![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
I understand that there are different viewpoints on what this article is supposed to be. While recognizing whatever biases people have, everyone should be shooting for the core Wikipedia policy of neutrality. And that's what I want to bring up here. Applying neutrality in this case, in my view, means reviewing a variety of sources and making the article coherent.
neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.
— NPOV
Combining this with the definition of reliable sources as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", I think the article lacks a big picture of what the article is about. It should not be a dumping ground for any and all critiques of the religion. It should also not be a place where someone lists criticisms and each one gets the "Baha'i response" to the issue. What I deleted in an overhaul of the page was largely obscure minority viewpoints that were poorly sourced. I know what the common criticisms are, but I'm not aware that they have been summarized by third party observers. Most criticism has come from Iranian enemies with a reputation for deception, Christian groups intending to smear the religion, and disaffected former Baha'is who largely criticize individuals in the administration. Only the last category could fall into the category of reliable sources (although not independent or disinterested sources). Lacking an overarching source summarizing common criticisms that is reliable and independent of the subject, the article can't be greatly expanded. My view is at odds with the idea that just because something is a criticism, it can be included.
Another approach is to describe the sources of criticism without giving them undue weight or amplifying obscure minority viewpoints. The Iranian book that someone likes to quote can be added as a source about itself. Each critic could get a section about their contributions to criticism and maybe what came of their criticism, while also listing those issues that are commonly critiqued in other sections. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Cunado: Juan Cole a former Baha’i scholar who appeared on various television programs, including PBS’s news hour, The Rachel Maddow show, Anderson copy 360, ABC Nightline and the Colbert Report. who resigned from the Baha’i faith then he writes a book on other Faith. Here lies it relevance. Jammu58 ( talk) 18:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
this is laughable considering the many conversations that have gone on at Baha'i Faith. The first sentence is providing a brief context. I could provide more references calling it a "religion" or "world religion" than there are "new religious movement". And as to the origin, most people don't know what "Babism" is and many sources say it has Shia Islamic origins. Would anyone like to fix it or should I? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
How should the Baháʼí Faith be summarized in a sentence or two for the lead on Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith?
Option 1: "The Baháʼí Faith is a new religious movement that originated in the 19th century and has around 5 million adherents. It grew initially in Iran out of Babism. It's religious foundations rest on many of the teachings of the Bab."
Option 2: "The Baháʼí Faith is a relatively new world religion that originated in the 19th century and has around 5 million adherents. It grew initially in Iran out of Islamic influences but established its own laws and teachings that made a clear break from Islam."
Or an alternative. Both options have at least some support in reliable sources.
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Tarikhejtemai ( talk) 05:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
By far the most common term used to describe the Baha'i Faith in independent reliable sources is "religion", and often "world religion" or "new religion". "New Religious Movement" might be used in 10 sources, but I can give you 30 better sources that don't use it, and some academics suggesting that it is pejorative, which is why MacEoin (someone with an axe grind) has been using it.
Regarding origins, if someone has never heard of the Baha'i Faith, you wouldn't say, "It came from Babism" and expect them to understand. The high level overview has consistently been something like, "it is a relatively new religion, and although it had its origins in Islam, the Baha'i Faith claims to be no more a Muslim sect than Christianity today is a Jewish sect." (Barrett, 2001) or "The Baha'i Faith grew out of religious influences and ideals in 19th-century Persia. Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith, was born a Muslim. While one important influence on the Baha'i Faith is Islam... the Baha'i Faith is a separate religion, distinct and different from Islam. However, the Baha'i Faith incorporates many Islamic ideals and practices" (Hartz, 2009) Only after giving Islamic context, then Hartz says, "Even more directly, the Baha'i Faith grew out of a religious movement that came immediately before it. This was the Babi Faith, or Babism." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Serv181920, Cuñado, I'm trying to clean up this article as the basis for a well-balanced criticism section in the main Baha'i Faith article. And now I wonder, do we have even a single RS that covers the Baha'i Faith and science? I see that Smith (2000) has discussed nuclear power but that is a highly specific point (and not one of criticism). I ask since you guys seem to have more books on the Baha'i Faith than are available to me. Anything in Smith (2000 or 2008), perhaps? For the moment I commented out the section since it didn't cite RS. Gazelle55 ( talk) 17:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I think I found an answer to the problem of this page having no overarching structure and being full of random criticisms. New Religions by Carol Matthews (2005) documents many religions and has a chapter on the Baha'i Faith, with 3 pages dedicated to "controversies", giving a list of about 10 of the main issues that come up. Seems neutral and independent. I got the book today and I'll try to work it in. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I created this page in 2005. That was also me creating the current structure years ago, and I recognized then that the whole thing lacked sources for structure. Carol Matthews, Garlington, and I think I've found a few others that give a list of significant issues/controversies/criticisms can be used for an outline. I'll share on the talkpage when I have time.
