Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Mason Remey

2009-03-30T18:33:42Z

General Disarray: place Mason/Pepe .jpeg to Mike's chosen location

[[Image:Remey1.jpg|thumbnail|Charles Mason Remey]]
'''Charles Mason Remey''' ([[May 15]] [[1874]] - [[February 4]] [[1974]]) was a prominent and controversial American [[Bahá'í Faith|Bahá'í]] who was appointed in 1951 a [[Hand of the Cause]],<ref name="PSmith">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=292}}</ref><ref name="effendi18-20">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=18-20}}</ref> and president of the [[International Bahá'í Council]].<ref name="PSmith"/><ref name="effendi8-9">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=8-9}}</ref> He was the architect for the [[Bahá'í House of Worship|Bahá'í Houses of Worship]] in Uganda and Australia, and [[Shoghi Effendi]] approved his design of the unbuilt House of Worship in [[Haifa, Israel]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian, and Remey was among the nine Hands of the Cause elected as an interim authority until the election of the first [[Universal House of Justice]] in 1963.<ref name="PSmith_hands">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=176-177}}</ref> However, in 1960 Remey declared himself to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi, and expected the allegiance of the world's Bahá'ís.<ref name="remey8">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=8}} </ref> Subsequently, he and his followers were declared [[Covenant-breaker|Covenant breakers]] by the [[Hand of the Cause|Hands]].<ref name="PSmith"/> They reasoned that he lacked a formal appointment from Shoghi Effendi, and that the office was confined to male descendants of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Aghsan]]. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim,<ref name="Smith69">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=69}}</ref> but he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name="PSmith"/> His claim resulted in the largest schism in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, with a few groups still holding the belief that Remey was the successor of Shoghi Effendi. Various dated references show membership at less than a hundred each in two of the surviving groups.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000| pp=271}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Momen|1988|p=g.2}}</ref>

==Early life==
Born in Burlington, Iowa, on [[May 15]] [[1874]], Mason was the eldest son of Rear Admiral George Collier Remey and Mary Josephine Mason Remey, the daughter of Charles Mason, the first Chief Justice of Iowa.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> Remey’s parents raised him in the Episcopal Church. <ref>Remey, 1960 p. 2</ref> Remey trained as an architect at Cornell University (1893-1896), and the [[École des Beaux-Arts]] in Paris, France (1896-1903) where he first learned of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name = "PSmith" />

==As a Bahá'í==
With a background in architecture, Remey was asked to design the Australian and Ugandan [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] which still stand today and are the mother temples for [[Australasia]] and [[Africa]] respectively. Upon the request of [[Shoghi Effendi]], he also provided designs for a [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] in [[Tehran]], for [[Haifa, Israel|Haifa]], and the Shrine of `Abdu'l-Bahá, however only the Haifa temple was approved before the death of [[Shoghi Effendi]], and none have so far been built.<ref name="PSmith"/>

Remey traveled extensively to promote the Bahá'í Faith during the ministry of [[`Abdu'l-Bahá]]. [[Shoghi Effendi]] recorded that Remey and his Bahá'í companion, Howard Struven, were the first Bahá'ís to circle the globe teaching the religion.<ref name="effendi261">{{harvnb|Effendi|1944|p=261}}</ref>

A prolific writer, Remey wrote numerous published and personal articles promoting the Bahá'í Faith, including ''`Abdu'l-Bahá – The Center of the Covenant'' and the five volume ''A Comprehensive History of the Bahá'í Movement (1927)'', ''The Bahá'í Revelation and Reconstruction'' (1919), ''Constructive Principles of The Bahá'í Movement'' (1917), and ''The Bahá'í Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers'' (1912) are a few of the titles of the many works Remey produced while `Abdu'l-Bahá was still alive. Remey's life was recorded in his diaries, and in 1940 he provided copies and selected writings to several public libraries. Included in most of the collections were the letters `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote to him.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

According to Juliet Thompson's diary, `Abdu'l-Bahá suggested that she marry Remey, and in 1909 asked her how she felt about it, reportedly requesting of her: “Give my greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear to me that I think of you day and night. You are my real son. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass...He told me He loved Mason Remey so much,” Thompson writes, “and He loved me so much that he wished us to marry. That was the meaning of His message to Mason. He said it would be a perfect union and good for the Cause. Then he asked me how I felt about it.” They did not marry, although Thompson anguished over her decision, which she felt would cause ‘Abdu’l-Baha disappointment.<ref>{{harvnb|Thompson|1983|pp=71-76}}</ref> In 1932 he married Gertrude Heim Klemm Mason (1887-1933), who subsequently died a year later.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

===Under Shoghi Effendi===
Remey lived for some time in Washington, D.C., in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 Remey moved his residence from Washington, D.C., to Haifa, Israel, at the request of Shoghi Effendi. In January 1951, Shoghi Effendi issued a proclamation announcing the formation of the [[International Bahá'í Council]] (IBC), representing the first international Bahá'í body. The council was intended to be a forerunner to the [[Universal House of Justice]], the supreme ruling body of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name="PSmith199">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=199}}</ref><ref name="PSmith346">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=346}}</ref> Remey was appointed president of the council in March, with Amelia Collins as vice-president,<ref name="PSmith199"/> then in December of 1951 Remey was appointed a [[Hand of the Cause]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

==After Shoghi Effendi==
{{main|Bahá'í divisions}}
When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, Remey and the other Hands of the Cause met in a private Conclave at Bahjí in Haifa, and determined that he hadn't appointed a successor. They decided that the situation of the Guardian having died without being able to appoint a successor was a situation not dealt with in the texts that define the Bahá'í administration, and that it would need to be reviewed and adjudicated upon by the [[Universal House of Justice]], which hadn't been elected yet.<ref name="Stockman200">{{Harvnb|Stockman|2006|p=200}}</ref> Remey signed a unanimous declaration of the Hands that Shoghi Effendi had died "without having appointed his successor".<ref name="PSmith68">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=68}}</ref><ref name="PSmith"/><ref>For the document, see the [http://www.bahai-education.org/materials/essays/proclamation_hands.htm Unanimous Proclamation of the 27 Hands of the Cause of God]</ref>

Three years later, in 1960, Remey made a written announcement that his appointment as president of the international council represented an appointment by Shoghi Effendi as Guardian,<ref name="remey5">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=5}}</ref> because the appointed council was a precursor to the elected Universal House of Justice, which has the Guardian as its president.

He also attempted to usurp the control of the Faith which the Hands had themselves assumed at the passing of Shoghi Effendi stating:
<blockquote>It is from and through the Guardianship that infallibility is vested and that the Hands of the Faith receive their orders...I now command the Hands of the Faith to stop all of their preparations for 1963, and furthermore I command all believers both as individual Bahá'ís and as assemblies of Bahá'ís to immediately cease cooperating with and giving support to this fallacious program for 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Remey|1960|pp=6-7}}</ref></blockquote>

He claimed to believe that the Guardianship was an institution intended to endure forever, and that he was the 2nd Guardian by virtue of his appointment to the IBC. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim, although he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name = "PSmith" /> One of the most notable exceptions to accept his claim was that of the entire French [[National Spiritual Assembly]], led by Joel Marangella, who elected to support Remey, and was consequently disbanded by the Hands. The remaining 26 Hands of the Cause unanimously expelled him from the community.<ref name="deVries265">{{harvnb|de Vries|2002|p=265}}</ref><ref name="Smith69"/> Remey himself declared that being the Guardian gave him the exclusive right to declare who was or wasn't a Covenant-breaker, and that those who opposed him and followed the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers.

===Under the Hereditary Guardianship===
Among the Bahá'ís who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian, several further divisions have occurred based on opinions of legitimacy and the proper succession of authority.<ref name="taherzadeh368-371">{{harvnb|Taherzadeh|2000|pp=368-371}}</ref> Most of his long-term followers were Americans, who distinguished themselves as "Bahá'ís Under the Hereditary Guardianship".<ref name="Smith69"/> In his later years Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor, which resulted in further divisions among his followers dividing among several claimants to leadership.<ref name="PSmith"/> When Remey died his followers split into rival factions with each believing in a different Guardian.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000|pp=271}}</ref><ref name="Smith71">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=71}}</ref> Donald Harvey (d.1991), was appointed by Remey as "Third Guardian" in 1967. Joel Marangella was president of Remey's "Second International Bahá'í Council" claimed in 1969 to have been secretly appointed by Remey as Guardian several years earlier, whose followers are now known as [[Orthodox Bahá'í Faith|Orthodox Bahá'ís]].<ref name="PSmith"/> Another of Remey's followers, [[Leland Jensen]] (d. 1996), who made a several religious claims of his own, formed a sect known as the [[Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant]] following Remey's death;<ref name="PSmith"/> he believed that Remey was the adopted son of Abdu'l-Baha,<ref name="pluralism">{{harvnb|Hyslop|2004}}</ref> and that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian.<ref>{{harvnb|stone|2000|p=282}} note 6</ref>

All those that accept Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the [[Universal House of Justice]] established in 1963.<ref name="PSmith"/>

==Death==
[[Image:Masonandpepe.jpg|thumbnail|Mason Remey and Joseph Pepe]]
On February 4th, 1974, Mason Remey died at the age of 99.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==

*{{cite book
| title = The Babi Question You Mentioned... The Origins of the Baha'i Community of the Netherlands, 1844-1962
| publisher = Peeters Publishers
| year = 2002
| first = J.
| last = de Vries
| place = Leuven
| isbn = 9042911093
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1944
|title = God Passes By
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|id = ISBN 0877430209
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1971
|title = Messages to the Bahá'í World, 1950-1957
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/MBW/
}}

*{{citation
|last=Hyslop
|first=Scott
|year=2004
|title=Pluralism Project
|publisher=Harvard University Study of Religion
|url=http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=72374
}}

*{{citation
|last = Momen
|first = Moojan
|year = 1988
|title = The Covenant
|url = http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm#7.%20Covenant-breaker,%20Covenant-breaking
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Remey
|first = Charles Mason
|year = 1960
|title = Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World
|url = http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|place = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book | last = Smith | first = Peter | year = 2008 | title = An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0521862515 | location = Cambridge}}

*{{cite book
| title = Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America
| publisher = Greenwood Press
| year = 2006
| editor1-first = Eugene V.
| editor1-last = Gallagher
| editor2-first = W. Michael
| editor2-last = Ashcraft
| first = Robert
| last = Stockman
| chapter = The Baha'is of the United States
| isbn = 0275987124
}}

*{{Citation
| last = Stone
| first = Jon R. (ed)
| year =2000
| title =Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy
| place = New York
| publisher =Routledge
| pages =269–282
| isbn =0-415-92331-x
}}

*{{citation
|last = Taherzadeh
|first = Adib
|year=2000
|title=The Child of the Covenant
|publisher=George Ronald
|place=Oxford, UK
|id=ISBN 0853984395
}}

*{{citation
|last = Thompson
|first = Juliet
|date = 1947
|year = 1983
|title = The Diary of Juliet Thompson
|publisher = Kalimat Press
|place = Los Angeles
|url = http://bahai-library.com/books/thompson/
}}

==External links==
*[http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ Biography of Charles Mason Remy] - by Brent Matthieu
*[http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers&language=All Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him] - published by the Universal House of Justice
*[http://bupc.org/test-of-god.html Passing the Test of God] - BUPC's views of Mason Remey's Life, Contributions, and Beliefs
{{DEFAULTSORT:Remey, Mason}}
[[Category:1874 births]]
[[Category:1974 deaths]]
[[Category:Bahá'í divisions]]
[[Category:American Bahá'ís]]
[[Category:Hands of the Cause of God]]

[[fa:چارلز میسون ریمی]]

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-30T18:31:14Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */

{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=C
|priority=
|listas=Remey, Mason
}}
{{WPBF|class=C|importance=}}

{| class="infobox" width="290px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="1"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[Talk:Mason Remey/archive1|Archive 1]] 01/2005-09/2008
|-
|colspan="2"|
----
|}

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

:I'll try to address individual points on the last revert. Refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=235556940 this] version as the version you're proposing.
:1) The line about being introduced by May Bolles was repetition, under "As a Baha'i", first and third paragraphs.
:2) Of all the accolades, choosing the two that use the phrase "son" are unacceptable and original research, trying to casually cherry-pick quotations that imply a literal adoption without explicitly stating it. Besides that, listing `Abdu'l-Baha's praise of an individual is self-serving on any WP article, and fails neutrality. Compare to any other bio on Baha'is, for example [[`Alí-Muhammad Varqá]]. It's short, simple, factual. Whether the accolades are verifiable or reliable is not a major issue.
:3) Remey's reflection on the W&T. Not sure how this is pertinent to a bio.
:4) The issue of hair and blood are referenced from a BUPC website. Completely unacceptable as a source for such a statement. Also, another attempt to throw in the phrase "son".
:5) Remey never addressed the issue... in his written statement declaring himself as Guardian. That is how it's worded, and I added as a reference the statement.
:6) The broken link is fixed.
:7) The websites you added are linkspam. Clear and simple. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You apparently don't get it, but I'm sure we can get on the same page about all this. I didn't "choose" any of the content on this page by "cherry-picking" favorable material, but thanks for the [[WP:AGF]]. I rewrote this page back in '05 based primarily on information found a CMR.net, see? The Hair and Blood, if you would have given it more than a cursory glance and checked the reference (not the photo which is not the ref.), you would have been directed to CMR.net which discusses it at length (almost word for word). So guess what? It stays. Likewise with the SoW content. It's not my research but is pointing to the primary self published source about ITSELF. So guess what. It stays. Likewise reflections on the Will are part of details about his finalt visit to the Holy Land, which also are discussed at length on CMR.net. It's not significant that of several million Baha'is Shoghi Effendi called Remey to the Holy Land to be the first to read the Will, and to give him a token relic? Well guess what? Noone cares what you think about it as it's referenced back to CMR.net almost word for word and as with these others, IT STAYS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=235653609&oldid=235627331 Please elaborate]; how is his proclamation an unreliable source for referencing what he said in his proclamation? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Look again, it was a duplicate reference. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::Not true. Read [[WP:SELFPUB]] first. If this were Remey's autobiography, then yes it'd be acceptable. As it's not - out it goes.
::::It's sloppy anyway. It's the [[Ecole des Beaux Arts]], not the Ecole des Artes. Even this [[imbecile|engineer]] knows the difference. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on which of the 7 points of [[WP:SELFPUB]] you feel dismiss the bio on CMR.net, and all of a sudden disqualify it as something other than a source about itself. To suggest it's "out" because it's "by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself" is patently absurd. I will not be swayed by these assertions for they are entirely vapid. CMR's biography was written and extensively sourced by someone we all know has been a follower of CMR's for over 30 years which more than qualifies him as an expert on the subject. Moreover the site is entirely devoted to Remey's public statements, his bio, and an archive of SoW articles about him. How preposterous that two days ago you stated "If CMR.net is bona fide, and because there's no genuinely reliable online source for Remey's statemtns, I'm letting it slide — you still can't use it for anything to do with 'Abdul-Baha." Now it's "out". You sure seem to have a high regard for the weight of your personal opinions around here; one day your permission is granted, and the next it is revoked. I feel these statements speak volumes about how have chosen to treat this matter, as do the rest of your comments here show how creative one can get with interpreting policies.

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

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

:Apparently I have to spell the obvious out. Selfpubs can be used only if:
:'''2 "it is not contentious;"''' — Both Cuñado and I question the authenticity of certain sections, particularly the biography.
:'''3 "it is not unduly self-serving;"''' — This is clearly an apologetics site.
:'''4 "it does not involve claims about third parties;"''' — It can't be used to source "accolades" and other such from anyone other than Remey.
:'''6 "there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;"''' — I have no idea who Brent Mathieu is or his credentials to provide this source on the bio. I have a clue who Remey is, and his proclamation certainly rings true.
:'''7 "the article is not based primarily on such sources."''' — There were sections whose sole source was this CMR.net biography.

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

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

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

:We don't have to "compromise" on policy. Either the material meets it or it doesn't. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess all you have to do now is convince an unbiased third party on your creative interpretations of this [[WP:SELFPUB|policy]] and you'll have your way. From where I'm sitting my concerns are valid and being wholly ignored here despite my best efforts to elaborate on them. Two days ago "you'd let it slide", and now it's "out" and you're tagging every other sentence with citations needed? This is improving the article somehow?
*on #2, you've proven yourselves to be contentious against the subject and your considerations are therefore dismissed.
*on #3 this accusation could be leveled against any self published website, and is not a grounds for dismissal as the bio makes efforts to state facts and can't be shown to take "unduly self serving" liberties without references. the objection is meaningless.
*on #4 this issue is not on the table at this time, as I haven't pushed forward with the accolades issue; moot point.
*on #6 it states who authored it; therefore there's no doubts. The policy doesn't say you two have to know him.
*on #7 your concerns about "whole sections" are irrelevant, for this states that "the ARTICLE doesn't rely solely on such sources, which it doesn't; also moot.
As I said your eradicating valid information, and are propagating an edit war over. I object to the notion that CMR.net's bio is "out" and reject your creative justification for doing so. That's all I have to say on this matter. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think the miscommunication here is that CMR.net is by (says to be by) Brent M, not by Mason Remey. It's thus someone with a personal website writing about Remey. It does not qualify for a reliable source about Remey, regardless if it's dedicated to that subject. As far as reliability, it's equivalent to me buying my own web domain and posting my version of Remey's life on it, so in other words not reliable. It goes both ways. We can't smear or exalt Remey through personal websites. If Remey published information about himself, then it would be self published, and even then wouldn't be allowed inclusion if it was contentious or about a third party. As far as I can tell from our conversation Remey only left diaries in certain archives that are not published. Another category is someone else publishing about Remey. Spataro falls into that category and different rules apply for those sources. Brent's site is on the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. The only person who needs to convince other people is the person pushing for inclusion. Feel free to get a third party to review it. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You're right about one thing; there is a miscommuication going on here, but you haven't summarized it with any accuracy. One, the contact link on the site is not to Brent Mathieu showing it's not his site. The site is dedicated to hosting all things Remey, and this bio is one of those things. The objections to the contents of this sight have only been raised now after they have been in the article unassailed for well over 2 years. The objections haven't even been consistent, but change daily. It has only been in the last 12 hours after this discussion has waxed on for over a week that it has come down from on high that it's value in treating details of Remey's life is zero and the whole bio is "out". It is precisely because of it's value from a scholar on the subject that these details found there place in this article for the last 2.5 years. You claim it's the editor wishing for inclusion to provide the source, right? I did provide a valid source for all this in 2005 when I first contributed it. It is merely your assertions now that it all of a sudden is disqualified based on your own conjectures. This was and is a valid source for information about Remey as it's thoroughly sourced, and no one has EVER brought up objections until now. So therefore the burden for inclusion has been met; it is your self-created dilema that is waxing haughty against it with increasingly creative ways to dismiss it. I'm unmoved. Feel free to find someone who is or drop it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:::::Cuñado, Jeff3000, do you think we should pull the site entirely as a personal site, or shall we trust it for the proclamation? [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
From Mason's bio at CMR.net:
"Note on author: Brent Mathieu accepted the Baha’i Faith in December 1973 and recognized Mason Remey as its Guardian. This was prior to Remey’s death in February 1974. Mathieu’s first teachers in the Faith were Leland and Opal Jensen of Missoula, Montana. He corresponded extensively with Joseph Pepe, the adopted son and companion of Remey, from 1975 to1993. He maintains a personal collection of Pepe’s correspondence with Baha’is during that time. Mathieu’s collection includes personal correspondence with Donald A Harvey, Remey’s successor, and Orthodox Baha’is Frank Schlatter and Joel Marangella. It contains other individuals’ correspondence supportive of Remey’s Guardianship. The above biography is based on Mathieu’s memoirs, personal letters, and research of credible histories. More footnotes and references are planned to be added. You can contact the author at [email protected], or Brent Mathieu, 1412 W. Washington, Boise, Idaho 83702."

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

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

::Hear, hear! [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the three of you are the only people that could be convinced that the biography of Charles Mason Remey on charlesmasonremey.net is something other than a verfiable self published source that is perfectly acceptable to use as a source about itself. The point is that the subject of the bio is strictly relegated to the subject of Remey and therefore is entirely appropriate to use reference to itself. It's a creative charade to attempt to negate it because Mason himself is not the owner of the site. As you three have made clear that you deem him a covenant breaker you've perjured yourself to you bias and contempt to the subject. This edit war you have waged against him is against material that has stood since 2005 and will continue to for many years to come. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:I could create a website named charlesmasonremy.com and post anything I wanted about Mason Remey. The name of the website doesn't make it on official website on Mason Remey, and thus it is a personal website. It's run by an individual thus making it a personal website, hosting content that has does not meet any of the criteria of being a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. The fact that it was on the page for many years doesn't mean it is acceptable; there's a boatload of pages on Wikipedia that don't abide by Wikipedia standards, and that the content was there doesn't make it any more acceptable. I'll continue to abide by Wikipedia policy and remove the content. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Are you reduced to ''ad hominem'' again? Would you please argue the facts.
::The argument is simple:
::#CMR.net is a personal website with anonymous owner(s). (Statement of fact.)
::#Therefore, it has no reputation at all, much less as one for reputable fact-checking. (Simple logical step. Anonymous people can have no reputation by definition of "reputation".)
::#It fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. (Simple conclusion as both policies require the author to be known by independent confirmation. Publishing is the standard.)
::That is a line of reasoning that is trivial for you to refute. I'll lay it out for you.
::#Show where the identities of the owner of CMR.net may be found, then
::#Show that that owner is not an indvidual, or
::#Show that, if that owner is an individual, they have a recognized reputation for scholarship. (Homeopaths and high-school teachers aren't historians or biographers).
::All you need are two verifiable factoids and ''poof'' there goes our argument.
::That the material's been poorly sourced since '05 doesn't make a difference. It's up to you to justify this and you haven't presented proof to refute the argument. The material's already gone per policy and will continue for many years to come. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

:Easy. ''Delete'' it — unless its got a [[WP:V]] source. I've swung the delete hammer heavily enough on Baha'i topics around WP, I'm more than happy to see it done here.
:*Brent Matthieu is out - [[WP:Selfpub]], by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself. See above.
:*Diaries are out - Not [[WP:V|published]].
:''SoW'' is out - [[WP:RS|Unreliable]]
:Peter Smith's ''Encyclopedia'' is published and at least lists Harvey, Marangella, King and Jensen, so these people won't be lost entirely, and the article will be streamlined considerably.
::[[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=236169654&oldid=236150224 Sorry] Jeff. Those sections are entirely unreferenced or rely on an unacceptable source.
::If you've got a better source for the biographical data — add it. If you've got ''any'' [[WP:V]] sources on the other "Guardians" add it. I've got a valid 3rd-party source (Smith) as per above and can rewrite those sections combining them into one. But I thought I'd flag them for needed references first in case somebody's got some. I can rewrite it sooner if you'd rather. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Spataro ==

Jeff, how is it that the details of Remey's family history, early life, education, death, and interment are ''all'' on the same page (p. 31) of Spataro's book? [http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qisbn=0967165636 It's] a forty page pamplet and it takes thiry pages to get to his life story and crams all of these details onto one page? It strains credulity that this source is being used appropriately. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Maybe you could squint your eyes and look a little closer. The book is used to reference a wopping total of 3 statements; theres one on page 25, one minor note from page 31 and 31 again which gives elaborate detail to the funeral. It's not used to source his family history or his early life; Remey himself mentioned those on page 2 of his proclamation Which is where ref 5 points to. He's used for note 17 which mentions page 25, and then the details of his funeral are given from Pepe himself on page 31. The first paragraph of page 31 makes reference to him first hearing of the Baha'i faith while in archetecture school in Paris at Ecole de Beaux Arts, so I used that to reference that one sentence in "Early life". See? The book's barely touches on his early life, but focuses on the details of his adult Baha'i life. It's not a biography or I would have been able to put it to greater use here. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::The only thing the proclamation confirms is that he was Epicopalian. So none of his early life has a source. Bad form to elminate a fact tag when your source doesn't address them all. It's still odd that his education and death are treated on the same page in Spataro. If this is true, it must be a strange book. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
His education isn't really "treated" per se. In summarizing the last days of his Baha' life, details from the 1st days are given, as he first heard of it while in school in Paris, that's all. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sourcing problems ==

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

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

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

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

The Pepe Remey section should be struck. He was not a claimant. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:The paragraph about the formation of his NSA is entirely germane and credibly sourced, and yet you haven't provided a reason for it's excision or even mentioned it here. Was this was an error in these overly zealous deletions? It now implies that nothing happened following his proclamation except that two other groups formed. As this article has been culled to a skeleton as it is, it really calls to question the good faith of anyone seeking to further excise credible information when so little of the full story is being portrayed. I object to the extent of these edits as it has removed reliably sourced information. You have to admit, though, that it's rather amusing that the sources which grant inclusion for this information is coming from transcripts of a lawsuit your own NSA maliciously ensnared us all in, and then LOST. LOL. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:::Nope. Sorry. Your "source" is a court filing, not a court opinion. So, it's probably the worst example of WP:SELFPUB as there's no third-party editing at all. And I finally get this subterfuge:
:::*Make specious allegations in a court filing.
:::*Scan the filing and post it on your website.
:::*Refer to the filing as if it were independently corroborated.
:::*Presto-chango: specious allegations become independently corroborated facts.
:::Clever. It probably works for the credulous. Sorry, I'm better informed.
:::The court filing is out as not [[WP:V]], not [[WP:RS]], and effectively [[WP:SELFPUB]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently your understanding of being civil comes with a double-standard clause where you can name call? I was pointing out that without mentioning it you removed an entire paragraph that had a source which was provided by Cunado and never questioned in the past. Removing it effectively removed any pertinent information about what he did with himself and his followers beyond his proclamation. It was the only thing left after your last round of hatcheting this article, and you excised it and yet failed to provide any mention or explanation. If you now all of a sudden have decided to take issue with these types of sources, then why don't you ask your pal to stop providing them. I had NOTHING to do with EVER bringing forward any court documents as sources, so I'll thank you to tone down the accusations of "subterfuge". What an entirely preposterous notion; none of these court documents are hosted on our sites, and I never claimed they were "independently corroborated". What are you even ranting about? It was YOUR NSA that brought the court case forward that has been used as a references here and elsewhere, and then in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE it was Cunado who referenced back to it, but yet you're attacking me and making outlandish allegations about me using it inappropriately. And I'm the only one being jerk, huh? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:I ''explained'' my edits, cited policy, and got my good faith questioned and took a cheap shot for my trouble. Yeah, you were a jerk. It's another word for incivil. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now the martyr? If what you say were true this discussion wouldn't have taken the turns it has. You NEVER explained or even mentioned why you removed the paragraph about the formation of the NSAUHG. You explained about the claimants, but failed to mention why a sourced paragraph was included. Now I understand your positions, but you didn't state it at the outset, so please spare us all this victim routine. Yes you had "generally left this article alone", until earlier this summer when you and your crew waged a 30 day edit war which effectively had reduced this biography to rubble. Now you're apparently still not done gutting it's content. The only actual victim of these circumstances around here is this article, and it has you to thank for destroying it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:It's current state is a ''vast'' improvement over the POV-pushing state it was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=229938463 before]. Horribly [[WP:SOURCES|sourced]]. None of them [[tertiary sources]]. Worse references. Sorry if that trips across your [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
These objections about the NSA's Chicago case are entirely inane, and removing content from this article based on this faulty reasoning is out of order. Since these circumstances are not clearly defined by the WP:V policy, and instances of court documents are not clearly established on what is and isn't acceptable, we find ourselves again at the mercy of your interpretations. You have launched this assault on this and other pages removing content based on this charade about the court docs being a primary source, when in fact it clearly states at the outset of that document that the items found in BOLD text are not objected to by any parties in the case, and so are therefore considered undisputed facts as they are uncontested. To wit, it states just before point #1: "Facts set forth in bold-face type are agreed by all parties." They are facts laid out in both sides recounting of events. Furthermore the details lifted from the Findings of Facts document that are being used here are simply series of events, and not statements about beliefs or hearsay. Please examine the document and see for yourself that the points in BOLD are uncontested FACTS. So this assault against its use here is entirely inane, and absolutely afoul of logic and reason. I am therefore restoring this entirely appropriate verifiable source. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

::You know the process here. One editor makes an argument. Others who disagree make counter arguments. I've made mine, and am still waiting for you to stop name-calling, presuming bad faith, and actually make an argument based on policy.
::This is easy. I've asserted that court filings are not [[WP:V]] because they aren't published by reliable third parties. They aren't [[WP:RS]] because, by definition, these are biased by the POV of their respective authors. Please disprove both points and stop the [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You're accusing me of having an axe to grind here for trying to keep undisputed facts about the group that followed Mason from being censured from this page? That's really the position you want to take when you've spent the better part of '08 blotting out as many details from this article as you could get away with? Now you're blotting out something as simple as the details of the formation of his council from his bio, and I've got the axe to grind for trying to defend this material? You're a real piece of work.

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

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

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

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

== RFC: Questionable Sources ==

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

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

'''Object''' Self published, not relibale. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_cyclists_at_the_2009_Tour_Down_Under|click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!]]'') 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::YellowMonkey, it's noted in the summary that it's self-published, so by definition not reliable. The question posed was that automatically disqualify using material like this, or do the exceptions granted in [[WP:QS]] allow for this type of material? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

==Spataro's book as a source==
[http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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":
#Spataro’s account of Remey’s life borders on adoration.
#For three years he researched the life of Remey
#He gives an economical but clear history of the Faith up to the time of his writing, 1987.
#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.
#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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol6/waless/bib.htm] [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/index/diglib/articles.htm] [http://www.worldlanguageprocess.org/essays/blang/blang3.htm] [http://ahang.rabbani.googlepages.com/Witnesses_3_Bibliography.pdf]. 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Dream Focus|Dream Focus]] ([[User talk:Dream Focus|talk]]) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, the text is not a [[WP:RS]].
# As a high-school teacher moonlighting as an historian, he has no standing.
# He’s clearly biased by his own admission as well as the review.
# 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.
# 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". [[WP:SELF|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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?[[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

<s>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 [http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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 [http://icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_aff_history.htm 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. [[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:For clarity's sake, the concensus I'm refering to includes the following statement:
:#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)
:#<s>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)</s>
:#Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is, but perhaps wise to accede that they are going to be if not "self serving" exactly then not overly critical.As the article does not rely solely on this material I think it's use can be justified. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:#Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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:
::#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"
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 …" <nowiki>[</nowiki>Emphasis is Wikipedia's<nowiki>]</nowiki>. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Just to reinforce why the policy is what it is. Would you allow [http://www.charlesmasonremey.com/ 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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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.
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy would change. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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)
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
While Jeff300000 has quoted Blueboar correctly from [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Help clarifying SPS|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 [[User:General Disarray|'''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 …" <nowiki>[Empasis is Wikipedia's]</nowiki>

: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::And, methinks you are misrepresenting the discussion on [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_clarifying_SPS|V#SPS]]. Blueboar's [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/A-F#B|not an admin]], and nobody else participated in the discussion. And, by the way, [[WP:Admin|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== "Distinctly contradictory appointments"? ==

<s>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. --[[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

==Current reverts==
The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:
#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.
#The word "confused" in the sentence "Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor". This is straight from the source.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:#Then only the 2ndary are needed, like I said.
:#Whatever.
:#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.
:#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.
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Disarray, you're presuming bad faith here. Consider yourself warned. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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.) [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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.
::#[[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.
::#You removed wording that is right from the source.
::#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.
::#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.
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]] [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Mason+Remey 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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

::#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.
::#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.
::#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?[[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
#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.
#The point that Pepe is the adopted son is in the article. Having the picture is undue weight compared to the other claimants.
#As regarding the link, I'm up for removing all the external links.
Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::#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.
::#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.
::#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[Ad nauseam|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:Disarray, you're a scream. You want to be taken seriously, but these "[[Pot_calling_the_kettle_black|The kettle is black!]]" statements are hilarious. You start with [[proof by assertion]], continue with [[argumentum ad nauseum|argument by repetition]], crescendo to [[Imperative mood|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 [[WP:Attention#Overt_and_covert_attention|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 [[WP:UNDUE|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:OWN|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 [[WP:WAR|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [[WP:NOTABLE|notable]] by Wikipedia standards. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-30T18:29:11Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */

{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=C
|priority=
|listas=Remey, Mason
}}
{{WPBF|class=C|importance=}}

{| class="infobox" width="290px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="1"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[Talk:Mason Remey/archive1|Archive 1]] 01/2005-09/2008
|-
|colspan="2"|
----
|}

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

:I'll try to address individual points on the last revert. Refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=235556940 this] version as the version you're proposing.
:1) The line about being introduced by May Bolles was repetition, under "As a Baha'i", first and third paragraphs.
:2) Of all the accolades, choosing the two that use the phrase "son" are unacceptable and original research, trying to casually cherry-pick quotations that imply a literal adoption without explicitly stating it. Besides that, listing `Abdu'l-Baha's praise of an individual is self-serving on any WP article, and fails neutrality. Compare to any other bio on Baha'is, for example [[`Alí-Muhammad Varqá]]. It's short, simple, factual. Whether the accolades are verifiable or reliable is not a major issue.
:3) Remey's reflection on the W&T. Not sure how this is pertinent to a bio.
:4) The issue of hair and blood are referenced from a BUPC website. Completely unacceptable as a source for such a statement. Also, another attempt to throw in the phrase "son".
:5) Remey never addressed the issue... in his written statement declaring himself as Guardian. That is how it's worded, and I added as a reference the statement.
:6) The broken link is fixed.
:7) The websites you added are linkspam. Clear and simple. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You apparently don't get it, but I'm sure we can get on the same page about all this. I didn't "choose" any of the content on this page by "cherry-picking" favorable material, but thanks for the [[WP:AGF]]. I rewrote this page back in '05 based primarily on information found a CMR.net, see? The Hair and Blood, if you would have given it more than a cursory glance and checked the reference (not the photo which is not the ref.), you would have been directed to CMR.net which discusses it at length (almost word for word). So guess what? It stays. Likewise with the SoW content. It's not my research but is pointing to the primary self published source about ITSELF. So guess what. It stays. Likewise reflections on the Will are part of details about his finalt visit to the Holy Land, which also are discussed at length on CMR.net. It's not significant that of several million Baha'is Shoghi Effendi called Remey to the Holy Land to be the first to read the Will, and to give him a token relic? Well guess what? Noone cares what you think about it as it's referenced back to CMR.net almost word for word and as with these others, IT STAYS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=235653609&oldid=235627331 Please elaborate]; how is his proclamation an unreliable source for referencing what he said in his proclamation? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Look again, it was a duplicate reference. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::Not true. Read [[WP:SELFPUB]] first. If this were Remey's autobiography, then yes it'd be acceptable. As it's not - out it goes.
::::It's sloppy anyway. It's the [[Ecole des Beaux Arts]], not the Ecole des Artes. Even this [[imbecile|engineer]] knows the difference. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on which of the 7 points of [[WP:SELFPUB]] you feel dismiss the bio on CMR.net, and all of a sudden disqualify it as something other than a source about itself. To suggest it's "out" because it's "by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself" is patently absurd. I will not be swayed by these assertions for they are entirely vapid. CMR's biography was written and extensively sourced by someone we all know has been a follower of CMR's for over 30 years which more than qualifies him as an expert on the subject. Moreover the site is entirely devoted to Remey's public statements, his bio, and an archive of SoW articles about him. How preposterous that two days ago you stated "If CMR.net is bona fide, and because there's no genuinely reliable online source for Remey's statemtns, I'm letting it slide — you still can't use it for anything to do with 'Abdul-Baha." Now it's "out". You sure seem to have a high regard for the weight of your personal opinions around here; one day your permission is granted, and the next it is revoked. I feel these statements speak volumes about how have chosen to treat this matter, as do the rest of your comments here show how creative one can get with interpreting policies.

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

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

:Apparently I have to spell the obvious out. Selfpubs can be used only if:
:'''2 "it is not contentious;"''' — Both Cuñado and I question the authenticity of certain sections, particularly the biography.
:'''3 "it is not unduly self-serving;"''' — This is clearly an apologetics site.
:'''4 "it does not involve claims about third parties;"''' — It can't be used to source "accolades" and other such from anyone other than Remey.
:'''6 "there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;"''' — I have no idea who Brent Mathieu is or his credentials to provide this source on the bio. I have a clue who Remey is, and his proclamation certainly rings true.
:'''7 "the article is not based primarily on such sources."''' — There were sections whose sole source was this CMR.net biography.

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

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

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

:We don't have to "compromise" on policy. Either the material meets it or it doesn't. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess all you have to do now is convince an unbiased third party on your creative interpretations of this [[WP:SELFPUB|policy]] and you'll have your way. From where I'm sitting my concerns are valid and being wholly ignored here despite my best efforts to elaborate on them. Two days ago "you'd let it slide", and now it's "out" and you're tagging every other sentence with citations needed? This is improving the article somehow?
*on #2, you've proven yourselves to be contentious against the subject and your considerations are therefore dismissed.
*on #3 this accusation could be leveled against any self published website, and is not a grounds for dismissal as the bio makes efforts to state facts and can't be shown to take "unduly self serving" liberties without references. the objection is meaningless.
*on #4 this issue is not on the table at this time, as I haven't pushed forward with the accolades issue; moot point.
*on #6 it states who authored it; therefore there's no doubts. The policy doesn't say you two have to know him.
*on #7 your concerns about "whole sections" are irrelevant, for this states that "the ARTICLE doesn't rely solely on such sources, which it doesn't; also moot.
As I said your eradicating valid information, and are propagating an edit war over. I object to the notion that CMR.net's bio is "out" and reject your creative justification for doing so. That's all I have to say on this matter. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think the miscommunication here is that CMR.net is by (says to be by) Brent M, not by Mason Remey. It's thus someone with a personal website writing about Remey. It does not qualify for a reliable source about Remey, regardless if it's dedicated to that subject. As far as reliability, it's equivalent to me buying my own web domain and posting my version of Remey's life on it, so in other words not reliable. It goes both ways. We can't smear or exalt Remey through personal websites. If Remey published information about himself, then it would be self published, and even then wouldn't be allowed inclusion if it was contentious or about a third party. As far as I can tell from our conversation Remey only left diaries in certain archives that are not published. Another category is someone else publishing about Remey. Spataro falls into that category and different rules apply for those sources. Brent's site is on the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. The only person who needs to convince other people is the person pushing for inclusion. Feel free to get a third party to review it. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You're right about one thing; there is a miscommuication going on here, but you haven't summarized it with any accuracy. One, the contact link on the site is not to Brent Mathieu showing it's not his site. The site is dedicated to hosting all things Remey, and this bio is one of those things. The objections to the contents of this sight have only been raised now after they have been in the article unassailed for well over 2 years. The objections haven't even been consistent, but change daily. It has only been in the last 12 hours after this discussion has waxed on for over a week that it has come down from on high that it's value in treating details of Remey's life is zero and the whole bio is "out". It is precisely because of it's value from a scholar on the subject that these details found there place in this article for the last 2.5 years. You claim it's the editor wishing for inclusion to provide the source, right? I did provide a valid source for all this in 2005 when I first contributed it. It is merely your assertions now that it all of a sudden is disqualified based on your own conjectures. This was and is a valid source for information about Remey as it's thoroughly sourced, and no one has EVER brought up objections until now. So therefore the burden for inclusion has been met; it is your self-created dilema that is waxing haughty against it with increasingly creative ways to dismiss it. I'm unmoved. Feel free to find someone who is or drop it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:::::Cuñado, Jeff3000, do you think we should pull the site entirely as a personal site, or shall we trust it for the proclamation? [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
From Mason's bio at CMR.net:
"Note on author: Brent Mathieu accepted the Baha’i Faith in December 1973 and recognized Mason Remey as its Guardian. This was prior to Remey’s death in February 1974. Mathieu’s first teachers in the Faith were Leland and Opal Jensen of Missoula, Montana. He corresponded extensively with Joseph Pepe, the adopted son and companion of Remey, from 1975 to1993. He maintains a personal collection of Pepe’s correspondence with Baha’is during that time. Mathieu’s collection includes personal correspondence with Donald A Harvey, Remey’s successor, and Orthodox Baha’is Frank Schlatter and Joel Marangella. It contains other individuals’ correspondence supportive of Remey’s Guardianship. The above biography is based on Mathieu’s memoirs, personal letters, and research of credible histories. More footnotes and references are planned to be added. You can contact the author at [email protected], or Brent Mathieu, 1412 W. Washington, Boise, Idaho 83702."

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

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

::Hear, hear! [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the three of you are the only people that could be convinced that the biography of Charles Mason Remey on charlesmasonremey.net is something other than a verfiable self published source that is perfectly acceptable to use as a source about itself. The point is that the subject of the bio is strictly relegated to the subject of Remey and therefore is entirely appropriate to use reference to itself. It's a creative charade to attempt to negate it because Mason himself is not the owner of the site. As you three have made clear that you deem him a covenant breaker you've perjured yourself to you bias and contempt to the subject. This edit war you have waged against him is against material that has stood since 2005 and will continue to for many years to come. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:I could create a website named charlesmasonremy.com and post anything I wanted about Mason Remey. The name of the website doesn't make it on official website on Mason Remey, and thus it is a personal website. It's run by an individual thus making it a personal website, hosting content that has does not meet any of the criteria of being a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. The fact that it was on the page for many years doesn't mean it is acceptable; there's a boatload of pages on Wikipedia that don't abide by Wikipedia standards, and that the content was there doesn't make it any more acceptable. I'll continue to abide by Wikipedia policy and remove the content. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Are you reduced to ''ad hominem'' again? Would you please argue the facts.
::The argument is simple:
::#CMR.net is a personal website with anonymous owner(s). (Statement of fact.)
::#Therefore, it has no reputation at all, much less as one for reputable fact-checking. (Simple logical step. Anonymous people can have no reputation by definition of "reputation".)
::#It fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. (Simple conclusion as both policies require the author to be known by independent confirmation. Publishing is the standard.)
::That is a line of reasoning that is trivial for you to refute. I'll lay it out for you.
::#Show where the identities of the owner of CMR.net may be found, then
::#Show that that owner is not an indvidual, or
::#Show that, if that owner is an individual, they have a recognized reputation for scholarship. (Homeopaths and high-school teachers aren't historians or biographers).
::All you need are two verifiable factoids and ''poof'' there goes our argument.
::That the material's been poorly sourced since '05 doesn't make a difference. It's up to you to justify this and you haven't presented proof to refute the argument. The material's already gone per policy and will continue for many years to come. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

:Easy. ''Delete'' it — unless its got a [[WP:V]] source. I've swung the delete hammer heavily enough on Baha'i topics around WP, I'm more than happy to see it done here.
:*Brent Matthieu is out - [[WP:Selfpub]], by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself. See above.
:*Diaries are out - Not [[WP:V|published]].
:''SoW'' is out - [[WP:RS|Unreliable]]
:Peter Smith's ''Encyclopedia'' is published and at least lists Harvey, Marangella, King and Jensen, so these people won't be lost entirely, and the article will be streamlined considerably.
::[[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=236169654&oldid=236150224 Sorry] Jeff. Those sections are entirely unreferenced or rely on an unacceptable source.
::If you've got a better source for the biographical data — add it. If you've got ''any'' [[WP:V]] sources on the other "Guardians" add it. I've got a valid 3rd-party source (Smith) as per above and can rewrite those sections combining them into one. But I thought I'd flag them for needed references first in case somebody's got some. I can rewrite it sooner if you'd rather. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Spataro ==

Jeff, how is it that the details of Remey's family history, early life, education, death, and interment are ''all'' on the same page (p. 31) of Spataro's book? [http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qisbn=0967165636 It's] a forty page pamplet and it takes thiry pages to get to his life story and crams all of these details onto one page? It strains credulity that this source is being used appropriately. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Maybe you could squint your eyes and look a little closer. The book is used to reference a wopping total of 3 statements; theres one on page 25, one minor note from page 31 and 31 again which gives elaborate detail to the funeral. It's not used to source his family history or his early life; Remey himself mentioned those on page 2 of his proclamation Which is where ref 5 points to. He's used for note 17 which mentions page 25, and then the details of his funeral are given from Pepe himself on page 31. The first paragraph of page 31 makes reference to him first hearing of the Baha'i faith while in archetecture school in Paris at Ecole de Beaux Arts, so I used that to reference that one sentence in "Early life". See? The book's barely touches on his early life, but focuses on the details of his adult Baha'i life. It's not a biography or I would have been able to put it to greater use here. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::The only thing the proclamation confirms is that he was Epicopalian. So none of his early life has a source. Bad form to elminate a fact tag when your source doesn't address them all. It's still odd that his education and death are treated on the same page in Spataro. If this is true, it must be a strange book. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
His education isn't really "treated" per se. In summarizing the last days of his Baha' life, details from the 1st days are given, as he first heard of it while in school in Paris, that's all. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sourcing problems ==

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

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

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

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

The Pepe Remey section should be struck. He was not a claimant. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:The paragraph about the formation of his NSA is entirely germane and credibly sourced, and yet you haven't provided a reason for it's excision or even mentioned it here. Was this was an error in these overly zealous deletions? It now implies that nothing happened following his proclamation except that two other groups formed. As this article has been culled to a skeleton as it is, it really calls to question the good faith of anyone seeking to further excise credible information when so little of the full story is being portrayed. I object to the extent of these edits as it has removed reliably sourced information. You have to admit, though, that it's rather amusing that the sources which grant inclusion for this information is coming from transcripts of a lawsuit your own NSA maliciously ensnared us all in, and then LOST. LOL. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:::Nope. Sorry. Your "source" is a court filing, not a court opinion. So, it's probably the worst example of WP:SELFPUB as there's no third-party editing at all. And I finally get this subterfuge:
:::*Make specious allegations in a court filing.
:::*Scan the filing and post it on your website.
:::*Refer to the filing as if it were independently corroborated.
:::*Presto-chango: specious allegations become independently corroborated facts.
:::Clever. It probably works for the credulous. Sorry, I'm better informed.
:::The court filing is out as not [[WP:V]], not [[WP:RS]], and effectively [[WP:SELFPUB]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently your understanding of being civil comes with a double-standard clause where you can name call? I was pointing out that without mentioning it you removed an entire paragraph that had a source which was provided by Cunado and never questioned in the past. Removing it effectively removed any pertinent information about what he did with himself and his followers beyond his proclamation. It was the only thing left after your last round of hatcheting this article, and you excised it and yet failed to provide any mention or explanation. If you now all of a sudden have decided to take issue with these types of sources, then why don't you ask your pal to stop providing them. I had NOTHING to do with EVER bringing forward any court documents as sources, so I'll thank you to tone down the accusations of "subterfuge". What an entirely preposterous notion; none of these court documents are hosted on our sites, and I never claimed they were "independently corroborated". What are you even ranting about? It was YOUR NSA that brought the court case forward that has been used as a references here and elsewhere, and then in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE it was Cunado who referenced back to it, but yet you're attacking me and making outlandish allegations about me using it inappropriately. And I'm the only one being jerk, huh? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:I ''explained'' my edits, cited policy, and got my good faith questioned and took a cheap shot for my trouble. Yeah, you were a jerk. It's another word for incivil. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now the martyr? If what you say were true this discussion wouldn't have taken the turns it has. You NEVER explained or even mentioned why you removed the paragraph about the formation of the NSAUHG. You explained about the claimants, but failed to mention why a sourced paragraph was included. Now I understand your positions, but you didn't state it at the outset, so please spare us all this victim routine. Yes you had "generally left this article alone", until earlier this summer when you and your crew waged a 30 day edit war which effectively had reduced this biography to rubble. Now you're apparently still not done gutting it's content. The only actual victim of these circumstances around here is this article, and it has you to thank for destroying it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:It's current state is a ''vast'' improvement over the POV-pushing state it was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=229938463 before]. Horribly [[WP:SOURCES|sourced]]. None of them [[tertiary sources]]. Worse references. Sorry if that trips across your [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
These objections about the NSA's Chicago case are entirely inane, and removing content from this article based on this faulty reasoning is out of order. Since these circumstances are not clearly defined by the WP:V policy, and instances of court documents are not clearly established on what is and isn't acceptable, we find ourselves again at the mercy of your interpretations. You have launched this assault on this and other pages removing content based on this charade about the court docs being a primary source, when in fact it clearly states at the outset of that document that the items found in BOLD text are not objected to by any parties in the case, and so are therefore considered undisputed facts as they are uncontested. To wit, it states just before point #1: "Facts set forth in bold-face type are agreed by all parties." They are facts laid out in both sides recounting of events. Furthermore the details lifted from the Findings of Facts document that are being used here are simply series of events, and not statements about beliefs or hearsay. Please examine the document and see for yourself that the points in BOLD are uncontested FACTS. So this assault against its use here is entirely inane, and absolutely afoul of logic and reason. I am therefore restoring this entirely appropriate verifiable source. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

::You know the process here. One editor makes an argument. Others who disagree make counter arguments. I've made mine, and am still waiting for you to stop name-calling, presuming bad faith, and actually make an argument based on policy.
::This is easy. I've asserted that court filings are not [[WP:V]] because they aren't published by reliable third parties. They aren't [[WP:RS]] because, by definition, these are biased by the POV of their respective authors. Please disprove both points and stop the [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You're accusing me of having an axe to grind here for trying to keep undisputed facts about the group that followed Mason from being censured from this page? That's really the position you want to take when you've spent the better part of '08 blotting out as many details from this article as you could get away with? Now you're blotting out something as simple as the details of the formation of his council from his bio, and I've got the axe to grind for trying to defend this material? You're a real piece of work.

