![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Is it just me or is it very difficult to find Bahá'í Faith specific criticisms with regards to gender equality. I know for a fact that there are people who criticise the religion for not having enough gender equality - people criticise Judaism, Christianity and Islam (etc.) for this as well - but I can't find Bahá'í specific criticisms, perhaps for two reasons:
Does anyone know or have any sources I could use to add more to this section? Obviously I am looking for works critical of the Bahá'í Faith's supposed gender equality. I will continue looking and will post the sources I find here, before editting, so that we can agree that they are suitable. Hesnotblack ( talk) 21:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
This website, [1], I have used to show that there are critics of Baha'i Gender Equality. Hesnotblack ( talk) 19:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
"She noted that, ironically, the chief "feminist criticism" of the Faith was offered eighty years ago by very patriarchal Presbyterian missionaries, who criticized the slowness of the emancipation of Iranian Bahá'i women. A much more thorough exploration of the Bahá'i conception of sexual equality, and a more frank exploration of its differences from secular feminism, are crucial for responding to attacks on he Bahá'i [ sic] Faith's treatment of women."
I have read the arabic version of this page and it is remarkably different. There are also well sourced criticisms that we find on there. There are criticisms on the literary nature of the scriptures of the Faith and there are even criticisms of the founder supposedly claiming divinity. Of course any such addition would need to be added suitably, but I think this page could benefit from these sections.
Sadly I don't understand Arabic - I have had to use Google Translate to work out that the page says. It would be great if someone, who understands Arabic, were to translate the criticisms and bring some of them accross. Of course we should bear in mind neutrality for this to happen. One should also bear in mind that the Arabic page seems to have a lot of Muslim bias. Hesnotblack ( talk) 19:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I really dislike this part about Cole's criticism:
For one, it's not a criticism of the Baha'i teachings, it's just saying he doesn't like Baha'is. Second, he is the only person I've seen coin the phrase "Baha'i fundamentalist" and it sounds to me like an attempt to use Christian terminology to smear the Baha'i Faith, not an academic or objective reality. Third, he is not a neutral reliable source, he is a former Baha'i who had a lot of personal conflict with Baha'is and then went on to rant about them.
When a particular book gets published I will be able to write the section well with the actual examples of conflict between religion and science in the Baha'i Faith. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Hesnotblack, I think it's great that you're trying to add to the article and make it less of a list. I made the same argument and I want to expand the article as well. But I removed some of your content because while trying to document criticism you're mischaracterizing the Baha'i teachings. Universalism is strongly tied to Christian doctrines, and I've never heard it applied to the Baha'i teachings. I added a note to clarify that Baha'is don't view all religions as equally valid, but progressive, so the older ones get corrupted with time. From that point of view, Islam is the least distorted from its original intent because it was the most recent and hasn't suffered the loss of cultural continuity that happened to older religions, like Buddhism or Judaism.
Also, the sources should be specific, not "many" people say... If someone voiced criticism, quote the person. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Cuñado ☼ , with regards to the Muslim part of the Unity of Religion section, I believe you have engaged in OR. You have done this in the following ways:
This is the reason I warned you that all three sources were necessary, and this is why I wrote what I did previously. I did it to avoid OR; It is very easy to fall into that trap.
I hope you revise your edit to that section. Hesnotblack ( talk) 16:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This article has thusfar been very hard to edit due to a lack of reliable, published criticism. However I believe I have found a book that can be taken as a primary source and used to further verify all sections. I believe it can also be used to add much more detail to this article. This is the book in question:
Basiti, Masoud, Zahra Moradi, and Hossein Akhoondali. "Twelve Principles." Bahar Afshan Publications, 2014.
Furthermore, a free pdf copy is provided over an online archive, here.
So do we agree this is a good source? As I understand it, the writers are Muslims (this should be stated in the article - e.g. "Muslim critics argue ..."). Aside from that it really is an all-encompassing source. What do you think? Cuñado, Smkolins, any objections? Hesnotblack ( talk) 21:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
I was thinking about this. I think what is needed for a page like this is a neutral source that says what the main criticisms are of the Baha'i Faith. You have made the argument that a criticism can be included because it is a criticism, even if the source is not reliable or neutral. I understand where that comes from, but it would get out of hand if the bar for inclusion was that someone makes a criticism. In the example of the racist comments, it would create a ridiculous situation if a blatantly deceptive criticism is included along with its rebuttal. But if you could find a reliable, neutral third party observer who commented on what the common criticisms are, that would be the best type of source. Not someone doing the criticism, per say. That's what makes the Abdo source good. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Published sources are not always reliable sources. Reliability is established if the source has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." The criticism about racism is added by two serious deceptions that are called out by McGlinn. First, the quote is taken completely out of context. If I said, "Some people say: 'the moon is made of cheese', but that's nonsense." Then someone quote me as saying "the moon is made of cheese", that is exactly what the criticism has done. Second, it's translated in an almost comical way to make it appear more racist. I'm not familiar with the individual names, but Persian attackers are known to fabricate all kinds of criticism as part of a cultural genocide against Baha'is in Iran, much of which is well documented by neutral third party observers. All this does matter if you're pushing for inclusion.
Regarding Sen McGlinn's blog, WP:V says such sources can be used "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." With some cautions. In this case, Sen is widely published enough that his blog can be used if no other reliable sources are addressing the issue.
Likewise, I think you should review WP:UNDUE, as it requires that the article "adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." If you read the examples, it does not support the idea that by providing two opposing views next to each other, it becomes balanced, regardless of verifiability. That's why you still need non-fringe commentary from several very reliable sources to establish what issues should even be included on the page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
First of all Cuñado, I'd like to thank you for remaining good-humoured throughout these disputes. I'll address your points in order.
