Talk:Baháʼís Under the Provisions of the Covenant/Archive 1

Acronym

Is it offenseive to use BUPC in the article instead of writing it out every time? Usually acronyms are defined at the beginning, then used throughout. It would make it a lot easier to read. Cuñado - Talk 20:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, and for the rest of your work in the Garden. User:Jeffmichaud

Removed

Why was this removed?

The Bahá'ís Under the Provision of the Covenant regard an adopted relationship from 'Abdu'l Baha, to Mason Remey, to Pepe Remey, to Neal Chase. None of these are blood relationships, and the only legal adoption was Mason Remey adopting Pepe Remey. Leland Jensen is not seen as part of this line of Guardians, but still traces his lineage to King David.

If it is not accurate that is one thing, but if it is accurate, it is entirely relevant. Cuñado - Talk 18:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

not accurate (the adoptions were all legal, and Jensen had nothing to do with Guardiaships or David) and was sort of hanging there relevent to nothing before or after it. I'll get to all that stuff;This page is still a WIP.

• Abdu'l Baha to Remey --> not legal
• Remey to Pepe --> legal
• Pepe to Chase --> not legal

These are not questionable facts. I don't know any details between Remey to Pepe, but if you're disputing the others then you need some serious references, like signed documents. Jensen also traces lineage to King David, you wrote it yourself in one of the pages. Cuñado - Talk 02:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I never wrote anything about Doc's lineage from David. Others keep reverting what I write about his beliefs back to an obscure statement which is how it appears in its current version on the Baha'i Divisions page. Abdu'l-Baha's adoption of Mason was legal and so was Pepe's and Neal. Obviously you "don't know any details" on any of these things. If you don't you shouldn't be adding things to pages that you don't know about and can't reference. You know better. I'll reference all those things when I add them to the summary. [User:Jeffmichaud]

LELAND JENSEN NEVER "TRACED HIS LINEAGE TO KING DAVID", and such a statement has no place on this or any other page as it's patently untrue.User:Jeffmichaud

1957 or 1960

Clearly you can't say the majority of Baha'is erred in 1957??? Mason Remey signed all the declarations up until 1960 when he declared himself Guardian. How can you say the BUPC believe something went wrong in 1957? It would be like saying the BUPC don't agree with Remey. Cuñado - Talk 07:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

revert

I reverted because of a few reasons...

Factual errors about what the custodians did and when. Like saying they declared that God broke the Covenant, or that they declared that the Guardianship had ceased. They never said those things and Mason Remey is included in the 9 Custodians that decided to "seize the helm" as is so often quoted. The four stage plan which the article originally said they "by-passed" was in fact followed through with, except for the part about being recognized as a legal court, which became impossible because of the political situation in Israel.

Other minor re-wording took away relevant things that are important for readers, like details about Jensen being the "establisher" and that the second international Baha'i council was not widely accepted. The only reason that these would be removed (as far as I can tell) is the editor is trying to remove any potentially damaging information.

I tried to re-insert other edits that did not need to be reverted Cuñado - Talk 18:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I was mistaken in that I thought that the "declared Bada (God broke his Covenant)" thing was in Ministry of the Custodians. I dug back into that, and I guess they never fessed up to that one publically. It's contained in Mason's diaries, which is where I read that after all, and as it's not in a published book I can see the confusion over that. My bad.
2. The four stage plan wasn't "in fact followed through with" then was it, as it was never recognized as a court. 3/4 of the plan equals NOT THE PLAN. What part of that is tripping you up? User:Jeffmichaud 21 January 2006

history

I added better section headings and re-worked a lot of the page. I also deleted a lot of the history, it does not need to be repeated on tons of pages, so I linked to other pages and started the history where Jensen began, which makes more sense.