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

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

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

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

== RFC: Questionable Sources ==

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

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

'''Object''' Self published, not relibale. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_cyclists_at_the_2009_Tour_Down_Under|click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!]]'') 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::YellowMonkey, it's noted in the summary that it's self-published, so by definition not reliable. The question posed was that automatically disqualify using material like this, or do the exceptions granted in [[WP:QS]] allow for this type of material? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

==Spataro's book as a source==
[http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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":
#Spataro’s account of Remey’s life borders on adoration.
#For three years he researched the life of Remey
#He gives an economical but clear history of the Faith up to the time of his writing, 1987.
#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.
#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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol6/waless/bib.htm] [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/index/diglib/articles.htm] [http://www.worldlanguageprocess.org/essays/blang/blang3.htm] [http://ahang.rabbani.googlepages.com/Witnesses_3_Bibliography.pdf]. 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Dream Focus|Dream Focus]] ([[User talk:Dream Focus|talk]]) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, the text is not a [[WP:RS]].
# As a high-school teacher moonlighting as an historian, he has no standing.
# He’s clearly biased by his own admission as well as the review.
# 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.
# 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". [[WP:SELF|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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?[[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

<s>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 [http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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 [http://icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_aff_history.htm 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. [[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:For clarity's sake, the concensus I'm refering to includes the following statement:
:#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)
:#<s>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)</s>
:#Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is, but perhaps wise to accede that they are going to be if not "self serving" exactly then not overly critical.As the article does not rely solely on this material I think it's use can be justified. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:#Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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:
::#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"
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 …" <nowiki>[</nowiki>Emphasis is Wikipedia's<nowiki>]</nowiki>. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Just to reinforce why the policy is what it is. Would you allow [http://www.charlesmasonremey.com/ 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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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.
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy would change. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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)
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
While Jeff300000 has quoted Blueboar correctly from [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Help clarifying SPS|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 [[User:General Disarray|'''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 …" <nowiki>[Empasis is Wikipedia's]</nowiki>

: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::And, methinks you are misrepresenting the discussion on [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_clarifying_SPS|V#SPS]]. Blueboar's [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/A-F#B|not an admin]], and nobody else participated in the discussion. And, by the way, [[WP:Admin|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== "Distinctly contradictory appointments"? ==

<s>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. --[[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

==Current reverts==
The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:
#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.
#The word "confused" in the sentence "Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor". This is straight from the source.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:#Then only the 2ndary are needed, like I said.
:#Whatever.
:#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.
:#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.
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Disarray, you're presuming bad faith here. Consider yourself warned. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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.) [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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.
::#[[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.
::#You removed wording that is right from the source.
::#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.
::#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.
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]] [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Mason+Remey 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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

::#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.
::#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.
::#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?[[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
#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.
#The point that Pepe is the adopted son is in the article. Having the picture is undue weight compared to the other claimants.
#As regarding the link, I'm up for removing all the external links.
Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::#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.
::#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.
::#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[Ad nauseam|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:Disarray, you're a scream. You want to be taken seriously, but these "[[Pot_calling_the_kettle_black|The kettle is black!]]" statements are hilarious. You start with [[proof by assertion]], continue with [[argumentum ad nauseum|argument by repetition]], crescendo to [[Imperative mood|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 [[WP:Attention#Overt_and_covert_attention|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 [[WP:UNDUE|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:OWN|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 [[WP:WAR|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [[WP:NOTABLE|notable]] by Wikipedia standards. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-30T18:27:47Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */

{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=C
|priority=
|listas=Remey, Mason
}}
{{WPBF|class=C|importance=}}

{| class="infobox" width="290px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="1"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[Talk:Mason Remey/archive1|Archive 1]] 01/2005-09/2008
|-
|colspan="2"|
----
|}

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

:I'll try to address individual points on the last revert. Refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=235556940 this] version as the version you're proposing.
:1) The line about being introduced by May Bolles was repetition, under "As a Baha'i", first and third paragraphs.
:2) Of all the accolades, choosing the two that use the phrase "son" are unacceptable and original research, trying to casually cherry-pick quotations that imply a literal adoption without explicitly stating it. Besides that, listing `Abdu'l-Baha's praise of an individual is self-serving on any WP article, and fails neutrality. Compare to any other bio on Baha'is, for example [[`Alí-Muhammad Varqá]]. It's short, simple, factual. Whether the accolades are verifiable or reliable is not a major issue.
:3) Remey's reflection on the W&T. Not sure how this is pertinent to a bio.
:4) The issue of hair and blood are referenced from a BUPC website. Completely unacceptable as a source for such a statement. Also, another attempt to throw in the phrase "son".
:5) Remey never addressed the issue... in his written statement declaring himself as Guardian. That is how it's worded, and I added as a reference the statement.
:6) The broken link is fixed.
:7) The websites you added are linkspam. Clear and simple. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You apparently don't get it, but I'm sure we can get on the same page about all this. I didn't "choose" any of the content on this page by "cherry-picking" favorable material, but thanks for the [[WP:AGF]]. I rewrote this page back in '05 based primarily on information found a CMR.net, see? The Hair and Blood, if you would have given it more than a cursory glance and checked the reference (not the photo which is not the ref.), you would have been directed to CMR.net which discusses it at length (almost word for word). So guess what? It stays. Likewise with the SoW content. It's not my research but is pointing to the primary self published source about ITSELF. So guess what. It stays. Likewise reflections on the Will are part of details about his finalt visit to the Holy Land, which also are discussed at length on CMR.net. It's not significant that of several million Baha'is Shoghi Effendi called Remey to the Holy Land to be the first to read the Will, and to give him a token relic? Well guess what? Noone cares what you think about it as it's referenced back to CMR.net almost word for word and as with these others, IT STAYS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=235653609&oldid=235627331 Please elaborate]; how is his proclamation an unreliable source for referencing what he said in his proclamation? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Look again, it was a duplicate reference. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::Not true. Read [[WP:SELFPUB]] first. If this were Remey's autobiography, then yes it'd be acceptable. As it's not - out it goes.
::::It's sloppy anyway. It's the [[Ecole des Beaux Arts]], not the Ecole des Artes. Even this [[imbecile|engineer]] knows the difference. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on which of the 7 points of [[WP:SELFPUB]] you feel dismiss the bio on CMR.net, and all of a sudden disqualify it as something other than a source about itself. To suggest it's "out" because it's "by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself" is patently absurd. I will not be swayed by these assertions for they are entirely vapid. CMR's biography was written and extensively sourced by someone we all know has been a follower of CMR's for over 30 years which more than qualifies him as an expert on the subject. Moreover the site is entirely devoted to Remey's public statements, his bio, and an archive of SoW articles about him. How preposterous that two days ago you stated "If CMR.net is bona fide, and because there's no genuinely reliable online source for Remey's statemtns, I'm letting it slide — you still can't use it for anything to do with 'Abdul-Baha." Now it's "out". You sure seem to have a high regard for the weight of your personal opinions around here; one day your permission is granted, and the next it is revoked. I feel these statements speak volumes about how have chosen to treat this matter, as do the rest of your comments here show how creative one can get with interpreting policies.

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

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

:Apparently I have to spell the obvious out. Selfpubs can be used only if:
:'''2 "it is not contentious;"''' — Both Cuñado and I question the authenticity of certain sections, particularly the biography.
:'''3 "it is not unduly self-serving;"''' — This is clearly an apologetics site.
:'''4 "it does not involve claims about third parties;"''' — It can't be used to source "accolades" and other such from anyone other than Remey.
:'''6 "there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;"''' — I have no idea who Brent Mathieu is or his credentials to provide this source on the bio. I have a clue who Remey is, and his proclamation certainly rings true.
:'''7 "the article is not based primarily on such sources."''' — There were sections whose sole source was this CMR.net biography.

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

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

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

:We don't have to "compromise" on policy. Either the material meets it or it doesn't. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess all you have to do now is convince an unbiased third party on your creative interpretations of this [[WP:SELFPUB|policy]] and you'll have your way. From where I'm sitting my concerns are valid and being wholly ignored here despite my best efforts to elaborate on them. Two days ago "you'd let it slide", and now it's "out" and you're tagging every other sentence with citations needed? This is improving the article somehow?
*on #2, you've proven yourselves to be contentious against the subject and your considerations are therefore dismissed.
*on #3 this accusation could be leveled against any self published website, and is not a grounds for dismissal as the bio makes efforts to state facts and can't be shown to take "unduly self serving" liberties without references. the objection is meaningless.
*on #4 this issue is not on the table at this time, as I haven't pushed forward with the accolades issue; moot point.
*on #6 it states who authored it; therefore there's no doubts. The policy doesn't say you two have to know him.
*on #7 your concerns about "whole sections" are irrelevant, for this states that "the ARTICLE doesn't rely solely on such sources, which it doesn't; also moot.
As I said your eradicating valid information, and are propagating an edit war over. I object to the notion that CMR.net's bio is "out" and reject your creative justification for doing so. That's all I have to say on this matter. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think the miscommunication here is that CMR.net is by (says to be by) Brent M, not by Mason Remey. It's thus someone with a personal website writing about Remey. It does not qualify for a reliable source about Remey, regardless if it's dedicated to that subject. As far as reliability, it's equivalent to me buying my own web domain and posting my version of Remey's life on it, so in other words not reliable. It goes both ways. We can't smear or exalt Remey through personal websites. If Remey published information about himself, then it would be self published, and even then wouldn't be allowed inclusion if it was contentious or about a third party. As far as I can tell from our conversation Remey only left diaries in certain archives that are not published. Another category is someone else publishing about Remey. Spataro falls into that category and different rules apply for those sources. Brent's site is on the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. The only person who needs to convince other people is the person pushing for inclusion. Feel free to get a third party to review it. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You're right about one thing; there is a miscommuication going on here, but you haven't summarized it with any accuracy. One, the contact link on the site is not to Brent Mathieu showing it's not his site. The site is dedicated to hosting all things Remey, and this bio is one of those things. The objections to the contents of this sight have only been raised now after they have been in the article unassailed for well over 2 years. The objections haven't even been consistent, but change daily. It has only been in the last 12 hours after this discussion has waxed on for over a week that it has come down from on high that it's value in treating details of Remey's life is zero and the whole bio is "out". It is precisely because of it's value from a scholar on the subject that these details found there place in this article for the last 2.5 years. You claim it's the editor wishing for inclusion to provide the source, right? I did provide a valid source for all this in 2005 when I first contributed it. It is merely your assertions now that it all of a sudden is disqualified based on your own conjectures. This was and is a valid source for information about Remey as it's thoroughly sourced, and no one has EVER brought up objections until now. So therefore the burden for inclusion has been met; it is your self-created dilema that is waxing haughty against it with increasingly creative ways to dismiss it. I'm unmoved. Feel free to find someone who is or drop it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:::::Cuñado, Jeff3000, do you think we should pull the site entirely as a personal site, or shall we trust it for the proclamation? [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
From Mason's bio at CMR.net:
"Note on author: Brent Mathieu accepted the Baha’i Faith in December 1973 and recognized Mason Remey as its Guardian. This was prior to Remey’s death in February 1974. Mathieu’s first teachers in the Faith were Leland and Opal Jensen of Missoula, Montana. He corresponded extensively with Joseph Pepe, the adopted son and companion of Remey, from 1975 to1993. He maintains a personal collection of Pepe’s correspondence with Baha’is during that time. Mathieu’s collection includes personal correspondence with Donald A Harvey, Remey’s successor, and Orthodox Baha’is Frank Schlatter and Joel Marangella. It contains other individuals’ correspondence supportive of Remey’s Guardianship. The above biography is based on Mathieu’s memoirs, personal letters, and research of credible histories. More footnotes and references are planned to be added. You can contact the author at [email protected], or Brent Mathieu, 1412 W. Washington, Boise, Idaho 83702."

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

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

::Hear, hear! [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the three of you are the only people that could be convinced that the biography of Charles Mason Remey on charlesmasonremey.net is something other than a verfiable self published source that is perfectly acceptable to use as a source about itself. The point is that the subject of the bio is strictly relegated to the subject of Remey and therefore is entirely appropriate to use reference to itself. It's a creative charade to attempt to negate it because Mason himself is not the owner of the site. As you three have made clear that you deem him a covenant breaker you've perjured yourself to you bias and contempt to the subject. This edit war you have waged against him is against material that has stood since 2005 and will continue to for many years to come. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:I could create a website named charlesmasonremy.com and post anything I wanted about Mason Remey. The name of the website doesn't make it on official website on Mason Remey, and thus it is a personal website. It's run by an individual thus making it a personal website, hosting content that has does not meet any of the criteria of being a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. The fact that it was on the page for many years doesn't mean it is acceptable; there's a boatload of pages on Wikipedia that don't abide by Wikipedia standards, and that the content was there doesn't make it any more acceptable. I'll continue to abide by Wikipedia policy and remove the content. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Are you reduced to ''ad hominem'' again? Would you please argue the facts.
::The argument is simple:
::#CMR.net is a personal website with anonymous owner(s). (Statement of fact.)
::#Therefore, it has no reputation at all, much less as one for reputable fact-checking. (Simple logical step. Anonymous people can have no reputation by definition of "reputation".)
::#It fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. (Simple conclusion as both policies require the author to be known by independent confirmation. Publishing is the standard.)
::That is a line of reasoning that is trivial for you to refute. I'll lay it out for you.
::#Show where the identities of the owner of CMR.net may be found, then
::#Show that that owner is not an indvidual, or
::#Show that, if that owner is an individual, they have a recognized reputation for scholarship. (Homeopaths and high-school teachers aren't historians or biographers).
::All you need are two verifiable factoids and ''poof'' there goes our argument.
::That the material's been poorly sourced since '05 doesn't make a difference. It's up to you to justify this and you haven't presented proof to refute the argument. The material's already gone per policy and will continue for many years to come. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

:Easy. ''Delete'' it — unless its got a [[WP:V]] source. I've swung the delete hammer heavily enough on Baha'i topics around WP, I'm more than happy to see it done here.
:*Brent Matthieu is out - [[WP:Selfpub]], by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself. See above.
:*Diaries are out - Not [[WP:V|published]].
:''SoW'' is out - [[WP:RS|Unreliable]]
:Peter Smith's ''Encyclopedia'' is published and at least lists Harvey, Marangella, King and Jensen, so these people won't be lost entirely, and the article will be streamlined considerably.
::[[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=236169654&oldid=236150224 Sorry] Jeff. Those sections are entirely unreferenced or rely on an unacceptable source.
::If you've got a better source for the biographical data — add it. If you've got ''any'' [[WP:V]] sources on the other "Guardians" add it. I've got a valid 3rd-party source (Smith) as per above and can rewrite those sections combining them into one. But I thought I'd flag them for needed references first in case somebody's got some. I can rewrite it sooner if you'd rather. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Spataro ==

Jeff, how is it that the details of Remey's family history, early life, education, death, and interment are ''all'' on the same page (p. 31) of Spataro's book? [http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qisbn=0967165636 It's] a forty page pamplet and it takes thiry pages to get to his life story and crams all of these details onto one page? It strains credulity that this source is being used appropriately. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Maybe you could squint your eyes and look a little closer. The book is used to reference a wopping total of 3 statements; theres one on page 25, one minor note from page 31 and 31 again which gives elaborate detail to the funeral. It's not used to source his family history or his early life; Remey himself mentioned those on page 2 of his proclamation Which is where ref 5 points to. He's used for note 17 which mentions page 25, and then the details of his funeral are given from Pepe himself on page 31. The first paragraph of page 31 makes reference to him first hearing of the Baha'i faith while in archetecture school in Paris at Ecole de Beaux Arts, so I used that to reference that one sentence in "Early life". See? The book's barely touches on his early life, but focuses on the details of his adult Baha'i life. It's not a biography or I would have been able to put it to greater use here. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::The only thing the proclamation confirms is that he was Epicopalian. So none of his early life has a source. Bad form to elminate a fact tag when your source doesn't address them all. It's still odd that his education and death are treated on the same page in Spataro. If this is true, it must be a strange book. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
His education isn't really "treated" per se. In summarizing the last days of his Baha' life, details from the 1st days are given, as he first heard of it while in school in Paris, that's all. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sourcing problems ==

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

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

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

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

The Pepe Remey section should be struck. He was not a claimant. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:The paragraph about the formation of his NSA is entirely germane and credibly sourced, and yet you haven't provided a reason for it's excision or even mentioned it here. Was this was an error in these overly zealous deletions? It now implies that nothing happened following his proclamation except that two other groups formed. As this article has been culled to a skeleton as it is, it really calls to question the good faith of anyone seeking to further excise credible information when so little of the full story is being portrayed. I object to the extent of these edits as it has removed reliably sourced information. You have to admit, though, that it's rather amusing that the sources which grant inclusion for this information is coming from transcripts of a lawsuit your own NSA maliciously ensnared us all in, and then LOST. LOL. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:::Nope. Sorry. Your "source" is a court filing, not a court opinion. So, it's probably the worst example of WP:SELFPUB as there's no third-party editing at all. And I finally get this subterfuge:
:::*Make specious allegations in a court filing.
:::*Scan the filing and post it on your website.
:::*Refer to the filing as if it were independently corroborated.
:::*Presto-chango: specious allegations become independently corroborated facts.
:::Clever. It probably works for the credulous. Sorry, I'm better informed.
:::The court filing is out as not [[WP:V]], not [[WP:RS]], and effectively [[WP:SELFPUB]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently your understanding of being civil comes with a double-standard clause where you can name call? I was pointing out that without mentioning it you removed an entire paragraph that had a source which was provided by Cunado and never questioned in the past. Removing it effectively removed any pertinent information about what he did with himself and his followers beyond his proclamation. It was the only thing left after your last round of hatcheting this article, and you excised it and yet failed to provide any mention or explanation. If you now all of a sudden have decided to take issue with these types of sources, then why don't you ask your pal to stop providing them. I had NOTHING to do with EVER bringing forward any court documents as sources, so I'll thank you to tone down the accusations of "subterfuge". What an entirely preposterous notion; none of these court documents are hosted on our sites, and I never claimed they were "independently corroborated". What are you even ranting about? It was YOUR NSA that brought the court case forward that has been used as a references here and elsewhere, and then in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE it was Cunado who referenced back to it, but yet you're attacking me and making outlandish allegations about me using it inappropriately. And I'm the only one being jerk, huh? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:I ''explained'' my edits, cited policy, and got my good faith questioned and took a cheap shot for my trouble. Yeah, you were a jerk. It's another word for incivil. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now the martyr? If what you say were true this discussion wouldn't have taken the turns it has. You NEVER explained or even mentioned why you removed the paragraph about the formation of the NSAUHG. You explained about the claimants, but failed to mention why a sourced paragraph was included. Now I understand your positions, but you didn't state it at the outset, so please spare us all this victim routine. Yes you had "generally left this article alone", until earlier this summer when you and your crew waged a 30 day edit war which effectively had reduced this biography to rubble. Now you're apparently still not done gutting it's content. The only actual victim of these circumstances around here is this article, and it has you to thank for destroying it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:It's current state is a ''vast'' improvement over the POV-pushing state it was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=229938463 before]. Horribly [[WP:SOURCES|sourced]]. None of them [[tertiary sources]]. Worse references. Sorry if that trips across your [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
These objections about the NSA's Chicago case are entirely inane, and removing content from this article based on this faulty reasoning is out of order. Since these circumstances are not clearly defined by the WP:V policy, and instances of court documents are not clearly established on what is and isn't acceptable, we find ourselves again at the mercy of your interpretations. You have launched this assault on this and other pages removing content based on this charade about the court docs being a primary source, when in fact it clearly states at the outset of that document that the items found in BOLD text are not objected to by any parties in the case, and so are therefore considered undisputed facts as they are uncontested. To wit, it states just before point #1: "Facts set forth in bold-face type are agreed by all parties." They are facts laid out in both sides recounting of events. Furthermore the details lifted from the Findings of Facts document that are being used here are simply series of events, and not statements about beliefs or hearsay. Please examine the document and see for yourself that the points in BOLD are uncontested FACTS. So this assault against its use here is entirely inane, and absolutely afoul of logic and reason. I am therefore restoring this entirely appropriate verifiable source. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

::You know the process here. One editor makes an argument. Others who disagree make counter arguments. I've made mine, and am still waiting for you to stop name-calling, presuming bad faith, and actually make an argument based on policy.
::This is easy. I've asserted that court filings are not [[WP:V]] because they aren't published by reliable third parties. They aren't [[WP:RS]] because, by definition, these are biased by the POV of their respective authors. Please disprove both points and stop the [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You're accusing me of having an axe to grind here for trying to keep undisputed facts about the group that followed Mason from being censured from this page? That's really the position you want to take when you've spent the better part of '08 blotting out as many details from this article as you could get away with? Now you're blotting out something as simple as the details of the formation of his council from his bio, and I've got the axe to grind for trying to defend this material? You're a real piece of work.

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

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

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

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

== RFC: Questionable Sources ==

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

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

'''Object''' Self published, not relibale. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_cyclists_at_the_2009_Tour_Down_Under|click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!]]'') 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::YellowMonkey, it's noted in the summary that it's self-published, so by definition not reliable. The question posed was that automatically disqualify using material like this, or do the exceptions granted in [[WP:QS]] allow for this type of material? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

==Spataro's book as a source==
[http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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":
#Spataro’s account of Remey’s life borders on adoration.
#For three years he researched the life of Remey
#He gives an economical but clear history of the Faith up to the time of his writing, 1987.
#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.
#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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol6/waless/bib.htm] [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/index/diglib/articles.htm] [http://www.worldlanguageprocess.org/essays/blang/blang3.htm] [http://ahang.rabbani.googlepages.com/Witnesses_3_Bibliography.pdf]. 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Dream Focus|Dream Focus]] ([[User talk:Dream Focus|talk]]) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, the text is not a [[WP:RS]].
# As a high-school teacher moonlighting as an historian, he has no standing.
# He’s clearly biased by his own admission as well as the review.
# 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.
# 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". [[WP:SELF|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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?[[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

<s>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 [http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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 [http://icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_aff_history.htm 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. [[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:For clarity's sake, the concensus I'm refering to includes the following statement:
:#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)
:#<s>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)</s>
:#Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is, but perhaps wise to accede that they are going to be if not "self serving" exactly then not overly critical.As the article does not rely solely on this material I think it's use can be justified. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:#Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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:
::#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"
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 …" <nowiki>[</nowiki>Emphasis is Wikipedia's<nowiki>]</nowiki>. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Just to reinforce why the policy is what it is. Would you allow [http://www.charlesmasonremey.com/ 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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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.
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy would change. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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)
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
While Jeff300000 has quoted Blueboar correctly from [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Help clarifying SPS|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 [[User:General Disarray|'''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 …" <nowiki>[Empasis is Wikipedia's]</nowiki>

: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::And, methinks you are misrepresenting the discussion on [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_clarifying_SPS|V#SPS]]. Blueboar's [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/A-F#B|not an admin]], and nobody else participated in the discussion. And, by the way, [[WP:Admin|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== "Distinctly contradictory appointments"? ==

<s>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. --[[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

==Current reverts==
The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:
#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.
#The word "confused" in the sentence "Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor". This is straight from the source.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:#Then only the 2ndary are needed, like I said.
:#Whatever.
:#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.
:#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.
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Disarray, you're presuming bad faith here. Consider yourself warned. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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.) [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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.
::#[[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.
::#You removed wording that is right from the source.
::#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.
::#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.
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]] [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Mason+Remey 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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

::#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.
::#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.
::#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?[[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
#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.
#The point that Pepe is the adopted son is in the article. Having the picture is undue weight compared to the other claimants.
#As regarding the link, I'm up for removing all the external links.
Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::#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.
::#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.
::#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[Ad nauseam|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:Disarray, you're a scream. You want to be taken seriously, but these "[[Pot_calling_the_kettle_black|The kettle is black!]]" statements are hilarious. You start with [[proof by assertion]], continue with [[argumentum ad nauseum|argument by repetition]], crescendo to [[Imperative mood|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 [[WP:Attention#Overt_and_covert_attention|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 [[WP:UNDUE|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:OWN|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 [[WP:WAR|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [[WP:NOTABLE|notable]] by Wikipedia standards. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 12:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Jeff's hotlinking skills haven't yet reach the sophistication of his mentor Mike, for he's linking to notability of an article when referring to author's notability; It take an intellectual giant to hot-link, 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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-30T18:25:08Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */

{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=C
|priority=
|listas=Remey, Mason
}}
{{WPBF|class=C|importance=}}

{| class="infobox" width="290px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="1"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[Talk:Mason Remey/archive1|Archive 1]] 01/2005-09/2008
|-
|colspan="2"|
----
|}

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

:I'll try to address individual points on the last revert. Refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=235556940 this] version as the version you're proposing.
:1) The line about being introduced by May Bolles was repetition, under "As a Baha'i", first and third paragraphs.
:2) Of all the accolades, choosing the two that use the phrase "son" are unacceptable and original research, trying to casually cherry-pick quotations that imply a literal adoption without explicitly stating it. Besides that, listing `Abdu'l-Baha's praise of an individual is self-serving on any WP article, and fails neutrality. Compare to any other bio on Baha'is, for example [[`Alí-Muhammad Varqá]]. It's short, simple, factual. Whether the accolades are verifiable or reliable is not a major issue.
:3) Remey's reflection on the W&T. Not sure how this is pertinent to a bio.
:4) The issue of hair and blood are referenced from a BUPC website. Completely unacceptable as a source for such a statement. Also, another attempt to throw in the phrase "son".
:5) Remey never addressed the issue... in his written statement declaring himself as Guardian. That is how it's worded, and I added as a reference the statement.
:6) The broken link is fixed.
:7) The websites you added are linkspam. Clear and simple. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You apparently don't get it, but I'm sure we can get on the same page about all this. I didn't "choose" any of the content on this page by "cherry-picking" favorable material, but thanks for the [[WP:AGF]]. I rewrote this page back in '05 based primarily on information found a CMR.net, see? The Hair and Blood, if you would have given it more than a cursory glance and checked the reference (not the photo which is not the ref.), you would have been directed to CMR.net which discusses it at length (almost word for word). So guess what? It stays. Likewise with the SoW content. It's not my research but is pointing to the primary self published source about ITSELF. So guess what. It stays. Likewise reflections on the Will are part of details about his finalt visit to the Holy Land, which also are discussed at length on CMR.net. It's not significant that of several million Baha'is Shoghi Effendi called Remey to the Holy Land to be the first to read the Will, and to give him a token relic? Well guess what? Noone cares what you think about it as it's referenced back to CMR.net almost word for word and as with these others, IT STAYS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=235653609&oldid=235627331 Please elaborate]; how is his proclamation an unreliable source for referencing what he said in his proclamation? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Look again, it was a duplicate reference. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::Not true. Read [[WP:SELFPUB]] first. If this were Remey's autobiography, then yes it'd be acceptable. As it's not - out it goes.
::::It's sloppy anyway. It's the [[Ecole des Beaux Arts]], not the Ecole des Artes. Even this [[imbecile|engineer]] knows the difference. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on which of the 7 points of [[WP:SELFPUB]] you feel dismiss the bio on CMR.net, and all of a sudden disqualify it as something other than a source about itself. To suggest it's "out" because it's "by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself" is patently absurd. I will not be swayed by these assertions for they are entirely vapid. CMR's biography was written and extensively sourced by someone we all know has been a follower of CMR's for over 30 years which more than qualifies him as an expert on the subject. Moreover the site is entirely devoted to Remey's public statements, his bio, and an archive of SoW articles about him. How preposterous that two days ago you stated "If CMR.net is bona fide, and because there's no genuinely reliable online source for Remey's statemtns, I'm letting it slide — you still can't use it for anything to do with 'Abdul-Baha." Now it's "out". You sure seem to have a high regard for the weight of your personal opinions around here; one day your permission is granted, and the next it is revoked. I feel these statements speak volumes about how have chosen to treat this matter, as do the rest of your comments here show how creative one can get with interpreting policies.

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

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

:Apparently I have to spell the obvious out. Selfpubs can be used only if:
:'''2 "it is not contentious;"''' — Both Cuñado and I question the authenticity of certain sections, particularly the biography.
:'''3 "it is not unduly self-serving;"''' — This is clearly an apologetics site.
:'''4 "it does not involve claims about third parties;"''' — It can't be used to source "accolades" and other such from anyone other than Remey.
:'''6 "there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;"''' — I have no idea who Brent Mathieu is or his credentials to provide this source on the bio. I have a clue who Remey is, and his proclamation certainly rings true.
:'''7 "the article is not based primarily on such sources."''' — There were sections whose sole source was this CMR.net biography.

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

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

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

:We don't have to "compromise" on policy. Either the material meets it or it doesn't. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess all you have to do now is convince an unbiased third party on your creative interpretations of this [[WP:SELFPUB|policy]] and you'll have your way. From where I'm sitting my concerns are valid and being wholly ignored here despite my best efforts to elaborate on them. Two days ago "you'd let it slide", and now it's "out" and you're tagging every other sentence with citations needed? This is improving the article somehow?
*on #2, you've proven yourselves to be contentious against the subject and your considerations are therefore dismissed.
*on #3 this accusation could be leveled against any self published website, and is not a grounds for dismissal as the bio makes efforts to state facts and can't be shown to take "unduly self serving" liberties without references. the objection is meaningless.
*on #4 this issue is not on the table at this time, as I haven't pushed forward with the accolades issue; moot point.
*on #6 it states who authored it; therefore there's no doubts. The policy doesn't say you two have to know him.
*on #7 your concerns about "whole sections" are irrelevant, for this states that "the ARTICLE doesn't rely solely on such sources, which it doesn't; also moot.
As I said your eradicating valid information, and are propagating an edit war over. I object to the notion that CMR.net's bio is "out" and reject your creative justification for doing so. That's all I have to say on this matter. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think the miscommunication here is that CMR.net is by (says to be by) Brent M, not by Mason Remey. It's thus someone with a personal website writing about Remey. It does not qualify for a reliable source about Remey, regardless if it's dedicated to that subject. As far as reliability, it's equivalent to me buying my own web domain and posting my version of Remey's life on it, so in other words not reliable. It goes both ways. We can't smear or exalt Remey through personal websites. If Remey published information about himself, then it would be self published, and even then wouldn't be allowed inclusion if it was contentious or about a third party. As far as I can tell from our conversation Remey only left diaries in certain archives that are not published. Another category is someone else publishing about Remey. Spataro falls into that category and different rules apply for those sources. Brent's site is on the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. The only person who needs to convince other people is the person pushing for inclusion. Feel free to get a third party to review it. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You're right about one thing; there is a miscommuication going on here, but you haven't summarized it with any accuracy. One, the contact link on the site is not to Brent Mathieu showing it's not his site. The site is dedicated to hosting all things Remey, and this bio is one of those things. The objections to the contents of this sight have only been raised now after they have been in the article unassailed for well over 2 years. The objections haven't even been consistent, but change daily. It has only been in the last 12 hours after this discussion has waxed on for over a week that it has come down from on high that it's value in treating details of Remey's life is zero and the whole bio is "out". It is precisely because of it's value from a scholar on the subject that these details found there place in this article for the last 2.5 years. You claim it's the editor wishing for inclusion to provide the source, right? I did provide a valid source for all this in 2005 when I first contributed it. It is merely your assertions now that it all of a sudden is disqualified based on your own conjectures. This was and is a valid source for information about Remey as it's thoroughly sourced, and no one has EVER brought up objections until now. So therefore the burden for inclusion has been met; it is your self-created dilema that is waxing haughty against it with increasingly creative ways to dismiss it. I'm unmoved. Feel free to find someone who is or drop it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:::::Cuñado, Jeff3000, do you think we should pull the site entirely as a personal site, or shall we trust it for the proclamation? [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
From Mason's bio at CMR.net:
"Note on author: Brent Mathieu accepted the Baha’i Faith in December 1973 and recognized Mason Remey as its Guardian. This was prior to Remey’s death in February 1974. Mathieu’s first teachers in the Faith were Leland and Opal Jensen of Missoula, Montana. He corresponded extensively with Joseph Pepe, the adopted son and companion of Remey, from 1975 to1993. He maintains a personal collection of Pepe’s correspondence with Baha’is during that time. Mathieu’s collection includes personal correspondence with Donald A Harvey, Remey’s successor, and Orthodox Baha’is Frank Schlatter and Joel Marangella. It contains other individuals’ correspondence supportive of Remey’s Guardianship. The above biography is based on Mathieu’s memoirs, personal letters, and research of credible histories. More footnotes and references are planned to be added. You can contact the author at [email protected], or Brent Mathieu, 1412 W. Washington, Boise, Idaho 83702."

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

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

::Hear, hear! [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the three of you are the only people that could be convinced that the biography of Charles Mason Remey on charlesmasonremey.net is something other than a verfiable self published source that is perfectly acceptable to use as a source about itself. The point is that the subject of the bio is strictly relegated to the subject of Remey and therefore is entirely appropriate to use reference to itself. It's a creative charade to attempt to negate it because Mason himself is not the owner of the site. As you three have made clear that you deem him a covenant breaker you've perjured yourself to you bias and contempt to the subject. This edit war you have waged against him is against material that has stood since 2005 and will continue to for many years to come. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:I could create a website named charlesmasonremy.com and post anything I wanted about Mason Remey. The name of the website doesn't make it on official website on Mason Remey, and thus it is a personal website. It's run by an individual thus making it a personal website, hosting content that has does not meet any of the criteria of being a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. The fact that it was on the page for many years doesn't mean it is acceptable; there's a boatload of pages on Wikipedia that don't abide by Wikipedia standards, and that the content was there doesn't make it any more acceptable. I'll continue to abide by Wikipedia policy and remove the content. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Are you reduced to ''ad hominem'' again? Would you please argue the facts.
::The argument is simple:
::#CMR.net is a personal website with anonymous owner(s). (Statement of fact.)
::#Therefore, it has no reputation at all, much less as one for reputable fact-checking. (Simple logical step. Anonymous people can have no reputation by definition of "reputation".)
::#It fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. (Simple conclusion as both policies require the author to be known by independent confirmation. Publishing is the standard.)
::That is a line of reasoning that is trivial for you to refute. I'll lay it out for you.
::#Show where the identities of the owner of CMR.net may be found, then
::#Show that that owner is not an indvidual, or
::#Show that, if that owner is an individual, they have a recognized reputation for scholarship. (Homeopaths and high-school teachers aren't historians or biographers).
::All you need are two verifiable factoids and ''poof'' there goes our argument.
::That the material's been poorly sourced since '05 doesn't make a difference. It's up to you to justify this and you haven't presented proof to refute the argument. The material's already gone per policy and will continue for many years to come. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

:Easy. ''Delete'' it — unless its got a [[WP:V]] source. I've swung the delete hammer heavily enough on Baha'i topics around WP, I'm more than happy to see it done here.
:*Brent Matthieu is out - [[WP:Selfpub]], by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself. See above.
:*Diaries are out - Not [[WP:V|published]].
:''SoW'' is out - [[WP:RS|Unreliable]]
:Peter Smith's ''Encyclopedia'' is published and at least lists Harvey, Marangella, King and Jensen, so these people won't be lost entirely, and the article will be streamlined considerably.
::[[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=236169654&oldid=236150224 Sorry] Jeff. Those sections are entirely unreferenced or rely on an unacceptable source.
::If you've got a better source for the biographical data — add it. If you've got ''any'' [[WP:V]] sources on the other "Guardians" add it. I've got a valid 3rd-party source (Smith) as per above and can rewrite those sections combining them into one. But I thought I'd flag them for needed references first in case somebody's got some. I can rewrite it sooner if you'd rather. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Spataro ==

Jeff, how is it that the details of Remey's family history, early life, education, death, and interment are ''all'' on the same page (p. 31) of Spataro's book? [http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qisbn=0967165636 It's] a forty page pamplet and it takes thiry pages to get to his life story and crams all of these details onto one page? It strains credulity that this source is being used appropriately. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Maybe you could squint your eyes and look a little closer. The book is used to reference a wopping total of 3 statements; theres one on page 25, one minor note from page 31 and 31 again which gives elaborate detail to the funeral. It's not used to source his family history or his early life; Remey himself mentioned those on page 2 of his proclamation Which is where ref 5 points to. He's used for note 17 which mentions page 25, and then the details of his funeral are given from Pepe himself on page 31. The first paragraph of page 31 makes reference to him first hearing of the Baha'i faith while in archetecture school in Paris at Ecole de Beaux Arts, so I used that to reference that one sentence in "Early life". See? The book's barely touches on his early life, but focuses on the details of his adult Baha'i life. It's not a biography or I would have been able to put it to greater use here. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::The only thing the proclamation confirms is that he was Epicopalian. So none of his early life has a source. Bad form to elminate a fact tag when your source doesn't address them all. It's still odd that his education and death are treated on the same page in Spataro. If this is true, it must be a strange book. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
His education isn't really "treated" per se. In summarizing the last days of his Baha' life, details from the 1st days are given, as he first heard of it while in school in Paris, that's all. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sourcing problems ==

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

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

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

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

The Pepe Remey section should be struck. He was not a claimant. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:The paragraph about the formation of his NSA is entirely germane and credibly sourced, and yet you haven't provided a reason for it's excision or even mentioned it here. Was this was an error in these overly zealous deletions? It now implies that nothing happened following his proclamation except that two other groups formed. As this article has been culled to a skeleton as it is, it really calls to question the good faith of anyone seeking to further excise credible information when so little of the full story is being portrayed. I object to the extent of these edits as it has removed reliably sourced information. You have to admit, though, that it's rather amusing that the sources which grant inclusion for this information is coming from transcripts of a lawsuit your own NSA maliciously ensnared us all in, and then LOST. LOL. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:::Nope. Sorry. Your "source" is a court filing, not a court opinion. So, it's probably the worst example of WP:SELFPUB as there's no third-party editing at all. And I finally get this subterfuge:
:::*Make specious allegations in a court filing.
:::*Scan the filing and post it on your website.
:::*Refer to the filing as if it were independently corroborated.
:::*Presto-chango: specious allegations become independently corroborated facts.
:::Clever. It probably works for the credulous. Sorry, I'm better informed.
:::The court filing is out as not [[WP:V]], not [[WP:RS]], and effectively [[WP:SELFPUB]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently your understanding of being civil comes with a double-standard clause where you can name call? I was pointing out that without mentioning it you removed an entire paragraph that had a source which was provided by Cunado and never questioned in the past. Removing it effectively removed any pertinent information about what he did with himself and his followers beyond his proclamation. It was the only thing left after your last round of hatcheting this article, and you excised it and yet failed to provide any mention or explanation. If you now all of a sudden have decided to take issue with these types of sources, then why don't you ask your pal to stop providing them. I had NOTHING to do with EVER bringing forward any court documents as sources, so I'll thank you to tone down the accusations of "subterfuge". What an entirely preposterous notion; none of these court documents are hosted on our sites, and I never claimed they were "independently corroborated". What are you even ranting about? It was YOUR NSA that brought the court case forward that has been used as a references here and elsewhere, and then in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE it was Cunado who referenced back to it, but yet you're attacking me and making outlandish allegations about me using it inappropriately. And I'm the only one being jerk, huh? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:I ''explained'' my edits, cited policy, and got my good faith questioned and took a cheap shot for my trouble. Yeah, you were a jerk. It's another word for incivil. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now the martyr? If what you say were true this discussion wouldn't have taken the turns it has. You NEVER explained or even mentioned why you removed the paragraph about the formation of the NSAUHG. You explained about the claimants, but failed to mention why a sourced paragraph was included. Now I understand your positions, but you didn't state it at the outset, so please spare us all this victim routine. Yes you had "generally left this article alone", until earlier this summer when you and your crew waged a 30 day edit war which effectively had reduced this biography to rubble. Now you're apparently still not done gutting it's content. The only actual victim of these circumstances around here is this article, and it has you to thank for destroying it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:It's current state is a ''vast'' improvement over the POV-pushing state it was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=229938463 before]. Horribly [[WP:SOURCES|sourced]]. None of them [[tertiary sources]]. Worse references. Sorry if that trips across your [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
These objections about the NSA's Chicago case are entirely inane, and removing content from this article based on this faulty reasoning is out of order. Since these circumstances are not clearly defined by the WP:V policy, and instances of court documents are not clearly established on what is and isn't acceptable, we find ourselves again at the mercy of your interpretations. You have launched this assault on this and other pages removing content based on this charade about the court docs being a primary source, when in fact it clearly states at the outset of that document that the items found in BOLD text are not objected to by any parties in the case, and so are therefore considered undisputed facts as they are uncontested. To wit, it states just before point #1: "Facts set forth in bold-face type are agreed by all parties." They are facts laid out in both sides recounting of events. Furthermore the details lifted from the Findings of Facts document that are being used here are simply series of events, and not statements about beliefs or hearsay. Please examine the document and see for yourself that the points in BOLD are uncontested FACTS. So this assault against its use here is entirely inane, and absolutely afoul of logic and reason. I am therefore restoring this entirely appropriate verifiable source. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

::You know the process here. One editor makes an argument. Others who disagree make counter arguments. I've made mine, and am still waiting for you to stop name-calling, presuming bad faith, and actually make an argument based on policy.
::This is easy. I've asserted that court filings are not [[WP:V]] because they aren't published by reliable third parties. They aren't [[WP:RS]] because, by definition, these are biased by the POV of their respective authors. Please disprove both points and stop the [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You're accusing me of having an axe to grind here for trying to keep undisputed facts about the group that followed Mason from being censured from this page? That's really the position you want to take when you've spent the better part of '08 blotting out as many details from this article as you could get away with? Now you're blotting out something as simple as the details of the formation of his council from his bio, and I've got the axe to grind for trying to defend this material? You're a real piece of work.

