![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
As I said in my edit summary, new religion is *contentious*, the opposite of observing the sky is blue - one reading of "new religious movemement" is "we're too polite to call it a cult, but it's clearly not an established, respectable religion." Just read the article at New religious movement and tell me if it's a straightforward definition that we're linking to. "New religious movement" needs a citation and it's instructive that reputable citations like Britannica could have feasibly chosen to use the term but didn't. Slac speak up! 12:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
References
If there's a good, reliable source out there that says "the Baha'i Faith is a new religious movement" - using the term in the same way the article that was linked to in the intro does - then great. Provide that source, and the problem goes away. Slac speak up! 20:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Miller and Barrett wrote books on the subject of "sects, cults, and alternative religions". I quoted Miller above I'm repeating here so I can get the two together. They both wrote about how NRM was a popular phrase but they both chose to go with 'alternative religion' instead. Keep in mind these are 20-25 years old:
Scholars have used a variety of terms to avoid the negative connotations of "sect" and "cult". Some have employed "marginal," a term certainly less pejorative then "cult," but still one that tends to minimize the importance and value of the group in question. "Nonmainstream" has had some following, but it is cumbersome. "New religious movement" has been generally embraced by scholars and by adherents of the nonmainstream religions themselves, but it has at the same time been the source of confusion: does it apply only to truly "new" (at least in the United States) religions, or does it apply to all nonmainstream faiths? The prevailing tendency has been for the term to apply to a wide spectrum of religions, old and new, but it remains ambiguous. It may be that no perfect term exists to describe nonmainstream religions succinctly, but this book adopts a usage that seems to be properly descriptive without bearing heavily pejorative connotations: alternative religions.(Miller (1995), America's Alternative Religions. P. 2)
The term 'new religious movement' is used by most present-day sociologists of religion to avoid the pejorative overtones of 'sect' and 'cult'. This might seem a good solution, but once again there are problems of definition. Not all NRMs are new... Rodney Stark avoids this problem by redefining an NRM as a 'novel religious movement'... Eileen Barker proposes an arbitrary cut-off point at World War II; new religious movements are those founded, in their present form, since then... There are further problems with the term NRM... The term 'alternative religion' avoids the 'newness' problem of 'NRM' by simply and arbitrarily distinguishing between mainstream, established religions and movements which are an alternative to the mainstream. Again this depends on social context; there is nothing alternative about being a Mormon in Salt Lake City.. and again the dividing lines can be debated endlessly... This distinction tends to depend partly on an intuitive and individual understanding of what is generally socially acceptable as "standard'... The term 'alternative religion' thus ties in rather well with how mainstream Christians write about 'sects and cults', but without being pejorative.(Barrett (2001), The New Believers: sects, cults and alternative religions. P. 24)
It is a real problem what phrase to use here. "New religion" is undefined and relative, and was sitting with a pointer to new religious movement. I haven't seen any source besides MacEoin, so far, use the phrase 'new religious movement' and its issues are well articulated by Miller and Barrett. 'New religion' without the link to NRM would work and matches some sources, but I don't see what that adds when 'new' is relative and the dates are given in the first two paragraphs. 'Alternative religion' is supported as a less pejorative phrase by Miller and Barrett, yet still communicating that it's not mainstream, but I haven't seen any sources using that phrase for Baha'is (and it would need several good sources). Calling it a 'world religion' (as it sat for years on WP) has some sources supporting it but I can see why it's not ideal here. 'Religion' seems to be incredibly neutral and anyone with a brain can see the dates and judge for themselves whether it deviates from their perception of "standard" that Barrett says is the whole point of sociologists trying to come up with a phrase. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Did you read this talk page? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what the objection is, but the note currently says, "The Baháʼí Faith is described in reliable sources as a 'religion', 'sect',[1] 'relatively new religion',[2] 'world religion',[3] 'major world religion',[4] 'new religious movement',[5] 'alternative religion',[6] and other attempts to convey that it is new (relative to well-established faiths), not mainstream, and with no racial or national focus."
I find the pushback quite surprising as your goal was to push for new religious movement, and Miller and Barrett are quoted above in this talk page talking about the purpose of that phrase being to convey the two points that the movement is new and nonmainstream. The last part about "no racial or national focus" is a reference to the uses of 'world religion' and 'major world religion', and the phrasing comes directly from Barrett. In an explanatory footnote that already has 6 citations for phrases, and considering what is being written and where it is, I think WP:BLUE and WP:OVERCITE are applicable here. The same goes for why I didn't put a citation on the 'religion' description, because that is by far the most common term used and... duh. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Although this conversation seems to be dead, I thought this was a significant addition to the dialogue on how to classify the religion, from Garlington, The Baha'i Faith in America (2008), pp. 182-183:
Initial reflection might cause one to classify the Faith as a new religious movement: that is a religious group outside of the cultural mainstream whose appearance on the American scene is realtively recent. While such a classification may be sociologically convenient, it is somewhat misleading... The Baha'i Faith is somewhat of an anomaly when it comes to religious classification. The religion would seem to fall into a certain gray area somewhere between a new religious movement and an independent world religion.