Your first point related to the book mentioned above, which you imply is not reliable. Your arguement is that, although it may be published, it does not have a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy" The reason you give for this is that the criticism is incorrect and misquoted. In order to give more substantiation to your point, you've referred to a blog that addresses the quote as a criticism. Finally, to further substantiate your point, you've stated that the quote has been taken out of context and that the translation has been completed incorrectly.
I agree with you, a published source may not always be reliable. So first, let's establish criteria for reliability.
Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. - WP:SOURCES
From this we can draw the following conclusions as to what a reliable source is:
At this point I could say that I have proven the source is reliable - yet if I were to do so I would be sidelining your arguement. So let us draw out the key reasons you give for why the source is not reliable. I will include my rebuttal to each. Here they are:
So I hope I've proved to you that the source I have used, that book, is reliable. Yet if you still disagree, you must address my points and you must not sideline them.
You argue the WP:V says that such sources can be used "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I agree with that.
This is the full quote:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. - WP:V
You may find it slightly amusing that there sems to be little difference between the full quote and what you wrote. But if you look more close, you'll see a difference. You'll find that "in the relevant field" is in bold.
So your points are as follows:
I'll agree partially with point 1 - he is indeed an established expert - but is he an expert on this subject matter? Point 2 also has this problem: None of his book's refer to this field of work (i.e. Misconceptions of Quotes from Abdu'l Baha, Racism in the Baha'i Faith or indeed even just simply Criticism of the Baha'i Faith.) Similarly I disagree with point 3: The Baha'i library has not published anything he has written chiefly on the topics of Misconceptions of Quotes from Abdu'l Baha, Racism in the Baha'i Faith or Criticism of the Baha'i Faith.
So in summary, whilst Sen McGlinn's works can be seen as reliable, his blog post cannot be. Furthermore as it is not published - even if it were to be somewhat reliable - it would be subservient in reliability to the book I have mentioned. (But remember my previous arguement of not using opinion to disprove opinion applies).
Before I finish, let me quote the page on WP:UNDUE:
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
How much presense does your viewpoint have in reliable sources? Sen McGlinn's blog is not reliable. How much presense does the critics viewpoint have? I have at least one reliable, published source, written/translated by 4 authors. Hence I could reliably name a few adherents to that view, allowing it to become a "significant minority view" at least. Furthermore, for this classification I am giving it adequate weight - a subsection of a section of an article on the Criticisms of the Faith. Does that strike you as WP:UNDUE? Am I blowing this out of proportion?
Actually, here is a better question: What is your viewpoint Cuñado? As I see it your viewpoint is that this criticism is not a valid criticism. And yet the blog you quoted treats this exactly like criticism. So on this basis already it is not WP:UNDUE. In fact this conversation of WP:UNDUE we're having reminds of another conversation we have had in the past. There, the content was not undue for slightly different reasons, and yet you persistantly pushed on the fact that the source was WP:UNDUE until you eventually contradicted yourself. I insist you stop argueing down this line. The criticism is not undue, and you know that.
You wrote, "If you read the examples, it does not support the idea that by providing two opposing views next to each other, it becomes balanced, regardless of verifiability." Did I ever say this? Reading my previous replies I simply allowed you to add apologia if you felt that the "misquoting" apologia was not being adequately represented. And as mentioned previously, the "misquoting" does not constitute a fault in verifiability.
"That's why you still need non-fringe commentary from several very reliable sources to establish what issues should even be included on the page."
You have not established this as a necessity. I have already agree that it is highly recommended and in a subject topic like this, it is inevitable we use the criticisms of a critic to determine what the criticisms are of the faith. A completely neutral source which merely lists the criticisms does not exist due to the very nature of this topic.
A criticism is a criticism, and this page is to document those criticisms, valid or not. Let us not confuse validity and verifiability. Let us instead seek to reconcile our views for the betterment of this page. Let us endeavor to differentiate between fact and opinion, reliability and neutrality. Finally, let us both not let our biases deceive us, whatever they may be.
I shall sleep on this and wait for any reply. Otherwise I will reinstate the modified edit tomorow.
Hope you have a great day, (and sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes!) Hesnotblack ( talk) 17:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials. - WP:INDY
[A] "third-party" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome.- WP:INDY
Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute. - WP:3#Providing third opinions
"I also wasn't meaning to give you orders, I was trying to hint at ways of editing better." I apologize for misreading you. It's also nice to see you in such a positive mood, you seem much more like your normal self.
Back to the matter at hand, you bring about two points:
With all that said, I believe we are arriving at our conclusion. You said:
If you were to say "these authors claim that `Abdu'l-Baha made racist statements<ref>These authors</ref>", then you're all good. But if you say "`Abdu'l-Baha said that Africans are cows<ref>These authors</ref>", then you've got a problem.
It strikes me only now that in the edit I attribute the quotes to `Abdu'l-Baha directly! So I agree with you, I must state that it is what the authors say he said. I will reinstate the edit now, with this crucial change.
Have a nice day, Hesnotblack ( talk) 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and Cuñado, if it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure I make more spelling errors than you do, so no need to fret over "tirse". I did find it funny that you had a friend in College called Tirsa though... Hesnotblack ( talk) 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Definitions:
Polemic = a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something Polemicist = a person who engages in controversial debate Apologetic = of the nature of a formal defense or justification of something such as a theory or religious doctrine. Apologist = a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
I think these are fairly unbiased terms for both the attacks on the religion and the defense of it. I didn't add apologist to the description of McGlinn because I already described him as 1) Baha'i, and 2) a blogger, which in few words conveys that he is writing apologetically and also that he is not writing in an official capacity or from a reliable publisher. In the case of the Twelve Principles and the other sources making the racist claims I included 1) Iranian, and 2) polemic, because it is noteworthy that this criticism has not appeared (as far as I've seen) in any western attacks on the religion and is basically unheard of, and also unlike McGlinn being mentioned as a Baha'i, describing it as polemic quickly conveys that the literature is written entirely as an attack on the religion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
"I think the book is polemic at face value, it doesn't need a reviewer to say that."
"Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."- WP:V
"Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material"- WP:OR
I think those two quotes, from Wikipedia policy, sum up my side of the arguement.
At this point, Cuñado, let's agree to disagree. I have already made the concession to not include both terms. Let's not beat a dead horse.
Hope I helped, Hesnotblack ( talk) 13:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
This wording: "This supposed claim of divinity has been criticised by Christian authors who point this out as a doctrinal difference between the Bahá'í messengers."
Isn't totally clear, and the reference doesn't clearly describe it. What is the doctrinal difference between the Baha'i messengers? Who are the messengers being described? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
This is what I was referring to,
" Leader God
Krishna Polytheistic; pantheistic; Hinduism ultimately adopts a monistic/impersonal ultimate reality. Moses Monotheistic, personal. Zoroaster Dualistic; two supreme beings (one good and one evil). Confucius Polytheistic; but gods are secondary in importance to ultimate reality. Buddha A supreme God is irrelevant; the gods are also; modern Buddhism is, variously, polytheistic or humanistic. Jesus Monotheistic, personal, Trinitarian, God has a Son who reveals God perfectly. Muhammad Monotheistic, personal, Unitarian, God has no Son. The Bab/Baha’u’llah Ineffable, unknowable.
Even when we compare Baha’i with just one other religion, Christianity, the problems are still insurmountable. "- Ankerberg
However I realise now that I've made an error, I removed Shaykh when I should have removed Ankerberg (Shaykh is the one who lays the divinity claim). Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Have a nice day, Hesnotblack ( talk) 10:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Could we please refrain from removing content without talk page discussion, or at the least, an adequate edit summary?
With Azadeh Haiati you have a good point, his criticism appears on what seems to be a blog site. However, they do write articles too, like this one. Notice who the Author is. Also notice that Wikipedia explicitly allows articles, although for such a biased article, we are obviously required to make its bias clear. However what I included was not an article - it was indeed a blog post, but a blog post from someone who has written something a bit more reliable on the subject of "Criticism of the Bahá'í Faith". As you know from our discussions on Senn McGlin, this is technically allowed. I will however make a concession and remove it if it causes you too much arguement/distress. (Argueably I should remove Senn's for the same/similar reasons, but I already agreed to that concession).
Now on to Cole. I understand that as a Bahá'í you disagree with what he says, but you must realise that Wikipedia is not a place for you to espouse your own views. He is a reliable source; He stays. No questions. Reliability is not based on your/my objective view on the world, Wikipedia tells us how to measure reliability. Let's stick to that.
Your wording edits are becoming a bit of a habit now. Could you at least explain your reasoning for them?
Finally, you do not remove an entire section with "Go read the Wikipedia page on x". That amounts to non-neutral editing, you know that. Whilst we might agree on somethings, other people won't. We base Wikipedia content on sources not on our own opinions.
Phew... That was a long one. I look forward to your reply. Have a nice day, Hesnotblack ( talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to welcome SOM back to this page.
As you can see, several changes have been made to this page - in particular a standard of citing content has been established.
As I understand it, you believe that the following is NPOV:
For example, in Twelve Principles (2014) `Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying that Black Africans are "cows" with "human faces", among other things.
This is found in the source in page 70, looking at the quote at the bottom of the page. The assertion being made in the above statement is that the book quotes a historical figure as saying x as substantiation for the book's opinion that the historical figure is y. In other words, the above statement is an opinion not a fact. I welcome any changes you feel necessary to make this even more clear, if you so wish.
I point you to WP:YESPOV which gives the following relevant guidance:
From those two points we can come to the conclusion that we are allowed to portay (biased) opinions as long as it is made clear that they are opinions. This is not in breach of NPOV.
One could argue however that the cherrypicking of such a source to only show one side of opinions is in itself biased. However, this is why this section also includes the other (apologetic) point of view, given by Senn McGlinn. Therefore the section itself is balanced.
Also, with your earlier edits you seemed to undo my revert of a vandal, calling my revert vandalism. I was restoring what was already there - I assume you made a mistake and wanted to refer to the IP user's edit as vandalism. Pleae make this more clear in the future.
Please excuse me for any spelling errors. Have a nice day. Hesnotblack ( talk) 13:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
"The point here is essentially not "opinion" but "fact"."
The Bahá'í Faith espouses the need to abolish racial prejudices. On the other hand, critics have claimed comments made by `Abdu'l-Bahá showed racial prejudice about Black Africans.
"The substance of the section as I have left it IS fair."
On the other hand - "Twelve principles" is at lest extremely biased, and makes so many hysterical statements without any supporting evidence that we'd have to accept it as the opinions of the authors rather than confirmed fact.
`Abdu’l-Bahā, Makātīb (Egypt), vol. 1, p. 331.
"Any "quotes" from `Abdu'l-Bahá in this source would have to be backed up in a less NPOV source, surely?"
"Wikipedia rules about LIVING people are very strict indeed, for obvious reasons - but "quotes" even from historical people do need definite direct sources - somewhere the original quote came from, so we can verify that he really said it."
