Talk:Neal Chase

Speedy Deletion

This biography is about the current leader of the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant. More work needs to be done to it and it will be tended to shortly. A simple Google of this individual brings up several dozen hits. He has authored nine press releases, been a guest on the Art Bell Coast to Coast radio show, and has been the subject of papers and a book written by the Professor Rob Balch of the U. of Montana as well as the historian Vernon Johnson. He is a central figure in the BUPC's history. He meets every requirement for a biography. User:Jeffmichaud

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 03:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

move

No need to revert. I moved a lot of stuff to the BUPC main page, which is a more suitable place to put a ton of stuff about beliefs. This should be a biography page. Cuñado - Talk 19:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

~Not sure why you feel this is appropriate. Chases biography includes his beliefs. The page was fine, and will stand as it was created. Some of the contributions you made are not in line with the facts. Chase believes his Guardian of the entire Faith, not his "group". Jensen, and the rest of the believers at the time of the Great Violation, removed themselves from the ranks of those violators, not the other way around. None of his followers could have been removed by the UHJ, for how would the UHJ know who was with Mason without those individuals coming forward to state so? Nevertheless, the fact is that Jensen sent a letter of resignation to the UHJ, which is what Mason instructed all to do, and was never "excommunicated", as you would be inclined to believe. And why does the quote from Shoghi Effendi, which affirms why we need a Guardian at all times, keep getting removed from the various BUPC pages? Is there some reason why you would remove a source which affirms a statement other than that there's something you find offensively threatening about it?

Settle down. I put the quote on the BUPC page. Cuñado - Talk 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply not true. You've lost track of your own "work". You removed it during your "rework" of the BUPC page on 1/20, the same day you removed it from this article; then I restored it on both pages. Only after this did you deem it fit, or whatever, and left it alone in subsequent "work". How do you figure you "put the quote on the BUPC page"? Don't call foul on me; what I stated is true and verifiable in the "history" pages of both these articles. User:Jeffmichaud 01:54 22 January 2006

That's the least of my concerns about this latest "contribution". It's a struggle to see how any of what's been removed was violating any wikipolicies on where information should or shouldn't be contained. This bio was reviewed by dozens of third-party editors while it was up for deletion, and the unanimous ruling was KEEP. None of these other editors opted to change anything, which was most certainly an appropriate time to do so. Trying to marginalize him in this way WILL NOT STAND. User:Jeffmichaud 00:28 21 January 2006

The AfD vote was not an endorsement of the article's content (That's what Featured Article discussions are for.) only whether or not the article belonged in the encyclopedia. Jeffmichaud is the only editor to date on this article so his statement that other editors' contributions "WILL NOT STAND" is in direct conflict with the purpose of wikipedia which is to serve as a collective work product where we each check each others' work. This user's dearth of verifiable sources here and elsewhere (See Talk:Davidic line for extensive discussion.) weakens these contributions.

This is an attempt to clean up these BUPC pages for the encyclopedia. Cuñado's edits are entirely appropriate. This is a biography page and not an appropriate place for a declaration of faith and/or dogma. The BUPC page is appropriately cited and that group's beliefs developed there. See Jesus of Nazareth, Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh for examples. MARussellPESE 15:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

~MARussell, infamous for misrepresenting clearly written words, is out of order here, and grandstanding with an irrelevant lecture, to boot. He has just written that my "statement that other editors' contributions "WILL NOT STAND" is in direct conflict...". He is taking a clearly written sentiment, and twisting my words. I have never opposed, on any discussion, "other editors contributions", and to say so is outrageous. Directly above this last post of MAR's is what I actually did say, which was "Trying to marginalize [Chase] in this way WILL NOT STAND!". This is not opposing the contributions from other editors. I'm defending the subject from the subjegation of a biased, maligning editor who is not acting in good faith here. How dare you make these statements?

Furthermore, MAR vehemently asserts that "Cuñado's edits are entirely appropriate", but fails to assert specifically how the original version violates the Wikipolicy on biographies, for much of what was removed were not "beliefs", or "dogmas". Neither does MAR consider the errors I pointed out. My beleif that these "contributions" (which is a stretch to say since they are really deletions of facts) are not intended to "clean up" this page, but rather marginalize a central figure in BUPC history, has been confirmed when after clearly stating blatant errors made in Cunado's rewrite of the introduction, MARussell has just reverted my corrections right back to the original errors without any consideration to this editors concerns. Yeah. That's good faith contributing: MARussell style. User:Jeffmichaud 02:11 22 January 2006

Once again, I moved most information that should have been kept. I deleted some based on relevancy and trying to make a good article. Just because information is added DOES NOT mean it has to stay. To be frank, the article was terribly written and extremely biased. You are friends with Neal Chase and have admitted that you have been asking him for advice on what to put on this page. Why should we allow propaganda to be plastered all over?? I have reduced the page to brief relevant facts. If you continue to fully revert a lot of work, there are ways to ban you and get the page blocked from editing. Cuñado - Talk 00:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

~I challenge you to prove that I "have admitted that [I] have been asking him for advice on what to put on this page". I further challenge you to show how anything on this page is "propaganda". Please, show us how this is true. Oh, how grand the webs we weave. I wrote this page based on information available on [www.bupc.org BUPC.org], and UHJ.net, and from published sources cited in the article. You've reduced the page all right; but with facts? Really? What choice does one have but to "fully revert a lot of work" that is laced with errors throughout. Funny that this concern would come from you, of all editors. ROFLOL!!! I can show in the history pages of Baha'i divisions, Mason Remey, Davidic lineand others, where this is exactly what you have been guilty of on no less than a dozen occasions. Only in those cases, your 'full reverts' where of actual contributions intended to improve the article with not an iota of consideration on your part to the concerns of editors with views opposing yours. Can you honestly say that's what these lastest changes are for? Never mind. I know. You're the good faith poster boy.

All that said, I would appreciate being able to change the inherent errors without further harassment for defending the truth. Can we discuss future concerns, and hear each other out please? User:Jeffmichaud 02:39 22 January 2006

specific points

• claims to be the current Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith

The "Baha'i Faith" is a term which legally can't be used by anyone else. Remey lost that right in court. There is documentation for this, and many many other copyrights and patents, including the image of the temple in Wilmette. See [1], [2], especially this, and you can search the US patent office here. Besides the fact that Chase can't legally claim to be the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, the article entitled "Baha'i Faith" refers to the Baha'is that follow the House of Justice. This is obvious propaganda and is meant to confuse readers and create the image that he is widely recognized as the Guardian.

Important highlights from the legal documents include:

"36. The New Mexico group is not connected with the NSA and has no permission or authority from the NSA or the Universal house of Justice to use the trademarks, names, and other symbols of the NSA or to exercise any Baha'i Faith ecclesiastical authority."

Another good one (and on topic) is (and remember, these are findings of fact in a court - these are no longer in dispute, not even on appeal:

"7. The Baha'i Faith originated in Persia with the teachings of the Bab, who foretold that God would soon make manifest a new Prophet. In 1863, Baha'u'llah, a Persian, proclaimed Himself to be that Prophet, and He thereafter engaged in several decades of spiritual teaching and writing. In His lifetime Baha'u'llah provided for ultimate establishment of The Universal House of Justice as supreme world authority of the Baha'i Faith.