I also deleted any unreferenced personal letters. If they are quoted on here they should be from a source, even if it's the BUPC website, and it should be clear that they are Chase's personal collection and not an established fact that Pepe said something. Cuñado - Talk 19:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

~I'm sure you believe your contributions have been a service, and I seriously don't mean to undermine them, but many of these changes are just plain errors. It's clear you don't have firm grasp of the BUPC's beliefs. Why, with no backround on the subject, the three of you are suddenly so interested in reworking this page is puzzeling. I'll leave alone what's valid, but I feel I have to correct the obvious errors. It may seem trite to some, but for instance, the BUPC don't believe Baha'u'llah's the return of Jesus, who was a person, but the return of Christ, which was a station. It's not to be trivial, but to someone in the BUPC, these things jump out off the page. We do BELIEVE the majority of Baha'is broke the covenant when they rejected Mason. To say we beleive they "erred" is a few miles short of the truth. You're right, it would be 1960 when you look at it that way, but to err is human, to break the covenant, is another beast all together. I'm changing what I see to be errors, and will hope you assume good faith in my doing so. Thanks. User:Jeffmichaud 20:50 20 January 2006

I expect a few going back and forth on controversial articles.

You have consistently removed any attempt to estimate the number of BUPC members. It's pretty obvious that it's for convenience, since an unsuspecting reader might infer that it's an enormous group. Unless you have a reason I'll continue to put it back.

You are also repeating a lot of things. For example, instead of going into huge detail about the succession of Baha'u'llah to Abdu'l Baha to Shoghi Effendi, you can just mention that there was a succession and link to their biographies. I would guess anyone reading this is already familiar with that stuff, and others can use the links. Cuñado - Talk 00:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

~I stated my reason for removing the "estimates" when I did it in the comment area. See history. You've created a sentence that's not true. You keep saying "most sources estimate them as under 1000 people.", yet provide not even one source. Where is it? You stated the leadership provides no data. How is this "estimate" derived, and where are any of the "most sources"? User:Jeffmichaud 21 January 2006

Throne of David

Rather than get into an edit war here that'll only repeat the Davidic line's, the assertions here that Gonzales and the BUPC both prove/illustrate/demonstrate an ancestral line, etc., etc., are already covered there. I think that this section could be tightened up and make reference to the Davidic line article.

It's difficult to illustrate here, so this current edit is for illustration only.

Also, the Bahá'í view on the Throne of David is irrelevant here — this is a BUPC article. MARussellPESE 19:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be repeated, especially something that is controversial and being debated. The other option is to shorten up the Davidic line article and link it to this page. I don't really have a preference. Cuñado - Talk 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

belief

Jeffmichaud, you keep saying that they believe that the Guardianship must continue after Shoghi Effendi. Well so do all the Baha'is. What differentiates them is that they believe Mason Remey was appointed and that there must always be living Guardians. I tried to make that clear and you reverted back.

I also reverted your change from Baha'i Faith to "mainstream group". As mentioned several times on several pages, the term "Baha'i Faith" is the appropriate designation for that group. Cuñado - Talk 02:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The extremely long part about the throne is just copy-edit from the BUPC website. By put the info on one page or another I meant have 2 paragraphs on one of them and nothing on the other, not put the entire BUPC page copied to here. Besides that, a lot of the important information is repeated on this page in other places. Cuñado - Talk 02:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing schism and Montana courts

This section appears in "Bahá'í divisions", "Neal Chase" and here. This doesn't need to be in all three places. It certainly doesn't belong on Neal Chase. It probably belongs here with Bahá'í divisions noting the ongoing difficulties and linking to that section. I do hope that I've not inadvertently deleted important information. MARussellPESE 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm all for condensing/summarizing information and linking where appropriate. But right now the Neal Chase page is completely void of the issue. Cuñado - Talk 02:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable sources are missing for some sections

These sources:

• Lamb, J.T., (2004). Over The Wall. Retrieved on February 4 2006
• Jensen, Dr. Leland, (1996). The Most Mighty Document. Retrieved February 4, 2006

which Jeffmichaud keeps inserting to remove the {{Unreferencedsect}} tags on specific sections, are not acceptable sources for wikipedia because:

1. These are not published, so they don't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria.
2. These are doctrinal statements and they do not support any historical/biographical statements made in these disputed sections. In fact, Jensen's background is mentioned only in passing, and Chase isn't discusses at all.