"On the subject of balance - Senn McGlinn refers only to `Abdu'l-Bahá's undisputed statements - he gives no opinion about the matter from "Twelve principles" and it is in fact highly unlikely he ever saw it - hence there is no "balance" of that point. "
As I said above, the primary sources for the quotes (which I avoid using as we have two secondary sources which mention them anyway) are these: `Abdu’l-Bahā, Makātīb (Egypt), vol. 1, p. 331. and also `Abdu’l-Bahā, Khaṭābāt (Tehran), vol. 3, p. 48.
Khatabat is where both Senn and the Book got the cow/beast faces quote.
Original Source for Khatabat p.48: [5]
Senn McGlinn quotes these in his article, which I urge you to read over as it seems you've just skimmed through the top most section. Also SOM, we cannot just use a primary source in this section, we need the secondary source to provide the analysis (i.e. the actual criticism) otherwise one could argue "it's not a criticism" (and it would constitute original research). I believe my points still stand and I look forward to your reply. Hesnotblack ( talk) 09:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The Bahá'í Faith espouses the need to abolish racial prejudices. [1] Critics have claimed that comments made by `Abdu'l-Bahá are contrary to this principle, and show racial prejudice against Black Africans. [2] For example, in Twelve Principles (2014) `Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying: "The [black Africans] are like animals in human form. The [black Americans] are civilized, intelligent, and have culture. [...] what difference is there between these two types of blacks other than nurture, with one in utter ignorance and the other completely civilized?" [3]
Sorry, in your previous reply, I forgot to mention this:
With that established, we realise we are dealing with a reliable, non-neutral source for a topic where such sources are not just suitable but required. If you start editting their quotations for the sake of conforming to another (non-neutral) source or your own views then that is non-neutral editting. This is what I've seen you do above.
Now coming on to your current arguements, first I applaud your suggestion of a concession. I will consider it going forward but your current reasoning for this concession is flawed: You are either pointing toward another POV source and saying it's more reliable (which it isn't, self-published vs published) or you are using your own opinions of what the translation should be by removing parts of the primary source.
For third-party reading this discussion, this is the line of contention from Khatabat, p48:
ميان سياهان افريک و سياهان آمريک اين ها خلق اللّه °البقر علی صورة البشرند آنان
The annoying thing you'll discover with this quote is, much like some sections of Baha'i scripture, it switches language halfway through. Most of it is in persian, but the latter part is in arabic. The very word of contention is: البقر. The meaning of this word? According to an Arabic-to-English dictionary, this means "Cow".
The place I have taken the source from is the official Baha'i library page - if anything the primary source should be biased against such a quote - but it isn't - it's all there in plain err well maybe not so plain Persian/Arabic.
So even if I go along your line of reasoning, which in my opinion is completely unreasonable, we still end up with the Cow faces quote. I see no reason to censor or remove this from the article.
Also, I'm afraid you can't decide what/which is a better translation, nor can I for that matter, as this would be Original Research on our part. Unless you want to quote a completely neutral, academic, non-Baha'i translator who says "x is the correct translation", you can't resolve this matter like the critics/apologists would. Wikipedia is a place for facts - it is a fact that the book quotes/misquotes Abdu'l Baha saying this, whether this is wrong or right on their part.
To be honest I really am repeating myself; All of this has been discussed above (we even had an interesting discussion on the reliability of the source - as it seemed to be self-published at first). I ask you to read this and read the sources again thoroughly.
Now finally I realise I have made a mistake in citation that may the reason for this whole discussion. I noticed it in your suggestion above: sfn|Basiti|Moradi|Akhoondali|2014|pp=69-70 should be sfn|Basiti|Moradi|Akhoondali|2014|pp=69-71 as the footnote for the quote (where the primary source is given) is on the next page over. I apologize for this mistake; It may very well be the reason for your confusion on why no primary source was quoted.
So I suggest we add in your own addition and that we also add in the cow faces part, as it is part of the (wrong or right) secondary source analysis. Senn McGlinn has compelling arguements against this critique which you must find horrendous. If you are unhappy with it from a religious point of view (although you should be being neutral) then you can take consolation in this.
"might be a more or less "confected" quote from a source that would not be "reliable" by any possible criterea, and that - assuming that we wanted to make the legitimate point that some people HAVE criticised `Abdu'l-Bahá (not quite the same thing as criticising the Faith, but let that pass) for writing some non-PC things - it would be better to find a more reliable quote."
Sorry, this is the conflation of neutrality and reliability I was talking about. Read the linked discussion above - the source is reliable and no amount of saying a certain line isn't (without any evidence) will change this. Either prove the source is self-published or abandon repeating that the source is not reliable. Read WP:SOURCES.
Now somewhere you said you wanted to make sure that this book is giving an opinion. I wholly agree with you here - if you want to add more clarification the please do so.
Have a nice day and I look forward to your reply. Hesnotblack ( talk) 11:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
"I won't edit the article text itself until we have reached an agreement on this point -"
Well, Soundofmusicals, I haven't received any response from you, so I will reinstate the contested sentence. Hesnotblack ( talk) 22:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Soundofmusicals,
let's control our anger.
When I first read your reply I got quite angry, and I was about to post a vitrolic reply to what you've said. However I have had time to calm down and think about what you've said and what my reply would have yielded me. With this in mind, please read my revised reply:
I believe, and it is a contested belief, that I have given every reasonable attempt to listen to your side of the discussion. I have disagreed with most on your points, but I have read and considered your point of view without wielding the sword of "bias" (i.e. I did not call out your bias and use it as a way of attacking your arguements). I have attacked your arguments throughout, I have not attacked you. Many editors would be very displeased with my behaviour, for in the face of someone who seems to be breaching WP:NPOV, I have said nothing, only defending the nature of the sentence in the article, its verifiability and reliability.
