Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

“At the heart of Bahá'í teachings is the goal...”

Can this sentence be revised reworked or omitted? The sentence states: “At the heart of Bahá'í teachings is the goal of a unified world order that ensures the prosperity of all nations, races, creeds, and classes.[6][7]”

It seems it’s an opinion that a unified world order is 1. at the heart of the Bahá’í teachings and 2. that it is it’s goal.

1 Why for example, is peace not stated to be at the heart of the Bahá’í teachings or the age of maturity of the entire human race? The stages of peace are written about in depth. As well as the roles of justice and unity in the establishment and emergence of peace.

2. As to a world order being the goal, to quote Shoghi Effendi in World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, chapter titled, World Unity the Goal:

“Unification of the whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage which human society is now approaching. ... The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes...”

A world commonwealth is implied and encompassed by the goal of world unity. -All of which having to do with peace and how the stages of peace emerge.

The implication of the sentence now could be interpreted as a religion whose goal is to impose a world government. (Bahá’í writings say the lesser peace will occur after nation states on their own accord will unite)

In general, there is no context or other teachings other than progressive revelation in the section (or much of the page) and then the last sentence talks about establishing a world order as the goal at the heart of the religion, which itself is an opinion and the citations to support it aren’t from recognized authoritative writings of the Bahá’í Faith.

Could it be revised reworked or omitted? Wordsaresounds (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Rather than not being from recognized authoritative writings of the Bahá’í Faith, they abundantly support that "the future New World Order...is at once the promise and the glory of the Dispensation associated with the name of Bahá’u’lláh." (Shoghi Effendi. The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 6: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/ADJ/adj-1.html) "It is towards this goal—the goal of a new World Order, Divine in origin, all-embracing in scope, equitable in principle, challenging in its features—that a harassed humanity must strive." (J. E. Esslemon, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 274, http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BNE/bne-197.html) And under the title of "The Goal of a New World Order" that the realization of this practical goal is at the heart is affirmed by Shoghi Effendi, "The inexorable march of recent events has carried humanity so near to the goal foreshadowed by Bahá’u’lláh that no responsible follower of His Faith, viewing on all sides the distressing evidences of the world’s travail, can remain unmoved at the thought of its approaching deliverance." (The Goal of a New World Order, p. 29, http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-14.html) Just searching the authoritative texts online will yield more.

"… abundantly support…" is pov.Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

2. As far as "impose" is concerned, the writings also clearly state that this envisioned new world order would "consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature." "A world federal system, ruling the whole earth and exercising unchallengeable authority over its unimaginably vast resources.." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh. p. 204), http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-56.html) You do not need a international Force exercising unchallengeable authority if "the entire human race" has reached the "age of maturity" as defined by the Bahá’í faith.

"…do not need…" is pov.Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In other words,to some degree, it is peace thru strength even if the world executive himself is a means leading to the Bahá’í world government with its the International House of Justice which necessitates "the recognition of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, not merely as one of the recognized religious systems of the world, but as the State Religion of an independent and Sovereign Power." Yet contrary to universal "maturity" as defined by the BF, the vision is that when its truth will be "embraced by the majority of the peoples of a number of the Sovereign States of the world, will the Universal House of Justice attain the plenitude of its power, and exercise, as the supreme organ of the Bahá’í Commonwealth, all the rights, the duties, and responsibilities incumbent upon the world’s future super-state. It must be pointed out, however, in this connection that, contrary to what has been confidently asserted, the establishment of the Supreme House of Justice is in no way dependent upon the adoption of the Bahá’í Faith by the mass of the peoples of the world, nor does it presuppose its acceptance by the majority of the inhabitants of any one country." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh. p. 7, http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-3.html#pg7)

"…In other words,to some degree…" is pov. Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

3. This goal of a New World Order with its government is not opposed to the premise of peace being "at the heart of the Bahá’í teachings or the age of maturity of the entire human race" for the former pertains to the practical outcome of the degree of the latter, and lack of universal consent, and the practical means of government. You could thus add, "In practical terms, the goal Bahá'í teachings is a unified world order…"

"… is not opposed…" is OR. Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

4. The reason authoritative writings are not cited is likely because of the absurd opposition to "primary sources" which I myself faced, since they also clearly state that Bahá’u’lláh "is the supreme Manifestation of God and the Day-Spring of His most divine Essence. All others are servants unto Him and do His bidding.” (The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, p.133; http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-39.html) Which is forbidden from appearing in this article under the false premise that was an false interpretation of primary sources, since it does not conform to the controlling editors commitment to prevent this article from revealing anything that sounds negative about the Bahá’í Faith. Likewise spurious is your own premise that " culminating in a New world order with the Bahá'í Faith as the "State Religion of an independent and Sovereign Power" is a "editorially selective and subjective opinion" even though this is what authoritative writings teach, as substantiated. Rather, it is your sanitizing that is selective and subjective opinion and may be reverted.

"…are not cited is likely because…" is not following the values and policies of wikipedia.Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

5. If anything, this article is cherry-picking statements that avoid such clear teachings as above in the interest of promoting a one sided benign view of Bahá'í teachings, and now even the nice-sounding statement "At the heart of Bahá'í teachings is the goal of a unified world order that ensures the prosperity of all nations, races, creeds, and classes" is opposed. As it is, despite its prominence in Bahá'í teachings, the "new world order" is only mentioned once in the article, under a list of authoritative principles, and by just a link Maybe you want to eliminate that also. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"…this article is cherry-picking…" is lacking in good faith of the years of work contributing to making the article one that has been ranked a high quality "Featured Article" in the past. Your edits are unconstructive and do not follow a representation of a consensus that has exist much over the years. You are fringe editing in other words.Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Rather, this article is more of an infomercial that has been protected from conveying much of anything that might seem to impugn a desired message, regardless of the FACT that the censored parts are well documented. Thus your and your comrades censorious edits are unconstructive towards providing the public a fitting fuller description of the Bahá'í faith. As shown above, you really do not have a case except what is basically an appeal to tradition, with your specious featured Article rank, which is hardly warranted and likely the result of promotion by Bahá'í faith advocates.

