Talk:Ruth Berkeley White

Why a forgery

It's just right now a *rough* feeling of what she's saying. My phrasing might be poor, so feel free to clarify it if you want, based on what she said that is. Not based on what anyone else said, which is irrelevant :) Wjhonson 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Her contention was that the will was forged. In this she was virtually alone. Her expert, C. Ainsworth Mitchell, never saw the original — only a facsimile — and used "authenticated" comparison documents that White herself supplied and nobody else. Ainsworth Mitchell is explicit that his analysis is contingent upon these being accurate (White, Abdul Baha's Questioned Will and Testament, pp. 63-64)

[1]

The will was never questioned by anyone else, and accepted as genuine even by people opposed to both `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi.

"It is interesting to note that no one who has studied the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, with the exception of Mrs White and a few others whom she influenced, has ever questioned its authenticity. Even other Covenant-breakers who rose up against Shoghi Effendi did not agree with her. Ahmad Sohrab and Subhi had both served 'Abdu'l-Bahá as His secretary. They never questioned the authenticity of the Will. Neither did Muhammad-'Ali or Badi'u'llah, or other enemies who were looking for any flaws they could find with which to attack the Guardian of the Faith.

It must be remembered that the Will and Testament was written in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's handwriting and bore His seal. The Will and Testament was very familiar to the Persian believers. This is because 'Abdu'l-Bahá had written innumerable Tablets in His own hand and almost every Bahá'í family in Persia had been the recipient of these Tablets. When the photostat text of the Will and Testament was sent to Persia and elsewhere, it was easily acknowledged by everyone to be in the handwriting of 'Abdu'l-Bahá.

Another criterion for its authenticity is 'Abdu'l-Bahá's unique style and mode of expression which is familiar to the Persian friends. Indeed, anyone who is versed in the Writings of the Faith in the original language can easily tell the difference between the writings of Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá or Shoghi Effendi, as each has its own special tone and style.

(Adib Taherzadeh, The Covenant of Baha'u'llah, p. 347)

World Unity Conferences

White discusses these on less than two pages [2] & [3] of a twenty-two page pamphlet, and then never again in her works. Doesn't seem to get over the WP:NN bar. MARussellPESE 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Miller as a Source

W.M. Miller's book is not an appropriate source. WP:V requires reliable sources from reliable publishers. Inclusion fails both criteria:

1. William McElwee Miller is an evangelical Christian apologist rendering him an unreliable source.
2. The book is published by the William Carey Library effectively making it self-published.

The only wiggle room for self-published authors is in ¶2 of WP:SELFPUB which allows for inclusion if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". No other third-party uses him or his book as a reference. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Glaysher as a Source

Glaysher's site is classic failure of WP:V

• Unreliable source
• Self-published blog MARussellPESE (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

living person?

I highly doubt this person is still living. Her full name appears to be Ruth Berkeley White (according to the Library of Congress), and she was publishing in the 1920s. This unreliable but well-researched article suggests White was born in the 1880s, and was a stage actress in the early 1900s before marrying George Rowell and later Herbert Lawrence White (1869-1953). More conclusive research is needed, but from the date of publications alone it seems safe to conclude White is probably no longer living. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)