Talk:Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith/Archive 2

message: This article is in need of references and sources, especially since it is inevitably a controversial subject. Moreover, it needs a lot of editing to make it NPOV and to keep developments in context. Fortunately, some of the necessary material can be copied from other Bahá'í-related Wiki articles. I have so far worked on the first sections including Shoghi Effendi. More later. --Occamy 22:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and Context

message: I feel that the introduction is inappropriate--and made changes earlier--for three reasons: 
*the reader first needs an agreed definition of Bahá'ís and the Bahá'í Faith, so it it clear what has been subject to specific schisms
*the word "split" implies that there was some sort of equality; "debate" does not capture the rancour and vitriolic character of the disputes
*the immediate family of Shoghi Effendi did not dispute his leadership of the Bahá'í Faith and did not promote a schism, nor did they "excommunicate" him. --Occamy 06:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I think the Babi section is necessary. It is clearly a part of Bahá'í history (and not at all tangential), and illuminates Bahá'í attitudes toward later schisms. Also, as a technical matter it introduces material that is later necessary.
:This assertion is illogical as the article is about Bahá'í divisions; the Bayanis/Azalis do not represent a Bahá'í schism. And Bahá'í history is covered by other articles. To be relevant to "Bahá'í divisions" and to remain NPOV, Anon should explain how his insertion would illuminate Bahá'í attitudes toward later schisms. Also, what is the material that is necessary later? --Occamy 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might just be simplest to start a Bahá'í/Bábí split page. Occamy has a point since the page is linked by the Bahá'í disambiguation page and so refers only to the Bahá'í side of things. As for the death of Baha'u'llah being the start - most schisms don't occur before the death of its founder. -- Tomhab 10:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Babi material

message: I don't like the "versus" bit. Sounds... not quite POV, but wrong. Makes it sound like one was out to get the other, whereas it was a disagreement that couldn't be settled (and then led to schisms). Its only a small point. I can't think up any better wording right now though.  -- Tomhab 12:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet based activists Vs Instiutional..... 

message: The Conclusion, as presented, might need some tightening in its neutral point of view.  Bahá'ís do not use the term "AO" as we consider it generally derogatory.  May I suggest:
One of the claims of the mainstream Bahá'í community is that the Faith cannot break into sects. Further, they point out that, while small groups or individuals have left the Faith, or been told to leave, these have generally not been as successful attracting followers, or having as widespread effect, as the mainstream Bahá'í community. Indeed, they assert, the vast majority of such schismatic groups are already extinct, and those remaining have few followers, especially when contrasted with the Bahá'í Faith's millions of adherents.
MARussellPESE 22:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold!  I think what you've got here is much better than what's on the article now - so I'm changing it.  PaulHammond 11:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  This suite of articles has certainly created no small amount of acrimony and vitriol.  Given that, I feel it to be in better taste and moderation for me to post suggestions in "Discusstion" rather than blast them into an article.  Not quite the "Be Bold" of Wikipedia, but more my taste with highly-charged issues.  I'd rather seek opinions than spark an edit war.--MARussellPESE 17:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposed conclusion looks fine and should not be regarded as being excessively bold. --Occamy 20:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Conclusion Edit 

message: This sub-section is troubling to me. The charges against Jensen are strong and should be supported to conform to NPOV policies, I think. Is there any source material on these?
I acknowledge that getting verifiable independent information on almost any of the post-Remey communities may be next to impossible. Perhaps this whole section needs careful consideration, declaration that much information is unverifiable, or excision. MARussellPESE 16:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BUPC material

message: I've recently started a page for the BUPC and for Leland Jensen.  The bulk of the BUPC page was created straight from a "Study of Religions" on Harvard's website plurism.org.  Seeing as how the information was a "third party", I thought it was an appropriate source.  If anyone's interested in presenting their opinions and specific concerns about any of the content, especially anything "undocumented" and has ideas for solutions I would certainly welcome collaborating any and all concerns, questions, and contributions so that through the "clash of differing opinions the spark of truth can arise".
:I reverted the last edit again. Listing beliefs of Jensen, Jeff is taking away reference to King David, and replacing it with a belief that the rest of the Bahá'ís are wrong. The King David part is obvious, since it's a belief not shared by anybody else. The part about Jensen believing the others are deceived is just as necessary as saying everyone thinks he was deceived, or in other words not necessary. This is a Bahá'í divisions page, every group listed thinks the others are wrong. Cuñado  - Talk 09:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't cutting and pasting, and your only purpose in editing the page is to promote Jensen and the BUPC, so don't fly the flag of good faith editing. Cuñado  - Talk 18:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BUPC Page 

message: I removed the excerpt about the failed prophecy because it was moved to Leland Jensen. The idea was to keep this section as short and to the point as possible. I assumed you didn't know it was moved when you restored it. Cuñado  - Talk 03:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  prophecies