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

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

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

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

== RFC: Questionable Sources ==

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

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

'''Object''' Self published, not relibale. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_cyclists_at_the_2009_Tour_Down_Under|click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!]]'') 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::YellowMonkey, it's noted in the summary that it's self-published, so by definition not reliable. The question posed was that automatically disqualify using material like this, or do the exceptions granted in [[WP:QS]] allow for this type of material? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

==Spataro's book as a source==
[http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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":
#Spataro’s account of Remey’s life borders on adoration.
#For three years he researched the life of Remey
#He gives an economical but clear history of the Faith up to the time of his writing, 1987.
#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.
#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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol6/waless/bib.htm] [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/index/diglib/articles.htm] [http://www.worldlanguageprocess.org/essays/blang/blang3.htm] [http://ahang.rabbani.googlepages.com/Witnesses_3_Bibliography.pdf]. 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Dream Focus|Dream Focus]] ([[User talk:Dream Focus|talk]]) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, the text is not a [[WP:RS]].
# As a high-school teacher moonlighting as an historian, he has no standing.
# He’s clearly biased by his own admission as well as the review.
# 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.
# 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". [[WP:SELF|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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?[[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

<s>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 [http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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 [http://icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_aff_history.htm 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. [[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:For clarity's sake, the concensus I'm refering to includes the following statement:
:#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)
:#<s>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)</s>
:#Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is, but perhaps wise to accede that they are going to be if not "self serving" exactly then not overly critical.As the article does not rely solely on this material I think it's use can be justified. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:#Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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:
::#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"
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 …" <nowiki>[</nowiki>Emphasis is Wikipedia's<nowiki>]</nowiki>. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Just to reinforce why the policy is what it is. Would you allow [http://www.charlesmasonremey.com/ 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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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.
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy would change. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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)
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
While Jeff300000 has quoted Blueboar correctly from [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Help clarifying SPS|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 [[User:General Disarray|'''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 …" <nowiki>[Empasis is Wikipedia's]</nowiki>

: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::And, methinks you are misrepresenting the discussion on [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_clarifying_SPS|V#SPS]]. Blueboar's [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/A-F#B|not an admin]], and nobody else participated in the discussion. And, by the way, [[WP:Admin|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== "Distinctly contradictory appointments"? ==

<s>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. --[[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

==Current reverts==
The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:
#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.
#The word "confused" in the sentence "Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor". This is straight from the source.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:#Then only the 2ndary are needed, like I said.
:#Whatever.
:#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.
:#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.
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Disarray, you're presuming bad faith here. Consider yourself warned. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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.) [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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.
::#[[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.
::#You removed wording that is right from the source.
::#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.
::#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.
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]] [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Mason+Remey 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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

::#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.
::#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.
::#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?[[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
#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.
#The point that Pepe is the adopted son is in the article. Having the picture is undue weight compared to the other claimants.
#As regarding the link, I'm up for removing all the external links.
Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::#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.
::#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.
::#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[Ad nauseam|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:Disarray, you're a scream. You want to be taken seriously, but these "[[Pot_calling_the_kettle_black|The kettle is black!]]" statements are hilarious. You start with [[proof by assertion]], continue with [[argumentum ad nauseum|argument by repetition]], crescendo to [[Imperative mood|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 [[WP:Attention#Overt_and_covert_attention|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 [[WP:UNDUE|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:OWN|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 [[WP:WAR|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [[WP:NOTABLE|notable]] by Wikipedia standards. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 12:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Jeff 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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mason Remey

2009-03-30T08:16:07Z

General Disarray: /* Death */ funeral details of Pepe

[[Image:Remey1.jpg|thumbnail|Charles Mason Remey]]
'''Charles Mason Remey''' ([[May 15]] [[1874]] - [[February 4]] [[1974]]) was a prominent and controversial American [[Bahá'í Faith|Bahá'í]] who was appointed in 1951 a [[Hand of the Cause]],<ref name="PSmith">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=292}}</ref><ref name="effendi18-20">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=18-20}}</ref> and president of the [[International Bahá'í Council]].<ref name="PSmith"/><ref name="effendi8-9">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=8-9}}</ref> He was the architect for the [[Bahá'í House of Worship|Bahá'í Houses of Worship]] in Uganda and Australia, and [[Shoghi Effendi]] approved his design of the unbuilt House of Worship in [[Haifa, Israel]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian, and Remey was among the nine Hands of the Cause elected as an interim authority until the election of the first [[Universal House of Justice]] in 1963.<ref name="PSmith_hands">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=176-177}}</ref> However, in 1960 Remey declared himself to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi, and expected the allegiance of the world's Bahá'ís.<ref name="remey8">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=8}} </ref> Subsequently, he and his followers were declared [[Covenant-breaker|Covenant breakers]] by the [[Hand of the Cause|Hands]].<ref name="PSmith"/> They reasoned that he lacked a formal appointment from Shoghi Effendi, and that the office was confined to male descendants of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Aghsan]]. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim,<ref name="Smith69">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=69}}</ref> but he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name="PSmith"/> His claim resulted in the largest schism in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, with a few groups still holding the belief that Remey was the successor of Shoghi Effendi. Various dated references show membership at less than a hundred each in two of the surviving groups.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000| pp=271}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Momen|1988|p=g.2}}</ref>

==Early life==
Born in Burlington, Iowa, on [[May 15]] [[1874]], Mason was the eldest son of Rear Admiral George Collier Remey and Mary Josephine Mason Remey, the daughter of Charles Mason, the first Chief Justice of Iowa.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> Remey’s parents raised him in the Episcopal Church. <ref>Remey, 1960 p. 2</ref> Remey trained as an architect at Cornell University (1893-1896), and the [[École des Beaux-Arts]] in Paris, France (1896-1903) where he first learned of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name = "PSmith" />

==As a Bahá'í==
With a background in architecture, Remey was asked to design the Australian and Ugandan [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] which still stand today and are the mother temples for [[Australasia]] and [[Africa]] respectively. Upon the request of [[Shoghi Effendi]], he also provided designs for a [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] in [[Tehran]], for [[Haifa, Israel|Haifa]], and the Shrine of `Abdu'l-Bahá, however only the Haifa temple was approved before the death of [[Shoghi Effendi]], and none have so far been built.<ref name="PSmith"/>

Remey traveled extensively to promote the Bahá'í Faith during the ministry of [[`Abdu'l-Bahá]]. [[Shoghi Effendi]] recorded that Remey and his Bahá'í companion, Howard Struven, were the first Bahá'ís to circle the globe teaching the religion.<ref name="effendi261">{{harvnb|Effendi|1944|p=261}}</ref>

A prolific writer, Remey wrote numerous published and personal articles promoting the Bahá'í Faith, including ''`Abdu'l-Bahá – The Center of the Covenant'' and the five volume ''A Comprehensive History of the Bahá'í Movement (1927)'', ''The Bahá'í Revelation and Reconstruction'' (1919), ''Constructive Principles of The Bahá'í Movement'' (1917), and ''The Bahá'í Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers'' (1912) are a few of the titles of the many works Remey produced while `Abdu'l-Bahá was still alive. Remey's life was recorded in his diaries, and in 1940 he provided copies and selected writings to several public libraries. Included in most of the collections were the letters `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote to him.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

According to Juliet Thompson's diary, `Abdu'l-Bahá suggested that she marry Remey, and in 1909 asked her how she felt about it, reportedly requesting of her: “Give my greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear to me that I think of you day and night. You are my real son. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass...He told me He loved Mason Remey so much,” Thompson writes, “and He loved me so much that he wished us to marry. That was the meaning of His message to Mason. He said it would be a perfect union and good for the Cause. Then he asked me how I felt about it.” They did not marry, although Thompson anguished over her decision, which she felt would cause ‘Abdu’l-Baha disappointment.<ref>{{harvnb|Thompson|1983|pp=71-76}}</ref> In 1932 he married Gertrude Heim Klemm Mason (1887-1933), who subsequently died a year later.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

===Under Shoghi Effendi===
After ‘Abdu’l Baha’s passing in 1921, Remey made his eighth pilgrimage to the Holy Land. There he met with Shoghi Effendi, who showed him the original text of ‘Abdu’l Baha’s Will and Testament and provided him with a copy of it.<ref>From 'Biography of Charles Mason Remey', by Brent Mathieu's [http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/index.htm]</ref> Remey lived for some time in Washington, D.C., in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 Remey moved his residence from Washington, D.C., to Haifa, Israel, at the request of Shoghi Effendi. In January 1951, Shoghi Effendi issued a proclamation announcing the formation of the [[International Bahá'í Council]] (IBC), representing the first international Bahá'í body. The council was intended to be a forerunner to the [[Universal House of Justice]], the supreme ruling body of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name="PSmith199">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=199}}</ref><ref name="PSmith346">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=346}}</ref> Remey was appointed president of the council in March, with Amelia Collins as vice-president,<ref name="PSmith199"/> then in December of 1951 Remey was appointed a [[Hand of the Cause]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

==After Shoghi Effendi==
{{main|Bahá'í divisions}}
When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, Remey and the other Hands of the Cause met in a private Conclave at Bahjí in Haifa, and determined that he hadn't appointed a successor. They decided that the situation of the Guardian having died without being able to appoint a successor was a situation not dealt with in the texts that define the Bahá'í administration, and that it would need to be reviewed and adjudicated upon by the [[Universal House of Justice]], which hadn't been elected yet.<ref name="Stockman200">{{Harvnb|Stockman|2006|p=200}}</ref> Remey signed a unanimous declaration of the Hands that Shoghi Effendi had died "without having appointed his successor".<ref name="PSmith68">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=68}}</ref><ref name="PSmith"/><ref>For the document, see the [http://www.bahai-education.org/materials/essays/proclamation_hands.htm Unanimous Proclamation of the 27 Hands of the Cause of God]</ref>

Three years later, in 1960, Remey made a written announcement that his appointment as president of the international council represented an appointment by Shoghi Effendi as Guardian,<ref name="remey5">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=5}}</ref> because the appointed council was a precursor to the elected Universal House of Justice, which has the Guardian as its president.

He also attempted to usurp the control of the Faith which the Hands had themselves assumed at the passing of Shoghi Effendi stating:
<blockquote>It is from and through the Guardianship that infallibility is vested and that the Hands of the Faith receive their orders...I now command the Hands of the Faith to stop all of their preparations for 1963, and furthermore I command all believers both as individual Bahá'ís and as assemblies of Bahá'ís to immediately cease cooperating with and giving support to this fallacious program for 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Remey|1960|pp=6-7}}</ref></blockquote>

He claimed to believe that the Guardianship was an institution intended to endure forever, and that he was the 2nd Guardian by virtue of his appointment to the IBC. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim, although he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name = "PSmith" /> One of the most notable exceptions to accept his claim was that of the entire French [[National Spiritual Assembly]], led by Joel Marangella, who elected to support Remey, and was consequently disbanded by the Hands. The remaining 26 Hands of the Cause unanimously expelled him from the community.<ref name="deVries265">{{harvnb|de Vries|2002|p=265}}</ref><ref name="Smith69"/> Remey himself declared that being the Guardian gave him the exclusive right to declare who was or wasn't a Covenant-breaker, and that those who opposed him and followed the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers.

===Under the Hereditary Guardianship===
Among the Bahá'ís who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian, several further divisions have occurred based on opinions of legitimacy and the proper succession of authority.<ref name="taherzadeh368-371">{{harvnb|Taherzadeh|2000|pp=368-371}}</ref> Most of his long-term followers were Americans, who distinguished themselves as "Bahá'ís Under the Hereditary Guardianship".<ref name="Smith69"/> In his later years Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor, which resulted in further divisions among his followers dividing among several claimants to leadership.<ref name="PSmith"/> When Remey died his followers split into rival factions with each believing in a different Guardian.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000|pp=271}}</ref><ref name="Smith71">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=71}}</ref> Donald Harvey (d.1991), was appointed by Remey as "Third Guardian" in 1967. Joel Marangella was president of Remey's "Second International Bahá'í Council" claimed in 1969 to have been secretly appointed by Remey as Guardian several years earlier, whose followers are now known as [[Orthodox Bahá'í Faith|Orthodox Bahá'ís]].<ref name="PSmith"/> Another of Remey's followers, [[Leland Jensen]] (d. 1996), who made a several religious claims of his own, formed a sect known as the [[Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant]] following Remey's death;<ref name="PSmith"/> he believed that Remey was the adopted son of Abdu'l-Baha,<ref name="pluralism">{{harvnb|Hyslop|2004}}</ref> and that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian.<ref>{{harvnb|stone|2000|p=282}} note 6</ref>

All those that accept Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the [[Universal House of Justice]] established in 1963.<ref name="PSmith"/>

==Death==
[[Image:Masonandpepe.jpg|thumbnail|Mason Remey and Joseph Pepe]]
On February 4th, 1974, Mason Remey died at the age of 99.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> The funeral was organized by his adopted son Joseph Pepe, with the assistance of the American consulate in Florence.

In his self-published biography of Remey, Spataro writes of what he claims Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe revealed to him about the ceremony. According to Pepe, because of the issues surrounding his father at the time of his death it had been decided to leave the tomb unmarked. He was buried at a location within the prescribed one-hour's distance from the place of death. Bahá'í prayers were read as his coffin was interred at a temporary grave. Later the body was moved to its permanent grave in Florence, Italy, with a monument and inscription erected at the site. <ref>{{harvnb|Spataro|2003|p=31}}</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==

*{{cite book
| title = The Babi Question You Mentioned... The Origins of the Baha'i Community of the Netherlands, 1844-1962
| publisher = Peeters Publishers
| year = 2002
| first = J.
| last = de Vries
| place = Leuven
| isbn = 9042911093
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1944
|title = God Passes By
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|id = ISBN 0877430209
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1971
|title = Messages to the Bahá'í World, 1950-1957
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/MBW/
}}

*{{citation
|last=Hyslop
|first=Scott
|year=2004
|title=Pluralism Project
|publisher=Harvard University Study of Religion
|url=http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=72374
}}

*{{citation
|last = Momen
|first = Moojan
|year = 1988
|title = The Covenant
|url = http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm#7.%20Covenant-breaker,%20Covenant-breaking
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Remey
|first = Charles Mason
|year = 1960
|title = Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World
|url = http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|place = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book | last = Smith | first = Peter | year = 2008 | title = An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0521862515 | location = Cambridge}}

*{{cite book
| title = Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America
| publisher = Greenwood Press
| year = 2006
| editor1-first = Eugene V.
| editor1-last = Gallagher
| editor2-first = W. Michael
| editor2-last = Ashcraft
| first = Robert
| last = Stockman
| chapter = The Baha'is of the United States
| isbn = 0275987124
}}

*{{Citation
| last = Stone
| first = Jon R. (ed)
| year =2000
| title =Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy
| place = New York
| publisher =Routledge
| pages =269–282
| isbn =0-415-92331-x
}}

*{{citation
|last = Taherzadeh
|first = Adib
|year=2000
|title=The Child of the Covenant
|publisher=George Ronald
|place=Oxford, UK
|id=ISBN 0853984395
}}

*{{citation
|last = Thompson
|first = Juliet
|date = 1947
|year = 1983
|title = The Diary of Juliet Thompson
|publisher = Kalimat Press
|place = Los Angeles
|url = http://bahai-library.com/books/thompson/
}}

==External links==
*[http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ Biography of Charles Mason Remy] - by Brent Matthieu
*[http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers&language=All Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him] - published by the Universal House of Justice
*[http://bupc.org/test-of-god.html Passing the Test of God] - BUPC's views of Mason Remey's Life, Contributions, and Beliefs
{{DEFAULTSORT:Remey, Mason}}
[[Category:1874 births]]
[[Category:1974 deaths]]
[[Category:Bahá'í divisions]]
[[Category:American Bahá'ís]]
[[Category:Hands of the Cause of God]]

[[fa:چارلز میسون ریمی]]

Mason Remey

2009-03-30T08:15:09Z

General Disarray: /* Under Shoghi Effendi */ reading the Will

[[Image:Remey1.jpg|thumbnail|Charles Mason Remey]]
'''Charles Mason Remey''' ([[May 15]] [[1874]] - [[February 4]] [[1974]]) was a prominent and controversial American [[Bahá'í Faith|Bahá'í]] who was appointed in 1951 a [[Hand of the Cause]],<ref name="PSmith">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=292}}</ref><ref name="effendi18-20">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=18-20}}</ref> and president of the [[International Bahá'í Council]].<ref name="PSmith"/><ref name="effendi8-9">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=8-9}}</ref> He was the architect for the [[Bahá'í House of Worship|Bahá'í Houses of Worship]] in Uganda and Australia, and [[Shoghi Effendi]] approved his design of the unbuilt House of Worship in [[Haifa, Israel]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian, and Remey was among the nine Hands of the Cause elected as an interim authority until the election of the first [[Universal House of Justice]] in 1963.<ref name="PSmith_hands">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=176-177}}</ref> However, in 1960 Remey declared himself to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi, and expected the allegiance of the world's Bahá'ís.<ref name="remey8">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=8}} </ref> Subsequently, he and his followers were declared [[Covenant-breaker|Covenant breakers]] by the [[Hand of the Cause|Hands]].<ref name="PSmith"/> They reasoned that he lacked a formal appointment from Shoghi Effendi, and that the office was confined to male descendants of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Aghsan]]. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim,<ref name="Smith69">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=69}}</ref> but he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name="PSmith"/> His claim resulted in the largest schism in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, with a few groups still holding the belief that Remey was the successor of Shoghi Effendi. Various dated references show membership at less than a hundred each in two of the surviving groups.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000| pp=271}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Momen|1988|p=g.2}}</ref>

==Early life==
Born in Burlington, Iowa, on [[May 15]] [[1874]], Mason was the eldest son of Rear Admiral George Collier Remey and Mary Josephine Mason Remey, the daughter of Charles Mason, the first Chief Justice of Iowa.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> Remey’s parents raised him in the Episcopal Church. <ref>Remey, 1960 p. 2</ref> Remey trained as an architect at Cornell University (1893-1896), and the [[École des Beaux-Arts]] in Paris, France (1896-1903) where he first learned of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name = "PSmith" />

==As a Bahá'í==
With a background in architecture, Remey was asked to design the Australian and Ugandan [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] which still stand today and are the mother temples for [[Australasia]] and [[Africa]] respectively. Upon the request of [[Shoghi Effendi]], he also provided designs for a [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] in [[Tehran]], for [[Haifa, Israel|Haifa]], and the Shrine of `Abdu'l-Bahá, however only the Haifa temple was approved before the death of [[Shoghi Effendi]], and none have so far been built.<ref name="PSmith"/>

Remey traveled extensively to promote the Bahá'í Faith during the ministry of [[`Abdu'l-Bahá]]. [[Shoghi Effendi]] recorded that Remey and his Bahá'í companion, Howard Struven, were the first Bahá'ís to circle the globe teaching the religion.<ref name="effendi261">{{harvnb|Effendi|1944|p=261}}</ref>

A prolific writer, Remey wrote numerous published and personal articles promoting the Bahá'í Faith, including ''`Abdu'l-Bahá – The Center of the Covenant'' and the five volume ''A Comprehensive History of the Bahá'í Movement (1927)'', ''The Bahá'í Revelation and Reconstruction'' (1919), ''Constructive Principles of The Bahá'í Movement'' (1917), and ''The Bahá'í Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers'' (1912) are a few of the titles of the many works Remey produced while `Abdu'l-Bahá was still alive. Remey's life was recorded in his diaries, and in 1940 he provided copies and selected writings to several public libraries. Included in most of the collections were the letters `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote to him.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

According to Juliet Thompson's diary, `Abdu'l-Bahá suggested that she marry Remey, and in 1909 asked her how she felt about it, reportedly requesting of her: “Give my greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear to me that I think of you day and night. You are my real son. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass...He told me He loved Mason Remey so much,” Thompson writes, “and He loved me so much that he wished us to marry. That was the meaning of His message to Mason. He said it would be a perfect union and good for the Cause. Then he asked me how I felt about it.” They did not marry, although Thompson anguished over her decision, which she felt would cause ‘Abdu’l-Baha disappointment.<ref>{{harvnb|Thompson|1983|pp=71-76}}</ref> In 1932 he married Gertrude Heim Klemm Mason (1887-1933), who subsequently died a year later.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

===Under Shoghi Effendi===
After ‘Abdu’l Baha’s passing in 1921, Remey made his eighth pilgrimage to the Holy Land. There he met with Shoghi Effendi, who showed him the original text of ‘Abdu’l Baha’s Will and Testament and provided him with a copy of it.<ref>From 'Biography of Charles Mason Remey', by Brent Mathieu's [http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/index.htm]</ref> Remey lived for some time in Washington, D.C., in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 Remey moved his residence from Washington, D.C., to Haifa, Israel, at the request of Shoghi Effendi. In January 1951, Shoghi Effendi issued a proclamation announcing the formation of the [[International Bahá'í Council]] (IBC), representing the first international Bahá'í body. The council was intended to be a forerunner to the [[Universal House of Justice]], the supreme ruling body of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name="PSmith199">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=199}}</ref><ref name="PSmith346">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=346}}</ref> Remey was appointed president of the council in March, with Amelia Collins as vice-president,<ref name="PSmith199"/> then in December of 1951 Remey was appointed a [[Hand of the Cause]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

==After Shoghi Effendi==
{{main|Bahá'í divisions}}
When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, Remey and the other Hands of the Cause met in a private Conclave at Bahjí in Haifa, and determined that he hadn't appointed a successor. They decided that the situation of the Guardian having died without being able to appoint a successor was a situation not dealt with in the texts that define the Bahá'í administration, and that it would need to be reviewed and adjudicated upon by the [[Universal House of Justice]], which hadn't been elected yet.<ref name="Stockman200">{{Harvnb|Stockman|2006|p=200}}</ref> Remey signed a unanimous declaration of the Hands that Shoghi Effendi had died "without having appointed his successor".<ref name="PSmith68">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=68}}</ref><ref name="PSmith"/><ref>For the document, see the [http://www.bahai-education.org/materials/essays/proclamation_hands.htm Unanimous Proclamation of the 27 Hands of the Cause of God]</ref>

Three years later, in 1960, Remey made a written announcement that his appointment as president of the international council represented an appointment by Shoghi Effendi as Guardian,<ref name="remey5">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=5}}</ref> because the appointed council was a precursor to the elected Universal House of Justice, which has the Guardian as its president.

He also attempted to usurp the control of the Faith which the Hands had themselves assumed at the passing of Shoghi Effendi stating:
<blockquote>It is from and through the Guardianship that infallibility is vested and that the Hands of the Faith receive their orders...I now command the Hands of the Faith to stop all of their preparations for 1963, and furthermore I command all believers both as individual Bahá'ís and as assemblies of Bahá'ís to immediately cease cooperating with and giving support to this fallacious program for 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Remey|1960|pp=6-7}}</ref></blockquote>

He claimed to believe that the Guardianship was an institution intended to endure forever, and that he was the 2nd Guardian by virtue of his appointment to the IBC. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim, although he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name = "PSmith" /> One of the most notable exceptions to accept his claim was that of the entire French [[National Spiritual Assembly]], led by Joel Marangella, who elected to support Remey, and was consequently disbanded by the Hands. The remaining 26 Hands of the Cause unanimously expelled him from the community.<ref name="deVries265">{{harvnb|de Vries|2002|p=265}}</ref><ref name="Smith69"/> Remey himself declared that being the Guardian gave him the exclusive right to declare who was or wasn't a Covenant-breaker, and that those who opposed him and followed the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers.

===Under the Hereditary Guardianship===
Among the Bahá'ís who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian, several further divisions have occurred based on opinions of legitimacy and the proper succession of authority.<ref name="taherzadeh368-371">{{harvnb|Taherzadeh|2000|pp=368-371}}</ref> Most of his long-term followers were Americans, who distinguished themselves as "Bahá'ís Under the Hereditary Guardianship".<ref name="Smith69"/> In his later years Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor, which resulted in further divisions among his followers dividing among several claimants to leadership.<ref name="PSmith"/> When Remey died his followers split into rival factions with each believing in a different Guardian.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000|pp=271}}</ref><ref name="Smith71">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=71}}</ref> Donald Harvey (d.1991), was appointed by Remey as "Third Guardian" in 1967. Joel Marangella was president of Remey's "Second International Bahá'í Council" claimed in 1969 to have been secretly appointed by Remey as Guardian several years earlier, whose followers are now known as [[Orthodox Bahá'í Faith|Orthodox Bahá'ís]].<ref name="PSmith"/> Another of Remey's followers, [[Leland Jensen]] (d. 1996), who made a several religious claims of his own, formed a sect known as the [[Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant]] following Remey's death;<ref name="PSmith"/> he believed that Remey was the adopted son of Abdu'l-Baha,<ref name="pluralism">{{harvnb|Hyslop|2004}}</ref> and that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian.<ref>{{harvnb|stone|2000|p=282}} note 6</ref>

All those that accept Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the [[Universal House of Justice]] established in 1963.<ref name="PSmith"/>

==Death==
[[Image:Masonandpepe.jpg|thumbnail|Mason Remey and Joseph Pepe]]
On February 4th, 1974, Mason Remey died at the age of 99.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==

*{{cite book
| title = The Babi Question You Mentioned... The Origins of the Baha'i Community of the Netherlands, 1844-1962
| publisher = Peeters Publishers
| year = 2002
| first = J.
| last = de Vries
| place = Leuven
| isbn = 9042911093
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1944
|title = God Passes By
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|id = ISBN 0877430209
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1971
|title = Messages to the Bahá'í World, 1950-1957
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/MBW/
}}

*{{citation
|last=Hyslop
|first=Scott
|year=2004
|title=Pluralism Project
|publisher=Harvard University Study of Religion
|url=http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=72374
}}

*{{citation
|last = Momen
|first = Moojan
|year = 1988
|title = The Covenant
|url = http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm#7.%20Covenant-breaker,%20Covenant-breaking
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Remey
|first = Charles Mason
|year = 1960
|title = Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World
|url = http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|place = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book | last = Smith | first = Peter | year = 2008 | title = An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0521862515 | location = Cambridge}}

*{{cite book
| title = Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America
| publisher = Greenwood Press
| year = 2006
| editor1-first = Eugene V.
| editor1-last = Gallagher
| editor2-first = W. Michael
| editor2-last = Ashcraft
| first = Robert
| last = Stockman
| chapter = The Baha'is of the United States
| isbn = 0275987124
}}

*{{Citation
| last = Stone
| first = Jon R. (ed)
| year =2000
| title =Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy
| place = New York
| publisher =Routledge
| pages =269–282
| isbn =0-415-92331-x
}}

*{{citation
|last = Taherzadeh
|first = Adib
|year=2000
|title=The Child of the Covenant
|publisher=George Ronald
|place=Oxford, UK
|id=ISBN 0853984395
}}

*{{citation
|last = Thompson
|first = Juliet
|date = 1947
|year = 1983
|title = The Diary of Juliet Thompson
|publisher = Kalimat Press
|place = Los Angeles
|url = http://bahai-library.com/books/thompson/
}}

==External links==
*[http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ Biography of Charles Mason Remy] - by Brent Matthieu
*[http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers&language=All Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him] - published by the Universal House of Justice
*[http://bupc.org/test-of-god.html Passing the Test of God] - BUPC's views of Mason Remey's Life, Contributions, and Beliefs
{{DEFAULTSORT:Remey, Mason}}
[[Category:1874 births]]
[[Category:1974 deaths]]
[[Category:Bahá'í divisions]]
[[Category:American Bahá'ís]]
[[Category:Hands of the Cause of God]]

[[fa:چارلز میسون ریمی]]

Mason Remey

2009-03-30T08:14:14Z

General Disarray: /* Death */ restore Mason/Pepe .jpeg in MARussell's chosen location

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-30T08:06:08Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */

Messiah

2009-03-28T06:42:51Z

General Disarray: /* Islam */ restore fact tags & remove ref to personal website

{{Refimprove|date=January 2009}}
: ''This article is about the concept of a Messiah in religion, notably in the Christian, Islamic and Jewish traditions. For other uses, see [[Messiah (disambiguation)]].

'''Messiah''' ({{Hebrew Name|מֹשִׁיַּח|Mošíaḥ|Māšîªḥ}}; [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]]: '''{{lang|arc|משיחא}}''', [[Syriac language|Aramaic/Syriac]]: '''{{lang|arc|ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ}}''', ''{{transl|arc|Məšîḥā}}'', {{lang-ar|'''المسيح'''}}, ''{{transl|ar|al-Masīḥ}}'', [[Latin]] ''Messias'') literally means "anointed (one)".

In [[Jewish messiah|Jewish messianic]] tradition and [[Jewish eschatology|eschatology]], ''messiah'' refers to a future [[monarch|King]] of [[United Monarchy|Israel]] from the [[Davidic line]], who will rule the people of [[Israelite#The Twelve Tribes|united tribes of Israel]]<ref>Megillah 17b-18a, Taanit 8b</ref>, and herald the [[Messianic Age]]<ref>Sotah 9a</ref> of global peace. In Standard Hebrew, The Messiah is often referred to as מלך המשיח, {{unicode|Méleḫ ha-Mašíaḥ}} (in the [[Tiberian vocalization]] pronounced {{unicode|Méleḵ haMMāšîªḥ}}), literally meaning "the Anointed King."

[[Christians]] believe that prophecies in the [[Hebrew Bible]] refer to a spiritual savior{{Fact|date=January 2009}}, and believe [[Jesus]] to be that Messiah ([[Christ]]). The ([[Ancient Greek|Greek]]) [[Septuagint]] version of the [[Old Testament]] renders all thirty-nine instances of the [[Hebrew (language)|Hebrew]] word for ''anointed'' (''{{unicode|Mašíaḥ}}'') as ''Khristós'' (Χριστός)<ref>Etymology Online [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=messiah]</ref>. The [[New Testament]] records the Greek transliteration Μεσσίας, ''Messias'', twice, in [[Gospel of John|John]] {{bibleref2|John|1:41||1:41}} and {{bibleref2|John|4:25||4:25}}.

In [[Islam]], [[Islamic view of Jesus|Isa]] (Jesus) is also called the Messiah (''Masih''),<ref>Arabic for Messiah</ref> but like in [[Judaism]] he is not considered to be the literal physical [[Son of God]].

== Judaism ==
{{Main|Jewish messianism|Jewish eschatology}}{{See also|Judaism's view of Jesus}}

The concept of the messiah is neither common nor unified in the [[Tanakh]]. The term is used in the [[Hebrew Bible]] to describe [[Kohen|Israelite priests]], prophets, and [[monarch|kings]] who were [[Holy anointing oil|anointed with oil]] in consecration to their respective offices. For example, [[Cyrus the Great]], the [[List of kings of Persia|king of Persia]], is referred to as "God's anointed" (Messiah) in the Bible.

''"The Hebrew word for “Messiah” is “Moshiach” The literal and proper translation of this word is “anointed,” which refers to a ritual of anointing and consecrating someone or something with oil. (I Samuel 10:1-2) It is used throughout the Jewish Bible in reference to a wide variety of individuals and objects; for example, a Jewish king (I Kings 1:39), Jewish priests (Leviticus 4:3), prophets (Isaiah 61:1), the Jewish Temple and its utensils (Exodus 40:9-11), unleavened bread (Numbers 6:15), and a non-Jewish king (Cyrus king of Persia, Isaiah 45:1)."''<ref>[http://jewsforjudaism.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=5&Itemid=47 THE HEBREW ROOTS OF THE WORD “MESSIAH”] By Rab. Aryeh Kaplan; ; The Jewish Response to Missionaries, p.29; Fourth Edition. Revised. 2001 Jews for Judaism International Inc.</ref>

The Tanakh contains a number (the number is debated) of prophecies concerning a future descendant of King [[David]] who will be anointed as the Jewish people's new leader (''moshiach'')<ref>[http://jewsforjudaism.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=2&Itemid=47 The Real Messiah: A Jewish Response to Missionaries] By Rab. Aryeh Kaplan; "To the Jew, the Messiah has a most important mission, namely to bring the world back to G-d, and make it a place of peace, justice and harmony. When Jesus failed to accomplish this, the early Christians had to radically alter the very concept of the Messiah. This, in turn, transformed Christianity from another Jewish Messianic sect into a religion that is quite alien to many basic Jewish teachings."; FROM MESSIAH TO CHRIST, p.14; 1976 and 1985 by National Conference of Synagogue Youth, (NCSY), Jews for Judaism Edition Copyright © 2004 by the Orthodox Union (OU) and NCSY in cooperation with Jews for Judaism.</ref>.

Jews believe that [[Daniel]] (Hebrew: דָּנִיֵּאל, or Daniyyel) was a prophet and gave an indication of when the Messiah, the prince ''mashiyach nagiyd'', would come.({{bibleref2|Daniel|9:25-26}}) Daniel's prophecies refer to him as a descendant of King David who will rebuild the nation of Israel, destroy the wicked, and ultimately judge the whole world.

The Hebrew word for messiah translates to "anointed". <ref>Etymology Online [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=messiah]</ref> Reform Jews believe there have been many messiahs—all the anointed kings and priests, including David, Solomon, Aaron, and Saul. Saul, the first king, is designated the "Anointed of the Lord".<ref>Israel H. Levinthal, ''Judaism: An Analysis and an Interpretation''</ref>

When speaking of ''the Messiah'' of the future, modern Jews speak of two potential messiahs: ''Moshiach ben Yossef'' (Messiah son of Joseph) and ''Moshiach ben David'' (Messiah son of David)<ref>[http://moshiach.com/discover/tutorials/moshiach_ben_yossef.php Tutorial: Moshiach Ben Yossef (Moshiach.com)]</ref> The Hebrew ''ben'' can mean either son or descendant. In this sense it can also mean "in the manner of," i.e., there will be a "suffering servant" messiah in the manner of [[Joseph (Hebrew Bible)|Joseph]], son of [[Jacob|Israel/Jacob]], and a different messiah in the manner of King David.

A common modern [[Rabbinic literature|rabbinic]] interpretation is that there is a ''potential'' messiah in every generation. The Talmud, which often uses stories to make a moral point (''aggadah''), tells of a highly respected [[rabbi]] who found the Messiah at the gates of [[Rome]] and asked him, "When will you finally come?" He was quite surprised when he was told, "Today." Overjoyed and full of anticipation, the man waited all day. The next day he returned, disappointed and puzzled, and asked, "You said messiah would come 'today' but he didn't come! What happened?" The Messiah replied, "Scripture says, 'Today, 'if you will but hearken to His voice.'" ([[Psalms|Psalm]] {{bibleref2|Psa|95:7||95:7}})

[[Orthodox Judaism]] and [[Conservative Judaism]] believe in a unique future physical messiah who will usher in the messianic age of war before peace to the world.

[[Reform Judaism]] and [[Reconstructionist Judaism]] teach both the belief in a messiah or messiahs, or that there will be a time of peace (Messianic Era), etc. They believe such time will be the result of human efforts at ''[[tikkun olam]]'' (repair of the world) through working on social justice, not from one man alone.

:"Choice is the underlying reason the Reform Movement gave up the need for and belief in a single messiah who would one day bring judgment, and perhaps salvation, to the world. The fact that God imbues us with free choice mitigates the need for a messianic figure."<ref>Schwartzman, 2004</ref>

== Christianity ==
{{Original research|date=January 2009}}
{{main|Christian views of Jesus|Messianic prophecy in Christianity}}

[[Christianity]] [[Early Christianity|emerged]] in or around the year 30 CE as a movement among Jews and their [[Gentile]] [[proselyte|converts]] who believed that [[Jesus]] was the Messiah; the very name of "Christian" refers to the Greek word for 'Messiah': ''Khristos'' (χριστος). Christians commonly refer to Jesus as either the "Christ" or the "Messiah;" in [[Christian theology]] the two words are synonymous.

Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah that Jews were expecting ({{bibleref2|John|1:41-42}}). ''The first thing [[Saint Andrew|Andrew]] did was to find his brother [[Saint Peter|Simon]] and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus.'' However, the Christian concept of the Christ/Messiah as "the Word made Flesh" is fundamentally different from the [[Jewish Messiah|Jewish]] and [[Messiah#In Islam|Islamic]] concepts because a majority of Christians believe Jesus claimed to be God. {{Fact|date=January 2009}}

Furthermore, the idea can also be looked at in such a manner: I am '''''of/from''''' my father, yet I am my own self. Just as Jesus was of/from God, yet He is His own self.

In Christian theology, the Christ/Messiah serves four main functions:<ref>Ankerberg & Weldon, pp. 218-223</ref>

* He suffers and dies to make [[atonement]] before God for the [[sin]]s of all humanity, because God's justice requires that sins be punished, according to [[Penal substitution]] theology. See for examples {{Bibleref2|Isaiah|52:13-53:12}} and {{Bibleref2|Psalm|22}}, which Christianity interprets as referring to Jesus.
* He serves as a living example of how God expects people to act.
* He will establish peace and rule the world for a long time. See [[Nicene Creed]]s of 325 and 381 A.D.; {{Bibleref2|Revelation|20:4-6|NIV}}: "''… They came to life ''and reigned with Christ a thousand years.'' 6 … they will be priests of God ''and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." (see [[Millennialism]]).
* He is the God of [[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and Jacob and [[incarnation|he came to earth as a human]]. John 1:1-2,14a: ''1. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and ''the Word was God''. 2. He was with God in the beginning. 14a ''The Word became flesh'' and made his dwelling among us.'' John 8:58: ''"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"''

In the [[New Testament]], Jesus often referred to himself as '[[Son of Man]]' ({{Bibleref2|Mark|14:61-62}}; {{Bibleref2|Luke|22:66-70}}), which Christianity interprets as a reference to {{Bibleref2|Daniel|7:13-14}} (NIV):

: In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a ''son of man'', coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Because Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and that he claimed to be the Son of Man referred to by Daniel, Christianity interprets {{Bibleref2|Daniel|7:13-14}} as a statement of the Messiah's authority and that the Messiah will have an everlasting kingdom. Jesus' use of this title is seen as a direct claim to be the Messiah.<ref name="The Deity of Christ (lecture)">{{cite web | title = The Deity of Christ| url = http://www.truevictories.com/2001/01/recorded-lectures-person-work-of-christ.html }}</ref>

Some identified Jesus as the Messiah ({{Bibleref2|Mark|8:29}}), his opponents accused him of such a claim ({{Bibleref2|Luke|23:2}}), and he is recorded at least twice as asserting it himself directly ({{Bibleref2|Mark|14:60-62}}, {{Bibleref2|John|4:25-26)}}.

Christianity interprets a wide range of biblical passages in the Old Testament (Hebrew scripture) as predicting the coming of the Messiah (see [[Christianity and Biblical prophecy]] for examples), and believes that they are following Jesus' own explicit teaching:

* He said to them..."Did not the Christ/Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." (Luke 24: 25-27, [[New International Version|NIV]])
* Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:45-47, NIV).
* The book of [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] repeatedly says, "This was to fulfill the prophecy…."

Christianity believes many of the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and seeks to spread throughout the world its interpretation that the Messiah is the only Saviour, and that Jesus will [[Second coming|return]] to fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy in human form.

== Islam ==
{{main|Mahdi|Masih|Muhammad al-Mahdi|Jesus in Islam}}
{{Unreferencedsection|date=January 2009}}

The [[Qur'an]] states Jesus is the Messiah,{{Quran-usc|3|45}} and Muslims believe Jesus is alive in Heaven and will return to Earth to defeat the [[Dajjal]], or [[Antichrist]].{{fact|March 2009}}

A [[hadith]] in [[Abu Dawud]] ({{Abudawud|37|4310}}) says:
<blockquote>"Narrated [[Abu Hurairah|Abu Hurayrah]]: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish hair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish [[jizyah]]. God will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray behind him."</blockquote>

[[Shia Islam|Shia Muslims]] believe [[Mahdi|al-Mahdi]] will arrive first, and after him, Jesus. Jesus will proclaim that the true leader is al-Mahdi. A war, literally Jihad (Jihade Asghar) will be fought - the Dajjal (evil) against al-Mahdi and Jesus (good). This war will mark the approach of the coming of the Last Day. After Jesus slays al-Dajjāl at the Gate of [[Lud]], Muslims believe he will marry, die, and be buried in the [[Masjid al Nabawi]]. During his life, he will have revealed that [[Islam]] is the last word of God.{{Fact|date=January 2009}}

A [[hadith]] in [[Sahih Bukhari]] ({{Bukhari-usc|4|55|658}}) says:

: "How will you be when the son of Mary descends amongst you and your Imam is from amongst you."

A very few scholars outside of Orthodox Islam reject all the quotes (Hadith) attributed to Muhammad that mention the second return of Jesus, the Dajjal and [[Imam Mahdi]], believing that they have no Qur'anic basis. These scholars believe that the verb ''mutawwafika'' in verse {{Quran-usc|3|55}} implies that God caused the bodily death of Jesus, thus (3:55) should read as "O Jesus, I terminate your life, raise you to Me." Others disagree with the implication of termination of Jesus’ life (for example Yusuf Ali’s translation reads: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself”). Verses {{Quran-usc-range|4|157|158}} imply that Jesus was not killed physically but it appeared as such in some other sense; Verse {{Quran-usc|19|33}} implies that Jesus will die someday. The vast majority of Muslims, and the unified opinion of Orthodox Islam since Islam's coming, maintain that the bodily death of Jesus will happen after his second coming. {{Fact|date=January 2009}}

Many classical commentators such as Ibn Kathir, At-Tabari, al-Qurtubi, Suyuti, al-Undlusi (Bahr al-Muhit), Abu al-Fadl al-Alusi (Ruh al-Maani) clearly mention that verse {{Quran-usc|43|61}} of the Qur'an refers to the descent of Jesus before the Day of Resurrection, indicating that Jesus would be the Sign that the Hour is close.

: "And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour)..." ({{Quran-usc|43|61}}

Those that reject the second coming of Jesus argue that the knowledge of the Hour is only with God, and that the Hour will come suddenly. They maintain that if the second coming of Jesus were true, whenever it happens, billions of people would then be certain the Hour is about to come. The response given to this is that signs that the Last Hour is near have been foretold and given, including that of the second coming of Jesus, as signs indicating the Last Hour is near. They will not clarify when it is to come in any specific sense, and hence do not reveal it.{{Fact|date=January 2009}}

=== Ahmadiyya ===
{{Unreferenced section|date=January 2009}}
The [[Ahmadiyya|Ahmadiyya faith]], believes that the terms "Messiah" and "Mahdi" (Messiah of Islam) are synonymous terms for one and the same person. Like the term Messiah which, among other meanings, in essence means being ''anointed'' by God or ''appointed'' by God the term "Mahdi" means ''guided'' by God, thus both imply a direct ordainment and a spiritual nurturing by God of a divinely chosen individual. According to Ahmadiyya thought, Messiahship is a phenomenon, through which a special emphasis is given on the transformation of a people by way of offering suffering for the sake of God instead of giving suffering (i.e. refraining from revenge). Ahmadis believe that this special emphasis was given through the person of [[Jesus]] and [[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad]] <ref>[http://www.askislam.org/concepts/prophecy_and_prophethood/question_577.html Ask Islam: What is the different between a messiah and a prophet?]</ref> among others.

== Other traditions ==
{{Unreferenced section|date=January 2009}}
*Adherents to the [[Unification Movement]] consider Rev. Dr. [[Sun Myung Moon]] to be the Second Coming of Jesus Christ figuratively, not literally. They believe he has the mission of Christ (whom they believe isn't God).

*The [[Shakers]] believed that Jesus was the male Messiah and Mother [[Ann Lee]], the female Messiah.

*For the [[Rastafari movement]], [[Haile Selassie of Ethiopia]] is the messiah.

== See also ==
* [[Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus]]
* [[Jewish Messiah claimants]]
* [[People claiming to be the Mahdi]]
* [[List of messiah claimants]]

==Notes==
{{reflist}}
==References==
Kaplan, Aryeh. FROM MESSIAH TO CHRIST. 2004. Orthodox Union. New York, NY 10004.

