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 -----