Yes my opinion about Cole is irrelevant, but Momen's paper in Religion says something similar and is published in a peer reviewed, independent journal [1]: In all three of these papers [1998, 2000, 2002], Cole's prime aim seems to be to find ways of portraying the Bahá'í community as the sort of "cult" demonised in the 1970-80s. ... As Juan Cole reworks the story, Mazandarani was reprimanded for contradicting official Bahá'í history, he was made to sign a prepared confession, the book was withdrawn from circulation, the publication of further volumes of the history were prohibited and he was silenced for the rest of his life (Cole, 1998b). In fact, none of these five things happened but they do support Cole's personal plausibility structure as an academic who is in conflict with the Bahá'í authorities. Just as heroes have to be created to populate apostate mythology, so too do anti-heroes. In the above Mazandarani myth from Cole, the role of anti-hero is given to Mr Furutan who was the secretary of the elected national council of the Bahá'ís of Iran at that time and who is portrayed as tyrannical and called an "Inquisitor" and a "bigot" (Cole, 1998b). Most core Bahá'ís remember him as a kindly man who was always very humorous. Iranian Muslims remember him as the person who in the 1940s gave talks on Iranian national radio about raising children, in which he introduced the idea to Iranians that it was wrong to beat their children.
Momen's article has more. Besides the criticism (of not responding to international disasters) being about someone's book and not the Baha'i Faith, the criticism isn't included in any overview of significant criticisms (that's a thing now that there are overviews found), there is also the fact that Cole's criticisms were so motivated by animus that he stretched the truth repeatedly in order to bolster his attempt to disparage Baha'is (as noted by Momen). That last part makes him less desirable as a source if there are better sources. If the bar is raised to anything over "any-and-all criticism allowed as long as it's published" then the section on "Alleged silence" doesn't make the cut.
Here's another way to look at it. If I put this article up for deletion, what sources give it notability to pass? Notable, neutral, reliable sources need to define what the controversies are. If multiple secondary sources are discussing the topic of "Criticism of the Baha'i Faith", then the article has notability to pass AFD. The article should be based on those sources. Currently there are none. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Gazelle55, I got my copy of Sergeev's Theory of Religious Cycles today. I'll post some ideas about articles structure as I have time (it's one of 4 things on my short list). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'm finally returning to this. Firstly, regarding the overall structure, it looks like we have three sources mentioned that give an overview of the article topic:
I haven't gotten access to the sources, but I believe Cuñado has them. What's the status of this?
We also have some additional sources:
There are also some others which might or might not be relevant:
I think we should follow the overall pattern of the top three for the organization. However, I think that at this point if there has been a full academic article published on the topic, that should suffice to show significant coverage (this is not a topic with a whole lot written on it). I don't agree with removing anything not in the summary sources, especially without discussion. Cuñado and Serv181920, does this sound reasonable? Thanks, Gazelle55 ( talk) 21:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I kind of liked the "chafed" wording. Definition: "become annoyed or impatient because of a restriction or inconvenience". Seems to fit pretty well, but not a big deal. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The redirect
Talk:Criticism of the Bahá?í Faith has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § Talk:Criticism of the Bahá?í Faith until a consensus is reached.
Tartar
Torte
16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
This list can be used to expand this art. may be: Common objections to the Baha'i sect. 172.58.239.53 ( talk) 00:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
I understand that there are different viewpoints on what this article is supposed to be. While recognizing whatever biases people have, everyone should be shooting for the core Wikipedia policy of neutrality. And that's what I want to bring up here. Applying neutrality in this case, in my view, means reviewing a variety of sources and making the article coherent.
neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.
— NPOV
Combining this with the definition of reliable sources as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", I think the article lacks a big picture of what the article is about. It should not be a dumping ground for any and all critiques of the religion. It should also not be a place where someone lists criticisms and each one gets the "Baha'i response" to the issue. What I deleted in an overhaul of the page was largely obscure minority viewpoints that were poorly sourced. I know what the common criticisms are, but I'm not aware that they have been summarized by third party observers. Most criticism has come from Iranian enemies with a reputation for deception, Christian groups intending to smear the religion, and disaffected former Baha'is who largely criticize individuals in the administration. Only the last category could fall into the category of reliable sources (although not independent or disinterested sources). Lacking an overarching source summarizing common criticisms that is reliable and independent of the subject, the article can't be greatly expanded. My view is at odds with the idea that just because something is a criticism, it can be included.
Another approach is to describe the sources of criticism without giving them undue weight or amplifying obscure minority viewpoints. The Iranian book that someone likes to quote can be added as a source about itself. Each critic could get a section about their contributions to criticism and maybe what came of their criticism, while also listing those issues that are commonly critiqued in other sections. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Cunado: Juan Cole a former Baha’i scholar who appeared on various television programs, including PBS’s news hour, The Rachel Maddow show, Anderson copy 360, ABC Nightline and the Colbert Report. who resigned from the Baha’i faith then he writes a book on other Faith. Here lies it relevance. Jammu58 ( talk) 18:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
this is laughable considering the many conversations that have gone on at Baha'i Faith. The first sentence is providing a brief context. I could provide more references calling it a "religion" or "world religion" than there are "new religious movement". And as to the origin, most people don't know what "Babism" is and many sources say it has Shia Islamic origins. Would anyone like to fix it or should I? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
How should the Baháʼí Faith be summarized in a sentence or two for the lead on Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith?
Option 1: "The Baháʼí Faith is a new religious movement that originated in the 19th century and has around 5 million adherents. It grew initially in Iran out of Babism. It's religious foundations rest on many of the teachings of the Bab."
Option 2: "The Baháʼí Faith is a relatively new world religion that originated in the 19th century and has around 5 million adherents. It grew initially in Iran out of Islamic influences but established its own laws and teachings that made a clear break from Islam."
Or an alternative. Both options have at least some support in reliable sources.
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Tarikhejtemai ( talk) 05:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
By far the most common term used to describe the Baha'i Faith in independent reliable sources is "religion", and often "world religion" or "new religion". "New Religious Movement" might be used in 10 sources, but I can give you 30 better sources that don't use it, and some academics suggesting that it is pejorative, which is why MacEoin (someone with an axe grind) has been using it.
Regarding origins, if someone has never heard of the Baha'i Faith, you wouldn't say, "It came from Babism" and expect them to understand. The high level overview has consistently been something like, "it is a relatively new religion, and although it had its origins in Islam, the Baha'i Faith claims to be no more a Muslim sect than Christianity today is a Jewish sect." (Barrett, 2001) or "The Baha'i Faith grew out of religious influences and ideals in 19th-century Persia. Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith, was born a Muslim. While one important influence on the Baha'i Faith is Islam... the Baha'i Faith is a separate religion, distinct and different from Islam. However, the Baha'i Faith incorporates many Islamic ideals and practices" (Hartz, 2009) Only after giving Islamic context, then Hartz says, "Even more directly, the Baha'i Faith grew out of a religious movement that came immediately before it. This was the Babi Faith, or Babism." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Serv181920, Cuñado, I'm trying to clean up this article as the basis for a well-balanced criticism section in the main Baha'i Faith article. And now I wonder, do we have even a single RS that covers the Baha'i Faith and science? I see that Smith (2000) has discussed nuclear power but that is a highly specific point (and not one of criticism). I ask since you guys seem to have more books on the Baha'i Faith than are available to me. Anything in Smith (2000 or 2008), perhaps? For the moment I commented out the section since it didn't cite RS. Gazelle55 ( talk) 17:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I think I found an answer to the problem of this page having no overarching structure and being full of random criticisms. New Religions by Carol Matthews (2005) documents many religions and has a chapter on the Baha'i Faith, with 3 pages dedicated to "controversies", giving a list of about 10 of the main issues that come up. Seems neutral and independent. I got the book today and I'll try to work it in. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I created this page in 2005. That was also me creating the current structure years ago, and I recognized then that the whole thing lacked sources for structure. Carol Matthews, Garlington, and I think I've found a few others that give a list of significant issues/controversies/criticisms can be used for an outline. I'll share on the talkpage when I have time.