== External links ==
{{Wikiquote}}
* [http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MEC_MIC/MESSIAH_Dan_x_25_26_.html Messiah] in the 1911 [[Encyclopædia Britannica]]
* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=510&letter=M&search=Messiah Jewish Encyclopedia: Messiah]
* [http://www.ummah.net/khoei/mahdi.htm The Concept of Messiah in Islam]

[[Category:Christian theology]]
[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Jewish theology]]
[[Category:Judeo-Christian topics]]
[[Category:Messianism]]

{{Link FA|pt}}
[[ar:الماشيح]]
[[arc:ܡܫܝܚܐ&rlm;]]
[[bn:মসিহ]]
[[bg:Месия]]
[[ca:Messies]]
[[cs:Mesiáš]]
[[da:Messias]]
[[de:Messias]]
[[el:Μεσσίας]]
[[es:Mesías]]
[[eo:Mesio]]
[[fa:ماشیح]]
[[fr:Messie]]
[[ko:메시아]]
[[hr:Mesija]]
[[bpy:মেসসইয়াস]]
[[id:Mesias]]
[[ia:Messia]]
[[is:Messías]]
[[it:Messia]]
[[he:משיח (דתות)]]
[[ht:Mesi]]
[[la:Messias]]
[[lt:Mesijas]]
[[hu:Messiás]]
[[mk:Месија]]
[[ms:Al-Masih]]
[[nl:Messias]]
[[ja:メシア]]
[[no:Messias]]
[[oc:Messias]]
[[pl:Pomazaniec]]
[[pt:Messias]]
[[ru:Мессия]]
[[sq:Mesia]]
[[simple:Messiah]]
[[sk:Mesiáš]]
[[sr:Месија]]
[[fi:Messias]]
[[sv:Messias]]
[[th:เมสไซยาห์]]
[[tr:Mesih]]
[[wo:Almasi bi]]
[[yi:משיח]]
[[zh:彌賽亞]]

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-27T06:58:21Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */

Mason Remey

2009-03-27T06:48:51Z

General Disarray: Undid revision 279941700 by MARussellPESE (talk)

[[Image:Remey1.jpg|thumbnail|Charles Mason Remey]]
'''Charles Mason Remey''' ([[May 15]] [[1874]] - [[February 4]] [[1974]]) was a prominent and controversial American [[Bahá'í Faith|Bahá'í]] who was appointed in 1951 a [[Hand of the Cause]],<ref name="PSmith">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=292}}</ref><ref name="effendi18-20">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=18-20}}</ref> and president of the [[International Bahá'í Council]].<ref name="PSmith"/><ref name="effendi8-9">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=8-9}}</ref> He was the architect for the [[Bahá'í House of Worship|Bahá'í Houses of Worship]] in Uganda and Australia, and [[Shoghi Effendi]] approved his design of the unbuilt House of Worship in [[Haifa, Israel]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian, and Remey was among the nine Hands of the Cause elected as an interim authority until the election of the first [[Universal House of Justice]] in 1963.<ref name="PSmith_hands">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=176-177}}</ref> However, in 1960 Remey declared himself to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi, and expected the allegiance of the world's Bahá'ís.<ref name="remey8">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=8}} </ref> Subsequently, he and his followers were declared [[Covenant-breaker|Covenant breakers]] by the [[Hand of the Cause|Hands]].<ref name="PSmith"/> They reasoned that he lacked a formal appointment from Shoghi Effendi, and that the office was confined to male descendants of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Aghsan]]. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim,<ref name="Smith69">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=69}}</ref> but he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name="PSmith"/> His claim resulted in the largest schism in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, with a few groups still holding the belief that Remey was the successor of Shoghi Effendi. Various dated references show membership at less than a hundred each in two of the surviving groups.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000| pp=271}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Momen|1988|p=g.2}}</ref>

==Early life==
Born in Burlington, Iowa, on [[May 15]] [[1874]], Mason was the eldest son of Rear Admiral George Collier Remey and Mary Josephine Mason Remey, the daughter of Charles Mason, the first Chief Justice of Iowa.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> Remey’s parents raised him in the Episcopal Church. <ref>Remey, 1960 p. 2</ref> Remey trained as an architect at Cornell University (1893-1896), and the [[École des Beaux-Arts]] in Paris, France (1896-1903) where he first learned of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name = "PSmith" />

==As a Bahá'í==
With a background in architecture, Remey was asked to design the Australian and Ugandan [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] which still stand today and are the mother temples for [[Australasia]] and [[Africa]] respectively. Upon the request of [[Shoghi Effendi]], he also provided designs for a [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] in [[Tehran]], for [[Haifa, Israel|Haifa]], and the Shrine of `Abdu'l-Bahá, however only the Haifa temple was approved before the death of [[Shoghi Effendi]], and none have so far been built.<ref name="PSmith"/>

Remey traveled extensively to promote the Bahá'í Faith during the ministry of [[`Abdu'l-Bahá]]. [[Shoghi Effendi]] recorded that Remey and his Bahá'í companion, Howard Struven, were the first Bahá'ís to circle the globe teaching the religion.<ref name="effendi261">{{harvnb|Effendi|1944|p=261}}</ref>

A prolific writer, Remey wrote numerous published and personal articles promoting the Bahá'í Faith, including ''`Abdu'l-Bahá – The Center of the Covenant'' and the five volume ''A Comprehensive History of the Bahá'í Movement (1927)'', ''The Bahá'í Revelation and Reconstruction'' (1919), ''Constructive Principles of The Bahá'í Movement'' (1917), and ''The Bahá'í Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers'' (1912) are a few of the titles of the many works Remey produced while `Abdu'l-Bahá was still alive. Remey's life was recorded in his diaries, and in 1940 he provided copies and selected writings to several public libraries. Included in most of the collections were the letters `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote to him.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

According to Juliet Thompson's diary, `Abdu'l-Bahá suggested that she marry Remey, and in 1909 asked her how she felt about it, reportedly requesting of her: “Give my greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear to me that I think of you day and night. You are my real son. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass...He told me He loved Mason Remey so much,” Thompson writes, “and He loved me so much that he wished us to marry. That was the meaning of His message to Mason. He said it would be a perfect union and good for the Cause. Then he asked me how I felt about it.” They did not marry, although Thompson anguished over her decision, which she felt would cause ‘Abdu’l-Baha disappointment.<ref>{{harvnb|Thompson|1983|pp=71-76}}</ref> In 1932 he married Gertrude Heim Klemm Mason (1887-1933), who subsequently died a year later.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

===Under Shoghi Effendi===
Remey lived for some time in Washington, D.C., in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 Remey moved his residence from Washington, D.C., to Haifa, Israel, at the request of Shoghi Effendi. In January 1951, Shoghi Effendi issued a proclamation announcing the formation of the [[International Bahá'í Council]] (IBC), representing the first international Bahá'í body. The council was intended to be a forerunner to the [[Universal House of Justice]], the supreme ruling body of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name="PSmith199">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=199}}</ref><ref name="PSmith346">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=346}}</ref> Remey was appointed president of the council in March, with Amelia Collins as vice-president,<ref name="PSmith199"/> then in December of 1951 Remey was appointed a [[Hand of the Cause]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

==After Shoghi Effendi==
{{main|Bahá'í divisions}}
When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, Remey and the other Hands of the Cause met in a private Conclave at Bahjí in Haifa, and determined that he hadn't appointed a successor. They decided that the situation of the Guardian having died without being able to appoint a successor was a situation not dealt with in the texts that define the Bahá'í administration, and that it would need to be reviewed and adjudicated upon by the [[Universal House of Justice]], which hadn't been elected yet.<ref name="Stockman200">{{Harvnb|Stockman|2006|p=200}}</ref> Remey signed a unanimous declaration of the Hands that Shoghi Effendi had died "without having appointed his successor".<ref name="PSmith68">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=68}}</ref><ref name="PSmith"/><ref>For the document, see the [http://www.bahai-education.org/materials/essays/proclamation_hands.htm Unanimous Proclamation of the 27 Hands of the Cause of God]</ref>
[[Image:Masonandpepe.jpg|thumbnail|Mason Remey and Joseph Pepe]]
Three years later, in 1960, Remey made a written announcement that his appointment as president of the international council represented an appointment by Shoghi Effendi as Guardian,<ref name="remey5">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=5}}</ref> because the appointed council was a precursor to the elected Universal House of Justice, which has the Guardian as its president.

He also attempted to usurp the control of the Faith which the Hands had themselves assumed at the passing of Shoghi Effendi stating:
<blockquote>It is from and through the Guardianship that infallibility is vested and that the Hands of the Faith receive their orders...I now command the Hands of the Faith to stop all of their preparations for 1963, and furthermore I command all believers both as individual Bahá'ís and as assemblies of Bahá'ís to immediately cease cooperating with and giving support to this fallacious program for 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Remey|1960|pp=6-7}}</ref></blockquote>

He claimed to believe that the Guardianship was an institution intended to endure forever, and that he was the 2nd Guardian by virtue of his appointment to the IBC. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim, although he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name = "PSmith" /> One of the most notable exceptions to accept his claim was that of the entire French [[National Spiritual Assembly]], led by Joel Marangella, who elected to support Remey, and was consequently disbanded by the Hands. The remaining 26 Hands of the Cause unanimously expelled him from the community.<ref name="deVries265">{{harvnb|de Vries|2002|p=265}}</ref><ref name="Smith69"/> Remey himself declared that being the Guardian gave him the exclusive right to declare who was or wasn't a Covenant-breaker, and that those who opposed him and followed the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers.

===Under the Hereditary Guardianship===
Among the Bahá'ís who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian, several further divisions have occurred based on opinions of legitimacy and the proper succession of authority.<ref name="taherzadeh368-371">{{harvnb|Taherzadeh|2000|pp=368-371}}</ref> Most of his long-term followers were Americans, who distinguished themselves as "Bahá'ís Under the Hereditary Guardianship".<ref name="Smith69"/> In his later years Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor, which resulted in further divisions among his followers dividing among several claimants to leadership.<ref name="PSmith"/> When Remey died his followers split into rival factions with each believing in a different Guardian.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000|pp=271}}</ref><ref name="Smith71">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=71}}</ref> Donald Harvey (d.1991), was appointed by Remey as "Third Guardian" in 1967. Joel Marangella was president of Remey's "Second International Bahá'í Council" claimed in 1969 to have been secretly appointed by Remey as Guardian several years earlier, whose followers are now known as [[Orthodox Bahá'í Faith|Orthodox Bahá'ís]].<ref name="PSmith"/> Another of Remey's followers, [[Leland Jensen]] (d. 1996), who made a several religious claims of his own, formed a sect known as the [[Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant]] following Remey's death;<ref name="PSmith"/> he believed that Remey was the adopted son of Abdu'l-Baha,<ref name="pluralism">{{harvnb|Hyslop|2004}}</ref> and that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian.<ref>{{harvnb|stone|2000|p=282}} note 6</ref>

All those that accept Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the [[Universal House of Justice]] established in 1963.<ref name="PSmith"/>

==Death==
On February 4th, 1974, Mason Remey died at the age of 99.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==

*{{cite book
| title = The Babi Question You Mentioned... The Origins of the Baha'i Community of the Netherlands, 1844-1962
| publisher = Peeters Publishers
| year = 2002
| first = J.
| last = de Vries
| place = Leuven
| isbn = 9042911093
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1944
|title = God Passes By
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|id = ISBN 0877430209
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1971
|title = Messages to the Bahá'í World, 1950-1957
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/MBW/
}}

*{{citation
|last=Hyslop
|first=Scott
|year=2004
|title=Pluralism Project
|publisher=Harvard University Study of Religion
|url=http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=72374
}}

*{{citation
|last = Momen
|first = Moojan
|year = 1988
|title = The Covenant
|url = http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm#7.%20Covenant-breaker,%20Covenant-breaking
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Remey
|first = Charles Mason
|year = 1960
|title = Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World
|url = http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|place = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book | last = Smith | first = Peter | year = 2008 | title = An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0521862515 | location = Cambridge}}

*{{cite book
| title = Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America
| publisher = Greenwood Press
| year = 2006
| editor1-first = Eugene V.
| editor1-last = Gallagher
| editor2-first = W. Michael
| editor2-last = Ashcraft
| first = Robert
| last = Stockman
| chapter = The Baha'is of the United States
| isbn = 0275987124
}}

*{{Citation
| last = Stone
| first = Jon R. (ed)
| year =2000
| title =Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy
| place = New York
| publisher =Routledge
| pages =269–282
| isbn =0-415-92331-x
}}

*{{citation
|last = Taherzadeh
|first = Adib
|year=2000
|title=The Child of the Covenant
|publisher=George Ronald
|place=Oxford, UK
|id=ISBN 0853984395
}}

*{{citation
|last = Thompson
|first = Juliet
|date = 1947
|year = 1983
|title = The Diary of Juliet Thompson
|publisher = Kalimat Press
|place = Los Angeles
|url = http://bahai-library.com/books/thompson/
}}

==External links==
*[http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ Biography of Charles Mason Remy] - by Brent Matthieu
*[http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers&language=All Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him] - published by the Universal House of Justice
*[http://bupc.org/test-of-god.html Passing the Test of God] - BUPC's views of Mason Remey's Life, Contributions, and Beleifs
{{DEFAULTSORT:Remey, Mason}}
[[Category:1874 births]]
[[Category:1974 deaths]]
[[Category:Bahá'í divisions]]
[[Category:American Bahá'ís]]
[[Category:Hands of the Cause of God]]

[[fa:چارلز میسون ریمی]]

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-27T06:44:42Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */

{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=C
|priority=
|listas=Remey, Mason
}}
{{WPBF|class=C|importance=}}

{| class="infobox" width="290px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="1"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[Talk:Mason Remey/archive1|Archive 1]] 01/2005-09/2008
|-
|colspan="2"|
----
|}

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

:I'll try to address individual points on the last revert. Refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=235556940 this] version as the version you're proposing.
:1) The line about being introduced by May Bolles was repetition, under "As a Baha'i", first and third paragraphs.
:2) Of all the accolades, choosing the two that use the phrase "son" are unacceptable and original research, trying to casually cherry-pick quotations that imply a literal adoption without explicitly stating it. Besides that, listing `Abdu'l-Baha's praise of an individual is self-serving on any WP article, and fails neutrality. Compare to any other bio on Baha'is, for example [[`Alí-Muhammad Varqá]]. It's short, simple, factual. Whether the accolades are verifiable or reliable is not a major issue.
:3) Remey's reflection on the W&T. Not sure how this is pertinent to a bio.
:4) The issue of hair and blood are referenced from a BUPC website. Completely unacceptable as a source for such a statement. Also, another attempt to throw in the phrase "son".
:5) Remey never addressed the issue... in his written statement declaring himself as Guardian. That is how it's worded, and I added as a reference the statement.
:6) The broken link is fixed.
:7) The websites you added are linkspam. Clear and simple. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You apparently don't get it, but I'm sure we can get on the same page about all this. I didn't "choose" any of the content on this page by "cherry-picking" favorable material, but thanks for the [[WP:AGF]]. I rewrote this page back in '05 based primarily on information found a CMR.net, see? The Hair and Blood, if you would have given it more than a cursory glance and checked the reference (not the photo which is not the ref.), you would have been directed to CMR.net which discusses it at length (almost word for word). So guess what? It stays. Likewise with the SoW content. It's not my research but is pointing to the primary self published source about ITSELF. So guess what. It stays. Likewise reflections on the Will are part of details about his finalt visit to the Holy Land, which also are discussed at length on CMR.net. It's not significant that of several million Baha'is Shoghi Effendi called Remey to the Holy Land to be the first to read the Will, and to give him a token relic? Well guess what? Noone cares what you think about it as it's referenced back to CMR.net almost word for word and as with these others, IT STAYS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=235653609&oldid=235627331 Please elaborate]; how is his proclamation an unreliable source for referencing what he said in his proclamation? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Look again, it was a duplicate reference. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::Not true. Read [[WP:SELFPUB]] first. If this were Remey's autobiography, then yes it'd be acceptable. As it's not - out it goes.
::::It's sloppy anyway. It's the [[Ecole des Beaux Arts]], not the Ecole des Artes. Even this [[imbecile|engineer]] knows the difference. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on which of the 7 points of [[WP:SELFPUB]] you feel dismiss the bio on CMR.net, and all of a sudden disqualify it as something other than a source about itself. To suggest it's "out" because it's "by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself" is patently absurd. I will not be swayed by these assertions for they are entirely vapid. CMR's biography was written and extensively sourced by someone we all know has been a follower of CMR's for over 30 years which more than qualifies him as an expert on the subject. Moreover the site is entirely devoted to Remey's public statements, his bio, and an archive of SoW articles about him. How preposterous that two days ago you stated "If CMR.net is bona fide, and because there's no genuinely reliable online source for Remey's statemtns, I'm letting it slide — you still can't use it for anything to do with 'Abdul-Baha." Now it's "out". You sure seem to have a high regard for the weight of your personal opinions around here; one day your permission is granted, and the next it is revoked. I feel these statements speak volumes about how have chosen to treat this matter, as do the rest of your comments here show how creative one can get with interpreting policies.

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

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

:Apparently I have to spell the obvious out. Selfpubs can be used only if:
:'''2 "it is not contentious;"''' — Both Cuñado and I question the authenticity of certain sections, particularly the biography.
:'''3 "it is not unduly self-serving;"''' — This is clearly an apologetics site.
:'''4 "it does not involve claims about third parties;"''' — It can't be used to source "accolades" and other such from anyone other than Remey.
:'''6 "there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;"''' — I have no idea who Brent Mathieu is or his credentials to provide this source on the bio. I have a clue who Remey is, and his proclamation certainly rings true.
:'''7 "the article is not based primarily on such sources."''' — There were sections whose sole source was this CMR.net biography.

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

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

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

:We don't have to "compromise" on policy. Either the material meets it or it doesn't. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess all you have to do now is convince an unbiased third party on your creative interpretations of this [[WP:SELFPUB|policy]] and you'll have your way. From where I'm sitting my concerns are valid and being wholly ignored here despite my best efforts to elaborate on them. Two days ago "you'd let it slide", and now it's "out" and you're tagging every other sentence with citations needed? This is improving the article somehow?
*on #2, you've proven yourselves to be contentious against the subject and your considerations are therefore dismissed.
*on #3 this accusation could be leveled against any self published website, and is not a grounds for dismissal as the bio makes efforts to state facts and can't be shown to take "unduly self serving" liberties without references. the objection is meaningless.
*on #4 this issue is not on the table at this time, as I haven't pushed forward with the accolades issue; moot point.
*on #6 it states who authored it; therefore there's no doubts. The policy doesn't say you two have to know him.
*on #7 your concerns about "whole sections" are irrelevant, for this states that "the ARTICLE doesn't rely solely on such sources, which it doesn't; also moot.
As I said your eradicating valid information, and are propagating an edit war over. I object to the notion that CMR.net's bio is "out" and reject your creative justification for doing so. That's all I have to say on this matter. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think the miscommunication here is that CMR.net is by (says to be by) Brent M, not by Mason Remey. It's thus someone with a personal website writing about Remey. It does not qualify for a reliable source about Remey, regardless if it's dedicated to that subject. As far as reliability, it's equivalent to me buying my own web domain and posting my version of Remey's life on it, so in other words not reliable. It goes both ways. We can't smear or exalt Remey through personal websites. If Remey published information about himself, then it would be self published, and even then wouldn't be allowed inclusion if it was contentious or about a third party. As far as I can tell from our conversation Remey only left diaries in certain archives that are not published. Another category is someone else publishing about Remey. Spataro falls into that category and different rules apply for those sources. Brent's site is on the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. The only person who needs to convince other people is the person pushing for inclusion. Feel free to get a third party to review it. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You're right about one thing; there is a miscommuication going on here, but you haven't summarized it with any accuracy. One, the contact link on the site is not to Brent Mathieu showing it's not his site. The site is dedicated to hosting all things Remey, and this bio is one of those things. The objections to the contents of this sight have only been raised now after they have been in the article unassailed for well over 2 years. The objections haven't even been consistent, but change daily. It has only been in the last 12 hours after this discussion has waxed on for over a week that it has come down from on high that it's value in treating details of Remey's life is zero and the whole bio is "out". It is precisely because of it's value from a scholar on the subject that these details found there place in this article for the last 2.5 years. You claim it's the editor wishing for inclusion to provide the source, right? I did provide a valid source for all this in 2005 when I first contributed it. It is merely your assertions now that it all of a sudden is disqualified based on your own conjectures. This was and is a valid source for information about Remey as it's thoroughly sourced, and no one has EVER brought up objections until now. So therefore the burden for inclusion has been met; it is your self-created dilema that is waxing haughty against it with increasingly creative ways to dismiss it. I'm unmoved. Feel free to find someone who is or drop it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:::::Cuñado, Jeff3000, do you think we should pull the site entirely as a personal site, or shall we trust it for the proclamation? [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
From Mason's bio at CMR.net:
"Note on author: Brent Mathieu accepted the Baha’i Faith in December 1973 and recognized Mason Remey as its Guardian. This was prior to Remey’s death in February 1974. Mathieu’s first teachers in the Faith were Leland and Opal Jensen of Missoula, Montana. He corresponded extensively with Joseph Pepe, the adopted son and companion of Remey, from 1975 to1993. He maintains a personal collection of Pepe’s correspondence with Baha’is during that time. Mathieu’s collection includes personal correspondence with Donald A Harvey, Remey’s successor, and Orthodox Baha’is Frank Schlatter and Joel Marangella. It contains other individuals’ correspondence supportive of Remey’s Guardianship. The above biography is based on Mathieu’s memoirs, personal letters, and research of credible histories. More footnotes and references are planned to be added. You can contact the author at [email protected], or Brent Mathieu, 1412 W. Washington, Boise, Idaho 83702."

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

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

::Hear, hear! [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the three of you are the only people that could be convinced that the biography of Charles Mason Remey on charlesmasonremey.net is something other than a verfiable self published source that is perfectly acceptable to use as a source about itself. The point is that the subject of the bio is strictly relegated to the subject of Remey and therefore is entirely appropriate to use reference to itself. It's a creative charade to attempt to negate it because Mason himself is not the owner of the site. As you three have made clear that you deem him a covenant breaker you've perjured yourself to you bias and contempt to the subject. This edit war you have waged against him is against material that has stood since 2005 and will continue to for many years to come. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:I could create a website named charlesmasonremy.com and post anything I wanted about Mason Remey. The name of the website doesn't make it on official website on Mason Remey, and thus it is a personal website. It's run by an individual thus making it a personal website, hosting content that has does not meet any of the criteria of being a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. The fact that it was on the page for many years doesn't mean it is acceptable; there's a boatload of pages on Wikipedia that don't abide by Wikipedia standards, and that the content was there doesn't make it any more acceptable. I'll continue to abide by Wikipedia policy and remove the content. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Are you reduced to ''ad hominem'' again? Would you please argue the facts.
::The argument is simple:
::#CMR.net is a personal website with anonymous owner(s). (Statement of fact.)
::#Therefore, it has no reputation at all, much less as one for reputable fact-checking. (Simple logical step. Anonymous people can have no reputation by definition of "reputation".)
::#It fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. (Simple conclusion as both policies require the author to be known by independent confirmation. Publishing is the standard.)
::That is a line of reasoning that is trivial for you to refute. I'll lay it out for you.
::#Show where the identities of the owner of CMR.net may be found, then
::#Show that that owner is not an indvidual, or
::#Show that, if that owner is an individual, they have a recognized reputation for scholarship. (Homeopaths and high-school teachers aren't historians or biographers).
::All you need are two verifiable factoids and ''poof'' there goes our argument.
::That the material's been poorly sourced since '05 doesn't make a difference. It's up to you to justify this and you haven't presented proof to refute the argument. The material's already gone per policy and will continue for many years to come. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

:Easy. ''Delete'' it — unless its got a [[WP:V]] source. I've swung the delete hammer heavily enough on Baha'i topics around WP, I'm more than happy to see it done here.
:*Brent Matthieu is out - [[WP:Selfpub]], by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself. See above.
:*Diaries are out - Not [[WP:V|published]].
:''SoW'' is out - [[WP:RS|Unreliable]]
:Peter Smith's ''Encyclopedia'' is published and at least lists Harvey, Marangella, King and Jensen, so these people won't be lost entirely, and the article will be streamlined considerably.
::[[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=236169654&oldid=236150224 Sorry] Jeff. Those sections are entirely unreferenced or rely on an unacceptable source.
::If you've got a better source for the biographical data — add it. If you've got ''any'' [[WP:V]] sources on the other "Guardians" add it. I've got a valid 3rd-party source (Smith) as per above and can rewrite those sections combining them into one. But I thought I'd flag them for needed references first in case somebody's got some. I can rewrite it sooner if you'd rather. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Spataro ==

Jeff, how is it that the details of Remey's family history, early life, education, death, and interment are ''all'' on the same page (p. 31) of Spataro's book? [http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qisbn=0967165636 It's] a forty page pamplet and it takes thiry pages to get to his life story and crams all of these details onto one page? It strains credulity that this source is being used appropriately. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Maybe you could squint your eyes and look a little closer. The book is used to reference a wopping total of 3 statements; theres one on page 25, one minor note from page 31 and 31 again which gives elaborate detail to the funeral. It's not used to source his family history or his early life; Remey himself mentioned those on page 2 of his proclamation Which is where ref 5 points to. He's used for note 17 which mentions page 25, and then the details of his funeral are given from Pepe himself on page 31. The first paragraph of page 31 makes reference to him first hearing of the Baha'i faith while in archetecture school in Paris at Ecole de Beaux Arts, so I used that to reference that one sentence in "Early life". See? The book's barely touches on his early life, but focuses on the details of his adult Baha'i life. It's not a biography or I would have been able to put it to greater use here. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::The only thing the proclamation confirms is that he was Epicopalian. So none of his early life has a source. Bad form to elminate a fact tag when your source doesn't address them all. It's still odd that his education and death are treated on the same page in Spataro. If this is true, it must be a strange book. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
His education isn't really "treated" per se. In summarizing the last days of his Baha' life, details from the 1st days are given, as he first heard of it while in school in Paris, that's all. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sourcing problems ==

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

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

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

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

The Pepe Remey section should be struck. He was not a claimant. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:The paragraph about the formation of his NSA is entirely germane and credibly sourced, and yet you haven't provided a reason for it's excision or even mentioned it here. Was this was an error in these overly zealous deletions? It now implies that nothing happened following his proclamation except that two other groups formed. As this article has been culled to a skeleton as it is, it really calls to question the good faith of anyone seeking to further excise credible information when so little of the full story is being portrayed. I object to the extent of these edits as it has removed reliably sourced information. You have to admit, though, that it's rather amusing that the sources which grant inclusion for this information is coming from transcripts of a lawsuit your own NSA maliciously ensnared us all in, and then LOST. LOL. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:::Nope. Sorry. Your "source" is a court filing, not a court opinion. So, it's probably the worst example of WP:SELFPUB as there's no third-party editing at all. And I finally get this subterfuge:
:::*Make specious allegations in a court filing.
:::*Scan the filing and post it on your website.
:::*Refer to the filing as if it were independently corroborated.
:::*Presto-chango: specious allegations become independently corroborated facts.
:::Clever. It probably works for the credulous. Sorry, I'm better informed.
:::The court filing is out as not [[WP:V]], not [[WP:RS]], and effectively [[WP:SELFPUB]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently your understanding of being civil comes with a double-standard clause where you can name call? I was pointing out that without mentioning it you removed an entire paragraph that had a source which was provided by Cunado and never questioned in the past. Removing it effectively removed any pertinent information about what he did with himself and his followers beyond his proclamation. It was the only thing left after your last round of hatcheting this article, and you excised it and yet failed to provide any mention or explanation. If you now all of a sudden have decided to take issue with these types of sources, then why don't you ask your pal to stop providing them. I had NOTHING to do with EVER bringing forward any court documents as sources, so I'll thank you to tone down the accusations of "subterfuge". What an entirely preposterous notion; none of these court documents are hosted on our sites, and I never claimed they were "independently corroborated". What are you even ranting about? It was YOUR NSA that brought the court case forward that has been used as a references here and elsewhere, and then in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE it was Cunado who referenced back to it, but yet you're attacking me and making outlandish allegations about me using it inappropriately. And I'm the only one being jerk, huh? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:I ''explained'' my edits, cited policy, and got my good faith questioned and took a cheap shot for my trouble. Yeah, you were a jerk. It's another word for incivil. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now the martyr? If what you say were true this discussion wouldn't have taken the turns it has. You NEVER explained or even mentioned why you removed the paragraph about the formation of the NSAUHG. You explained about the claimants, but failed to mention why a sourced paragraph was included. Now I understand your positions, but you didn't state it at the outset, so please spare us all this victim routine. Yes you had "generally left this article alone", until earlier this summer when you and your crew waged a 30 day edit war which effectively had reduced this biography to rubble. Now you're apparently still not done gutting it's content. The only actual victim of these circumstances around here is this article, and it has you to thank for destroying it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:It's current state is a ''vast'' improvement over the POV-pushing state it was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=229938463 before]. Horribly [[WP:SOURCES|sourced]]. None of them [[tertiary sources]]. Worse references. Sorry if that trips across your [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
These objections about the NSA's Chicago case are entirely inane, and removing content from this article based on this faulty reasoning is out of order. Since these circumstances are not clearly defined by the WP:V policy, and instances of court documents are not clearly established on what is and isn't acceptable, we find ourselves again at the mercy of your interpretations. You have launched this assault on this and other pages removing content based on this charade about the court docs being a primary source, when in fact it clearly states at the outset of that document that the items found in BOLD text are not objected to by any parties in the case, and so are therefore considered undisputed facts as they are uncontested. To wit, it states just before point #1: "Facts set forth in bold-face type are agreed by all parties." They are facts laid out in both sides recounting of events. Furthermore the details lifted from the Findings of Facts document that are being used here are simply series of events, and not statements about beliefs or hearsay. Please examine the document and see for yourself that the points in BOLD are uncontested FACTS. So this assault against its use here is entirely inane, and absolutely afoul of logic and reason. I am therefore restoring this entirely appropriate verifiable source. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

::You know the process here. One editor makes an argument. Others who disagree make counter arguments. I've made mine, and am still waiting for you to stop name-calling, presuming bad faith, and actually make an argument based on policy.
::This is easy. I've asserted that court filings are not [[WP:V]] because they aren't published by reliable third parties. They aren't [[WP:RS]] because, by definition, these are biased by the POV of their respective authors. Please disprove both points and stop the [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You're accusing me of having an axe to grind here for trying to keep undisputed facts about the group that followed Mason from being censured from this page? That's really the position you want to take when you've spent the better part of '08 blotting out as many details from this article as you could get away with? Now you're blotting out something as simple as the details of the formation of his council from his bio, and I've got the axe to grind for trying to defend this material? You're a real piece of work.

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

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

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

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

== RFC: Questionable Sources ==

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

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

'''Object''' Self published, not relibale. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_cyclists_at_the_2009_Tour_Down_Under|click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!]]'') 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::YellowMonkey, it's noted in the summary that it's self-published, so by definition not reliable. The question posed was that automatically disqualify using material like this, or do the exceptions granted in [[WP:QS]] allow for this type of material? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

==Spataro's book as a source==
[http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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":
#Spataro’s account of Remey’s life borders on adoration.
#For three years he researched the life of Remey
#He gives an economical but clear history of the Faith up to the time of his writing, 1987.
#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.
#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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol6/waless/bib.htm] [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/index/diglib/articles.htm] [http://www.worldlanguageprocess.org/essays/blang/blang3.htm] [http://ahang.rabbani.googlepages.com/Witnesses_3_Bibliography.pdf]. 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Dream Focus|Dream Focus]] ([[User talk:Dream Focus|talk]]) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, the text is not a [[WP:RS]].
# As a high-school teacher moonlighting as an historian, he has no standing.
# He’s clearly biased by his own admission as well as the review.
# 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.
# 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". [[WP:SELF|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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?[[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

<s>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 [http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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 [http://icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_aff_history.htm 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. [[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:For clarity's sake, the concensus I'm refering to includes the following statement:
:#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)
:#<s>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)</s>
:#Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is, but perhaps wise to accede that they are going to be if not "self serving" exactly then not overly critical.As the article does not rely solely on this material I think it's use can be justified. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:#Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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:
::#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"
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 …" <nowiki>[</nowiki>Emphasis is Wikipedia's<nowiki>]</nowiki>. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Just to reinforce why the policy is what it is. Would you allow [http://www.charlesmasonremey.com/ 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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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.
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy would change. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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)
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
While Jeff300000 has quoted Blueboar correctly from [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Help clarifying SPS|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 [[User:General Disarray|'''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 …" <nowiki>[Empasis is Wikipedia's]</nowiki>

: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::And, methinks you are misrepresenting the discussion on [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_clarifying_SPS|V#SPS]]. Blueboar's [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/A-F#B|not an admin]], and nobody else participated in the discussion. And, by the way, [[WP:Admin|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== "Distinctly contradictory appointments"? ==

<s>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. --[[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

==Current reverts==
The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:
#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.
#The word "confused" in the sentence "Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor". This is straight from the source.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:#Then only the 2ndary are needed, like I said.
:#Whatever.
:#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.
:#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.
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Disarray, you're presuming bad faith here. Consider yourself warned. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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.) [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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.
::#[[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.
::#You removed wording that is right from the source.
::#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.
::#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.
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]] [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Mason+Remey 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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

::#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.
::#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.
::#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?[[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
#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.
#The point that Pepe is the adopted son is in the article. Having the picture is undue weight compared to the other claimants.
#As regarding the link, I'm up for removing all the external links.
Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::#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.
::#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.
::#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[Ad nauseam|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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 in dispute resolution. He's apparently refusing to deign his permission for the use of Pepe's picture as well, 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 official 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 opinion, and 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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mason Remey

2009-03-27T00:33:39Z

General Disarray: moving Pepe .jpeg to eliminate cocerns in talk

[[Image:Remey1.jpg|thumbnail|Charles Mason Remey]]
'''Charles Mason Remey''' ([[May 15]] [[1874]] - [[February 4]] [[1974]]) was a prominent and controversial American [[Bahá'í Faith|Bahá'í]] who was appointed in 1951 a [[Hand of the Cause]],<ref name="PSmith">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=292}}</ref><ref name="effendi18-20">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=18-20}}</ref> and president of the [[International Bahá'í Council]].<ref name="PSmith"/><ref name="effendi8-9">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=8-9}}</ref> He was the architect for the [[Bahá'í House of Worship|Bahá'í Houses of Worship]] in Uganda and Australia, and [[Shoghi Effendi]] approved his design of the unbuilt House of Worship in [[Haifa, Israel]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian, and Remey was among the nine Hands of the Cause elected as an interim authority until the election of the first [[Universal House of Justice]] in 1963.<ref name="PSmith_hands">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=176-177}}</ref> However, in 1960 Remey declared himself to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi, and expected the allegiance of the world's Bahá'ís.<ref name="remey8">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=8}} </ref> Subsequently, he and his followers were declared [[Covenant-breaker|Covenant breakers]] by the [[Hand of the Cause|Hands]].<ref name="PSmith"/> They reasoned that he lacked a formal appointment from Shoghi Effendi, and that the office was confined to male descendants of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Aghsan]]. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim,<ref name="Smith69">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=69}}</ref> but he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name="PSmith"/> His claim resulted in the largest schism in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, with a few groups still holding the belief that Remey was the successor of Shoghi Effendi. Various dated references show membership at less than a hundred each in two of the surviving groups.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000| pp=271}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Momen|1988|p=g.2}}</ref>

==Early life==
Born in Burlington, Iowa, on [[May 15]] [[1874]], Mason was the eldest son of Rear Admiral George Collier Remey and Mary Josephine Mason Remey, the daughter of Charles Mason, the first Chief Justice of Iowa.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> Remey’s parents raised him in the Episcopal Church. <ref>Remey, 1960 p. 2</ref> Remey trained as an architect at Cornell University (1893-1896), and the [[École des Beaux-Arts]] in Paris, France (1896-1903) where he first learned of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name = "PSmith" />

==As a Bahá'í==
With a background in architecture, Remey was asked to design the Australian and Ugandan [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] which still stand today and are the mother temples for [[Australasia]] and [[Africa]] respectively. Upon the request of [[Shoghi Effendi]], he also provided designs for a [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] in [[Tehran]], for [[Haifa, Israel|Haifa]], and the Shrine of `Abdu'l-Bahá, however only the Haifa temple was approved before the death of [[Shoghi Effendi]], and none have so far been built.<ref name="PSmith"/>

Remey traveled extensively to promote the Bahá'í Faith during the ministry of [[`Abdu'l-Bahá]]. [[Shoghi Effendi]] recorded that Remey and his Bahá'í companion, Howard Struven, were the first Bahá'ís to circle the globe teaching the religion.<ref name="effendi261">{{harvnb|Effendi|1944|p=261}}</ref>

A prolific writer, Remey wrote numerous published and personal articles promoting the Bahá'í Faith, including ''`Abdu'l-Bahá – The Center of the Covenant'' and the five volume ''A Comprehensive History of the Bahá'í Movement (1927)'', ''The Bahá'í Revelation and Reconstruction'' (1919), ''Constructive Principles of The Bahá'í Movement'' (1917), and ''The Bahá'í Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers'' (1912) are a few of the titles of the many works Remey produced while `Abdu'l-Bahá was still alive. Remey's life was recorded in his diaries, and in 1940 he provided copies and selected writings to several public libraries. Included in most of the collections were the letters `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote to him.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

According to Juliet Thompson's diary, `Abdu'l-Bahá suggested that she marry Remey, and in 1909 asked her how she felt about it, reportedly requesting of her: “Give my greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear to me that I think of you day and night. You are my real son. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass...He told me He loved Mason Remey so much,” Thompson writes, “and He loved me so much that he wished us to marry. That was the meaning of His message to Mason. He said it would be a perfect union and good for the Cause. Then he asked me how I felt about it.” They did not marry, although Thompson anguished over her decision, which she felt would cause ‘Abdu’l-Baha disappointment.<ref>{{harvnb|Thompson|1983|pp=71-76}}</ref> In 1932 he married Gertrude Heim Klemm Mason (1887-1933), who subsequently died a year later.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

===Under Shoghi Effendi===
Remey lived for some time in Washington, D.C., in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 Remey moved his residence from Washington, D.C., to Haifa, Israel, at the request of Shoghi Effendi. In January 1951, Shoghi Effendi issued a proclamation announcing the formation of the [[International Bahá'í Council]] (IBC), representing the first international Bahá'í body. The council was intended to be a forerunner to the [[Universal House of Justice]], the supreme ruling body of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name="PSmith199">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=199}}</ref><ref name="PSmith346">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=346}}</ref> Remey was appointed president of the council in March, with Amelia Collins as vice-president,<ref name="PSmith199"/> then in December of 1951 Remey was appointed a [[Hand of the Cause]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

[[Image:Masonandpepe.jpg|thumbnail|Mason Remey and Joseph Pepe]]
==After Shoghi Effendi==
{{main|Bahá'í divisions}}
When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, Remey and the other Hands of the Cause met in a private Conclave at Bahjí in Haifa, and determined that he hadn't appointed a successor. They decided that the situation of the Guardian having died without being able to appoint a successor was a situation not dealt with in the texts that define the Bahá'í administration, and that it would need to be reviewed and adjudicated upon by the [[Universal House of Justice]], which hadn't been elected yet.<ref name="Stockman200">{{Harvnb|Stockman|2006|p=200}}</ref> Remey signed a unanimous declaration of the Hands that Shoghi Effendi had died "without having appointed his successor".<ref name="PSmith68">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=68}}</ref><ref name="PSmith"/><ref>For the document, see the [http://www.bahai-education.org/materials/essays/proclamation_hands.htm Unanimous Proclamation of the 27 Hands of the Cause of God]</ref>

Three years later, in 1960, Remey made a written announcement that his appointment as president of the international council represented an appointment by Shoghi Effendi as Guardian,<ref name="remey5">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=5}}</ref> because the appointed council was a precursor to the elected Universal House of Justice, which has the Guardian as its president.

He also attempted to usurp the control of the Faith which the Hands had themselves assumed at the passing of Shoghi Effendi stating:
<blockquote>It is from and through the Guardianship that infallibility is vested and that the Hands of the Faith receive their orders...I now command the Hands of the Faith to stop all of their preparations for 1963, and furthermore I command all believers both as individual Bahá'ís and as assemblies of Bahá'ís to immediately cease cooperating with and giving support to this fallacious program for 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Remey|1960|pp=6-7}}</ref></blockquote>

He claimed to believe that the Guardianship was an institution intended to endure forever, and that he was the 2nd Guardian by virtue of his appointment to the IBC. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim, although he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name = "PSmith" /> One of the most notable exceptions to accept his claim was that of the entire French [[National Spiritual Assembly]], led by Joel Marangella, who elected to support Remey, and was consequently disbanded by the Hands. The remaining 26 Hands of the Cause unanimously expelled him from the community.<ref name="deVries265">{{harvnb|de Vries|2002|p=265}}</ref><ref name="Smith69"/> Remey himself declared that being the Guardian gave him the exclusive right to declare who was or wasn't a Covenant-breaker, and that those who opposed him and followed the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers.

===Under the Hereditary Guardianship===
Among the Bahá'ís who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian, several further divisions have occurred based on opinions of legitimacy and the proper succession of authority.<ref name="taherzadeh368-371">{{harvnb|Taherzadeh|2000|pp=368-371}}</ref> Most of his long-term followers were Americans, who distinguished themselves as "Bahá'ís Under the Hereditary Guardianship".<ref name="Smith69"/> In his later years Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor, which resulted in further divisions among his followers dividing among several claimants to leadership.<ref name="PSmith"/> When Remey died his followers split into rival factions with each believing in a different Guardian.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000|pp=271}}</ref><ref name="Smith71">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=71}}</ref> Donald Harvey (d.1991), was appointed by Remey as "Third Guardian" in 1967. [[Joel Marangella]] was president of Remey's "Second International Bahá'í Council" claimed in 1969 to have been secretly appointed by Remey as Guardian several years earlier, whose followers are now known as [[Orthodox Bahá'í Faith|Orthodox Bahá'ís]].<ref name="PSmith"/> Another of Remey's followers, [[Leland Jensen]] (d. 1996), who made a several religious claims of his own, formed a sect known as the [[Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant]] following Remey's death;<ref name="PSmith"/>. He believed that Remey was the adopted son of Abdu'l-Baha,<ref name="pluralism">{{harvnb|Hyslop|2004}}</ref> and that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian.<ref>{{harvnb|stone|2000|p=282}} note 6</ref>

All those that accept Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the [[Universal House of Justice]] established in 1963.<ref name="PSmith"/>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.<ref name="spataro25">{{harvnb|Spataro|2003|p=25}}</ref>
===Death===
On February 4th, 1974, Mason Remey died at the age of 99.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> The funeral was organized by his adopted son Joseph Pepe, with the assistance of the American consulate in Florence.