As the implementation of this policy seems unclear in these articles, it's reprocuced here:

The policy

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

1. Self-published sources as primary sources states: "For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront, so long the information is appropriate". As the above sources mentioned are both HTML "source about itself" I'm failing to comprehend the opposition to using these works as references. Obviously the authors are each a "professional researcher in a relevant field",of which there are few. One must assume that MARussell only read the books "in passing", for the background and history for Jensen as well as leadership statements are discussed fully.
2. These books are "primary sources", backed up by "secondary sources" such as the newpaper articles provided. The BUPC, Chase, and Jensen have been widely covered over the years by several Montana news organizations, and as such have fully covered the spectrum regarding doctrine, belief, history, biography, etc. Chase in particular has been the subject of an abundant news articles, by virtue of his controvertial T.V. show which aired every Fri. night, and his book "Ezekiel's Temple in Montana", copies of which are in libraries around the state and reviewed or discussed in several Montana periodicals. I've cited the most poignant articles on these subjects, but there are at least a dozen more articles that make mention of these things at issue here.
3. Furthermore, these are books that were published and copyrighted by the Baha'i Publishers Under the Provisions of the Covenant, and Page 10 Publishers, both Non-Profit Corporations of the State of Montnana. The fact that these are not-for-profit publications is the reason that they are available free as E-books. The Most Mighty Document thoroughly explains the beleifs of the BUPC's views on the Guardianship dispute, the Administration, Jensen's history, etc. Over the Wall fully explains the BUPC's and Jensens's stated beliefs on his mission, BUPC and Covenant history, etc. These are sources for these things and more.
4. Embedded HTML links provides for the manner in which such documents should be cited. If there is opposition to this then please provide why.
5. I'm providing primary and secondary sources for the infomation on these three pages. Jensen and Lamb's work are not "external links", they are sources by experts on the subject. BUPC.org is also a website that would appear to be a primary "source about itself" which contains much of the information contained here and on Jensen and Chase's pages. I'd like to use it as a reference, but it's been removed in the past as well with no consideration to these stated policies. This site does appear to me to meet policy as a verifiable self-published primary source.
6. If there are in fact sections or subsections that I've created that can be shown lacking references at this point could we discuss the concerns either here or have them shown in the edit page between <!>. I've finally dug up the old news articles which I believe cover the spectrum of third party references. There are no longer "sections that lack reference or sources", but if it could be shown that specific statements, beliefs, or doctrines have been overlooked, please be specific. Thank you for helping me to improve the content of these articles. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 5 2006

Noting the self-published sources guideline for the record:

Self-published sources as primary sources

Self-published sources and other sources of dubious reliability may be used as primary-source material in articles about that source. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront, so long the information is appropriate, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by third-party sources. Subject to the exceptions above, such a source should never be used as a third-party source about anyone or anything else.

A Wikipedia article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been repeated by credible third-party sources.

Also noting that, as of the opening of this discussion, no newspapers articles were cited.

Further, the subject documents' claimed secondary sources on biography and history would be appropriate as primary sources here. These have not, to date, been presented. MARussellPESE 05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Will respond to this last statement if I could make sense of it. Not trying to be difficult. It's probably just me, but I've just read the last paragraph 5 times and can't make sense of it. A pretty thorough history of the BUPC with bio's on Doc and Neal was done in the full-cover story of the Independent called "Millenial Fever". Can't find an electronic link to it or many other articles before 2000. "Millenial Fever" makes mention of Chase's predictions, radio and t.v. appearances, and background. Did I not cite that correctly? Sorry if I'm not understanding the above concerns correctly. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 7 2006

