Talk:Leland Jensen

message: I've tried to come up with a couple of sentences that explain the contention between Haifans and Remeyites succinctly for the uninitiated, while remaining NPOV (not assuming which claim is correct).  What do people think of this:
:...Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant. As a group who believe that Charles Mason Remey was the 2nd Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, they are considered heretical covenant-breakers by the majority of Baha'is. Remey himself declared that the larger group of Baha'is were themselves covenant-breakers in a statement in 1961.
PaulHammond 11:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actual the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Government are not Remeyites.  Remeyites do not consider Leland Jenson as the "Establisher of the Fiath", which is one of the main tenants of the BUPC. -- Jeff3000 14:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Right, any article that refers to Mason Remey as "The Guardian" would obviously need a quantifier. I think the intro in this version is pretty good. Cuñado  - Talk 06:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested NPOV statement for the intro 

message: The Hands never said that the Guardianship had ended. They acknowledged that no will or appointment was made, and left the conclusion about further Guardians to the House of Justice. Cuñado  - Talk 06:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  declaration of the Hands 

message: Instead of repeating an enormously detailed argument on a ton of pages, I have been trying to link to a single detailed wikipedia source when Mason Remey's claim to Guardianship is mentioned. This is information that is already repeated on about 10 pages. I re-inserted the wiki link to the divisions page. I would prefer having the argument on his biography page, but that seems to be where the information accumulated. Was there a reason for deleting that link? Cuñado  - Talk 06:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there's a good argument for that information to be there on "Baha'i divisions" because it's a key element in the background of the six or so of his successor organizations. MARussellPESE 21:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mason Remey 

message: See this talk page discussion for the problems also found here. MARussellPESE 06:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiable]] sources are missing for some sections

message: This quote:
:"The legislative body must reinforce the executive, the executive must aid and assist the legislative body so that through the close union and harmony of these two forces, the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm and strong, that all the regions of the world may become even as Paradise itself"
:: (Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá, page 15]).''
was just added. It does not seem relevant to the subject. The previous sentence was said: He also believed that a Universal House of Justice without a living guardian was flawed and fallible according to the Bahá'í writings: 
The colon would imply that the quote following directly supports the statement of "a Universal House of Justice without a living guardian was flawed and fallible", but it doesn't address that at all. I want to delete it but every time I do Jeff thinks I'm trying to censor information. Cuñado  - Talk 02:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a valid observation. How's bout I reword it so as not to lose the spirit the specific concern being expressed? I wanted to pinpoint, in as few words as possible, why he set out to do what he did, ya know? I'll try and be more to the point. It's good to get outside criticism on these things, cuz you want it to make sense to someone who doesn't know anything about the subject. I can see how that writing can be interpreted different ways, depending on how much or little you read into it. You're right, at face value it doesn't come out an say "a UHJ without a living guardian was...". Let me give that a once over and you jump right in with any concerns you might have. Thanks. Jeff 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote 

message: When the Guardian penned his "esential prelude", a cable of 25-Apr-51, the Israeli state was getting on its feet. Their War of Independence was hardly over. During Palestine Mandate religious courts were recognized as they had during the previous centuries under the Ottomans. One would presume that the Israeli state would continue this. Obviously the Guardian did.
They did not. By the time of his death the state of Israel did not recognize "religious courts". That a Baha'i religious court could not be achieved is a statement of fact, not a claim; and pursuing it would have been foolish. Characterizing this as a "failure to achieve this goal" may be what Jensen believed and taught, but it can't be characterized as a genuine failure in an encylopedia. This rendering doesn't give short-shrift to what Jensen believed, just what are asserted as facts.
There's also a passage that repeats, almost verbatim, statements already made. I struck it for that reason.
Also there are a few places where Jensen's assertions are stated as facts. I'm not going to go nuts on these, but I found a doozy. MARussellPESE 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking the time to explain your concerns at length. The changes do make the article clearer and flow nicely. Being the author of most of the contents, I'm by proxy not as aware of having made fact statements that were mere assertions and interpretations that may seem obvious to others. I certainly don't want to be responsible for being sloppy, so I'd thank you for pointing out any other concerns, like the "doozy" you found, and even any other minor concerns, you or anyone else may have. I'll do the rewriting if you want to let me know what specifically jumps off the page at you. Thanks. Jeff 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed some text under "Guardian dispute", since it went into detail which was not relevant to the Guardian dispute, and not really relevant for a biography of Leland Jensen. There is a "main" link to more info, so I thought it would be reasonable. Cuñado  - Talk 05:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status as a religious court