And you know what? I'm not going to start now. Soundofmusicals I don't believe you are engaging in biased editing. I believe you are a fair-minded contributor to this article and I very much value your opinion, even if I thoroughly disagree with it. I am not an opponent of your faith, though nor am I a supporter of your faith. I started editing this particular page when I noticed how lacking it was. As someone who as a casual interest in religious studies, I thought I could contribute and make the article better. In truth I have added very little to this article on my own. It is thanks to kind folks like you, Cuñado and Smkolins that this article has improved in both detail and verifiability. It is through discussions and disputes with you guys that I have learnt a great deal about Wikipedia policy.
I think the great thing about Wikipedia is there will always be disagreements - these disagreements fuel change and make Wikipedia what it is.
Now, coming on to the end of this dispute, I was thinking of making a concession (removing the faces part) but I just can't bring myself to do it, especially when I read something like this:
since you have bulldozed your own POV over all my attempts to get things into the form of a proper encyclopedia article.
Throughout this entire dispute I have been quoting policy several times... It is particularly hurtful that you seem to not have taken any notice of this; Instead you are now characterising my responses as being non-neutral. So I will not make a concession of good will, only because I feel you lost your own good will when you attacked me - why should I return this favor?
Nevertheless, whilst you may attack me and accuse me of non-neutrality, I will not return suit. I turn the other cheek. I believe your discussion on this topic has been neutral. I put my trust in you as editor who has contributed to this page and helped it out several times.
Please do not make me regret my words. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Hesnotblack ( talk) 16:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Summary of Debate: In section "Attitude towards Black Africans", the following was removed as such: [6]
I, Hesnotblack, argued for the inclusion of removed sentence, "`Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying that Africans are "cows" with "human faces"." which I argued was sourced, whilst Soundofmusicals argued against this by saying that this was not something the historical figure said - citing what he saw as the lack of a primary source.
My initial points:
Soundofmusicals's First rebuttal:
My Rebuttal:
Soundofmusicals's Second Rebuttal:
My Second Rebuttal:
Soundofmusicals's Third Rebuttal:
My Third Rebuttal:
I further argue:
I say:
Soundofmusicals's Last Rebuttal:
My Last Rebuttal:
So ended the debate,
Soundofmusicals reluctantly decided not to revert my readdition to the article, claiming I was biased.
Hesnotblack ( talk) 17:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Niyaz, Sufi A.Q. (1960). The Babi and Bahai Religion (PDF) (2004 ed.). United Kingdom: Islam International Publications.
I found this book by Sufi Niyaz that may be useful. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Is it just me or is it very difficult to find Bahá'í Faith specific criticisms with regards to gender equality. I know for a fact that there are people who criticise the religion for not having enough gender equality - people criticise Judaism, Christianity and Islam (etc.) for this as well - but I can't find Bahá'í specific criticisms, perhaps for two reasons:
Does anyone know or have any sources I could use to add more to this section? Obviously I am looking for works critical of the Bahá'í Faith's supposed gender equality. I will continue looking and will post the sources I find here, before editting, so that we can agree that they are suitable. Hesnotblack ( talk) 21:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
This website, [1], I have used to show that there are critics of Baha'i Gender Equality. Hesnotblack ( talk) 19:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
"She noted that, ironically, the chief "feminist criticism" of the Faith was offered eighty years ago by very patriarchal Presbyterian missionaries, who criticized the slowness of the emancipation of Iranian Bahá'i women. A much more thorough exploration of the Bahá'i conception of sexual equality, and a more frank exploration of its differences from secular feminism, are crucial for responding to attacks on he Bahá'i [ sic] Faith's treatment of women."
I have read the arabic version of this page and it is remarkably different. There are also well sourced criticisms that we find on there. There are criticisms on the literary nature of the scriptures of the Faith and there are even criticisms of the founder supposedly claiming divinity. Of course any such addition would need to be added suitably, but I think this page could benefit from these sections.
Sadly I don't understand Arabic - I have had to use Google Translate to work out that the page says. It would be great if someone, who understands Arabic, were to translate the criticisms and bring some of them accross. Of course we should bear in mind neutrality for this to happen. One should also bear in mind that the Arabic page seems to have a lot of Muslim bias. Hesnotblack ( talk) 19:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I really dislike this part about Cole's criticism:
For one, it's not a criticism of the Baha'i teachings, it's just saying he doesn't like Baha'is. Second, he is the only person I've seen coin the phrase "Baha'i fundamentalist" and it sounds to me like an attempt to use Christian terminology to smear the Baha'i Faith, not an academic or objective reality. Third, he is not a neutral reliable source, he is a former Baha'i who had a lot of personal conflict with Baha'is and then went on to rant about them.
When a particular book gets published I will be able to write the section well with the actual examples of conflict between religion and science in the Baha'i Faith. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Hesnotblack, I think it's great that you're trying to add to the article and make it less of a list. I made the same argument and I want to expand the article as well. But I removed some of your content because while trying to document criticism you're mischaracterizing the Baha'i teachings. Universalism is strongly tied to Christian doctrines, and I've never heard it applied to the Baha'i teachings. I added a note to clarify that Baha'is don't view all religions as equally valid, but progressive, so the older ones get corrupted with time. From that point of view, Islam is the least distorted from its original intent because it was the most recent and hasn't suffered the loss of cultural continuity that happened to older religions, like Buddhism or Judaism.
Also, the sources should be specific, not "many" people say... If someone voiced criticism, quote the person. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Cuñado ☼ , with regards to the Muslim part of the Unity of Religion section, I believe you have engaged in OR. You have done this in the following ways:
This is the reason I warned you that all three sources were necessary, and this is why I wrote what I did previously. I did it to avoid OR; It is very easy to fall into that trap.
