Talk:Baháʼís Under the Provisions of the Covenant/Archive 2

Missoulian Article

Rather than getting into back-and-forth reverts, I thought this issue would best be addressed here.

My last edits were removed due to "statements verified in Missoulian article meeting Verifiabilaty policy". I want to point out that the only Missoulian article cited in the References section was written by the only member of the sIBC who sided with Neal Chase at the time of his proclamation, Victor Woods. Although the source--the Missoulian--is verifiable, by using Woods' article to back-up the case for Chase being President of the sIBC and the adopted son of Pepe demonstrates clear bias and therefore should not be considered a credible source to support Chase's case.

If there is another Missoulian article that Jeffmichaud is referring to, then that article should be included in the References section as well. Davecornell 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the article cited in References does not justify the reverts. The significant part of that article reads:

“For more than a decade the guardian of the Baha'i Faith and great grandson of Abdu'l-Baha, Neal Chase ben Joseph Aghsan,...”

The article says nothing about Chase being President of the sIBC. Also the article says nothing about Chase being adopted by Pepe. Therefore to say the revert is justified due to “statements verified in Missoulian article” is simply not true. I ask to see more verifiable evidence, otherwise most of my edits should stand. Davecornell 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I found it! All articles must come from a "Neutral Point of View" NPOV. Therefore the Missoulian article written by Victor Woods does not qualify as a reliable source. Therefore his article should be deleted from this page and from all other Neal Chase oriented pages. It also means my edits should stand. Davecornell 01:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

~Before contributing to Wikipedia, one should familiarize themselves with the policies for content, before vandalizing them. Every statement in all the articles I've created have been combed over by the policy police around here, and these recent "contributions" by Dave Cornell are out of order, amount to vandalism, and will not stand. Everything in these articles meet the pillars of policy for verifiability and sourcing, and NPOV. Dave Cornell obviously hasn't read the policy on NPOV, nor does he understand what it means, and his vandalism is a clear violation of all three POLICIES! Please see this POLICY for more on the matter.

Furthermore, since Dave Cornell removed himself from the BUPC 7 years ago by a unamimous vote of the sIBC for violating the Covenant and attempting to claim the Guardianship as his own, his insignificant knowledge of the BUPC, Neal Chase, and Dr. Jensen stem from his own personal research, and therefore his contributions violate the original research POLICY, so anything he feels should be included will, in fact, remain excluded. Jeff March 15, 2006

On the Verifiability page there is a link to NPOV. On that page it says:

A vital component: good research

Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.

The reason the "policy police" may not have picked up the NPOV violaton is that they did not know that Victor Woods, the author of the Missoulian article you are using as proof for Chase's guardianship, presidency and adoption, is an appointed member of the sIBC who supports Chase. This makes him a biased source.

I would like you to address the issue of using Victor Woods as a qualified source to meet the NPOV guidelines.Davecornell 05:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And, Jeff, you're not going to intimidate me with your attitude. You don't run Wikipedia. If you are unwilling to give a balanced, fair representation of Dr. Jensen, the BUPC and sIBC, there are those here who will support me.Davecornell 05:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that in the last 5 minutes Dave Cornell has deepened on the policies which govern this domain. This is not a message board, and the rules of a chatroom / message board don't apply. I'll repeat, when contributing to Wikipedia, one should familiarize themselves with the policies for content, before vandalizing them. Everything in these articles meet the pillars of policy for verifiability and sourcing, and NPOV. Dave Cornell, you obviously haven't read the policy on NPOV, and you obviously don't understand what it means. Your vandalism is a clear violation of all three POLICIES! Please see this POLICY on "Verifiability, not truth" to understand more on the specific ways you're confused. One cannot go around tearing down every belief touting the NPOV policy. Beliefs are POV in nature. I'll give you a hint: the other policies all work in conjuction with each other, and verifiability not truth" is the key here. These things are verifiable whether you like them or not, so tough. And BTW, the secret to NPOV is in how you word it, not that everthing should be homogonized. In your fantasy Wikipedia world, any belief could be discarded for not remaining neutral.

Furthermore, lelandjensen.net cannot be used as a source for information as it's a self published source, and not acceptable for a reliable source for info on the BUPC, Doc, or Neal. Whereas what's already in these articles is from reliable sources, for the information comes from BUPC self-published primary sources about the BUPC (i.e. BUPC books and websites), and are backed up with secondary reliable sources from neutral publications (i.e. newpaper / magazine articles, etc.). Whereas lelandjensen.net is not a "source about itself" (like bupc.org is source about itself), but rather a self-published website (an unacceptable source) with information about other subjects: Neal, Doc, Pepe (a double no-no for sources). Therefore lelandjensen.net is not a reliable source for information about the BUPC, Doc, or Neal, and cannot be cited from, quoted from, etc. in articles about them.

Where did you get all of those private letters on your website from anyways? Where those among the cases of archives you feloniously stole from the International Center when you were unanimously ex-communicated by your peers? Did you ever get permission from any of those people to publically reproduce those personal letters that never belonged to you, but were archived possessions of the community? BTW, the Guardian wanted you to know that you're always welcome back into the community if you ever come to your senses, and give up this fantasy that you're the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. Given that only you alone has ever believed this is curious, but what's really curious is what your sudden interest is to appear wherever I happen to be on the web. You chickened out of "proclaiming" yourself on heartofthebahaifaith. Are you here to make this momentous proclamation, finally? You should have done it on HBF. At least there you had an audience. Here's just a bunch of sans-guardians that despise all this stuff; so thanks for giving them more reasons to hate Doc and what he accomplished. Keep up the good work. Jeff 01:41 March 16, 2006

I think I understand the “Verifiability, not truth” standard you’ve applied to your pages. And I’m beginning to see how the Missoulian article, even though written by Neal’s Vice-President Victor Woods, is considered NPOV because it comes from the Missoulian but I’m not completely convinced. What I gather from “reliable source” in the “Verifiability, not truth” section is that you as the editor are obligated to provide qualified source material to support what you say. If you state something as a fact, you have to support it. If I got that wrong, I’m sure you’ll let me know.

As far as the edit changes I made, they were all related to wording that was put forth as fact without supporting sources. Specifically, when I questioned the statement, “After the death of Jensen in 1996 the leadership of the BUPC passed to the sIBC with Neal Chase as its President...” I initially objected that this was a POV statement. You reverted, saying “vandalism>statements verified in Missoulian article meeting Verifiability policy”. However none of the Missoulian articles you reference say that Chase became President in 1996. No where do I see this cited in any of your References. From my understanding of policy, you as the editor are required to provide verifiable source material for this kind of a statement. That’s why I deleted it. Now, if I missed the source I’m sure you’ll correct me. However if there is no source for this statement, I wouldn’t object to something like “In 1996 Chase believed he was the President...” or some such wording. But to state it as if it was a generally held belief that Chase was the President of the sIBC can be proved as patently false via the minutes of the meetings.

I also don’t understand how you can quote from a specific letter from Pepe, such as the October 5, 1992 Open Letter to Neal Chase which is where the “My Dear Boy” quote comes from, but when I try to quote from the exact same letter, you overrule it saying I’m using an unacceptable source. I realize that lelandjensen.net represents a self-published source so I would be willing to drop the link to it. But if you are going to quote from that October 5th letter, don’t I have a right to quote from it as well? I would be willing not to add any commentary to it, just a general wording introduction that we both could agree on. It would fit perfectly in the “Disputes and criticisms” section here. What do you think?

I also agree this is not a message board or chat room and therefore this is not the place for discussing personal issues. So I don’t see how your accusations and insults are relevant to address.Davecornell 00:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. That poor Dave is being abused by the mean old BUPC members again. If only they'd give poor Dave a break. Oh please. You're just a good faith editor with concerns for the truth? Okay. Let's extend you that generous assumption. But first, let's get the facts straight because you seem to be suffering from short term memory loss.