"8. Baha'u'llah died in 1892, designating His eldest son, Abdu'l-Baha, Spiritual Leader of the Baha'i Faith. Abdu'l-Baha, in turn, upon His death in 1921, designated his eldest grandson, Shoghi Effendi, as Guardian of the Faith. When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, world spiritual authority of the Baha'i Faith became vested in the Hands of the Cause of God, twenty- seven individuals appointed by Shoghi Effendi as Chief Stewards of the Faith who effectuated the devolution of Baha'i spiritual authority to The Universal House of Justice. Their interim authority ended in 1963 with the formation of The Universal House of Justice, a nine-member body elected by member of The National Spiritual Assemblies throughout the world. Members presently serve for a five year term. The Universal House of Justice is the exclusive highest authority in the Baha'i Faith throughout the world, and it has legislative powers on matters not expressly revealed in the Baha'i scriptures. Shoghi Effendi was the only Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, and there is no Guardian at the present time and has been none since 1957. The procedures followed by the Hands of the Cause and the succession of authority from Shoghi Effendi to The Universal House of Justice were in full accordance with the controlling documents and sacred writings and teachings of the Faith. The Universal House of Justice is located at the Baha'i world Center on Mount Carmel, in Haifa, Israel."

Also of note are some of the conclusions of law:

"6. By virtue of their widespread activities, extensive dissemination of publications, and national publicity, the NSA and the Baha'i Faith have established invaluable and protectible good will among the general public in increasingly greater numbers. The public has come to recognize the designations "Baha'i", "National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States," "Baha'i Publishing Trust," representations of the Baha'i house of Worship, the Arabic design "The Greatest Name," and related terms and symbols, as identifying the NSA and the Baha'i Faith as administered by the NSA, and no other. These terms and symbols, because of their long and widespread use and dissemination, have attained secondary meaning as relating to and identifying the NSA and the Baha'i Faith as administered by the NSA as the source of numerous publications and religious activities."

"7. The NSA's rights to the marks, names, and symbols "National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States," Baha'i Publishing Trust," Baha'i," representations of the Baha'i House of Worship, and the Arabic design "The Greatest Name" in connection with the religious activities and publications antedates and is superior to any rights of the New Mexico group to use these marks, names, and symbols in connection with religious activities and publications. The NSA is legally entitled to the protection of these designations.

...and...

"12. The right to use the Baha'i symbols, names, and marks inheres in the Baha'i Faith, not in its members. When individuals are not or cease to be members, use by them of the designations of the Faith is misleading and deceptive. There is only one Baha'i Faith. The NSA is duly authorized by the Universal house of Justice as the highest authority for the Faith in continental Unites States and is entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith."

"13. No question of religious liberty is involved. The New Mexico group has the right to organize and worship according to its dictates, but it has no right in doing so to utilize names and marks which will enable it to appropriate the good will which has been earned by an unrelated organization and to subject the general public to confusion, deception, and mistake.

Cuñado - Talk 04:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

~And? So what? The statement is that he believes he is the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, and it's not true to say otherwise. Is there something in all this that anyone is supposed to care about? None of the above is news to me, and from what I can see doesn't offer anything that counters that "Neal Chase believes he is the fourth Guardian of the Baha'i Faith". This belief doesn't require anyone accepting it. The UHJ and the Hands believe lots of things to be true, based on their interpretations of the writings. I can't go around vandalizing their pages because I don't believe them, right? So why do you believe you have that right here?

"If you continue to fully revert a lot of work, there are ways to ban you and get the page blocked from editing". That's what you said to me right? You just fully reverted everything I did last night. Where do you come off? No discussion? Do you think you're going to be the final authority regardless of how other editors feel. I took into consideration yours and others concerns, and reworked the page based on that. Now you've deleted it all, and reduced the section to nothing. Can you see how one might see this as marginalizing? I'm finding it difficult to consider any of your concerns, for you're coming off as a Narcisist. User:Jeffmichaud 09:27 22 January 2006

The point is that any time the word "Baha'i Faith" is used in an article, it must refer to the Baha'i Faith which is legally recognized as exclusively the organization under the direction and authority of the Universal House of Justice mentioned clearly in the above documents. Violations of this rule have legal precedence in the US and Canada. The designation of your group is the "Baha'is under the ..... " and he can only claim to represent those people that profess allegiance to that group. Your edits are an attempt to deceive. Cuñado - Talk 06:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This edit is clearly in violation of the copyrights mentioned above. Do not do it again. Cuñado - Talk 17:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This edit is the same thing. One more and I'll get an administrator. Cuñado - Talk 02:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To whoever Adminstrator, editor, or party this may concern regarding supposed copyright entitlements to terms regarding the Baha'i Faith:

1. There are no registered trademarks to be found in the US patent office regarding Baha'i terms. Furthermore, only the term "Baha'i" is registered as trademark in Canada, and only as: "WARES:(1) Periodical literature and printed books".
2. Source cited is from bahai-reference library, and not the legal decision from the court. This document is the counter-claim of the defendants in the case (NSA), generated from the law offices of the defendent. Courts finding in 1966 was issued by virtue of plaintiff failing to appear, due to a cease and decist order from the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. Furthermore, term "Baha'i Faith" is not even listed in the document.
3. Precedence from the New York Supreme Court below from a similiar case shows that "[NSA] have no right to a monopoly of the name of a religion."

• (CITE AS: 27 N.Y.S.2D 525)

McDANIEL et al

v.

MIRZA AHMAD SOHRAB et al

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

March 31, 1941.

Action by Allen B. McDaniel and others, as members of the National Spiritual Assembly and Trustees of the Baha'is of the United States and Canada, and another against Mirza Ahmad Sohrab and another based on alleged fact that defendants were creating erroneous impression that they were connected with and authorized to represent the Baha'i religion, and to solicit contributions therefor.

On motion to dismiss complaint.

Motion granted, with leave to serve a further amended complaint.

Watson, Bristol, Johnson & Leavenworth, of New York City, for plaintiffs.

Mitchell & Bechert, of New York City, for defendants.

VALENTE, Justice.

This is a motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the amended complaint as supplemented by the bills of particulars as insufficient in law.

The individual plaintiffs sue as members of the National Spiritual Assembly and Trustees of the Baha'is of the United States and Canada. The Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the City of New York, a religious corporation, is a co-plaintiff.

The complaint alleges that the name 'Baha'i' denotes a religion identified with the name of the founder 'Baha'. The plaintiffs claim to be the authorized representatives of all of the Baha'is of the United States and Canada.

They allege that they are publishing books and other publications which teach the Baha'i religion.

They charge that the defendants, who were members prior to April 5, 1929, of the Baha'i congregation of the City of New York, have been conducting, without the authority of plaintiffs, meetings, lecutres, classes, social gatherings and other activities, and announcing and advertising the same as Baha'i meetings, lectures, classes, etc.

They complain that the defendants have been giving these meetings, lectures, ect., a Baha'i appearance and atmosphere by teaching, in connection therewith, a religion described as the Baha'i religion, and that they have created an erroneous impression that they are connected with and authorized to represent the Baha'i religion and to solicit contributions therefor.

In addition, plaintiffs complain of the opening of a book shop by the defendants under the name of 'Bahai Book Shop' and of the listing of the shop in the telephone directory under that name, immediately over the name of 'Baha'i Center,' which represents the listing of plaintiffs' New York office and book shop. _ [1, 2]

In the court's opinion, the complaint fails to state a good cause of action.

The plaintiffs have no right to a monopoly of the name of a religion.

The defendants, who purport to be mambers of the same religion, have an equal right to use the name of the religion in connection with their own meetings, lectures, classes and other activities. No facts are alleged in the complaint to indicate that the defendants have been guilty of any act intended or calculated to deceive the public into believing that their meetings, lectures or book shop are identified with or affiliated with the meetings, lectures, etc., and book shop of the plaintiffs.

Defendants have the absolute right to practice Baha'ism, to conduct meetings, collect funds and sell literature in connection therewith, and to conduct a book shop under the title 'Bahai Book Shop.'

The bills of particulars furnished by the plaintiffs admit that the allegations, that the defendants created the erroneous impression that they were connected with the plaintiffs and led the public to believe that their book shop was connected with the plaintiffs, were not based upon any acts of the defendants other than their conducting meetings, lectures, classes and other activities under the name of 'Bahai' and their operation of a book shop under that name listed in the telephone directory immediately above the name of plaintiffs' book shop.

The position of the listing is, of course, due to the fact that the telephone directory is arranged alphabetically, so that the name 'Bahai Book Shop' naturally precedes the name 'Baha'i Center'.

The motion to dismiss the amended complaint is granted, with leave to serve a further amended complaint within ten days from the service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

Let this decision from the New York Supreme Court show that the allegation that the Baha'i Faith, or usage of Baha'i terms is invariably uncopyrightable, and there uses are protected by the 1st amendment. There use will not be monopolized by any party concerned. User:Jeffmichaud 01:49 26 January 2006

Is there a reference for this verdict? Can you find the documentation? It was obviously typed in because of the spelling errors. The Baha'i-library website is not run by members of the Baha'i Faith, it is only a repository of information about the Baha'i Faith, and the document is the actual court document scanned in by Robert Stauffer, the fact that it's found on Baha'i-library does not take away any credibility.

The New Mexico verdict was binding on a national level, and not just between a bookstore in New York. The entire point of the verdict was to distinguish between the two groups who both claim to be the rightful leadership, and to avoid confusion to the public. Confusion is exactly what Jeffmichaud is trying to introduce by saying that Neal Chase - the leader of an extremely small group in Montana - is the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, or that Leland Jensen is the Establisher of the Baha'i Faith. By using this terminology someone unfamiliar with the terminology would be lead to believe that all Baha'is accept this fact, which is quite far from the truth. The intro as it stands is not misconstruing any information, and attempts to revert it are attempts to add to the confusion and possibly give the impression that the BUPC is something that it is not. Cuñado - Talk 19:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal issues asside as long as it is made clear that he is not accepted by the majority of people who would describe themselves as Baha'i I can't see any problems with stateing he claims to be the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. We report that Clemente Domínguez y Gómez claimed to be pope and that his claim was not accepted by the mainstream church . In this case I would suggest something along the following lines:

Neal Chase (b. January 30, 1966) is the current President of the Baha'i splinter group the Second International Bahá'í Council which claims to be the authoratative body of the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant, a Baha'i division organized by Dr. Leland Jensen. Chase claims to be the current Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, seated on the Throne of David, having been adopted and appointed by Joseph Pepe Remey. This claim is not accpeted by the main Bahá'í groups.

It will need some reworking but you get the general idea.Geni 12:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that. My objection was to specific edits labeling Neal Chase as the "third Aghsan Guardian of the Baha'i Faith", and especially edits to Leland Jensen's picture saying that he is the "establisher of the Baha'i Faith". These were cases where (in my opinion) they were meant to bring some confusion to readers, which is exactly what the legal documents addressed.

The Leland Jensen page has been fixed, but attempts to clean up this page have been consistently reverted by Jeffmichaud, and the current picture caption on this page of Neal Chase still says "third Aghsan Guardian of the Baha'i Faith". Geni, could you please make a suggestion to resolve that? Cuñado - Talk 22:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Kill it. It may not be NPOV and our readers won't know what it means. Piture captions are meant to clarify details of the picture. Information about what people claim he is or isn't can go in the article. I'd suggest reducing the caption to just "Neal Chase".Geni 01:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

~Thank you Geni, for your objective contributions here. If Cunado could keep track of his "work", he could save himself the embarrassment of repeatedly contradicting what's actually been said during the unfoldment of discussions. The unfurling of the court case from 1966 and the diatribe erroneously interpreting the law that's followed has been an attempt to censor the reality that Chase believes he's "Guardian of the Baha'i Faith". Now this is being misrepresented saying that the objection all along has been to the labelling of the picture. NOT TRUE. This threat is from 1/26: "This edit is the same thing. One more and I'll get an administrator." This edit being pointed to here doesn't label Chase's picture "Guardian of the Baha'i Faith" at all, because Cunado had previously changed the caption to suit his beliefs, but it does contain the phrase in the article itself, which has actually been the objection all along.

I wrote the suggestion from Geni into the intro. Cunado has tried to put forth the idea that it violates copyright to use the term "Baha'i Faith" at all. No trademarks exist on the term, and the NY Supreme Court declared that noone can claim a monopoly on the name of a religion.

I'm not sure what the Wikipolicy is on what "picture captions are supposed to be", but whatever it is, I've seen countless pictures containing the names AND the titles of the individual. I don't see how this can be acceptable in one case, and not in all. He is the "Guardian of the Baha'i Faith". Those who dissagree have that right. It comes down to a matter of interpretation. That's my two cents. User:Jeffmichaud 00:31 28 January 2006

I think I've been clear all along about my intentions. I don't want to confuse the readers and give the indication that what these guys claim is related to the Baha'i Faith as the article describes and as is copyrighted. What I meant by the picture captions is that it's an issue that remains unresolved and you have continued to revert. There is an enormous difference between Neal Chase and any other picture caption because over 99.999999 percent of Baha'is do not accept him. I will remove the confusion. Cuñado - Talk 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that the online patent office is back up and running. Here are the trademarks for BAHA'I (without accents), BAHÁ'Í (with accents), BAHA'I PUBLISHING, BAHA'I RADIO, and the list goes on. All these belong to: Owner (REGISTRANT) NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'I OF THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION ILLINOIS 536 SHERIDAN ROAD WILMETTE ILLINOIS 60091.

There is also a patent for BAHA'IS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COVENANT belonging to the group in Montana, which is the proper designation for this page. Cuñado - Talk 09:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OOPS! Those were image trademarks, the website is confusing. It turns out it costs money to search trademarks. here is a court case mentioning that "BAHA'I" is registered to the NSA in Illinois. Cuñado - Talk 09:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And this talk is a weblink that says Baha'i is a registered trademark. Saying it's true and believing it's true is not what makes it true. Cunado is:

1. Not qualified to interpret law even as an amateur, proven here.
2. Has only been able to prove thus far that he's read a document that he didn't understand.
3. Wishes to claim a monopoly to Baha'i terms for which no copyright trademarks exist. They are all public domain.
4. Trying to now misrepresent this goal by claiming that the only concern is over the labeling of pictures. User:Jeffmichaud 14:28 29 January 2006

Further court cases

Please see this talk for discussion of this edit. MARussellPESE 21:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable sources are missing for some sections

See this talk page discussion for the problems also found here. MARussellPESE 06:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time not deleting the quotes from the Missoulian, clearly written by an sIBC member. In fact almost everything about Chase comes from either BUPC websites that are controlled and probably edited by Chase, or from Victor Woods, a friend and follower of Chase. I feel inclined to just hit the delete button, or otherwise clean it up so that it is not a promotional "Neal is great" page. Cuñado - Talk 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Neal is great. Besides what's a bio supposed to look like? Look at anyone's bios. The don't exist to promote or defame anyone. They're about things that are on record. These are matters that specifically relate to his life. There are countless articles in the Missoulian about us. It's a small town newspaper, and we're covered in it all the time. They love us, and everyone knows about us cuz we're on the local t.v. station there every Fri. night. These are a few of the things that are specifically about him.

And, of course all of us are friends with Neal, but none of us are "followers". That's just silly. Your recent edits are okay I guess. A couple concerns that I'd clean up is that there was no clear candidate since 94', which would make more like 7 years of ambiguity. But as the IBC always continued as it had during Pepe's life, knowing there was in fact a Guardian, just not who it was, never hindered it from functioning. You've kindof taken some liberties with wording that are kindof smarmy, but whatever. The only real problemish thing I see is that "World Civil War" is one of like 20 press releases that have been issued since 1989. If you even want to the press release thing mentioned, it's hardly the one to focus on. How about the one where he stated that the Trade Center would be a target for a terrorist attack specifically on Feb 26th, 1993? Or the one where he gave the date of 9/11? He's been issuing press releases one after another for like 15 years. Stating he wrote a press release called whatever, and then summing a 6 page document up in like 3 sentences just looks all wrong. If the articles going to contain anything at all about press releases, it should be about his series of them, and not just one of the hardly noticed ones. His one from 92' was published and taken seriously after the date came to pass. Why do you think Michael Moore sent that idiot Mo Rocca to come inverview us? Besides, you obviously missed the important stuff in World Civil War. I don't care if there is a whole section about press releases, I just think it's not giving his press release career an honest scope. Jeff 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Searching for non-BUPC information on Neal Chase came up with one lousy reference to him predicting the assassination of Saddam Hussein. It may be the most notable thing he's done besides call himself the Guardian. This one of Chase's is a big one, and now there's no way for him to go back and turn it into a vague reinterpretation of what he really meant, the way Jensen did with his fallout shelter incident.

If a verifiable source exists documenting what he predicted and when, it would obviously benefit the article. And no, Victor Woods is not a verifiable source. Even Donald Rumsfeld predicted that terrorists would attack America at about the same time of 9-11, and the towers representing America's imperialism were top targets for over a decade. However the article currently indicates that Chase predicted the exact dates of two attacks, and for all intents and purposes Neal Chase himself is the only source. Cuñado - Talk 10:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think what you can track down on Google is the sole source of what verifiable, you're not as clever as you thunk you are little one. Really, having a hard time finding references for stuff that happened in 1992 before anyone even had P.C's? Wow, I can't believe that everything that's ever happened hasn't been uploaded onto the net that's only been made widely availble to the masses in the last few years. We should should get on that. Create an encyclopedic site or something. Jeff 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Every time you bring up my relative age, I could bring up the fact that you're a hair-dresser from a po-dunk Montana town. But since we're all civilized here I won't do that.

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability nothing can be used from self-published sources unless it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject. So a controversial subject such as predicting the future cannot be referenced from Chase himself, likewise Chase's letters from Pepe are worthless as sources, and wikipedia guidelines encourage deleting such things. It is the responsibility of those editors who wish to add information to provide reliable sources, not the editors wishing to remove them. Accordingly I'm going to delete/reword the issue of what he predicted. Cuñado - Talk 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm a hairdresser in po-dunk Aspen Colorado, with a list of celebrity clients longer than your number of years. My works been published on more covers and ads this year, than your relatively tiny number of years. But it's not really important, littlest. I not sure exactly what you'd like to change in the article, so if we could get down to specifics, that'd be a productive start. The podunk Missoulian is the NY times of Missoula, a town of about 100,000 residents. It's not some rag, just for clarification. One of the challenges is that it didn't start archiving it's articles electronically till spring 2002. Not many publications have. So, let's get specific, and I can probably track down whatever I may have overlooked. The World Civil War press thing should be a part of something all inclusive about his predictions. Writing about that one makes it look like it's the only one to speak of, which isn't the case. Okay? Jeff 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cunado, this isn't being very productive now, is it? You've deleted quotes from two different newspaper article, one from an editor of the paper. How is that productive? Your new version of this article is a fractured mess. Slow down a second, Mr Revert, so this can be done correctly. Look back at what you've removed, and read it in it's current state. His bio section makes little sense. I can reference the Art Bell spot, the Harpers article, the Seven Days prediction, and the exact Feb 26, 1993 prediction. You're ASSuming this is all bull. None of this is made up, and if you'll back of for 2 frekkin seconds, we can sort out all of your concerns. I know you're a very ambitious young lad, but we're not going to get anywhere with your current know it all approach to this article for which you know little to nothing about. This bio covers years for which there is absolutely no electronic data for, so little wonder you couldn't find it. Verifiability has nothing to do with Google searches. Quotes from newspaper articles (a reliable source by every definition) have unjustifiably been removed from here. This is not about how Cunado feels about a verifiable source. They don't have to meet your approval. Jeff 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming it's false. Actually I don't care. It's just unreferenced and promotional. If there is a third-party neutral source documenting everything Chase predicted, then it can be added, and that's just great. Or without that, you can say "Chase claims to have predicted blah blah blah... ". The Missoulian articles are written by Victor Woods, the same guy who was appointed by Jensen to the sIBC, the same guy who was the only council member to support Chase's claim of being the Guardian, the same guy whose wife was the only alternate to accept him. If you want to push it try an RFC, but to me this is a no-brainer considering how Woods' articles read like a promotional flier. Verifiability implies that information will have been researched and checked through publication in multiple independent reliable sources. Cuñado - Talk 20:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Huuufff. I'm not the one who jumps to go tattle on the other kids when I don't get my way, that's you, remember? You haven't even tried to play nice yet. You're hacking up this article and leaving behind a fractured mess, and that to me isn't warranted. You're not even rewording the sentences linked to the deleted material so that they make sense. That aside, you haven't just deleted Victors written words, you also took out an article written by one of the newspapers editors, Captain Goodfaith. Look at what you're doing. I don't even want to waste a moment yet trying to restore any of your havoc. Finish up with this melay of yours, so I can begin to piece it back together if you're not even willing to discuss things before you do them. Have it Hans Solo. Jeff 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

some specific points

Self-published sources can only be used as a source when it's about the author. So "the coming of the return of Jesus, whom they believed would appear to them there on August 9, 1969" needs a verifiable source. Entry By Troops is not a verifiable source.

The following are either lacking verifiable sources, or lacking sources entirely:

• after receiving national attention for a press release he wrote which had predicted the date of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
• His Seven Days press release gave warning that New York would be the target of a terrorist attack on the date of Feb. 26th, 1993
• All the stuff about Pepe leaving Chase things in his will.

Victor Woods is still the source for his Sep 11 prediction.

You removed any mention of a dispute over leadership and simply put "In 1960 Mason Remey announced that he was the second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith." Clearly POV.

You haven't provided any new sources, and just put back most of the stuff I deleted. I'm reverting. Cuñado - Talk 02:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How cute that you're so assertive. Shame about the memory issues you suffer though. I've already been through the whole thing about the books we've published being verifiable sources. Don't start with this again. The books that we've published about our beliefs and history that we make available for free as e-books are verifiable sources. You can say they're not, wish they were not, but in the end they are. You can wish the statements we write that the Missoulian publishes are not as well, but you're wrong there too. I know you're all heels-dug-in in your little narcissistic way right now, but I'll just put this out there for the record. You know how you like to quote from the self published "Covenant" paper by Moojam what's his face? And how you like to include the self-published "Mason Remey and those who followed him" propaganda the the bogus UHJ put out? Can you see the double-standard road I'm heading down? The reason those are okay to use in articles, even though they are not corroborated by third party sources (because who would bother) is because they make the point. Noone's going to begrudge you using something like those progaganda pamphlets, because they are documents that support the statements that reference them. See? My point is that these sources meet all the requirements for verfiability, verifiable, not true, self-published sources, and so on. I'm trying to make this an article that accurately reflects the events of his life. You, with your miniscule understanding of these events are in no position to be writing about them. You don't know the material, obviously, and what we provide for reference you can't be bothered to read, but merely attack the source. Your specific points have been noted and will be addressed. Now go play nicely with the other kids. Jeff 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay, real life got in the way of wikipedia. Please point me to the conversation you're talking about. I hope you're serious, because I agree with you about the standards for reliable sources. "Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him" should not be used to verify information. I think you were trying to scare me and leave Chase's page alone, but I'd be more than happy to raise the level of verifiability in the references. Most of the articles related to Baha'i divisions have no verifiable information about them, other than a few very basic facts (they existed, they believed...) Books about beliefs are one thing, but history is another. All these pages you created were deceptive and promotional right from the start, intentionally leaving out any information that might be damaging to your cause, of which there is plenty. The Entry by Troops source shouldn't be used for anything. There is absolutely no information about where/when it was published, by who, or even who is sponsoring the website hosting it. That page is as verifiable as a blog.

So far I've brought up several issues about the verifiability of references, and you've pretty much ignored me. I've already left a detailed list of the issues, and you've had plenty of time to find sources. My biggest concern is that this article is indicating that Chase predicted the 9/11 attacks down to the day, and there are no verifiable sources for it. If this is how you're going to respond, what's going to happen on the articles about Pepe, Jensen, and the BUPC? Cuñado - Talk 04:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, these are the specific points you're concerned about:

• after receiving national attention for a press release he wrote which had predicted the date of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
• His Seven Days press release gave warning that New York would be the target of a terrorist attack on the date of Feb. 26th, 1993
• All the stuff about Pepe leaving Chase things in his will.

1. Fist concern is verified from the podunk rag 'Harper's Magazine'.
2. Second concern verifies that you can't read. The Seven Days press release predicted the 9/11 attacks. Feb. 26th was predicted separately, and when it happened on the day he said it would happen he was suddenly noticed to a degree. Art Bell had him on his show three weeks later, that summer Mo Rocca came to town to make a joke of it on TV Nation, and Harper's Magazine wrote an article about it. All of three of these things are mentioned in the article, verifying that the statement is dually noted by more than one third party.
3. Third concern has to be stated as a "claim", as I have done in the rewrite, as his will is not a matter of public record.

As I've mentioned previously, whether you like it or not, the statements that we've issued to the Missoulian that have been printed are points found and verified in that reliable source. I can see your concerns as they were written by Woods, but no matter, they were published by a reputable daily newspaper. I fail to see what's so objectionable for you, as the quote from Wood's statement just states a fact, that the show was on every Fri. night for a decade, continually revisiting the issue of terrorist retaliation. His press releases were issued all through the 90's, and several of them had specific dates. He predicted an attack would occur on Feb 26th and it did. He predicted two more that followed, only the Lincoln Tunnel explosion in March, and the Edison Gas explosion that summer weren't ever reported or viewed as "terrorist attacks", but the reports that followed in both cases stated that foul play was involved. Nonetheless, there was no denying the Feb 26th prediction, and it was duly noted by Art Bell, Michael Moore, and Harpers. His 9/11 predicition was issued a decade before the attack, and when it came, noone took any note of the fact that we'd been in Missoula for the previous decade on a cable access channel warning about it. Woods is just stating a fact, that the editor Matthews also noted in his "Time to Weep editorial".

Now, you obviously think little of me if you believe I'd resort to scare tactics to make you bend to my will. It's obvious you think little of my efforts here, and assume your own are of a righteous nature, and mine acts of evil. So be it. I don't see your BF articles including the details of your ill reputed past like ours are forced to endure. So get off your high horse already. Where's the inclusion of scandels like the espionage that your councellors of the Temple of the Lotus were involved in? I can't seem to find that tid bit anywhere among your lilly white history. Jeff 08:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just repeating myself now. The current article is not referenced with the first two points you mentioned. I have access to a 1.3 million volume library a few blocks away, and another million or so further down the street. If you can provide one single reference to this, I'll go find the book or article, scan it in, and upload it to wikipedia. I'll even go way out of my way to verify your source and confirm it. Having Victor Woods come in after-the-fact and say "look, Chase predicted this" is meaningless, and just because a po-dunk newspaper printed it after-the-fact, doesn't provide evidence that Chase predicted it. The statements issued to the Missoulian represent a reprinting of their statements, not a reliable source for those statements. If Kofi Annan is quoted in the NY Times, the newspaper is only repeating what he said, not giving their stamp of approval. If the paper had printed their statements prior to an event, that would be different.

I'll wait for a response, and if it's more personal attacks, and no references, then I'll revise the page. Cuñado - Talk 15:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So those are all the concerns you have? I agree, having to repeat yourself is very frustrating. Let me see how else this might be done, cuz for the last 8 months I was under the impression that this article was fine, and now all of a sudden it's not again. No worries. I intend on this article containing the information it currently has, and I appreciate the courtesy of working out concerns in the talk page. I will be able to find other ways to source the statements you've asked about. Jeff 21:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dec 06' rewrite

Thank you Cunado for your fair assessment and even handed approach towards reworking this article. At first glance it appears to raise nothing but minor concerns which I believe can be amicably worked out at a later date. Thanks again for taking the time to review some of the material availble, and for the work you've contributed here. Jeff 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I have a hug? Just kidding. I realized that I removed some unreferenced things that you want to include. I'm assuming that you'll add references later, but in the meantime the policies support removing. Cuñado - Talk 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the link back. Compare this to this. Cuñado - Talk 07:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what I was looking for. They're the same, no? I saw "codenamed:jackhammer was spelled wrong on the bupc.org site. Is there something else? I'd prefer the one from bupc.org for obvious reasons, since the current link goes to a site that declares Neal a covenant breaker.

I'm not clear on why you chose to include this in the article, other than it returned a result in your searches of Google. I was saying earlier that I thought the subject of his press releases might warrant a section that included the scope of them. Would you object to widening this summary? If anything I'd have written a broad view of this press release in particular, as the story that sparked it came from a report on the nightly news, and not from rumors of conspiracy. I wouldn't want any readers to miss that if they didn't go on to read the whole press release. Jeff 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion for reverts in World Civil War section

Can we agree to discuss deleting relevant contributions? I've added details and third party references to them aimed at explaining exactly what was said in this press release. It was never my intent to even see this here, but as some have insisted it's inclusion, it should at least accurately reflect the press release it's attempting to summarize. If you don't like my wording, then use your own.

Cunado your version of this release isn't accuarte and is heavily burdened with your own POV, so if you want the section here at all (it's here at your insistance), then at least bother to educate yourself about its details. Directly above what I'm writing now is an unanswered concern that I directed at you about including this section in the first place. This is one of nine press releases he produced, yet draws little to his notariety. So why then is this even here in the first place? The obvious is that you think it makes him look bad, and certainly your summary does just that. Unfortunately what you wrote isn't accurate, so if you want this section here at all, you're going to have to get your details straightened out.

1. The release and ref's provided are clear that this was sparked by an ABC special report, and not as you would have us believe a figment of his imagination. Chase exclaimed that Jennings validated what he'd been saying all along: that we were going after Saddam. Jennings revealed specifically how it would be done, and even the operations name. The report showed footage of the "bunker buster" nuke in tests busting through 2 dozen concrete slabs. This report was shocking, specific, and to the point. We'd said for years that Clinton wanted to take out Saddam, and this report got into the specifics. How can you justify deleting them?
2. Your version of this implies that Chase came up with "1/3 of mankind would be dead in one hour", where he clearly draws this from the Book of Revelation and says so. I tried to clear this up, but you don't like my wording? Then use your own, but if you think you're going to twist around these words to fit your smear agenda you're confused. I know this one backwards and forward, so get it straight, or I will do it for you. Jeff 07:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To #1, it is clear that he is not merely summarizing an ABC report. He makes his own statements and predictions of what will happen. To #2, the book of Revelation was interpreted by Chase to mean that 1/3 of mankind would be dead in one hour, that's his belief and a true statement. As to relevancy, to me this is possibly the most notable thing that he has done: making false apocalyptic predictions. Just like Jensen and the BUPC article, this is a characteristic of this group, and without it they are much less notable than the Orthodox Baha'is.

Also, I have a serious issue with saying "press release" because that wording is only used for "a public relations firm, governmental agency, etc."[3] I don't see anywhere that the media actually picked up on any of his "press releases" or considered them relevant other than laughing at him. I changed the wording to "statements", because it more accurately reflects what they are.

You said in the article "Chase asserted that if this operation were successful..." I don't see any place where he uses the word "if". On the contrary, he says "THE THERMONUCLEAR TRIGGER... IS the ASSASSINATION of SADDAM HUSSEIN by the US in the military strike", "this will justify the retaliation of the Iraqi people, with thermonuclear weapons against the UN building which will be destroyed after Saddam is killed", "the heavy handed assassination of Saddam by the US and its allies... will be the spark of thermonuclear obliteration for all western material civilization as we know it", "the underground borrowing missiles will go 300 feet underground to kill Saddam in his bunker. Then the Iraqis will retaliate by nuking the UN building and all New York City", "the assassination of Saddam with the underground burrowing nuclear missile delivered by the B-2 stealth bomber opens up the gates of HELL on earth in WORLD GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR CIVIL WAR!", "assassinating Saddam Hussein will be that spark that ignites World War III", "After Saddam is killed... his people will retaliate with the thermonuclear weapons they have purchased from the former Soviet Empire... and nuke the UN building and all New York city along with it." "after Saddam is assassinated New York City will be nuked, the US will retaliate against Iraq", "After the assassination of Saddam and then the thermonuclear destruction of the UN building and all New York City along with it there will next be 4 great winds of destruction... 1) World War III, one hour of thermonuclear war in which one third of mankind will die in one hour; 2) a great meteor that will strike the earth; 3) a Great Earthquake; and 4) The Earth's shifting crust... All told two thirds of the world's population will be killed and one third will survive", "current US administration must kill Saddam [1997]", "the Congress of Iraq... would have cause to retaliate by nuking the UN building", "After the UN building and New York City along with it are nuked... every American city of population of 100,000 or more will be destroyed. This will occur shortly after New York is destroyed and the nuclear war will consume like firewood, one third of mankind who are to be killed in one hour of thermonuclear war." "

Your watered down version is deceptive and completely changes the intention of what he said. There are no "ifs" in those statements, and a lot of "wills". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My "watered down" version of this? Please pay attention, as this can get tedious. You've diluted this 15 page press release into a few sentences. What you've hand picked to present doesn't come close to summarizing this thing, and is presenting a false picture of what this was really about. If you want to change something that I've contributed, then do so. Reverts accomplish nothing and you know it.

1. I never said this was a summary of the ABC report, but rather line number 1 of the release says the special report about covert assassanation operation verified what he's been saying all along. Moreover, the codename is the CIA's according to Jennings, not Chase. You have this looking like he invented all of it. Jennings went on to do four more reports about this subject of covert assassination operations, yet you want to present that Chase invented this conspiracy. You can't possibly justify removing that from the section. It's the catalyst that sparked the whole press release, and it says so on line 1.
2. You're obviously in the dark on a lot more than this though for the scenarios Chase gives for what will happen to mankind if we march towards Armageddon comes STRAIGHT from Revelations. You just said "the book of Revelation was interpreted by Chase to mean that 1/3 of mankind would be dead in one hour". Well let me catch you up to the rest of the class since you can't be bothered to read your assignment; "Release the four winds that are bound at the great river Euphrates. So the four angels were released who had been held ready for the hour, the day, and the year to kill a third of mankind" (Rev 9: 14,15). This is in EVERY translation of the Bible. I had no idea how clueless you were. There is no leeway for translation here. John wrote one third of mankind would die, and Chase is reiterating a 2000 year old prophecy. So, I'm dying to see you explain how this is Chase's own invention.
3. I contend this section is not relevant to anything, nor is this release one that should stand above the others. Chase's notability has 0.00 to do with any releases he distributed. If you will look at the top of this discussion page you will find that this article was put up by MARussell for speedy deletion, and survived it based on his notability. These press releases never were mentioned in that discussion. There is absolutely no reason this section should be included, for WCW stands out in no specific way from the rest, nor do you have any inclination to summarize it honestly, but admittedly see it as a good smear tactic. So you're are still on the hook to show the relevance of this section. So far you've presented paper tigers, grasshopper, and you're wasting both of our time. Jeff 19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeff: You are misrepresenting the debate over this article's notability and my position on it. It is precisely because of Chase's prolific doomsday pronouncements and their coverage in the local press and one academic study that makes Chase notable — which is why I withdrew my support for deletion. There are no other WP:BLP criteria that he meets.

Presenting a litany of books on, articles about, and studies on his predictions as statements of Chase's notability — and then trying to spike discussion and presentation of independently available facts on these is towering in its intellectual dishonesty. I'd be stunned if it were any other group trying to pull this off. Here it's only amusing. Calling the kettle black with respect to NPOV is laughable, Jeff.

But, seriously, Cuñado, it this really worth your time? Are there enough secondary sources to cover this ground without WP:OR. Chase writes faster than most informed people can keep up. Even Stone's book only covers one of his doomsday scenarios. MARussellPESE 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I never even mentioned your position. I said this section wasn't even included till after the discussion. (JFTR, I had been part of the Wiki community for about 2 weeks with about but a few edits to my credit, so lighten up on the criticism for how I handled your attack on my first contribution. BTW, my "litany of books and articles" didn't have any impact as noted by the editors who voted, so let's not over-exaggerate all this). The papers, and scholarly reviews are noted already without this section. And, this particular press release stands apart from the others in no particular way. I proposed on several occasions that a review of all of them be included, for there is no reason to pick just one. But that request for consideration got no response. The scant responses I get when discussing contributions with Cunado lead me to believe that nothing but absolute compliance to his will is an option. Now I'm told he's no longer discussing things, and you're apparently in need of a history lesson on this page. This section is new, and cannot even be justified for inclusion. Please advise why this particular press release even warrants its own section, cuz I'm in favor of deleting the whole thing. Jeff 03:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't need a "history lesson" — but you seem to. I didn't attack you. I tagged this article for deletion when it looked like this. By the time the discussion resulted in its staying, it looked like this. Please note the "litany of of books on, articles about, and studies on his predictions as statements of Chase's notability" that you added verbatim from that discussion into the section titled "Contributions, Publications, and Notability". (A paragon of NPOV if ever there was one.) If they weren't germane to your POV then why add them?

You've asked why one of Chase's press releases should be included when you should be making arguments as to why it should be excluded that don't boil down to "I don't want it there." Chase's self-actualization appears to be in predicting the end of the world. How could any of these be off-limits? There's no good reason unless there's something to hide or spin. Self published sources are fair ones for articles about themselves. World Civil War would be inappropriate in Armageddon, but in here? Absolutely appropriate. As would references to facts supporting or not particular points.

So why — really — don't you want Chase's own works used in his article? And don't give us the "It's not on topic" argument again. Asked and answered, and repetition is not logic. MARussellPESE 00:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

response below, six semicolons is enough, and Cunado's done discussing this anyways. Jeff 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I really would hate to start a debate over interpreting the book of Revelation. Chase makes statements about the future. Whether or not he thinks they come straight from the Bible or not, or whether he got the ideas from ABC or not, doesn't matter. He clearly says what he thinks will happen, and Jeff's recent edits distort the facts. Jeff, I'm not cherry-picking information when Chase repeats the same idea at least a dozen times and throughout the article. I'm so boggled by your proposal that I don't plan on engaging you on the talk page any more. You're welcome to get opinions from third-party editors for suggestions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cunado I wasn't even proposing a debate, but that your claim that Chase misinterpreted Rev. when he said 1/3 of mankind would die shows how little you know about these things. The EXPLICIT "to kill one third of mankind" doesn't need an interpretor, nor is it debateable. I just provided the exact quote for you, and now you're taking your truck and going home? No debate? I'm not looking for one; I'm looking for a concensus from anyone who knows what the heck they're talking about, and is interested in creating a well rounded NPOV article. You apparently don't fit that description. Not going to debate? You added this section into the page, not me. Now you're not willing to discuss what goes in it? You can't even justify it's inclusion. Neither can you MARussell. This section wasn't a part of the original discussion for inclusion. Apparently your memory is slipping. You're both diluted if you think you're going to hand pick materials to smear these guys. Get your details straight, or leave these things alone. Daily explanations to you both have wrought nothing but aggravation. You're not willing to discuss edits? No problem. I've rewritten this several different ways, and you keep reverting back to your original misleading, biased, POV, original research version of this. I'm guessing you get low marks from your teachers for your ability to work well with others? This summary you've made is absolutely ridiculous. It doesn't even deserve it's own sections for starters. It doesn't accurately reflect the subject, and it's written poorly. For all these reasons, like it or not, this section is being reworked. You might think you're cute with your reverts, but what are you defending? You're not even willing to discuss acceptable compromises? What's your problem? Jeff 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MARussell, if you'd look back to what I said in response to you, and at the close of the previous discussion about this just above, and about 3 or 4 times in response to Cunado here you'll note that I'm actually in favor of a section about his press releases. What I've been saying since Cunado awkwardly shoved this section into the page during a unilateral rewrite is that 1) the summary he's written up doesn't serve this release any justice, and 2) this one does not warrant a section on its own but that a section should be created that has summaries of them all. I've been consistent about this, so don't twist around what I've said.

I've gone ahead and written, rewritten, and written again several versions of sections that mention his other works and reflect what WCW says, but Cunado has reverted everyone of them without comment or discussion. You keep warning me to be civil, as if this sort of bratty behavior from him is acceptable, and I'm the one who's out of line. Good lord!

So, I'm not at all opposed to these works being included. The fact is that Cunado's POV keeps entering the summary of WCW. He didn't even know till I pointed it out that the "1/3 of mankind will be killed" came straight out of the Bible. The fact is that all of his specific descriptions of calamity come from one of two places: Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. Yet Cunado keeps crediting Chase alone as if he's invented this stuff out of thin air. But if you read the release in context, he tells where these descriptions come from. Any attempt to credit the originator of these ideas in this section is reverted back to Cunado's original research POV version of this. One third of mankind dying is from Rev 9:15 in plain text; it's not an interpolation. New York city being targeted is from Nostradamus; no scholars disagree that the quatrain, "the great new city at 45 degrees will burn and it's manmade mountains will crumble" refers to anything other than New York. He's interpreted that the anti-Christ Mabus refers to Saddam. That there are terrible tragedies in the Book of Rev is no secret to anyone except apparently Cunado. Again, Good Lord! Why is mentioning the ABC Special about the bunker busting nukes a problem? He wants it to look like Chase invented it, just like the 1/3 of mankind dying, et al. The things like Mabus and the destruction of NY are in every single press release. He explains where these ideas come from, and never once insinuates they are his own. Yet that's how this section reads, and that's why I'm in favor of either deleting it all together and using a summary of all of them, or at the very least attributing where these ideas originated. I've been consistent about this position from the get go. I intend to see one of these two scenarios make it to the article. Jeff 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The WCW section looks much better than just 24 hours ago. I would still prefer a section encompassing a review of all his releases, and am still unanswered as to why this is opposed and repeatedly rejected? I've attempted changing the section title, and began contributing new details from "Mabus must die" that are also mentioned in WCW, but the result was a revert. I don't understand the problem or the insistence of this. Jeff 07:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since there are clearly no objections to my suggestions, I'll be introducing a replacement for this section on World Civil War directly. As always I'd prefer to discuss issues and concerns here, as obviously edit warring is uncivil. Cheers. Jeff 07:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

bupc dot com

There are certain things that bupc.com cannot be used for, and an alarming one is indicating that Neal Chase accurately predicted anything. I removed that reference. Also claiming that three professors witnessed his predictions cannot be referenced from bupc.com. I removed the long quote and tried to add the main points. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Predictions section

Cunado, before I just "undo" the deletions I'd like to know what prompted removing a few of these things, as from my perspective you're leveeing a double standard. I'm refering to you removing quotes from the WCW when you yourself have quoted from it in other areas. Are you opposed to giving a broad perspective of these matters?

1. In the first paragraph you removed "as well as dates for a nuclear attack on New York City by middle Eastern terrorists." which is almost word for word from the Balch's statement which is quoted in the note. You also removed "but is a follower and believer in the prophets from God." which is the same thing, practically quoted from the source noted. what's the problem if that's what those two in fact stated and it's dually noted?
2. This is a direct quote, is about these matters and gives his side: "Chase claims "From the Trade Tower bombing of 2/26/93, to the Edison Gas Explosion of 3/23/94 and the Lincoln Tunnel of 5/2/94, not one thing occurred that we didn't forewarn the people of and it all happened on the dates given in the Holy Scriptures". Feel free to answer this with something, but omitting is without cause as its his personal statement on the subject. You're free to add an opposing opinion.
3. the entire paragraph that summarizes the "seige of the city" predictions was removed without an alternative. I assume you have an issue with the chart? I noted it was made by Chase after the fact. Should I summarize these dates with references in stead. "New York City was to be the target of a nuclear attack by terrorists", was almost word for word from Balch. These things are outlined in greater detail such as the date of 2.26.93 etc, but I was attempting to summarize in one paragraph. should we drag out the whole synopsis, cuz it's all verifiable using Stone's book as a primary source. What do you suggest, because bringing up the 18 predictions with no specifics about them is of no value to the reader. He made them, and scholars had their say and he had his. Can't they all be included, or are you opposed to any mention of them at all? to what extent are we trying to keep this under wraps? Jeff 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's verifiable that Chase claimed something, but he can't be used as a source stating that he accurately predicted something. See WP:V again for sef-published sources: "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:... it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties;"

This breaks all three of those rules. Quoting Chase claiming something leads the reader to believe that what he is stating is truthful, and it is not. It is not verifiable, and cannot be in the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorting out the WP:SYN

Cunado, after undoing the most recent overhaul you did to this page and Leland Jensen's bio for the simple reason that the information you were adding was a vain attempt to erase the BUPC page, I went through it point by point and reinserted what were clearly valid contributions assuming good faith on your part. I have to ask the same of you. I reintroduced most of your contributions, and your response was "revert to my last"? Is this your version of dispute resolution: wars of contrition?

Clearly you've recently reread the Stone research, and while it's flattering that you're taking such an interest in our little, seemingly insignificant group, you're crossing the line of WP:SYN again and again. I'm not opposing your contributions out of spite; they're simply not all valid contributions.

1. Stating we "mutually shun each other" is simple and to the point. Do you want a long drawn out explanation of this? You have no right to state one group does without qualifying it that so does the other. What's your problem with this, and what's your solution?
2. He moved to Deerlodge specifically to investigate the Morrisites, and Stone says as much. It's part of his background, and making a simple statement about it is entirely germane, as well as WP:V.
3. the 9/11 prediction is a verifiable statement, replete with source. It's not even elaborated upon beyond what the newspaper article states about it, but is entirely germane to his notability and background. There's no grey area on this point; it's germane and WP:V.
4. I'll be happy to track down the TV Nation reference; in the meantime since MARussell has made reference to it again and again please take it on good faith that the episode happened and a source can be traced.
5. You have no source that Jensen was "was excommunicated from the Bahá'í community", so it's WP:OR, and it's out.
6. First of all, the section heading "Leadership disputes" is remedial and inaccurate. There was a grand total of one dispute in the 35 years we've existed. Pick something else if "Guardianship claim" is so unacceptable. Second, we discussed this before about having the court case covered on multiple articles, and it was agreed it should be on the BUPC page. I don't think it should be here, so lets move it back to BUPC since you were able to track down the court opinion for a reference. Also his wife Dawn isn't mentioned in any of the documents, and neither is the "majority" or the "3 vs 2" opposition, so that's all WP:OR.

_Disarray^General 08:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1. As I've mentioned countless times, saying they "shun each other" is hardly true. Only a handful of Baha'is, out of millions, would recognize the name of the group and would only vaguely know that there exist some schismatic groups that they're not supposed to read up on. Implying an equal relationship plays into your attempt to bolster the relevance of the schismatic group while having a comeback to being shunned. The small group's teachings are dominated by the perceived failure of the larger group. Even Chase's prediction of a nuclear attack on New York in 1992 came partly from his view that thousands of Baha'is would be killed at the world congress. If you can provide one third party source that uses the same phrasing, that their is a mutual excommunication going on, then I'll drop it.
2. Stone's only reference to the Morrisites is in Chase's twisting around of the facts to create a prophecy that Jensen fulfilled. The reference is clear on this point and the original text of the WP article stated Chase's conclusion as fact in the article.
3. The 9/11 attack issue is incredibly weak. The article published a statement from Chase's closest supporter saying that Chase predicted the date, and it was published a year after the attack. I don't even know how to rationalize keeping that in the article, other than to clarify how insane the whole situation is. I'll just drop it.
4. I really didn't care about the TV nation deal. I'll put it back.
5. The following is an excerpt from the letter from the Hands of the Cause in the Holy Land, 15 October, 1960, published in Taherzadeh's The Covenant of Baha'u'llah p. 432: "The Chief Stewards of the Faith, mindful of their paramount responsibility to protect the believers, have taken action to expel from the Faith Mason Remey and his supporters because of the Covenant-breaking activities and to forbid all association with them." Nobody else was mentioned by name, but Jensen was clearly excommunicated when this letter was issued. To say it is WP:OR is ridiculous.
6. The section title doesn't matter. I believe I deleted the "3 vs 2" mention because it was unreferenced. Dawn is mentioned in one of the documents, I'll look it up later. I'm going to run the BUPC page through RFD and if it passes I'll leave that issue alone. By moving just a few paragraphs to the two biographies I kept all the information intact. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Thanks for assuming bad faith; quite charming.
2. Your contribution to the Morrisite info from Stone was left in tact by my edits; I was restoring the removal of mentioning he moved to Deerlodge to study them, and that he wrote a book; no "conclusions" were offered, and there's no reason to remove what's in his Background.
3. Good.
4. Good.
5. That's WP:SYN. Should we just agree to disagree?
6. Dawn was his alternate, not a board member, and she's not mentioned in the court case as a plaintiff, but only that she was his wife and disagreed with is claim. As was previously pointed out, the court case belongs on the BUPC page, which since you can't find a consensus among editors who contribute to the page to delete it, you can rest assured will remain intact for a long while.
7. As far as any RFD's are concerned, I'm sure that pointing out to administrators that 34 of your last 36 edits involved belligerent edits and warring on these pages that establishing your WP:TEND isn't going to be much of a task. Is this really the most productive thing you can find to do with your time here on Wikipedia? Seriously? _Disarray^General 06:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To 6, I re-read the reference given already and it does say that Dawn Chase was against him.

The board broke into two groups: the majority, consisting of Carlotta Geesen, John Geesen, Chris Mulldly, Dawn Chase, and Lavonne Howell-Fussner [Appendix Exhibit E, Annual Report 2002, Geesen Deposition] and Neal Chase and Victor Woods in the minority [Appendix Exhibit F, Annual Report 20021.

And she is mentioned in the respondent brief as well as being against him. As for 7, you should look in the mirror. I can stand behind all of my edits and have backed everything up with sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reference in the article, or it's subject to removal. _Disarray^General 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is referenced in the article, the same ref that I drew the above from. She's mentioned in both sides' briefs, one as being on the council and the other as being an alternate, and both mentioning that she was on the side opposing Chase. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What briefs? There are no longer any published briefs. Can we use these still? Is that what you're contending? I was under the impression that these appellant and respondent briefs were not only unaccessable for WP:V, but also unreliable. That's why I removed the information relying on them. _Disarray^General 08:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

more

1. "in 1987 Chase became a follower of Leland Jensen", this makes it clear that he did not become a general Baha'i, then follow Jensen, he went straight from Christian to Jensen.
2. "pioneered the Deerlodge Valley in anticipation of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ." This is Chase's conclusion stated as fact. Reference it or remove it.
3. "he was excommunicated from the Bahá'í community." He was, and there is a reference.
4. Leadership dispute was almost entirely deleted. The court procedural background is one of only two reliable sources of any depth on the individual, and the dispute over leadership is noted in several places in Stone's book. My version uses Stone's book and the court opinion extensively. The version being reverted to use no sources, then an unreliable source (BUPC.org) to source a disputed subject, then the respondent brief (earlier determined to be junk for a source), more BUPC.org, then one use of the procedural background. Totally unacceptable.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Okay, done.
2. Okay, done.
3. Yup, but it's explained and noted in the Guardianship section below, and doesn't need to be duly noted.
4. Nope. This all doesn't need to be duly noted here and on the BUPC page. As MARussell has already explained to you above, it's more appropriate there with a mention and link to it here. _Disarray^General 09:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Court briefs as sources

MARussell dispelled the myth that Appellant briefs and Response briefs can be used as references here. No double standard can be argued to be acceptable in this matter. The appellent brief is derived from depositions where members were free to declare whatever they chose; they are not findings of fact as in the case of a Court Opinion. The brief is simply relating the claims, and is contentious as they declared alternates to be board members, when clearly they were not. Dawn was his alternate and not a board member as they claimed. Moreover the reference being cited doesn't explain the relation that she's his wife, so saying so in the article is misrepresenting that the brief supports this claim. Objections were raised over citing references to Chases claims being referenced to their depositions in the Response. These briefs are not verifiable or reliably sourced facts, and can't be misrepresented as such. _Disarray^General 02:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In an edit comment on 2/16/09, MARussell called this Appellant Brief a "bona fide source", and yet in this discussion dragged out an exhaustive debate over all the particular specific policy issues that prevent using depositions from court proceedings as references. I contended at the time that since the points from that brief that were hilighted in BOLD were points not contested by either party, then those details could be agreed to be un-contentious, and should qualify as a questionable source about itself. Even that was contested then as the statements were from Frank Schlatter, and not Mason Remey of whom the article was about. This even though Schlatter was relating details of Remey's life in a court case about upholding an injunction placed on Remey and his followers; yet it's "out" per the objections of MARussell. Why now are details from an Appellant brief based on a deposition from John Geesen deemed a "bona fide source" when this article isn't about Geesen? Why does MARussell manipulate these discussions with such transparent bias? The same position I took on Remey's court case holds true here: in both cases the only way these court briefs meet any form or WP:RS is as a questionable source, but the difference is that in Remey's case, the details were undisputed. In this case, the Defendants disputed every last detail out of Geesen's mouth, and every single point of that Appellant Brief in their Response. So therefore it fails for being "contentious material", and is out. _Disarray^General 06:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neal Chase. 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/20090402023824/http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/sll_fn_home.htm to http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/SLL/SLL_FN_home.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) 03:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)