Cornell

As with everything on this page, the sources are self-published. The fact that Dave Cornell exists is relevant enough to be mentioned. The reference only says that he exists, and does not even quote what he says or what he believes. Cuñado - Talk 02:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Cornell is not "relevent enough to be mentioned", for he is but one of over a dozen other believers who have been declared covenant breakers. Neither is he the V.P. of the sIBC. Niether do his attempts to be acknowledged as the Guardian amount to a schism, as only he and his wife were ex-communicated in the incident. This piddly campaign of yours to reach into the darkest crevices of the web to find dirt about the BUPC to toss onto this page is frankly childish. Dave Cornell removed himself from the ranks of the sIBC when he began his campaign to be accepted as the Guardian without bringing forth any proof. He believes he's the Guardian by virtue of being appointed the V.P. He's put forth the notion that Mason and Pepe violated the Covenant, and all kind of other outlandish nonsense. It was for these and many other reasons that he affectively removed himself as a violator and is shunned. This is but one of many stories of believers with status-syndrome who've become enemies of the truth. His ex-wife/first V.P. of the sIBC suffered the same complex. His website is composed of archives which he stole from the Baha'i Center, and are now being used to prop himself up. With absolutely not one supporter he pathetically continues his campaign to be the Guardian. Niether Dave, nor anyone else who've removed themselves for covenant-breaking are "relevent enough to be mentioned", for they've ceased to be relevent.
2. Please read the policy on self-published sources. They are quite clear. They are only acceptable as a primary source, which must be backed up by a secondary source, which has not been provided for. "so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." So far, no dice. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 6, 2006

You're certainly welcome to your opinion of who's true, but he is certainly relevant enough, being one of the twelve appointed by Jensen, and being the VP. The summary I put in was from his webpage, and has as much validity as any other unpublished link on the page. You've consistently deleted anything that you feel is damaging to the BUPC, regardless of relevance and references. This is not how wikipedia works. Cuñado - Talk 06:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the way it works is by applying the same policies to one as to all. All the unpublished primary source material I've brought forward have been challenged with the leverage of POLICY, so I've therefore dug up secondary published sources to back up the primaries. See? So if you'd like to use this SELF-PUBLISHED, SECONDARY SOURCE (because this turns out not to be a "site about itself", but a site about someone else), then dig a little more and find a third-party published source on the matter, and you'll have your way by meeting the POLICY that we ALL have to adhere to.

Point was missed entirely:

1. This info. does not meet policy
2. He's not the V.P. of the sIBC, and hasn't been for 7 years.
3. One believer's dissent on a webpage falls miles short of a "schism"

It's tragic to see your mind failing you so quickly at such a ripe young age. Everything you've brought forward has found a place in these pages. This can, too. Please show one thing that I've deleted because I've thought it was damaging. Things get moved around, or reworded cuz you never know what you're talking about, but everything has found it's place. The large laugh is that nothing you found combing the web is actually damaging. You've been helping our cause all along. Think about it. LOL. Thanks. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 7, 2006

To the points that were apparently missing. The part you deleted is only stating fact, that he was VP of the council, that he was kicked off, and that he has a website. The source is not external to the BUPC, and it is not contradicted by any other references. The article does not imply that one person represents a schism. Baha'i divisions has similar situations. The last paragraph links to Allison Marshall's personal webpage talking about herself being expelled. The mention of Dave Cornell is completely relevant. Cuñado - Talk 08:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've recently been briefed on the following policies. Maybe you ought take a look at them as well, for you're wrong in three very specific ways:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 7,2006