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
And this is by MacEoin who believes that the Baha'i faith should be categorised as a NRM. "Is the Bahá'í Faith a World Religion?" (PDF). Baha'i Studies. He also states:
The Baha’i religion is a small international community whose members wish to be perceived as adherents of a ‘major world religion’. This creates problems for Baha’is, since outside observers may contradict their self-perception and use different criteria to evaluate their status. [1]
Serv181920 ( talk) 08:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi Cuñado, Smkolins, Excommunication is also a Baha'i term and used multiple times in all kinds of sources. Why are you removing it? Gazelle55, what are your thoughts? Serv181920 ( talk) 13:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Here are the sources for "excommunication" in the Baha'i faith:
These are just a few sources. I can produce more if our Baha'i friends don't agree with these. Serv181920 ( talk) 09:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Why aren't we talking about "apostate"? Smkolins ( talk) 10:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The divine law does not contain a legal definition of this offense, but from the scriptural passages, it is clear that only exponents of subversion and sedition are covenant-breakers (naqidu'l-mithaq): they who "sow the seeds of doubt in the hearts of men" and promote "discord" and bring about "division." 'Abdu'l-Baha calls them "mischief-makers" who are "seeking leadership." Because they do not declare their evil intentions openly but instead "they secretly sow the seeds of suspicion" — "sweet in words, ... but at heart a deadly poison" — they are also referred to as "hypocrites" (al-munafiqun). As the covenant-breaker has struck with his axe at "the root of the Blessed Tree" the divine law provides that covenant-breakers, along with all who continue to associate with them, be cast out from the congregation of the people of Baha. The believer who has been excommunicated is no longer a member of the Baha'i community.
Hi, Smkolins, I wanted to touch base about including that India number. I see I made a typo in my edit summary which probably made it unclear... what I meant to write is we don't need *two* estimates for one country. My point was that the paragraph right above (citing The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004) already gave a list of the largest national populations (including India's, which it estimates at 2.2 million). I apologize since with that typo it looked like I was saying we shouldn't have individual country estimates at all. With that in mind, is it okay if I remove the point again since the same info is already covered? Thanks, Gazelle55 ( talk) 14:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The world's largest Baháʼí population according to the Association of Religion Data Archives lives in India, which in 2010 was home to an estimated 1,897,651 Baháʼís,[102] and its religionists are the largest numerical religious minority in Iran.[107][108] This was out of a generality in Asia of about 3.6 million from a nearly contemporaneous analysis by The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004.[106] The religion is also the largest numerical religious minority in Panama[109] and Belize,[110] and the second largest international religion in Bolivia,[111] out of a generality of Latin America of some 900,000.[106] The Bahá'ís were the second largest international religion in Zambia,[112] and was the third largest international religion in Chad[114] and Kenya,[115] out of generality of Africa of 1.8 million.[106] Aside from these countries, numbers vary greatly and no country has a Baháʼí majority.[106]
I fear that the copy at hand might need some sprucing up. It hasn't been reviewed formally in almost 15 years, and I'm not sure it complies with MOS rules at present. There are for instance incomplete citations (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer dated 9 June 1932), citation needed-tags, short stubby paragraphs, lists, see also-section, image tagging problems, as well as sandwiched images. Nutez ( talk) 16:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The symbol of the Baha’i Faith is the nine-pointed star, not the five-pointed star stated in the article. 2600:6C4E:1200:16A5:CC5D:B828:13F:DECE ( talk) 02:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I removed the term “controlled-infiltrated Sect” (sic) and replaced it with “sect” and hyperlinked “relatively new religion” to New Religious Movement. I understand there is something contention around the NRM thing but that’s not really what I’m commenting on. Feel free to remove the word “sect”. I considered removing it entirely and still am. What exactly could that mean other than conspiratorial accusations of heresy? How is “controlled-inflated sect” anything other than subjective/vandalism? I very well might be missing something, so let me know or reword at will. I’m watching the page. -.+ThAYYta+.- ( talk) 00:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Pardon, Gazelle55, about [1], but how does a Master of Arts thesis from the University of Arkansas count as "do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources" as you put it? Smkolins ( talk) 20:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Cuñado, I appreciate you trying to turn the list under "Social principles" into prose, but I am wondering about the source for the second sentence here, specifically for the claim "and other progressive ideas for the early 20th century."