In his self-published biography of Remey, Spataro writes of what he claims Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe revealed to him about the ceremony. According to Pepe, because of the issues surrounding his father at the time of his death it had been decided to leave the tomb unmarked. He was buried at a location within the prescribed one-hour's distance from the place of death. Bahá'í prayers were read as his coffin was interred at a temporary grave. Later the body was moved to its permanent grave in Florence, Italy, with a monument and inscription erected at the site. <ref>{{harvnb|Spataro|2003|p=31}}</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}
==References==

*{{cite book
| title = The Babi Question You Mentioned... The Origins of the Baha'i Community of the Netherlands, 1844-1962
| publisher = Peeters Publishers
| year = 2002
| first = J.
| last = de Vries
| place = Leuven
| isbn = 9042911093
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1944
|title = God Passes By
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|id = ISBN 0877430209
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1971
|title = Messages to the Bahá'í World, 1950-1957
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/MBW/
}}

*{{citation
|last=Hyslop
|first=Scott
|year=2004
|title=Pluralism Project
|publisher=Harvard University Study of Religion
|url=http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=72374
}}

*{{citation
|last = Momen
|first = Moojan
|year = 1988
|title = The Covenant
|url = http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm#7.%20Covenant-breaker,%20Covenant-breaking
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Remey
|first = Charles Mason
|year = 1960
|title = Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World
|url = http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Spataro
|first = Francis C.
|year = 2003
|title = Charles Mason Remey and the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Tover Publications
|place = Queens, NY 11427-2116.
|id = ISBN 0-9671656-3-6
}}

*{{citation
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|place = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book | last = Smith | first = Peter | year = 2008 | title = An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0521862515 | location = Cambridge}}

*{{cite book
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|location = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book
| title = Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America
| publisher = Greenwood Press
| year = 2006
| editor1-first = Eugene V.
| editor1-last = Gallagher
| editor2-first = W. Michael
| editor2-last = Ashcraft
| first = Robert
| last = Stockman
| chapter = The Baha'is of the United States
| isbn = 0275987124
}}

*{{Citation
| last = Stone
| first = Jon R. (ed)
| year =2000
| title =Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy
| place = New York
| publisher =Routledge
| pages =269–282
| isbn =0-415-92331-x
}}

*{{citation
|last = Taherzadeh
|first = Adib
|year=2000
|title=The Child of the Covenant
|publisher=George Ronald
|place=Oxford, UK
|id=ISBN 0853984395
}}

*{{citation
|last = Thompson
|first = Juliet
|date = 1947
|year = 1983
|title = The Diary of Juliet Thompson
|publisher = Kalimat Press
|place = Los Angeles
|url = http://bahai-library.com/books/thompson/
}}

==External links==
*[http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ Biography of Charles Mason Remy] - by Brent Matthieu
*[http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers&language=All Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him] - published by the Universal House of Justice
*[http://bupc.org/test-of-god.html Passing the Test of God] - BUPC's views of Mason Remey's Life, Contributions, and Beleifs
{{DEFAULTSORT:Remey, Mason}}
[[Category:1874 births]]
[[Category:1974 deaths]]
[[Category:Bahá'í divisions]]
[[Category:American Bahá'ís]]
[[Category:Hands of the Cause of God]]

[[fa:چارلز میسون ریمی]]

Mason Remey

2009-03-27T00:31:47Z

General Disarray: Undid revision 279786626 by Jeff3000 (talk)

[[Image:Remey1.jpg|thumbnail|Charles Mason Remey]]
'''Charles Mason Remey''' ([[May 15]] [[1874]] - [[February 4]] [[1974]]) was a prominent and controversial American [[Bahá'í Faith|Bahá'í]] who was appointed in 1951 a [[Hand of the Cause]],<ref name="PSmith">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=292}}</ref><ref name="effendi18-20">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=18-20}}</ref> and president of the [[International Bahá'í Council]].<ref name="PSmith"/><ref name="effendi8-9">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=8-9}}</ref> He was the architect for the [[Bahá'í House of Worship|Bahá'í Houses of Worship]] in Uganda and Australia, and [[Shoghi Effendi]] approved his design of the unbuilt House of Worship in [[Haifa, Israel]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian, and Remey was among the nine Hands of the Cause elected as an interim authority until the election of the first [[Universal House of Justice]] in 1963.<ref name="PSmith_hands">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=176-177}}</ref> However, in 1960 Remey declared himself to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi, and expected the allegiance of the world's Bahá'ís.<ref name="remey8">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=8}} </ref> Subsequently, he and his followers were declared [[Covenant-breaker|Covenant breakers]] by the [[Hand of the Cause|Hands]].<ref name="PSmith"/> They reasoned that he lacked a formal appointment from Shoghi Effendi, and that the office was confined to male descendants of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Aghsan]]. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim,<ref name="Smith69">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=69}}</ref> but he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name="PSmith"/> His claim resulted in the largest schism in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, with a few groups still holding the belief that Remey was the successor of Shoghi Effendi. Various dated references show membership at less than a hundred each in two of the surviving groups.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000| pp=271}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Momen|1988|p=g.2}}</ref>

==Early life==
Born in Burlington, Iowa, on [[May 15]] [[1874]], Mason was the eldest son of Rear Admiral George Collier Remey and Mary Josephine Mason Remey, the daughter of Charles Mason, the first Chief Justice of Iowa.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> Remey’s parents raised him in the Episcopal Church. <ref>Remey, 1960 p. 2</ref> Remey trained as an architect at Cornell University (1893-1896), and the [[École des Beaux-Arts]] in Paris, France (1896-1903) where he first learned of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name = "PSmith" />

==As a Bahá'í==
With a background in architecture, Remey was asked to design the Australian and Ugandan [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] which still stand today and are the mother temples for [[Australasia]] and [[Africa]] respectively. Upon the request of [[Shoghi Effendi]], he also provided designs for a [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] in [[Tehran]], for [[Haifa, Israel|Haifa]], and the Shrine of `Abdu'l-Bahá, however only the Haifa temple was approved before the death of [[Shoghi Effendi]], and none have so far been built.<ref name="PSmith"/>

Remey traveled extensively to promote the Bahá'í Faith during the ministry of [[`Abdu'l-Bahá]]. [[Shoghi Effendi]] recorded that Remey and his Bahá'í companion, Howard Struven, were the first Bahá'ís to circle the globe teaching the religion.<ref name="effendi261">{{harvnb|Effendi|1944|p=261}}</ref>

A prolific writer, Remey wrote numerous published and personal articles promoting the Bahá'í Faith, including ''`Abdu'l-Bahá – The Center of the Covenant'' and the five volume ''A Comprehensive History of the Bahá'í Movement (1927)'', ''The Bahá'í Revelation and Reconstruction'' (1919), ''Constructive Principles of The Bahá'í Movement'' (1917), and ''The Bahá'í Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers'' (1912) are a few of the titles of the many works Remey produced while `Abdu'l-Bahá was still alive. Remey's life was recorded in his diaries, and in 1940 he provided copies and selected writings to several public libraries. Included in most of the collections were the letters `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote to him.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

According to Juliet Thompson's diary, `Abdu'l-Bahá suggested that she marry Remey, and in 1909 asked her how she felt about it, reportedly requesting of her: “Give my greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear to me that I think of you day and night. You are my real son. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass...He told me He loved Mason Remey so much,” Thompson writes, “and He loved me so much that he wished us to marry. That was the meaning of His message to Mason. He said it would be a perfect union and good for the Cause. Then he asked me how I felt about it.” They did not marry, although Thompson anguished over her decision, which she felt would cause ‘Abdu’l-Baha disappointment.<ref>{{harvnb|Thompson|1983|pp=71-76}}</ref> In 1932 he married Gertrude Heim Klemm Mason (1887-1933), who subsequently died a year later.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

===Under Shoghi Effendi===
Remey lived for some time in Washington, D.C., in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 Remey moved his residence from Washington, D.C., to Haifa, Israel, at the request of Shoghi Effendi. In January 1951, Shoghi Effendi issued a proclamation announcing the formation of the [[International Bahá'í Council]] (IBC), representing the first international Bahá'í body. The council was intended to be a forerunner to the [[Universal House of Justice]], the supreme ruling body of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name="PSmith199">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=199}}</ref><ref name="PSmith346">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=346}}</ref> Remey was appointed president of the council in March, with Amelia Collins as vice-president,<ref name="PSmith199"/> then in December of 1951 Remey was appointed a [[Hand of the Cause]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

==After Shoghi Effendi==
{{main|Bahá'í divisions}}
When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, Remey and the other Hands of the Cause met in a private Conclave at Bahjí in Haifa, and determined that he hadn't appointed a successor. They decided that the situation of the Guardian having died without being able to appoint a successor was a situation not dealt with in the texts that define the Bahá'í administration, and that it would need to be reviewed and adjudicated upon by the [[Universal House of Justice]], which hadn't been elected yet.<ref name="Stockman200">{{Harvnb|Stockman|2006|p=200}}</ref> Remey signed a unanimous declaration of the Hands that Shoghi Effendi had died "without having appointed his successor".<ref name="PSmith68">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=68}}</ref><ref name="PSmith"/><ref>For the document, see the [http://www.bahai-education.org/materials/essays/proclamation_hands.htm Unanimous Proclamation of the 27 Hands of the Cause of God]</ref>

Three years later, in 1960, Remey made a written announcement that his appointment as president of the international council represented an appointment by Shoghi Effendi as Guardian,<ref name="remey5">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=5}}</ref> because the appointed council was a precursor to the elected Universal House of Justice, which has the Guardian as its president.

He also attempted to usurp the control of the Faith which the Hands had themselves assumed at the passing of Shoghi Effendi stating:
<blockquote>It is from and through the Guardianship that infallibility is vested and that the Hands of the Faith receive their orders...I now command the Hands of the Faith to stop all of their preparations for 1963, and furthermore I command all believers both as individual Bahá'ís and as assemblies of Bahá'ís to immediately cease cooperating with and giving support to this fallacious program for 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Remey|1960|pp=6-7}}</ref></blockquote>

He claimed to believe that the Guardianship was an institution intended to endure forever, and that he was the 2nd Guardian by virtue of his appointment to the IBC. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim, although he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name = "PSmith" /> One of the most notable exceptions to accept his claim was that of the entire French [[National Spiritual Assembly]], led by Joel Marangella, who elected to support Remey, and was consequently disbanded by the Hands. The remaining 26 Hands of the Cause unanimously expelled him from the community.<ref name="deVries265">{{harvnb|de Vries|2002|p=265}}</ref><ref name="Smith69"/> Remey himself declared that being the Guardian gave him the exclusive right to declare who was or wasn't a Covenant-breaker, and that those who opposed him and followed the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers.

===Under the Hereditary Guardianship===
[[Image:Masonandpepe.jpg|thumbnail|Mason Remey and Joseph Pepe]]
Among the Bahá'ís who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian, several further divisions have occurred based on opinions of legitimacy and the proper succession of authority.<ref name="taherzadeh368-371">{{harvnb|Taherzadeh|2000|pp=368-371}}</ref> Most of his long-term followers were Americans, who distinguished themselves as "Bahá'ís Under the Hereditary Guardianship".<ref name="Smith69"/> In his later years Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor, which resulted in further divisions among his followers dividing among several claimants to leadership.<ref name="PSmith"/> When Remey died his followers split into rival factions with each believing in a different Guardian.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000|pp=271}}</ref><ref name="Smith71">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=71}}</ref> Donald Harvey (d.1991), was appointed by Remey as "Third Guardian" in 1967. [[Joel Marangella]] was president of Remey's "Second International Bahá'í Council" claimed in 1969 to have been secretly appointed by Remey as Guardian several years earlier, whose followers are now known as [[Orthodox Bahá'í Faith|Orthodox Bahá'ís]].<ref name="PSmith"/> Another of Remey's followers, [[Leland Jensen]] (d. 1996), who made a several religious claims of his own, formed a sect known as the [[Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant]] following Remey's death;<ref name="PSmith"/>. He believed that Remey was the adopted son of Abdu'l-Baha,<ref name="pluralism">{{harvnb|Hyslop|2004}}</ref> and that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian.<ref>{{harvnb|stone|2000|p=282}} note 6</ref>

All those that accept Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the [[Universal House of Justice]] established in 1963.<ref name="PSmith"/>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.<ref name="spataro25">{{harvnb|Spataro|2003|p=25}}</ref>
===Death===
On February 4th, 1974, Mason Remey died at the age of 99.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> The funeral was organized by his adopted son Joseph Pepe, with the assistance of the American consulate in Florence.

In his self-published biography of Remey, Spataro writes of what he claims Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe revealed to him about the ceremony. According to Pepe, because of the issues surrounding his father at the time of his death it had been decided to leave the tomb unmarked. He was buried at a location within the prescribed one-hour's distance from the place of death. Bahá'í prayers were read as his coffin was interred at a temporary grave. Later the body was moved to its permanent grave in Florence, Italy, with a monument and inscription erected at the site. <ref>{{harvnb|Spataro|2003|p=31}}</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}
==References==

*{{cite book
| title = The Babi Question You Mentioned... The Origins of the Baha'i Community of the Netherlands, 1844-1962
| publisher = Peeters Publishers
| year = 2002
| first = J.
| last = de Vries
| place = Leuven
| isbn = 9042911093
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1944
|title = God Passes By
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|id = ISBN 0877430209
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1971
|title = Messages to the Bahá'í World, 1950-1957
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/MBW/
}}

*{{citation
|last=Hyslop
|first=Scott
|year=2004
|title=Pluralism Project
|publisher=Harvard University Study of Religion
|url=http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=72374
}}

*{{citation
|last = Momen
|first = Moojan
|year = 1988
|title = The Covenant
|url = http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm#7.%20Covenant-breaker,%20Covenant-breaking
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Remey
|first = Charles Mason
|year = 1960
|title = Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World
|url = http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Spataro
|first = Francis C.
|year = 2003
|title = Charles Mason Remey and the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Tover Publications
|place = Queens, NY 11427-2116.
|id = ISBN 0-9671656-3-6
}}

*{{citation
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|place = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book | last = Smith | first = Peter | year = 2008 | title = An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0521862515 | location = Cambridge}}

*{{cite book
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|location = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book
| title = Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America
| publisher = Greenwood Press
| year = 2006
| editor1-first = Eugene V.
| editor1-last = Gallagher
| editor2-first = W. Michael
| editor2-last = Ashcraft
| first = Robert
| last = Stockman
| chapter = The Baha'is of the United States
| isbn = 0275987124
}}

*{{Citation
| last = Stone
| first = Jon R. (ed)
| year =2000
| title =Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy
| place = New York
| publisher =Routledge
| pages =269–282
| isbn =0-415-92331-x
}}

*{{citation
|last = Taherzadeh
|first = Adib
|year=2000
|title=The Child of the Covenant
|publisher=George Ronald
|place=Oxford, UK
|id=ISBN 0853984395
}}

*{{citation
|last = Thompson
|first = Juliet
|date = 1947
|year = 1983
|title = The Diary of Juliet Thompson
|publisher = Kalimat Press
|place = Los Angeles
|url = http://bahai-library.com/books/thompson/
}}

==External links==
*[http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ Biography of Charles Mason Remy] - by Brent Matthieu
*[http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers&language=All Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him] - published by the Universal House of Justice
*[http://bupc.org/test-of-god.html Passing the Test of God] - BUPC's views of Mason Remey's Life, Contributions, and Beleifs
{{DEFAULTSORT:Remey, Mason}}
[[Category:1874 births]]
[[Category:1974 deaths]]
[[Category:Bahá'í divisions]]
[[Category:American Bahá'ís]]
[[Category:Hands of the Cause of God]]

[[fa:چارلز میسون ریمی]]

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-27T00:29:42Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */

{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=
|priority=
|listas=Remey, Mason
}}

{| class="infobox" width="290px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="1"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[Talk:Mason Remey/archive1|Archive 1]] 01/2005-09/2008
|-
|colspan="2"|
----
|}

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

:I'll try to address individual points on the last revert. Refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=235556940 this] version as the version you're proposing.
:1) The line about being introduced by May Bolles was repetition, under "As a Baha'i", first and third paragraphs.
:2) Of all the accolades, choosing the two that use the phrase "son" are unacceptable and original research, trying to casually cherry-pick quotations that imply a literal adoption without explicitly stating it. Besides that, listing `Abdu'l-Baha's praise of an individual is self-serving on any WP article, and fails neutrality. Compare to any other bio on Baha'is, for example [[`Alí-Muhammad Varqá]]. It's short, simple, factual. Whether the accolades are verifiable or reliable is not a major issue.
:3) Remey's reflection on the W&T. Not sure how this is pertinent to a bio.
:4) The issue of hair and blood are referenced from a BUPC website. Completely unacceptable as a source for such a statement. Also, another attempt to throw in the phrase "son".
:5) Remey never addressed the issue... in his written statement declaring himself as Guardian. That is how it's worded, and I added as a reference the statement.
:6) The broken link is fixed.
:7) The websites you added are linkspam. Clear and simple. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You apparently don't get it, but I'm sure we can get on the same page about all this. I didn't "choose" any of the content on this page by "cherry-picking" favorable material, but thanks for the [[WP:AGF]]. I rewrote this page back in '05 based primarily on information found a CMR.net, see? The Hair and Blood, if you would have given it more than a cursory glance and checked the reference (not the photo which is not the ref.), you would have been directed to CMR.net which discusses it at length (almost word for word). So guess what? It stays. Likewise with the SoW content. It's not my research but is pointing to the primary self published source about ITSELF. So guess what. It stays. Likewise reflections on the Will are part of details about his finalt visit to the Holy Land, which also are discussed at length on CMR.net. It's not significant that of several million Baha'is Shoghi Effendi called Remey to the Holy Land to be the first to read the Will, and to give him a token relic? Well guess what? Noone cares what you think about it as it's referenced back to CMR.net almost word for word and as with these others, IT STAYS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=235653609&oldid=235627331 Please elaborate]; how is his proclamation an unreliable source for referencing what he said in his proclamation? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Look again, it was a duplicate reference. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::Not true. Read [[WP:SELFPUB]] first. If this were Remey's autobiography, then yes it'd be acceptable. As it's not - out it goes.
::::It's sloppy anyway. It's the [[Ecole des Beaux Arts]], not the Ecole des Artes. Even this [[imbecile|engineer]] knows the difference. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on which of the 7 points of [[WP:SELFPUB]] you feel dismiss the bio on CMR.net, and all of a sudden disqualify it as something other than a source about itself. To suggest it's "out" because it's "by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself" is patently absurd. I will not be swayed by these assertions for they are entirely vapid. CMR's biography was written and extensively sourced by someone we all know has been a follower of CMR's for over 30 years which more than qualifies him as an expert on the subject. Moreover the site is entirely devoted to Remey's public statements, his bio, and an archive of SoW articles about him. How preposterous that two days ago you stated "If CMR.net is bona fide, and because there's no genuinely reliable online source for Remey's statemtns, I'm letting it slide — you still can't use it for anything to do with 'Abdul-Baha." Now it's "out". You sure seem to have a high regard for the weight of your personal opinions around here; one day your permission is granted, and the next it is revoked. I feel these statements speak volumes about how have chosen to treat this matter, as do the rest of your comments here show how creative one can get with interpreting policies.

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

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

:Apparently I have to spell the obvious out. Selfpubs can be used only if:
:'''2 "it is not contentious;"''' — Both Cuñado and I question the authenticity of certain sections, particularly the biography.
:'''3 "it is not unduly self-serving;"''' — This is clearly an apologetics site.
:'''4 "it does not involve claims about third parties;"''' — It can't be used to source "accolades" and other such from anyone other than Remey.
:'''6 "there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;"''' — I have no idea who Brent Mathieu is or his credentials to provide this source on the bio. I have a clue who Remey is, and his proclamation certainly rings true.
:'''7 "the article is not based primarily on such sources."''' — There were sections whose sole source was this CMR.net biography.

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

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

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

:We don't have to "compromise" on policy. Either the material meets it or it doesn't. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess all you have to do now is convince an unbiased third party on your creative interpretations of this [[WP:SELFPUB|policy]] and you'll have your way. From where I'm sitting my concerns are valid and being wholly ignored here despite my best efforts to elaborate on them. Two days ago "you'd let it slide", and now it's "out" and you're tagging every other sentence with citations needed? This is improving the article somehow?
*on #2, you've proven yourselves to be contentious against the subject and your considerations are therefore dismissed.
*on #3 this accusation could be leveled against any self published website, and is not a grounds for dismissal as the bio makes efforts to state facts and can't be shown to take "unduly self serving" liberties without references. the objection is meaningless.
*on #4 this issue is not on the table at this time, as I haven't pushed forward with the accolades issue; moot point.
*on #6 it states who authored it; therefore there's no doubts. The policy doesn't say you two have to know him.
*on #7 your concerns about "whole sections" are irrelevant, for this states that "the ARTICLE doesn't rely solely on such sources, which it doesn't; also moot.
As I said your eradicating valid information, and are propagating an edit war over. I object to the notion that CMR.net's bio is "out" and reject your creative justification for doing so. That's all I have to say on this matter. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think the miscommunication here is that CMR.net is by (says to be by) Brent M, not by Mason Remey. It's thus someone with a personal website writing about Remey. It does not qualify for a reliable source about Remey, regardless if it's dedicated to that subject. As far as reliability, it's equivalent to me buying my own web domain and posting my version of Remey's life on it, so in other words not reliable. It goes both ways. We can't smear or exalt Remey through personal websites. If Remey published information about himself, then it would be self published, and even then wouldn't be allowed inclusion if it was contentious or about a third party. As far as I can tell from our conversation Remey only left diaries in certain archives that are not published. Another category is someone else publishing about Remey. Spataro falls into that category and different rules apply for those sources. Brent's site is on the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. The only person who needs to convince other people is the person pushing for inclusion. Feel free to get a third party to review it. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You're right about one thing; there is a miscommuication going on here, but you haven't summarized it with any accuracy. One, the contact link on the site is not to Brent Mathieu showing it's not his site. The site is dedicated to hosting all things Remey, and this bio is one of those things. The objections to the contents of this sight have only been raised now after they have been in the article unassailed for well over 2 years. The objections haven't even been consistent, but change daily. It has only been in the last 12 hours after this discussion has waxed on for over a week that it has come down from on high that it's value in treating details of Remey's life is zero and the whole bio is "out". It is precisely because of it's value from a scholar on the subject that these details found there place in this article for the last 2.5 years. You claim it's the editor wishing for inclusion to provide the source, right? I did provide a valid source for all this in 2005 when I first contributed it. It is merely your assertions now that it all of a sudden is disqualified based on your own conjectures. This was and is a valid source for information about Remey as it's thoroughly sourced, and no one has EVER brought up objections until now. So therefore the burden for inclusion has been met; it is your self-created dilema that is waxing haughty against it with increasingly creative ways to dismiss it. I'm unmoved. Feel free to find someone who is or drop it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:::::Cuñado, Jeff3000, do you think we should pull the site entirely as a personal site, or shall we trust it for the proclamation? [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
From Mason's bio at CMR.net:
"Note on author: Brent Mathieu accepted the Baha’i Faith in December 1973 and recognized Mason Remey as its Guardian. This was prior to Remey’s death in February 1974. Mathieu’s first teachers in the Faith were Leland and Opal Jensen of Missoula, Montana. He corresponded extensively with Joseph Pepe, the adopted son and companion of Remey, from 1975 to1993. He maintains a personal collection of Pepe’s correspondence with Baha’is during that time. Mathieu’s collection includes personal correspondence with Donald A Harvey, Remey’s successor, and Orthodox Baha’is Frank Schlatter and Joel Marangella. It contains other individuals’ correspondence supportive of Remey’s Guardianship. The above biography is based on Mathieu’s memoirs, personal letters, and research of credible histories. More footnotes and references are planned to be added. You can contact the author at [email protected], or Brent Mathieu, 1412 W. Washington, Boise, Idaho 83702."

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

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

::Hear, hear! [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the three of you are the only people that could be convinced that the biography of Charles Mason Remey on charlesmasonremey.net is something other than a verfiable self published source that is perfectly acceptable to use as a source about itself. The point is that the subject of the bio is strictly relegated to the subject of Remey and therefore is entirely appropriate to use reference to itself. It's a creative charade to attempt to negate it because Mason himself is not the owner of the site. As you three have made clear that you deem him a covenant breaker you've perjured yourself to you bias and contempt to the subject. This edit war you have waged against him is against material that has stood since 2005 and will continue to for many years to come. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:I could create a website named charlesmasonremy.com and post anything I wanted about Mason Remey. The name of the website doesn't make it on official website on Mason Remey, and thus it is a personal website. It's run by an individual thus making it a personal website, hosting content that has does not meet any of the criteria of being a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. The fact that it was on the page for many years doesn't mean it is acceptable; there's a boatload of pages on Wikipedia that don't abide by Wikipedia standards, and that the content was there doesn't make it any more acceptable. I'll continue to abide by Wikipedia policy and remove the content. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Are you reduced to ''ad hominem'' again? Would you please argue the facts.
::The argument is simple:
::#CMR.net is a personal website with anonymous owner(s). (Statement of fact.)
::#Therefore, it has no reputation at all, much less as one for reputable fact-checking. (Simple logical step. Anonymous people can have no reputation by definition of "reputation".)
::#It fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. (Simple conclusion as both policies require the author to be known by independent confirmation. Publishing is the standard.)
::That is a line of reasoning that is trivial for you to refute. I'll lay it out for you.
::#Show where the identities of the owner of CMR.net may be found, then
::#Show that that owner is not an indvidual, or
::#Show that, if that owner is an individual, they have a recognized reputation for scholarship. (Homeopaths and high-school teachers aren't historians or biographers).
::All you need are two verifiable factoids and ''poof'' there goes our argument.
::That the material's been poorly sourced since '05 doesn't make a difference. It's up to you to justify this and you haven't presented proof to refute the argument. The material's already gone per policy and will continue for many years to come. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

:Easy. ''Delete'' it — unless its got a [[WP:V]] source. I've swung the delete hammer heavily enough on Baha'i topics around WP, I'm more than happy to see it done here.
:*Brent Matthieu is out - [[WP:Selfpub]], by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself. See above.
:*Diaries are out - Not [[WP:V|published]].
:''SoW'' is out - [[WP:RS|Unreliable]]
:Peter Smith's ''Encyclopedia'' is published and at least lists Harvey, Marangella, King and Jensen, so these people won't be lost entirely, and the article will be streamlined considerably.
::[[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=236169654&oldid=236150224 Sorry] Jeff. Those sections are entirely unreferenced or rely on an unacceptable source.
::If you've got a better source for the biographical data — add it. If you've got ''any'' [[WP:V]] sources on the other "Guardians" add it. I've got a valid 3rd-party source (Smith) as per above and can rewrite those sections combining them into one. But I thought I'd flag them for needed references first in case somebody's got some. I can rewrite it sooner if you'd rather. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Spataro ==

Jeff, how is it that the details of Remey's family history, early life, education, death, and interment are ''all'' on the same page (p. 31) of Spataro's book? [http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qisbn=0967165636 It's] a forty page pamplet and it takes thiry pages to get to his life story and crams all of these details onto one page? It strains credulity that this source is being used appropriately. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Maybe you could squint your eyes and look a little closer. The book is used to reference a wopping total of 3 statements; theres one on page 25, one minor note from page 31 and 31 again which gives elaborate detail to the funeral. It's not used to source his family history or his early life; Remey himself mentioned those on page 2 of his proclamation Which is where ref 5 points to. He's used for note 17 which mentions page 25, and then the details of his funeral are given from Pepe himself on page 31. The first paragraph of page 31 makes reference to him first hearing of the Baha'i faith while in archetecture school in Paris at Ecole de Beaux Arts, so I used that to reference that one sentence in "Early life". See? The book's barely touches on his early life, but focuses on the details of his adult Baha'i life. It's not a biography or I would have been able to put it to greater use here. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::The only thing the proclamation confirms is that he was Epicopalian. So none of his early life has a source. Bad form to elminate a fact tag when your source doesn't address them all. It's still odd that his education and death are treated on the same page in Spataro. If this is true, it must be a strange book. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
His education isn't really "treated" per se. In summarizing the last days of his Baha' life, details from the 1st days are given, as he first heard of it while in school in Paris, that's all. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sourcing problems ==

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

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

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

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

The Pepe Remey section should be struck. He was not a claimant. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:The paragraph about the formation of his NSA is entirely germane and credibly sourced, and yet you haven't provided a reason for it's excision or even mentioned it here. Was this was an error in these overly zealous deletions? It now implies that nothing happened following his proclamation except that two other groups formed. As this article has been culled to a skeleton as it is, it really calls to question the good faith of anyone seeking to further excise credible information when so little of the full story is being portrayed. I object to the extent of these edits as it has removed reliably sourced information. You have to admit, though, that it's rather amusing that the sources which grant inclusion for this information is coming from transcripts of a lawsuit your own NSA maliciously ensnared us all in, and then LOST. LOL. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:::Nope. Sorry. Your "source" is a court filing, not a court opinion. So, it's probably the worst example of WP:SELFPUB as there's no third-party editing at all. And I finally get this subterfuge:
:::*Make specious allegations in a court filing.
:::*Scan the filing and post it on your website.
:::*Refer to the filing as if it were independently corroborated.
:::*Presto-chango: specious allegations become independently corroborated facts.
:::Clever. It probably works for the credulous. Sorry, I'm better informed.
:::The court filing is out as not [[WP:V]], not [[WP:RS]], and effectively [[WP:SELFPUB]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently your understanding of being civil comes with a double-standard clause where you can name call? I was pointing out that without mentioning it you removed an entire paragraph that had a source which was provided by Cunado and never questioned in the past. Removing it effectively removed any pertinent information about what he did with himself and his followers beyond his proclamation. It was the only thing left after your last round of hatcheting this article, and you excised it and yet failed to provide any mention or explanation. If you now all of a sudden have decided to take issue with these types of sources, then why don't you ask your pal to stop providing them. I had NOTHING to do with EVER bringing forward any court documents as sources, so I'll thank you to tone down the accusations of "subterfuge". What an entirely preposterous notion; none of these court documents are hosted on our sites, and I never claimed they were "independently corroborated". What are you even ranting about? It was YOUR NSA that brought the court case forward that has been used as a references here and elsewhere, and then in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE it was Cunado who referenced back to it, but yet you're attacking me and making outlandish allegations about me using it inappropriately. And I'm the only one being jerk, huh? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:I ''explained'' my edits, cited policy, and got my good faith questioned and took a cheap shot for my trouble. Yeah, you were a jerk. It's another word for incivil. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now the martyr? If what you say were true this discussion wouldn't have taken the turns it has. You NEVER explained or even mentioned why you removed the paragraph about the formation of the NSAUHG. You explained about the claimants, but failed to mention why a sourced paragraph was included. Now I understand your positions, but you didn't state it at the outset, so please spare us all this victim routine. Yes you had "generally left this article alone", until earlier this summer when you and your crew waged a 30 day edit war which effectively had reduced this biography to rubble. Now you're apparently still not done gutting it's content. The only actual victim of these circumstances around here is this article, and it has you to thank for destroying it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:It's current state is a ''vast'' improvement over the POV-pushing state it was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=229938463 before]. Horribly [[WP:SOURCES|sourced]]. None of them [[tertiary sources]]. Worse references. Sorry if that trips across your [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
These objections about the NSA's Chicago case are entirely inane, and removing content from this article based on this faulty reasoning is out of order. Since these circumstances are not clearly defined by the WP:V policy, and instances of court documents are not clearly established on what is and isn't acceptable, we find ourselves again at the mercy of your interpretations. You have launched this assault on this and other pages removing content based on this charade about the court docs being a primary source, when in fact it clearly states at the outset of that document that the items found in BOLD text are not objected to by any parties in the case, and so are therefore considered undisputed facts as they are uncontested. To wit, it states just before point #1: "Facts set forth in bold-face type are agreed by all parties." They are facts laid out in both sides recounting of events. Furthermore the details lifted from the Findings of Facts document that are being used here are simply series of events, and not statements about beliefs or hearsay. Please examine the document and see for yourself that the points in BOLD are uncontested FACTS. So this assault against its use here is entirely inane, and absolutely afoul of logic and reason. I am therefore restoring this entirely appropriate verifiable source. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

::You know the process here. One editor makes an argument. Others who disagree make counter arguments. I've made mine, and am still waiting for you to stop name-calling, presuming bad faith, and actually make an argument based on policy.
::This is easy. I've asserted that court filings are not [[WP:V]] because they aren't published by reliable third parties. They aren't [[WP:RS]] because, by definition, these are biased by the POV of their respective authors. Please disprove both points and stop the [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You're accusing me of having an axe to grind here for trying to keep undisputed facts about the group that followed Mason from being censured from this page? That's really the position you want to take when you've spent the better part of '08 blotting out as many details from this article as you could get away with? Now you're blotting out something as simple as the details of the formation of his council from his bio, and I've got the axe to grind for trying to defend this material? You're a real piece of work.

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

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

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

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

== RFC: Questionable Sources ==

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

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

'''Object''' Self published, not relibale. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_cyclists_at_the_2009_Tour_Down_Under|click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!]]'') 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::YellowMonkey, it's noted in the summary that it's self-published, so by definition not reliable. The question posed was that automatically disqualify using material like this, or do the exceptions granted in [[WP:QS]] allow for this type of material? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

==Spataro's book as a source==
[http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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":
#Spataro’s account of Remey’s life borders on adoration.
#For three years he researched the life of Remey
#He gives an economical but clear history of the Faith up to the time of his writing, 1987.
#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.
#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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol6/waless/bib.htm] [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/index/diglib/articles.htm] [http://www.worldlanguageprocess.org/essays/blang/blang3.htm] [http://ahang.rabbani.googlepages.com/Witnesses_3_Bibliography.pdf]. 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Dream Focus|Dream Focus]] ([[User talk:Dream Focus|talk]]) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, the text is not a [[WP:RS]].
# As a high-school teacher moonlighting as an historian, he has no standing.
# He’s clearly biased by his own admission as well as the review.
# 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.
# 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". [[WP:SELF|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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?[[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

<s>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 [http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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 [http://icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_aff_history.htm 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. [[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:For clarity's sake, the concensus I'm refering to includes the following statement:
:#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)
:#<s>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)</s>
:#Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is, but perhaps wise to accede that they are going to be if not "self serving" exactly then not overly critical.As the article does not rely solely on this material I think it's use can be justified. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:#Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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:
::#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"
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 …" <nowiki>[</nowiki>Emphasis is Wikipedia's<nowiki>]</nowiki>. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Just to reinforce why the policy is what it is. Would you allow [http://www.charlesmasonremey.com/ 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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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.
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy would change. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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)
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
While Jeff300000 has quoted Blueboar correctly from [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Help clarifying SPS|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 [[User:General Disarray|'''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 …" <nowiki>[Empasis is Wikipedia's]</nowiki>

: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::And, methinks you are misrepresenting the discussion on [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_clarifying_SPS|V#SPS]]. Blueboar's [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/A-F#B|not an admin]], and nobody else participated in the discussion. And, by the way, [[WP:Admin|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== "Distinctly contradictory appointments"? ==

<s>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. --[[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::''Struck through posting by sock of banned user [[user:Herschelkrustofsky|Herschelkrustofsky]].''   [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  [[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

==Current reverts==
The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:
#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.
#The word "confused" in the sentence "Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor". This is straight from the source.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:#Then only the 2ndary are needed, like I said.
:#Whatever.
:#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.
:#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.
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Disarray, you're presuming bad faith here. Consider yourself warned. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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.) [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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.
::#[[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.
::#You removed wording that is right from the source.
::#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.
::#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.
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]] [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Mason+Remey 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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

::#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.
::#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.
::#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?[[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
#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.
#The point that Pepe is the adopted son is in the article. Having the picture is undue weight compared to the other claimants.
#As regarding the link, I'm up for removing all the external links.
Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::#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.
::#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.
::#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:General Disarray

2009-03-26T07:38:47Z

General Disarray:

'''I archive all resolved issues, and reserve this space for current exchanges of ideas.'''
{{Archive box|
*[[/Archive1]] -January 2006
*[[/Archive2]] -January 2009}}

== Vandalism? ==

I'm concerned with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_birth_of_Jesus&diff=275990095&oldid=275949265 this edit] of yours, with the edit summary ''rvt anon's vandalism''. Were you aware that {{user|KillerChihuahua}} was the person who last removed the section, clearly not an anon, and with the edit summary ''The anon was in the right. Removing unsourced OR which has been tagged since 2007 in one instance and since Jul 2008 in the other.'', there is no way that edit could be classified as vandalism. I hope you weren't accusing an established user of vandalism and instead this was a simply mistake. Please consider reverting yourself or making amends. -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:No I wasn't aware of that. The edit between mine and his was an anon, and the diff showed 7 paragraphs being removed; it looked like apparent vandalism. I'd presummed it was the anon since that was the last edit at the time. I see it's been changed several times over now, and is apparently resolved. Regards. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mason Remey

2009-03-26T07:29:30Z

General Disarray: restore Pepe's picture, Spataro & Mathieu's, and lind to BUPC parper in extenal links- see talk

[[Image:Remey1.jpg|thumbnail|Charles Mason Remey]]
'''Charles Mason Remey''' ([[May 15]] [[1874]] - [[February 4]] [[1974]]) was a prominent and controversial American [[Bahá'í Faith|Bahá'í]] who was appointed in 1951 a [[Hand of the Cause]],<ref name="PSmith">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=292}}</ref><ref name="effendi18-20">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=18-20}}</ref> and president of the [[International Bahá'í Council]].<ref name="PSmith"/><ref name="effendi8-9">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=8-9}}</ref> He was the architect for the [[Bahá'í House of Worship|Bahá'í Houses of Worship]] in Uganda and Australia, and [[Shoghi Effendi]] approved his design of the unbuilt House of Worship in [[Haifa, Israel]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian, and Remey was among the nine Hands of the Cause elected as an interim authority until the election of the first [[Universal House of Justice]] in 1963.<ref name="PSmith_hands">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=176-177}}</ref> However, in 1960 Remey declared himself to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi, and expected the allegiance of the world's Bahá'ís.<ref name="remey8">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=8}} </ref> Subsequently, he and his followers were declared [[Covenant-breaker|Covenant breakers]] by the [[Hand of the Cause|Hands]].<ref name="PSmith"/> They reasoned that he lacked a formal appointment from Shoghi Effendi, and that the office was confined to male descendants of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Aghsan]]. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim,<ref name="Smith69">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=69}}</ref> but he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name="PSmith"/> His claim resulted in the largest schism in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, with a few groups still holding the belief that Remey was the successor of Shoghi Effendi. Various dated references show membership at less than a hundred each in two of the surviving groups.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000| pp=271}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Momen|1988|p=g.2}}</ref>

==Early life==
Born in Burlington, Iowa, on [[May 15]] [[1874]], Mason was the eldest son of Rear Admiral George Collier Remey and Mary Josephine Mason Remey, the daughter of Charles Mason, the first Chief Justice of Iowa.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> Remey’s parents raised him in the Episcopal Church. <ref>Remey, 1960 p. 2</ref> Remey trained as an architect at Cornell University (1893-1896), and the [[École des Beaux-Arts]] in Paris, France (1896-1903) where he first learned of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name = "PSmith" />

==As a Bahá'í==
With a background in architecture, Remey was asked to design the Australian and Ugandan [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] which still stand today and are the mother temples for [[Australasia]] and [[Africa]] respectively. Upon the request of [[Shoghi Effendi]], he also provided designs for a [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] in [[Tehran]], for [[Haifa, Israel|Haifa]], and the Shrine of `Abdu'l-Bahá, however only the Haifa temple was approved before the death of [[Shoghi Effendi]], and none have so far been built.<ref name="PSmith"/>

Remey traveled extensively to promote the Bahá'í Faith during the ministry of [[`Abdu'l-Bahá]]. [[Shoghi Effendi]] recorded that Remey and his Bahá'í companion, Howard Struven, were the first Bahá'ís to circle the globe teaching the religion.<ref name="effendi261">{{harvnb|Effendi|1944|p=261}}</ref>

A prolific writer, Remey wrote numerous published and personal articles promoting the Bahá'í Faith, including ''`Abdu'l-Bahá – The Center of the Covenant'' and the five volume ''A Comprehensive History of the Bahá'í Movement (1927)'', ''The Bahá'í Revelation and Reconstruction'' (1919), ''Constructive Principles of The Bahá'í Movement'' (1917), and ''The Bahá'í Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers'' (1912) are a few of the titles of the many works Remey produced while `Abdu'l-Bahá was still alive. Remey's life was recorded in his diaries, and in 1940 he provided copies and selected writings to several public libraries. Included in most of the collections were the letters `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote to him.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

According to Juliet Thompson's diary, `Abdu'l-Bahá suggested that she marry Remey, and in 1909 asked her how she felt about it, reportedly requesting of her: “Give my greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear to me that I think of you day and night. You are my real son. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass...He told me He loved Mason Remey so much,” Thompson writes, “and He loved me so much that he wished us to marry. That was the meaning of His message to Mason. He said it would be a perfect union and good for the Cause. Then he asked me how I felt about it.” They did not marry, although Thompson anguished over her decision, which she felt would cause ‘Abdu’l-Baha disappointment.<ref>{{harvnb|Thompson|1983|pp=71-76}}</ref> In 1932 he married Gertrude Heim Klemm Mason (1887-1933), who subsequently died a year later.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

===Under Shoghi Effendi===
Remey lived for some time in Washington, D.C., in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 Remey moved his residence from Washington, D.C., to Haifa, Israel, at the request of Shoghi Effendi. In January 1951, Shoghi Effendi issued a proclamation announcing the formation of the [[International Bahá'í Council]] (IBC), representing the first international Bahá'í body. The council was intended to be a forerunner to the [[Universal House of Justice]], the supreme ruling body of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name="PSmith199">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=199}}</ref><ref name="PSmith346">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=346}}</ref> Remey was appointed president of the council in March, with Amelia Collins as vice-president,<ref name="PSmith199"/> then in December of 1951 Remey was appointed a [[Hand of the Cause]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

==After Shoghi Effendi==
{{main|Bahá'í divisions}}
When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, Remey and the other Hands of the Cause met in a private Conclave at Bahjí in Haifa, and determined that he hadn't appointed a successor. They decided that the situation of the Guardian having died without being able to appoint a successor was a situation not dealt with in the texts that define the Bahá'í administration, and that it would need to be reviewed and adjudicated upon by the [[Universal House of Justice]], which hadn't been elected yet.<ref name="Stockman200">{{Harvnb|Stockman|2006|p=200}}</ref> Remey signed a unanimous declaration of the Hands that Shoghi Effendi had died "without having appointed his successor".<ref name="PSmith68">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=68}}</ref><ref name="PSmith"/><ref>For the document, see the [http://www.bahai-education.org/materials/essays/proclamation_hands.htm Unanimous Proclamation of the 27 Hands of the Cause of God]</ref>

Three years later, in 1960, Remey made a written announcement that his appointment as president of the international council represented an appointment by Shoghi Effendi as Guardian,<ref name="remey5">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=5}}</ref> because the appointed council was a precursor to the elected Universal House of Justice, which has the Guardian as its president.

He also attempted to usurp the control of the Faith which the Hands had themselves assumed at the passing of Shoghi Effendi stating:
<blockquote>It is from and through the Guardianship that infallibility is vested and that the Hands of the Faith receive their orders...I now command the Hands of the Faith to stop all of their preparations for 1963, and furthermore I command all believers both as individual Bahá'ís and as assemblies of Bahá'ís to immediately cease cooperating with and giving support to this fallacious program for 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Remey|1960|pp=6-7}}</ref></blockquote>

He claimed to believe that the Guardianship was an institution intended to endure forever, and that he was the 2nd Guardian by virtue of his appointment to the IBC. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim, although he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name = "PSmith" /> One of the most notable exceptions to accept his claim was that of the entire French [[National Spiritual Assembly]], led by Joel Marangella, who elected to support Remey, and was consequently disbanded by the Hands. The remaining 26 Hands of the Cause unanimously expelled him from the community.<ref name="deVries265">{{harvnb|de Vries|2002|p=265}}</ref><ref name="Smith69"/> Remey himself declared that being the Guardian gave him the exclusive right to declare who was or wasn't a Covenant-breaker, and that those who opposed him and followed the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers.

===Under the Hereditary Guardianship===
[[Image:Masonandpepe.jpg|thumbnail|Mason Remey and Joseph Pepe]]
Among the Bahá'ís who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian, several further divisions have occurred based on opinions of legitimacy and the proper succession of authority.<ref name="taherzadeh368-371">{{harvnb|Taherzadeh|2000|pp=368-371}}</ref> Most of his long-term followers were Americans, who distinguished themselves as "Bahá'ís Under the Hereditary Guardianship".<ref name="Smith69"/> In his later years Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor, which resulted in further divisions among his followers dividing among several claimants to leadership.<ref name="PSmith"/> When Remey died his followers split into rival factions with each believing in a different Guardian.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000|pp=271}}</ref><ref name="Smith71">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=71}}</ref> Donald Harvey (d.1991), was appointed by Remey as "Third Guardian" in 1967. [[Joel Marangella]] was president of Remey's "Second International Bahá'í Council" claimed in 1969 to have been secretly appointed by Remey as Guardian several years earlier, whose followers are now known as [[Orthodox Bahá'í Faith|Orthodox Bahá'ís]].<ref name="PSmith"/> Another of Remey's followers, [[Leland Jensen]] (d. 1996), who made a several religious claims of his own, formed a sect known as the [[Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant]] following Remey's death;<ref name="PSmith"/>. He believed that Remey was the adopted son of Abdu'l-Baha,<ref name="pluralism">{{harvnb|Hyslop|2004}}</ref> and that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian.<ref>{{harvnb|stone|2000|p=282}} note 6</ref>

All those that accept Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the [[Universal House of Justice]] established in 1963.<ref name="PSmith"/>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.<ref name="spataro25">{{harvnb|Spataro|2003|p=25}}</ref>
===Death===
On February 4th, 1974, Mason Remey died at the age of 99.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> The funeral was organized by his adopted son Joseph Pepe, with the assistance of the American consulate in Florence.