I hope you revise your edit to that section. Hesnotblack ( talk) 16:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This article has thusfar been very hard to edit due to a lack of reliable, published criticism. However I believe I have found a book that can be taken as a primary source and used to further verify all sections. I believe it can also be used to add much more detail to this article. This is the book in question:
Basiti, Masoud, Zahra Moradi, and Hossein Akhoondali. "Twelve Principles." Bahar Afshan Publications, 2014.
Furthermore, a free pdf copy is provided over an online archive, here.
So do we agree this is a good source? As I understand it, the writers are Muslims (this should be stated in the article - e.g. "Muslim critics argue ..."). Aside from that it really is an all-encompassing source. What do you think? Cuñado, Smkolins, any objections? Hesnotblack ( talk) 21:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
I was thinking about this. I think what is needed for a page like this is a neutral source that says what the main criticisms are of the Baha'i Faith. You have made the argument that a criticism can be included because it is a criticism, even if the source is not reliable or neutral. I understand where that comes from, but it would get out of hand if the bar for inclusion was that someone makes a criticism. In the example of the racist comments, it would create a ridiculous situation if a blatantly deceptive criticism is included along with its rebuttal. But if you could find a reliable, neutral third party observer who commented on what the common criticisms are, that would be the best type of source. Not someone doing the criticism, per say. That's what makes the Abdo source good. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Published sources are not always reliable sources. Reliability is established if the source has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." The criticism about racism is added by two serious deceptions that are called out by McGlinn. First, the quote is taken completely out of context. If I said, "Some people say: 'the moon is made of cheese', but that's nonsense." Then someone quote me as saying "the moon is made of cheese", that is exactly what the criticism has done. Second, it's translated in an almost comical way to make it appear more racist. I'm not familiar with the individual names, but Persian attackers are known to fabricate all kinds of criticism as part of a cultural genocide against Baha'is in Iran, much of which is well documented by neutral third party observers. All this does matter if you're pushing for inclusion.
Regarding Sen McGlinn's blog, WP:V says such sources can be used "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." With some cautions. In this case, Sen is widely published enough that his blog can be used if no other reliable sources are addressing the issue.
Likewise, I think you should review WP:UNDUE, as it requires that the article "adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." If you read the examples, it does not support the idea that by providing two opposing views next to each other, it becomes balanced, regardless of verifiability. That's why you still need non-fringe commentary from several very reliable sources to establish what issues should even be included on the page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
First of all Cuñado, I'd like to thank you for remaining good-humoured throughout these disputes. I'll address your points in order.
Your first point related to the book mentioned above, which you imply is not reliable. Your arguement is that, although it may be published, it does not have a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy" The reason you give for this is that the criticism is incorrect and misquoted. In order to give more substantiation to your point, you've referred to a blog that addresses the quote as a criticism. Finally, to further substantiate your point, you've stated that the quote has been taken out of context and that the translation has been completed incorrectly.
I agree with you, a published source may not always be reliable. So first, let's establish criteria for reliability.
Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. - WP:SOURCES
From this we can draw the following conclusions as to what a reliable source is:
At this point I could say that I have proven the source is reliable - yet if I were to do so I would be sidelining your arguement. So let us draw out the key reasons you give for why the source is not reliable. I will include my rebuttal to each. Here they are:
So I hope I've proved to you that the source I have used, that book, is reliable. Yet if you still disagree, you must address my points and you must not sideline them.
You argue the WP:V says that such sources can be used "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I agree with that.
This is the full quote:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. - WP:V
You may find it slightly amusing that there sems to be little difference between the full quote and what you wrote. But if you look more close, you'll see a difference. You'll find that "in the relevant field" is in bold.
So your points are as follows:
I'll agree partially with point 1 - he is indeed an established expert - but is he an expert on this subject matter? Point 2 also has this problem: None of his book's refer to this field of work (i.e. Misconceptions of Quotes from Abdu'l Baha, Racism in the Baha'i Faith or indeed even just simply Criticism of the Baha'i Faith.) Similarly I disagree with point 3: The Baha'i library has not published anything he has written chiefly on the topics of Misconceptions of Quotes from Abdu'l Baha, Racism in the Baha'i Faith or Criticism of the Baha'i Faith.
So in summary, whilst Sen McGlinn's works can be seen as reliable, his blog post cannot be. Furthermore as it is not published - even if it were to be somewhat reliable - it would be subservient in reliability to the book I have mentioned. (But remember my previous arguement of not using opinion to disprove opinion applies).
Before I finish, let me quote the page on WP:UNDUE:
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
How much presense does your viewpoint have in reliable sources? Sen McGlinn's blog is not reliable. How much presense does the critics viewpoint have? I have at least one reliable, published source, written/translated by 4 authors. Hence I could reliably name a few adherents to that view, allowing it to become a "significant minority view" at least. Furthermore, for this classification I am giving it adequate weight - a subsection of a section of an article on the Criticisms of the Faith. Does that strike you as WP:UNDUE? Am I blowing this out of proportion?
Actually, here is a better question: What is your viewpoint Cuñado? As I see it your viewpoint is that this criticism is not a valid criticism. And yet the blog you quoted treats this exactly like criticism. So on this basis already it is not WP:UNDUE. In fact this conversation of WP:UNDUE we're having reminds of another conversation we have had in the past. There, the content was not undue for slightly different reasons, and yet you persistantly pushed on the fact that the source was WP:UNDUE until you eventually contradicted yourself. I insist you stop argueing down this line. The criticism is not undue, and you know that.