When ʻAbdu'l-Bahá first traveled to Europe and America in 1911–1912, he gave public talks that articulated the basic principles of the Baháʼí Faith.[34] These included preaching on the equality of men and women, race unity, the need for world peace, and other progressive ideas for the early 20th century. Published summaries of the Baháʼí teachings often include a list of these principles, and lists vary on wording and what is included.[35]
I would argue that this should be attributed in the text (e.g., "according to Peter Smith", if it is coming from the source of the previous sentence). The article Progressivism probably needs some work but you can see there that the meaning of the term has changed over time, and it's not clear which sense you're referring to if any in particular. Also a couple other issues, which I hope to get to soon myself. Gazelle55 ( talk) 21:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Warburg wrote a small, 75 page overview of the Baha'i Faith for an Italian publisher (2001). Glancing over the table of contents, I think she does a better job of laying out topics compared to this wiki page. Here is what she has (shortening some headings):
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Warburg's wouldn't work exactly as laid out. I don't like the phrase "rituals", for example. Here's is a proposal combining the current structure with improvements from Warburg's example.
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
My thinking is that if the page is going to redone thanks to the FA nomination it's an idea to start fresh and starting from the outlines of major newer overall sources can be very useful, allowing tweaking. I wouldn't mind seeing a table of the TOC of a few major introductory reviews like this Warburg text (I've not seen,) and Stockman's Guide to the Perplexed. Here's the Guide to the Perplexed TOC layers with adapted brief wording:
Smkolins ( talk) 02:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm working on a table but realized it's not really a fair comparison (yet) because for Guide to the Perplexed above I pushed down to chapter sub-headings while merging some of them. So I'm backing that out and including the chapter TOC for The World of the Baha'i Faith. I may post this later when i have more time - very busy day ahead. Smkolins ( talk) 11:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
How's this? (BTW I'm not objecting to Warburg's list as modified by Cuñado, I'm trying to provide a broader review, a sense of the worthiness of a rethink on this, not particularly advocating specifically on using Perplexed or The World perse.)
The World of the Baha’i Faith | Baha’i Faith: Guide to the Perplexed(a simple chapter list here mostly but I feel it's a bit underselling the content/categories, but something between here and what's listed above) | Warburg 2001 source | |
* Leadership and Authoritative Texts | * Baha'i Teachings | *Fundamental beliefs | |
** The Báb | ** Unity | **Progressive revelation | |
** The Writings and Teachings of the Báb | ** Divinity and relationship to creation | **Social principles | |
** Bahá’u’lláh | ** Path to individual transformation | *Historical development | |
** The Writings of Bahá'u'lláh | ** An ever-advancing civilization | ||
** ‘Abdu’l-Bahá | * Development of the Baha'i Community | **Declaration of the Bab | |
** The Writings and Utterances of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá | ** The Bab and Babi community (1844-1853) | **Rise of the Babi movement | |
** Shoghi Effendi Rabbani | ** Ministry of Baha'u'llah(1853-1892) | **Exile in Baghdad | |
** The English Language Writings of Shoghi Effendi | ** Ministry of Abdu'l-Baha(1892-1921) | **Declaration of Baha'u'llah | |
** The Writings of Shoghi Effendi in Persian | ** Earlier developments under the Universal House of Justice (1963-1996) | **Development under Baha'u'llah | |
** The Universal House of Justice | ** Recent era under the Universal House of Justice (1997...) | **Abdu'l-Baha and expansion in the West | |
** The Writings of the Universal House of Justice | *** 2nd Framework of plans (going beyond what is in Perplexed, see above) | **Guardianship of Shoghi Effendi | |
* Theology | **Establishment of the Universal House of Justice | ||
** Theology and Philosophy | *Practices | ||
** God, Revelation, and Manifestation | **Prayer | ||
** Progressive Revelation | **Fast | ||
** Interfaith Relations | **Exhortations and prohibitions | ||
** Science and Religion | **Marriage | ||
* Humanity | **Burial | ||