In his self-published biography of Remey, Spataro writes of what he claims Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe revealed to him about the ceremony. According to Pepe, because of the issues surrounding his father at the time of his death it had been decided to leave the tomb unmarked. He was buried at a location within the prescribed one-hour's distance from the place of death. Bahá'í prayers were read as his coffin was interred at a temporary grave. Later the body was moved to its permanent grave in Florence, Italy, with a monument and inscription erected at the site. <ref>{{harvnb|Spataro|2003|p=31}}</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}
==References==

*{{cite book
| title = The Babi Question You Mentioned... The Origins of the Baha'i Community of the Netherlands, 1844-1962
| publisher = Peeters Publishers
| year = 2002
| first = J.
| last = de Vries
| place = Leuven
| isbn = 9042911093
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1944
|title = God Passes By
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|id = ISBN 0877430209
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1971
|title = Messages to the Bahá'í World, 1950-1957
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/MBW/
}}

*{{citation
|last=Hyslop
|first=Scott
|year=2004
|title=Pluralism Project
|publisher=Harvard University Study of Religion
|url=http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=72374
}}

*{{citation
|last = Momen
|first = Moojan
|year = 1988
|title = The Covenant
|url = http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm#7.%20Covenant-breaker,%20Covenant-breaking
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Remey
|first = Charles Mason
|year = 1960
|title = Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World
|url = http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Spataro
|first = Francis C.
|year = 2003
|title = Charles Mason Remey and the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Tover Publications
|place = Queens, NY 11427-2116.
|id = ISBN 0-9671656-3-6
}}

*{{citation
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|place = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book | last = Smith | first = Peter | year = 2008 | title = An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0521862515 | location = Cambridge}}

*{{cite book
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|location = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book
| title = Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America
| publisher = Greenwood Press
| year = 2006
| editor1-first = Eugene V.
| editor1-last = Gallagher
| editor2-first = W. Michael
| editor2-last = Ashcraft
| first = Robert
| last = Stockman
| chapter = The Baha'is of the United States
| isbn = 0275987124
}}

*{{Citation
| last = Stone
| first = Jon R. (ed)
| year =2000
| title =Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy
| place = New York
| publisher =Routledge
| pages =269–282
| isbn =0-415-92331-x
}}

*{{citation
|last = Taherzadeh
|first = Adib
|year=2000
|title=The Child of the Covenant
|publisher=George Ronald
|place=Oxford, UK
|id=ISBN 0853984395
}}

*{{citation
|last = Thompson
|first = Juliet
|date = 1947
|year = 1983
|title = The Diary of Juliet Thompson
|publisher = Kalimat Press
|place = Los Angeles
|url = http://bahai-library.com/books/thompson/
}}

==External links==
*[http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ Biography of Charles Mason Remy] - by Brent Matthieu
*[http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers&language=All Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him] - published by the Universal House of Justice
*[http://bupc.org/test-of-god.html Passing the Test of God] - BUPC's views of Mason Remey's Life, Contributions, and Beleifs
{{DEFAULTSORT:Remey, Mason}}
[[Category:1874 births]]
[[Category:1974 deaths]]
[[Category:Bahá'í divisions]]
[[Category:American Bahá'ís]]
[[Category:Hands of the Cause of God]]

[[fa:چارلز میسون ریمی]]

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-26T07:25:17Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-09T09:23:08Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */ sp

{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=
|priority=
|listas=Remey, Mason
}}

{| class="infobox" width="290px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="1"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[Talk:Mason Remey/archive1|Archive 1]] 01/2005-09/2008
|-
|colspan="2"|
----
|}

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

:I'll try to address individual points on the last revert. Refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=235556940 this] version as the version you're proposing.
:1) The line about being introduced by May Bolles was repetition, under "As a Baha'i", first and third paragraphs.
:2) Of all the accolades, choosing the two that use the phrase "son" are unacceptable and original research, trying to casually cherry-pick quotations that imply a literal adoption without explicitly stating it. Besides that, listing `Abdu'l-Baha's praise of an individual is self-serving on any WP article, and fails neutrality. Compare to any other bio on Baha'is, for example [[`Alí-Muhammad Varqá]]. It's short, simple, factual. Whether the accolades are verifiable or reliable is not a major issue.
:3) Remey's reflection on the W&T. Not sure how this is pertinent to a bio.
:4) The issue of hair and blood are referenced from a BUPC website. Completely unacceptable as a source for such a statement. Also, another attempt to throw in the phrase "son".
:5) Remey never addressed the issue... in his written statement declaring himself as Guardian. That is how it's worded, and I added as a reference the statement.
:6) The broken link is fixed.
:7) The websites you added are linkspam. Clear and simple. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You apparently don't get it, but I'm sure we can get on the same page about all this. I didn't "choose" any of the content on this page by "cherry-picking" favorable material, but thanks for the [[WP:AGF]]. I rewrote this page back in '05 based primarily on information found a CMR.net, see? The Hair and Blood, if you would have given it more than a cursory glance and checked the reference (not the photo which is not the ref.), you would have been directed to CMR.net which discusses it at length (almost word for word). So guess what? It stays. Likewise with the SoW content. It's not my research but is pointing to the primary self published source about ITSELF. So guess what. It stays. Likewise reflections on the Will are part of details about his finalt visit to the Holy Land, which also are discussed at length on CMR.net. It's not significant that of several million Baha'is Shoghi Effendi called Remey to the Holy Land to be the first to read the Will, and to give him a token relic? Well guess what? Noone cares what you think about it as it's referenced back to CMR.net almost word for word and as with these others, IT STAYS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=235653609&oldid=235627331 Please elaborate]; how is his proclamation an unreliable source for referencing what he said in his proclamation? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Look again, it was a duplicate reference. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::Not true. Read [[WP:SELFPUB]] first. If this were Remey's autobiography, then yes it'd be acceptable. As it's not - out it goes.
::::It's sloppy anyway. It's the [[Ecole des Beaux Arts]], not the Ecole des Artes. Even this [[imbecile|engineer]] knows the difference. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on which of the 7 points of [[WP:SELFPUB]] you feel dismiss the bio on CMR.net, and all of a sudden disqualify it as something other than a source about itself. To suggest it's "out" because it's "by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself" is patently absurd. I will not be swayed by these assertions for they are entirely vapid. CMR's biography was written and extensively sourced by someone we all know has been a follower of CMR's for over 30 years which more than qualifies him as an expert on the subject. Moreover the site is entirely devoted to Remey's public statements, his bio, and an archive of SoW articles about him. How preposterous that two days ago you stated "If CMR.net is bona fide, and because there's no genuinely reliable online source for Remey's statemtns, I'm letting it slide — you still can't use it for anything to do with 'Abdul-Baha." Now it's "out". You sure seem to have a high regard for the weight of your personal opinions around here; one day your permission is granted, and the next it is revoked. I feel these statements speak volumes about how have chosen to treat this matter, as do the rest of your comments here show how creative one can get with interpreting policies.

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

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

:Apparently I have to spell the obvious out. Selfpubs can be used only if:
:'''2 "it is not contentious;"''' — Both Cuñado and I question the authenticity of certain sections, particularly the biography.
:'''3 "it is not unduly self-serving;"''' — This is clearly an apologetics site.
:'''4 "it does not involve claims about third parties;"''' — It can't be used to source "accolades" and other such from anyone other than Remey.
:'''6 "there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;"''' — I have no idea who Brent Mathieu is or his credentials to provide this source on the bio. I have a clue who Remey is, and his proclamation certainly rings true.
:'''7 "the article is not based primarily on such sources."''' — There were sections whose sole source was this CMR.net biography.

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

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

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

:We don't have to "compromise" on policy. Either the material meets it or it doesn't. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess all you have to do now is convince an unbiased third party on your creative interpretations of this [[WP:SELFPUB|policy]] and you'll have your way. From where I'm sitting my concerns are valid and being wholly ignored here despite my best efforts to elaborate on them. Two days ago "you'd let it slide", and now it's "out" and you're tagging every other sentence with citations needed? This is improving the article somehow?
*on #2, you've proven yourselves to be contentious against the subject and your considerations are therefore dismissed.
*on #3 this accusation could be leveled against any self published website, and is not a grounds for dismissal as the bio makes efforts to state facts and can't be shown to take "unduly self serving" liberties without references. the objection is meaningless.
*on #4 this issue is not on the table at this time, as I haven't pushed forward with the accolades issue; moot point.
*on #6 it states who authored it; therefore there's no doubts. The policy doesn't say you two have to know him.
*on #7 your concerns about "whole sections" are irrelevant, for this states that "the ARTICLE doesn't rely solely on such sources, which it doesn't; also moot.
As I said your eradicating valid information, and are propagating an edit war over. I object to the notion that CMR.net's bio is "out" and reject your creative justification for doing so. That's all I have to say on this matter. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think the miscommunication here is that CMR.net is by (says to be by) Brent M, not by Mason Remey. It's thus someone with a personal website writing about Remey. It does not qualify for a reliable source about Remey, regardless if it's dedicated to that subject. As far as reliability, it's equivalent to me buying my own web domain and posting my version of Remey's life on it, so in other words not reliable. It goes both ways. We can't smear or exalt Remey through personal websites. If Remey published information about himself, then it would be self published, and even then wouldn't be allowed inclusion if it was contentious or about a third party. As far as I can tell from our conversation Remey only left diaries in certain archives that are not published. Another category is someone else publishing about Remey. Spataro falls into that category and different rules apply for those sources. Brent's site is on the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. The only person who needs to convince other people is the person pushing for inclusion. Feel free to get a third party to review it. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You're right about one thing; there is a miscommuication going on here, but you haven't summarized it with any accuracy. One, the contact link on the site is not to Brent Mathieu showing it's not his site. The site is dedicated to hosting all things Remey, and this bio is one of those things. The objections to the contents of this sight have only been raised now after they have been in the article unassailed for well over 2 years. The objections haven't even been consistent, but change daily. It has only been in the last 12 hours after this discussion has waxed on for over a week that it has come down from on high that it's value in treating details of Remey's life is zero and the whole bio is "out". It is precisely because of it's value from a scholar on the subject that these details found there place in this article for the last 2.5 years. You claim it's the editor wishing for inclusion to provide the source, right? I did provide a valid source for all this in 2005 when I first contributed it. It is merely your assertions now that it all of a sudden is disqualified based on your own conjectures. This was and is a valid source for information about Remey as it's thoroughly sourced, and no one has EVER brought up objections until now. So therefore the burden for inclusion has been met; it is your self-created dilema that is waxing haughty against it with increasingly creative ways to dismiss it. I'm unmoved. Feel free to find someone who is or drop it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:::::Cuñado, Jeff3000, do you think we should pull the site entirely as a personal site, or shall we trust it for the proclamation? [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
From Mason's bio at CMR.net:
"Note on author: Brent Mathieu accepted the Baha’i Faith in December 1973 and recognized Mason Remey as its Guardian. This was prior to Remey’s death in February 1974. Mathieu’s first teachers in the Faith were Leland and Opal Jensen of Missoula, Montana. He corresponded extensively with Joseph Pepe, the adopted son and companion of Remey, from 1975 to1993. He maintains a personal collection of Pepe’s correspondence with Baha’is during that time. Mathieu’s collection includes personal correspondence with Donald A Harvey, Remey’s successor, and Orthodox Baha’is Frank Schlatter and Joel Marangella. It contains other individuals’ correspondence supportive of Remey’s Guardianship. The above biography is based on Mathieu’s memoirs, personal letters, and research of credible histories. More footnotes and references are planned to be added. You can contact the author at [email protected], or Brent Mathieu, 1412 W. Washington, Boise, Idaho 83702."

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

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

::Hear, hear! [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the three of you are the only people that could be convinced that the biography of Charles Mason Remey on charlesmasonremey.net is something other than a verfiable self published source that is perfectly acceptable to use as a source about itself. The point is that the subject of the bio is strictly relegated to the subject of Remey and therefore is entirely appropriate to use reference to itself. It's a creative charade to attempt to negate it because Mason himself is not the owner of the site. As you three have made clear that you deem him a covenant breaker you've perjured yourself to you bias and contempt to the subject. This edit war you have waged against him is against material that has stood since 2005 and will continue to for many years to come. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:I could create a website named charlesmasonremy.com and post anything I wanted about Mason Remey. The name of the website doesn't make it on official website on Mason Remey, and thus it is a personal website. It's run by an individual thus making it a personal website, hosting content that has does not meet any of the criteria of being a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. The fact that it was on the page for many years doesn't mean it is acceptable; there's a boatload of pages on Wikipedia that don't abide by Wikipedia standards, and that the content was there doesn't make it any more acceptable. I'll continue to abide by Wikipedia policy and remove the content. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Are you reduced to ''ad hominem'' again? Would you please argue the facts.
::The argument is simple:
::#CMR.net is a personal website with anonymous owner(s). (Statement of fact.)
::#Therefore, it has no reputation at all, much less as one for reputable fact-checking. (Simple logical step. Anonymous people can have no reputation by definition of "reputation".)
::#It fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. (Simple conclusion as both policies require the author to be known by independent confirmation. Publishing is the standard.)
::That is a line of reasoning that is trivial for you to refute. I'll lay it out for you.
::#Show where the identities of the owner of CMR.net may be found, then
::#Show that that owner is not an indvidual, or
::#Show that, if that owner is an individual, they have a recognized reputation for scholarship. (Homeopaths and high-school teachers aren't historians or biographers).
::All you need are two verifiable factoids and ''poof'' there goes our argument.
::That the material's been poorly sourced since '05 doesn't make a difference. It's up to you to justify this and you haven't presented proof to refute the argument. The material's already gone per policy and will continue for many years to come. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

:Easy. ''Delete'' it — unless its got a [[WP:V]] source. I've swung the delete hammer heavily enough on Baha'i topics around WP, I'm more than happy to see it done here.
:*Brent Matthieu is out - [[WP:Selfpub]], by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself. See above.
:*Diaries are out - Not [[WP:V|published]].
:''SoW'' is out - [[WP:RS|Unreliable]]
:Peter Smith's ''Encyclopedia'' is published and at least lists Harvey, Marangella, King and Jensen, so these people won't be lost entirely, and the article will be streamlined considerably.
::[[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=236169654&oldid=236150224 Sorry] Jeff. Those sections are entirely unreferenced or rely on an unacceptable source.
::If you've got a better source for the biographical data — add it. If you've got ''any'' [[WP:V]] sources on the other "Guardians" add it. I've got a valid 3rd-party source (Smith) as per above and can rewrite those sections combining them into one. But I thought I'd flag them for needed references first in case somebody's got some. I can rewrite it sooner if you'd rather. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Spataro ==

Jeff, how is it that the details of Remey's family history, early life, education, death, and interment are ''all'' on the same page (p. 31) of Spataro's book? [http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qisbn=0967165636 It's] a forty page pamplet and it takes thiry pages to get to his life story and crams all of these details onto one page? It strains credulity that this source is being used appropriately. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Maybe you could squint your eyes and look a little closer. The book is used to reference a wopping total of 3 statements; theres one on page 25, one minor note from page 31 and 31 again which gives elaborate detail to the funeral. It's not used to source his family history or his early life; Remey himself mentioned those on page 2 of his proclamation Which is where ref 5 points to. He's used for note 17 which mentions page 25, and then the details of his funeral are given from Pepe himself on page 31. The first paragraph of page 31 makes reference to him first hearing of the Baha'i faith while in archetecture school in Paris at Ecole de Beaux Arts, so I used that to reference that one sentence in "Early life". See? The book's barely touches on his early life, but focuses on the details of his adult Baha'i life. It's not a biography or I would have been able to put it to greater use here. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::The only thing the proclamation confirms is that he was Epicopalian. So none of his early life has a source. Bad form to elminate a fact tag when your source doesn't address them all. It's still odd that his education and death are treated on the same page in Spataro. If this is true, it must be a strange book. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
His education isn't really "treated" per se. In summarizing the last days of his Baha' life, details from the 1st days are given, as he first heard of it while in school in Paris, that's all. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sourcing problems ==

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

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

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

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

The Pepe Remey section should be struck. He was not a claimant. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:The paragraph about the formation of his NSA is entirely germane and credibly sourced, and yet you haven't provided a reason for it's excision or even mentioned it here. Was this was an error in these overly zealous deletions? It now implies that nothing happened following his proclamation except that two other groups formed. As this article has been culled to a skeleton as it is, it really calls to question the good faith of anyone seeking to further excise credible information when so little of the full story is being portrayed. I object to the extent of these edits as it has removed reliably sourced information. You have to admit, though, that it's rather amusing that the sources which grant inclusion for this information is coming from transcripts of a lawsuit your own NSA maliciously ensnared us all in, and then LOST. LOL. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:::Nope. Sorry. Your "source" is a court filing, not a court opinion. So, it's probably the worst example of WP:SELFPUB as there's no third-party editing at all. And I finally get this subterfuge:
:::*Make specious allegations in a court filing.
:::*Scan the filing and post it on your website.
:::*Refer to the filing as if it were independently corroborated.
:::*Presto-chango: specious allegations become independently corroborated facts.
:::Clever. It probably works for the credulous. Sorry, I'm better informed.
:::The court filing is out as not [[WP:V]], not [[WP:RS]], and effectively [[WP:SELFPUB]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently your understanding of being civil comes with a double-standard clause where you can name call? I was pointing out that without mentioning it you removed an entire paragraph that had a source which was provided by Cunado and never questioned in the past. Removing it effectively removed any pertinent information about what he did with himself and his followers beyond his proclamation. It was the only thing left after your last round of hatcheting this article, and you excised it and yet failed to provide any mention or explanation. If you now all of a sudden have decided to take issue with these types of sources, then why don't you ask your pal to stop providing them. I had NOTHING to do with EVER bringing forward any court documents as sources, so I'll thank you to tone down the accusations of "subterfuge". What an entirely preposterous notion; none of these court documents are hosted on our sites, and I never claimed they were "independently corroborated". What are you even ranting about? It was YOUR NSA that brought the court case forward that has been used as a references here and elsewhere, and then in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE it was Cunado who referenced back to it, but yet you're attacking me and making outlandish allegations about me using it inappropriately. And I'm the only one being jerk, huh? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:I ''explained'' my edits, cited policy, and got my good faith questioned and took a cheap shot for my trouble. Yeah, you were a jerk. It's another word for incivil. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now the martyr? If what you say were true this discussion wouldn't have taken the turns it has. You NEVER explained or even mentioned why you removed the paragraph about the formation of the NSAUHG. You explained about the claimants, but failed to mention why a sourced paragraph was included. Now I understand your positions, but you didn't state it at the outset, so please spare us all this victim routine. Yes you had "generally left this article alone", until earlier this summer when you and your crew waged a 30 day edit war which effectively had reduced this biography to rubble. Now you're apparently still not done gutting it's content. The only actual victim of these circumstances around here is this article, and it has you to thank for destroying it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:It's current state is a ''vast'' improvement over the POV-pushing state it was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=229938463 before]. Horribly [[WP:SOURCES|sourced]]. None of them [[tertiary sources]]. Worse references. Sorry if that trips across your [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
These objections about the NSA's Chicago case are entirely inane, and removing content from this article based on this faulty reasoning is out of order. Since these circumstances are not clearly defined by the WP:V policy, and instances of court documents are not clearly established on what is and isn't acceptable, we find ourselves again at the mercy of your interpretations. You have launched this assault on this and other pages removing content based on this charade about the court docs being a primary source, when in fact it clearly states at the outset of that document that the items found in BOLD text are not objected to by any parties in the case, and so are therefore considered undisputed facts as they are uncontested. To wit, it states just before point #1: "Facts set forth in bold-face type are agreed by all parties." They are facts laid out in both sides recounting of events. Furthermore the details lifted from the Findings of Facts document that are being used here are simply series of events, and not statements about beliefs or hearsay. Please examine the document and see for yourself that the points in BOLD are uncontested FACTS. So this assault against its use here is entirely inane, and absolutely afoul of logic and reason. I am therefore restoring this entirely appropriate verifiable source. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

::You know the process here. One editor makes an argument. Others who disagree make counter arguments. I've made mine, and am still waiting for you to stop name-calling, presuming bad faith, and actually make an argument based on policy.
::This is easy. I've asserted that court filings are not [[WP:V]] because they aren't published by reliable third parties. They aren't [[WP:RS]] because, by definition, these are biased by the POV of their respective authors. Please disprove both points and stop the [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You're accusing me of having an axe to grind here for trying to keep undisputed facts about the group that followed Mason from being censured from this page? That's really the position you want to take when you've spent the better part of '08 blotting out as many details from this article as you could get away with? Now you're blotting out something as simple as the details of the formation of his council from his bio, and I've got the axe to grind for trying to defend this material? You're a real piece of work.

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

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

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

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

== RFC: Questionable Sources ==

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

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

'''Object''' Self published, not relibale. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_cyclists_at_the_2009_Tour_Down_Under|click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!]]'') 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::YellowMonkey, it's noted in the summary that it's self-published, so by definition not reliable. The question posed was that automatically disqualify using material like this, or do the exceptions granted in [[WP:QS]] allow for this type of material? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

==Spataro's book as a source==
[http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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":
#Spataro’s account of Remey’s life borders on adoration.
#For three years he researched the life of Remey
#He gives an economical but clear history of the Faith up to the time of his writing, 1987.
#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.
#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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol6/waless/bib.htm] [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/index/diglib/articles.htm] [http://www.worldlanguageprocess.org/essays/blang/blang3.htm] [http://ahang.rabbani.googlepages.com/Witnesses_3_Bibliography.pdf]. 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Dream Focus|Dream Focus]] ([[User talk:Dream Focus|talk]]) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, the text is not a [[WP:RS]].
# As a high-school teacher moonlighting as an historian, he has no standing.
# He’s clearly biased by his own admission as well as the review.
# 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.
# 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". [[WP:SELF|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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?[[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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 [http://icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_aff_history.htm 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. [[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 22:36, 17 February 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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:For clarity's sake, the concensus I'm refering to includes the following statement:
:#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)
:#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)
:#Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is, but perhaps wise to accede that they are going to be if not "self serving" exactly then not overly critical.As the article does not rely solely on this material I think it's use can be justified. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:#Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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:
::#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"
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 …" <nowiki>[</nowiki>Emphasis is Wikipedia's<nowiki>]</nowiki>. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Just to reinforce why the policy is what it is. Would you allow [http://www.charlesmasonremey.com/ 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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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.
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy would change. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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)
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
While Jeff300000 has quoted Blueboar correctly from [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Help clarifying SPS|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 [[User:General Disarray|'''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 …" <nowiki>[Empasis is Wikipedia's]</nowiki>

: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::And, methinks you are misrepresenting the discussion on [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_clarifying_SPS|V#SPS]]. Blueboar's [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/A-F#B|not an admin]], and nobody else participated in the discussion. And, by the way, [[WP:Admin|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 17:20, 1 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

==Current reverts==
The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:
#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.
#The word "confused" in the sentence "Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor". This is straight from the source.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:#Then only the 2ndary are needed, like I said.
:#Whatever.
:#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.
:#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.
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Disarray, you're presuming bad faith here. Consider yourself warned. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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.) [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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.
::#[[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.
::#You removed wording that is right from the source.
::#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.
::#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.
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]] [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Mason+Remey 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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-09T09:21:47Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */

{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=
|priority=
|listas=Remey, Mason
}}

{| class="infobox" width="290px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="1"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[Talk:Mason Remey/archive1|Archive 1]] 01/2005-09/2008
|-
|colspan="2"|
----
|}

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

:I'll try to address individual points on the last revert. Refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=235556940 this] version as the version you're proposing.
:1) The line about being introduced by May Bolles was repetition, under "As a Baha'i", first and third paragraphs.
:2) Of all the accolades, choosing the two that use the phrase "son" are unacceptable and original research, trying to casually cherry-pick quotations that imply a literal adoption without explicitly stating it. Besides that, listing `Abdu'l-Baha's praise of an individual is self-serving on any WP article, and fails neutrality. Compare to any other bio on Baha'is, for example [[`Alí-Muhammad Varqá]]. It's short, simple, factual. Whether the accolades are verifiable or reliable is not a major issue.
:3) Remey's reflection on the W&T. Not sure how this is pertinent to a bio.
:4) The issue of hair and blood are referenced from a BUPC website. Completely unacceptable as a source for such a statement. Also, another attempt to throw in the phrase "son".
:5) Remey never addressed the issue... in his written statement declaring himself as Guardian. That is how it's worded, and I added as a reference the statement.
:6) The broken link is fixed.
:7) The websites you added are linkspam. Clear and simple. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You apparently don't get it, but I'm sure we can get on the same page about all this. I didn't "choose" any of the content on this page by "cherry-picking" favorable material, but thanks for the [[WP:AGF]]. I rewrote this page back in '05 based primarily on information found a CMR.net, see? The Hair and Blood, if you would have given it more than a cursory glance and checked the reference (not the photo which is not the ref.), you would have been directed to CMR.net which discusses it at length (almost word for word). So guess what? It stays. Likewise with the SoW content. It's not my research but is pointing to the primary self published source about ITSELF. So guess what. It stays. Likewise reflections on the Will are part of details about his finalt visit to the Holy Land, which also are discussed at length on CMR.net. It's not significant that of several million Baha'is Shoghi Effendi called Remey to the Holy Land to be the first to read the Will, and to give him a token relic? Well guess what? Noone cares what you think about it as it's referenced back to CMR.net almost word for word and as with these others, IT STAYS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=235653609&oldid=235627331 Please elaborate]; how is his proclamation an unreliable source for referencing what he said in his proclamation? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Look again, it was a duplicate reference. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::Not true. Read [[WP:SELFPUB]] first. If this were Remey's autobiography, then yes it'd be acceptable. As it's not - out it goes.
::::It's sloppy anyway. It's the [[Ecole des Beaux Arts]], not the Ecole des Artes. Even this [[imbecile|engineer]] knows the difference. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on which of the 7 points of [[WP:SELFPUB]] you feel dismiss the bio on CMR.net, and all of a sudden disqualify it as something other than a source about itself. To suggest it's "out" because it's "by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself" is patently absurd. I will not be swayed by these assertions for they are entirely vapid. CMR's biography was written and extensively sourced by someone we all know has been a follower of CMR's for over 30 years which more than qualifies him as an expert on the subject. Moreover the site is entirely devoted to Remey's public statements, his bio, and an archive of SoW articles about him. How preposterous that two days ago you stated "If CMR.net is bona fide, and because there's no genuinely reliable online source for Remey's statemtns, I'm letting it slide — you still can't use it for anything to do with 'Abdul-Baha." Now it's "out". You sure seem to have a high regard for the weight of your personal opinions around here; one day your permission is granted, and the next it is revoked. I feel these statements speak volumes about how have chosen to treat this matter, as do the rest of your comments here show how creative one can get with interpreting policies.

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

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

:Apparently I have to spell the obvious out. Selfpubs can be used only if:
:'''2 "it is not contentious;"''' — Both Cuñado and I question the authenticity of certain sections, particularly the biography.
:'''3 "it is not unduly self-serving;"''' — This is clearly an apologetics site.
:'''4 "it does not involve claims about third parties;"''' — It can't be used to source "accolades" and other such from anyone other than Remey.
:'''6 "there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;"''' — I have no idea who Brent Mathieu is or his credentials to provide this source on the bio. I have a clue who Remey is, and his proclamation certainly rings true.
:'''7 "the article is not based primarily on such sources."''' — There were sections whose sole source was this CMR.net biography.

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

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

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

:We don't have to "compromise" on policy. Either the material meets it or it doesn't. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess all you have to do now is convince an unbiased third party on your creative interpretations of this [[WP:SELFPUB|policy]] and you'll have your way. From where I'm sitting my concerns are valid and being wholly ignored here despite my best efforts to elaborate on them. Two days ago "you'd let it slide", and now it's "out" and you're tagging every other sentence with citations needed? This is improving the article somehow?
*on #2, you've proven yourselves to be contentious against the subject and your considerations are therefore dismissed.
*on #3 this accusation could be leveled against any self published website, and is not a grounds for dismissal as the bio makes efforts to state facts and can't be shown to take "unduly self serving" liberties without references. the objection is meaningless.
*on #4 this issue is not on the table at this time, as I haven't pushed forward with the accolades issue; moot point.
*on #6 it states who authored it; therefore there's no doubts. The policy doesn't say you two have to know him.
*on #7 your concerns about "whole sections" are irrelevant, for this states that "the ARTICLE doesn't rely solely on such sources, which it doesn't; also moot.
As I said your eradicating valid information, and are propagating an edit war over. I object to the notion that CMR.net's bio is "out" and reject your creative justification for doing so. That's all I have to say on this matter. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think the miscommunication here is that CMR.net is by (says to be by) Brent M, not by Mason Remey. It's thus someone with a personal website writing about Remey. It does not qualify for a reliable source about Remey, regardless if it's dedicated to that subject. As far as reliability, it's equivalent to me buying my own web domain and posting my version of Remey's life on it, so in other words not reliable. It goes both ways. We can't smear or exalt Remey through personal websites. If Remey published information about himself, then it would be self published, and even then wouldn't be allowed inclusion if it was contentious or about a third party. As far as I can tell from our conversation Remey only left diaries in certain archives that are not published. Another category is someone else publishing about Remey. Spataro falls into that category and different rules apply for those sources. Brent's site is on the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. The only person who needs to convince other people is the person pushing for inclusion. Feel free to get a third party to review it. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You're right about one thing; there is a miscommuication going on here, but you haven't summarized it with any accuracy. One, the contact link on the site is not to Brent Mathieu showing it's not his site. The site is dedicated to hosting all things Remey, and this bio is one of those things. The objections to the contents of this sight have only been raised now after they have been in the article unassailed for well over 2 years. The objections haven't even been consistent, but change daily. It has only been in the last 12 hours after this discussion has waxed on for over a week that it has come down from on high that it's value in treating details of Remey's life is zero and the whole bio is "out". It is precisely because of it's value from a scholar on the subject that these details found there place in this article for the last 2.5 years. You claim it's the editor wishing for inclusion to provide the source, right? I did provide a valid source for all this in 2005 when I first contributed it. It is merely your assertions now that it all of a sudden is disqualified based on your own conjectures. This was and is a valid source for information about Remey as it's thoroughly sourced, and no one has EVER brought up objections until now. So therefore the burden for inclusion has been met; it is your self-created dilema that is waxing haughty against it with increasingly creative ways to dismiss it. I'm unmoved. Feel free to find someone who is or drop it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:::::Cuñado, Jeff3000, do you think we should pull the site entirely as a personal site, or shall we trust it for the proclamation? [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
From Mason's bio at CMR.net:
"Note on author: Brent Mathieu accepted the Baha’i Faith in December 1973 and recognized Mason Remey as its Guardian. This was prior to Remey’s death in February 1974. Mathieu’s first teachers in the Faith were Leland and Opal Jensen of Missoula, Montana. He corresponded extensively with Joseph Pepe, the adopted son and companion of Remey, from 1975 to1993. He maintains a personal collection of Pepe’s correspondence with Baha’is during that time. Mathieu’s collection includes personal correspondence with Donald A Harvey, Remey’s successor, and Orthodox Baha’is Frank Schlatter and Joel Marangella. It contains other individuals’ correspondence supportive of Remey’s Guardianship. The above biography is based on Mathieu’s memoirs, personal letters, and research of credible histories. More footnotes and references are planned to be added. You can contact the author at [email protected], or Brent Mathieu, 1412 W. Washington, Boise, Idaho 83702."

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

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

::Hear, hear! [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the three of you are the only people that could be convinced that the biography of Charles Mason Remey on charlesmasonremey.net is something other than a verfiable self published source that is perfectly acceptable to use as a source about itself. The point is that the subject of the bio is strictly relegated to the subject of Remey and therefore is entirely appropriate to use reference to itself. It's a creative charade to attempt to negate it because Mason himself is not the owner of the site. As you three have made clear that you deem him a covenant breaker you've perjured yourself to you bias and contempt to the subject. This edit war you have waged against him is against material that has stood since 2005 and will continue to for many years to come. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:I could create a website named charlesmasonremy.com and post anything I wanted about Mason Remey. The name of the website doesn't make it on official website on Mason Remey, and thus it is a personal website. It's run by an individual thus making it a personal website, hosting content that has does not meet any of the criteria of being a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. The fact that it was on the page for many years doesn't mean it is acceptable; there's a boatload of pages on Wikipedia that don't abide by Wikipedia standards, and that the content was there doesn't make it any more acceptable. I'll continue to abide by Wikipedia policy and remove the content. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Are you reduced to ''ad hominem'' again? Would you please argue the facts.
::The argument is simple:
::#CMR.net is a personal website with anonymous owner(s). (Statement of fact.)
::#Therefore, it has no reputation at all, much less as one for reputable fact-checking. (Simple logical step. Anonymous people can have no reputation by definition of "reputation".)
::#It fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. (Simple conclusion as both policies require the author to be known by independent confirmation. Publishing is the standard.)
::That is a line of reasoning that is trivial for you to refute. I'll lay it out for you.
::#Show where the identities of the owner of CMR.net may be found, then
::#Show that that owner is not an indvidual, or
::#Show that, if that owner is an individual, they have a recognized reputation for scholarship. (Homeopaths and high-school teachers aren't historians or biographers).
::All you need are two verifiable factoids and ''poof'' there goes our argument.
::That the material's been poorly sourced since '05 doesn't make a difference. It's up to you to justify this and you haven't presented proof to refute the argument. The material's already gone per policy and will continue for many years to come. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

:Easy. ''Delete'' it — unless its got a [[WP:V]] source. I've swung the delete hammer heavily enough on Baha'i topics around WP, I'm more than happy to see it done here.
:*Brent Matthieu is out - [[WP:Selfpub]], by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself. See above.
:*Diaries are out - Not [[WP:V|published]].
:''SoW'' is out - [[WP:RS|Unreliable]]
:Peter Smith's ''Encyclopedia'' is published and at least lists Harvey, Marangella, King and Jensen, so these people won't be lost entirely, and the article will be streamlined considerably.
::[[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=236169654&oldid=236150224 Sorry] Jeff. Those sections are entirely unreferenced or rely on an unacceptable source.
::If you've got a better source for the biographical data — add it. If you've got ''any'' [[WP:V]] sources on the other "Guardians" add it. I've got a valid 3rd-party source (Smith) as per above and can rewrite those sections combining them into one. But I thought I'd flag them for needed references first in case somebody's got some. I can rewrite it sooner if you'd rather. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Spataro ==

Jeff, how is it that the details of Remey's family history, early life, education, death, and interment are ''all'' on the same page (p. 31) of Spataro's book? [http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qisbn=0967165636 It's] a forty page pamplet and it takes thiry pages to get to his life story and crams all of these details onto one page? It strains credulity that this source is being used appropriately. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Maybe you could squint your eyes and look a little closer. The book is used to reference a wopping total of 3 statements; theres one on page 25, one minor note from page 31 and 31 again which gives elaborate detail to the funeral. It's not used to source his family history or his early life; Remey himself mentioned those on page 2 of his proclamation Which is where ref 5 points to. He's used for note 17 which mentions page 25, and then the details of his funeral are given from Pepe himself on page 31. The first paragraph of page 31 makes reference to him first hearing of the Baha'i faith while in archetecture school in Paris at Ecole de Beaux Arts, so I used that to reference that one sentence in "Early life". See? The book's barely touches on his early life, but focuses on the details of his adult Baha'i life. It's not a biography or I would have been able to put it to greater use here. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::The only thing the proclamation confirms is that he was Epicopalian. So none of his early life has a source. Bad form to elminate a fact tag when your source doesn't address them all. It's still odd that his education and death are treated on the same page in Spataro. If this is true, it must be a strange book. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
His education isn't really "treated" per se. In summarizing the last days of his Baha' life, details from the 1st days are given, as he first heard of it while in school in Paris, that's all. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sourcing problems ==

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

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

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

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

The Pepe Remey section should be struck. He was not a claimant. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:The paragraph about the formation of his NSA is entirely germane and credibly sourced, and yet you haven't provided a reason for it's excision or even mentioned it here. Was this was an error in these overly zealous deletions? It now implies that nothing happened following his proclamation except that two other groups formed. As this article has been culled to a skeleton as it is, it really calls to question the good faith of anyone seeking to further excise credible information when so little of the full story is being portrayed. I object to the extent of these edits as it has removed reliably sourced information. You have to admit, though, that it's rather amusing that the sources which grant inclusion for this information is coming from transcripts of a lawsuit your own NSA maliciously ensnared us all in, and then LOST. LOL. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:::Nope. Sorry. Your "source" is a court filing, not a court opinion. So, it's probably the worst example of WP:SELFPUB as there's no third-party editing at all. And I finally get this subterfuge:
:::*Make specious allegations in a court filing.
:::*Scan the filing and post it on your website.
:::*Refer to the filing as if it were independently corroborated.
:::*Presto-chango: specious allegations become independently corroborated facts.
:::Clever. It probably works for the credulous. Sorry, I'm better informed.
:::The court filing is out as not [[WP:V]], not [[WP:RS]], and effectively [[WP:SELFPUB]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently your understanding of being civil comes with a double-standard clause where you can name call? I was pointing out that without mentioning it you removed an entire paragraph that had a source which was provided by Cunado and never questioned in the past. Removing it effectively removed any pertinent information about what he did with himself and his followers beyond his proclamation. It was the only thing left after your last round of hatcheting this article, and you excised it and yet failed to provide any mention or explanation. If you now all of a sudden have decided to take issue with these types of sources, then why don't you ask your pal to stop providing them. I had NOTHING to do with EVER bringing forward any court documents as sources, so I'll thank you to tone down the accusations of "subterfuge". What an entirely preposterous notion; none of these court documents are hosted on our sites, and I never claimed they were "independently corroborated". What are you even ranting about? It was YOUR NSA that brought the court case forward that has been used as a references here and elsewhere, and then in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE it was Cunado who referenced back to it, but yet you're attacking me and making outlandish allegations about me using it inappropriately. And I'm the only one being jerk, huh? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:I ''explained'' my edits, cited policy, and got my good faith questioned and took a cheap shot for my trouble. Yeah, you were a jerk. It's another word for incivil. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now the martyr? If what you say were true this discussion wouldn't have taken the turns it has. You NEVER explained or even mentioned why you removed the paragraph about the formation of the NSAUHG. You explained about the claimants, but failed to mention why a sourced paragraph was included. Now I understand your positions, but you didn't state it at the outset, so please spare us all this victim routine. Yes you had "generally left this article alone", until earlier this summer when you and your crew waged a 30 day edit war which effectively had reduced this biography to rubble. Now you're apparently still not done gutting it's content. The only actual victim of these circumstances around here is this article, and it has you to thank for destroying it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:It's current state is a ''vast'' improvement over the POV-pushing state it was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=229938463 before]. Horribly [[WP:SOURCES|sourced]]. None of them [[tertiary sources]]. Worse references. Sorry if that trips across your [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
These objections about the NSA's Chicago case are entirely inane, and removing content from this article based on this faulty reasoning is out of order. Since these circumstances are not clearly defined by the WP:V policy, and instances of court documents are not clearly established on what is and isn't acceptable, we find ourselves again at the mercy of your interpretations. You have launched this assault on this and other pages removing content based on this charade about the court docs being a primary source, when in fact it clearly states at the outset of that document that the items found in BOLD text are not objected to by any parties in the case, and so are therefore considered undisputed facts as they are uncontested. To wit, it states just before point #1: "Facts set forth in bold-face type are agreed by all parties." They are facts laid out in both sides recounting of events. Furthermore the details lifted from the Findings of Facts document that are being used here are simply series of events, and not statements about beliefs or hearsay. Please examine the document and see for yourself that the points in BOLD are uncontested FACTS. So this assault against its use here is entirely inane, and absolutely afoul of logic and reason. I am therefore restoring this entirely appropriate verifiable source. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

::You know the process here. One editor makes an argument. Others who disagree make counter arguments. I've made mine, and am still waiting for you to stop name-calling, presuming bad faith, and actually make an argument based on policy.
::This is easy. I've asserted that court filings are not [[WP:V]] because they aren't published by reliable third parties. They aren't [[WP:RS]] because, by definition, these are biased by the POV of their respective authors. Please disprove both points and stop the [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You're accusing me of having an axe to grind here for trying to keep undisputed facts about the group that followed Mason from being censured from this page? That's really the position you want to take when you've spent the better part of '08 blotting out as many details from this article as you could get away with? Now you're blotting out something as simple as the details of the formation of his council from his bio, and I've got the axe to grind for trying to defend this material? You're a real piece of work.

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

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

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

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

== RFC: Questionable Sources ==

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

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

'''Object''' Self published, not relibale. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_cyclists_at_the_2009_Tour_Down_Under|click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!]]'') 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::YellowMonkey, it's noted in the summary that it's self-published, so by definition not reliable. The question posed was that automatically disqualify using material like this, or do the exceptions granted in [[WP:QS]] allow for this type of material? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

==Spataro's book as a source==
[http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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":
#Spataro’s account of Remey’s life borders on adoration.
#For three years he researched the life of Remey
#He gives an economical but clear history of the Faith up to the time of his writing, 1987.
#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.
#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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol6/waless/bib.htm] [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/index/diglib/articles.htm] [http://www.worldlanguageprocess.org/essays/blang/blang3.htm] [http://ahang.rabbani.googlepages.com/Witnesses_3_Bibliography.pdf]. 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Dream Focus|Dream Focus]] ([[User talk:Dream Focus|talk]]) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, the text is not a [[WP:RS]].
# As a high-school teacher moonlighting as an historian, he has no standing.
# He’s clearly biased by his own admission as well as the review.
# 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.
# 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". [[WP:SELF|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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?[[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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 [http://icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_aff_history.htm 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. [[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 22:36, 17 February 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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:For clarity's sake, the concensus I'm refering to includes the following statement:
:#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)
:#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)
:#Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is, but perhaps wise to accede that they are going to be if not "self serving" exactly then not overly critical.As the article does not rely solely on this material I think it's use can be justified. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:#Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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:
::#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"
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 …" <nowiki>[</nowiki>Emphasis is Wikipedia's<nowiki>]</nowiki>. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Just to reinforce why the policy is what it is. Would you allow [http://www.charlesmasonremey.com/ 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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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.
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy would change. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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)
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
While Jeff300000 has quoted Blueboar correctly from [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Help clarifying SPS|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 [[User:General Disarray|'''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 …" <nowiki>[Empasis is Wikipedia's]</nowiki>

: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::And, methinks you are misrepresenting the discussion on [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_clarifying_SPS|V#SPS]]. Blueboar's [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/A-F#B|not an admin]], and nobody else participated in the discussion. And, by the way, [[WP:Admin|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 17:20, 1 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

==Current reverts==
The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:
#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.
#The word "confused" in the sentence "Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor". This is straight from the source.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:#Then only the 2ndary are needed, like I said.
:#Whatever.
:#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.
:#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.
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Disarray, you're presuming bad faith here. Consider yourself warned. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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.) [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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.
::#[[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.
::#You removed wording that is right from the source.
::#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.
::#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.
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]] [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Mason+Remey 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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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 repeated 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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

2009-03-09T09:15:18Z

General Disarray: /* Help clarifying SPS */

{{high traffic|date=21 October 2008|site=Slashdot|url=http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/21/1657256|small=}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 32
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive index
|mask=Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}{{policy talk}}{{shortcut|WT:V}}{{AutoArchivingNotice
|small=yes
|age=10
|index=./Archive index
|bot=MiszaBot II}}{{archives
|small=yes
|auto=long}}

<inputbox>
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability
break=yes
width=60
searchbuttonlabel=Search Wikipedia talk:Verifiability archives
</inputbox>

== Self-published and questionable sources ==

I reverted to an earlier version of this, because recent changes seem to have altered the meaning slightly. For example, the header "self-published and other questionable sources" suggests that self-published sources are questionable, and they aren't always. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]][[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]] 03:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

:I have unreverted... the language in question has been stable for several months, so we should not go back without some solid discussion and an indication of consensus.
:I don't think the header is implying that questionable and self-published sources are the same (and reading the text will show that this is not the intent)... what it does imply is that they are similar... that we handle questionable sources in the same way and apply the same cautions as we do self-published sources. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 04:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::Just so others know what SV and I are disagreeing about... here is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVerifiability&diff=272204165&oldid=272198588 diff]. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 04:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with most of the changes SV made there, actually. I'd prefer Blueboar's version of the non-English sources section, but having the major section on types of source with "questionable" and "self-published" as subsections makes more sense logically than the current situation. It also removes the "relevant to the subject's notability" phrasing in the self-published sources in articles about themselves section, which is a confusing requirement that almost nobody seems to understand. I mean, even after tracking discussions here and at [[WP:ATT]] for the last 2 years, I still don't think I fully understand its point. [[User:JulesH|JulesH]] ([[User talk:JulesH|talk]]) 12:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

:The "relevant to the subject's notability" stipulation really isn't accurate. We often taken dates of birth and other personal details from people's websites, for example, and they're not usually relevant to notability. I'd be fine with Blueboar's version of non-English sources. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]][[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]] 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

::I'm concerned, though, not to let the SPS talking about themselves open the door to stuff like the following hypothetical, in an article about ferrets. "Ferrets should be legalized in California, according to Doctor X, a leader of the free ferret campaign. Doctor Y, on his blog, stated his opinion that Doctor X is on the payroll of the pet food companies and an academic fraud." BLP concerns aside (which is a big concern of mine, actually) this sentence would be excluded by the "relevant to the subject" caveat because the statement is about Doctor X, not ferrets. However, it might be permitted under the old rule because it is a SPS used to source a statement about the author, namely his opinion. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 04:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

:::As you say, this would be ruled out by BLP. Can you think of an example that doesn't involve BLP, for the sake of clarity? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]][[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]] 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

::::Sure, and sorry for the delay. If instead you substitute "Organization X" for "Doctor X" there's no BLP problem, only perhaps a [[WP:COAT]] or [[WP:POV]] problem. The other problem with using unreliable sources for purposes of self-reporting their own opinions, achievements, etc., is that without the editorial oversight and accountability usually present in a neutral third party reliable source you don't always get an accurate picture of [[WP:WEIGHT]] or relevance. I guess using self-published sources opens the doors to a lot of potential violations of other policies and guidelines - demanding good sources helps police all of them. But thinking about this some more, I think my concern about expert SPS used for purposes not fairly related to the article subject would be the same as for any reliable source. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 23:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::I'm in agreement with Wikidemon here. Allowing self-published sources opens the doors to a lot of problems. The Verifiability policy was a clear standard for inclusion, but opening up self-published sources to be used in articles or material not related to themselves allows a backdoor for [[WP:OR|original thought]]. Regards, -- 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

== P v. S ==

If something can be verified by both primary and reliable secondary sources, should the latter be eschewed in favour of the former for simplicity or ease's sake? — '''[[User:pd_THOR|pd_THOR]]''' |''' [[User_talk:pd_THOR|=/\=]]''' | 21:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
:No. I would say both can be cited, but we rely on analysis from secondary sources as preferred sourcing - [[WP:OR]].-- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|The Red Pen of Doom]] 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

== "Articles about themselves" ==

I see that we are back to the old language of saying that questionable sources should only be used "in articles about themeselves". I strongly disagree with that phrasing. Let me present an example to explain why...

I hope everyone here would agree that Adolf Hitler's book, ''Mien Kamph'', should be considered a questionable source. If we keep the "in articles about themselves" phrasing, we would only be able to cite to ''Mein Kamph'' in the article [[Mein Kamph]] (and, possibly, in the aritcle [[Adolf Hitler]]... as the term "source" can refer to both the document that is being cited and its author). However, I would argue there are other articles where it might be both logical and appropriate to discuss and cite it... for example, I could easily see it being quoted and cited in the article on [[Facism]], to explain certain aspects of Nazi political/racial philosophy. I could also see it being discussed and cited in the article on [[Anti-semitism]].

