Talk:Mason Remey

"Distinctly contradictory appointments"?

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

Struck through posting by sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Current reverts

The current reverts cover five distinct parts of the article:

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

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

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

Disarray, you're presuming bad faith here. Consider yourself warned. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Wow! As if Jeff3000 doesn't have better things to do? As if I don't either? As if it's fun to justify ourselves again and again and again? As if presuming bad faith is at all productive? As if this latest is actually on point? As if it's fun get called names? As if this sanctimonious use of the third-person is productive? As if it's fun to get threatened with blocks? (Well, considering the number of blocks the two of of us have taken combined and the number you have, it is a bit funny for you to threaten that.) MARussellPESE (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Stating something does not make it true. I responded to all of the points in my previous points.

1. WP:NOR is clear that secondary sources are to be used, and yet you are arguing for their removal. The article is bettered with them in, and is in line with policy. There is nothing in WP:NOR that states that secondary sources are needed only for synthesis; it states it is a must for synthesis and should be the bread and butter of everything.
2. You removed wording that is right from the source.
3. While Jensen's group received more notoriety than the other two groups, this article is not about what the BUPC received notoriety. The reporting on the failed prophecies is not associated with who claimed to be Remey's sucessor which is what is the point of the subsection. The various groups are all of similar size and need to be dealt with in a similar manner.
4. It's a self-published source, and thus needs to be notable even within the most liberal reading of WP:V. The sources have not received any secondary source coverage to make them notable except one that states that the source is not reliable.
5. I'll add back the Stone portion on Pepe to make it complete.

And all your comments regarding my conduct, if true for me, are far more true for you, as you have reverted at least two and half time more than I have. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Disarray, you are also pushing POV here by unbalancing the BUPC presence. WP:UNDUE comes into play. That applies to both the content and the picture.

Let's check out WP:OWN shall we? You've over 150 edits to this page. That's more than Jeff3000, Cuñado, and me combined. In fact, you have more than a third of all the edits ever made to this article. You should be a bit more circumspect with the accusations of WP:OWN and WP:TEND. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

MARussell's concerns here surely have evolved over time, but while all of them have been answered to and shown incorrect, he continues to protest. Why is that? He challenged the contributions from cmr.net, and in a direct response following dispute resolution a RFC was used to address this challenge. The RFC came back against his opinions, yet he still feels it's his right to challenge this indefinitely as the result wasn't in favor of his opinion. He's sadly mistaken, but persists. Then he sternly declared that "it's not majority rules; policy doesn't allow it". It's been pointed out repeatedly that in fact no one but him and Jeff interpret SPS the way they have demanded it be viewed, and that the discussions on the talk page of the policy itself show that the generally accepted interpretation of SPS is nowhere near to their stated views on it. In fact, I've provided three separated quotes from a related discussion that show exactly the opposite is true, and that my understanding of how to apply SPS fits perfectly into this article. Yet they still feel they can protest, and dismiss these facts for they run against their predetermined understanding in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. MARussell has again and again applied his own self-prescribed use of these policies, and is refusing to attribute any value to the RFC or the definitions illuminated by admins. In fact he's utterly dismissed both, and feels he can challenge these sources indefinitely.

Now Jeff is twisting the spirit and meanings explained in that discussion on WP:V, and insists that unless Spataro and Mathieu's can be shown to be notable to his satisfaction, they're still out in spite of all that's been revealed in these discussions. That's not what Blueboar said, for he was speaking to the statement about unpublished sources being used as a ref about themselves, and not the clause of experts in the field. These protests are ridiculous. MARussell produced a review which he said impeached Spataro's book, but closer examination of the review establishes both the books weaknesses and values. The reviewer said of the book: "It is an interesting window into one side of a controversy in a very large new religious movement", which solidifies the source's value here. The content has been supported by the RFC, and upheld by the discussions here and on WP:V, yet they both Jeff and MARussell remain unyielding and continue edit warring over it with the same excuses that I've repeatedly shown to be in error.