** Oneness and Unity | **The Baha'i calendar | ||
** The Physical and Spiritual Dimensions of Human Nature | **Symbols | ||
** Unity in Diversity: African Americans and the Bahá’í Faith | **Huququ'llah | ||
** The Equality of the Sexes | *Baha'is in the world | ||
** Mysticism | **Number and distribution of Baha'is worldwide | ||
** Progress of the soul: life after death | **Places of worship | ||
** Spirituality and Spiritual Practices | **Baha'i World Centre | ||
* Society | **Baha'i teaching plans | ||
** Artistic Expression | **Social development projects | ||
** Economics: The Prosperity of the World and the Development of Nations | **United Nations | ||
** Education | *Opposition | ||
** Environment and Sustainability | |||
** Governance | **Attempted schisms | ||
** Law | **Polemics | ||
** Marriage and Family Life | **Persecution | ||
** Peace | **Situation in Iran | ||
** Work and Business | |||
* Contemporary Bahá’í Community | |||
** The Covenant and Covenant-breaking | |||
** The Bahá’í Administrative Order | |||
** Constructive Agency | |||
** Consultation | |||
** A Culture of Learning | |||
** Devotional Life | |||
** Religious Persecution of Bahá’ís Under the Islamic Republic of Iran | |||
* History and Spread of the Bahá’í Community | |||
** The History of the Bábí and Bahá'í Faiths | |||
** Arab Middle East | |||
** Europe | |||
** Iran | |||
** Latin America and the Caribbean | |||
** North America | |||
** Northeast Asia | |||
** Oceania | |||
** South Asia | |||
** Southeast Asia | |||
** Sub-Saharan Africa | |||
Smkolins ( talk) 22:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
So one key aspect of deciding the organization is deciding the order of sections. Here is basically the order used for the other three main Abrahamic religions (I'm paraphrasing some section names to make them comparable):
As you can see, there isn't much of a consensus. So what follows is just my thoughts and could be combined with some of the suggestions above. I think it would be good to keep beliefs, practices, and texts together (you could say that these together are the Baha'i teachings). I like having history first (except for the etymology) because the various leaders are mentioned a lot in other sections and I think it's a bit unclear with history later like it is now. And I think we should add a section for administration rather than having that mashed together with the "Universal House of Justice" part of the history section. So perhaps something like this: Etymology > History > Beliefs > Texts > Practices > Administration > Demographics > Persecution > Criticism? As for what sub-sections to have, I think we can take inspiration from the books whose sections are laid out above.
I'm thinking it's very unlikely this article will keep FA status so I see this as a longer-term question to work on. At the very least, I won't personally have much time for the next while. Gazelle55 ( talk) 06:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Cuñado: The text was put in by your 11 January 2021 edit without a citation, shortly after was removed by Serv181920, re-added by you with the citation {{sfn|Barrett|2001|p=24}}... which when you click on it jumps to "Barrett 2001, p. 24.", click on that and it jumps to:
Barrett, David A. (2001). "Global statistics for all religions: 2001 AD". World Christian Encyclopedia. p. 4.
There is no David *A* Barrett and page 4 is not the same as page 24, but no mind, as a reader I would assume the book title was the guiding part. Somewhere within the next few days (I got tired of tracking down the details) "Barrett 2001" wound up as:
Barrett, David V. (2001). The New Believers: a survey of sects, cults, and alternative religions. London: Cassell & Co. ISBN 1-84403-040-7.
An attempt by you to add David B. Barrett back in just made it more confusing.
My original point still stands: that the citation as it sits now DOES NOT VERIFY, and in fact has never verified because the citation always failed or was messed up by confusing/swapping the two Barretts, or having two Barrett-2011s in the article, confusing the poor {{sfn}}. If you want to keep the content, then please find a citation you can personally verify today, with a correct page number, and preferably use a version I can also verify, like this one online at OpenLibrary.org (with the big blue 'Borrow' button) which I checked and cannot find anything similar to "Barrett calling Baha'i an 'alternative religion'" on page 4 or 24 or anywhere near there. I'm sure you had some reference you were looking at. Just cite it where it 'works' in Wikipedia. Grorp ( talk) 00:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Sects, Cults, and Alternative Religions, and page 24 is a lengthy discussion on why "alternative religion" is the most neutral way to describe all the examples in the book.
