Talk:Mason Remey

Policy
Asad29591, regarding this addition, there are numerous problems. For example, the original text wrote, "Mason Remey has indicated that... some Baha'is told him...". Your addition wrote, "Mason Remey was approached by many Baha'is". The location you put it in the article is totally inappropriate for the weight. Many other things. You need to seriously study and apply the core content policies. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  14:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Asad29591, I think Cuñado is correct. You need to edit the statement to start with "Mason Remey has indicated that... some Baha'is told him...". And this does not belong to the lead paragraph, it should come somewhere at a correct place.Serv181920 (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * and Thank you for pointing it out. It would have been much better if instead of reverting my edit, one of you may have removed it from lead and put it in the article at an appropriate place. Merely reverting to edits which is a common practice by Cunado is not ethical.--Asad29591 (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with all three editors. Accordingly, I placed an edited version in the body of the article where it appeared to fit. Any adjustments are welcome. As a general note,, everything in the lead of a Wikipedia article should also be in the body, so it is usually easiest to add it there first. Then if it is important enough a short version can go in the lead too. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you - Asad29591 (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, Baha'is loyal to their administration have some reservations about Mason Remey, for them he is a covenant-breaker and you know very well how CBs are treated in the Baha'i faith.Serv181920 (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:TALK: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." Cuñado ☼ - Talk  06:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Mason Remey Close Confident of Abdul Baha
Dear you are right in saying that Mason Remey was in America and Abdul Baha in Palestine but that doesnt mean that Mason Remey cannot be a close confident of Adul Baha. Mason Remey was always in touch with Abdul Baha. Master has called Mason Remey as his Son (a spiritual son just like Shoghi Effendi). There has been tablets from Master for Mason Remey.

In diary of Juliet Thompson page 92 Abdul Baha says: "Remember Juliet, One hair of Mason Remey's head is worth all the unbelievers in the world"Asad29591 (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Original research. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  03:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Abdul Baha on many occasions have called Mason Remey as his son. Just like Shoghi Effendi was the spiritual son of Abdul Baha (and not his own son). Since Shoghi Effendi died without any descendant, Mason Remey being the head of the IBC became the next Guardian of the Faith. Secondary source: Pg 141 of Baha’is in Exile of Vernon Elvin Johnson.Asad29591 (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Johnson documenting the illogical views of others does not validate those views. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Then you should accept what is in the original research. I do understand that it doesn't match your personal belief hence you are removing the properly cited material as well from the page. Let us close the discussion on the point that Guardian had asked Mason Remey to come come and settle in Haifa and also made him the President of International Baha'i Council (UHJ in embryonic form) so he thus can be called the close confident of Shoghi Effendi. Lets put that in the article on mutual consent and not drag this discussion further.Asad29591 (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You are synthesizing material and coming to conclusions not stated in independent sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Since it seems that you want more proofs that Charles Mason Remey was a close confident of Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi I shall put the same. However kindly note that it is only the mainstream Baha'is who consider Mason Remey as a covenant breaker however for followers of Orthodox Baha'i Faith he is the second Guardian. By calling him a covenant breaker in general terms, you are disrespecting and hurting the sentiments of followers of other Baha'i sects. Would advise you to refrain from doing the same as it is against the wikpedia policy.Asad29591 (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , could you provide the quote from Johnson, so I can try to mediate? Gazelle55 (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream vs overwhelming majority
Hi,, I believe that "overwhelming majority" provides more information. Could you clarify your reasons for changing this to the vaguer "mainstream"? I have left in the new source you added as it appears to be of a high quality. Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear, mainstream is a term used for followers of current UHJ located in Haifa. This term for them can be found in following books: Baha’is in Exile by Vernon Elvin Johnson, The Baha'i Faith: A Historical Bibliography by Joel Bjorling and even in Baha'ism: History, Transfiguration, Doxa by Hutan Hejazi Martinez. I can provide the publication name and ISBN number also along with page numbers if you want.


 * The second point that I want to make here is currently it is only the mainstream Baha'is who call Mason Remey and his followers a covenant breaker. So for a reader, the point needs to be clearly put that there is a sect who believes Mason Remey to be a covenant breaker however there is another sect which believes in Mason Remey to be the second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith.


 * Third if you see my discussion [|here] you will notice that it is Moojan Momen who has categorized Remey and his followers as covenant breaker. Moojan Momen is a Baha'i author and his point which has been put on the page is not neutral.--Asad29591 (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, . As regards the term mainstream, yes I agree that reliable sources have used it to refer to the main Baha'i sect that followed the Hands of the Cause. At the same time, that sect does and did constitute the overwhelming majority of Baha'is, so the wording in the article is accurate. I'm fine with using the term mainstream Baha'is on Wikipedia, but in this particular case I think the readers deserve additional information, which is that the mainstream Baha'is are the vast majority. I assume that you agree that the vast majority of Baha'is are in that sect. What is lost by giving this more descriptive term?


