which doesn't seem at all reasonable to me. That's not a solution, but yet you haven't offer any alternatives besides complete exclusion. Is this the only thing you're willing to consider? DisarrayGeneral 22:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if you're contending complete exclusion is the only solution, could you please provide the policy that explicitly directs this. DisarrayGeneral  03:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Continued new section below

More on 2009-02-24
Cunado, instead of trying to tear me down on administrator's talk pages, and attempting to portray yourself as some sort of policy protecting victim, why don't you spend that time and energy contributing ideas that involve creative ways we can improve these articles through these discussions? I personally have come to view your contributions to these articles in the last 3 years to have crossed the line of your original well intentioned pursuits of applying NPOV, and have devolved to focusing on marginalizing this group by mercilessly leveraging policy against every single sentence. Now, I'm just holding your contributions to the very standards that you have established here, and am addressing you in a manner in which I've become accustomed. I edit on dozens of pages, and I have never witnessed any of them being held under a microscope like this one has. These bupc pages have been combed over again and again, and have endured an endless array of badgering assaults all under the banner of policy. For 3+ solid years you've been here almost daily "applying policy" to remove beliefs and historical events, so you've established the precedent here about how editing on this page will be conducted. Now that strict adherence to policy is working against you, you're acting like I'm the one being unreasonable. Unlike on every other page I've edited (which is close to 100 by now), any and all semblance of reason and co-operation has been taken of the table of considerations here, and we're left with strict adherence to policy. You created this atmosphere here; it works both way. Look at what you object to these days. Us referencing our beliefs back to our websites? This is acceptable per selfpub, yet you won't allow any of it, and if I want to insist I have to wage an edit war to include content that by every account warrants inclusion. So if you don't like me being completely unresponsive to your concerns, and playing by the rules you've established, maybe you should consider lightening up in the future when it comes to editing here. In the mean time, it's just too darned bad if you don't like the fact that you have no grounds for removing anything referenced to Hyslop. Repeating your same tired objections won't change the policy protecting the content. Regards. DisarrayGeneral 06:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When I started editing these pages they were promotional pieces that were entirely unacceptable. You have consistently shown a bias on these articles with an extreme WP:Conflict of Interest. My interest has focused on NPOV and removing propaganda and adding third party verifiable, reliable references that you have consistently reverted. Anyone reading the talk and edit history will immediately see that and I'll stand behind it. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  15:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

2009-02-25
Quoting the same policy as above: '''Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article. and in the policy intro this is non-negotiable and expected of all articles'''. You might look further down and see that it recommends Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into a neutral statement by attributing or substantiating it. Take note of the sometimes. You perhaps have a well intentioned attempt to attribute the claim, and it's verifiable. That, however, is not what I'm disputing. Based on neutrality, mentioning the claim by itself while leaving out other pertinent info is "fact selection", "described in slanted terms". Without mentioning in the same paragraph that Pepe had nothing to do with Chase, there is no evidence of adoption, he claimed not to be the Guardian, and died 7 years prior to the claim, stating the claim is incredibly misleading, and the fact that it is a claim about a third person makes it particularly easy to justify removing.

This point could potentially go further in the article like this (added text in bold). "Pepe steadfastly denied being the Guardian and had no involvement with the group. After Pepe died in 1994 Jensen began hinting that Neal Chase might be the next Guardian.[13] Years later, justifying his claim to leadership, Chase claimed to have been secretly adopted by Pepe. "  Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  06:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So now we're all in agreement that the verifiability and reliability of Hyslop is confirmed by all parties, and we're focusing on neutrality here, right? Just asking as the argument from Cunado against exactly which polices the inclusion of the statements on the adoptions violates has changed several times throughout this discussion. I don't want to assume anything, but I'll presume now it's safe to move forward assuming WP:RS is no longer the objection.


 * For clarity's sake, the sentences in the article that these arguments focus on are: "[Jensen] believed that through adoption Remey was an Aghsan, and the only son of Abdu'l-Baha. The BUPC accept Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian, who they claim adopted and appointed Neal Chase as his successor.[4]".


 * Regarding the concerns Cunado has raised over NPOV as just stated above, there are fatal flaws in the reasoning presented:
 * The BUPC do claim Mason was an adopted Aghsan, that Pepe was his sucessor, and that Neal Chase was adopted and appointed as Pepe's sucessor on the main BUPC website in this article, and Hyslop reiterates it in this published study being referenced. For clarity's sake, these are fundamental BUPC beliefs that have never been questioned, and cannot be painted as fabricated by me, Hyslop, or anyone else.
 * They can't be argued as "fact selection". This refers to selecting facts from the published source and using them in a "selective" way. In fact these two statements are providing everything the source says on the matter, and isn't leaving even a minor detail out. The assertion Cunado's making here is that we are bound to synthesize ideas if the published source being referenced doesn't provide all the "pro and cons" and lay out the counter-arguments concisely. This is a patently flawed view of this statement in the policy about "fact selection". Cunado is proposing we must lay out the argument of all interested parties, otherwise we're "fact selecting". This isn't the intent of the policy, and it's being misrepresented by Cunado.
 * In the proposed examples, Cunado's pushing for exclusion of the statements that the bupc believe Remey was Abdu'l-Baha's adopted son, for he leaves no room for it, and makes no mention of it. In fact this is what Hyslop states almost word for word, and is also stressed an enumerated in several articles of the BUPC website, like here. If there's another source that contradicts Hyslop that provides this is not in fact one of our beliefs, I for one would like to be made aware of it. Also, if Cunado can provide a reliable source that says the mainstream Baha'is don't accept that Remey was an adopted son of Abdu'l-Baha's, then of course we should put that along side of the statement for NPOV's sake. But if no such source exists, Cunado's logic says we don't get to state this verifiable belief, because he can't reference a counter-argument. This reasoning fails, and the policy does not apply to this case.
 * Cunado's argument presumes that the policy he's quoting nullifies use of these two sentences. The flaw to this reasoning is that it's based on a presumption that the examples of the policy apply to these two statements. In fact, this has not been established. To wit, the sentences are not in any way providing undue weight, are not fact selecting as explained in point 2), and its not pushing the personal view of an editor's, but rather a belief of the article's subject as published in a reliable source. It is also presumed by what he's hilighted in bold that the statement is somehow biased, which is an assertion that has yet to be established, but is being presumed.
 * Cunado said: "the fact that it is a claim about a third person makes it particularly easy to justify removing". This is only true for WP:SELFPUB, whereas we're talking about reliably sourced statements. Also, it's just stating it's the belief of the BUPC's, and isn't at all proposing to proselytize them. Another fatal flaw in this reasoning is that Cunado is proposing removing this content on technicalities, and hasn't provided a reference that supports exclusion altogether. In fact, the policy being quoted clearly emphasizes that both V and NPOV must be weighed fully "in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.". It makes no mention of excluding content that runs afoul of the stated concerns. Where's the policy that justifies exclusion? Moreover, this is all based on presumptions that this policy has been violated, yet nothing presented establishes this as a fact.
 * Cunado wrote: "Without mentioning in the same paragraph that Pepe had nothing to do with Chase, there is no evidence of adoption, he claimed not to be the Guardian, and died 7 years prior to the claim". Please provide a verifiable statement that supports there's no evidence of adoption and that he claimed not to be the Guardian, and I have no issue including it. I know it to be false, so you exceptional claim requires an exceptional source. What I oppose regarding this proposal is that it's comprised of Cunado's limited WP:OR, and not from a verifiable source. He also proposes that a qualifier statement could be used in the sIBC section about Neal Chase after the statement about Pepe Remey having not participated on the sIBC. This is fine, but it couldn't be used as a substitute to mentioning the BUPC believe Mason was the only adopted son, and that we believe Pepe was his successor, etc.
 * I apologize for not being brief, but exceptional objections require exceptional explanations. In short, Cunado is attempting to exclude these reliably sourced beliefs on technicalities. He's presuming this is violating NPOV, but hasn't in fact established is has in any way. Neither have any counter-claims that are verifiable been presented, for if there were any I could not object to including them here. But as there are not, and nothing about the statements violates undue weight, fact selection, etc. then all of these objections are clearly based on nothing of actual substance, and fail on every count. DisarrayGeneral  09:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're using the term "reliable" wrong in some cases. The source is reliable in the sense that it's from a university and a neutral third-party, and not some yahoo's personal website. In the sense that it's a verifiable publication of statements and beliefs, the content is not fact-checked, thus not reliable. A good example of this is when you tried to include a statement that the BUPC has "local, national, and international councils" and I changed the wording to attribute it to the context of the source.
 * Number 1 above is irrelevant to the subject, as the point is mentioned in the pluralism ref. #2, wrong, the almost complete lack of sources on the group is relevant. The rest of your points are fluff and lack rationality.  Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  15:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cunado claims: "In the sense that it's a verifiable publication of statements and beliefs, the content is not fact-checked, thus not reliable.", yet cannot provide a shred of evidence for this assertion; moreover, he's willfully ignoring this discussion, where his own contemporaries have laid these concerns to rest. As I've given his concerns a great amount of consideration and taken the time to explain why this policy doesn't apply point by point, I believe my explanation warrants more than a dimissive "the rest of your points are fluff and lack rationality"; we'll just have to wait and see if other editors come forward and concur, for I've stated all I have to say on the matter. DisarrayGeneral  19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cunado, these changes to the beliefs look acceptable to me. I'm just going to make a minor tweek to explain who Pepe is, but other than that, thanks for taking into consideration both of our concerns. DisarrayGeneral 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant. 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/20090402023824/http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/sll_fn_home.htm to http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/SLL/SLL_FN_home.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I propose that the Neal Chase page be merged and redirected into Talk:Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant. Here's why:


 * Notability guidelines are not met for a stand-alone biography for Neal Chase. He does not have "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
 * Most of the article is sourced from a single secondary source: Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy (2000) by Robert Balch.
 * Other sources:
 * Missoulian article written by Victor Wood, one of Chase's followers. Vanity article.
 * He was the defendant in a case that went to the Montana Supreme court . I don't think this counts as coverage.
 * He was the defendant in a WIPO case . Also not coverage.
 * Per Biographies of living persons, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." If the article is not merged, it must be pared down to remove anything unverifiable, which is anything outside of the Expecting Armageddon and the two court briefs.

I'll give a few days for comments and then I'll merge. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  00:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The article contains ample material independent of the article with which you propose merging it. Furthermore, if the quantity of references is a criterion, most of the Baha'i-related articles depend on a single non-independent reference published by the Baha'i Administrative Order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A35821361 (talk • contribs)
 * You didn't address the issue of notability. He does not have "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Unless you can provide more reliable secondary srouces about him, I will go ahead and merge. If you feel that other articles are not meeting notability guidelines, that doesn't affect my proposal. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  23:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)