If you think you are in the right, and I am in the wrong, then you should ask for arbitration from an administrator. The issues are obvious to me and I don't wish to waste any more time with games. Cuñado - Talk 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not one minute I've spent contributing to Wikipedia has been spent playing. I actually have a career, and a life. I could be spending time contributing to other articles and tracking down references that are needed on other pages, but this back and forth is precedent right now, cuz you refuse to let go of any of your stances, even when you're wrong, until you're put in your place by one of your other sans-Guardian editors. God forbid you see you're out of line by me pointing it out. Maybe it's that you didn't here me, or the volume was too low. DAVE CORNELL IS NOT A SCHISM AND DOESN'T BELONG IN THAT SECTION, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY YOU ONLY HAVE A SELF-PUBLISHED SECONDARY SOURCE FROM A PERSONAL WEBSITE FOR A SOURCE. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 7,2006

Understand something. I'M NOT USING HIS INFORMATION AS A SOURCE. I'm only mentioning that he exists. And he represents opposition to Neal Chase. Change the section title then. Cuñado - Talk 21:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize that the explicitness of the policy wasn't explicit enough for you. If you want to add information to an article, then the information that you believe is a "fact" should be able to be sourced and verifiable, which in this case has fallen short, as what's been provided is information from a "secondary source", for the tenth time. I've attempted to ease these concerns by adding a link to the page in the external links, but no compromise appears reconcialable. I've since removed it, for if you won't compromise and dig your heels in, why should anyone else, when clearly you're wrong here? If Dave's position is so important then create a page for it. He's no more relevent to the BUPC then any of the other declared covenant-breakers who have issues begging for a soap-box.

What's at issue here is not a small thing to me. Bringing forward all the ex-BUPC and airing their gripes on this page is not appropriate. No more than it would be for the BUPC and OBF to start airing the issues on the Baha'i Faith's main page with embedded links to those respective websites. Where does it end? The web is full of message boards and sites with ex-BUPC, ex-Haifans, etc. all with axes to grind. Can you see this position? You're proposing a double-standard in my POV. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 7, 2006

The information on the page is that Dave exists. You can dispute the validity of its source, or its relevancy. You have agreed in your comments that he exists. His relevancy is obvious. I'm not bringing forward and airing a multitude of petty gripes. I've shown two examples in passing, one of a court case whose relevancy is undisputed, which according to the reference is the sIBC taking Chase to court. The other is someone appointed by Jensen to the second highest position in the sIBC. He was kicked out. With these in mind, and without any references or evidence of a thriving community, it would appear that the BUPC is all but broken up. Can you honestly say that your repeated attempts to remove any and all of this information is NPOV?? The references are valid, and there are no other references disputing the information. Can you honestly say that you have a reference saying that Dave Cornell was not actually appointed to the council? Or that any of the one-sentence line about him is inaccurate? If you choose to revert again, I suggest you begin an arbitration. I'll even give you the upper hand by posting it first. Cuñado - Talk 00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

1. From Wikipedia:Verifiability:"The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." The burden is not on me here. You're adding this information, so provide a reputable source.
2. I didn't remove the court case. You stuck it in the intro with an ill-informed summary. I created the section, remember?
3. Yes, the case is called SIBC v. Chase. So what? The briefs show who's involved. It's not the whole board. It was the Treasurer who brought the case to court, and called herself the IBC, as the record shows.
4. My POV is that these types of underhanded statements regarding the petty gripes of ex-members of a community amount to vandilsm. This would set a precedent to embed HTML's throughout all the pages. Is that what we now want? The same argument could be made to embed links into the Baha'i Faith main pages for Mason, OBF, BUPC, and everyone who has "a site that opposes these views", right? You can make a page for

Dave, or maybe go with my first suggestion and put it in the external links with whatever title and summary you want. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 7, 2006

Here's a link to the arbitration. Cuñado - Talk 01:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fun. And a nice vacation from editing waiting for the arbitrators. I have some further comments, since they're being requested, beyond what's been said already. Aside from debating "policy" on content, I'd like to appeal to reason, for there is obviously leaway given to the small groups without extensive published materials, and, Cunado is correct in that one can point to Baha'i divisions to find others like Cornell. But, they're not all on Baha'i divisions, for the page would get lengthy.