 * As for your second point, I agree that we should not say in Wikivoice that Remey is a covenant breaker. However, the way it is worded now seems fine to me. It says he "was rejected by the overwhelming majority of Baháʼís, who regard him as a Covenant-breaker." It is true that the overwhelming majority of Baha'is regarded him as a covenant-breaker.


 * About Momen: yes he is a (mainstream) Baha'i, and we should keep that in mind for his potential bias when using him as a source. However, he has published a lot in credible academic journals so his work can be cited, as long as controversial points are attributed to him by name. The first link you gave for Momen doesn't work -- which part of Talk:Covenant-breaker are you talking about? Gazelle55 (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear, I still partially disagree with you. However its ok I will leave the discussion here by agreeing to your point.--Asad29591 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado stop attacking the minority groups
Dear, whatever clarity you want in regards to the edits, you may take the same here on talk page instead of randomly reverting the edits. Just because something doesn't match your personal belief doesn't mean that its wrong. Kindly stop exploiting Wikipedia.--Asad29591 (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Asad29591, you have been editing for about a year and a half, and I think about 90% of your edits have been reverted, and you have consistently ignored policy. The burden is on you to make useful contributions. Regarding your edit, here are some problems:
 * You added to the wrong place in the article. The next paragraph has a summary of several references to the size of his initial following, and further below are references to the size of the resultant groups.
 * The wording is not clear. "Considerable number" is relative. To an uninformed reader, that might suggest that a majority of Baha'is followed him. From Udo Schaefer's perspective, if 100 people followed him out of the 10,000 or so Baha'is in USA at the time, that would be a "considerable number".
 * It was deceptive. The way you inserted it into the flow of ideas (saying, "however", etc.) suggests that the letter was refused despite widespread support. In fact, at the time the letter was refused, Remey had made no followers at all, since it was his first attempt at proclamation.
 * References are not usually given credit in the text. Sometimes the author is cited by name for a quote, but if we're dealing with reliable sources, they can be cited without in-text attribution. In this case, Udo Schaefer's background is as a lawyer and Baha'i author, and I'm not sure why Wikipedia would use him as a source for the size of Remey's following. Maybe it could be added to the sentence that says, "Estimates of Remey's initial following range from 15,[58] to 100,[59] to 150,[8] to several hundred[60] individuals." However, I'm not sure what Schaefer's full context and wording was, and he lacks an actual number, so it seems best to just leave it out.
 * Cuñado ☼ - Talk  00:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I found the full reference: "This leaves souls open to be preyed upon by charismatic charlatans, who will confuse and lead them astray. Surely, there is a reason why the Covenant breaking followers of Mason Remey, despite their fallacious arguments, managed to win over a considerable number of people. Faith that has not been reflected upon is easily shaken."
 * So, to add to the list above, the statement you excerpted was taken out of context. Strange how you chose to use the phrase "considerable number" and not "charismatic charlatans" with "fallacious arguments". Cuñado ☼ - Talk  19:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for clarifying. In that case we can put the following. Hope that would be fine for you "Baha'i scholar Udo Schaefer, states that a considerable number of Baha'is accepted Mason Remey's claims. But Shaefer also calls him "charismatic charlatan" with "fallacious arguments"."Asad29591 (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Obituary and diary
Regarding this addition and deletion... The removed material reflects correctly what is in the source regarding his mis-named obituary. Regarding Remey's memoirs, they are primary source material, and the addition to the article is using the memoirs to make controversial and otherwise unsubstantiated claims about the motives of other people. Asad, as you have been editing in bad faith and disregarding policy for about two years, I haven't taken the time to explain the reverts to your weekly attempts to subvert articles with your POV pushing. If you think I'm wrong, there are several avenues for you to pursue other experienced editors to get involved. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  23:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , I agree with . In my case, I've repeatedly tried to discuss with you and explain why your edits violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines but you have continued editing in the same style. You often reference your personal views in your edit summaries and on talk pages, and all of your edits are dedicated to promoting the view that the succession to Shoghi Effendi was illegitimate. You almost always fail to follow WP:AGF. You're of course free to hold whatever views you want but that doesn't exempt you from Wikipedia policies. Please take a look at WP:SPA since it seems to apply to you. It would be great to have you as a productive member of Wikipedia but that will require you to take a more neutral approach. Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)