You wrote, "If you read the examples, it does not support the idea that by providing two opposing views next to each other, it becomes balanced, regardless of verifiability." Did I ever say this? Reading my previous replies I simply allowed you to add apologia if you felt that the "misquoting" apologia was not being adequately represented. And as mentioned previously, the "misquoting" does not constitute a fault in verifiability.
"That's why you still need non-fringe commentary from several very reliable sources to establish what issues should even be included on the page."
You have not established this as a necessity. I have already agree that it is highly recommended and in a subject topic like this, it is inevitable we use the criticisms of a critic to determine what the criticisms are of the faith. A completely neutral source which merely lists the criticisms does not exist due to the very nature of this topic.
A criticism is a criticism, and this page is to document those criticisms, valid or not. Let us not confuse validity and verifiability. Let us instead seek to reconcile our views for the betterment of this page. Let us endeavor to differentiate between fact and opinion, reliability and neutrality. Finally, let us both not let our biases deceive us, whatever they may be.
I shall sleep on this and wait for any reply. Otherwise I will reinstate the modified edit tomorow.
Hope you have a great day, (and sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes!) Hesnotblack ( talk) 17:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials. - WP:INDY
[A] "third-party" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome.- WP:INDY
Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute. - WP:3#Providing third opinions
"I also wasn't meaning to give you orders, I was trying to hint at ways of editing better." I apologize for misreading you. It's also nice to see you in such a positive mood, you seem much more like your normal self.
Back to the matter at hand, you bring about two points:
With all that said, I believe we are arriving at our conclusion. You said:
If you were to say "these authors claim that `Abdu'l-Baha made racist statements<ref>These authors</ref>", then you're all good. But if you say "`Abdu'l-Baha said that Africans are cows<ref>These authors</ref>", then you've got a problem.
It strikes me only now that in the edit I attribute the quotes to `Abdu'l-Baha directly! So I agree with you, I must state that it is what the authors say he said. I will reinstate the edit now, with this crucial change.
Have a nice day, Hesnotblack ( talk) 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and Cuñado, if it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure I make more spelling errors than you do, so no need to fret over "tirse". I did find it funny that you had a friend in College called Tirsa though... Hesnotblack ( talk) 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Definitions:
Polemic = a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something Polemicist = a person who engages in controversial debate Apologetic = of the nature of a formal defense or justification of something such as a theory or religious doctrine. Apologist = a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
I think these are fairly unbiased terms for both the attacks on the religion and the defense of it. I didn't add apologist to the description of McGlinn because I already described him as 1) Baha'i, and 2) a blogger, which in few words conveys that he is writing apologetically and also that he is not writing in an official capacity or from a reliable publisher. In the case of the Twelve Principles and the other sources making the racist claims I included 1) Iranian, and 2) polemic, because it is noteworthy that this criticism has not appeared (as far as I've seen) in any western attacks on the religion and is basically unheard of, and also unlike McGlinn being mentioned as a Baha'i, describing it as polemic quickly conveys that the literature is written entirely as an attack on the religion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
"I think the book is polemic at face value, it doesn't need a reviewer to say that."
"Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."- WP:V
"Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material"- WP:OR
I think those two quotes, from Wikipedia policy, sum up my side of the arguement.
At this point, Cuñado, let's agree to disagree. I have already made the concession to not include both terms. Let's not beat a dead horse.
Hope I helped, Hesnotblack ( talk) 13:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
This wording: "This supposed claim of divinity has been criticised by Christian authors who point this out as a doctrinal difference between the Bahá'í messengers."
Isn't totally clear, and the reference doesn't clearly describe it. What is the doctrinal difference between the Baha'i messengers? Who are the messengers being described? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
This is what I was referring to,
" Leader God
Krishna Polytheistic; pantheistic; Hinduism ultimately adopts a monistic/impersonal ultimate reality. Moses Monotheistic, personal. Zoroaster Dualistic; two supreme beings (one good and one evil). Confucius Polytheistic; but gods are secondary in importance to ultimate reality. Buddha A supreme God is irrelevant; the gods are also; modern Buddhism is, variously, polytheistic or humanistic. Jesus Monotheistic, personal, Trinitarian, God has a Son who reveals God perfectly. Muhammad Monotheistic, personal, Unitarian, God has no Son. The Bab/Baha’u’llah Ineffable, unknowable.
Even when we compare Baha’i with just one other religion, Christianity, the problems are still insurmountable. "- Ankerberg
However I realise now that I've made an error, I removed Shaykh when I should have removed Ankerberg (Shaykh is the one who lays the divinity claim). Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Have a nice day, Hesnotblack ( talk) 10:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Could we please refrain from removing content without talk page discussion, or at the least, an adequate edit summary?
With Azadeh Haiati you have a good point, his criticism appears on what seems to be a blog site. However, they do write articles too, like this one. Notice who the Author is. Also notice that Wikipedia explicitly allows articles, although for such a biased article, we are obviously required to make its bias clear. However what I included was not an article - it was indeed a blog post, but a blog post from someone who has written something a bit more reliable on the subject of "Criticism of the Bahá'í Faith". As you know from our discussions on Senn McGlin, this is technically allowed. I will however make a concession and remove it if it causes you too much arguement/distress. (Argueably I should remove Senn's for the same/similar reasons, but I already agreed to that concession).
Now on to Cole. I understand that as a Bahá'í you disagree with what he says, but you must realise that Wikipedia is not a place for you to espouse your own views. He is a reliable source; He stays. No questions. Reliability is not based on your/my objective view on the world, Wikipedia tells us how to measure reliability. Let's stick to that.
Your wording edits are becoming a bit of a habit now. Could you at least explain your reasoning for them?