1. I didn't touch your edits that changed the wording from "with Neal Chase as president" to "his 12 apostles" at first on the 14th. That was fine. The proof is that your edits to the SIBC page are still on top. It's niether here nor there so long as you don't go deleting the sentiment entirely that we believe he's the Guardian and the president of the SIBC. We believe he was the Guardian when Pepe passed in '94, so the statement is true to our beliefs, and this BELIEF of ours is verified so you have no business deleting it all over the place. Then, the next day you aggressively attacked BUPC, Doc's, and Neal's pages thinking you were the NPOV police; all completely inappropriate amounting to vandalism. Nothing you changed was POV (for you obviously don't understand the policy), and it's all verified. And, you have the nerve to delete a source from the reference section? You skimmed through the NPOV policy, missing it's obvious important sentiments, and then charged off into these articles deleting sources and content. Yeah, I can see your "good faith" shining through these actions.
2. Look, it's not my job to tutor you through your ignorance. Every edit you made on the 15th amounts to vandalism, and I challenge you to justify any of them; which is your burden as the contributor. I sourced all my contributions, and you have no right removing any reliable source from any reference section. Futhermore, I don't have to justify anything in the articles beyond providing the references. Our websites (primary), books (secondary), and articles surmise the whole of the contributions. You've got your panties in a twist about the Missoulian article by Victor, which is just one reference. It happens to be one that verifies our belief that Neal is the Guardian and son of Pepe (inherently implied in statement that he's the great-grandson of Abdu'l-baha), which is what I was reverting in my edits after your March 15th rampage through these articles. I hadn't touched anything from the 14th up until then, for those edits were inane.
3. I haven't "applied Verifiability not truth" to these pages; it's a policy that defends their content. All policies are applied to all content, and when used correctly the pages can stand on their own merits; safe from vandalism like you're attempting to do.
4. Are you refering to the "sIBC minutes" that you STOLE from the Center along with all the other archives before fleeing the state as a wanted man? How do you plan on using such documents as a reliable source?
5. Memory refresher #2 - you didn't just quote from the Oct. 5th letter as you are now decievingly alleging. You're attempting to counter Neal's claims by quoting from half a dozen letters. Your deceitful innocent lamb techniques are pathethic. You're a wolf in sheeps clothes. Our beliefs are not subject to debate here. What you're doing actually violates NPOV. You have your own website for that which you can and do blog daily. This is not the forum to propagate your deranged version of reality. Furthermore, everyones opinions of our beliefs can stand at bay and stand down, for they are not subject to other peoples POV on truth. Verifiability, not truth, remember. It protects our beliefs from the likes of violators like you with an axe to grind.
6. As far as lelandjensen.net goes, you'd "be willing to drop the link to it"? You don't have a choice in the matter. It's not a reliable source. Period. Find a reliable source, then we have something to discuss. Otherwise, it's not a debateable issue.
7. As far as your "Disputes and critism" concerns, they are also a non issue, for what you are proposing is adding what amounts to your own original research, and is outside of acceptable contributions. The letters in the article are simply reinforcing the stated beliefs, and are linked to bupc.org as there source for these beliefs (a source about itself). Your orginal research on the subject doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. That's what your untrafficed and wholly ignored website is for.
8. Let me sum it up for you. You have brought nothing forward that has a reliable source - It's all just YOUR OPINION then, isn't it? You haven't scarcely "contributed" anything so far. You've removed items based on your opinion, and haven't actually contributed anything from any reliable sources. In your first statement in this discussion you mentioned us "making a case for Chase". This is where you're ignorance shines bright. This isn't a chat room, and we're not making a case for anyone. You're looking at his BIOGRAPHY as if it's a case for his claims. You're approaching this article in the same way; as if it's a case for our beliefs. Neither are at all. The Bios content guidelines are met to the letter, and when examined the wording in neutral. It's the wording like "claims to be", and "believes" that you've obviously overlooked. These are not "cases" which are debateable, and your POV on our beliefs is irrelevent, Mr. Rabblerouser. You want us to "work together"? Then bring something to work with; otherwise slink back into the fray that you crawled out of. Jeff 01:30 March 17 2006

I reverted the "After the death of Jensen in 1996 the leadership of the BUPC passed to the sIBC with Neal Chase as its President...” back to "and Jensen's twelve apostles." As far as your concern that this is vandalism, that simply is not true. You have stated throughout the article your belief that Chase is the Guardian which you are entitled to. But you have no reliable source indicating Chase was President following Dr. Jensen's death in 1996 therefore it doesn't belong. It represents YOUR OPINIONDavecornell 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay then; you really got me on that one. Didn't I already concede to that point? It's inane, remember. It was there because we believe he was Guardian and President in 94. If you were around during the word-smithing of this article, you'd know that there was back and forth on many of these things, and that in the interest of brevity some things were not elaborated upon, like this one. The sentence is a bridge between Doc's passing and the present day, without a dissertation on the details. But, like I said before, WHATEVER! You made this change on the 14th and I left it alone, remember? The vandalism, which I clearly explained above, was your rampage through the articles on the 15th, removing all reference to us BELIEVING Neal is the Guardian, him being President of the IBC in the intro, etc. Jeff 11:31 March 17 2006

Neutrality

Davecornell, your views on the idea of neutrality concerns me for several reasons. What defines a person as a member of the Baha’is Under the Provisions of the Covenant, at this time today, is there acceptance of the person of Neal Chase, the current guardian.

This is defined explicitly as the CRITERIA of belief set forth by Doc himself and as stated in the 7 Churches. In that article he explains the fundamental BUPC belief, that the people’s relationship to the institution of the guardianship - the acceptance of the person of the living guardian as the guardian and president of the IBC/UHJ - is what defines their position in relation to being BUPC or not, that is under the Covenant or not.

SYNOPSIS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION

“Only one of the 7 churches adheres to the true Guardian and Institution of Guardianship and every clause of the Will and Testament. The Institution of Guardianship, now restricted to the presidency of the UHJ, remains the "Sign of God" on earth, meaning that whatever Baha'i administration has this sign from God, the guardian, at its head, that is the true Baha'i administration, and any other is false. The other six have broken off from the guardianship in various degrees and their status is determined according to their theology about the Institution of Guardianship and their adherence to the true Guardianship.” (http://www.entrybytroops.org/seven-churches.html)

This is a verifiable fact of belief of the BUPC which meets Wikipedia standards and criteria. For example, the members of “Baha’i World Faith” in Haifa are that group of people who rejects Mason Remey, and accepts the “Hands if the Cause” and current sans-guardian “UHJ” in Haifa, that is UHJ with no person being the living Guardian. That is a verifiable fact.

Those that accepts Mason are listed under Baha'i divisions groups. As the BUPC accepts Mason they are in that category of those that accepts the continuation of the guardianship in Mason. After this we see more divisions, into what the BUPCC define as the further Churches. This is explicit BUPC belief.

Uniquely the BUPC are those who accept not just Dr. Jensen, but Dr. Jensen as the teacher, and Mason then Pepe and then Neal as the Guardian. This is the definition of BUPC as the criteria.

As the dissidents in 1991 do not accept Pepe they are not BUPC but “former BUPC” as they changed their minds and no longer hold BUPC belief; and as you don’t accept Pepe you are not BUPC, but “former Bupc” as these beliefs of the 1991 dissidents, and your own personal view, do not reflect the views of the BUPC who are a group defined by acceptance of Mason, Pepe and Neal - the Guardians.

Those that reject Neal currently, though claiming to accept Dr. Lee, Mason and Pepe, actually have no one at all that they accept to be the guardian after Pepe! Therefore, at best by the same criteria in the 7 Churches they are also former BUPC, and at the most, as the last “guardian” they accept is Pepe, according the explicit criteria of the seven churches they could be called “sans-guardian Pepites” the SGP.

The fundamental BUPC belief as stated by Dr. Jensen is that the way to recognize the true UHJ of Baha’u’llah from fakes frauds and imitations is that it is the one with the living guardian as its president. The Will and Testament is the final document for the settlement of all Baha’i dispute, and secular court cases are irrelevant to BUPC belief. BUPC is not an empty NAME but means what it says: that they are 1) Baha’is) and 2) that have remained Under the provisions of the Covenant. If it wasn’t for the majority that came out from under the provisions of the Will and Testament in “The Great Violation of 1960” and rejected Mason as the son of ‘Abdu’l-Baha and first president of the UHJ, they wouldn’t have to make that distinction; but given the climate they do, to make it clear.

“Reflections such as these should steel the resolve of the entire Bahá'í community, should dissipate their forebodings, and arouse them to REDEDICATE themselves to every single provision of that Divine Charter [The Will and testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha] whose outline has been delineated for them by the pen of 'Abdu'l-Bahá." (Shoghi Effendi, Advent of Divine Justice, p. 72 ).

Therefore, only those that accept Neal who is alive at this time are BUPC, and these others are most definitely further Baha’is divisions under BUPC dissident’s category, as they do not accept the mainstream BUPC belief of Neal being the current guardian, and therefore the living sign of recognizing the true IBC/UHJ for the BUPC.

The BUPC acknowledge three dissident movements. 1) The Dissident of 1991 led by the first appointed vice-president. The Y2K upheaval in which the second vice-president removed himself, and 3) the 9-11 violation of the “sans-guardian Pepites” led by the former treasurer.

It doesn’t matter to me, if you want to use wikipedia as a soap box for what the belief systems of these others BUPC dissident divisions including you own lonesome self are. Like the main Baha’i page, however, it is NOT “more neutral” or helpful to erase the main belief from its main pages, but in fact so doing is prejudicial and bias. Before you came on the scene here we had already included the BUPC dissent section. Go ahead and expand on that if you wish. You can write tomes on what “Dave” believes, and I won’t question that fact that you believe it if you say you do. But it don’t make it true and frankly as I have said wikipedia doesn’t care about that, only that it is the belief and that is documentalable, with sources, and here we have verifiable source for BUPC mainstream belief. In fact in total including the mob and 1991 and yourself, and the treasurer and other possible “sans-Guardian Pepites” potentially out there, you are talking about potentially less then 20 or 30 people. And those people, including your self, have no center, no living guardian and no activity.

