Talk:Mason Remey

Archives
Archive 1 01/2005-09/2008

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 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 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. _Disarray^General 09:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to address individual points on the last revert. Refer to 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. 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. _Disarray^General 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but even if CMR.net were to 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. 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. _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 sixteentablets 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. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate; how is his proclamation an unreliable source for referencing what he said in his proclamation? _Disarray^General 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Look again, it was a duplicate reference. 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. 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. 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. _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 engineer knows the difference. 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. _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. 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 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. _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. 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. _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, -- 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? 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 bmathieu@spro.net, 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? _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, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! 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. _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 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, -- 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:

1. CMR.net is a personal website with anonymous owner(s). (Statement of fact.)
2. 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".)
3. 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.

1. Show where the identities of the owner of CMR.net may be found, then
2. Show that that owner is not an indvidual, or
3. 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. 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? _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 published.

SoW is out - 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.

MARussellPESE (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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. 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? 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. 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. _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. 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. _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. 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. _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. 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. 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. 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? _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. 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. _Disarray^General 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's current state is a vast improvement over the POV-pushing state it was in before. Horribly sourced. None of them tertiary sources. Worse references. Sorry if that trips across your WP:TEND. 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. _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. 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. 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. _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 … 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. 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 "questionable sources". The arguments against any such use of the biography are outlined 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. _Disarray^General 18:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT At 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. 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)

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? _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. --^StormRider 01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Spataro's book as a source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

perhaps each reference should be discussed separately?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Stating what some of his supports believed on that issue, by referencing someone his supports consider a notable writer of him, I believe is relevant to the article. Dream Focus (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Under SPS it should be permissible to use the book, provided that the reader is alerted to the fact that the information comes from one of Remey's devotees. Botox for bunnies (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is, but perhaps wise to accede that they are going to be if not "self serving" exactly then not overly critical.As the article does not rely solely on this material I think it's use can be justified. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Object Self published, not relibale. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
5. If there are limited, quality references editors need to be more circumspect in how references are used. If necessary qualify the source so that readers understand and can made their own judgment regarding reliability. --StormRider 01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting after the RFC closes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More revert warring after the RFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insight from WP:V's discussion page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Distinctly contradictory appointments"?

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

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

Current reverts

The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:

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

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

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

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

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