Here's the crux of this from my POV. There are 2 other ex-IBC members managing websites who also "continue to voice opposition...". There are upwards of 12 ex-BUPC activley participating on message boards right now (including the first V.P. of the IBC, removed in 91'). Do they all get space on this page once they get drudged up? Let's do this: I say we bring those 14-20 enemies of the BUPC forward (I know Cunado didn't suggest, but why not them, too?). Then, we "contribute" all the dissidents who opposed Joel after initially accepting him onto the "Orthodox Baha'i Page", and link to websites who oppose him. Then, we also put quotes from Ruth White and Ruhi Afnan Effendi's books on the Baha'i Faith page, along with a list of all active websites who "continue to oppose the UHJ...", okay?

I'm obviously being sarcastic, but the absurdity of these suggestions is to illustrate how extrapolating this beyond this one case, it could quickly devolve into depravity, and invite who knows what to dinner. Would anyone object to mention of White or Effendi on "Baha'i Faith"? Of course. Let's leave the Baha'i World for a second. As an encyclopedia, statements by nature should not be created in the present tense; like so and so continues to blah blah. It's a record of history that should be able to endure. Furthermore, with regard to history, should Martin Luther's protest of the papacy litter the Catholic mainpage? I just don't see this sort of thing as appropriate, that's all. I don't even want to see his name associated with BUPC, personally. He's not a BUPC, period. He's not a schism. Can it be shown on what grounds a federal case should be made about this, beyond that "he exists"? It seems like a common courtesy extended to every other group to dignify the belief system, and those who adhere to it. In general, religious mainpages don't appear to make room for these types of situations, and with good reason. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 7,2006

Well I actually feel better by not editing for a few days, and after dealing with a really annoying guy who just plain hates Baha'is, and spending a lot of energy to counter his attacks, I certainly think this issue is less a-big-deal than I did a few days ago. I understand your argument, and I'll try to respond reasonably.

I think we can use the other Baha'i pages as a good comparison. Everyone and their mother who wants to attack the Faith or the administration can come on wikipedia and do exactly what you're talking about. With the other Baha'i pages it was reasonable to make a page for divisions, so that way when someone goes through every page adding Orthodox Baha'i Faith to the "See also" section, it can easily be removed without protest. People try to dredge up dirt and put it all over wikipedia, and the real editors have to spend hours cleaning it up. I realize that's exactly what I'm doing to your page, and on one hand, I feel bad about causing stress, and on the other, it's part of the glory of wikipedia, and I accept it when others do it to my pages. See Talk:Bahá'u'lláh's family#Akbar vs A'žam for a good case.

Your case is a little different because there are only 3 pages directly related to the BUPC. It would make more sense to make a section on the main page. Here's what I suggest. You seem to be familiar enough with the subject. You choose whoever you think is the most relevant opposition, you make a short summary, title the section, and make a numbered footnote to some website. I do insist that someone should be mentioned, cause if for God's sake Allison Marshall has a link to her webpage, then one of the relevant ex-BUPC members should be mentioned. As long as it's not watered down a bunch then I'll leave it alone. The section should be linked from Baha'i divisions, and Neal Chase for obvious reasons.

I don't plan on working on these pages any more. Even you have to admit that when you first made the pages, they were quite flowery and fanciful, basically saying that Leland Jensen was the best thing since sliced bread. That kind of article is just not for wikipedia. Cuñado - Talk 18:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

100% reasonable. Let me meditate on this over the weeeekend. I'm sure an agreeable compromise is just an edit away. But there's just one thing. Jensen is the best thing since sliced bread. I should add that to his page <:0) User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 11, 2006

I removed this page from RFC. Cuñado - Talk 23:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

New section

There really shouldn't be links to chat groups. I think the yahoo group can just be deleted. Cuñado - Talk 07:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, you already did it. Cuñado - Talk 07:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)