I did not become a wikipedia editor to compete with the beliefs of the mainstream majority that at this time follows Ruhiyyah Khanum and the Hand's “UHJ” that has no guardian. I came on here to fairly present the mainstream BUPC view.

Of course the BUPC have dissidents, because the continual line of succession and flow of divine authority has always been the seat of activity and surrounded by active and violent dissident behavior. This is true since the days when the Shaykis persecuted the Bab, and the Babis persecuted Baha’u’llah, and the “Baha’is” persecuted ‘Abdu’l-Baha (see Master’s Last Tablet to America for more). All the Central figures could do is announce that those attacking them and persecuting them were in violation of the Covenant, and the people were then free to abide by the line of succession or not. The violators inflicted the greatest harm upon the Cause, but it only served to project it. This discussion only further projects the truth that Neal is the Guardian and the BUPC are defined as those who accept him as the president of THEIR IBC/UHJ which is the True One according to the Will and Testament, that is according the BUPC documentable belief.

The fact is that Pepe passed on April 11, 1994, and at that very moment his son, the great grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Baha became the president and guardian of the sIBC which is an undisputable Fact. Members that rejects Pepe or his successor Neal, removed themselves from the Council membership and the faith according to BUPC belief. This is not to cast aspersions on them, but to state that the BUPC believe that at the moment of rejecting the person of the living Guardian a person has removed themselves from the Council (UHJ) and the Faith and is no longer a member of the BUPC. Now you can go out and create your own “church” as this is America, and first amendment, and I’m all for that freedom. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. The moment those who were formerly BUPC rejects Pepe or Neal they are no longer BUPC, but are in the BUPC dissident category which is defined by Dr. Jensen as the “church of Sardis”. In fact the BUPC are the only group that has such explicit definitions, and the only group that teaches in their firesides the 7 Divisions as the 7 Churches prophesied in the Book of Revelation. They do not hide it, but proclaim it! I didn’t make my final decisions until after I knew of these 7, and then I chose the one “with the Key of King David” – Aghsan – which you are not.

It is not wrong in this discussion to state that you wish yourself to be the guardian, and that is your motive for vandalizing all the pages as you have in the name and game of “neutral”. It’s too bad you choose what you have, but you can change again, you know? But you have one fatal flaw. You know what that is?

If these pages do not reflect mainstream BUPC belief which includes the acceptance of Neal, then there is no way to state the disident views of those that do not accept this, but were formerly BUPC. The same is true with the main Baha’i page. How could we explain the difference between accepting or rejecting Mason if we did as you propose as “neutralized” the main Baha’i page that gives the Haifan sans guardian UHJ position of belief. Our belief and acceptance in Mason is just that DIFFERENT in that we do not accept the Hands headless “UHJ”. The Bupc are UNIQUE as they only accept an aghsan in Mason and Pepe and Neal.

A further BUPC core belief is the idea of Test – that is those will be tested on their acceptance or rejection of the next guardian, and further that these guardiand try to out do one another in the manner and style in which they adopted and or appoint their successor. Those that rejects them are no longer part of the International Community of the Covenant (the BUPC) and those that accepts the next one are. This is a core and verifiable BUPC belief.

Like the OLD main sans-guardian group, the NEW “sans-guardian Pepites” do not accept Neal as aghsan any more than the Hand’s followers accept Mason as AGHSAN – with only one difference; the majority accepts Neal while the minority - at least for now - accepted Mason. However numbers do not matter, for again it is the BUPC belief that the Will and Testament settles the final issue and therefore we must accept Pepe's son, aghsan and successor, and Doc proclaimed that was Neal. Furthermore Neal has the legal papers from Pepe to document it, and as Pepe signed those documents it makes them legal documents in any country of the world. It doesn’t matter that dissident beliefs reject this, for that is the whole point of dissident beliefs, they are created and ALLOWED BY GOD to reject the main view and belief as a contrast to the TRUTH, which as Baha’u’llah says must come first before the morn of the light of divine guidance can shine forth. But the defining BUPC belief is the acceptance of BOTH Mason and Neal who were adopted and appointed in the same manner and style by both ‘Abdu’l-Baha (in Mason’s case) and Pepe in Neal’s Case.

You and the Pepites don’t accept this main BUPC belief – Fine. But “neutralizing” all BUPC pages is not the wiki standard, especially with NO documentation and no sources and personal research only.

You want to grandstand – create a Dave Cornell page. Put your picture on it and give your views. For all that is yours alone and NOT BUPC belief. For the BUPC are DEFINED as those that accepts the line of Guardians - Mason and Pepe and Neal. That is a documental fact which is verified.

A person that says they accept Baha’u’llah but reject Abdu’l-Baha is not a Baha’is. In fact the followers of Muhammad-Ali called themselves “Unitarians” or something like that. Those that accepted Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha but not Shoghi Effendi called themselves “Free Baha’is”.

By definition of stated and verifiable beliefs it is impossible to claim to be a BUPC “Baha’i Under the Provisions of the Covenant” and yet be sans-guardian (not under the Covenant) and not in acceptance of the living guardian at all (or, as in your case unless you changed your mind) be in rejection of Pepe and or Neal.

The mainstream BUPC are those that accepts Neal. That is the point of the guardian as the sign to recognize the true Council of the true IBC/UHJ and the group identity of who the Baha’is under the provisions of the Covenant are that accepts all this. At least for the purpose of wikipedia that is the BUPC documented and verifiable belief. It also happens to be the TRUTH, but wikipedia isn’t interested in that point. But I AM.

FACT not POV: As Pepe passed on April 11, 1994, that is the precise date that Neal became the next president. I asked the IBC/UHJ for a copy of their published minutes and I find that Neal’s Name appears on the very top of the list of officers and of rank above that of the Vice-president in the slot reserved for that of the president for the years 1994 through 1996 and to the present.

Therefore, I am glad you have made and issue of this point, and I am THERFORE amending the page back to its original form with the further detailed editions raised by you that Pepe passed on on April 11, 1994 which is the exact day that the BUPC accept Neal Chase became the president of the IBC and that this IBC with Neal Chase as its president succeeded Dr. Jensen upon his passing, as the scepter then passed to Neal Chase as the executive branch.

The integrity of the main BUPC pages is not subject to your vandalism in the name of “neutralizing” them. Do what I did and create a whole new page called BUPC dissident views, or “Dave’s world” and document those views to their most current. That is the proper wiki thing to do. Jeff 09:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What may talk pages be used for?:

Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia. (For an alternative forum, see the m:Wikibate proposal.) Arguing as a means of improving an article is considerably less effective than an equal amount of time engaged in research. Davecornell

NPOV and the "Leadership" section

There may still be implied bias that needs to be addressed in the Leadership section. I would appreciate other’s feedback.

[Fairness and sympathetic tone]

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views.

The part that doesn’t meet the above, in my opinion, is the “Leadership” section, “Neal Chase” and “Pepe’s Plan” are listed there, each showing equal weighted subheadings. A new section begins after that titled “SIBC v. Neal Chase”. Because the latter heading is not under the “Leadership” heading, it gives the impression that Neal Chase and his interpretation of Pepe’s Plan represents the Leadership of the BUPC while the “SIBC v. Neal Chase” section, being separate, suggests they are not part of the BUPC leadership. But this view is incorrect based on the different viewpoints presented in the court documents.

1) I would like to see the “SIBC v. Neal Chase” headinig moved up to the bottom of the “Leadership” section.

2) And since “Pepe’s Plan” is part of Neal’s view, I would like to see the “Pepe’s Plan” heading be reduced in size so it appears as a subheading of “Neal Chase”.

Also related to NPOV: Is portraying one side’s view as a “claim” and the other side’s view as an “allegation” accurate? Is this subtley biased or a statement of fact?

Feedback? Thanks. Davecornell 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The organization of the Leadership section still does not reflect the "Fairness and sympathetic tone" as described above. Rather than listing the two verified viewpoints as two separate groups with a neutral presentation of what they each believe, Jeff mixes in his viewpoint with the "majority sIBC" viewpoint.

For instance, Neal Chase has his own listing with his own viewpoint that's described in a neutral way with nothing contradicting it. That's fine.

The "majority sIBC" group is listed as "SIBC v. Neal Chase" which is not a description of the other group and does not distinguish their viewpoint from Neal's. It should be something like "Majority of sIBC" or "Remaining Members of sIBC" which are both more neutral descriptions and characterizes the the other group more fairly.

In addition, within the "SIBC v Neal Chase" paragraph that's supposed to be describing the majority viewpoint as it pertains to leadership, every time a view of the majority members is given, Jeff counters with a viewpoint from Neal's perspective. This is the definition of "refuting opposing viewpoints as one goes along".