Yes my opinion about Cole is irrelevant, but Momen's paper in Religion says something similar and is published in a peer reviewed, independent journal [1]: In all three of these papers [1998, 2000, 2002], Cole's prime aim seems to be to find ways of portraying the Bahá'í community as the sort of "cult" demonised in the 1970-80s. ... As Juan Cole reworks the story, Mazandarani was reprimanded for contradicting official Bahá'í history, he was made to sign a prepared confession, the book was withdrawn from circulation, the publication of further volumes of the history were prohibited and he was silenced for the rest of his life (Cole, 1998b). In fact, none of these five things happened but they do support Cole's personal plausibility structure as an academic who is in conflict with the Bahá'í authorities. Just as heroes have to be created to populate apostate mythology, so too do anti-heroes. In the above Mazandarani myth from Cole, the role of anti-hero is given to Mr Furutan who was the secretary of the elected national council of the Bahá'ís of Iran at that time and who is portrayed as tyrannical and called an "Inquisitor" and a "bigot" (Cole, 1998b). Most core Bahá'ís remember him as a kindly man who was always very humorous. Iranian Muslims remember him as the person who in the 1940s gave talks on Iranian national radio about raising children, in which he introduced the idea to Iranians that it was wrong to beat their children.
Momen's article has more. Besides the criticism (of not responding to international disasters) being about someone's book and not the Baha'i Faith, the criticism isn't included in any overview of significant criticisms (that's a thing now that there are overviews found), there is also the fact that Cole's criticisms were so motivated by animus that he stretched the truth repeatedly in order to bolster his attempt to disparage Baha'is (as noted by Momen). That last part makes him less desirable as a source if there are better sources. If the bar is raised to anything over "any-and-all criticism allowed as long as it's published" then the section on "Alleged silence" doesn't make the cut.
Here's another way to look at it. If I put this article up for deletion, what sources give it notability to pass? Notable, neutral, reliable sources need to define what the controversies are. If multiple secondary sources are discussing the topic of "Criticism of the Baha'i Faith", then the article has notability to pass AFD. The article should be based on those sources. Currently there are none. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Gazelle55, I got my copy of Sergeev's Theory of Religious Cycles today. I'll post some ideas about articles structure as I have time (it's one of 4 things on my short list). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'm finally returning to this. Firstly, regarding the overall structure, it looks like we have three sources mentioned that give an overview of the article topic:
I haven't gotten access to the sources, but I believe Cuñado has them. What's the status of this?
We also have some additional sources:
There are also some others which might or might not be relevant:
I think we should follow the overall pattern of the top three for the organization. However, I think that at this point if there has been a full academic article published on the topic, that should suffice to show significant coverage (this is not a topic with a whole lot written on it). I don't agree with removing anything not in the summary sources, especially without discussion. Cuñado and Serv181920, does this sound reasonable? Thanks, Gazelle55 ( talk) 21:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I kind of liked the "chafed" wording. Definition: "become annoyed or impatient because of a restriction or inconvenience". Seems to fit pretty well, but not a big deal. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The redirect
Talk:Criticism of the Bahá?í Faith has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § Talk:Criticism of the Bahá?í Faith until a consensus is reached.
Tartar
Torte
16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
This list can be used to expand this art. may be: Common objections to the Baha'i sect. 172.58.239.53 ( talk) 00:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)