this addition is good, but I feel like it should be in article and not in the lead. The lead should be extremely concise. Any thoughts? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello friends! I removed the included image of Baha'u'llah, as the 2005 decision ruled that it is vandalism to include it on this page (although it is permitted on the Baha'u'llah page). However, the very cool and good-faith @ Smkolins pointed out it would make more sense to have consensus before making such a change. Education-over-easy ( talk) 23:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Broad consensus for inclusion of the photograph at the top of the article following MOS:LEADIMAGE and no strong policy argument not to do so; WP:Gratuitous is mentioned but the consensus is that this image does add sufficient value to the article regardless of any potential for offence.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
As I said in my edit summary, new religion is *contentious*, the opposite of observing the sky is blue - one reading of "new religious movemement" is "we're too polite to call it a cult, but it's clearly not an established, respectable religion." Just read the article at New religious movement and tell me if it's a straightforward definition that we're linking to. "New religious movement" needs a citation and it's instructive that reputable citations like Britannica could have feasibly chosen to use the term but didn't. Slac speak up! 12:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
References
If there's a good, reliable source out there that says "the Baha'i Faith is a new religious movement" - using the term in the same way the article that was linked to in the intro does - then great. Provide that source, and the problem goes away. Slac speak up! 20:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Miller and Barrett wrote books on the subject of "sects, cults, and alternative religions". I quoted Miller above I'm repeating here so I can get the two together. They both wrote about how NRM was a popular phrase but they both chose to go with 'alternative religion' instead. Keep in mind these are 20-25 years old:
Scholars have used a variety of terms to avoid the negative connotations of "sect" and "cult". Some have employed "marginal," a term certainly less pejorative then "cult," but still one that tends to minimize the importance and value of the group in question. "Nonmainstream" has had some following, but it is cumbersome. "New religious movement" has been generally embraced by scholars and by adherents of the nonmainstream religions themselves, but it has at the same time been the source of confusion: does it apply only to truly "new" (at least in the United States) religions, or does it apply to all nonmainstream faiths? The prevailing tendency has been for the term to apply to a wide spectrum of religions, old and new, but it remains ambiguous. It may be that no perfect term exists to describe nonmainstream religions succinctly, but this book adopts a usage that seems to be properly descriptive without bearing heavily pejorative connotations: alternative religions.(Miller (1995), America's Alternative Religions. P. 2)
The term 'new religious movement' is used by most present-day sociologists of religion to avoid the pejorative overtones of 'sect' and 'cult'. This might seem a good solution, but once again there are problems of definition. Not all NRMs are new... Rodney Stark avoids this problem by redefining an NRM as a 'novel religious movement'... Eileen Barker proposes an arbitrary cut-off point at World War II; new religious movements are those founded, in their present form, since then... There are further problems with the term NRM... The term 'alternative religion' avoids the 'newness' problem of 'NRM' by simply and arbitrarily distinguishing between mainstream, established religions and movements which are an alternative to the mainstream. Again this depends on social context; there is nothing alternative about being a Mormon in Salt Lake City.. and again the dividing lines can be debated endlessly... This distinction tends to depend partly on an intuitive and individual understanding of what is generally socially acceptable as "standard'... The term 'alternative religion' thus ties in rather well with how mainstream Christians write about 'sects and cults', but without being pejorative.(Barrett (2001), The New Believers: sects, cults and alternative religions. P. 24)
It is a real problem what phrase to use here. "New religion" is undefined and relative, and was sitting with a pointer to new religious movement. I haven't seen any source besides MacEoin, so far, use the phrase 'new religious movement' and its issues are well articulated by Miller and Barrett. 'New religion' without the link to NRM would work and matches some sources, but I don't see what that adds when 'new' is relative and the dates are given in the first two paragraphs. 'Alternative religion' is supported as a less pejorative phrase by Miller and Barrett, yet still communicating that it's not mainstream, but I haven't seen any sources using that phrase for Baha'is (and it would need several good sources). Calling it a 'world religion' (as it sat for years on WP) has some sources supporting it but I can see why it's not ideal here. 'Religion' seems to be incredibly neutral and anyone with a brain can see the dates and judge for themselves whether it deviates from their perception of "standard" that Barrett says is the whole point of sociologists trying to come up with a phrase. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Did you read this talk page? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what the objection is, but the note currently says, "The Baháʼí Faith is described in reliable sources as a 'religion', 'sect',[1] 'relatively new religion',[2] 'world religion',[3] 'major world religion',[4] 'new religious movement',[5] 'alternative religion',[6] and other attempts to convey that it is new (relative to well-established faiths), not mainstream, and with no racial or national focus."
I find the pushback quite surprising as your goal was to push for new religious movement, and Miller and Barrett are quoted above in this talk page talking about the purpose of that phrase being to convey the two points that the movement is new and nonmainstream. The last part about "no racial or national focus" is a reference to the uses of 'world religion' and 'major world religion', and the phrasing comes directly from Barrett. In an explanatory footnote that already has 6 citations for phrases, and considering what is being written and where it is, I think WP:BLUE and WP:OVERCITE are applicable here. The same goes for why I didn't put a citation on the 'religion' description, because that is by far the most common term used and... duh. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Although this conversation seems to be dead, I thought this was a significant addition to the dialogue on how to classify the religion, from Garlington, The Baha'i Faith in America (2008), pp. 182-183:
Initial reflection might cause one to classify the Faith as a new religious movement: that is a religious group outside of the cultural mainstream whose appearance on the American scene is realtively recent. While such a classification may be sociologically convenient, it is somewhat misleading... The Baha'i Faith is somewhat of an anomaly when it comes to religious classification. The religion would seem to fall into a certain gray area somewhere between a new religious movement and an independent world religion.