This paragraph is more a descrition of the trial and the differing positions which is fine. But it's not a description of the majority group as it pertains to the "Leadership" section. This is why they need their own listing that's separate from Neal's so that their viewpoint is presented in a neutral way without the opposing viewpoint mixed in.

It has been verified that there is a separate group from Neal's group. By definition of NPOV policy their viewpoint MUST be presented fairly and separately as it pertains to BUPC leadership. This is not optional. Just as verifiability is mandatory, so is Neutral Point of View and it requires their viewpoint be given.

I would like to see "SIBC v Neal Chase" moved back to its own section and a new heading be created for the sIBC majority viewpoint. Davecornell 18:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In good faith I flagged this article as having disputed NPOV because of the ongoing discussion and cross-edits here. This is not an attempt at vandalism.

Davecornell's approach indeed seems appropriate. The section, at the very least, should be detangled with each side presenting its viewpoint separately in a sub-section. The courts' opinion and findings of fact must be presented in an introduction and acknowledged by both sides. However, both sides' briefs must be presented as their respective side's position and not a finding of fact.

The detangling is probably best addressed by the two of you each editing your own section at first.

It needs to be clearly identified that Victor Woods was the only SIBC member to side with Chase. (Chase's brief doesn't seem to contest this point.) His "articles", really all of the Missoulan articles, are troubling as they are notably biased and are more op-ed pieces than independent journalism. I don't think that these are reliable and say anything more than Chase's briefs do.

These should be removed, and the rest of the "References" need to be reviewed. Unless the document is cited, it should go. Consider a "Bibliography" section per the Wikipedia:Guide to layout, but these should likely be sorted into "General", "Chase" and "SIBC" sub-sections to be clear. Same with "External links". MARussellPESE 19:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

~Dave, your whinning is giving me a migrane. I've conceded to pratically every suggestion you've made, haven't I? I've even done the editing myself, haven't I? And yet you moan on ad nauseum that I'm acting in bad faith every day since you've begun editing. You can't be bothered to even acknowledge any of these efforts I've made, but no sooner do I re-edit the page myself to appease your concerns you go and find another new concern, and paint the proposal with allegations of bad faith on my part. You're a great arm-chair quarterback. I can't believe you never made pro.

I'm not going to write their position out for them, as I don't even accept them as BUPC. As I've already explained, mostly for your benefit, the BUPC's clearly defined and verifiable position on who is and isn't a BUPC is defined by Doc in his 7 Churches of Revelations. They don't accept any successor to Pepe, so therefore, by definition they cannot even be considered BUPC, as accepting a successor to Pepe is a pre-condition; they do not accept that he has a successor (let alone Neal his duly appointed one) so they are now by definition, as with you, former BUPC. You're their self appointed champion (I'm sure they're so proud), so do what you've gotta do. Just drop the passive-aggressive moaning and whining about me.

I'm not standing in the way of whatever your agenda is here. FYI, SIBC v. Neal IS about the court case, so both views are appropriate. Try and keep up here. You were the one who decided it should be about their views. It was already in the article long before you emerged, and it's always been about the case, not their views, Mr. Moaner. I wrote this article based on what's true and verifiable about the BUPC. As you know there's lots more to say; there's just that pesky verifiability issue. I'd sure love to have verifiable sources about you and your unanimous expulsion from the BUPC to expose your narcissis complex, but I don't. Neither do I have anything verfiable (for or against) about the rest of these violating former BUPC and sIBC. They don't even have anything about any of this on their website, so what would you propose? You want to re-write reality? Well, you've got "verifiability not truth" on your side; but, verifiability is what's been found wanting here all along. What do you have? Write it up. I'm not standing in the way of these types of contributions which is what you're accusing me of; not one has yet been made.

I'm not aware of anything other than the court briefs that make verifying anything specific about there position possible. The recent (2001 / 2002) Missoulian articles are included for specific statements made in them which verify certain veiws expressed, like that Neal Chase is the third Aghsan Guardian and great-grandson of Abdu'l-Baha. The bupc.org website was used to verify these things when I created this article, so I included those as secondary sources. The older pre-millenium articles verify our statements of belief and history and so forth. I've provided sources based on relevence. As I said, some are relevent based on one statement in the article. But, they're relevent none the less.

I'm not sure what MARussell's inuendo's are getting at. Noone here has ever questioned the existence of this group of former sIBC members (this section has been in the article since early on), or that Victor Woods was the only one at the time to accept Neal (it's in the section already). I don't get the point, I guess. A specific concern is that the appellant brief is loaded with contradictions. They list 5 members as those that were supposedly in this "majority", yet show in their own appedix's that only 3 were actually board members, and two were alternates of those actual board members. It's accurate then to say that 5 opposed Neal (as the brief says), and it's also accurate to say that 3 did (as the brief also says). What do we do? I'm not sure what specifically you would like to see, MARussell, as far a reorganizing this goes. There are already sections on "General", and "Chase". As I don't feel the former members of the sIBC are BUPC, so I don't feel obligated to write, verify, and source that side's "views". Jeff 06:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, they consider themselves to be the real BUPC, and it's not at all your place to decide for Wikipedia's content whether they are or are not. They have documentation that they exist, and seemingly at least as good a presence on the web as your group does.

What innuendo? As far as Woods' five-year-old articles are concerned, they're no more useful as sources than press releases. I seriously doubt that the Missoulan has the editorial resources that the reliability guidelines on independent secondary sources are talking about.

I'm not interested in writing either of your sides. But each side deserves its hearing here. Neither side seems to be an extreme minority in case, so you both deserve a symphathetic tone. Something that you, Jeff, have had an extremely difficult time doing in both the articles' edits or here on the talk page. MARussellPESE 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious what evidence anyone has that can substantiate these allegations that I've ever stood in the way of any legitimate contributions. I've never removed content about this alleged "majority" group. They've been a feature of this article since early on. MAR, you wrote the section months ago, remember? I have admittedly shared my POV about them on this talk page for the purpose of posterity and clarity on my position, but where have I attempted to "decide for Wikipedia's content whether they are or are not"? They are not as far as I'm concerned, but so what? What are you suggesting? I should prominently feature the beliefs of 2 dozen dissidents in the article? Why would I do that? I put them where I feel they belonged: Disputes and criticisms. Their "equal presense on the web" is a farce. There website is practically a mirror to ours. Know why? Cuz Jay Terry, a legitimate BUPC created it before their violation, but they happen to own the server. It still has Neal Chase's press releases as a prominent feature. That site, BTW, is the ONLY presence they enjoy on the web (in contrast to the 9 sites we manage), so I'm curious what you're basing such statements on. You're all standing around criticising MY work, without doing diddly yourselves. Create their viewpoint yourselves. Who's stopping you? Jeff 07:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on the majority members' viewpoint. It should be done soon.

Jeff, it was not my intention to give you migraines. Davecornell 17:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the suggested insert for the leadership position of the sIBC Majority group. I'm not attached to the wording or the headings. The headings can be removed altogether if desired. I included the page numbers of where I got the info. They too can be removed in the final edit if desired.

All information came from The initial Brief of Appellant, sIBC:

Membership

The sIBC Majority claims the current membership of the sIBC consists of five of the original twelve members along with several alternates, all appointed by Jensen. (p. 8) They believe Jensen was the only one who could make appointments while they also believe they have the authority to remove members due to resignation or covenant breaking. (p. 7)

Beliefs

Regarding the guardianship, they believe it is a hereditary position, conferred by various tokens, gestures and words by the previous guardian. They believe it is the purpose of the IBC to recognize the succeeding guardian when one comes along with legitimate proof. (p. 14) They believe even the guardian/president of the IBC is subject to majority rule by the entire body. (p. 7)

They believe the organization’s property and finances are controlled by a majority vote of the sIBC. (p. 15)

Regarding Neal Chase

They state that when Neal Chase said he removed them for not recognizing him as the Guardian, they in turn removed him for covenant breaking. (p. 8) They believe that such a decision can only be made by a majority of members, one not even the guardian has a right to make by himself. Only after such a vote does the guardian have the right to expel a member. (p. 16) As far as Chase’s actual claim to the guardianship, the majority group has neither confirmed nor denied it, but reserves their decision pending further investigation. (p. 14)

.Davecornell 04:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, can you reference that emergency by-law regarding the quorum? Is it in the by-laws? If there's no reference, I'd rather not see it included.

Also, I'm leaning toward calling them "sIBC Majority" because it's more descriptive. "Remaining Members" could be seen as remaining after they removed Neal or remaining after Neal removed them. For those reasons I'd rather see something different. Or if you have another suggestion besides Majority Members.

Those are my initial thoughts. I need to look at your changes and think about it some more.... Davecornell 17:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know me. I'd prefer to call them the "former members", but I know that's not likely to fly. I have a hard time opening the PDF's to read the briefs, for some reason. I should have taken note what page the emergency by-laws thing was on, but it was in one of the depositions. It's called Emergency By-law 9. Anyways, sIBC Majority to me implies a majority of the IBC (7+), which is a stretch from 3 members and 2 alternates this case repeatedly defers to for facts. I don't like that name for these obvious reasons, as it's a schewed reference with double meaning. If 7+ members of the IBC had made this decision we'd be in an entirely different situation. Anything less than 7 is not a "majority of the sIBC", right? What other titles would accept?

The contradictions of the appellant brief are troubling, and deserve to be pointed out clearly, in my POV. They have John Geesen listed as a member in one place, and an alternate in another. If we go strictly by the details of these briefs, the 5 members involved is a questionable statement. What I mean is the briefs say five members are with them. But their head count includes two alternates. The fact is that the other two actual members (of the actual 5) are never mentioned in the breifs because they reclused themselves along with their respective alternates. Furthermore, Dawn Chase is counted as a member in one place, and an alternate in another. Same with John Geesen. Now I happen to know, as do you, neither are actual members, and John is an alternate for Carlotta who's included in the head count. Confusing, I know. But the head counts in the article are wrong. The briefs say the counting renders either 5-3 if you include alternates involved, or 3-2 if you exclude alternates. Excluding them seems appropriate since counting John and Carlotta doesn't fly, as he is her alternate. Either exclude John and Dawn, or include Kay. This is all explained in the Respondent Brief, BTW. What do you think, Dave; can this be cleaned up a little? Jeff 09:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What do I think? I think it’s inexcusable what’s happened and is happening to what Doc estabished and I think it’s ridiculous that I’m the one that has to explain it to the world. I think if Doc were alive today, he’d throw the whole lot of them out on their rumps the same way Jesus threw the money-changers out of the Temple. That’s what I think, but that’s just my opinion.

As far as the name SIBC Majority not reflecting a true majority of the original sIBC, I put a new line in the explanation about the two groups that may explain the situation so SIBC Majority can be kept. Also something should be put in Neal’s section about his belief that since he thinks he’s the Guardian, he represents that majority. I’m going to read through Neal’s briefs and come back with some suggestions the same way I did with the other group.

As far what the actual membership of SIBC Majority, I agree it’s confusing and I don’t have any good suggestions. We know for sure that Neal and Victor were the two members on the one side and I agree with MARussell that those two names should be listed with his group. I didn’t want to get into alternates because of the confusion on who ended up where. I’ll get back to you on that. Davecornell 15:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

See, not easy to portray it all in a few paragraphs is it? Well here's another issue that I was hoping you or someone had a solution for, because I sure don't. The article says the members rejected Neal's claim in one place, and at the bottom says they've taken no position. What actually happened and what the article says is different. It's because I wrote the article, then the court case came into it, then your additions. The truth is somewhere in the middle of it all. Here's what I believe from what the briefs say, because I was a witness to it: Dawn Chase brought a persoanl issue to the IBC, i.e. here divorce issues. She was questioned by a committee looking into it and told them basically the Neal was crazy and thought he was the Guardian. They questioned a whole bunch of us. Carlotta (who sent out declarations as the Secratary at the time) sent out a declaration from the IBC that a shun order was on Neal and Victor. This was Sept. 21st, 2001, the first day that Neal ever declared this openingly, and it was to Victor alone. We all thought the order was from the IBC. Then we find out that it was from the subcommittee, and that the IBC (7+ to make a quorum) never made this decision to shun: Carlotta, Chris, and both their alts. did. Nice mess, huh? Long story short, that's not what the article shows, although the briefs do. That's why Neal's always said the IBC didn't make the decision. 1) the IBC (quorum of 7+) never discussed the matter. It was decided by a committee that's supposed to answer to the body. See? We can't say that "a majority of the sIBC rejected his claim" then can we. It says they rejected his claim and then he expelled them for C.B. The article and the appellant brief shows that the body has never made a decision on the matter of whether he is or isn't the Guardian. He cast them out, but not for rejecting him. They admit that they haven't considered in session. Whole thing needs a rewrite. Jeff 19:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What I gather from the briefs is they didn't remove him for making his claim to be the Guardian due to a violation of the Covenant. Anybody can claim to be the guardian since there's nothing in the W&T against making a claim. Doc used to say people would come to him on a regular basis claiming to be the guardian but he never recommended any of them be removed for covenant-breaking. The brief says the majority group removed Neal after he removed them. No member, not even the guardian, can remove another member for covenant-breaking without a decision from the body of the sIBC. It was after Neal declared the rest of the body violators that, according to the brief, they declared Neal a C.B. I don't want to get into your take of what happened because the only thing I have that's verifiable is the brief. Let's hope when the court reaches its final decision some of these inconsistencies will be cleared up. For now, even though you disagree with the contents of the brief, their account of what happened needs to stay. Remember, it's their viewpoint that matters, not Neal's or even yours even if you believe you saw it differently. Davecornell 20:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I know all that. I'm not suggesting that my eyewitness account make it into the article. I'm saying the article's content doesn't match up to the briefs. I'm partly to blame for that, and I'd like to fix it without being seen as biased. The briefs show that a shun order was sent out against Neal and Victor. It came from "acting chair Carlotta on behalf of the IBC". Carlotta was acting chair of the committee. Victor was acting chair of the Body. The "Body" never approved the order to shun. This is all in the briefs. So isn't the fact that the Body acting in an emergency session expelled them for the actions they took, attempting to end run around the Body. It wasn't Neal who expelled them: the Body did, of whom Neal cast vote. I have much more personal insight into it, but if we go just by the briefs we can fix some of this. I wanted to reach neutral ground on it before just doing it myself like I usually do. Jeff 00:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What page number in the briefs?

Also still need a reference for the emergency quorum.

Don't know when I'm going to get to Neal's briefs. Davecornell 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

anon

Can someone explain why this shouldn't be reverted? Despite a few spelling corrections, it's very POV and ignores much of the discussions on this talk page. Cuñado - Talk 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

lineage

Not that I want to beat a dead horse, but regarding this passage in the article:

"Therefore, the BUPC believe he is clearly stating that being seated on the throne of David is a matter of historical record. His lineage is traced back in an unbroken father to son relationship to David through the Exilarch Bostanai."

I remember extensive debates over this idea, and it's simply stated as a fact. I suggest adding a note that nobody outside of the BUPC has documented this or made this claim. Even better would be to cite some of the problems with following a father to son relationship across 3,000 years. Cuñado - Talk 06:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. They believe this "historical record" is also something that is an article of faith as the documentation is, at best, inconsistent. Independent sources do not confirm the BUPC genealogy. And I know of no Jewish authority that recognizes Baha'u'llah as David's descendant, much less heir.

However, the article is only out-of-bounds in that one spot. The rest of it is pretty clearly stated as "belief" and "interpretation", which is correct and they deserve a fair hearing of their beliefs.

I don't think this is the place to discuss the problems with tracing a lineage back 3,000 years. Davidic line is a better place. My question would be do we point out here that their genealogy conflicts with two different independent ones? MARussellPESE 12:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

MARussell, I've been unfair to you by only pointing out what I see as your misunderstandings of Scripture, and not giving credit when it's due for the even-handed approach you give to all the groups with differing views than your own. It's not as if you're required. You seem like a fair and honest editor, even though I disagree with your interpretations of Writings most of the time.

I know this isn't the right page for this, but since we're on the subject of the Davidic line page, you removed the SAQ reference that I included on that page back in March. I put that there not for the BUPC views, but to reference your view that "Baha'u'llah is beleived to be the return of Jesus". I thought it was the responsible thing to do since there are scant little refereces in that page to begin with, you know? I saw you removed it as an "uncited reference". It was there for your views on the matter, see?

Also, I don't think pointing out "that their genealogy conflicts with two different independent ones" would be fair for two reasons. 1)Gonzales' isn't complete as he didn't do an exhaustive study of the subject. He helped us in the begining (back in 89') by pointing us to the Iqulim-i-Nur among other things. His genealogy isn't in "conflict" with ours just because there are gaps in his that don't exist in ours. 2)Hughe's genealogy isn't in conflict with ours either. We've shared sources we have with him on specific generations that differed from our genealogy, and after looking further into the matters agreed that our sources were correct and made the appropriate changes. Look again. His genealogy has been updated and revised. I'm not looking to respark the whole debate on the subject, for there's so much to it all, I'm just saying I don't think such a statement is an honest one. Jeff 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, thank you for your note. I'll take this to Talk:Davidic line. MARussellPESE 13:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Undue Weight and "my boy"

Jeff, you have chosen to strike:

"Danny has been telling a number of the friends that Pepe is going to appoint him to be the next guardian on the basis that Pepe had written to him calling him his “boy”. He interprets this as an adoption presumptuously, and if Pepe should die forthwith that he would be the next guardian....