I fully appreciate that there are articles where citing Mein Kamph would be inapporpirate (It would be completely inappropriate to cite it in the article on [[Jews]] for example)... and we do want to place restrictions on using questionable sources... but I find limiting questionable sources purely to "Articles about themselves" is overkill. Limited allowance needs to be made for appropriate use of questionable sources in the context of a serious and neutral discussion in articles ''not'' specifically about themselves. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

:That example, where the source is ''not'' reliable but ''is'' notable is of course very far from representative of non-RS: very few non-RS are themselves notable. In the example, it can certainly be verified that the text said certain things, and it is perfectly reasonable to infer that those were the words of the attributed author. No one should draw from that the conclusion that the things said in the text are accurate. [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] ([[User talk:LeadSongDog|talk]]) 17:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
::Your comments are valid... but they do not really address my concern. Yes, the notability of a questionable source is an important factor in determining how appropriate it is to discuss what that source says. 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. I definitely want limitations as to when it would be appropriate to cite a questionable source, I simply feel the current restriction is not realistic. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

:::The main section on this says, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves ...," which covers your concern. The section on questionable sources still said "in articles about themselves" only, so I've changed it to be consistent with the main section. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]][[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]] 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

:::I didn't want to be this explicit, but for rare cases such as ''Mein Kampf'', where a highly notable source is not reliable, I would simply [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]] and make judicious usage. 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 [[WP:CREEP|instruction creep]] [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] ([[User talk:LeadSongDog|talk]]) 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, we could invoke IAR... but that is something that should be rarely done. I really think that if we have to ignore the rules to discuss something as notable as Mein Kamph, then there is a flaw in the rules. However, I think the simple shift from ''"... used in articles about themselves''" to "...'' used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves"'' has fixed that flaw, and resolved my concerns. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

== Websites mirroring WP content ==

I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVerifiability&diff=273862910&oldid=273774836 restored] the passage about mirror sites. We must avoid using outdated versions of Wikipedia articles hosted on one of the many sites carrying WP content as sources for new articles. If the material was unsourced in the old version, it is still unsourced now, even if the old article version is hosted on a mirror site. [[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]''[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]'' 12:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
::We shouldn't be sourcing our articles to websites that mirror or cite to WP content - period... even if they have the most up to date version of our article. Doing so sets up a circular reference (we cite them citing us). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
::This is actually important enough that I think it merits its own sub-section. I have also expanded it to caution against citing sources that cite us (ie sources that do not mirror us exactly, but where information is taken from us). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Agreed on all counts. [[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]''[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]'' 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
*I'd like to add a policy shortcut for this. Would [[WP:WPNRS]] be okay? [[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]''[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]'' 11:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
::I am all for creating a shortcut... but I am less sure about the suggested WP:WPNRS (its not intuitive... what do the initials stand for?) Perhaps [[WP:SMWP]] (Sites Mirroring Wikipedia)? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Or [[WP:NMS]] No Mirror Sites? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::[[WP:WPNRS]] was meant to stand for WikiPedia is Not a Reliable Source, which is a separate point from mirror sites (you get people entering something in one WP article and then citing that WP article as a reference in another). I was also thinking about [[WP:NCR]] (unfortunately taken) or [[WP:CIRCULAR]] for No Circular References, which would cover both cases. Otherwise, [[WP:NMS]] sounds good to me, it's short and sweet. [[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]''[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]'' 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:At [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&curid=3961892&diff=274457355&oldid=274456880 this] edit, Blueboar is restoring wording that I believe is incorrect over my previous edit. It implies that the source is contained in another WP article, rather than cited by that article. His edit summary seems to concur with my reading. Am I missing something?[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] ([[User talk:LeadSongDog|talk]]) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
::I think it's okay. The name, author, publisher of the cited source may be contained in the WP article, and that information can be used to consult that source. Also, "may contain" is more appropriate than "should in turn cite" (we have many unsourced statements). [[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]''[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]'' 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
::As an afterthought, if "contain" really bothers you, we could perhaps say "may ''indicate'' reliable sources" or some such wording. [[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]''[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]'' 18:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I think Jayden is thinking about mirror sites (which would probably include any citations listed in the Wikipedia article), while I am talking about sources that don't mirror Wikipedia exactly, but cite Wikipeida for their information.
:::Perhaps an example will clarify... Suppose you are editing our article on [[Horatio Nelson]], and find a Website on the battle of Trafalgar that includes the statement: "Hardy, rather than Nelson, should be concidered the real hero of Trafalgar". You want to include that statement in the Nelson article, but unfortunately the website says it got its information from the Wikipedia article on Hardy. I think we are agreed that we should not cite this website for that statement (as you would be essentially citing another Wikipedia article). What you can do is go to the WP article on Hardy and note the source that ''it'' cites for the information. Assuming you double check it to see it is reliable, you can then use ''that'' source in the article on Nelson. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
::::I think we're in agreement on intent, Blueboar. It's just the wording that's problematic. Jayen's concern with "should in turn cite", that a journal citation at [[Sir Thomas Hardy, 1st Baronet]] may be missing (or for that matter invalid) is well founded but I think inconsequential. If missing, it won't lead to false inclusions. If invalid, the copier should catch it and in any case the copied citation will still be subject to checking by anyone verifying the [[Horatio Nelson]] article when it is at [[WP:Peer review]], just like any other journal citation. My objection to "may contain" is simply that [[Sir Thomas Hardy, 1st Baronet]] will only contain a citation, not the cited work itself. Perhaps "may contain a citation of" would serve better? [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] ([[User talk:LeadSongDog|talk]]) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

== Help clarifying SPS ==

Hope this is okay to ask here. I'm involved in a discussion [[Talk:Mason Remey#Reverting after the RFC closes| here]] where we're discussing different ways of leveraging SPS for and against content in that biography (not living). It's an article about a religious leader who is sorely lacking in [[WP:RS]] to begin with due to the fact that the larger group we all broke off from ex-communicated him (and us) early on. I'm one of his supporters, and believe a couple of the self-published biographies written by a few of his followers warrants inclusion per how me and the contributors to my RFC have interpreted [[WP:SPS]] and/or [[WP:QS]]. In a nutshell [http://charlesmasonremey.net/ this biography], and a selfpub'd bio called Charles Mason Remey and the Baha'i Faith have been deemed "OUT" by the interpretations of two editors on the article (who btw consider him an enemy of their religious beliefs). My RFC brought forward 7 impartial editors who said basically it is relevant "about itself". Those two opposers claim it's not a majority rules situation, and that policy doesn't allow the biographies usage, as Remey himself didn't write them. Is that how to interpret SPS and QS?

I noticed above this section Bluboar noted "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.". Is that the general consensus here, or just his POV? In this case in question is anything not written by Remey completely disqualified as a source? Obviously no one is pushing for including anything that violates the 5 points for automatic exclusion per SPS (i.e. "unduly self-serving, etc), but rather the content in question is about series of events and details of his funeral, etc. Does SPS allow for using biographies from this man's believers? Any input is exceedingly appreciated. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 09:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Given that my comments were in response to shifting language... I would suggest that you consider my comments to be simply my POV. 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. But better safe than sorry. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
::::The question here then is how do you define what is appropriate? Can I just self-publish a source, which is not notable, and then use it in Wikipedia. That's what the policy is trying to avoid, and this is what GeneralDisarray is trying to include; the sources he is pushing for are not notable in any regard, and are self-published. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::"What is appropriate" isn't something that we can lay out in a policy... It depends on the article, the exact statment being made in the article, and the notability of the self-published source being used to support that statement. In other words appropriateness has to be determined by consensus at an article level. Remember something can pass the bar at WP:V and yet still not be included for a host of other reasons. Editorial judgement is one of them. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::What is appropriate can't be completely included in policy, but policy helps to define it. The question is not what passes WP:V, but is not included (due to a host of other reasons including other policies such as WP:NPOV), but instead what doesn't pass WP:V but is included. Anyone can publish a website or a book and then want to include it in Wikipedia, and that is what is happening here. The sources are not notable in their own right. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
::::The point is, self-published sources are acceptable (within the limits set out in the policy) for statements as to their author's opinion. 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. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, there are quite a lot of reliable sources for this article. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=274386988 current version] is using third-party sources from Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Peeters Publishers, Oneworld Publications, Greenwood Press and so on. These are sources that are not affiliated to either group, and some of them are academic press, considered to be the most reliable. The other sources in the article are the primary source material that the secondary sources point to and are included for reference.
:The two sources that the other editor wants to include are self-published after the subject of the article's death, and include original work, and interpretation of primary source material that no other reliable source has deemed appropriate to publish. The exceptions allowed for self-published work include 1) when the work is written by an expert in the field whose work has been published in other reliable source, which these two sources fail and 2) when the source is being used as sources of information about themselve, which doesn't apply either; in this case the other editor wants to use the sources in articles that are neither about the authors of the two works or in discussions of the two works, but instead he wants to use the sources to include data about the principal subject of the article. As stated in policy "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field.", which is what these two sources have done. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
::The "quite a lot of reliable sources for this article" Jeff's referring to are not references about the details of Remey's life, but rather reference what his stated enemies did to alienate and marginalize him. The one and only source to derive details of his personal life come from Smith's "A Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith". It's used extensively, but as it amounts to 1.5 columns of a page to explain the life of a man that lived to be 99, the details are scant at best. The biographies I'm concerned about including are not being asked to state anything controversial, but rather for details. One was a self published book, and the other hosted on a website, which BTW is also presently used to reference another document called "The Proclamation of Mason Remey" that's used in the article. The arguments against usage amount to "policy doesn't allow it", even though no one contests the content. The contributors to the RFC all (except 1) agreed that of course these sources should be allowed, but again the will of two editors have blocked their usage per "it's not majority rules; policy doesn't allow it". What do you all think? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Not quite true, you have in the past used the self-published website to point to specific interpretations of primary source material, which no other published source uses. Secondly, the use of the primary source material you stated above works within the policy because it was published by the subject of the article himself, and that's why it has not caused a problem; that use fits within policy. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting how the Jeff and Mike display a distinct onus of ownership over this page. After challenging these sources, the RFC said allow them. They said their interpretation of the policy doesn't allow it. A discussion on the policy page has shown their interpretations to be out of bound, overstated, and technically inaccurate to be polite about. They claim not to care about any of these results. It appears that nothing will satisfy their opposition to these sources, even when face with everything stacked against them. Now Mike is back to talking about policies no one challenges, yet don't apply here. The example of my opposition to Cunado is also irrelevent, as Cunado was attempting to exclude reliably sourced information, much like Mike is here. The assumption of bad faith in Mike's comments is staggering, and at the same time none of it answers to the direct challenge that has been presented repeatedly to his reasoning. The RFC spoke directly to the challenge, and they didn't like the answer so their edit warring ensued. The discussion on the policy page directly challenged and shot down their interpretations of SPS, and they didn't like it so the edit warring has ensued. Now come the personal attacks. Nothing they've presented has overridden anything, but in fact it's all been shown to be paper tigers. They're posturing with the policy flag still wrapped about them, when their arguments have been demonstrated to be wrong, and they're no longer presenting anything worth considering. It's really time to give up the charade, or pursue dispute resolution. Edit warring will likely get them both banned from editing this page. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 16:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:While not dealing with Verifiability or SPS, General Disarray's comment "the larger group '''we''' all broke off from '''ex-communicated him (and us)''' early on" is a clear signal of [[WP:COI]] issues. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|The Red Pen of Doom]] 16:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
::Definitely, there are issues and that's why reliable third-party sources are required and non self-published sources. All of the current sources are third-party published from reliable publishing presses not affiliated to either group, and GeneralDisarray has not shown the sources he is trying to use as notable. The [http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm single secondary source] that refers to one of his sources states it "borders on adoration". Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 16:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:::That book review also states in it's conclusion: "It is an interesting window into one side of a controversy in a very large new religious movement". If anything that book review acknowledges both the book's weaknesses and values. I contend that the review establishes the value of the biography as a source about Remey. To put it into context, the content being extracted from it is primarily the details of his funeral. Are there any impartial opinions about these specific questions? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 09:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

== [[WP:Consensus, not truth]] ==

[[User:QuackGuru]] has been engaged in a discussion on [[Talk:Larry Sanger]] whether the goal of Wikipedia can be fairly and neutrally described in the text of the article as "[[wikiality|Consensus, not truth]]". Opponents repeatedly pointed out that the attested official principle is [[WP:Verifiability, not truth]]. Therefore, he recently proved his [[WP:POINT]] by creating [[WP:Consensus, not truth]] as a redirect to [[WP:Verifiability]] (a redirect to which he now kindly refers disagreeing editors). If anyone here happens to feel, strangely enough, that [[WP:Verifiability]] does '''not''' equal "Consensus, not truth" either in whole or in part, or at least that such an interpretation is not ''entirely'' obvious and [[WP:CONSENSUS|uncontroversial]], then I hope that someone will request the deletion of the redirect. Opinions could be useful on [[Talk:Larry Sanger]] as well. Personally, I don't have the time or the patience to deal with this (I'm having a wikibreak, and I'm not a very active editor in the first place), but I thought perhaps someone here might. If we on this encyclopedia can't provide the public with accurate information even about our own policies, then I'd say we're in ''very'' deep ... trouble.--[[User:Anonymous44|Anonymous44]] ([[User talk:Anonymous44|talk]]) 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== Question regarding religous publication ==

I have a question I would like to pose to see if other editors agree with me. On many religous articles, primary sources and other non-third-party sources are used. For example, on Catholic doctrine articles, many of the works used for sources are the works of Catholic priests, although other critical works are also often included. In Mormon related articles, the writing of Joseph Smith and Brigam Young and used as sources in places. Similar occurrences occor on many other religous related articles. My question is this: "Is that acceptable, or does it violate [[WPRS]]?" My answer to this would be "In establishing the content of doctrines, beliefs, and some events, it is acceptable. In controversial events or disputed beliefs, third party sources are required." I say this because in many instances, especially in smaller denominations and groups, there are often few or no authoritative third party sources. [[User:Charles Edward|Charles Edward]] ([[User talk:Charles Edward|Talk]]) 01:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
::Other authorities should be used ''as well'' if it is controversial. The doctrine of a church is what it says it is. the history of it, and how to interpret it, and the influences on it, and the meaning of it, need a range of sources. But many such articles, such as a list of bishops, are not the least controversial. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 17:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== Third-party sources, again ==

On February 15, 2009, [[User:Equazcion|Equazcion]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=270790993&oldid=270747315 changed] the sentence: 
"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." 
to 
"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." 

I noticed this alteration recently and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=274875458&oldid=274590662 removed] the sentence, saying "[[WP:N]] is not a policy." Then [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=274878257&oldid=274875458 reverted] me, saying "too bold - WP:N derives from this, not the other way around."

That claim is false. [[WP:N]] does ''not'' derive from that sentence, ''nor'' this policy page. As far as I can tell, [[WP:N]] derives from people voting delete in VFDs, saying "non-notable." The [[WP:GNG]] in [[WP:N]] derives in part from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&diff=next&oldid=74721068 this summary] of the subject-specific notability guidelines at the time. The addition of "third-party" to that topic sentence in [[WP:V]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=50425763&oldid=50379163 came about] because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_8#Do_articles_require_third_party_sources.3F this thread] in these talkpage archives, started on April 25, 2006 by a user who was having an editwar on an article (and who wrote that summary in WP:N) and since at the time this policy said "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The addition of "third-party" to the topic sentence led to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_16#Third-party_sources this thread] from December 2006 started by Jguk. The original sentence, "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.", originated with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=next&oldid=37568114 this edit] by Jguk on January 31, 2006. I don't know why an article content policy is talking about ''topics'', but okay...

I oppose any and all attempts to shoehorn [[Wikipedia:Notability]] into this policy. The first sentence says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." Verifiability is different than verifiability by third parties. I oppose the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=50425763&oldid=50379163 change] by [[User:Robert A West|Robert A West]] as well as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=270790993&oldid=270747315 change] by [[User:Equazcion|Equazcion]]. I started a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_24#Third-party_sources thread] about this sentence over a year ago on January 31, 2008, after my removal of it was reverted, which led to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&dir=prev&offset=20080130234400&limit=10&action=history further edits]. A source can be reputable without being "third-party." A source can be reliable without being "third-party." Information can be verifiable without "significant coverage of a topic" by third parties. I think the sentence "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" needs to be removed from this policy until it has consensus to be in this policy. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface|talk]]) 11:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
:I agree. The old version "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." is better, and this is just instruction creep. Notability - used in AfD's, and Verifiability - used in all articles, are very different concepts and should be kept separate, and the former should remain a guideline without its essential parts put into policy.[[User:John Z|John Z]] ([[User talk:John Z|talk]]) 12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
::I moved the sentence to [[Wikipedia:OR]] it is currently duplicated in [[Wikipedia:OR#Sources]] because when I moved it the consensus was that it needed to be retained here. Personally I think the sentence is better off in the OR policy, but if it is to remain here then how about replacing "third party" with "reliable" and linking reliable sources to the section of that name? BTW any change here should be reflected in the OR policy page--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 14:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
:::The "third party" indication needs to be clearly and specifically called out. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|The Red Pen of Doom]] 19:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think neither version of the sentence belongs here, or in [[WP:OR]]. Restricting the articles we permit to those that are the subject of third-party sources only is a job for [[WP:N]] and its subsidiary guidelines, not policy. It is not an issue of verifiability or OR if the sources for a statement are not independent, as long as they are reliable. Therefore, I don't see why this should change simply because we're talking about an entire article. I definitely support removing this sentence in its entirety, or at least removing the reference to third-party sources from it (i.e., we could state that if a subject has no available ''reliable'' sources we should not have an article on it). [[User:JulesH|JulesH]] ([[User talk:JulesH|talk]]) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
: This is long-standing policy and we shouldn't change it without a serious consensus to do so. That goes for people who are trying to strengthen it to the point that it resembles [[WP:N]], and for people who want to remove it altogether. It works exactly as it should. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 22:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
::I'd like to change it back to the pre-February 15 version if no one minds i.e. to "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The recent addition that the source must also "featur[e] significant coverage" of the topic raises the bar somewhat. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]][[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]] 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:: I like the change; we don't need trivial sources, we need solid ones; i.e. ''significant coverage''. Google can dredge up trivial shite in milliseconds. Cheers, [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 11:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

== Signed statement on company letterhead ==

I have a PDF of a letter on corporate letterhead, with contact information, signed by a corporate officer, confirming information about that companies research. The company itself is consider [[WP:RS]]. The letter is being rejected by others as a source (or even a convenience link for a $500 report) with the claim it is not verifiable. I would think this is extremely verifiable, you simply ask the company if it's real. Indeed I would have thought such a letter is what you might ''require'' to verify something. Any other thoughts? --[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 17:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
:It's best to look at the specifics. I do not think the wiki of a company known for self-promotion is a reliable source for a claim[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway&diff=274305114&oldid=273680163][http://www.amwaywiki.com/Image:Euromonitor_Nutrilite_Claim.pdf] that an Amway product is "the world's best selling nutritional brand in tablet or capsule form". I'm having a little trouble identifying the problem. The verified claim from [[Euromonitor]], in the form of a scanned certification form, looks like a [[WP:PSTS|primary source]] which, though seemingly trustworthy, is not entirely immune to being forged, taken out of context, or misinterpreted. Republishing the claim on a wiki does not change the fact that the source is a private research company - it only introduces some concerns about authenticity. The problem is we have no indication that this is at all a relevant or notable fact. If the claim were at all notable - meaning here if it were something that readers ought to know about in order to get an encyclopedic understanding of the subject - one would think a reliable secondary source would report the fact, and if you could find sources it would be verifiable. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
::I'm not sure where your "known for self-promotion" statement comes from. Indeed they're known for doing very very little of it until recently, compared to more traditional companies. In either case it's not really important what domain the file is hosted on, the dispute isn't about linking to the wiki, which clearly is not [[WP:RS]], it's to the letter. It could just as easily be an IP address or some other address. Now, Euromonitor is clearly [[WP:RS]] and I would argue is not the primary source, the primary source is sales data from different companies, which Euromonitor collates in their reports as per [[WP:SECONDARY]]. So I cannot see how a citation to one of their reports can be disputed, and if the report can't be disputed, then a convenience link confirming it shouldn't be a problem under [[WP:CONV]] (yes I know it's not a policy), offering covnenience for the reader not available because the report requires payment. So where's the problem? Is the document verifiable? Yes. Is it from a reliable source? Yes - unless forged, which is why [[WP:V]] matters! If there's any concerns, verify it's authenticity, just like would be done with any other source. Interestingly, nobody seems to be disputing the claim --[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I think the primary source nature is the issue. It is a source document. Unpublished research results, in general, are a primary source. You could always make that claim, that the data itself is primary. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 19:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Please read what I wrote. It's not unpublished research results. [[WP:SECONDARY]] clearly states ''Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims''. Euromonitor reports are clearly [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:SECONDARY]]. It would seem the letter clearly fits this criteria as well. What I don't see at all is how someone could claim it is not verifiable. --[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
::I would say that the actual Euromonitor report, is a reliable source for statements about what is contained in that report. Unforunately, that is not what you are talking about. You are talking about a letter someone at Euromonitor (supposedly) wrote to you ''about'' what was said in their report. It is that letter which is unpublished and thus questionable as to verifiability. I would say that it probably isn't verifiable, and mentioning it may constitute Original Research. Can you not find a copy of the actual report? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Hmmm, I have a similar discussion with Insider on my talk page where he refused to deal with the fact that inherently the document is unverifiable per [[WP:V]], especially as he needs to host it on his own website (which is the reason why it was removed from the [[Amway]] article). [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
::Hi Insider, the letter can't be used because it's not been published. Our sources, whether primary or secondary, must have been published. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]][[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]] 00:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::My question here, while it was raised in my mind due to a discussion over a particular letter isn't about that letter - I was never trying to use it as a source, but as a convenience link. I raised the question because when it was questioned (through misunderstanding) as a source, I decided to research further and it seemed to me it would be fine in that context anyway. It's an [[WP:RS]] source and is verifiable. As mentioned elsewhere (and noted by blueboar) in this specific case the original reports should be the citation and source, I was using the letter merely a confirmatory convenience link for those not wanting to spend $500 on the report, something which appears allowed (see [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_15#Linking_to_an_online_copy_of_an_offline_V_RS]]). Now, [[User:Shot info]] claimed, with regard to it being used ''as a source'' that such a document was unverifiable. I've asked him to clarify how it is not verifiable and he has so far not explained this, just repeating his statement and citing [[WP:V]]. I can see nothing in [[WP:V]] that excludes it - indeed, to the contrary, it can be verified as from a reliable source. I'm guessing, thanks to SlimVirgin's response, that the issue is what constitutes "published" and neither WP:V nor WP:RS seem to define it at present. Perhaps needs doing? --[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 11:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Bleh ... been searching through the talk archives and not surprisingy, this isn't the first time this kind of issue as come up. It didn't seem to reach any consensus previously, generally compromises were achieved, usually through finding alternative sources. It would seem to me that defining "published", with regards Wikipedia usage, in one of the policies might be a sensible step.--[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 11:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::First, from what I can gather, you are not using the letter as a convenience link to the report... you are using your web page as a convenience link to the letter. That means you are using an unreliable host to link to an unverifiable letter.
:::Second, yes, the core issue (as SV correctly points out) is "''publication''". "Publication" requires requires that the source has been written for disemination to the ''public''. From what I can tell, you are discussing a personal letter from the company to you, not something distributed to the public.
:::Finally, there is consensus on this... don't use the letter... find an alternative source. Since the reason you want to cite the letter is to confirm something in a report... why not cite the report itself? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Blueboar - forget any specific "letter", it's not relevant to the discussion, I'm not trying to get any specific document OK'd. I'm not using this specific document it as a source, I don't want to use it as a source, I'm not claiming it as a source, and what's more your assumptions as to it's origins (personal letter etc) are incorrect, but it doesn't matter - forget any specific letter, ok? (heck, "letter" probably isn't even the right term, it's a statement.) Anyway ... it simply was the starting point to lead me down a path where I discovered a "hole" in the policies that I think is worth addressing because it has come up before and will likely come up again. It's about improving Wikipedia, not just trying to get something put in an article, is that so hard for folk to accept? Now, if it comes down to the meaning of "publication", you've given a definition there, but that definition doesn't seem to exist in the policies, and the definition you gave appears from earlier talk pages to be up for challenge by others. Take another example that I've encountered. The FTC issues "staff advisory opinions" in response to requests from the public. The response is a written statement (a letter even!) back to original enquirer, but the response has official standing and as a government document is now available for anyone to request a copy from the FTC. Is that "published" or not? Like the euromonitor statement referenced earlier, it's available to anyone who wants to request a copy, so it's "published" in the sense it's available to the public, but not necessary in the sense of being "disseminated" to the public. I state again, I think defining "published" would be a useful addition to the policy. --[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 14:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::OK... now I am confused. I thought the entire point of your thread was to ask if your letter was reliable. My answer to that was: No.
:::As to the need to define "published"... is this really needed? We are not using some unique definition of the term... so if editors don't know what it means, they can look the term up in any standard dictionary. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, my apologies, I worded the OP badly. The ''statement'' (not letter) was simply an example, though I would ask you to elaborate on ''why '' you say it's not reliable, and here I'm referring to ''the statement itself'', not any particular copy of it. It's from a reliable source, Euromonitor, and it can be verified by asking them, the publisher, for a copy, same as pretty much any other RS - so how does it not fit [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]]? Same goes for FTC staff advisories. Some of them are on ftc.gov, some are not, but they're publicly available. They're from a reliable source, the FTC, and they can be verified by asking the FTC for a copy. As for "published", like most words dictionaries give numerous alternative definitions. Think about "desktop publishing" for example - it covers printing out one copy of something at home. I think the question you're asking is whether it's available to "the public" in some form or another, and in both the examples I mention they are. So how don't they pass? --[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::If Euromonitor published a report, then likely (but depending on the circumstances) that report is reliable as to the facts in it. If Euromonitor simply did research that is unpublished, and the letter confirms the results of the research, the letter is not reliable. I wonder why they would need to write a letter if the same thing is in a published report but that is a different matter. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Wikidemon's comments are correct. But I am still confused. Insider, what is the exact statement that you wish to make, and what is the source are you using to support it (perhaps you could give us a link?). You stared off saying that you had a PDF of a letter... Is this actually some sort of published report and not a letter? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Blueboar, there is no statement I'm wishing to make. My point is that these type of documents don't seem to be covered by the current guidelines, I don't have agenda I'm trying to push in this instance (apparently this is difficult to comprehend :) ). ''By way of example'' is the Euromonitor statement ([http://www.amwaywiki.com/images/3/33/Euromonitor_Nutrilite_Claim.pdf a copy here]). The statement has been made available, I assume, because of queries. In this case the information is in their published reports, but the relevant report costs £5075.00 so isn't exactly something everyone splashes out to get for confirmation! Now, by way of explanation of how we got here, in this particular instance the report is clearly the source and is cited as such in wikipedia. I think the PDF statement should be made available as a convenience source to confirm the claim to those not interesting in spending 5000 pounds, but that's a separate discussion. The question I'm trying to address in ''this'' discussion is what if the report was not available? The statement is still a publicly available document "published" by a reliable source. Similarly with FTC documents I mentioned. They supply these advisory opinions, and they're available to the public on request. So they're from a reliable source, and verifiable, but not "published" in the sense that Blueboar talks about. Earlir V:talk in this area have also raised the issue of government documents that are available on request. My feeling is that if something is from an otherwise reliable source, and that source is willing to publicly and officially confirm it's authenticity to anyone who enquires, including (but not necessarily limited to, I'm open to options here) supplying further copies of the document - ie it's verifiable - then it should be an acceptable source. A hypothetical example - what if the US National Park's service received many enquiries as to whether Yellowstone was about to erupt and the produced a standard, official form letter stating their position on this and anyone who enquired could get a copy? On what basis should this be rejected as a source of the USNP's position? If they ''also'' published the statement on their website, then I imagine there would be no argument. If they published the statement in a book or pamphlet, then that too would likely be acceptable without question. So on what basis should the statement "alone" be rejected? I can't think of any. --[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Let's take another example of this kind of document. Let's say someone claims Coca-Cola contains heroin. Unlike the cocaine story, it's not a common claim but it nevertheless somehow ends up in an [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] source. So it can be stated in Wikipedia (leave extraordinary claims issues to one side, it's the principle). So, someone writes to Coca-Cola and get's an official response stating Coca-Cola doesn't contain heroin. Anyone who writes to them gets the same response. It's "published", available to the public, and "verifiable" - anyone can get a copy - but such a document would not appear to be covered under current guidelines. Indeed the heroin claim would be acceptable in Wikipedia and Coke would have no right reply until the claim got enough airplay that they decide to publish it on their website or their denial is covered in some other [[WP:RS]] source. With wikipedia's prominence these days, that means WP would effectively be responsible for feeding an urban legend until it got to a size that demanded a very visibile and public response. I would think an official statement, on letterhead, that's verifiable by anyone who cares to ask, should be acceptable and needs to be covered. --[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Material is regarded as what we call "verifiable" if and only if it has been published, by which we mean made available to the public at large, not simply available by contacting you, or the man who wrote the letter, directly. If you have to go directly to the author to obtain a copy, the sense in which it's a published document is radically diminished.
:::::We've tried in the past to come up with a definition of published, but it got bogged down by people seeking to introduce every loophole you can imagine, so we gave it up as fruitless and unnecessary. Broadly, if you can obtain something via an on- or offline bookstore, or a library, it's published. If, on the other hand, there's only one person in the world who can make something available, and he has to make a photocopy whenever anyone asks for it, it's not published. Your letter is closer to the latter. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]][[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]] 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Ok, that seems a reasonable enough position, but I'd suggest that the very fact deciding a definition got "bogged" down indicates a definition ''is'' needed, rather than unnecessary. Taking it on a case by case basis, which I'm guessing is where the discussion probably ended up, is IMO really a bit of a copout that says "too hard" but ultimately results in more time and energy being expended. If you can come up with a link to the discussion without too much effort I'd appreciate it. --[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 00:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I wouldn't know how to find the main discussion I'm thinking of, but I did a search through the archives for "definition of published" and found these, which might get you started. The links include a poll as to whether or not we need a definition, which tells you something about the frustration it was causing. :-) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive5#Removal_of_.22published.22_definition] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_8#Definition_of_.22published.22_.E2.80.94_Resolved.2C_we_don.27t_need_another_one.2C_an_informal_poll] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_8#To_the_general_public] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_8#Published_.3D_Made_Public] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_16#Verifiabity_vs._Citability] Enjoy! [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]][[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]] 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Ouch. I didn't think to look in the [[WP:OR]] archives, some talk. Well, I stand by what I said - the very fact there's such dispute means a definition is a good idea and "case by case" is a cop out by folk sick of arguing :). Thanks very much for your help SlimVirgin. --[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)Well, we have to put up a fence somewhere between published and unpublished, reliable and not reliable, primary and secondary, etc., and no matter where you plant your fence somebody can find a patch of dirt that straddles both sides of it. I would think that IAR, SNOW, Consensus, and a bunch of other policies and guidelines all add up to an admonition to use common sense in situations where the rules don't cleanly decide a matter. In the particular case at hand, if you (the generic you) promise me there's an expensive but available published report that says Amway makes the best selling supplement pills in the world, we have a scan / convenience link to an Amway site that says as much, and it's a believable claim, I'll assume good faith and say that the claim is believable, at least one can say that a Euromonitor study made that finding. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 02:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

== On sources that are acceptable ==

It says that forums are not accepted, but in some cases they should be, for example official announcements by Game Masters--[[User:Legeres|Legeres]] ([[User talk:Legeres|talk]]) 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:This is a common complaint. But no. If an official announcement is worth noting it will be repeated elsewhere (in sources that are reliable). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::this is where i'm confused, how is an official announcement not reliable?--[[User:Legeres|Legeres]] ([[User talk:Legeres|talk]]) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Well, the most obvious problem with most forums is that they are annonamous. There is no way to verify that something ''is'' an official announcement. How do we know that the person posting the announcement is who they say they are... how do we know if he/she is actually the Game Master? 19:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Forums are acceptable sources in the unusual circumstance that we can be sure that the poster is an expert in the subject of the post, per the general rules at [[WP:SPS]]. I would say that if the forum is hosted on a domain under the control of such a person and the poster claims to be that person, this is the case. I think this may include Legeres's situation. Also, if such a person identifies the account they post using in a non-psuedonymous location (e.g. on a personal weblog where their identity is well established), we can also track them back and be confident of the validity of the identification. But there must be a reason to believe that the poster is somebody who can speak with authority, and that they claim to be such a person is not enough. [[User:JulesH|JulesH]] ([[User talk:JulesH|talk]]) 21:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:well let's use [[DragonRealms]] as an example, the names of the GMs of this specific forum are in red, normal users are either blue or black. Therefore all the official announcements would have a name in red, identifying the source as a GM.--[[User:Legeres|Legeres]] ([[User talk:Legeres|talk]]) 21:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::To go into further detail, about the example, people aren't allowed to choose names similar to the GM names, if they manage to come close they are usually forced to changed their name. Even if not forced into a name change, the name itself will still be black color, as forum users have no options to change name color.--[[User:Legeres|Legeres]] ([[User talk:Legeres|talk]]) 13:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

== Removing the "Unreferenced" Tag ==

Once we include references to an article with an "Unreferenced" tag, are we allowed to remove the tag upon including the references, or are there only a few groups that are authorized to remove these tags? [[User:Micasta|'''Micasta''']] ([[User_talk:Micasta|talk]]) 13:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

:Anyone can remove it. But it's a part of the article like anything else, so you should still avoid edit warring over it, if someone disagrees with the removal. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Mason Remey

2009-03-09T09:01:18Z

General Disarray: restore Spataro and Matthieu's content

[[Image:Remey1.jpg|thumbnail|Charles Mason Remey]]
'''Charles Mason Remey''' ([[May 15]] [[1874]] - [[February 4]] [[1974]]) was a prominent and controversial American [[Bahá'í Faith|Bahá'í]] who was appointed in 1951 a [[Hand of the Cause]],<ref name="PSmith">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=292}}</ref><ref name="effendi18-20">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=18-20}}</ref> and president of the [[International Bahá'í Council]].<ref name="PSmith"/><ref name="effendi8-9">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=8-9}}</ref> He was the architect for the [[Bahá'í House of Worship|Bahá'í Houses of Worship]] in Uganda and Australia, and [[Shoghi Effendi]] approved his design of the unbuilt House of Worship in [[Haifa, Israel]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian, and Remey was among the nine Hands of the Cause elected as an interim authority until the election of the first [[Universal House of Justice]] in 1963.<ref name="PSmith_hands">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=176-177}}</ref> However, in 1960 Remey declared himself to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi, and expected the allegiance of the world's Bahá'ís.<ref name="remey8">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=8}} </ref> Subsequently, he and his followers were declared [[Covenant-breaker|Covenant breakers]] by the [[Hand of the Cause|Hands]].<ref name="PSmith"/> They reasoned that he lacked a formal appointment from Shoghi Effendi, and that the office was confined to male descendants of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Aghsan]]. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim,<ref name="Smith69">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=69}}</ref> but he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name="PSmith"/> His claim resulted in the largest schism in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, with a few groups still holding the belief that Remey was the successor of Shoghi Effendi. Various dated references show membership at less than a hundred each in two of the surviving groups.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000| pp=271}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Momen|1988|p=g.2}}</ref>

==Early life==
Born in Burlington, Iowa, on [[May 15]] [[1874]], Mason was the eldest son of Rear Admiral George Collier Remey and Mary Josephine Mason Remey, the daughter of Charles Mason, the first Chief Justice of Iowa.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> Remey’s parents raised him in the Episcopal Church. <ref>Remey, 1960 p. 2</ref> Remey trained as an architect at Cornell University (1893-1896), and the [[École des Beaux-Arts]] in Paris, France (1896-1903) where he first learned of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name = "PSmith" />

==As a Bahá'í==
With a background in architecture, Remey was asked to design the Australian and Ugandan [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] which still stand today and are the mother temples for [[Australasia]] and [[Africa]] respectively. Upon the request of [[Shoghi Effendi]], he also provided designs for a [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] in [[Tehran]], for [[Haifa, Israel|Haifa]], and the Shrine of `Abdu'l-Bahá, however only the Haifa temple was approved before the death of [[Shoghi Effendi]], and none have so far been built.<ref name="PSmith"/>

Remey traveled extensively to promote the Bahá'í Faith during the ministry of [[`Abdu'l-Bahá]]. [[Shoghi Effendi]] recorded that Remey and his Bahá'í companion, Howard Struven, were the first Bahá'ís to circle the globe teaching the religion.<ref name="effendi261">{{harvnb|Effendi|1944|p=261}}</ref>

A prolific writer, Remey wrote numerous published and personal articles promoting the Bahá'í Faith, including ''`Abdu'l-Bahá – The Center of the Covenant'' and the five volume ''A Comprehensive History of the Bahá'í Movement (1927)'', ''The Bahá'í Revelation and Reconstruction'' (1919), ''Constructive Principles of The Bahá'í Movement'' (1917), and ''The Bahá'í Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers'' (1912) are a few of the titles of the many works Remey produced while `Abdu'l-Bahá was still alive. Remey's life was recorded in his diaries, and in 1940 he provided copies and selected writings to several public libraries. Included in most of the collections were the letters `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote to him.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

According to Juliet Thompson's diary, `Abdu'l-Bahá suggested that she marry Remey, and in 1909 asked her how she felt about it, reportedly requesting of her: “Give my greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear to me that I think of you day and night. You are my real son. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass...He told me He loved Mason Remey so much,” Thompson writes, “and He loved me so much that he wished us to marry. That was the meaning of His message to Mason. He said it would be a perfect union and good for the Cause. Then he asked me how I felt about it.” They did not marry, although Thompson anguished over her decision, which she felt would cause ‘Abdu’l-Baha disappointment.<ref>{{harvnb|Thompson|1983|pp=71-76}}</ref> In 1932 he married Gertrude Heim Klemm Mason (1887-1933), who subsequently died a year later.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

===Under Shoghi Effendi===
Remey lived for some time in Washington, D.C., in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 Remey moved his residence from Washington, D.C., to Haifa, Israel, at the request of Shoghi Effendi. In January 1951, Shoghi Effendi issued a proclamation announcing the formation of the [[International Bahá'í Council]] (IBC), representing the first international Bahá'í body. The council was intended to be a forerunner to the [[Universal House of Justice]], the supreme ruling body of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name="PSmith199">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=199}}</ref><ref name="PSmith346">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=346}}</ref> Remey was appointed president of the council in March, with Amelia Collins as vice-president,<ref name="PSmith199"/> then in December of 1951 Remey was appointed a [[Hand of the Cause]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

==After Shoghi Effendi==
{{main|Bahá'í divisions}}
When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, Remey and the other Hands of the Cause met in a private Conclave at Bahjí in Haifa, and determined that he hadn't appointed a successor. They decided that the situation of the Guardian having died without being able to appoint a successor was a situation not dealt with in the texts that define the Bahá'í administration, and that it would need to be reviewed and adjudicated upon by the [[Universal House of Justice]], which hadn't been elected yet.<ref name="Stockman200">{{Harvnb|Stockman|2006|p=200}}</ref> Remey signed a unanimous declaration of the Hands that Shoghi Effendi had died "without having appointed his successor".<ref name="PSmith68">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=68}}</ref><ref name="PSmith"/><ref>For the document, see the [http://www.bahai-education.org/materials/essays/proclamation_hands.htm Unanimous Proclamation of the 27 Hands of the Cause of God]</ref>

Three years later, in 1960, Remey made a written announcement that his appointment as president of the international council represented an appointment by Shoghi Effendi as Guardian,<ref name="remey5">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=5}}</ref> because the appointed council was a precursor to the elected Universal House of Justice, which has the Guardian as its president.

He also attempted to usurp the control of the Faith which the Hands had themselves assumed at the passing of Shoghi Effendi stating:
<blockquote>It is from and through the Guardianship that infallibility is vested and that the Hands of the Faith receive their orders...I now command the Hands of the Faith to stop all of their preparations for 1963, and furthermore I command all believers both as individual Bahá'ís and as assemblies of Bahá'ís to immediately cease cooperating with and giving support to this fallacious program for 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Remey|1960|pp=6-7}}</ref></blockquote>

He claimed to believe that the Guardianship was an institution intended to endure forever, and that he was the 2nd Guardian by virtue of his appointment to the IBC. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim, although he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name = "PSmith" /> One of the most notable exceptions to accept his claim was that of the entire French [[National Spiritual Assembly]], led by Joel Marangella, who elected to support Remey, and was consequently disbanded by the Hands. The remaining 26 Hands of the Cause unanimously expelled him from the community.<ref name="deVries265">{{harvnb|de Vries|2002|p=265}}</ref><ref name="Smith69"/> Remey himself declared that being the Guardian gave him the exclusive right to declare who was or wasn't a Covenant-breaker, and that those who opposed him and followed the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers.

===Under the Hereditary Guardianship===
[[Image:Masonandpepe.jpg|thumbnail|Mason Remey and Joseph Pepe]]
Among the Bahá'ís who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian, several further divisions have occurred based on opinions of legitimacy and the proper succession of authority.<ref name="taherzadeh368-371">{{harvnb|Taherzadeh|2000|pp=368-371}}</ref> Most of his long-term followers were Americans, who distinguished themselves as "Bahá'ís Under the Hereditary Guardianship".<ref name="Smith69"/> In his later years Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor, which resulted in further divisions among his followers dividing among several claimants to leadership.<ref name="PSmith"/> When Remey died his followers split into rival factions with each believing in a different Guardian.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000|pp=271}}</ref><ref name="Smith71">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=71}}</ref> Donald Harvey (d.1991), was appointed by Remey as "Third Guardian" in 1967. [[Joel Marangella]] was president of Remey's "Second International Bahá'í Council" claimed in 1969 to have been secretly appointed by Remey as Guardian several years earlier, whose followers are now known as [[Orthodox Bahá'í Faith|Orthodox Bahá'ís]].<ref name="PSmith"/> Another of Remey's followers, [[Leland Jensen]] (d. 1996), who made a several religious claims of his own, formed a sect known as the [[Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant]] following Remey's death;<ref name="PSmith"/>. He believed that Remey was the adopted son of Abdu'l-Baha,<ref name="pluralism">{{harvnb|Hyslop|2004}}</ref> and that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian.<ref>{{harvnb|stone|2000|p=282}} note 6</ref>

All those that accept Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the [[Universal House of Justice]] established in 1963.<ref name="PSmith"/>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.<ref name="spataro25">{{harvnb|Spataro|2003|p=25}}</ref>
===Death===
On February 4th, 1974, Mason Remey died at the age of 99.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> The funeral was organized by his adopted son Joseph Pepe, with the assistance of the American consulate in Florence.

In his self-published biography of Remey, Spataro writes of what he claims Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe revealed to him about the ceremony. According to Pepe, because of the issues surrounding his father at the time of his death it had been decided to leave the tomb unmarked. He was buried at a location within the prescribed one-hour's distance from the place of death. Bahá'í prayers were read as his coffin was interred at a temporary grave. Later the body was moved to its permanent grave in Florence, Italy, with a monument and inscription erected at the site. <ref>{{harvnb|Spataro|2003|p=31}}</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}
==References==

*{{cite book
| title = The Babi Question You Mentioned... The Origins of the Baha'i Community of the Netherlands, 1844-1962
| publisher = Peeters Publishers
| year = 2002
| first = J.
| last = de Vries
| place = Leuven
| isbn = 9042911093
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1944
|title = God Passes By
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|id = ISBN 0877430209
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1971
|title = Messages to the Bahá'í World, 1950-1957
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/MBW/
}}

*{{citation
|last=Hyslop
|first=Scott
|year=2004
|title=Pluralism Project
|publisher=Harvard University Study of Religion
|url=http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=72374
}}

*{{citation
|last = Momen
|first = Moojan
|year = 1988
|title = The Covenant
|url = http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm#7.%20Covenant-breaker,%20Covenant-breaking
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Remey
|first = Charles Mason
|year = 1960
|title = Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World
|url = http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Spataro
|first = Francis C.
|year = 2003
|title = Charles Mason Remey and the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Tover Publications
|place = Queens, NY 11427-2116.
|id = ISBN 0-9671656-3-6
}}

*{{citation
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|place = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book | last = Smith | first = Peter | year = 2008 | title = An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0521862515 | location = Cambridge}}

*{{cite book
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|location = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book
| title = Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America
| publisher = Greenwood Press
| year = 2006
| editor1-first = Eugene V.
| editor1-last = Gallagher
| editor2-first = W. Michael
| editor2-last = Ashcraft
| first = Robert
| last = Stockman
| chapter = The Baha'is of the United States
| isbn = 0275987124
}}

*{{Citation
| last = Stone
| first = Jon R. (ed)
| year =2000
| title =Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy
| place = New York
| publisher =Routledge
| pages =269–282
| isbn =0-415-92331-x
}}

*{{citation
|last = Taherzadeh
|first = Adib
|year=2000
|title=The Child of the Covenant
|publisher=George Ronald
|place=Oxford, UK
|id=ISBN 0853984395
}}

*{{citation
|last = Thompson
|first = Juliet
|date = 1947
|year = 1983
|title = The Diary of Juliet Thompson
|publisher = Kalimat Press
|place = Los Angeles
|url = http://bahai-library.com/books/thompson/
}}

==External links==
*[http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ Biography of Charles Mason Remy] - by Brent Matthieu
*[http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers&language=All Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him] - published by the Universal House of Justice
*[http://bupc.org/test-of-god.html Passing the Test of God] - BUPC's views of Mason Remey's Life, Contributions, and Beleifs
{{DEFAULTSORT:Remey, Mason}}
[[Category:1874 births]]
[[Category:1974 deaths]]
[[Category:Bahá'í divisions]]
[[Category:American Bahá'ís]]
[[Category:Hands of the Cause of God]]

[[fa:چارلز میسون ریمی]]

Mason Remey

2009-03-09T08:57:58Z

General Disarray: /* External links */ restore link to BUPS article on Remey. this has as much right as the UHJ paper and is obviously "further reading" on the subject. Stop removing it.

[[Image:Remey1.jpg|thumbnail|Charles Mason Remey]]
'''Charles Mason Remey''' ([[May 15]] [[1874]] - [[February 4]] [[1974]]) was a prominent and controversial American [[Bahá'í Faith|Bahá'í]] who was appointed in 1951 a [[Hand of the Cause]],<ref name="PSmith">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=292}}</ref><ref name="effendi18-20">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=18-20}}</ref> and president of the [[International Bahá'í Council]].<ref name="PSmith"/><ref name="effendi8-9">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=8-9}}</ref> He was the architect for the [[Bahá'í House of Worship|Bahá'í Houses of Worship]] in Uganda and Australia, and [[Shoghi Effendi]] approved his design of the unbuilt House of Worship in [[Haifa, Israel]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian, and Remey was among the nine Hands of the Cause elected as an interim authority until the election of the first [[Universal House of Justice]] in 1963.<ref name="PSmith_hands">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=176-177}}</ref> However, in 1960 Remey declared himself to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi, and expected the allegiance of the world's Bahá'ís.<ref name="remey8">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=8}} </ref> Subsequently, he and his followers were declared [[Covenant-breaker|Covenant breakers]] by the [[Hand of the Cause|Hands]].<ref name="PSmith"/> They reasoned that he lacked a formal appointment from Shoghi Effendi, and that the office was confined to male descendants of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Aghsan]]. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim,<ref name="Smith69">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=69}}</ref> but he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name="PSmith"/> His claim resulted in the largest schism in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, with a few groups still holding the belief that Remey was the successor of Shoghi Effendi. Various dated references show membership at less than a hundred each in two of the surviving groups.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000| pp=271}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Momen|1988|p=g.2}}</ref>

==Early life==
Born in Burlington, Iowa, on [[May 15]] [[1874]], Mason was the eldest son of Rear Admiral George Collier Remey and Mary Josephine Mason Remey, the daughter of Charles Mason, the first Chief Justice of Iowa.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> Remey’s parents raised him in the Episcopal Church. <ref>Remey, 1960 p. 2</ref> Remey trained as an architect at Cornell University (1893-1896), and the [[École des Beaux-Arts]] in Paris, France (1896-1903) where he first learned of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name = "PSmith" />

==As a Bahá'í==
With a background in architecture, Remey was asked to design the Australian and Ugandan [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] which still stand today and are the mother temples for [[Australasia]] and [[Africa]] respectively. Upon the request of [[Shoghi Effendi]], he also provided designs for a [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] in [[Tehran]], for [[Haifa, Israel|Haifa]], and the Shrine of `Abdu'l-Bahá, however only the Haifa temple was approved before the death of [[Shoghi Effendi]], and none have so far been built.<ref name="PSmith"/>

Remey traveled extensively to promote the Bahá'í Faith during the ministry of [[`Abdu'l-Bahá]]. [[Shoghi Effendi]] recorded that Remey and his Bahá'í companion, Howard Struven, were the first Bahá'ís to circle the globe teaching the religion.<ref name="effendi261">{{harvnb|Effendi|1944|p=261}}</ref>

A prolific writer, Remey wrote numerous published and personal articles promoting the Bahá'í Faith, including ''`Abdu'l-Bahá – The Center of the Covenant'' and the five volume ''A Comprehensive History of the Bahá'í Movement (1927)'', ''The Bahá'í Revelation and Reconstruction'' (1919), ''Constructive Principles of The Bahá'í Movement'' (1917), and ''The Bahá'í Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers'' (1912) are a few of the titles of the many works Remey produced while `Abdu'l-Bahá was still alive. Remey's life was recorded in his diaries, and in 1940 he provided copies and selected writings to several public libraries. Included in most of the collections were the letters `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote to him.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

According to Juliet Thompson's diary, `Abdu'l-Bahá suggested that she marry Remey, and in 1909 asked her how she felt about it, reportedly requesting of her: “Give my greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear to me that I think of you day and night. You are my real son. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass...He told me He loved Mason Remey so much,” Thompson writes, “and He loved me so much that he wished us to marry. That was the meaning of His message to Mason. He said it would be a perfect union and good for the Cause. Then he asked me how I felt about it.” They did not marry, although Thompson anguished over her decision, which she felt would cause ‘Abdu’l-Baha disappointment.<ref>{{harvnb|Thompson|1983|pp=71-76}}</ref> In 1932 he married Gertrude Heim Klemm Mason (1887-1933), who subsequently died a year later.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

===Under Shoghi Effendi===
Remey lived for some time in Washington, D.C., in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 Remey moved his residence from Washington, D.C., to Haifa, Israel, at the request of Shoghi Effendi. In January 1951, Shoghi Effendi issued a proclamation announcing the formation of the [[International Bahá'í Council]] (IBC), representing the first international Bahá'í body. The council was intended to be a forerunner to the [[Universal House of Justice]], the supreme ruling body of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name="PSmith199">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=199}}</ref><ref name="PSmith346">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=346}}</ref> Remey was appointed president of the council in March, with Amelia Collins as vice-president,<ref name="PSmith199"/> then in December of 1951 Remey was appointed a [[Hand of the Cause]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

==After Shoghi Effendi==
{{main|Bahá'í divisions}}
When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, Remey and the other Hands of the Cause met in a private Conclave at Bahjí in Haifa, and determined that he hadn't appointed a successor. They decided that the situation of the Guardian having died without being able to appoint a successor was a situation not dealt with in the texts that define the Bahá'í administration, and that it would need to be reviewed and adjudicated upon by the [[Universal House of Justice]], which hadn't been elected yet.<ref name="Stockman200">{{Harvnb|Stockman|2006|p=200}}</ref> Remey signed a unanimous declaration of the Hands that Shoghi Effendi had died "without having appointed his successor".<ref name="PSmith68">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=68}}</ref><ref name="PSmith"/><ref>For the document, see the [http://www.bahai-education.org/materials/essays/proclamation_hands.htm Unanimous Proclamation of the 27 Hands of the Cause of God]</ref>

Three years later, in 1960, Remey made a written announcement that his appointment as president of the international council represented an appointment by Shoghi Effendi as Guardian,<ref name="remey5">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=5}}</ref> because the appointed council was a precursor to the elected Universal House of Justice, which has the Guardian as its president.

He also attempted to usurp the control of the Faith which the Hands had themselves assumed at the passing of Shoghi Effendi stating:
<blockquote>It is from and through the Guardianship that infallibility is vested and that the Hands of the Faith receive their orders...I now command the Hands of the Faith to stop all of their preparations for 1963, and furthermore I command all believers both as individual Bahá'ís and as assemblies of Bahá'ís to immediately cease cooperating with and giving support to this fallacious program for 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Remey|1960|pp=6-7}}</ref></blockquote>

He claimed to believe that the Guardianship was an institution intended to endure forever, and that he was the 2nd Guardian by virtue of his appointment to the IBC. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim, although he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name = "PSmith" /> One of the most notable exceptions to accept his claim was that of the entire French [[National Spiritual Assembly]], led by Joel Marangella, who elected to support Remey, and was consequently disbanded by the Hands. The remaining 26 Hands of the Cause unanimously expelled him from the community.<ref name="deVries265">{{harvnb|de Vries|2002|p=265}}</ref><ref name="Smith69"/> Remey himself declared that being the Guardian gave him the exclusive right to declare who was or wasn't a Covenant-breaker, and that those who opposed him and followed the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers.

===Under the Hereditary Guardianship===
[[Image:Masonandpepe.jpg|thumbnail|Mason Remey and Joseph Pepe]]
Among the Bahá'ís who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian, several further divisions have occurred based on opinions of legitimacy and the proper succession of authority.<ref name="taherzadeh368-371">{{harvnb|Taherzadeh|2000|pp=368-371}}</ref> Most of his long-term followers were Americans, who distinguished themselves as "Bahá'ís Under the Hereditary Guardianship".<ref name="Smith69"/> In his later years Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor, which resulted in further divisions among his followers dividing among several claimants to leadership.<ref name="PSmith"/> When Remey died his followers split into rival factions with each believing in a different Guardian.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000|pp=271}}</ref><ref name="Smith71">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=71}}</ref> Donald Harvey (d.1991), was appointed by Remey as "Third Guardian" in 1967. [[Joel Marangella]] was president of Remey's "Second International Bahá'í Council" claimed in 1969 to have been secretly appointed by Remey as Guardian several years earlier, whose followers are now known as [[Orthodox Bahá'í Faith|Orthodox Bahá'ís]].<ref name="PSmith"/> Another of Remey's followers, [[Leland Jensen]] (d. 1996), who made a several religious claims of his own, formed a sect known as the [[Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant]] following Remey's death;<ref name="PSmith"/> he believed that Remey was the adopted son of Abdu'l-Baha,<ref name="pluralism">{{harvnb|Hyslop|2004}}</ref> and that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian.<ref>{{harvnb|stone|2000|p=282}} note 6</ref>

All those that accept Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the [[Universal House of Justice]] established in 1963.<ref name="PSmith"/>

==Death==
On February 4th, 1974, Mason Remey died at the age of 99.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==

*{{cite book
| title = The Babi Question You Mentioned... The Origins of the Baha'i Community of the Netherlands, 1844-1962
| publisher = Peeters Publishers
| year = 2002
| first = J.
| last = de Vries
| place = Leuven
| isbn = 9042911093
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1944
|title = God Passes By
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|id = ISBN 0877430209
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1971
|title = Messages to the Bahá'í World, 1950-1957
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/MBW/
}}

*{{citation
|last=Hyslop
|first=Scott
|year=2004
|title=Pluralism Project
|publisher=Harvard University Study of Religion
|url=http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=72374
}}

*{{citation
|last = Momen
|first = Moojan
|year = 1988
|title = The Covenant
|url = http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm#7.%20Covenant-breaker,%20Covenant-breaking
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Remey
|first = Charles Mason
|year = 1960
|title = Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World
|url = http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|place = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book | last = Smith | first = Peter | year = 2008 | title = An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0521862515 | location = Cambridge}}

*{{cite book
| title = Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America
| publisher = Greenwood Press
| year = 2006
| editor1-first = Eugene V.
| editor1-last = Gallagher
| editor2-first = W. Michael
| editor2-last = Ashcraft
| first = Robert
| last = Stockman
| chapter = The Baha'is of the United States
| isbn = 0275987124
}}

*{{Citation
| last = Stone
| first = Jon R. (ed)
| year =2000
| title =Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy
| place = New York
| publisher =Routledge
| pages =269–282
| isbn =0-415-92331-x
}}

*{{citation
|last = Taherzadeh
|first = Adib
|year=2000
|title=The Child of the Covenant
|publisher=George Ronald
|place=Oxford, UK
|id=ISBN 0853984395
}}

*{{citation
|last = Thompson
|first = Juliet
|date = 1947
|year = 1983
|title = The Diary of Juliet Thompson
|publisher = Kalimat Press
|place = Los Angeles
|url = http://bahai-library.com/books/thompson/
}}

==External links==
*[http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ Biography of Charles Mason Remy] - by Brent Matthieu
*[http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers&language=All Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him] - published by the Universal House of Justice
*[http://bupc.org/test-of-god.html Passing the Test of God] - BUPC's views of Mason Remey's Life, Contributions, and Beleifs
{{DEFAULTSORT:Remey, Mason}}
[[Category:1874 births]]
[[Category:1974 deaths]]
[[Category:Bahá'í divisions]]
[[Category:American Bahá'ís]]
[[Category:Hands of the Cause of God]]

[[fa:چارلز میسون ریمی]]

Mason Remey

2009-03-09T08:54:58Z

General Disarray: /* Under the Hereditary Guardianship */ add .jpeg of Remey with his adopted son Pepe

[[Image:Remey1.jpg|thumbnail|Charles Mason Remey]]
'''Charles Mason Remey''' ([[May 15]] [[1874]] - [[February 4]] [[1974]]) was a prominent and controversial American [[Bahá'í Faith|Bahá'í]] who was appointed in 1951 a [[Hand of the Cause]],<ref name="PSmith">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=292}}</ref><ref name="effendi18-20">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=18-20}}</ref> and president of the [[International Bahá'í Council]].<ref name="PSmith"/><ref name="effendi8-9">{{harvnb|Effendi|1971|pp=8-9}}</ref> He was the architect for the [[Bahá'í House of Worship|Bahá'í Houses of Worship]] in Uganda and Australia, and [[Shoghi Effendi]] approved his design of the unbuilt House of Worship in [[Haifa, Israel]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian, and Remey was among the nine Hands of the Cause elected as an interim authority until the election of the first [[Universal House of Justice]] in 1963.<ref name="PSmith_hands">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=176-177}}</ref> However, in 1960 Remey declared himself to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi, and expected the allegiance of the world's Bahá'ís.<ref name="remey8">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=8}} </ref> Subsequently, he and his followers were declared [[Covenant-breaker|Covenant breakers]] by the [[Hand of the Cause|Hands]].<ref name="PSmith"/> They reasoned that he lacked a formal appointment from Shoghi Effendi, and that the office was confined to male descendants of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Aghsan]]. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim,<ref name="Smith69">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=69}}</ref> but he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name="PSmith"/> His claim resulted in the largest schism in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, with a few groups still holding the belief that Remey was the successor of Shoghi Effendi. Various dated references show membership at less than a hundred each in two of the surviving groups.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000| pp=271}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Momen|1988|p=g.2}}</ref>

==Early life==
Born in Burlington, Iowa, on [[May 15]] [[1874]], Mason was the eldest son of Rear Admiral George Collier Remey and Mary Josephine Mason Remey, the daughter of Charles Mason, the first Chief Justice of Iowa.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref> Remey’s parents raised him in the Episcopal Church. <ref>Remey, 1960 p. 2</ref> Remey trained as an architect at Cornell University (1893-1896), and the [[École des Beaux-Arts]] in Paris, France (1896-1903) where he first learned of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name = "PSmith" />

==As a Bahá'í==
With a background in architecture, Remey was asked to design the Australian and Ugandan [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] which still stand today and are the mother temples for [[Australasia]] and [[Africa]] respectively. Upon the request of [[Shoghi Effendi]], he also provided designs for a [[Bahá'í House of Worship]] in [[Tehran]], for [[Haifa, Israel|Haifa]], and the Shrine of `Abdu'l-Bahá, however only the Haifa temple was approved before the death of [[Shoghi Effendi]], and none have so far been built.<ref name="PSmith"/>

Remey traveled extensively to promote the Bahá'í Faith during the ministry of [[`Abdu'l-Bahá]]. [[Shoghi Effendi]] recorded that Remey and his Bahá'í companion, Howard Struven, were the first Bahá'ís to circle the globe teaching the religion.<ref name="effendi261">{{harvnb|Effendi|1944|p=261}}</ref>

A prolific writer, Remey wrote numerous published and personal articles promoting the Bahá'í Faith, including ''`Abdu'l-Bahá – The Center of the Covenant'' and the five volume ''A Comprehensive History of the Bahá'í Movement (1927)'', ''The Bahá'í Revelation and Reconstruction'' (1919), ''Constructive Principles of The Bahá'í Movement'' (1917), and ''The Bahá'í Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers'' (1912) are a few of the titles of the many works Remey produced while `Abdu'l-Bahá was still alive. Remey's life was recorded in his diaries, and in 1940 he provided copies and selected writings to several public libraries. Included in most of the collections were the letters `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote to him.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

According to Juliet Thompson's diary, `Abdu'l-Bahá suggested that she marry Remey, and in 1909 asked her how she felt about it, reportedly requesting of her: “Give my greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear to me that I think of you day and night. You are my real son. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass...He told me He loved Mason Remey so much,” Thompson writes, “and He loved me so much that he wished us to marry. That was the meaning of His message to Mason. He said it would be a perfect union and good for the Cause. Then he asked me how I felt about it.” They did not marry, although Thompson anguished over her decision, which she felt would cause ‘Abdu’l-Baha disappointment.<ref>{{harvnb|Thompson|1983|pp=71-76}}</ref> In 1932 he married Gertrude Heim Klemm Mason (1887-1933), who subsequently died a year later.<ref>Summary and details of the collection of Remey's diaries at John Hopkins University Library. [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 6th, 2008</ref>

===Under Shoghi Effendi===
Remey lived for some time in Washington, D.C., in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 Remey moved his residence from Washington, D.C., to Haifa, Israel, at the request of Shoghi Effendi. In January 1951, Shoghi Effendi issued a proclamation announcing the formation of the [[International Bahá'í Council]] (IBC), representing the first international Bahá'í body. The council was intended to be a forerunner to the [[Universal House of Justice]], the supreme ruling body of the Bahá'í Faith.<ref name="PSmith199">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=199}}</ref><ref name="PSmith346">{{harvnb|Smith|1999|p=346}}</ref> Remey was appointed president of the council in March, with Amelia Collins as vice-president,<ref name="PSmith199"/> then in December of 1951 Remey was appointed a [[Hand of the Cause]].<ref name="PSmith"/>

==After Shoghi Effendi==
{{main|Bahá'í divisions}}
When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, Remey and the other Hands of the Cause met in a private Conclave at Bahjí in Haifa, and determined that he hadn't appointed a successor. They decided that the situation of the Guardian having died without being able to appoint a successor was a situation not dealt with in the texts that define the Bahá'í administration, and that it would need to be reviewed and adjudicated upon by the [[Universal House of Justice]], which hadn't been elected yet.<ref name="Stockman200">{{Harvnb|Stockman|2006|p=200}}</ref> Remey signed a unanimous declaration of the Hands that Shoghi Effendi had died "without having appointed his successor".<ref name="PSmith68">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=68}}</ref><ref name="PSmith"/><ref>For the document, see the [http://www.bahai-education.org/materials/essays/proclamation_hands.htm Unanimous Proclamation of the 27 Hands of the Cause of God]</ref>

Three years later, in 1960, Remey made a written announcement that his appointment as president of the international council represented an appointment by Shoghi Effendi as Guardian,<ref name="remey5">{{harvnb|Remey|1960|p=5}}</ref> because the appointed council was a precursor to the elected Universal House of Justice, which has the Guardian as its president.

He also attempted to usurp the control of the Faith which the Hands had themselves assumed at the passing of Shoghi Effendi stating:
<blockquote>It is from and through the Guardianship that infallibility is vested and that the Hands of the Faith receive their orders...I now command the Hands of the Faith to stop all of their preparations for 1963, and furthermore I command all believers both as individual Bahá'ís and as assemblies of Bahá'ís to immediately cease cooperating with and giving support to this fallacious program for 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Remey|1960|pp=6-7}}</ref></blockquote>

He claimed to believe that the Guardianship was an institution intended to endure forever, and that he was the 2nd Guardian by virtue of his appointment to the IBC. Almost the whole Bahá'í world rejected his claim, although he gained the support of a small but widespread group of Bahá'ís.<ref name = "PSmith" /> One of the most notable exceptions to accept his claim was that of the entire French [[National Spiritual Assembly]], led by Joel Marangella, who elected to support Remey, and was consequently disbanded by the Hands. The remaining 26 Hands of the Cause unanimously expelled him from the community.<ref name="deVries265">{{harvnb|de Vries|2002|p=265}}</ref><ref name="Smith69"/> Remey himself declared that being the Guardian gave him the exclusive right to declare who was or wasn't a Covenant-breaker, and that those who opposed him and followed the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers.

===Under the Hereditary Guardianship===
[[Image:Masonandpepe.jpg|thumbnail|Mason Remey and Joseph Pepe]]
Among the Bahá'ís who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian, several further divisions have occurred based on opinions of legitimacy and the proper succession of authority.<ref name="taherzadeh368-371">{{harvnb|Taherzadeh|2000|pp=368-371}}</ref> Most of his long-term followers were Americans, who distinguished themselves as "Bahá'ís Under the Hereditary Guardianship".<ref name="Smith69"/> In his later years Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor, which resulted in further divisions among his followers dividing among several claimants to leadership.<ref name="PSmith"/> When Remey died his followers split into rival factions with each believing in a different Guardian.<ref name="stone271">{{Harvnb|Stone|2000|pp=271}}</ref><ref name="Smith71">{{Harvnb|Smith|2008|p=71}}</ref> Donald Harvey (d.1991), was appointed by Remey as "Third Guardian" in 1967. [[Joel Marangella]] was president of Remey's "Second International Bahá'í Council" claimed in 1969 to have been secretly appointed by Remey as Guardian several years earlier, whose followers are now known as [[Orthodox Bahá'í Faith|Orthodox Bahá'ís]].<ref name="PSmith"/> Another of Remey's followers, [[Leland Jensen]] (d. 1996), who made a several religious claims of his own, formed a sect known as the [[Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant]] following Remey's death;<ref name="PSmith"/> he believed that Remey was the adopted son of Abdu'l-Baha,<ref name="pluralism">{{harvnb|Hyslop|2004}}</ref> and that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the third Guardian.<ref>{{harvnb|stone|2000|p=282}} note 6</ref>

All those that accept Mason Remey as the second Guardian do not accept the [[Universal House of Justice]] established in 1963.<ref name="PSmith"/>

==Death==
On February 4th, 1974, Mason Remey died at the age of 99.<ref>John Hopkins University Library Special Collections. See 'Biographical Note' [http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html]. Retrieved September 7, 2008.</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==

*{{cite book
| title = The Babi Question You Mentioned... The Origins of the Baha'i Community of the Netherlands, 1844-1962
| publisher = Peeters Publishers
| year = 2002
| first = J.
| last = de Vries
| place = Leuven
| isbn = 9042911093
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1944
|title = God Passes By
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|id = ISBN 0877430209
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/
}}

*{{citation
|first = Shoghi
|last = Effendi
|authorlink = Shoghi Effendi
|year = 1971
|title = Messages to the Bahá'í World, 1950-1957
|publisher = Bahá'í Publishing Trust
|place = Wilmette, Illinois, USA
|url = http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/MBW/
}}

*{{citation
|last=Hyslop
|first=Scott
|year=2004
|title=Pluralism Project
|publisher=Harvard University Study of Religion
|url=http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=72374
}}

*{{citation
|last = Momen
|first = Moojan
|year = 1988
|title = The Covenant
|url = http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm#7.%20Covenant-breaker,%20Covenant-breaking
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Remey
|first = Charles Mason
|year = 1960
|title = Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World
|url = http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
|accessdate = 2008-08-10
}}

*{{citation
|last = Smith
|first = P.
|year = 1999
|title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith
|publisher = Oneworld Publications
|place = Oxford, UK
|isbn = 1851681841
}}

*{{cite book | last = Smith | first = Peter | year = 2008 | title = An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0521862515 | location = Cambridge}}

*{{cite book
| title = Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America
| publisher = Greenwood Press
| year = 2006
| editor1-first = Eugene V.
| editor1-last = Gallagher
| editor2-first = W. Michael
| editor2-last = Ashcraft
| first = Robert
| last = Stockman
| chapter = The Baha'is of the United States
| isbn = 0275987124
}}

*{{Citation
| last = Stone
| first = Jon R. (ed)
| year =2000
| title =Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy
| place = New York
| publisher =Routledge
| pages =269–282
| isbn =0-415-92331-x
}}

*{{citation
|last = Taherzadeh
|first = Adib
|year=2000
|title=The Child of the Covenant
|publisher=George Ronald
|place=Oxford, UK
|id=ISBN 0853984395
}}

*{{citation
|last = Thompson
|first = Juliet
|date = 1947
|year = 1983
|title = The Diary of Juliet Thompson
|publisher = Kalimat Press
|place = Los Angeles
|url = http://bahai-library.com/books/thompson/
}}

==External links==
*[http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ Biography of Charles Mason Remy] - by Brent Matthieu
*[http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers&language=All Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him] - published by the Universal House of Justice
{{DEFAULTSORT:Remey, Mason}}
[[Category:1874 births]]
[[Category:1974 deaths]]
[[Category:Bahá'í divisions]]
[[Category:American Bahá'ís]]
[[Category:Hands of the Cause of God]]

[[fa:چارلز میسون ریمی]]

Talk:Mason Remey

2009-03-09T08:52:12Z

General Disarray: /* Current reverts */

{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=
|priority=
|listas=Remey, Mason
}}

{| class="infobox" width="290px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="1"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[Talk:Mason Remey/archive1|Archive 1]] 01/2005-09/2008
|-
|colspan="2"|
----
|}

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

:I'll try to address individual points on the last revert. Refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=235556940 this] version as the version you're proposing.
:1) The line about being introduced by May Bolles was repetition, under "As a Baha'i", first and third paragraphs.
:2) Of all the accolades, choosing the two that use the phrase "son" are unacceptable and original research, trying to casually cherry-pick quotations that imply a literal adoption without explicitly stating it. Besides that, listing `Abdu'l-Baha's praise of an individual is self-serving on any WP article, and fails neutrality. Compare to any other bio on Baha'is, for example [[`Alí-Muhammad Varqá]]. It's short, simple, factual. Whether the accolades are verifiable or reliable is not a major issue.
:3) Remey's reflection on the W&T. Not sure how this is pertinent to a bio.
:4) The issue of hair and blood are referenced from a BUPC website. Completely unacceptable as a source for such a statement. Also, another attempt to throw in the phrase "son".
:5) Remey never addressed the issue... in his written statement declaring himself as Guardian. That is how it's worded, and I added as a reference the statement.
:6) The broken link is fixed.
:7) The websites you added are linkspam. Clear and simple. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You apparently don't get it, but I'm sure we can get on the same page about all this. I didn't "choose" any of the content on this page by "cherry-picking" favorable material, but thanks for the [[WP:AGF]]. I rewrote this page back in '05 based primarily on information found a CMR.net, see? The Hair and Blood, if you would have given it more than a cursory glance and checked the reference (not the photo which is not the ref.), you would have been directed to CMR.net which discusses it at length (almost word for word). So guess what? It stays. Likewise with the SoW content. It's not my research but is pointing to the primary self published source about ITSELF. So guess what. It stays. Likewise reflections on the Will are part of details about his finalt visit to the Holy Land, which also are discussed at length on CMR.net. It's not significant that of several million Baha'is Shoghi Effendi called Remey to the Holy Land to be the first to read the Will, and to give him a token relic? Well guess what? Noone cares what you think about it as it's referenced back to CMR.net almost word for word and as with these others, IT STAYS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=235653609&oldid=235627331 Please elaborate]; how is his proclamation an unreliable source for referencing what he said in his proclamation? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::Look again, it was a duplicate reference. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::Not true. Read [[WP:SELFPUB]] first. If this were Remey's autobiography, then yes it'd be acceptable. As it's not - out it goes.
::::It's sloppy anyway. It's the [[Ecole des Beaux Arts]], not the Ecole des Artes. Even this [[imbecile|engineer]] knows the difference. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on which of the 7 points of [[WP:SELFPUB]] you feel dismiss the bio on CMR.net, and all of a sudden disqualify it as something other than a source about itself. To suggest it's "out" because it's "by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself" is patently absurd. I will not be swayed by these assertions for they are entirely vapid. CMR's biography was written and extensively sourced by someone we all know has been a follower of CMR's for over 30 years which more than qualifies him as an expert on the subject. Moreover the site is entirely devoted to Remey's public statements, his bio, and an archive of SoW articles about him. How preposterous that two days ago you stated "If CMR.net is bona fide, and because there's no genuinely reliable online source for Remey's statemtns, I'm letting it slide — you still can't use it for anything to do with 'Abdul-Baha." Now it's "out". You sure seem to have a high regard for the weight of your personal opinions around here; one day your permission is granted, and the next it is revoked. I feel these statements speak volumes about how have chosen to treat this matter, as do the rest of your comments here show how creative one can get with interpreting policies.

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

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

:Apparently I have to spell the obvious out. Selfpubs can be used only if:
:'''2 "it is not contentious;"''' — Both Cuñado and I question the authenticity of certain sections, particularly the biography.
:'''3 "it is not unduly self-serving;"''' — This is clearly an apologetics site.
:'''4 "it does not involve claims about third parties;"''' — It can't be used to source "accolades" and other such from anyone other than Remey.
:'''6 "there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;"''' — I have no idea who Brent Mathieu is or his credentials to provide this source on the bio. I have a clue who Remey is, and his proclamation certainly rings true.
:'''7 "the article is not based primarily on such sources."''' — There were sections whose sole source was this CMR.net biography.

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

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

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

:We don't have to "compromise" on policy. Either the material meets it or it doesn't. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess all you have to do now is convince an unbiased third party on your creative interpretations of this [[WP:SELFPUB|policy]] and you'll have your way. From where I'm sitting my concerns are valid and being wholly ignored here despite my best efforts to elaborate on them. Two days ago "you'd let it slide", and now it's "out" and you're tagging every other sentence with citations needed? This is improving the article somehow?
*on #2, you've proven yourselves to be contentious against the subject and your considerations are therefore dismissed.
*on #3 this accusation could be leveled against any self published website, and is not a grounds for dismissal as the bio makes efforts to state facts and can't be shown to take "unduly self serving" liberties without references. the objection is meaningless.
*on #4 this issue is not on the table at this time, as I haven't pushed forward with the accolades issue; moot point.
*on #6 it states who authored it; therefore there's no doubts. The policy doesn't say you two have to know him.
*on #7 your concerns about "whole sections" are irrelevant, for this states that "the ARTICLE doesn't rely solely on such sources, which it doesn't; also moot.
As I said your eradicating valid information, and are propagating an edit war over. I object to the notion that CMR.net's bio is "out" and reject your creative justification for doing so. That's all I have to say on this matter. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think the miscommunication here is that CMR.net is by (says to be by) Brent M, not by Mason Remey. It's thus someone with a personal website writing about Remey. It does not qualify for a reliable source about Remey, regardless if it's dedicated to that subject. As far as reliability, it's equivalent to me buying my own web domain and posting my version of Remey's life on it, so in other words not reliable. It goes both ways. We can't smear or exalt Remey through personal websites. If Remey published information about himself, then it would be self published, and even then wouldn't be allowed inclusion if it was contentious or about a third party. As far as I can tell from our conversation Remey only left diaries in certain archives that are not published. Another category is someone else publishing about Remey. Spataro falls into that category and different rules apply for those sources. Brent's site is on the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. The only person who needs to convince other people is the person pushing for inclusion. Feel free to get a third party to review it. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk:Cuñado|Talk]] 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You're right about one thing; there is a miscommuication going on here, but you haven't summarized it with any accuracy. One, the contact link on the site is not to Brent Mathieu showing it's not his site. The site is dedicated to hosting all things Remey, and this bio is one of those things. The objections to the contents of this sight have only been raised now after they have been in the article unassailed for well over 2 years. The objections haven't even been consistent, but change daily. It has only been in the last 12 hours after this discussion has waxed on for over a week that it has come down from on high that it's value in treating details of Remey's life is zero and the whole bio is "out". It is precisely because of it's value from a scholar on the subject that these details found there place in this article for the last 2.5 years. You claim it's the editor wishing for inclusion to provide the source, right? I did provide a valid source for all this in 2005 when I first contributed it. It is merely your assertions now that it all of a sudden is disqualified based on your own conjectures. This was and is a valid source for information about Remey as it's thoroughly sourced, and no one has EVER brought up objections until now. So therefore the burden for inclusion has been met; it is your self-created dilema that is waxing haughty against it with increasingly creative ways to dismiss it. I'm unmoved. Feel free to find someone who is or drop it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:::::Cuñado, Jeff3000, do you think we should pull the site entirely as a personal site, or shall we trust it for the proclamation? [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
From Mason's bio at CMR.net:
"Note on author: Brent Mathieu accepted the Baha’i Faith in December 1973 and recognized Mason Remey as its Guardian. This was prior to Remey’s death in February 1974. Mathieu’s first teachers in the Faith were Leland and Opal Jensen of Missoula, Montana. He corresponded extensively with Joseph Pepe, the adopted son and companion of Remey, from 1975 to1993. He maintains a personal collection of Pepe’s correspondence with Baha’is during that time. Mathieu’s collection includes personal correspondence with Donald A Harvey, Remey’s successor, and Orthodox Baha’is Frank Schlatter and Joel Marangella. It contains other individuals’ correspondence supportive of Remey’s Guardianship. The above biography is based on Mathieu’s memoirs, personal letters, and research of credible histories. More footnotes and references are planned to be added. You can contact the author at [email protected], or Brent Mathieu, 1412 W. Washington, Boise, Idaho 83702."

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

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

::Hear, hear! [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the three of you are the only people that could be convinced that the biography of Charles Mason Remey on charlesmasonremey.net is something other than a verfiable self published source that is perfectly acceptable to use as a source about itself. The point is that the subject of the bio is strictly relegated to the subject of Remey and therefore is entirely appropriate to use reference to itself. It's a creative charade to attempt to negate it because Mason himself is not the owner of the site. As you three have made clear that you deem him a covenant breaker you've perjured yourself to you bias and contempt to the subject. This edit war you have waged against him is against material that has stood since 2005 and will continue to for many years to come. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:I could create a website named charlesmasonremy.com and post anything I wanted about Mason Remey. The name of the website doesn't make it on official website on Mason Remey, and thus it is a personal website. It's run by an individual thus making it a personal website, hosting content that has does not meet any of the criteria of being a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. The fact that it was on the page for many years doesn't mean it is acceptable; there's a boatload of pages on Wikipedia that don't abide by Wikipedia standards, and that the content was there doesn't make it any more acceptable. I'll continue to abide by Wikipedia policy and remove the content. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Are you reduced to ''ad hominem'' again? Would you please argue the facts.
::The argument is simple:
::#CMR.net is a personal website with anonymous owner(s). (Statement of fact.)
::#Therefore, it has no reputation at all, much less as one for reputable fact-checking. (Simple logical step. Anonymous people can have no reputation by definition of "reputation".)
::#It fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. (Simple conclusion as both policies require the author to be known by independent confirmation. Publishing is the standard.)
::That is a line of reasoning that is trivial for you to refute. I'll lay it out for you.
::#Show where the identities of the owner of CMR.net may be found, then
::#Show that that owner is not an indvidual, or
::#Show that, if that owner is an individual, they have a recognized reputation for scholarship. (Homeopaths and high-school teachers aren't historians or biographers).
::All you need are two verifiable factoids and ''poof'' there goes our argument.
::That the material's been poorly sourced since '05 doesn't make a difference. It's up to you to justify this and you haven't presented proof to refute the argument. The material's already gone per policy and will continue for many years to come. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

:Easy. ''Delete'' it — unless its got a [[WP:V]] source. I've swung the delete hammer heavily enough on Baha'i topics around WP, I'm more than happy to see it done here.
:*Brent Matthieu is out - [[WP:Selfpub]], by Matthieu, used as a source on a subject not himself. See above.
:*Diaries are out - Not [[WP:V|published]].
:''SoW'' is out - [[WP:RS|Unreliable]]
:Peter Smith's ''Encyclopedia'' is published and at least lists Harvey, Marangella, King and Jensen, so these people won't be lost entirely, and the article will be streamlined considerably.
::[[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&diff=236169654&oldid=236150224 Sorry] Jeff. Those sections are entirely unreferenced or rely on an unacceptable source.
::If you've got a better source for the biographical data — add it. If you've got ''any'' [[WP:V]] sources on the other "Guardians" add it. I've got a valid 3rd-party source (Smith) as per above and can rewrite those sections combining them into one. But I thought I'd flag them for needed references first in case somebody's got some. I can rewrite it sooner if you'd rather. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Spataro ==

Jeff, how is it that the details of Remey's family history, early life, education, death, and interment are ''all'' on the same page (p. 31) of Spataro's book? [http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qisbn=0967165636 It's] a forty page pamplet and it takes thiry pages to get to his life story and crams all of these details onto one page? It strains credulity that this source is being used appropriately. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Maybe you could squint your eyes and look a little closer. The book is used to reference a wopping total of 3 statements; theres one on page 25, one minor note from page 31 and 31 again which gives elaborate detail to the funeral. It's not used to source his family history or his early life; Remey himself mentioned those on page 2 of his proclamation Which is where ref 5 points to. He's used for note 17 which mentions page 25, and then the details of his funeral are given from Pepe himself on page 31. The first paragraph of page 31 makes reference to him first hearing of the Baha'i faith while in archetecture school in Paris at Ecole de Beaux Arts, so I used that to reference that one sentence in "Early life". See? The book's barely touches on his early life, but focuses on the details of his adult Baha'i life. It's not a biography or I would have been able to put it to greater use here. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::The only thing the proclamation confirms is that he was Epicopalian. So none of his early life has a source. Bad form to elminate a fact tag when your source doesn't address them all. It's still odd that his education and death are treated on the same page in Spataro. If this is true, it must be a strange book. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
His education isn't really "treated" per se. In summarizing the last days of his Baha' life, details from the 1st days are given, as he first heard of it while in school in Paris, that's all. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sourcing problems ==

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

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

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

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

The Pepe Remey section should be struck. He was not a claimant. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:The paragraph about the formation of his NSA is entirely germane and credibly sourced, and yet you haven't provided a reason for it's excision or even mentioned it here. Was this was an error in these overly zealous deletions? It now implies that nothing happened following his proclamation except that two other groups formed. As this article has been culled to a skeleton as it is, it really calls to question the good faith of anyone seeking to further excise credible information when so little of the full story is being portrayed. I object to the extent of these edits as it has removed reliably sourced information. You have to admit, though, that it's rather amusing that the sources which grant inclusion for this information is coming from transcripts of a lawsuit your own NSA maliciously ensnared us all in, and then LOST. LOL. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:::Nope. Sorry. Your "source" is a court filing, not a court opinion. So, it's probably the worst example of WP:SELFPUB as there's no third-party editing at all. And I finally get this subterfuge:
:::*Make specious allegations in a court filing.
:::*Scan the filing and post it on your website.
:::*Refer to the filing as if it were independently corroborated.
:::*Presto-chango: specious allegations become independently corroborated facts.
:::Clever. It probably works for the credulous. Sorry, I'm better informed.
:::The court filing is out as not [[WP:V]], not [[WP:RS]], and effectively [[WP:SELFPUB]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently your understanding of being civil comes with a double-standard clause where you can name call? I was pointing out that without mentioning it you removed an entire paragraph that had a source which was provided by Cunado and never questioned in the past. Removing it effectively removed any pertinent information about what he did with himself and his followers beyond his proclamation. It was the only thing left after your last round of hatcheting this article, and you excised it and yet failed to provide any mention or explanation. If you now all of a sudden have decided to take issue with these types of sources, then why don't you ask your pal to stop providing them. I had NOTHING to do with EVER bringing forward any court documents as sources, so I'll thank you to tone down the accusations of "subterfuge". What an entirely preposterous notion; none of these court documents are hosted on our sites, and I never claimed they were "independently corroborated". What are you even ranting about? It was YOUR NSA that brought the court case forward that has been used as a references here and elsewhere, and then in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE it was Cunado who referenced back to it, but yet you're attacking me and making outlandish allegations about me using it inappropriately. And I'm the only one being jerk, huh? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:I ''explained'' my edits, cited policy, and got my good faith questioned and took a cheap shot for my trouble. Yeah, you were a jerk. It's another word for incivil. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now the martyr? If what you say were true this discussion wouldn't have taken the turns it has. You NEVER explained or even mentioned why you removed the paragraph about the formation of the NSAUHG. You explained about the claimants, but failed to mention why a sourced paragraph was included. Now I understand your positions, but you didn't state it at the outset, so please spare us all this victim routine. Yes you had "generally left this article alone", until earlier this summer when you and your crew waged a 30 day edit war which effectively had reduced this biography to rubble. Now you're apparently still not done gutting it's content. The only actual victim of these circumstances around here is this article, and it has you to thank for destroying it. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:It's current state is a ''vast'' improvement over the POV-pushing state it was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Remey&oldid=229938463 before]. Horribly [[WP:SOURCES|sourced]]. None of them [[tertiary sources]]. Worse references. Sorry if that trips across your [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
These objections about the NSA's Chicago case are entirely inane, and removing content from this article based on this faulty reasoning is out of order. Since these circumstances are not clearly defined by the WP:V policy, and instances of court documents are not clearly established on what is and isn't acceptable, we find ourselves again at the mercy of your interpretations. You have launched this assault on this and other pages removing content based on this charade about the court docs being a primary source, when in fact it clearly states at the outset of that document that the items found in BOLD text are not objected to by any parties in the case, and so are therefore considered undisputed facts as they are uncontested. To wit, it states just before point #1: "Facts set forth in bold-face type are agreed by all parties." They are facts laid out in both sides recounting of events. Furthermore the details lifted from the Findings of Facts document that are being used here are simply series of events, and not statements about beliefs or hearsay. Please examine the document and see for yourself that the points in BOLD are uncontested FACTS. So this assault against its use here is entirely inane, and absolutely afoul of logic and reason. I am therefore restoring this entirely appropriate verifiable source. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

::You know the process here. One editor makes an argument. Others who disagree make counter arguments. I've made mine, and am still waiting for you to stop name-calling, presuming bad faith, and actually make an argument based on policy.
::This is easy. I've asserted that court filings are not [[WP:V]] because they aren't published by reliable third parties. They aren't [[WP:RS]] because, by definition, these are biased by the POV of their respective authors. Please disprove both points and stop the [[WP:TEND]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You're accusing me of having an axe to grind here for trying to keep undisputed facts about the group that followed Mason from being censured from this page? That's really the position you want to take when you've spent the better part of '08 blotting out as many details from this article as you could get away with? Now you're blotting out something as simple as the details of the formation of his council from his bio, and I've got the axe to grind for trying to defend this material? You're a real piece of work.

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

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

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

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

== RFC: Questionable Sources ==

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

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

'''Object''' Self published, not relibale. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_cyclists_at_the_2009_Tour_Down_Under|click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!]]'') 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::YellowMonkey, it's noted in the summary that it's self-published, so by definition not reliable. The question posed was that automatically disqualify using material like this, or do the exceptions granted in [[WP:QS]] allow for this type of material? [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

==Spataro's book as a source==
[http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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":
#Spataro’s account of Remey’s life borders on adoration.
#For three years he researched the life of Remey
#He gives an economical but clear history of the Faith up to the time of his writing, 1987.
#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.
#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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol6/waless/bib.htm] [http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/index/diglib/articles.htm] [http://www.worldlanguageprocess.org/essays/blang/blang3.htm] [http://ahang.rabbani.googlepages.com/Witnesses_3_Bibliography.pdf]. 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Dream Focus|Dream Focus]] ([[User talk:Dream Focus|talk]]) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, the text is not a [[WP:RS]].
# As a high-school teacher moonlighting as an historian, he has no standing.
# He’s clearly biased by his own admission as well as the review.
# 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.
# 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". [[WP:SELF|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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?[[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:General Disarray|'''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 [http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_charlesmasonrameyandbahai.htm 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 [http://icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_aff_history.htm 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. [[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 22:36, 17 February 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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:For clarity's sake, the concensus I'm refering to includes the following statement:
:#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)
:#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)
:#Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is, but perhaps wise to accede that they are going to be if not "self serving" exactly then not overly critical.As the article does not rely solely on this material I think it's use can be justified. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:#Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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? [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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:
::#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"
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 …" <nowiki>[</nowiki>Emphasis is Wikipedia's<nowiki>]</nowiki>. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Cuñado|'''Cuñado''']] ☼ - [[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Just to reinforce why the policy is what it is. Would you allow [http://www.charlesmasonremey.com/ 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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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 [[ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"Articles about themselves"|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.
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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. [[User:Jennifer Michaud|Jennifer Michaud]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy would change. Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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)
[[User:General Disarray|'''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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
While Jeff300000 has quoted Blueboar correctly from [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Help clarifying SPS|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 [[User:General Disarray|'''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 …" <nowiki>[Empasis is Wikipedia's]</nowiki>

: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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::And, methinks you are misrepresenting the discussion on [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_clarifying_SPS|V#SPS]]. Blueboar's [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/A-F#B|not an admin]], and nobody else participated in the discussion. And, by the way, [[WP:Admin|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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Botox for bunnies|Botox for bunnies]] ([[User talk:Botox for bunnies|talk]]) 17:20, 1 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. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk:MARussellPESE|talk]]) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

==Current reverts==
The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:
#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.
#The word "confused" in the sentence "Remey made confused and contradictory appointments for a successor". This is straight from the source.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:#Then only the 2ndary are needed, like I said.
:#Whatever.
:#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.
:#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.
:#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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Disarray, you're presuming bad faith here. Consider yourself warned. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:General Disarray|'''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.) [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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.
::#[[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.
::#You removed wording that is right from the source.
::#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.
::#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.
::#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, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk: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]] [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Mason+Remey 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]]. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] ([[User talk: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, and to attribute bad faith to my intentions here is truly the pot calling the kettle black. The content has been supported by the RFC, and upheld by the discussions here and on WP:V, yet they both remain unyielding and continue edit warring over it.

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. [[User:General Disarray|'''Disarray'''General]] 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)