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
And this is by MacEoin who believes that the Baha'i faith should be categorised as a NRM. "Is the Bahá'í Faith a World Religion?" (PDF). Baha'i Studies. He also states:
The Baha’i religion is a small international community whose members wish to be perceived as adherents of a ‘major world religion’. This creates problems for Baha’is, since outside observers may contradict their self-perception and use different criteria to evaluate their status. [1]
Serv181920 ( talk) 08:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi Cuñado, Smkolins, Excommunication is also a Baha'i term and used multiple times in all kinds of sources. Why are you removing it? Gazelle55, what are your thoughts? Serv181920 ( talk) 13:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Here are the sources for "excommunication" in the Baha'i faith:
These are just a few sources. I can produce more if our Baha'i friends don't agree with these. Serv181920 ( talk) 09:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Why aren't we talking about "apostate"? Smkolins ( talk) 10:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The divine law does not contain a legal definition of this offense, but from the scriptural passages, it is clear that only exponents of subversion and sedition are covenant-breakers (naqidu'l-mithaq): they who "sow the seeds of doubt in the hearts of men" and promote "discord" and bring about "division." 'Abdu'l-Baha calls them "mischief-makers" who are "seeking leadership." Because they do not declare their evil intentions openly but instead "they secretly sow the seeds of suspicion" — "sweet in words, ... but at heart a deadly poison" — they are also referred to as "hypocrites" (al-munafiqun). As the covenant-breaker has struck with his axe at "the root of the Blessed Tree" the divine law provides that covenant-breakers, along with all who continue to associate with them, be cast out from the congregation of the people of Baha. The believer who has been excommunicated is no longer a member of the Baha'i community.
Hi, Smkolins, I wanted to touch base about including that India number. I see I made a typo in my edit summary which probably made it unclear... what I meant to write is we don't need *two* estimates for one country. My point was that the paragraph right above (citing The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004) already gave a list of the largest national populations (including India's, which it estimates at 2.2 million). I apologize since with that typo it looked like I was saying we shouldn't have individual country estimates at all. With that in mind, is it okay if I remove the point again since the same info is already covered? Thanks, Gazelle55 ( talk) 14:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The world's largest Baháʼí population according to the Association of Religion Data Archives lives in India, which in 2010 was home to an estimated 1,897,651 Baháʼís,[102] and its religionists are the largest numerical religious minority in Iran.[107][108] This was out of a generality in Asia of about 3.6 million from a nearly contemporaneous analysis by The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004.[106] The religion is also the largest numerical religious minority in Panama[109] and Belize,[110] and the second largest international religion in Bolivia,[111] out of a generality of Latin America of some 900,000.[106] The Bahá'ís were the second largest international religion in Zambia,[112] and was the third largest international religion in Chad[114] and Kenya,[115] out of generality of Africa of 1.8 million.[106] Aside from these countries, numbers vary greatly and no country has a Baháʼí majority.[106]
I fear that the copy at hand might need some sprucing up. It hasn't been reviewed formally in almost 15 years, and I'm not sure it complies with MOS rules at present. There are for instance incomplete citations (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer dated 9 June 1932), citation needed-tags, short stubby paragraphs, lists, see also-section, image tagging problems, as well as sandwiched images. Nutez ( talk) 16:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The symbol of the Baha’i Faith is the nine-pointed star, not the five-pointed star stated in the article. 2600:6C4E:1200:16A5:CC5D:B828:13F:DECE ( talk) 02:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I removed the term “controlled-infiltrated Sect” (sic) and replaced it with “sect” and hyperlinked “relatively new religion” to New Religious Movement. I understand there is something contention around the NRM thing but that’s not really what I’m commenting on. Feel free to remove the word “sect”. I considered removing it entirely and still am. What exactly could that mean other than conspiratorial accusations of heresy? How is “controlled-inflated sect” anything other than subjective/vandalism? I very well might be missing something, so let me know or reword at will. I’m watching the page. -.+ThAYYta+.- ( talk) 00:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Pardon, Gazelle55, about [1], but how does a Master of Arts thesis from the University of Arkansas count as "do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources" as you put it? Smkolins ( talk) 20:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Cuñado, I appreciate you trying to turn the list under "Social principles" into prose, but I am wondering about the source for the second sentence here, specifically for the claim "and other progressive ideas for the early 20th century."