These editors evidence they really do not want the public to know that the goal of the Bahá'í faith is achieving its New World Order, "the establishment of a world commonwealth consisting of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, with "A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature," (The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, by Shoghi Effendi) With a "world federal system, ruling the whole earth and exercising unchallengeable authority over its unimaginably vast resources..." (Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, by Bahá’u’lláh; http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-56.html) With the world executive leading to the Bahá’í world government with its the International House of Justice, which necessitates "the recognition of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, not merely as one of the recognized religious systems of the world, but as the State Religion of an independent and Sovereign Power." Not that all will embrace it, thus the need for an international Force, for "the establishment of the Supreme House of Justice is in no way dependent upon the adoption of the Bahá’í Faith by the mass of the peoples of the world, nor does it presuppose its acceptance by the majority of the inhabitants of any one country." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh. p. 7, http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-3.html#pg7)

Such must be dismissed as irrelevant or fringe editing, cherry-picking "editorially selective and subjective opinion" even though this is what authoritative writings teach, as substantiated and can be. Which at least has been exposed on this talk page, yet which I expect will be shortly buried or deleted. But deception will be exposed. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A determination of irrelevant or fringe editing or cherry-picking is why people use reliable sources and not primary material. People can *interpret* primary material in all kinds of ways. you see it that way. Is that substantiated by the experience of people and the policies of institutions? That would show up in scholarly review of the religion. That's what the body of the article is based on. My advise? Do unto us as you would have us do onto you. Smkolins 10:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You censors tried this before, but the FACT remains that primary sources may be used on Wikipedia "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." (Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources) Which is the case with my edits. And the reality also is that the authoritative canonical writings of Shoghi Effendi are meant to provide the interpretation of the writings of the three central figures of the religion, and which is not one of diverse denominations.

Nor is what I provided that of some peripheral issues, including the place of the New World Order and its basic nature, a most predominate issue in authoritative writings, yet which only gets a bare mention in your article. Thus your charge of irrelevant or fringe editing or cherry-picking is fallacious, and a poor attempt to justify your censorious actions. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"It's basic nature" is something that requires judgement. The accepted judgement in wikipedia is reliable sources. Accusing me of censoring isn't helping. Smkolins 14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

[Where did my comments below go?] Your deleting of "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source," are due to your erroneous judgment that this are POV. And the tactic here is to latch on to a word and place the POV label on it, which is spurious. I did not use "basic nature" in the article, and my use here of "basic nature" refers to letting the very words of the religion describe the basic nature of the OWO, not what I think it means, or going on at length about it. −

Likewise is your assertion i missed before that "abundantly support.." is pov in "authoritative writings of the Bahá’í Faith abundantly support that the future New World Order...is at once the promise and the glory of the Dispensation associated with the name of Bahá’u’lláh." (Shoghi Effendi. The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 6) is POV, when again, I did not use the term "abundantly support" in the article, but used it here as a demonstrable fact that validates the warrant for including the statement that was provided.

Also spurious is your charge that "…do not need…" is pov in "You do not need a international Force exercising unchallengeable authority if "the entire human race" has reached the "age of maturity" as defined by the Bahá’í faith," for "do not need" is an appeal to reason in the debate here in response to the objection that "At the heart of Bahá'í teachings is the goal of a unified world order that ensures the prosperity of all nations, races, creeds, and classes" "could be interpreted as a religion whose goal is to impose a world government." Which means that .you want to censor something that does not state the latter based upon your POV that someone might interpret it as that, and which comment is likely a prelude to deleting it. And thus even "New World Order" only gets a bare mention, while any mention of the government and authority it envisions (as clearly stated in its unambiguous writings) must be disallowed lest it have a negative connotation.

I need not cite more examples, and denying that this is rank censoring isn't helping. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"It's basic nature" is something that requires judgement. The accepted judgement in wikipedia is reliable sources. Accusing me of censoring isn't helping. Smkolins 14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, no matter what you want to call it, my use here of "basic nature" refers to letting the very words of the religion describe the OWO, not what I think it means, or going on at length about it. Deleting what I said here will not make that fact go away or excuse your censorious actions and spurious changes. Just how would this be treated by you: , "The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded. This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature.." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 203)?

Evidently such must be disallowed, or a summation of it, but a positive summation of what some scholarly source (mostly unavailable on the Internet) would be.!!!!

Daniel, nothing is being censored. You're trying to introduce the concept you think is most important to the first sentence of the article. It's an issue of weight, and the preponderance of sources do not mention your viewpoint in a summary of the religion. Check out WP:UNDUE for more details. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No, this goes beyond that. I could not even merely expand the intro to, "with the recognition of the Bahá Faith culminating in a New world order." Anyone who actually reads the authoritative texts can hardly deny that this is a major theme, and while I sure the preponderance of sources do mention this, yet they should not be needed for such when the religion is very much unified and explanative of its faith. And even if scholarly sources did provide this, and the nature of it, then I do not think it would be allowed. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I could come up with 20-30 "major themes" of the Baha'i Faith. You are trying to insert the one that you think is most important in the first sentence. Read two sections higher in the comments about "First Sentence", I copied in the summary of the Baha'i Faith used by a variety of dictionaries and encyclopedias. The weight given to a high level overview must reflect the weight given in reliable sources. As far as your accusation of censorship, there is a page (New world order (Bahá'í)) dedicated to the topic that you think is being censored. The page includes the quote "A world executive, backed by an international Force" and so on. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the NWO is given great weight in reliable sources, those of the authoritative texts of that faith, and which are not ambiguous nor contradictory but "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source," and should be part of the intro. Sure, there one link to the brief NWO article, but leaving that info on a major theme to another link is akin to leaving the second coming of Christ to such in the Christianity article. Such inclusions are not "fringe editing" but considering the editor postulated removing even "At the heart of Bahá'í teachings is the goal of a unified world order" then such charges are not surprising. But for now I will leave it as it is. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(So called) Islamic countries who have persecuted members of this religious faith

Yet again, Wikipedia looks towards people who label themselves as Muslims or those who state they are practicing Islam, and totally ignores the source of Islam, which is the Quran.

The article states that "Islamic" countries such as Egypt and Iran have been known to persecute people of the Bahá'í faith, right? Let's break this down this statement in its relevance to Islam. 1. Egypt, Iran and et al, label themselves as Islamic. 2. The article states that these countries, who are Islamic, perform the said actions of persecution. 3. Finally, by saying these countries who are Islamic, are doing Islamic things, you are saying that their actions are part of Islam.

In actual fact, the Quran makes clear, that there is no compulsion in religion, and each to their own faith. This is the actual Islamic view on other people having their own religions and practicing their own faith.

This concept of labelling something Islamic, is similar to what is said about ISIL/ISIL, as in yes, you can call them the Islamic state in context because that is what they call themselves, but to call their actions as Islamic is another matter. You cannot say, well, they call their actions as Islamic therefore they must be right, or their word is the final say on the matter, the religious scriptures are, as in the Quran.

My proposition is that you label them as just "countries" or countries who refer to themselves as Islamic, (or something similar) especially if you are trying to be factual. Again, there should be no problem with pointing out that these countries refer to themselves as Islamic, and anything written in the point of view of the country and its government, but when you say "Islamic" to something that is not part of Islam you are encorcing the idea that these actions are art of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccarran (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Regarding this edit. The lead should be concise and doesn't need to be overly detailed. The original wording <<Established by Baháʼu'lláh in 1863, it initially grew in Persia and parts of the Middle East, where it has faced ongoing persecution since its inception.>> was carefully laid out to incorporate some key details as concisely as possible without getting involved in the technicality of starting in Baghdad among Persian exiles. It gets across the Who? Where? When? and mentions the persecution faced in Iran today. The phrase "initially grew in Persia" gets across that it has Persian origins, but doesn't get into the detail of where the announcement was made to break with the Babi tradition and start a new faith. Also, Baha'is consider the Bab's declaration in Shiraz as their origin. The first paragraph needs to hit a bunch of high level points without detail, keep nice sentence flow, stay technically accurate with the split between the two faiths. All the details are below in the article, it's just a question of priority and style.