message: The academic honorific is inappropriate per the MOS. Will clean this up around these articles. MARussellPESE 02:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I don't believe I was aware of this. I will make sure not to create anymore sentences with the title in his name. Cheers. Jeff 06:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dr." Leland Jensen

message: *The statements are WP:V.  The historical notes are also WP:RS. MARussellPESE 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by previously involved editors

message: Looking at the diff, I agree with the removal of the text. The biggest problem is the reliance on a BUCP document to assert the motivations of Pres. Carter, and the rest of the removed text hinges on that assumption. Pairadox 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about removing the entire reference to World Civil War? The partial quote is cherry picking BUPC statements. MARussellPESE 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section seems to be made up of "cherry-picked" quotes, so I'm reluctant to wade into it until it's cleaned up more. Any attempt to prove the predictions have been fulfilled (or prove the opposite) needs to be supported by reliable third-party sources, meaning that BUCP should not be used for this purpose. Pairadox 22:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Pairadox 

message: MARussell, it has occurred to me that you haven't bothered to look any deeper into PD-59 than the first page that Google presented you, but are postering here as someone who thinks they know what they're talking about. Based on recent comments by you and Cunado, its evident that you haven't found any of the critical revues of the lasting effects PD-59 has had, nor any of the immediate concerns it drew at its inception that would have caused Chase to come to the conclusions he drew. Your attacks on WCW imply that Chase has invented these positions, when if fact they are widely accepted. Let me present for the sake of discussion a breif synopsis of the evidence we would have to present to counter your party-line propaganda. Forget the fact that you can't present one good reason why we "must" answer this and present your naive veiw of the matter when this section is about the prediction and not our view of PD-59. Rather this is only to show why I'm insisting that this tangent would run amuck were we to try and present it. I contend it's off-topic still, but your concerns of "inconvenient facts" are not at all what concerns me about your so-called WP:V. My concern is that it's misleading to only present your limited view, but to even go there is unfathomable to me. If you were to include your "verifiable sources" in the section, then it would be prudent to include:
:“By issuing Presidential Directive #59, the Administration in Washington, DC, has shifted its nuclear war strategy from deterrence to "first-strike" capability, maintaining that a "limited and prolonged nuclear war" could insure security. Directive #59 moves from the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), primarily targeting Soviet cities and industrial centers, to a policy of counter force, targeting Soviet weaponry and sheltered command centers. The Directive encourages rather than deters nuclear war. Finally, its implementation would divert vast sums of money towards a further escalating arms race.”found here
:“and by Carter's Presidential Directive 59 that made plans for a first strike nuclear war.”found here
:Or how about "P.D. 59, as it is called, substitutes the targeting of Sovlet missiles for the targeting of Soviet cities, thereby formally committing the United States to a “counterforce” strategy [i.e. first-strike]. At the same time, the new doctrine also accepts the idea that a limited nuclear war can be fought and won, thereby lowering the threshold of resistance to starting one...There simply is no palpable national-security reason for the United States to repudiate its strategy of deterrence. But even if there were, there is even less of an excuse for taking such an action during an election campaign. The world moved one giant step closer to nuclear war because Jimmy Carter wanted to serve another four years as President." (Alan Wolfe, p.609 The Nation, 12/06/1980)
Or what about this, this, ,or this?
There are about a dozen or so such quotes to choose from. The gist of most of these articles is that PD-59 was a dramatic change from MAD to this "counter force" first-strike policy. This is how the Russians saw it as well. The idea that we have always had a “counterforce” policy is vacuous political rubbish. You seem willing to go to any end to play down the accurate 1980 prediction of the spy satellite which culminated in PD-59, as well as play down the tremendous shift in policy from MAD to PD-59 which alarmed everyone at that time. Your accusations and allegations against Chase are completely ignorant, uncalled for, and have become downright rude. This is my final contribution to this discussion; it's time to drop it.
I'm not sure what more there is to accomplish with this section? I feel compelled to ask cuz there were some changes made the other day, and now we're still discussing, well...what exactly? You've been posturing as a champion of truth this whole time, all the while utterly veiled of all the facts. This page was just fine before your recent "contributions" to it, yet I've been trying to be cooperative none-the-less. Chase's WCW press release says what it says. It doesn't have to be demonstrated to you to be true for it to be used as a source. Neither does it require being answered to by you, for it's not the subject of the section. You all have shown direct opposition to every idea and belief we have. We're not going to go around and around about writings, statements and beliefs we have making sure they stand up to your version of what's true; nor do any of them have to be "answered" by you. Doing so brings in your POV as if its absolute truth. Oh I know, let's go through the whole press release point by point while we're at it. Where does something like this end? This sort of thing would never be tolerated anywhere else. 
Meanwhile, while you boldly claim PD-59 didn't escalate the cold war or MAD's disposal (but that it was "slowly phased out") as if an authority on the matter, we have the Wiki page on MAD naming PD-59 as directly responsible for replacing MAD's policy with this new countervailing one. Then as we're reducing ballistic missiles, we're not reducing arms at all, for we're introducing tactical MIRv and Cruise missles to replace them while they boast about ARMs reductions. So there's clearly two opposing veiws to this, your's being but one; the populace one being "The world moved one giant step closer to nuclear war because Jimmy Carter wanted to serve another four years as President." 
But regardless, the WIKI policy is clear that the source's statements don't have to be demonstrated as true (to you or anyone), just that there's a source that they were said. I thought the follow-up that was added to it was fine. It all looks good to me. WCW only point for inclusion was to share our side of the one side-side perspective originally included, and source the statement that it's sourcing: that we believe the prediction was fullfilled. That's all. You don't have to accept the statement, it's just a source for the comment. I see this matter as closed. Jeff 08:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence PD-59 is a first-strike policy