"...Danny is taking the same road to destruction, by making the claim to successorship on the very feeble basis that he was called “his boy” by Pepe....He whispers around that he was called “his boy” by Pepe, and on this flimsy ground he is going to be the next guardian." (Dr. Leland Jensen to Charles Gaines, July 1991, pp. 44,47)

To discount Dr. Jensen’s “my boy” put-down as not meeting NPOV due to the Undue Weight policy is wrong and unfair. The letter I’m quoting from was published and distributed to all sIBC and BUPC members back in the Fall of 1991 and, therefore, should represent the widely-held belief by the BUPC on the "my boy" issue. Because Neal chooses to ignore what Dr. Jensen wrote does not mean it demonstrates undue weight. Actually your decision to strike what Dr. Jensen wrote is more representative of undue weight because your view represents a minority view compared to Dr. Jensen's explanation and commentary of this matter.

On page 4 of Neal’s response to the court case he writes:

“The parties consider Dr. Jensen to be an authoritative figure in the sIBC, and his writings are considered binding upon the sIBC.” [04214R.pdf]

You can choose to ignore Doc’s words but the fact of the matter is all BUPCs are in general agreement that Doc’s words are considered binding on them as well as on Neal and his sIBC. That would include this letter to Charles Gaines.

As an aside, I could have quoted from a published letter from the sIBC on the same matter. The following is taken from the letter to Amy and Sara that was distributed to all BUPCs on the mailing list at roughly the same time as the Charles Gaines letter was mailed out:

"Likewise we have it from the highest authorities that Danny has been promoting himself to be the next infallible interpreter guardian based on the claim that he has at least one letter from Pepe calling him “his boy.” Of course in order to be the next guardian he would have to be legally adopted in a court of law in this country, evidence which Danny has not produced; and even then Danny would have to be appointed to that position by Pepe within Pepe's lifetime." p. 54

Again, your view to strike this section demonstrates undue weight and prejudice on your part, not mine. I have quoted directly from Dr. Jensen's writings. Please explain how that represents undue weight. Davecornell 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This group, the BUPC, was very small to begin with, so documenting the sizes of the various splinter groups is likely next to impossible. (Off the top of my head, I recall seeing something online saying there are five? Ah, here: religioustolerance.org; but this site is a lot more sloppy in its documentation than most people give it credit for.)

That said, citing WP:NPOVUW to excise one of these groups positions entirely out the article isn't fair. The anti-Chase group(s) seem to have enough legs to keep a lawsuit going. This can hardly be considered tiny enough to be excluded from discussion. MARussellPESE 13:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the "letters" quoted on these pages are of dubious sources, so I would say delete them all or include anything relevant. Jeff, it's not fair to pick and choose. Cuñado - Talk 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If it is determined that Dr. Jensen's writings are allowed to be included here and on Dr. Jensen's Wiki page, I would like to offer this site as a possible addition to the External Links. None of my commentary or opinions are included in these documents. There are some links in some of the documents that I would be willing to remove if it is agreed to include it as a source. Davecornell 18:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry MARussell, but I believe you are confused about something. You're confusing the opinion of ONE ex-BUPC member, Dave Cornell (who created the section), with the veiws of a GROUP like the former IBC members who created the lawsuit. This is a perfect example of the deceptiveness of said individual, who would now like a link to his anti-Neal website to be included on this page. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN! And niether are the views of this ONE individual ever going to waste space on this page which is about a group who shuns this ONE individual. If this ONE person could verify any of this through the court documents or some other verifiable source (which his website is not), then I welcome it being brought forward. Until then, there's little to discuss about the matter. Jeff 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Next to nothing is published on the BUPC from credible publsihers, even all the documents used to reference doctrines are un-published. Most of your references come from one of three websites (all pro-Chase) which are just online text. For God's sake, I could make my own BUPC page and say whatever I want. Jeff, if you're going to maintain this standard of referencing then it must apply to everything on the page. I would assume just reducing the page to verifiable sources, but you put up a fuss long ago and I gave up. Cuñado - Talk 18:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely fair, Cunado. The veiws of both groups of "true IBC" members are verifiable through the court case documents, and both represented in the article. What I'm saying is that Dave is trying to slip his own agenda into this page, and as he is ONE person with this opinion, then it doesn't belong here. He has been posturing as if he's a representitive of the other IBC, which he's not. BOTH groups shun him, see? He was removed from the community with a unanimous vote of the full IBC (11-0). His views are shared by ONE-him. I said I'd welcome any additions to the views of the other IBC, for there is volumes of verifiable information in the court documents. Dave Cornell's opinions, criticisms, etc. do not belong here as they do not represent the opinions of even one other actual BUPC from either group. We all shun him. Jeff 19:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this falls under the BUPC disputes section, I would be willing to offer the wording change: "Some former BUPC members believe this contradicts what Dr. Jensen wrote at approximately the same time concerning a similar situation regarding a former BUPC member..." Since I have had little contact with members from the two sIBC groups, I can't speak for what they believe on the "my boy" issue. But having spoken with former sIBC and BUPC members, there is agreement that Dr. Jensen definitely put-down the "my boy" claim and that they agree with me on this point. So I think the wording change better reflects the viewpoint as it doesn't include all former BUPC members, just some. What's the point of even having this section if there isn't an opportunity to list what the disputes are anyway? I mean, there are serious questions and concerns regarding both groups. Isn't the purpose of Wiki to portray all sides, all viewpoints, even minority ones, just don't give them undue space? That's my understanding.

The "my boy" information from Dr. Jensen is extremely pertinent as it pertains to Neal Chase's claim and it deserves a hearing, even if it's only three or four lines of text. Another solution might be for Jeff or Neal to respond to this criticism on the page. Davecornell 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This previous statement shows that Dave is in fact basing his contribution on hearsay, and nothing more. Oh, well if you have it on reliable hearsay, then by all means, put whatever you want in the article, right? Why stop there? The very notion that he's "heard" anything begs the question, for he has been utterly shunned by all BUPC (those both for and against Neal) since 1999. His only purpose for making contact with pre-1996 ex-BUPC is to troll for supporters of his ridiculous claim to the Guardianship. Not one has ever accepted this claim, BTW. Furthermore, it is my belief that the good faith mask Dave's wearing is fraudulant. He has his own agenda (to be accepted as the guardian), and this proposed hearsay "contribution" is one angle of many that he's proposed for years on his own website (to which not one BUPC has ever commented on in the "comment" section). He has a laundry list of griefs to air, of which this Danny boy issue is but one. He also would, if allowed, attack the legitimacy of Pepe's guardianship (which Doc supported til his last breath), the legitimacy of Mason's guardianship (ditto), and a host of other vile attacks upon our articles of Faith. These three all stand in the way of Dave's dream to be accepted as Guardian. He's no good faith editor, he's here to muddy the waters and cast dispersions upon our fundamental core beliefs with his paper tiger "disputes". All are easily refuted, but as that is not the purpose of this forum, I'm not going there.

Refuting these statements is far from appropriate here as this is not a platform of debate, but rather an article on a subject. Neither is this even a minority veiw being proposed as the only one that can be shown to share it is Dave Cornell. As the court documents clearly show, the issue of whether or not Neal's claim to the guardianship is valid has never been adjudicated upon by them. They admit in the court documents that they haven't, and nothing they've brought forward during 3 years of litigation shows otherwise. Obviously we have accepted his claim. So far the evidense we have available does not support the statements being made. There are not then "some BUPC" members who believe these sentiments; there is just ONE EX-BUPC who does: the poor wannabe guardian Dave Cornell. Jeff 07:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Cornell is a "wannabe" or not, he's raised a very interesting point with this:

"Danny has been telling a number of the friends that Pepe is going to appoint him to be the next guardian on the basis that Pepe had written to him calling him his “boy”. He interprets this as an adoption presumptuously, and if Pepe should die forthwith that he would be the next guardian. ..."

"...Danny is taking the same road to destruction, by making the claim to successorship on the very feeble basis that he was called “his boy” by Pepe....He whispers around that he was called “his boy” by Pepe, and on this flimsy ground he is going to be the next guardian."

(Leland Jensen to Charles Gaines, July 1991, pp. 44,47)"

Personally, it appears that that is exactly what Chase has done. He just did it after Jensen's demise.

If this letter is genuine — which Jeff, you've not asserted — then Jensen was dismissive of at least one other case of a "my son/boy" adoption. If he's going to dismiss one, then on what grounds? And if these can be dismissed arbitrarily, how then are any valid — including Chase's, or Remey's for that matter?

If this is genuine, then the point it raises seems quite legitimate. I reverted it back in because it's authenticity was not questioned, only WP:NPOVUW. I did not like your re-write Dave. It was not as clear as the quotation itself and unreferenced. MARussellPESE 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

From the NPOV page:

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

When the question of what represents a BUPC minority view has come up in these discussions, it has been asserted that Jeff’s group is a clear majority and other views represent a distinct minority. But that is his opinion and there is still no confirmed documentation as to the actual numbers of any of the splinter groups of the BUPC including his own. So for Jeff to slough off my view as representing the opinion of one ex-BUPC member may not represent such a paltry minority view when compared to the actual documented number of BUPCs. In other words you can’t use the argument of who represents a minority view and who represents the majority view when there’s no documentation on any side to prove that point.

As far as the standard of prominent adherents mentioned above, I am one of the twelve appointed by Dr. Jensen to sit on his sIBC and the acting chairman for five years and was removed against my will from that body in 1999. I was also designated by Dr. Jensen and the sIBC as the historian for the BUPC (which gives my website as much qualification as an External Link as any of Jeff’s suggested links). In addition I lived at and oversaw the functioning of the Baha’i Center building for eight years. Jeff would say I’m not a prominent adherent since I was removed and didn't accept Neal as Guardian, but he chooses to ignore the significant role I played on the sIBC and in the BUPC commmunity. If "prominent adherents" is a way to measure the right to express a viewpoint on the BUPC page, I believe I meet that criterion. (BTW, at least my website shows the documents in full context, not the snippets taken out of context that Jeff has been using re Pepe's letters.)

As far as others who share my belief, there is another sIBC member who has publicly stated the same thing regarding Neal Chase’s “my boy” claim being bogus:

"Having been envolved with the bupc's for about 30 years, neal chase's claim to being an Aghsan is false. I had read all of the letters written to him (neal) from Pepe before neal made his claim around 2002 and when Pepe wrote to him calling him "my boy" it was in a negative way not positive way."

Right there that represents two of the twelve members. That is the same number of sIBC members who initially accepted Neal’s claim and broke away from the sIBC in 2001. If their viewpoint is allowed so much prominence on this page, LaVonne and I deserve at least what I’m asking regarding the dispute over Neal Chase’s guardianship. Davecornell 13:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

MARussell, my opinion on the difference between "my boy" and "my son": when 'Abdu'l-Baha used the term "my son" when referring to Mason Remey, he used the Arabic word "Aghsan" which is significant as it relates to the W&T. When Pepe, who spoke english and italian, used the term "my boy", it did not have the same meaning nor intention as the term "my son" or "my aghsan". This is why, in my view, Dr. Jensen was so dismissive of the "my boy" claim. "My boy" is frequently used in passing and doesn't necessarily imply a filial relationship whereas "my son" implies a more significant relationship especially depending on how it is used. If Pepe's letters are read in context, it becomes evident that Pepe was toying with Neal the way a cat toys with a mouse. Just my opinion. Davecornell 14:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have updated this site to include PDF versions of Dr. Jensen's original letters with his signature appearing on many of the documents including the July 30, 1991 letter to Charles Gaines. Davecornell 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

ROFLOL!!! Thanks Dave, that's the best laugh I've had all day. You want anyone to believe you're a "prominent adherent". Hold on, let me catch my breath. So many lies and deceptions. Where do we begin?

1. You were the "official historian"? Prove it. You're a liar and a deciever.
2. By what math can 1 person's veiwpoint not be considered a "vastly limited veiwpoint"? The 1 person readily admits he's not even a member of the group, so by that math, his opinion can't even be counted as valid, anymore than mine would be considered for a group I don't belong to. Who cares what I think about a group I quit and don't believe in anymore? Would anyone accept the veiws of Mirza Yaya attacking Baha'u'llah on His page? One dissident with a publically stated opposition isn't a "vastly limited viewpoint"? Seriously?
3. This arguement is one constructed and elaborated upon on his website, and the quotes are taken out of context along with everything else Dr. Jensen wrote. Every BUPC, whether they accept Neal or not agrees that Dave Cornell is an enemy of the BUPC, Dr. Jensen, and the IBC/UHJ. That's why he was ex-communicated and kicked out of the Center (three years prior to Neal's proclamation). Maybe we should put your written proclamation of Guardian in here, too? I have a copy. Maybe I should quote from it?
4. It's your job as the contributor to provided how this veiw is shared by anyone but you, for by definition you, as one, are a vast minority. Your quote from Lavonne does not satisfy this. The issue of Danny Shear is not mentioned. She states she didn't accept the "my boy" statement because she believed they were stated in "a negative way". Her view and your view are different, not the same. Furthermore, she rejects Pepe now, and accepts Donald Harvey. So, like you, she's a "former BUPC" who rejected Doc and Pepe, and are now considered public enemies number one and two.
5. Dave was told by Dr. Jensen himself, as were many of us, that Neal was the Guardian, and the "my boy" and "my dear boy" statements were his adoption of Neal. Only problem was this meant Dave wasn't the Guardian. Curious how he waited till after Doc's passing to attack him and his writitings in order to justify his attempted usurption.
6. Decievingly, Dave has only told half of what he knows about these Danny Shear letters. I'm including the other half since noone here seems to care about what Wikipedia is or is not anymore. Let's make it a platform for debate then, since the policies are clearly so flexible. And then when we're done shooting down his "my boy" attacks, we can move onto Dave's next agenda which will be to challenge Pepe's claim (for which he has a whole list of issues with), and then onto defending Dr. Jensen himself (who he claims to be true to yet undermines to suite his desires).
7. This is the fullfillment of a 7 year wetdream of Dave's. To finally have a forum (that someone will actually read) where he gets to attack us at will. His website is dedicated to his one-sided-unchallenged and utterly ignored view; one that attacks each and every article of Faith we cherish.
8. That hate site is a valid source? Please explain how. It's riddled with attacks against us, Doc, Pepe and Mason. You would like all to believe the site is a repository of letters which is where you keep pointing to in the links you provide. What about the repository of attacks and deciet which can be easily linked to from the home page? You're such a snake. No matter, cuz it's a secondary source. It will NEVER appear on this page as a source. Nice try though.

What Dave is doing is quoting Doc out of context and out of sequence of historical events to muddy the water. In Q&A in the Aqdas, Baha'u'llah was asked about several of his Tablets that contradicted themselves. In responce Baha'u'llah stated that if it contractidcts the Aqdas, than the Aqdaas is correct. Also, that whatever they revealed last overturns what they may have revealed before hand. Doc expalained this was true with both Mason and himself. The quote Doc is writng about which Dave has deceivingly excluded from the contribution is this one:

"Do not take this as a personal affront to you, but sincerely, under the circumstances, my advice to you, dear boy, is to remain faithful to your spiritual ties to Leland Jensen as I have no alternative to offer but what I have always told others who sought my advice. " (Pepe to Danny 7/11/1990)

No way can this be constured to be an adoption and it is certainly not an appointment; neither is it in quotes or "my boy" as Dave contends. On this "feeble babsis" Danny attacked Doc as the establisher. It is possible that had Danny not attacked Doc that he may have become the next Gudardian. Brent and Glenn were also tested in this same fashion by pepe, and all three of these were cut off.

After Doc wrote that to Charles Gaines, and Neal wrote the draft letter sent out by the IBC to Amy and Sarah, Doc published the Israeli Law of adoption in 1992. This was after Neal had recieved the leters Pepe sent to him which Doc accepted as Neals adoption and appointment as the next guardian. This is the truth of what happened and there is more can be said about it. Jeff 07:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The only point from the above that’s worth addressing is your charge I was not the BUPC historian as it’s an attack on my credibility. First of all, just ask Neal. He mentioned it in one of the letters he wrote to me. Secondly, for those not familiar with my background the following is from a liaison report to the sIBC from Dr. Jensen:

“Historian - Dr. Leland suggested Dave Cornell for this job. Jan will speak with Dave about it and have him talk with Dr. Leland if he is interested.” (May 9, 1992)

I did speak with Dr. Jensen and volunteered to become the BUPC historian. I interviewed Doc, Ethel May and others about their experiences in the Baha’i Faith. I also took extensive weekly BUPC forum notes and was responsible for audio taping those forums. I took it on as my responsibility to preserve Dr. Jensen’s writings in an unadulterated form on lelandjensen.net, including “Over the Wall”, “Revelation Explained” and “The Most Mighty Document” -- all of which Neal has seen fit to insert his opinions about himself as Pepe’s successor (including his photo) all done AFTER Dr. Jensen’s passing in August 1996 but making it appear as if Doc approved of these changes by putting a "1996" copyright date on these documents. Shame on you! That’s why the link to my site listed above pointing to the original writings of Dr. Jensen in PDF format is a better representation of Dr. Jensen’s true writings than the edited, falsified versions your site offers. If it is possible to request your sites and those documents be considered as invalid, I make it now. Davecornell 01:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and verifiability

I have tried to avoid getting much involved on this page, but I have to say that it's becoming quite a mess. Jeffmichaud is blocked right now, but when he comes back he will have a cow and the page will get worse. I would like to mention that I still believe most of the material on this page should be deleted as unverifiable, especially the various personal "letters" that float around. The page needs to be severely cut down to verifiable facts and remove unweighted POV's, including Chase's. For an obscure group whose numbers are unverifiable, this page has gone way beyond its bounds.

Having said that, I don't plan to do anything about it, and other than making sure the court information isn't deleted, I won't be editing this page or following any arguments. Cuñado - Talk 07:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the unwillingness to examine ALL of Jensen's, Pepe's and Chase's writings, not just the four or so documents on BUPC.org and snippets of Pepe's writings. That's what's so unfair to me. It's like being put in a straightjacket when it comes to giving my viewpoint as to what I and others saw and believed. I don't think Jeff sees his viewpoint as being any different from the neutral point of view. Or possibly it's his unwillingness to acknowledge other points of view that differ from his own. But I think if the majority of these writings were verified, it would make it easier to express viewpoints based on what was actually written. I also see the issue in making those documents verifiable.

In the Reliable Sources section:

Evaluating sources

* Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints.

* Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.

* Find out what other people say about your sources.

* Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.

* Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.

Also on the same page:

Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

As I mentioned from 1992 thru 1999 I was considered the BUPC historian by Dr. Jensen and the sIBC which qualifies me as someone who was actually there and considered credible at that time. I would be willing to convert lelandjensen.net to just HTML/PDF versions of documents written by Leland Jensen, Pepe Remey and the BUPCs and remove all of my personal commentary and opinions from my blog on that site. This would then eliminate the problem of unverified "facts" which could then be cross-checked to determine if it was actually said and in what context.

Would converting my site to just HTML/PDF documents qualify lelandjensen.net as a primary source? I see a former BUPC member running www.charlesmasonremey.net in this way and it is being used as a Wiki source. Davecornell 13:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course that would improve your site a bit if you don't make it look like a blog, but the real issue is that the details of these arguments should not be worked out on this page. It amounts to original research on wikipedia. Jeffmichaud is doing the same by quoting un-published letters from the various pages run by Chase, and personally I don't see why your site is any less verifiable than <bupc.org> or <uhj.net>, which apparently represents the views of 25 people, since it is impossible to verify the number of followers. Cuñado - Talk 01:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

FTR Cunado, the BUPC has centers throughout the country, in France, England, Russia, South Africa, and Australia; all of whom accept Neal as the Guardian. Our sIBC has 25 members, not the BUPC. The violators who drew up the lawsuit (who everyone keeps referring to as the "majority" had a total of 31 supporters in 2002, to which at least 7 that we know of have left them. Jeff 07:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave the credible; Dave the historian? OMG, I'm going to have an asthma attack I'm laughing so hard. Hold on (5 minute pause for laughter). Ohhkay, there we go. So, the difference between the sites is that lelandjensen.net is not a "site about itself", as it's not a site about the BUPC like bupc.org is a site about itself. And, moreover it's a blog - strike two. You're not an adherent, your sight is about a vastly minority viewpoint (one persons's), and niether is it fair or representative of all the facts and issues. Moreover, it's not "writing about the subject or owner of the website". It's all about YOUR POV. Keep digging Dave, but there's no loopholes for i'm-an-enemy-of-lelandjensen.net.

So, who are you asking these above questions, Dave? Cunado? He's a college graduate who doesn't even know how to cite sources correctly, and could hardly recognize a reliable source. But really, what's your problem, Dave? Do you really think that trying to discredit Neal is what the bulk of this article should contain? The "disputing" section is now 1/3 of the article thanks to your "contributions". Do you want to expand this page so it looks like your blog or something? Sections like "Before and after" to "Disputing Pepe's guardianship"? The problem is everytime you bring forward your OPINION about this "dispute", there is a counter for the logic you're presenting. Where do we draw the line, for it's not fair by any standard to let you bring forth trash-talk without countering it. Perfect example is how you created the article. You didn't even include the "my advice to you, dear boy" letter, but only what Doc wrote in response to being attacked by Danny. And, that was all before he wrote to Brent explaining that this ("my son" in quotes) was to be used by Brent as his "adoption into the Aghsan lineage". It was also different than what he wrote to Neal in every way. You left all that out, and tryed to make it look as if Danny and Neal's cases are somehow related. How can you be trusted to be objective when you're treating this article like it's your blog, without showing all the facts? I feel like this will be a 500MB page if you're left to have at it. Whatever you THINK you were when your were a member under the Covenant, that has long since ceased. You've got ZERO credibility as the subjects you're writing about (all those for and against Neal) unanimously declared you an ENEMY. Got it? So whatever your agenda here is, why dont' you just do it already. Go for it. You keep sneaking new bits in here and there with no end in site. Add what you want to add. How's that? Let's see what your idea of a NPOV article about the BUPC looks like.

While you're at it, it would be nice if you could find something that actually holds water as a dispute against Neal. So far what you've brought forward is merely "disputing Danny Shear's claim to the Guardianship", and is not worthy of any space on this page. I'm thinking about adding a "Disputing Dave Cornell's Guardianship Claim" section. What do you think? Jeff 08:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I don't think you read my last post. As I said, I'm willing to remove all my POV on my site and just list the pure, unadulterated versions of Doc's, Pepe's and the BUPC's writings. It's not to say I agree with all of the content of those letters, but it's a more accurate alternative than your Chase-edited versions of Doc's writings and the snippets of Pepe's letters you continually take out of context (see the October 5, 1991 "my dear boy" letter as just one example). I mean you continually cite the "my boy", "my dear boy" and "shall I adopt you?" quotes but where, o where, are those letters sourced, referenced or linked to on any of your Wiki pages? That's just one example why there needs to be an External Link to the source for the unedited, complete versions of the letters between Pepe and Doc, don't you agree?

If Wikipedia is a place for people to read different viewpoints in a neutral setting, then it seems they should have the complete writings and letters of the BUPC so they can judge for themselves.

And blame yourself for the length of the Dispute section. Davecornell 12:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why bother discussing anything if you're going to ignore the content of my concerns until you get your way? Can we put i'm-an-ememy-of-leland-jensen.net aside for one moment. What do you want to add to the article that's of any value? You want to discredit Neal with his and Pepe's own words like you do on your blog, right? Then you want to attack Pepe's legitimacy, right? How do you propose that be done without us countering your vast minority view? It's going to look like your blogfest, only double the size because you can't seem to contribute to this article without adding your spin. Your Danny-boy contribution discredits Danny, not Neal. What do you want to do? Just do it, why don't you? Just follow policies and there shouldn't be a problem. Who has these concerns but you? Anyone? You tried to imply Lavonne does, but were proven wrong. Why should the views of ex-BUPC be shared on this page which is about the BUPC? The Baha'i Faith contributors created a divisions page to prevent just this sort of vandalism from vastly held minority groups; what makes you so special that you as an exmember should come here and pollute our article? Create a BUPC divisions page if you want; I don't care. You can even add in your own proclamation as you are a "further BUPC divsion", just like Amy and Sarah, Brent the Aghsan joker, and 31 clowns of the sans-Guardian BUPC. Go ahead, pollute your own page, because as far as I'm concerned your views are you own and don't represent the group. To contribute any of your bias you can't seem to represent how your views are held by anyone but you; two you don't just present facts as you claim to, but leave out key components like in this lastest danny-boy contribution (very sloppy for a historian {giggle}]. You can't answer to any of these concerns, can you? You keep ignoring the real concerns I present and bring this discussion around to your site. Forget the site for a moment, and come clean on what you want in the article. You're acting like a coniving pirate, so why would anyone concede to your ideas while they are still concealed. Come clean on what you want in these articles, and quit your whining already. Jeff 22:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in your post that speaks to the subject of this section, "NPOV and verifiability", so I see no need to respond except to say I'm glad you inserted the quote from Danny in the article. Davecornell 23:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing neutral point of veiw, aren't we? So far, to address your concerns on neutrality, we've added info on the sans-Guardian IBC, and info on disputing Neal's Guardianship, right? Is there more that we should be concerning ourselves with in regards to neutrality before we concern ourselves with the entirely separate issue of verifiability? If there are more concerns as far as adding content to meet your neutrality concerns, I'd like to know what they are, and to what extent this will entail, if you'd be so kind. Jeff 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cunado began this section with the brunt of his issue being:

"I would like to mention that I still believe most of the material on this page should be deleted as unverifiable, especially the various personal "letters" that float around. The page needs to be severely cut down to verifiable facts and remove unweighted POV's, including Chase's. For an obscure group whose numbers are unverifiable, this page has gone way beyond its bounds."

...the real issue is that the details of these arguments should not be worked out on this page. It amounts to original research on wikipedia. Jeffmichaud is doing the same by quoting un-published letters from the various pages run by Chase, and personally I don't see why your site is any less verifiable than <bupc.org> or <uhj.net>, which apparently represents the views of 25 people, since it is impossible to verify the number of followers.

I tried to address his concerns by offering my website as a solution but that didn't appease him. Maybe you could address the above. Davecornell 00:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just re-worked the page. There were many things either repeated in several places or very irrelevant to the article (long Bible quotes?) I also deleted several negative comments on both sides and tried to make it more neutral. In the very beginning of the beliefs section I mentioned the BUPC in relation to the rest of Baha'is, because most people will be confused otherwise. I deleted and summarized most of the "BUPC Disputes" section, as the section was not only getting overweighted and long, but completely unverifiable. (I mostly agree with Jeff that Dave's page is only valuable in mentioning that it exists) Cuñado - Talk 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)