When ʻAbdu'l-Bahá first traveled to Europe and America in 1911–1912, he gave public talks that articulated the basic principles of the Baháʼí Faith.[34] These included preaching on the equality of men and women, race unity, the need for world peace, and other progressive ideas for the early 20th century. Published summaries of the Baháʼí teachings often include a list of these principles, and lists vary on wording and what is included.[35]
I would argue that this should be attributed in the text (e.g., "according to Peter Smith", if it is coming from the source of the previous sentence). The article Progressivism probably needs some work but you can see there that the meaning of the term has changed over time, and it's not clear which sense you're referring to if any in particular. Also a couple other issues, which I hope to get to soon myself. Gazelle55 ( talk) 21:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Warburg wrote a small, 75 page overview of the Baha'i Faith for an Italian publisher (2001). Glancing over the table of contents, I think she does a better job of laying out topics compared to this wiki page. Here is what she has (shortening some headings):
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Warburg's wouldn't work exactly as laid out. I don't like the phrase "rituals", for example. Here's is a proposal combining the current structure with improvements from Warburg's example.
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
My thinking is that if the page is going to redone thanks to the FA nomination it's an idea to start fresh and starting from the outlines of major newer overall sources can be very useful, allowing tweaking. I wouldn't mind seeing a table of the TOC of a few major introductory reviews like this Warburg text (I've not seen,) and Stockman's Guide to the Perplexed. Here's the Guide to the Perplexed TOC layers with adapted brief wording:
Smkolins ( talk) 02:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm working on a table but realized it's not really a fair comparison (yet) because for Guide to the Perplexed above I pushed down to chapter sub-headings while merging some of them. So I'm backing that out and including the chapter TOC for The World of the Baha'i Faith. I may post this later when i have more time - very busy day ahead. Smkolins ( talk) 11:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
How's this? (BTW I'm not objecting to Warburg's list as modified by Cuñado, I'm trying to provide a broader review, a sense of the worthiness of a rethink on this, not particularly advocating specifically on using Perplexed or The World perse.)
The World of the Baha’i Faith | Baha’i Faith: Guide to the Perplexed(a simple chapter list here mostly but I feel it's a bit underselling the content/categories, but something between here and what's listed above) | Warburg 2001 source | |
* Leadership and Authoritative Texts | * Baha'i Teachings | *Fundamental beliefs | |
** The Báb | ** Unity | **Progressive revelation | |
** The Writings and Teachings of the Báb | ** Divinity and relationship to creation | **Social principles | |
** Bahá’u’lláh | ** Path to individual transformation | *Historical development | |
** The Writings of Bahá'u'lláh | ** An ever-advancing civilization | ||
** ‘Abdu’l-Bahá | * Development of the Baha'i Community | **Declaration of the Bab | |
** The Writings and Utterances of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá | ** The Bab and Babi community (1844-1853) | **Rise of the Babi movement | |
** Shoghi Effendi Rabbani | ** Ministry of Baha'u'llah(1853-1892) | **Exile in Baghdad | |
** The English Language Writings of Shoghi Effendi | ** Ministry of Abdu'l-Baha(1892-1921) | **Declaration of Baha'u'llah | |
** The Writings of Shoghi Effendi in Persian | ** Earlier developments under the Universal House of Justice (1963-1996) | **Development under Baha'u'llah | |
** The Universal House of Justice | ** Recent era under the Universal House of Justice (1997...) | **Abdu'l-Baha and expansion in the West | |
** The Writings of the Universal House of Justice | *** 2nd Framework of plans (going beyond what is in Perplexed, see above) | **Guardianship of Shoghi Effendi | |
* Theology | **Establishment of the Universal House of Justice | ||
** Theology and Philosophy | *Practices | ||
** God, Revelation, and Manifestation | **Prayer | ||
** Progressive Revelation | **Fast | ||
** Interfaith Relations | **Exhortations and prohibitions | ||
** Science and Religion | **Marriage | ||
* Humanity | **Burial | ||
** Oneness and Unity | **The Baha'i calendar | ||
** The Physical and Spiritual Dimensions of Human Nature | **Symbols | ||
** Unity in Diversity: African Americans and the Bahá’í Faith | **Huququ'llah | ||
** The Equality of the Sexes | *Baha'is in the world | ||
** Mysticism | **Number and distribution of Baha'is worldwide | ||
** Progress of the soul: life after death | **Places of worship | ||
** Spirituality and Spiritual Practices | **Baha'i World Centre | ||
* Society | **Baha'i teaching plans | ||
** Artistic Expression | **Social development projects | ||
** Economics: The Prosperity of the World and the Development of Nations | **United Nations | ||
** Education | *Opposition | ||
** Environment and Sustainability | |||
** Governance | **Attempted schisms | ||
** Law | **Polemics | ||
** Marriage and Family Life | **Persecution | ||
** Peace | **Situation in Iran | ||
** Work and Business | |||
* Contemporary Bahá’í Community | |||
** The Covenant and Covenant-breaking | |||
** The Bahá’í Administrative Order | |||
** Constructive Agency | |||
** Consultation | |||
** A Culture of Learning | |||
** Devotional Life | |||
** Religious Persecution of Bahá’ís Under the Islamic Republic of Iran | |||
* History and Spread of the Bahá’í Community | |||
** The History of the Bábí and Bahá'í Faiths | |||
** Arab Middle East | |||
** Europe | |||
** Iran | |||
** Latin America and the Caribbean | |||
** North America | |||
** Northeast Asia | |||
** Oceania | |||
** South Asia | |||
** Southeast Asia | |||
** Sub-Saharan Africa | |||
Smkolins ( talk) 22:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
So one key aspect of deciding the organization is deciding the order of sections. Here is basically the order used for the other three main Abrahamic religions (I'm paraphrasing some section names to make them comparable):
As you can see, there isn't much of a consensus. So what follows is just my thoughts and could be combined with some of the suggestions above. I think it would be good to keep beliefs, practices, and texts together (you could say that these together are the Baha'i teachings). I like having history first (except for the etymology) because the various leaders are mentioned a lot in other sections and I think it's a bit unclear with history later like it is now. And I think we should add a section for administration rather than having that mashed together with the "Universal House of Justice" part of the history section. So perhaps something like this: Etymology > History > Beliefs > Texts > Practices > Administration > Demographics > Persecution > Criticism? As for what sub-sections to have, I think we can take inspiration from the books whose sections are laid out above.
I'm thinking it's very unlikely this article will keep FA status so I see this as a longer-term question to work on. At the very least, I won't personally have much time for the next while. Gazelle55 ( talk) 06:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Cuñado: The text was put in by your 11 January 2021 edit without a citation, shortly after was removed by Serv181920, re-added by you with the citation {{sfn|Barrett|2001|p=24}}... which when you click on it jumps to "Barrett 2001, p. 24.", click on that and it jumps to:
Barrett, David A. (2001). "Global statistics for all religions: 2001 AD". World Christian Encyclopedia. p. 4.
There is no David *A* Barrett and page 4 is not the same as page 24, but no mind, as a reader I would assume the book title was the guiding part. Somewhere within the next few days (I got tired of tracking down the details) "Barrett 2001" wound up as:
Barrett, David V. (2001). The New Believers: a survey of sects, cults, and alternative religions. London: Cassell & Co. ISBN 1-84403-040-7.
An attempt by you to add David B. Barrett back in just made it more confusing.
My original point still stands: that the citation as it sits now DOES NOT VERIFY, and in fact has never verified because the citation always failed or was messed up by confusing/swapping the two Barretts, or having two Barrett-2011s in the article, confusing the poor {{sfn}}. If you want to keep the content, then please find a citation you can personally verify today, with a correct page number, and preferably use a version I can also verify, like this one online at OpenLibrary.org (with the big blue 'Borrow' button) which I checked and cannot find anything similar to "Barrett calling Baha'i an 'alternative religion'" on page 4 or 24 or anywhere near there. I'm sure you had some reference you were looking at. Just cite it where it 'works' in Wikipedia. Grorp ( talk) 00:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Sects, Cults, and Alternative Religions, and page 24 is a lengthy discussion on why "alternative religion" is the most neutral way to describe all the examples in the book.
this addition is good, but I feel like it should be in article and not in the lead. The lead should be extremely concise. Any thoughts? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello friends! I removed the included image of Baha'u'llah, as the 2005 decision ruled that it is vandalism to include it on this page (although it is permitted on the Baha'u'llah page). However, the very cool and good-faith @ Smkolins pointed out it would make more sense to have consensus before making such a change. Education-over-easy ( talk) 23:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Broad consensus for inclusion of the photograph at the top of the article following MOS:LEADIMAGE and no strong policy argument not to do so; WP:Gratuitous is mentioned but the consensus is that this image does add sufficient value to the article regardless of any potential for offence.