message: In the bit where it says "he claimed to be the successor to the guardian and this caused both sides to mutually excommunicate each other", I'm not happy that this represents a fair view - this sounds to the lay person as if the two sides were equal, whereas the Mason Remey followers were relatively small.  Anyone disagree with me re-writing this and saying something more accurate? k1-UK-Global 16:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This wording was created by Tomhab per a consensus over neutrality issues. I don't beleive the whole thing needs to be rehashed. Your concerns are somewhat skewed as the undue weight policy wouldn't apply to this case. The differences in scope of the groups sizes is already noted, and has nothing to do with the verifiable fact that Mason declared all the sans-Guardian Baha'is Covenant Breakers. So, it's a fact that all of Remey's followers have shunned the sans-guardians since that decree, and vice-versa, so this wording was chosen to remain neutral. Size is not a factor in this; being bigger doesn't make you righter, does it? You are welcome to review the previous discussion about this on Mason Remey's talk page. Jeff 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  Anyone else with a view on this?  Cheers, k1-UK-Global 11:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Excommunicate each other

message: Cunado, I know Balch called the predictions prophecies in parts of his research, but the section in Stone's book where the reference points to for the very information being provided in the article is titled "Predictions". You're letting your WP:OR get in the way here by saying what Balch claimed about the predictions/prophecy debate allows you to make these mis-characterizations of the source's wording. You're misrepresenting what the source states, for the section being referred to by the ref. is titled Predictions, and that same source explains that they specified that they weren't prophets fabricating prophecies, but that the predictions were based off of interpreting existing prophecies. That's what the source being referenced specifically says about this. You can add the disclaimer about Balch's comments into the section, but you're not going to misrepresent the source being referenced. DisarrayGeneral 02:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What the source says