As far as Pepe's picture goes, he was Remey's adopted son, and Stone states as much. First MARussell said there's no evidence for the relationship, and now that it's been provided his protestation jumps to WP:WEIGHT. Protesting to this picture is nonsensical, and has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT. It's a picture of him with his son, but the presumption is that I'm adding it in bad faith to create undue weight? Charming. Likewise a link to the paper from the BUPC on Remey's life and beliefs has as much a right to exist alongside the UHJ paper on him in the External links. If the BUPC paper is going to be repeatedly removed, then they both will be excised. They either both stay or both go, for it's a double standard to defend the UHJ's, and protest the BUPC's. _Disarray^General 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words; Mathieu and Spataro are self-published sources which have no proof that they are notable, and thus don't fit even the most lenient exclusions to the self-published rule in Wikipedia. That's policy. All other points regarding undue weight are very germane as well. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mine either, thank you very much. You never actually provided a source stating that Pepe was adopted, so I was stating what was apparent. His pic is still out of balance to the other Remeyite groups.

As to the RFC: these are not binding and didn't present new arguments. Policy discussions are not solely carried out by admins, nor do admins have access to "secret knowledge" about policies. They can block, ban, delete, and undo. That's about it. And, Disarray, policy discussions are not statements of the policies themselves.

It's been easy to "hold out indefinitely" in the face of this since you haven't actually presented an argument beyond stating ad nauseum "I'm right, you're wrong." That's not an argument. It's argumentative. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1. RFC's are part of dispute resolution; something I alone have attempted to pursue. My position has been firmly and repeatedly established, supported by the RFC & policy discussions (which are now also being dismissed), and the notability of Spataro is acknowledged by the review. Until the editors waging their perpetual objections to providing Pepe's account of his father's funeral into the article provide something other than their wholly rejected interpretation of WP:SPS, then their minority opinion on the matter will continue to be ignored.
2. I did provide a source stating Pepe was his adopted son- Stone & Hyslop both confirm this well-known fact. Mike can't be bothered to follow up on the content being provided so then apparently the relationship doesn't exist? Both Stone and Hyslop note the relationship, not to mention the fact that it's trite to pretend not to know that their relationship was a widely and well known fact. What a ruse. Objections to providing a picture of the subject with his only son should be provided in the form of policy objections; the matters of opinion about weight, being "out of balance", etc, are nonsensical and bordering on absurd. Considering that their relationship has nothing to do with the "other remeyite groups", and that it's been established by two 2ndary sources he was his adopted son then clearly these objections are in vain.
3. The link to the paper from the BUPC on Remey's life and beliefs has as much a right to exist alongside the UHJ paper on him in the External links. If the BUPC paper is going to be repeatedly removed, then they both will be excised. They either both stay or both go, for it's a double standard to defend the UHJ's, and protest the BUPC's. This paper is being removed repeatedly from the external links without even a mention as to why in the edit summary, let alone acknowledging why here. There is no reason a link to a paper on the BUPC's views of this subject can't stand along side of the UHJ's condemnation piece. Maybe they should both go?_Disarray^General 07:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Spataro and Mathieu are both self-published sources that don't meet the verifiability or reliable source policies for inclusion since they are self-published. The most liberal reading of the policy would only allow their inclusion if they are notable in their own right which they are not, since the only secondary source that writes about them states that it is completely biased and unduly self-serving.
2. The point that Pepe is the adopted son is in the article. Having the picture is undue weight compared to the other claimants.
3. As regarding the link, I'm up for removing all the external links.

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The sources meet WP:SPS, which sets aside all these other policy objections. Two editors continually dismissing the RFC, and the interpretations of the admins and other editors of the policy is indicative of an unwillingness to contribute to dispute resolution. Their chief concern is apparently that their predetermined conclusions were found to be in error. Accussing me of being argumentative for wishing to uphold the conclusions of the RFC is a pathetic attempt at dismissing the opinions of 7 contributors to the RFC, not to mention the quotes from the admins responsible for writing the policy in question. Moreover the notability attributed to Spataro by the review, to wit "It is an interesting window into one side of a controversy in a very large new religious movement" puts to rest these petty objections about notability.
2. The picture has nothing to to with the other claimants. These vapid concerns about weight are a vain attempt to redirect the discussion to an imaginary policy violation that doesn't exist. Its a picture of the subject with his son, period. It can be moved if need be, but no policy is being violated to warrant it being removed altogether.
3. All three of these external links are appropriate and germane. What's inappropriate and unacceptable is continually removing the link to the bupc's paper knowing full well doing so is blatant censorship. Not to mention it's repeatedly being removed without cause or explanation in the edit summary, but is tied into other edits as if the excision would hopefully go unnoticed. One time could be considered an honest oversight; after 6 its obviously a premeditated ommission. All three of these links are germane, and they will all remain. _Disarray^General 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Stating that the source meet WP:SPS doesn't make it so. The section states that the only way that a self-published source can be included is if produced by an estabilished expert which Spatoro is not, or whose work has been previously published by by other reliable third-party publications, and Spatoro has not been published by any one else. Spataro has no notability for his work to be allowed under WP:SPS. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof by assertion flies in Disarray's land. So do petulant statements like "They will remain." expect to be obeyed. Unfortunately, we'll just have to hold the line - despite the nausea.

Only, repeat: only, Jensen and the BUPC make anything of Joseph Pepe's relationship to Remey. (I'd lost track of all the Remeyite ersatz "adoptions" and forgot that this one actually happened.) Even Pepe himself distanced himself from Jensen et. al., and made no claim to Baha'i authority, if he even claimed to be Baha'i, so his insertion here unbalances the general Remeyites' discussion in the BUPC's favor, ergo WP:UNDUE. It should come out. Put it in the BUPC pages. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Somehow Mike manages to find subtle ways to insert personal attacks and/or bad faith assumptions into his replies, yet is the first to make a federal case out of any and all he perceives as offensive. Apparently maturity doesn't automatically come with aging. If only he could be bothered to spend that same energy on constructing sound arguments instead of relying solely on discrediting my intent. He accuses me of being argumentative for upholding the views of the majority of contributors to the RFC, while he dismisses the quoted interpretations and opinions of admins interpreting the policy, and wholly dismissing the will of nearly every one who commented on the RFC. Yet I'm the argumentative one? He's projecting his own inner conflict into accusations of me making petulant statements when in reality he stands before us here alone in his interpretation of sps, demanding his rejected interpretation be upheld in spite of all the opposition it has received from the RFC. He can't answer to the quotes provided from the policy discussion, so he dismisses the commentators as irrelevant. We are now informed he intends to persist in refusing his permission for using sources that the RFC deemed useful to the article indefinitely without bothering to participate in dispute resolution.

He's apparently refusing to deign his permission for the use of Pepe's picture as well, declaring it "out", for he has determined that a picture of the subject with his adopted son has no place in this biography for it allegedly provides weight to one of the groups views? We have now officially crossed the boundary into the land of utterly bizarre objections. Even moving the picture away from the section discussing views won't suffice, because "only, Jensen and the BUPC make anything of Joseph Pepe's relationship to Remey." That's Mike own sole opinion, for I'm quite sure most folks consider the relationship with their adopted son 'something' and a notable aspect of their biography. I'd challenge him to provide a sound example of ANY biography that considers a picture of a father and son as objectionable for any reason. Mike's bringing his own WP:OR to the table and attempting to connect the BUPC's views on Pepe to the relevance of the picture in an attempt to withdraw his permission for it's use. There are no comments attempting to be included that reach the conclusions Mike has stated about what Pepe did or didn't participate in, but rather he's attempting to redirect the debate with imaginary concerns. It's merely a picture of Mason with his son, and Mike's approval for it's inclusion isn't required. Provide something other than this imaginary weight violation, or give it a rest. _Disarray^General 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Disarray, you're a scream. You want to be taken seriously, but these "The kettle is black!" statements are hilarious. You start with proof by assertion, continue with argument by repetition, crescendo to issuing imperatives ("These will remain - snort!"), and then accuse the other side of doing the same.

Both Jeff3000 and I have, since this began, couched our arguments entirely on plain readings of the policies. There's nothing arbitrary about that.

Let's see, if you think that Pepe's picture is relevant to his family or personal life, why did you put it in the BUPC section, when there was one? Why do you insist on it being in the "After Shoghi Effendi" section, whose subject is his defection and the subsequent splinterings of his followers? Hmm?

And it's not my "personal opinion" that only your group makes anything of this. It's obvious to anyone with even passing familiarity with the others — because they don't mention him. Your group, however, absolutely has to have him in place, because without him, how can Neal Chase advance a claim on guardianship except by claiming an "adoption" by Pepe?

Since pictures draw attention to the subject matter, adding one that includes Pepe attracts an undue connection between the two. As the BUPC is the only Remeyite group claiming descent via Pepe, that places an undue connection between Remey and the BUPC. A picture that crops out Pepe would avoid this. Since the duo pic is in the public domain, that should be easy. Done. MARussellPESE (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently nobody has ever bothered to tell Mike how totally obnoxious hot-linking to the words in a statement he assumes only someone of his intellectual caliber would already be familiar with actually is. It's a clever ruse for speaking down to others while still maintaining one's own superiority complex, but ultimately exposes one to be a poser. He's actually the first and only editor I've ever witnessed to have the ego to even do it. But then as the owner of so many Wiki articles he does have an image to maintain. His inability to speak to specific challenges here in this discussion hasn't weakened his resolve to edit war over these losing battles. His "plain reading of policies" have been contradicted by quotes from admins responsible for writing these policies, to which his reply has been to dismiss the value of anyones interpretation of SPS which contradicts his own- to which there are many. Great strategy; and yet it's me relying on proof by assertion. Perhaps i wouldn't have to repeat myself if Mike would accept that his position has been challenged and contradicted repeatedly by a number of contributions to this discussion. He alone maintains, through mere will alone, that he is right, and the rest of us who disagree are wrong, and then chastises me for refusing to accept his rejected opinion. Priceless. We have yet to see Mike reply to any of the quote from the policy discussion, but only his dismissal of there value. As well he in one fell swoop dismissed all the contributions to the RFC as meaningless and "non-binding", as he persists with his "the policy doesn't allow it" mantra. The 5 quoted interpretations from the policy discussion weren't enough to convince him otherwise, as so I'm not sure anything will. Likewise he persists with this bizarre objection to Pepe's picture with nothing to defend it other than conjecture, bad faith assumptions, and personal attacks. He insists that in fact noone makes "anything" of the relationship, when in fact two sources have been provided that show otherwise, not to mention that it's patently absurd to even suggest that any father/son relationship is utterly meaningless in a biography, even if in fact no one has made "anything" of it. How utterly absurd. I've stated that the picture can go where ever would please the court; the location of After SE was appropriate for the obvious reasons that the adoption took place in the time frame covered in that section. These transparent attempts to cast these aspersions that Mason died alone and dejected are in vain. These alleged weight concerns are imaginary, and nothing has been presented to show that this picture violates any policies. It's time to give up the charade. _Disarray^General 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not allowed. How many times do we have to point you the policy page. The exceptions don't apply to the sources you are pushing (published by the subject of the article, or expert in the field). The discussion at the verifiability talk page only stated that a further liberal reading allowed the source if the source or the author of the self-published source was notable, and that also does not apply; Spataro and Mathieu and/or their books are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeff's hot-linking skills haven't yet reached the sophistication of his mentor Mike, for he's linking to the notability of an article when referring to author's notability. It take an intellectual giant to use hot-links appropriately, but he's showing promise. He also obviously considers himself clever in contributing to edit warring over a picture being discussed here while not bothering to speak to it in the discussion. This is a recurring pattern of Jeff's: to excise material from articles without making mention of it in the edit summary, or in the discussion. How clever. The edited picture of Mason that excised Pepe's existence from it solves nothing, but merely shows in relief the willingness to follow policies when it pleases these two, while willfully evading it when it doesn't. Besides imaginary made-up weight concerns about the father and son photo, the only other matter being presented to consider is that no one has made "anything" of the relationship, as if the absence of the self-evident importance of this manner of relationship deems it unworthy of observing. How utterly preposterous. This photo has no business being edit in the manner proposed, and it's insulting to the subject to even propose it. Short of any actual policy concerns, persistently excising it in an edit war isn't going to resolve anything. There's no reason, aside from the obvious personal coflicts Mike and Jeff have with it, to censure this, so give it a rest. _Disarray^General 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen many editors hot-link to pertinent articles as a short-hand way of incorporating that material into the discussion without the tedium of repeating it. It's a method of streamlining the discussion.

Once again, Pepe's picture is not germane to anyone but the BUPC. It's certainly appropriate to edit the picture to provide a balanced presentation.

Now, do you have anything to say, Disarray? Otherwise would you please refrain from another round of ad hominem personal attacks? MARussellPESE (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mason Remey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120062722/http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm to http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mason Remey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611160534/http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm to http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/covenant.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060329143552/http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/ to http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Persian Hands

Jammu58, with this edit you're making all kinds of accusations that are not reflected in the source provided. Clean it up or it's out. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Cuñado , Gazelle55 , Serv181920, In a new sub heading the “Role of Persian hands…” I tried my best to present fairly ::the material as in the source (Johnson’s book, Bahais in Exile) considering viewpoints of Remey and Ugo Giachery but for Cunado coverage ::of point of view other then his groups is invalid. He removed it without giving any valid reason. I would request the editors that they ::themselves read the content of Johnson’s book (page 12) and tell me whether removal by Cunado is justified ? In fact, in the “Daily ::Observation of Mason Remy” it is given with more clarity.Jammu58 (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few specific problems with your contribution,

• You deleted the reference to page 34-35 when you added the ref to page 10-12
• "One of the biggest controversies in Baha’i history" is a quote from Eric Stetson on p. xxxi of Johnson's book. That is a bold statement and Stetson is not a reliable source for that.
• "asked by Shoghi Effendi to always sit on the left side of him during meetings, could not gather support of other hands." this is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the issue of Guardianship or the transition.
• The whole paragraph about the role of Persian Hands is highly contestable and sourced from Mason Remey's memoirs. There is no indication that Johnson believed it to be true, he was just sharing what Remey claimed. Nothing in Remey's claims can be described as true on Wikipedia if it is contestable.
• The whole edition is a very obscure fact in a large story. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The issue gets a page mention in a 240 page book on Baha'i schisms, but it is not mentioned on a biography of Remey by one of his supporters. There is actually much more material from Johnson on Remey's senility than there is on the role of Persian Hands of the Cause.

I think the only role in mentioning it would be a sentence in an expanded section on Remey's views of the transition. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok fine, I take some of your points, will make the corrections and add the matter again. Regarding 'Mason Remey's memoirs', it could be contestable from the Haifa Baha'i angle but it should be acceptable by mentioning that it is sourced from his diary. Regarding your statement that it is 'very obscure' - fine - it could be obscure but the followers of Baha'u'llah are also obscure and the sects following Remey are much obscure (only in thousands). I never said Johnson believed in Persian hands role, I did wrote 'Remy said' and gave support of Ugo Giachery from same Book. For every statement Wikipedia needs a reliable source which i had provided. Remey's statement for article related to Remey are not up to Wikipedia standard and you find only Smith and Momen to be reliable, that's very surprising!!!. I believe it should be retained as a sub-heading.Jammu58 (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Johnson is a neutral academic source and, with a few exceptions, what he wrote in his own voice can be used in the wikipedia voice. Remey is not a neutral source and what he (verifiably) said should be used selectively, in context, and attributing the ideas to him. The weight of ideas on the Wikipedia biography should loosely match the weight of those ideas in reliable published sources. Adding a section dedicated to Remey's views on the Persian Hands is undue weight. A section on the transition from 1957 to 1960 that includes Remey's views and others on many of the issues of the time, could work. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, I think this part has POV issues - "One of the biggest controversies in Baha’i history was that it lost unending chain of infallible guardians when the first guardian died without clearly designating a successor.[31] It is that how a well-known American Baha'i, Mason Remy who was President of IBC and one of the Custodian Hands was asked by Shoghi Effendi to always sit on the left side of him during meetings, could not gather support of other hands." The Second Paragraph can go into the article.Serv181920 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Cuñado ,Gazelle55 ,Serv181920,I have edited and added the following lines After Cunado wrote on the talk page “A section on the transition from 1957 to 1960 that includes Remey's views and others on many of the issues of the time, could work. Cuñado”. Serv181920 wrote “The Second Paragraph can go into the article.Serv181920”. After following their suggestion I added with Remey’s view with Johnson's reference and deleting the first paragraph. Still cunado has removed it.Below is my Edit:

"Remey writes in his Daily observations, In the meeting of the Hands on November 20, 1957, Rehmatullah Muhajir, the Persian Hand, proposed that the Will and Testament of the Master, Abdu'l Baha be pronounced BADA (God changing His plan) and that the Guardianship be ended forever. This was immediately supported by all the Persian Hands who spoke supporting this motion, each repeating practically word by word the same argument.It was suggested by Ugo Giachery that the matter was decided beforehand during night-hours when these Persian hands met at Bahji. Since Ruhiyyih Khanum was with the Persian hands, majority of the hands approved the suggestion."[28][3]Jammu58 (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)