Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

RfC on adding Orthodox Baha'i Faith link in the see only section of The Baha'i Faith page

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

This is a request for comment on whether the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith should be included in the see also section of the Baháʼí Faith article. The Orthodox Baháʼí Faith is a Baha'i sect that believes in the continuation of the Guardianship of the Baháʼí Faith after Shoghi Effendi. The mainstream Baháʼís consider them as Covenant-breakers and do not recognize their legitimacy. The dispute is about whether the link to the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith Wikipedia page is relevant and notable enough to be included in the see also section. The discussion on the talk page has reached an impasse, with one editor arguing for inclusion and another editor arguing for removal. Please provide your opinions on this issue and help resolve this dispute. Thank you.--Asad29591 (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of link. The Orthodox Bahá'í sect is less than a hundred members, while the mainstream Bahá'í Faith is several million members. Including a link to the former would give them undue weight. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose see long conversation above #Inclusion of Orthodox Bahai Faith in the 'See Also' Section. Copying my previous comment here: "WP:UNDUE: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Orthodox Baha'is are an extreme minority (generously, 100 out of 5 million, or 0.002%) and may be almost defunct. Independent sources generally don't even mention them when covering the Baha'i Faith. Asad29591, you've spent the last two years trying to promote your beliefs here. WP:PROMOTION: You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions." I'll add that there are numerous better options to add to See Also. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Readers can find the page; it is not being concealed. Pursuing an interest in the history of the faith and its minor schisms surfaces the link pretty readily. There is essentially no doctrinal difference between the large and small sects. A see also link would be undue. Regulov (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Cuñado. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, seems WP:UNDUE, minor view. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Support including the link in the see also section. I'm not persuaded including a link is undue; the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith has been in at least one notable conflict with the mainstream Baháʼí Faith over their trademarks. If, however, the consensus is to not include a link in the see also section, I think that the link to Baháʼí–Azali split should also be removed because that article describes the Azali also basically defunct. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment – Hmm, responding to Voorts, I don't think Baháʼí–Azali split and Orthodox Baháʼí Faith are really analogous pages. I'd say the more direct analogies are between Baháʼí–Azali split and Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith, and between Azali and Orthodox Baháʼí Faith. The latter two are about present-day religious communities which are almost defunct, whereas the former two are historical events which had some prominence when they took place. I had added Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith to the "See also" section but it turns out it is already linked in the article body, so according to the MOS we shouldn't list it at the bottom. The point about the legal dispute giving the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith more significance seems fair, though. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 19:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Support Regardless of its size or importance, this schismatic group are part of the broader narrative and it is difficult to see any valid reason to exclude. Issues of WP:DUE, relate mainly to content within an article and I have never before heard them used to exclude a 'see also' - for which the criteria are 'connected-ness'. Other 'schism' articles would also seem to warrant inclusion in addition to/ as an 'umbrella" alternative to this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs)

NPOV (of which DUE is a part) applies to everything. The "See Also" section is optional and should be limited to a reasonable number, according to the MOS. There are potentially hundreds of articles that would qualify for the "See Also" section of this page, so... inclusion of links should be common sense and need to be justified if challenged. In this case, the question of sects/schisms is linked in the article to Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith, and there are perhaps 10 articles on the schismatic groups that could be linked for more information. The information is also at Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith, which is in the "See Also" section. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Consider History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses doesn't even mention the Ptolemic theory or others of the like. There's enough to write about that actually covers substance and depth without needing to talk about an infinitesimal fringe. In other words WP:DUE. We have plenty of coverage in articles close to the example. It simply isn't balanced to include it. And we're past "several" million at over 7 million and rising among the fastest growing religions over the last century. It is not a distinguished part of the broad narrative; it's obscure - it was notable at a time and then it wasn't. You don't see lists of court cases people had on articles about groups or individuals. Smkolins (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:DUE clearly applies here; the group is defunct and tiny (less than a hundred) whereas the religion has millions of followers. There are so many important articles such as articles about the founders and key figures of the religion that are currently not included in the see also section and they should be. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose – there are already a fair number of links in the "see also" section and even if we add some more, there are other more important and equally connected/related links that could be added (lots of possibilities can be seen at Outline of the Baháʼí Faith). (I respectfully disagree with the previous comment that the religion's founders and key figures should be in the "see also" section, however, since they're already linked in the article body – see MOS:SEEALSO.) I think the tiny Orthodox Baháʼí sect is notable mainly due to the crisis of succession it arose from (covered in Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith, linked in the article body) and how harshly the mainstream Baháʼís treat its members (covered in Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith, linked in the "see also" section). I suppose the U.S. court case between the mainstream and Orthodox Baháʼís has some significance, but if that's what's of interest we could just as well add Baháʼí Faith in the United States, an article for a vastly larger Baháʼí population that briefly covers the court case. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 03:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.