message: The article says "went on to propagate his own teachings among a group of followers that at one time might have reached 200 people," and you're trying to add "despite his claims of having thousands of followers worldwide." All the points of relative size are consolidated in the BUPC intro and all that's needed here is relative size. It's biased to push for the inclusion of a clause that might seem promotional, and at the same time is qualified by the source as being false. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the point is part of the same sentence the reference is pointing to. Why you're in favor of one half of a sentence, and adamant about excluding the other is confusing. Is there some specific reason you need to censure this point? I have the same question about why you have consistently removed "Under the Hereditary Guardianship" everywhere it's found. It was the name of the group; is there some specific reason this recurring censuring is occuring? DisarrayGeneral 19:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cunado, you haven't established due cause why you're censuring half of the sentence being used in the intro. You asked, and have been answered. Reverting to back to the previous version after being given the explanation asked for without even acknowledging the answer seems against the spirit of co-operation. The sentence being provided in the intro is only half of what Stone stated on the matter. There's no reason to censure the other half. Either use the whole statement, or don't use any of it at all. Reverting back to the previous version without even commenting here is how edit wars escalate. Please provide the the policy that backs your objections, and don't escalate matters being discussed. DisarrayGeneral 01:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD, "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." With this in mind, the lead is establishing notability by saying that he once had a following of 200 people, and clarifies that the size declined by the 1990s. The fact that Jensen claimed thousands of followers does not give notability or context, and the source you're quoting says that it's a false claim in the same breath. Your claim of censorship is empty as the intro to BUPC has a paragraph with all the mentions of adherent size, including the one you're claiming I'm censoring. It sounds like your argument so far is "the ref mentions it in the same sentence". That is not an argument and no policy I know of would support it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009-02-24 

message: here is the dif. My version says,
...and went on to propagate his own teachings among a group of followers that observers say probably never exceeded 200, but declined in size significantly from 1990-1996.
And the version User:General Disarray is reverting to says,
...and went on to propagate his own teachings among a group of followers that at one time might have reached 200 people, despite his claims of having thousands of followers worldwide. The group reportedly declined in size significantly from 1990-1996.
which is a summary of the following paragraph on Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant,
Adherents were mostly concentrated in Missoula, Montana, with groups at times in Wyoming, Arkansas, Minnesota, Colorado, and Wisconsin. Researchers from the University of Montana noted that from 1980 to 1996 membership fluctuated but never exceeded 200 nationwide, despite Jensen's claim of having thousands of followers worldwide. The group declined in size significantly following 1980, and by 1990 had fewer than 100 members. In 1994 the membership list showed 66 members in Montana and less than 20 in other states, with defection accelerating in the 1990s. Researchers documenting religious groups in Montana in 2003 noted a community of 30 members in the headquarters of Missoula, Montana, which claimed at that time to have local, national, and international councils.
The exact wording on the ref says "membership has fluctuated but it probably has never exceeded 200 nationwide, despite Jensen's claims of having thousands..." 
per WP:LEAD, "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." I have argued that my phrasing is enough to give context, and also that the point he is pushing for inclusion is skewed as promotional and qualified by the source as not being accurate. The source is a study by the University of Montana that followed Jensen and his group on and off over 16 years, published in 1996. It is the most extensive third-party source on Jensen and his followers. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009-02-25 RFC 

message: I don't mean to be the new guy that is loud and obnoxious off the bat but the content of this article is largely focused on the most controversial aspects of Leland Jensen's teachings.  Why isn't there a discussion of his theological beliefs or major biblical interpretations?  Or maybe I am supposed to write that?  Anyway, just something I noticed you would think with all the discussion about covenant breaking their may be some references to Leland Jensen's views instead of what seems to be rather a editorial slant to not discuss what Dr. Jensen taught about theologically but focus on the "fringe" aspects of his existence on earth.  just my two cents. would there be major upheaval if their was mention of his views on the Covenant, Infallibility of the Guardians and the succession of Shoghi Effendi in the sense of the IBC? Why haven't these things been presented before or have they?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonomous019 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:Notability, WP:NPOV, WP:V, & WP:RS. In a nutshell: independent coverage of Jensen's teachings would be required. The only thing, objectively, that make Jensen notable are the "fringe" things. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leland Jensen. 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leland Jensen. 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  tag to https://www.fastcase.com/Yahoo/Start.aspx?C=26917489637405405daded611067aa76e77e8a5606aee00f&D=77eca924714beb4591a4da5747d53c9c77862a89c3a754d6&AffiliateConst=Yahoo
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207083600/http://entrybytroops.org/great-pyramid-giza.html to http://www.entrybytroops.org/great-pyramid-giza.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified