Without any actual knowledge, I think it reasonable to suppose that
Manning Bartlett is not a Baha'i of any kind. By "lot more of us than
you", I think he was referring to the Wikipedia community, er,
"regular participants" as 24 would prefer I say.
I will respond to this fellow, and seek your counsel.
I have omitted identifying details of the person who wrote me.
The essential facts, in case you don't feel like reading all of this:
66.219.221.xxx is a member of the "Orthodox" Baha'i religion. This is
a small splinter group from the main Baha'i faith. The exact size is
a matter of some dispute. '66' claims that the larger sect engages in
extreme shunning of the smaller sect, and that they are attempting to
suppress information on the wikipedia. '66' suspects (incorrectly,
I'm pretty sure) that Manning Bartlett is a Baha'i who is trying to
marginalize him.
Someone, 'Rabo', apparently wrote to a Baha'i newsgroup seeking
knowledgeable people to help deal with '66'. '66' feels that this was
yet another attempt to marginalize his group.
This has been long predicted, although I never thought that the Baha'i
faith would be the source of friction. I thought maybe the
Scientologists would find us, or the anti-Scientologists, and their
decades-long Usenet flamewar would spill over here.
Anyhow, please take a look. I guess we don't really care about their
religious argument; we only care to make the article(s) NPOV. But
some of usual techniques (describing the conflict rather than engaging
in the conflict) are perhaps difficult to apply in situations where the
parties are arguing over whether the conflict is important enough to be
described prominently in the main article.
--Jimbo
------------------------- Forwarded message --------------
Hello again,
I wrote you sometime back abnout a problem with a article on wekepedia
and you were kind enough to respond. I was at the time being totaly
erased and raised the possibility that a group of Baha'is from the
larger sect (Ibelong to the smaller one) were possibly doing this as
they try to shun us completely.
I agreed with you that this should be a wait and see thing.
Recently the article on the Orthodox Baha'i Faith has been continually
reedited by several people some of the editing i found to be helpful,
but a lot was for the purpose of marganilizing the article in facor of
the larger group.
I came coincdentally across an article ont he larger Baha'i news group
which urged all baha;is to go there and rewrite the article so as to
put the larger group in the best light. I am enclosing a copy of that
news group article. Also, you will find that the main individual
claiming not to be a bahai who has rededited allot, in teh history of
the editing has put comments in like there are a "lot more of us than
you", whihc I can only take as reference to him and other baha'is.
Below is also a copy of that statemnt in the history section along
with a letter I have sent out to all Orhtodox baha'is on my mailing
list letting them know what is happening to the article on their
beliefs. Over the past few days the Orhtodox Baha'i site has
continually been reedited in an attempt to marganalize the Orhtodox
Faith. At this point on the talk section of wedkepdia Orhtodox Bahai
Faith is my response to someone reediting who claims not to be a
Baha'i the article on soc.religion.bahai which i refer to in my repoly
appeared over the past few days as well.
The real reason is best summarrized from an article written on
soc. religon. bahai where the writer urged baha'is to rerwrite the
article in order to reduce the influence of the Orhtodox group. I
have there fore writtten the people in charge of wikipediea today to
express my concerns that what is being done is really for the purpose
of non-nuetrality on the larger groups part yuour professions of not
being a baha'i notwithstadning. copy of exceprtps from article on the
larger Baha'i Board fololow:
"Hello All
Several month back I posted on this newsgroup requesting contributions
for the Baha'i entry in a encyclopedia project:
http://www.wikipedia.com
Well an article was written, and time went by.
In recent weeks, a contributor who we only know by his/her IP address
of 66.219.221.xxx (Which is myself) has commenced a campaign of
championing the Orthodox Baha'i position.
When I originally researched the Baha'i Faith, I quickly concluded
that apart from the plethora of webpages the OB division was extremely
small (as in barely hundreds of members), (My Comment: as an Orhtodox
Again the figures this writer gives are inaccurate) and therefore
while it was fair to mention it, it was also fair to place it within a
proper perspective.
Hence I am writing to ask if someone can return to the website,
examine the articles and help those of us who are insufficiently
informed to paint a true picture.
The antagonist in the dispute has one extremely valid point however -
the article on the Orthodox Baha'is does cover the Baha'i principles
in great depth, and frankly the Baha'i article tends to focus solely
on history and buildings. We (the editors) feel that the principles of
the Faith should be encapsulated in the main Baha'i article and we
should limit the OB article to the point of distinction (ie. the
dispute about succession of the Guardianship). But none of us feel
suitably qualified to redress this imbalance.
The Wikipedia is a growing resource, it now has nearly 30000 articles
(after only 16 months) and a viewcount extending into the millions per
month. Certainly there are numerous issues about the actual quality of
our articles, but that's why I am writing to a newsgroup where I could
reasonably expect to find "experts".
Regards Rabo
http://www.wikipedia.com
To find related pages - enter Bahai in the search box. "
I also have written a reply put on the other two bahai newsgroups
since as you know censorship rpevails on the group this artricle
appeared in and orhtodox are shunned:
Hello All
An article appeared on alt.soc.bahai which called for the larger Bahai
group to martial its forces to put the Orhtodox Artciles om a
particular website "in its proper persecptive" meaning reduce its size
and influence.
The writer did admit however that::
"The antagonist (that's the Orhtodox Bahai) in the dispute has one
extremely valid point however - the article on the Orthodox Baha'is
does cover the Baha'i principles in great depth, and frankly the
Baha'i article tends to focus solely on history and buildings. We (the
editors) feel that the principles of the Faith should be encapsulated
in the main Baha'i article and we should limit the OB article to the
point of distinction (ie. the dispute about succession of the
Guardianship). But none of us feel suitably qualified to redress this
imbalance. "
Hence the call for others to come in and try by all means to reduce
the Orhtodox article to non influence while admitting the better
article ont he Faith's principles was doen by the Orhtodox!
Needless to say I have sent a copy fo this letter to the heads of the
particular website with the point that what ever the main group does
there is for the obvious purpose of reducing the Orhtodox arrticle and
is intself an obvious attempt at non-neutrality which the particular
site in question requires.
Again so that people will know what our priicples are and wehter they
differ from the alrger group i Have again rededited and will
contiually reedit the Orhtodox article until i hear from the staff of
wekepedia on this.
Additionally the hisoty section which shows when and who edited the section finds these
comments:
Tuesday, April 9, 2002
a.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith; 23:05 . . . 66.219.221.xxx [*I have sent a letter of
concern to the wakepedia staff on this as the openig paragraph wording is definately not
NPOV, per the talk article]
Monday, April 8, 2002
a.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (1); 16:46 . . . Rgamble [-/Talk]
b.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (2); 16:37 . . . Manning Bartlett [NPOV restored,
duplicate content removed again: If you want an edit war then fine - but there are more of
us than there are of you]
c.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (3); 14:41 . . . 66.219.221.xxx
d.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (4); 13:54 . . . 66.219.221.xxx
Thanks for your prompt attention, as I would liek to avert what is likely to become a
contentious issue if allowed to drift,
----- End forwarded message -----