Talk:Institution of the Counsellors

I'm betting that the link to Beth Allen on this page is not correct, as it goes to an NZ actress whose bio makes no mention of adhering to this faith... Ditto for George Allen, none of the disambig choices listed are good ones. ++Lar 15:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC) --Thanks Lar, you are indeed correct, I have made the fixes. -- Jeff3000 17:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

List of counsellors
These don't seem useful for the 'pedia. Very few links point to active articles. I'll delete these.

I'm adding some references and correcting some data. MARussellPESE 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added back in the names of the individuals but removed the links as per the discussion on Articles for deletion/Vivien Craig. I maintain that this is interesting and valid information to included in the wikipedia. Individual CCs wield significant power including investigating allegd covenant breakers, recommending people for disenrollment and so on. The last three members of the Universal House of Justice were previously members of the CC and CCs have played a major role in developing and encouraging Training Institutes - one of the most important current facets of Baha'i community life.


 * If you want to remove again I suggest we use WP:RFC to resolve the dispute. AndrewRT 18:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * RFC? Andrew, you seem a little jumpy. I don't see a problem with listing them as long as the information is verifiable and relevant. Currently there is no reference at all. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|link=http://www.bahai.us/|20px]] -  Talk  19:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jumpy? Bit rich, coming from someone who has repeatedly reverted my edits because they don't fit with your view of the Baha'i Faith. I added an explanation because - if you look at the history - I have already added this information in once before and another editor removed it. I don't like getting into revert wars - particularly on Baha'i pages where it's so hard to get consensus - so i was flagging up RFC as an alternative to anyone who might disagree with me. As to your point about a source I'll find one and add it in. AndrewRT 19:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, there are two wikipedia reasons to not include the list of individuals: Verifiability and Notability. What is your reference for this exhaustive list? I yanked this the first time for both reasons (Prinicpally Verifiability though.). If you maintain that this is important, You need to make your case and support your reasons for inclusion. Your explaination does not get even over the "Verifiability" bar. Once you have a source then we can discuss it here.

Threatening to an RFC is awfully hasty, even confrontational, which could short-circuit dispute resolution. You may be gun-shy with Cuñado, but as I'm the one who pulled it off in the first place, why do you expect that you and I wouldn't be able to resolve it?

Regarding Counsellors "power": These individuals have no power in the community. Sociologically, "Power" is the capacity to see your will done in the face of opposition. It requires both "Control" and "Influence". With respect to methods of "control" National Spiritual Assemblies have access to only a few sanctions. Only the House of Justice has access to them all. And as these sanctions basically revolve solely around limiting the individual's interaction with the Baha'i community collectively, these are really rather limited.

Counsellors clearly posess "influence", but have no access to any "control" measures; therefore, by definition, they do not possess "power". Conducting formal "investigations" is at the discretion of the House of Justice. Any believer, including you, have the responsibility to note conduct that could pose a threat to the unity of the Community and flag it to the attention of your Local Spiritual Assembly or Auxiliary Board Member.

Please provide some backup as to why it'd be important to note these people regarding election to the House of Justice. For decades the US NSA secretary was elected at almost every opportunity, and it was posited that there was something fishy in that. But that hasn't happened in over twenty years, and there have been several new elections in the interregnum, so that was likely a red-herring. If you think this is important you'll need some independent discussion and documentation otherwise it's original research, no? MARussellPESE 21:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just followed my own advice and added the "References" section. MARussellPESE 21:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a little surprised that you on the one hand say why do you expect that you and I wouldn't be able to resolve it? and then go and revert my edit. If that's your attitude that it seems I was probably right to think we would not be able to resolve it without external assistance. As it says under WP:REVERT, Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face — "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back".  Or to quote Dispute resolution, Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. Bearing in mind I had already opened a discussion on the matter, and I had already said I would get a source, I don't see why you didn't just flag up the lack of reference - as I've now done - instead of removing the information.


 * The first time you removed this information it was, according to your comment at the time, because you thought it was unimportant. You never mentioned verifiability then. I responded by explaining why I thought it might be important. Now you come back with other objections. Anyone would think you were trying to discourage other users from participating? Are you aware of Assume good faith and Don't bite the newcomers?


 * You mention the source. I've emailed the person who originally provided me with the letter from the UHJ that is the source for this information. When I get this I'll add it as a source. Until then I don't see why you can't leave the information in, with the tag as it is. If I haven't got back in a week, then take it out.


 * Notability is a policy that refers to articles on individual people and is not relevant here. As it says in WP:NOT Relatively unimportant people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). I have already agreed to delete the articles on individual CBCs, and removed the links. What matters here is whether the names are interesting to the users, which I have already explained. This information is not subject to WP:NOR as the argument is not made in the article itself. As I'm sure you are well aware the issue of Baha'i elections is a controversial one, particularly when it comes to incumbancy, but this page is not the place to discuss it.


 * WP:RFC is a form of dispute resolution and is not intended to be confrontational. I do, however, feel that Baha'is (including myself) are too closely involved and attached to the subject to be able to find an acceptable solution. I notice on the dispute resolution page they also talk of informal mediation which I would be happy to try as well. Personally I see it as more productive than a revert war, hence my suggestion. AndrewRT 09:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your feelings are noted. No insult was intended, but I think it's you who need to assume some good faith here. I deleted the list more than two months after you'd added it. It's not like you own this article, didn't have time to collect references, or I was stalking around looking to jump on your feelings. You've got over 400 edits to your credit going back six months — I don't think you're a newcomer anymore.

And it's the history itself that shows that you reverted and claimed there's a dispute. Any change after that to the article that is in bad faith because you think it is?

Your list lacked, and still does, any reference whatsoever, thus failing the verifiability policy. I was editing in accordance with established WP policies. I don't really need to ask your permission; and reverting your reversion seems pretty cut-and-dried enforcement of a clear policy. Please note: the burden is on you to produce verifiable sources for your edits, and I rolled the article back to the state it was in prior to your claiming "dispute". Also philosophically, I'm an exlusionist, so I'm unlikely to ask for citations on edits over two months old. I figure if they're not there after that long they're not coming.

The Fact tag is a decent place-holder. As far as I'm concerned if you've got references coming that'll do, for now. But it can't stay there forever. A week seems adequate. You'll need more than personal correspondence as a verifiable source to stand on for this list. You'll need to re-read that policy perhaps.

You should also back up your charge that "Baha'i elections are controversial". I'm well aware that these are controversial — to critics. After thrity-five years as a Baha'i, I've not seen a groundswell of criticism outside a sporadic few places such as Talisman; and even there the "criticism" was limited to a minority of its participants. Baha'i administration is very dynamic and even the Talisman discussions would be badly out of date.

WP:NN discusses topics, not just people. You assert that these individuals are important enough to name, when such a comprehensive list doesn't appear important enough for anyone else to compile. If this were important then the list should be readily available, no? And I'm not convinced that their inclusion is not covered by WP:NOT. The example given there expands upon the articlc. This list seems like a laundry list. You have not addressed this argument beyond your assertion. Can you provide references demonstrating the notability or importance of individuals?

Bottom line, there are two problems which I've already presented arguements for, and neither of which you've addressed fully.
 * 1) The list of names is not supported by any verifiable source.
 * 2) The individuals are not important to the consideration of the institution.

MARussellPESE 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * this reference is still not verifiable. I searched through the sources I have and on google and found nothing about a letter on that date. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|link=http://www.bahai.us/|20px]] -  Talk  16:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, we're about a week on and we still lack verifiable references on the individuals, or more importantly, their notability. I'll be taking these down at the end of the week per the policies cited and the flow of discussion here. MARussellPESE 13:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I've trawelled through the list of wikipedia policies and I guess I'll have to concede, but not without making a few points.


 * I've provided a reference to a reliable source, but I accept this it is a primary source (a letter from the UHJ) rather than a secondary source (a published book etc) and therefore not acceptable under wikipedia policies. I could send you a copy but I wont because it hasn't been released by it's author under GFDL and I dont think releasing it in full would be considered "fair use" (unlike listing the names which I think would be). I'm surprised Cunado hasn't been able to find a copy - it was addressed to the Baha'is of the world - here in the UK it was included in the Baha'i Journal UK and yours was probably included in the "American Bahai". For the record the fact that it is not published on the internet does not mean it was not published in a verifiable source as per wikipedia policies. AndrewRT 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew, if you find where it's published somewhere (UK journal, American Baha'i) I think that is a verifiable source. I searched the US administrative website which has a lot of documents not normally available to the public. I have a hunch that an effort is made not to distribute the names to the public. The same practice is done for assembly members and community membership lists for privacy and protection of the individuals. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|link=http://www.bahai.us/|20px]] -  Talk  16:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

New image
What do people think of this image to replace the picture of the ITC? Cuñado  -  Talk  18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would rather keep the current picture, as the article is about the Institution and not the people. -- Jeff3000 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but if there would be enough space (or text), I would add it a bit lower in the article. Wiki-uk 05:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)