If you want to change it, please get a consensus on the talk page. I don't think adding "in Baghdad, Iraq" and splitting the sentence is an improvement. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

agreed. Smkolins (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If "Baha'is consider the Bab's declaration in Shiraz as their origin" then the lead paragraphs should clearly state that and the year of its origin be changed to 1844. If the beginning of the Baha'i Faith is from the declaration of Baha'u'llah in Baghdad (Iraq) in 1863, then, it should be clearly stated so. Adding "Baghdad" makes it clear that Baha'i Faith, specifically, started in Baghdad. Most people are under impression that it started in Iran, which is technically incorrect. Adding "in Baghdad, Iraq" is not going to spoil the "high level points". We may request an outside third opinion if you disagree.Serv181920 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to add details without mucking up the lead paragraph. Imagine someone who knows nothing about the subject comes across here, they just want to know what part of the world it's from, not what city. They probably want to know roughly where, when, some basic teachings in a few words, and how big is it. The preponderance of media reports on the persecution in Iran while mentioning the Baha'i Faith, so that needs to be tucked in somewhere. The nuances of Baha'u'llah's declaration are below in the article for people who want to go into details. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not convinced with your argument. How come adding "Baghdad, Iraq" mucking-up the lead paragraph? The readers deserve to know the place where the religion was founded. Generally, people think that it was founded in Iran while it was the "Babi faith" that was established in Iran and the Baha'i Faith was established in Iraq when Baha'u'llah declared himself as the promised-one of the religion of Bayan in 1863. I would prefer adding "Baghdad, Iraq" to the lead paragraph for more clarity. You are free to recompose the sentence to accommodate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serv181920 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

And sorry, I don't think you have consensus to change the lead paragraph. The religion is of Iranian origin and the majority of all Baha'is were Iranian for the first century of the religion. There are a hundred details that could be thrown into the lead paragraph. Baghdad does not seem to be an important detail for a 3-sentence overview and it is not mentioned in the preponderance of sources. The original wording remains technically accurate and conveys that it started in Iran and then grew into the Middle East: "it initially grew in Persia and parts of the Middle East". Britanica's article starts with an overview on teachings and then moves into the history starting in 1844. Further down it mentions: "He was released in 1853 and exiled to Baghdad, where his leadership revived the Bābī community. In 1863, shortly before being moved by the Ottoman government to Constantinople (now Istanbul), Bahāʾ Allāh declared to his fellow Bābīs that he was the messenger of God foretold by the Bāb." Another, URI, starts with: "It began in 1844 in Persia". The BBC says "It was founded by Baha'u'llah in Iran in the 19th century." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

One more from the Economist. In a four-paragraph overview, here is the mention of origins: "In 1844 a merchant who called himself “the Bab” (“the Gate”) began preaching in Persia. He reinterpreted Shia Islam, and said that God would soon send a new prophet in the manner of Moses, Christ and Muhammad. Bahais consider one of the followers of the Bab—Baha’u’llah—to be this prophet, and the official founder of their religion." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"The original wording remains technically accurate".

No. The original wordings are not technically accurate. Technically speaking, Baha'i Faith started in Iraq when Baha'u'llah claimed himself as the promised one of Bayan, the declaration was done in the Garden of Ridvan, in Baghdad. I agree that it had Iranian followers and the prophet was himself Iranian - but it started in Baghdad with Baha'u'llah's declaration in that Garden!

1844 is the starting of the religion of the Bab. Baha'i faith is an "independent world religion" which started in Baghdad in 1863 with Baha'u'llah's declaration. It is a fact that Baha'is believe in the Bab as its predecessor but that was a different religion and Baha'i faith is different. 1884 in Iran is 'correct' for the Babi religion and 1863 in Baghdad is 'perfect' for the Baha'i faith.

If you feel I am incorrect, let us take a 3O or may be we can involve an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serv181920 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• The very fact this is being discussed at length is why it doesn't deserve to be in the lead. It's a detail with nuance and context. Smkolins (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Any point being discussed at length should not prevent it from taking place in the lead paragraph! If the place of establishment is not clearly stated, most readers would assume that it started in Iran, because Baha'u'llah and most of his earlier followers were Persians. "Established in Baghdad, Iraq" makes it clear that Baha'u'llah was following the Babi religion till 1863.

"At the end of April 1863, shortly before leaving the environs of Baghdad for Istanbul (known as Constantinople in the English language of the time), Bahá’u’lláh and His companions resided for twelve days in a garden which He named Ridván, meaning “Paradise”. There, on the banks of the River Tigris, Bahá’u’lláh declared Himself to be the One heralded by the Báb—God’s Messenger to the age of humanity’s collective maturity, foretold in all the world's scriptures." https://www.bahai.org/bahaullah/life-bahaullah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serv181920 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• You aren't building consensus. You are just stating your pov. Other obvious facts exist - like the experience in the Siyah Chal, the direct relationship between the Baha'i and Babi Faiths and therefore the immediacy of the founding of the Babi Faith. Many articles more to the point of the Ridvan event clearly relate Bagdad. It isn't being hidden. Why does it deserve to be here - to de-emphasize Iran? Why? Smkolins (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The details of Baghdad, the transition of identity from Babi to Baha'i, the tensions with Azal, all that is lower in the article. In fact the NEXT PARAGRAPH in the lead mentions 1863 as the year of Baha'u'llah's claim. The first paragraph has to paint the broadest possible strokes of what the subject is, with minimal detail, and somehow keep good readability and sentence structure. There is a lot of nuance to how the Baha'i Faith started, and you're trying to insert a detail that doesn't really matter all that much, so I'm wondering what your motivation is here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to take this forward through proper channel, according to the policies and framework of wikipedia. I don't have an experience in editing like you guys have. But engaging and discussing is helpful for my learning experience. Thank you for training me. :)

I still think that the edit is good. "Baghdad, Iraq" should come in the lead paragraph because of the fact that the religion is established in Baghdad. Baha'u'llah declared himself in Baghdad in 1863 thus starting the Baha'i Faith there. He was a Babi till 1863. Having vision of the "Maid of Heaven" is not considered as the "establishment" of the Baha'i Faith! Usually, people think that Baha'i Faith was started in Iran which is technically incorrect. And I believe that Baha'is purposefully don't want to give importance to Baghdad and keep their popular-incorrect-narrative going on for more time.Serv181920 (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It's already been commented that the source of the religion can be said to be various places and times. No one is debating that Baghdad is important - like it is highlighted in the Ridvan article. But it is not technically incorrect to say Iran. Sources are abvious about the founding experience of Baha'u'llah in the Siyah Chal. Why are you emphatic that the Maid of Heaven experience isn't the founding of the religion? We don't need to debate popular-incorrect-narrative: such a pov is itself point that would need to be cited. I've never heard of a reliable source saying it is "popular-incorrect-narrative" to say it was founded in Iran. Smkolins (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The experience of the Maid of Heaven is not considered as the establishment of the faith, but the public declaration in Baghdad is!Serv181920 (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that is debatable. It is certainly the foundation experience that started the religion and why Ridvan is the special event it is noted as. At the same time it is impossible to define the Baha'i Faith without reference to its predecessor. Smkolins (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you say, the fact is that the Baha'i Faith was established in Baghdad in 1863 when Baha'u'llah declared "to some of his immediate disciples his claim to be the Babi promised one. He also commanded them strictly to avoid sedition. Then, dressed as a Sufi leader..." (Encyclopedia by Smith, Page 76)

Until this declaration, there was no existence of the Baha'i Faith.Serv181920 (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

THe process of forming a religion occured in phases. The original experience arose out of Babi history and occurred in the Siyah Chal, then there was the declaration to a few chosen people as remembered in the Ridvan event, and then more publicly in Ottoman Turkey, and then the laws and broad teachings of the religion were set for in Ottoman Palestine. No single event stands alone but it clearly originated in Persia and progressed through significant degrees in stages. Smkolins (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The starting of the Baha'i Faith as a separate religion began from Baghdad, Iraq in 1863. This is the fact. And Baha'is celebrate the festival of Ridvan for this very purpose. Baha'is don't celebrate Baha'u'llah's 'meeting' with the Maiden of Heaven in Siyah Chal!Serv181920 (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

And the quotes read most often at Ridvan are indeed about the Maiden. Smkolins (talk)

[btw the "individual Babis" seems fine by me] Smkolins (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not seen the Baha'is reading Baha'u'llah's experience with the Maiden! The tablet of Huriyyih (Maiden) is not even officially translated by the UHJ. It was unofficially translated by Juan Cole, it also became a cause of trouble for him.

"[btw the "individual Babis" seems fine by me]" - I appreciate your honesty.Serv181920 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I hate to rehash this more, but I think there are 4 parts to the forming of the Baha'i Faith as a unique religion (from the perspective of Baha'is, of course). 1844, Shiraz; 1852-53, Siyah-chal; 1863, Baghdad; and 1867-68, Adrianople. It wasn't until the last one that anyone started calling themselves "Baha'is", and it was in Adrianople that Baha'u'llah's declaration was "public" in the form of letters and declarations to outside of the Babis. All four of those events were significant movements toward an independent religion. The one I hear most quoted from Baha'is is 1844. The clock for the 1000 years without other prophets started in October 1852. The announcement in Baghdad was the first time he mentioned it to anyone, but it wasn't until 1868 that it was clear to all that it was its own religion. Now, what goes in the lead? 19th century is fine, cause you're looking for the high level view, and the reader doesn't know if it started 1,000 years ago or 10 years ago. Perspective. Just don't go trying to fill the first paragraph with unnecessary details. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that you have changed "established in 1863" to "established in the 19th century". I think that is acceptable and correct. My point was, if you put a specific year then why not put the place of the declaration also!? Thank youServ181920 (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation of God

This article, which used to reference the concept in the Baha'i faith, has been changed to redirect to a more general topic (Theophany). The Baha'i article has not been lost in this - as I feared for a moment it had, but renamed as Manifestation of God (Baháʼí Faith). This is apparently NPOV and "good faith" in itself - but it does result in many references throughout the articles on the Faith to the general subject of theophany, most of which, at least, are not helpful. I have fixed this is one or two articles, but clearly there is some more work to be done. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

update to above. The article on Theophany has a section on the Baháʼí Faith that seems to have no relevance either to the Manifestation of God in the Baha'i sense (or , indeed, anything else to do with the faith). In fact it is decidedly odd. Wouldn't hurt if someone had a look at it sometime.

___Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Two small quibbles with the lead

Hi all, just wanted to touch base about two apparent problems with the lead before making changes.

• It says Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha were the most recent Manifestations before Baha'u'llah and the Bab (not those exact words). However, there is no source for this in the lead or the body of the article. Where does this claim come from? I'm specifically uncertain about whether from the Baha'i perspective the Buddha should come before Krishna. The main historical phase of Hinduism to discuss Krishna is the Itihasa (epics), specifically the Mahabharata, which comes after the Buddha. Obviously my own reasoning holds no weight in the article, but it does lead me to think the unsourced claim may be incorrect. Should it be removed?
• The opening sentence says the Baha'i Faith teaches "the essential worth of all religions." However, this doesn't include Sikhism, Jainism, Manichaeism, Mormonism, new religious movements, etc., at least not in the same sense Baha'is teach the worth of say Christianity, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism. The source cited is a dictionary not a scholarly article which I believe explains why it makes an inaccurate claim. The article body, without a source, retreats to the claim of "the well known religions of the world" being founded by Manifestations, but this doesn't seem to be true either, given for example Sikhism, Confucianism, Daoism, etc. Is there some way this could be reworded and traced to a reliable source?

Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

No response so I'm going to add citation needed tags. Hopefully I'll find sources soon. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the first, Shoghi Effendi wrote: "There are no dates in our teachings regarding the actual dates of the Prophets of the Adamic Cycle, so we cannot give any. Tentatively we can accept what historians may consider accurate. Naturally the dates referring to Muhammad, the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh we are sure of." (Lights of Guidance, p. 503) Historians are reasonably sure Buddha lived around 400 BCE. Krishna more like 3000-1000 BCE if he was a real person. I'm not sure what the controversy is here.

Regarding the second, there are numerous dictionaries and encyclopedic sources giving similar short descriptions:

• Lexico: "...emphasizing the essential oneness of humankind and of all religions and seeking world peace."
• Dictionary.com: "...teaching the essential worth of all religions, the unity of all peoples, and the equality of the sexes."
• Dictionary of cultural literacy: "...advocating universal peace and stressing the spiritual unity of humankind."
• Britannica: "The principal Bahāʾī tenets are the essential unity of all religions and the unity of humanity. Bahāʾīs believe that all the founders of the world’s great religions have been manifestations of God and agents of a progressive divine plan for the education of the human race."
• Iranica: "...a world religion with internationalist and pacifist emphases."
• Merriam-Webster: "...a religious movement originating in Iran in the 19th century and emphasizing the spiritual unity of humankind."
• Encyclopedia.com: "...the Baha'i Faith projected a broad view of the oneness of mankind and coming unity of different religions."

The phrase "essential worth" accurately carries the idea that there is value in all religions. It doesn't say that every doctrine is considered true or that every claim to prophethood is accepted by Baha'is. It is inclusive of Sikhism, Mormonism, etc. The more nuanced descriptions are further down in the article. This has been rehashed many times and we keep going back to this wording because it is the lead sentence and needs to be concise. It is also well sourced. Nuance is below in the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that I had conflated the time the text about Krishna was written with when Krishna lived (or may have lived), so thanks for setting the record straight there. I still think a source would be ideal (not sure this is WP:BLUE), but I'll leave it until I can find one. My bad on the other point, I didn't realize this had already been discussed and I see there are other sources beyond the dictionary backing this use of "essential worth." Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem and if you have an idea for the lead please propose it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"Baha'i Faith is a new religion teaching the essential worth of all religions."

Hi Cuñado,
This sentence "Baha'i Faith is a new religion teaching the essential worth of all religions." has POV issues. Can you please share the source of this sentence? Neither dictionary.com says that nor the Encyclopedia Britannica! Furthermore, you are using a dictionary definition in the lead section of an important article. See WP:DICTS. FYI, dictionary.com explicitly states in its terms and conditions found here: https://www.dictionary.com/e/terms/ that "NEITHER DICTIONARY, NOR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES.... MAKE ANY WARRANTY... AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, COMPLETENESS..." then why don't you use a more reliable source! If that is not possible let the citation be tagged with . Thanks. Serv181920 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned two sections up, there are numerous sources saying similar things. The wording in the article correctly reflects how the Baha'i Faith is summarized in the first paragraph of the preponderance of sources.

• Lexico: "...emphasizing the essential oneness of humankind and of all religions and seeking world peace."
• Dictionary.com: "...teaching the essential worth of all religions, the unity of all peoples, and the equality of the sexes."
• Dictionary of cultural literacy: "...advocating universal peace and stressing the spiritual unity of humankind."
• Britannica: "The principal Bahāʾī tenets are the essential unity of all religions and the unity of humanity. Bahāʾīs believe that all the founders of the world’s great religions have been manifestations of God and agents of a progressive divine plan for the education of the human race."
• Iranica: "...a world religion with internationalist and pacifist emphases."
• Merriam-Webster: "...a religious movement originating in Iran in the 19th century and emphasizing the spiritual unity of humankind."
• Encyclopedia.com: "...the Baha'i Faith projected a broad view of the oneness of mankind and coming unity of different religions."

If you have an alternative wording, please propose it and get a consensus. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Only one source, dictionary.com, is using those words. I would suggest something like "The Baháʼí Faith is a new religious movement that believes in the oneness of God and the oneness of religion." All those who have some basic understanding of the Baha'i Faith knows very well that the Baha'i Faith aspires to bring a NWO based on the Baha'i principles. All Baha'i teachings and activities are focused on achieving this aim. I think "teaching the essential worth of all religions" is WP:PUFFERY or at least a POV that is not neutral. Thanks. Serv181920 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Current full wording: ...a new religion teaching the essential worth of all religions and the unity of all people.

Sources use "essential oneness... of all religions", "teaching the essential worth of all religions", "essential unity of all religions... founders of the world's great religions... are agents of a progressive divine plan", "emphasizing the spiritual unity of humankind", "coming unity of different religions".

As I mentioned, the current version is an accurate reflection of many sources. It is a complicated issue that is laid out in much more detail below in the article. "...essential worth of all religions" seems to be a good balance for the lead. "...oneness of religion" is less descriptive and phrasing like "unity of all religions" or "unity of major religions" runs into some problems.

Why did you drop the mention of "unity of all people?" That is part of all but one example above. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "essential worth of all religions?" Please elaborate.

"As I mentioned, the current version is an accurate reflection of many sources." This is your POV!

Baha'i faith believes in the oneness of religion and the oneness of humanity but this belief is directly related to the Baha'i inspired New World Order that Baha'i Administration aspires to build. And this is not some conspiracy-theory that I am making-up. Thanks. Serv181920 (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Mention of NWO sent me to New World Order (conspiracy theory). There is not a single mention of the Baháʼí Faith in the article because the faith is a religious aspiration while other is a political social threat. The two are polar opposites that happen to use the same 3 words as desriptors. The galvanizing language used by conspiracy theorists has no kinship with the healing words of Baháʼu'lláh. ―Buster7 ☎ 22:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

On wikipedia you are supposed to be a neutral person and assume good faith WP:AGF. You are not supposed to use the words like "galvanizing language used by conspiracy theorists" or "healing words of Baháʼu'lláh". This could reveal your bias/love towards your faith. If you want me to share with you some quotations (from the Baha'i writings) about the so-called Baha'i New World Order, a Baha'i Super-state, a Baha'i commonwealth please let me know, I will share some for you. Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No Need. In order to point out my bias, you have displayed you own. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

New world order (Baháʼí) is linked in the third paragraph of this article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the tension Serv181920 is getting at is that Baha'is teach the divine origin of other religions, but also that in their current forms they are corrupted and should be replaced with the Baha'i Faith. So mentioning the unity part but not the condemnation of the current forms part could be seen as misleading. That said, the sources focus on the teaching of the unity of religion so I think the article should reflect that—as always, it's not our judgement to make. I don't see why "essential worth of all religions" is more pro-Baha'i than "unity of religion," so I don't see an issue with using it given it's a bit easier to understand. The article body should reflect the details of the Baha'i view, though. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bahai's believe in progressive revelation...the building of one religion upon another. Not rejecting that religion. Your comment that Baha'i's consider other religions corrupt is completely off-base and remarkably untrue. I have never seen "...and should be replaced with the Baha'i Faith" in any of the writings nor any hint that older religions need to be rejected. You come to mediate by throwing gasoline in the fire. ―Buster7 ☎ 00:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Gazelle55 the way you described it is accurate. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Buster7, Sharing some quotations for you:

• "This basic teaching of Bahá’u’lláh was to preserve the Faith from being corrupted like Islam which attributes binding authority to all the reported sayings of Muhammad." -Shoghi Effendi
  
• "Likewise, the foundation of the religion of Muḥammad is no more, but its outward form remains in the hands of the Muslim divines." - 'Abdu'l Baha
  
• They (Muslims and Christians or Azalis!?) have rejected the bounty of God and His proofs and have repudiated the testimony of God and His signs. They have gone astray and have caused the people to go astray, yet perceive it not. They worship vain imaginings but know it not. They have taken idle fancies for their lords and have neglected God, yet understand not. They have abandoned the most great Ocean and are hastening towards the pool, but comprehend not. They follow their own idle fancies while turning aside from God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting." -Baha'u'llah (Lawh-i-Ishraqat)
  

Thanks.Serv181920 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing, Serv. ―Buster7 ☎ 02:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Serv181920. But details about the exact relationship between the Baha'i Faith and other religions (the different religions, including Baha'i, obviously have very different takes on many questions, not just this one!) belongs in the body of the article rather than the lede, which is to give a quick "general idea". You are perfectly correct that the Baha'i view on this point is not so simple as is sometimes imagined - hence the careful wording "essential worth of all religions" - other religions can have "essential worth" without necessarily being carbon copies of Baha'i, or each other. Criticism of the actions and views of followers of another religion (think of Jesus and the Pharisees!) does not necessarily "deny the essential worth" of the religions concerned. The lede sections of many Wikipedia articles could well leave a "misleading" impression, but then the avoidance of misleading superficiality is what the rest of the article is for, isn't it? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Archives are missing

WHERE are all the talk page archives for this article? (Deleted?/ by whom? / WHY??)..

Thanks! 2A02:120B:2C26:79C0:4E3C:16FF:FE2A:C48E (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The talk page archives weren't deleted. The links have become red because archives weren't properly moved during the move of the article. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Nineteen archives and the index were moved in these 20 edits. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Would like to add "Denominations" section.

There is no mention of Baha'i denominations in this article. There should be a small mention of Remiyites and other small groups. What do you think?Serv181920 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

They are mostly extinct groups and a couple very very small groups. Not notable in a general sense of the article and only occasionally qualify in separated articles.Smkolins (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be undue weight and is not reflected in independent reporting on the religion (e.g. CBS report), except for trivial mentions of them being very small, a mention which this article already has. They are fully enumerated in Baha'i divisions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I would be adding this sentence "Some estimates list them in the thousands (5,000 to 8,000), but those estimates are considered to be exaggerated by some people." (References from Warburg's and Johnson's books)Serv181920 (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not an accurate reflection of the sources on their size. It's cherry-picking a less reliable source over a more reliable source. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is also going to be this also "those estimates are considered to be exaggerated by some people."Serv181920 (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Out of the two largest groups, one self-reported to be 40 people in 2007, the other was documented by university observers over 15 years to be about the same size (and to lie about claiming to be in the "thousands"). After those two the size drops off significantly. Of the two sources mentioning "thousands" (Garlington and Johnson), one does not cite any source or firsthand knowledge, and the other lists his source as an online forum where two Baha'is took guesses at their size. Their mention of "thousands" seems to be a generous way of saying that they're really small, but the reality is they are much much smaller. These should not be given weight over sources with firsthand knowledge of the groups. There are also three sources giving them as 100 or "a few hundred". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on what should be included, but to clarify, what is the source claiming they are lying about thousands? Sounds important here. And I don't think we get to pass judgement on whether Garlington and Johnson's own sources are adequate, that is taking on the role of a scholarly reviewer for ourselves. Same reason we can't just have a sentence pointing out that WCE and WCD and WRD and ARDA and Adherents.com don't have good underlying sources. But I do agree there is a need to balance different sources and reflect WP:DUE. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Garlington's lack of sourcing doesn't mean we can't use it, just that there are clearly better sources that put the numbers significantly lower. Sometimes bias can be introduced by stating facts as opinions. From WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice... the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." If Garlington and Johnson had said they were in the "thousands" and spent a page arguing that they are not in the hundreds, but in the thousands, and explaining their reasons why they think so, then I'd call this contested and agree to mention sources and differences. That's not the case though. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

According to Balch (sociologist from University of Montana who studied this group in-person for 15 years) in "Fifteen Years of Failed Prophecy" (Routledge, 1997), "Since 1980 membership in the BUPC has fluctuated considerably, but it probably never exceeded 200 nationwide, despite Jensen's claims of having thousands of followers around the world. In 1994, the last year for which we have a membership list, there were only sixty-six members in Montana and fewer than twenty in other states. The Wyoming and Arkansas contingents disbanded after the 1980 disconfirmation, but new groups were formed in Minnesota and Wisconsin... By 1990 the group probably had fewer than 100 members nationwide... the defection rate accelerated in the 1990s..." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, I am reminded of this note in WP:RSCONTEXT: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." Though I'm not sure we're at that point with these sources... I'd think it depends how much more in-depth Balch is about the numbers question compared to Garlington and Johnson. To avoid having undue weight we might want just one sentence and then a note giving a bit more detail. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The recent "The Baha'i Faith, Violence and Non-violence" (pp 36-37) by Cambridge University Press clearly says that the Baha'i faith does not have any sects, there has been a few splinter groups each usually with less than 100 people in them but they usually were short-lived. Also Moomen says in this work (published by Religion) that the groups cannot really be considered sects as they are not creating alternative ways of being a Baha'i, with functioning alternative communities. Their main purpose is opposing the mainline community and the appointed authority.Tarikhejtemai (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Stockman, the author of "The Baha'i Faith, Violence and Non-violence" and Momen are both Baha'is. So, they are not the best sources to claim "that the Baha'i faith does not have any sects."Serv181920 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines, both sources are very reliable: If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. If there was any bias or inaccuracy in the above-mentioned sources the peer-review and fact-checking processes would have handled and removed them. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Stockman or Momen in a reputable publication are about as good as MacEoin in a reputable publication. All three have some biases and if they have contending opinions then should be attributed. In this case Stockman is accurately describing that there no serious contenders for sects and they have all disappeared soon after their founder tried to split off. I don't even see this as disputed. Anyway the article has already been edited to include a reference to their size. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The title

The title of this article looks like the ' and í are smushed together. Therefore it kind of looks like a blob above the i. It's it possible to fix?

Thx, Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Believe it or not that was an adjustment to try to more faithfully arrive at the correct actual punctuation and someone initiated a system-wide reset of all spelling approximations to more faithfully render the more correct punctuation and there was support from several people and no voice against it loud enough to deter the process going forward. So basically it was a concensus adjustment that renders a bit differently depending on browser and OS and situation. Smkolins (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Lacking in cristicism and controversies

Surely the article requires a section about criticism and controversy. For examp0le claiming to be liberal and enlightened but placing numerous conservative rtestriuctions on followers has been something mentioned by several ex-bahais, yet their voices aren't being added here. Also, for many arabs they are seen as traitors, for being an islam-originated and iranian religion that now chooses to make its headquarters in Israel, which is a big explicit cause of its exclusion in Iran and Iraq. The main mantainer of this article seems to be a hardcore promoter of the religion which goes against wikiedías conflict of interest policies (see: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. --186.141.135.203 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The points you raised are already integrated in the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they want to show a rosy picture on wikipedia, some of these full-time Baha'i editors think that by controlling the information they are serving their 'cause'.Serv181920 (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't bite. I'm a volunteer. I'm acting in good faith using good sources. So should us all. Smkolins (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliments that editing in my spare time is of such high quality that I appear to be editing "full time". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thumbs up.Smkolins (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with IP editor above and Serv: A section at the bottom should be included to report about the many controversies surrounding this Faith/Sect. I notice that Baha'i talk-page Archives no. 17 & 18 (e.g. section: "FA?") have similar comments by many other editors. Cheers! 172.58.236.41 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Although exciting for trolls, Wikipedia policies and essays discourage creating a "criticism" section that consolidates negative views (and sections on "praise"). See WP:STRUCTURE: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

See also essays Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, Wikipedia:Criticism, and sections dedicated to criticism get this tag: Template:Criticism section, which says: This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material.

For example, two of the most common criticisms are about the lack of women on the Universal House of Justice, and the absence of gay marriage. Both of those issues are mentioned in the article in the appropriate places, with links to more details on that particular issue. There is also an article dedicated to criticism, and it's linked in the "see also" section of this article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

are you user:Cunadi remotely suggesting we (as 3 unrelated editors) are wp:trolls for suggesting any IMPROVEMENT to this article as per policies for editing wikipedia??172.58.236.41 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, you've been added to my record of mis-spellings of my user name.

Second, you clearly didn't read anything I linked to. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

YOU WIN User talk:Cuñado! 172.58.236.41 (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate section discussing "criticisms" in little more detail. There are other criticism as well - 1) Baha'i Censorship (Review) 2) Baha'i portrayal of their population 3) NRM or a World Religion? 4) Claim of unity and the practice of shunning 5) Infallibility of the UHJ 6) Translation and accessibility of original writings 7) Involvement in political affairs (influencing government decisions on some matters) 8) Not teaching this beautiful religion in Israel 9) Teaching Vs Proselytizing etc. Wikipedia articles on Christianity, Islam and Judaism all have a criticism section.Serv181920 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Should there be a section on "Praise and accomplishments"? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The main accomplishment I see is for "Illuminatis" (unbeknownst to most Baha'is) to have taken control of that Sect! 172.58.239.18 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Your edit summary was hilarious, it must have brought smile on the face of our dear Baha'i editors. BTW I have not seen many practicing Baha'is, most practicing Baha'is may be living in Iran or may be some parts of the US / Canada (I mean Persian Baha'is living in those countries).

Cuñado, why not! Please.Serv181920 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You are an agent of the Iranian government, Serv181920. I am a CIA operative (at least I took the precaution NOT to login-in) ;-) 172.58.236.248 (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive me if it all seems a bit "incoherent" because there are MULTIPLE persons sitting behind this computer or editing this thread (I personally work from 9-5pm E.T) 😀 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.236.248 (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, all former-Baha'is are agents of Islamic Iran ;) Juan Cole, Denis MacEoin, William Garlington, etc. and all descendants of Baha'u'llah who believe that the current Baha'i faith with its administration is invalid are also agents. We receive our payments twice a year. LOLL.

Smith's summary

Peter Smith wrote this as part of a summary of the Baha'i Faith for Virginia Commonwealth University:

IV. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES The Baha’i Faith is now a worldwide movement and the challenges which face Baha’i communities in one part of the world may be quite different from those in another. For the Baha’is in the Middle East the key issue is religious freedom. In Iran, the Baha’is have faced an ongoing campaign of persecution ever since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Despite being the largest religious minority in the country, they have faced waves of arrests of their leaders and many of their most active members – around 200 of whom have been murdered and executed; the banning of all their activities; and the attempt to totally exclude them from all aspects of civic life (including education and the burial of their dead). Considerable difficulties have also been encountered by the Egyptian Baha’is, who have also been denied many civil rights.
By contrast, whilst the Baha’is in the West have often been able to gain considerable public attention and sympathy, their numbers have generally remained small, leading to anxieties in some circles about the failure to achieve a greater impact. Small but very vocal groups of Western Baha’is have also expressed discontent over Baha’i practices which they deem illiberal, notably the restriction of membership of the Universal House of Justice to men and the prohibition on homosexual activity (including marriage). Intellectual tensions have also surfaced about ‘academic’ interpretations of the Faith.
It is very difficult to make any generalizations about the very diverse Baha’i communities of the ‘Third World’. In a number there are certainly practical challenges in consolidating a national Baha’i community with limited resources and in dealing with harsh social realities – including the displacement of refugees, poverty and crime.[1]

His summary is carefully worded. The issues that I mentioned (women on House and homosexuality) are generally concerns for western Baha'is and non-issues elsewhere. The academic issues are "tensions" and extremely limited in scope. A section focusing on negative viewpoints needs a carefully thought-out title (i.e. not 'criticism'), and several reliable references stating what are the major points of tension, similar to Smith's summary. The weight of the issues/challenges/criticism needs to be proportional to it's appearance in the preponderance of reliable sources. Keep in mind Jimbo Wales' comment that "[criticism sections] are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Who is Peter Smith? A Baha'i? What languages he knows? How many of the original writings of the Baha'i faith he has read in Arabic / Persian languages?Serv181920 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cuñado for linking to WP guidelines and overlooking the bad behavior in the above thread. That said, I think you have overlooked a key section of WP:CRIT: "For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." I do agree, though, that we would want multiple sources... Smith has a stake and this and an accompanying potential bias (as Serv181920 notes), likewise MacEoin or Cole. By the way, though, I was looking at an article by MacEoin recently and he praised Smith for not showing the biases that (according to MacEoin) other Baha'i scholars have exhibited. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

One more thought: it may be best to refine/shorten the criticism article first (quite a few sources aren't up to par), then improve the lead there and use that as the basis for a criticism section here. Since this is a feature class article. Happy to help with that, though I haven't had much time for WP lately (real life, *sigh*). Gazelle55 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's start w/more *serious* or verified stuff/FACTS:

"List of high ranking Iranian officials referred in the above: Hoveyda, thse Shah’s 13-year Prime Minister as well as Minister of the Imperial Court and Minister of Finance; Mehri Rasekh, Farah’s boon companion; Gen. Abdol Karim Ayadi, the Shah’s special physician, who held 23 high-ranking government jobs; Gen. Ali Mohammad Khademi; Gen. Sani’ee, Minister of War; Habib Sabet and Hojabr Yazdani, two major economic supports and two financial arms of the Zionists in Iran; Mansoor Rohani, the Shah’s minister for 13 years; Mrs Farokhrou Parsa, Minister of Education and holder of tens of other jobs; Shapour Rasekh, the Shah’s sincere advisor; Hossein Amanat, the famous capitalist, designer and executor of the Shahyad Monu­ment; Parviz Sabeti, Director of Internal Security of the Shah’s security police; Lili Amir-Arjomand, trainer of the Shah' children."

I know some of those people personally😀 THEY ARE INDEED ***BAHA'Is***...

assertions, include that Hoveyda (who was the prime minister of the late Shah of Iran), was of Baha'i extraction and a freemason. Moreover, Hoveyda had many ministers of Baha'i *extraction* (despite the fact that there were not many Baha'is relative to Iran's general population) at that time." 172.58.236.36 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of what you wrote can be found in a better source, check this : "ANATOMY OF PREJUDICE, Reflections on secular anti-Baha’ism in Iran" by H.E. Chehabi - here : https://www.academia.edu/5024035/Anatomy_of_Prejudice_Reflections_on_Secular_Anti_Baha_ism_in_Iran Serv181920 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55, Juan Cole believes that the Baha'i faith "resembles other esoteric offshoots of Shi'ite Islam such as Ismailism or the Nusayris in having an onion-like series of layers, with an outward one presented to outsiders." I think we should add this also to the new proposed section. My sources are : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5906.00076 and https://bahai-library.com/cole_mcmullen_bahai Serv181920 (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920, thanks, I will take a look and try to work it in, I think there is some truth to that for sure (not that my opinion matters here). Gazelle55 (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Baha'i faith is not a cult.

Hello friends, can we add this sentence to the lead paragraph?

"It is not a cult, a reform movement or sect within any other religion." Serv181920 (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Hmmm, seems unnecessary to me. The article says it is a religion, so that seems to be implied already. Plus the source has a pro-Baha'i POV which makes it not ideal for that kind of judgement. What I wonder is why the history section doesn't make more clear that the Baha'i Faith emerged out of Islam. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem relevant to the lead paragraph, but in the section Religion:

Baháʼí beliefs are sometimes described as syncretic combinations of earlier religious beliefs.[37] Baháʼís, however, assert that their religion is a distinct tradition with its own scriptures, teachings, laws, and history.[30][38] The religion was initially seen as a sect of Islam because of its belief in the prophethood of Muhammad and in the authenticity and veracity of the Qur’an.[39] Most religious specialists now see it as an independent religion, with its religious background in Shiʻa Islam being seen as analogous to the Jewish context in which Christianity was established.[40] Muslim institutions and clergy, both Sunni and Shi'a, consider Baháʼís to be deserters or apostates from Islam, which has led to Baháʼís being persecuted.[41][42] Baháʼís describe their faith as an independent world religion, differing from the other traditions in its relative age and in the appropriateness of Baháʼu'lláh's teachings to the modern context.[43] Baháʼu'lláh is believed to have fulfilled the messianic expectations of these precursor faiths.[44]

It seems like it could be worked in. Also not a great source having a Baha'i saying, "we're not a cult". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I forgot about that part under "Religion"... I think that says enough about the relationship to Islam. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is this - "The religion was initially seen as a sect of Islam because of its belief in the prophethood of Muhammad and in the authenticity and veracity of the Qur’an" - The source of this sentence is not that good. There are other things to consider - like Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha both portraying themselves as Muslims in the Ottoman territories. Otherwise most knowledgeable people know very well that Baha'i faith is a sect of Babism not Islam. The Babi religion abolished Islam in the early days of its history in the conference of Badasht.

I think we should include the proposed sentence in the lead paragraph. Baha'i writers have also written papers such as this one - https://bahai-library.com/vaccaro_good_tree - May be it can be worded as the Baha'is believe that the Baha'i Faith is not a cult........ then source it with Baha'i sources.Serv181920 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, agree with your points regardings Islam and Babism. Regarding the cult matter, do we have some other source saying it is a cult? Or why is it necessary to deny it? Gazelle55 (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe I can find few sources claiming that.Serv181920 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There are numerous Christian authors saying the Baha'i Faith is a cult, but that does not reflect the significant viewpoints in the preponderance of reliable sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920, that would deserve to be included on the criticism page, and then, eventually, the criticism section here (though I don't personally agree). But remember, RS only, no apologia. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some Christian and Muslim authors. There are newspaper clippings saying that "the leader of Baha'i Cult visits America" and there is at least a PhD Thesis saying that "Baha'i faith is believed to be a cult in Pakistan." and there is an article in "The Guardian" newspaper saying that the "Baha'i faith is not a cult." There are sources, and I can find more sources.Serv181920 (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks for mentioning these. Unfortunately it seems like none are high-quality sources. Regarding PhD theses, WP:RS says this:

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

That thesis also has a clear potential bias as Cuñado pointed out. Christian and Muslim authors likely have the same problem, though it would depend on the individual sources. For the older newspaper articles, keep in mind WP:AGE MATTERS. We don't necessarily need a high-quality source that says it's a cult, but we would need a high-quality source that says others have said it is a cult to give context. If we have that, then we can compare it to RS saying this isn't the case. Gazelle55 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Will find more sources when i get time. This is not a high priority, have a nice day.Serv181920 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A dedicated section for leadership issue in Baha'i Faith

1. Especially after the death of First Guardian Shoghi Effendi there became two groups. A group accepted the Guardianship of Mason Remey and another accepted the claim of Hands of Cause who stated that Guardianship has ended.

2. Many authors Baha'is as well as Non-Baha'is have written on this topic. For eg: Baha'ism History - by Hutan Hejazi Martinez, Bahais in Exile – By Vernon Elvin Johnson, Religious Leaders of America by J. Gordon Melton and many more.

3. There are many followers of Charles Mason Remey (second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith) and his followers are Baha'is as they believe in Baha’i Faith and its principles and key figures and hence deserve space on this page. Refer to ‘The Baha'i Faith in America’ by William Garlington (2005), Bahais in Exile – By Vernon Elvin Johnson.

4. You can refer to other previous religions like Islam, Christianity, Jew etc. the leadership issue has been discussed and given space. The same should be there on Baha’i Faith page also.--Asad29591 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". There are also numerous references describing the Baha'i Faith as united, without schism, and the extremely small number of Remey's followers not comparable to any other religion's sects. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Cuñado, such words were not expected from a veteran like you. However, we followers of Orthodox Baha'i Faith avoid over exaggerating our numbers.

1. The followers of Second Guardian of Baha'i Faith - Mason Remey are in thousands. Refer to ‘The Baha'i Faith in America’ by William Garlington (2005), Bahais in Exile – By Vernon Elvin Johnson.

2. It is not about minority or majority. Because if that is the case then Baha'is as a whole faith (including mainstream and other sects) does not deserve a page on Wikipedia since since we are overall in minority.

3. Also the First Guardian of the Baha'i Faith our beloved Shoghi Effendi says that the faith cannot be judged in terms of "Numerical Strength”. Refer to World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 57.

4. Yes there is no doubt that Baha'i Faith is without schism and united but only if it is under the Guardianship.

Shoghi Effendi says:

Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Baha'u'llah would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which, as ‘Abdw'l-Baha has written, has been invariably upheld by the Law of God... . Without such an institution the integrity of the Faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn. (The World Order of Baha’u'llah, 1955, p. 148)--Asad29591 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)