Finally, you do not remove an entire section with "Go read the Wikipedia page on x". That amounts to non-neutral editing, you know that. Whilst we might agree on somethings, other people won't. We base Wikipedia content on sources not on our own opinions.
Phew... That was a long one. I look forward to your reply. Have a nice day, Hesnotblack ( talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to welcome SOM back to this page.
As you can see, several changes have been made to this page - in particular a standard of citing content has been established.
As I understand it, you believe that the following is NPOV:
For example, in Twelve Principles (2014) `Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying that Black Africans are "cows" with "human faces", among other things.
This is found in the source in page 70, looking at the quote at the bottom of the page. The assertion being made in the above statement is that the book quotes a historical figure as saying x as substantiation for the book's opinion that the historical figure is y. In other words, the above statement is an opinion not a fact. I welcome any changes you feel necessary to make this even more clear, if you so wish.
I point you to WP:YESPOV which gives the following relevant guidance:
From those two points we can come to the conclusion that we are allowed to portay (biased) opinions as long as it is made clear that they are opinions. This is not in breach of NPOV.
One could argue however that the cherrypicking of such a source to only show one side of opinions is in itself biased. However, this is why this section also includes the other (apologetic) point of view, given by Senn McGlinn. Therefore the section itself is balanced.
Also, with your earlier edits you seemed to undo my revert of a vandal, calling my revert vandalism. I was restoring what was already there - I assume you made a mistake and wanted to refer to the IP user's edit as vandalism. Pleae make this more clear in the future.
Please excuse me for any spelling errors. Have a nice day. Hesnotblack ( talk) 13:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
"The point here is essentially not "opinion" but "fact"."
The Bahá'í Faith espouses the need to abolish racial prejudices. On the other hand, critics have claimed comments made by `Abdu'l-Bahá showed racial prejudice about Black Africans.
"The substance of the section as I have left it IS fair."
On the other hand - "Twelve principles" is at lest extremely biased, and makes so many hysterical statements without any supporting evidence that we'd have to accept it as the opinions of the authors rather than confirmed fact.
`Abdu’l-Bahā, Makātīb (Egypt), vol. 1, p. 331.
"Any "quotes" from `Abdu'l-Bahá in this source would have to be backed up in a less NPOV source, surely?"
"Wikipedia rules about LIVING people are very strict indeed, for obvious reasons - but "quotes" even from historical people do need definite direct sources - somewhere the original quote came from, so we can verify that he really said it."
"On the subject of balance - Senn McGlinn refers only to `Abdu'l-Bahá's undisputed statements - he gives no opinion about the matter from "Twelve principles" and it is in fact highly unlikely he ever saw it - hence there is no "balance" of that point. "
As I said above, the primary sources for the quotes (which I avoid using as we have two secondary sources which mention them anyway) are these: `Abdu’l-Bahā, Makātīb (Egypt), vol. 1, p. 331. and also `Abdu’l-Bahā, Khaṭābāt (Tehran), vol. 3, p. 48.
Khatabat is where both Senn and the Book got the cow/beast faces quote.
Original Source for Khatabat p.48: [5]
Senn McGlinn quotes these in his article, which I urge you to read over as it seems you've just skimmed through the top most section. Also SOM, we cannot just use a primary source in this section, we need the secondary source to provide the analysis (i.e. the actual criticism) otherwise one could argue "it's not a criticism" (and it would constitute original research). I believe my points still stand and I look forward to your reply. Hesnotblack ( talk) 09:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The Bahá'í Faith espouses the need to abolish racial prejudices. [1] Critics have claimed that comments made by `Abdu'l-Bahá are contrary to this principle, and show racial prejudice against Black Africans. [2] For example, in Twelve Principles (2014) `Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying: "The [black Africans] are like animals in human form. The [black Americans] are civilized, intelligent, and have culture. [...] what difference is there between these two types of blacks other than nurture, with one in utter ignorance and the other completely civilized?" [3]
Sorry, in your previous reply, I forgot to mention this:
With that established, we realise we are dealing with a reliable, non-neutral source for a topic where such sources are not just suitable but required. If you start editting their quotations for the sake of conforming to another (non-neutral) source or your own views then that is non-neutral editting. This is what I've seen you do above.
Now coming on to your current arguements, first I applaud your suggestion of a concession. I will consider it going forward but your current reasoning for this concession is flawed: You are either pointing toward another POV source and saying it's more reliable (which it isn't, self-published vs published) or you are using your own opinions of what the translation should be by removing parts of the primary source.
For third-party reading this discussion, this is the line of contention from Khatabat, p48:
ميان سياهان افريک و سياهان آمريک اين ها خلق اللّه °البقر علی صورة البشرند آنان
The annoying thing you'll discover with this quote is, much like some sections of Baha'i scripture, it switches language halfway through. Most of it is in persian, but the latter part is in arabic. The very word of contention is: البقر. The meaning of this word? According to an Arabic-to-English dictionary, this means "Cow".
The place I have taken the source from is the official Baha'i library page - if anything the primary source should be biased against such a quote - but it isn't - it's all there in plain err well maybe not so plain Persian/Arabic.
So even if I go along your line of reasoning, which in my opinion is completely unreasonable, we still end up with the Cow faces quote. I see no reason to censor or remove this from the article.
Also, I'm afraid you can't decide what/which is a better translation, nor can I for that matter, as this would be Original Research on our part. Unless you want to quote a completely neutral, academic, non-Baha'i translator who says "x is the correct translation", you can't resolve this matter like the critics/apologists would. Wikipedia is a place for facts - it is a fact that the book quotes/misquotes Abdu'l Baha saying this, whether this is wrong or right on their part.
To be honest I really am repeating myself; All of this has been discussed above (we even had an interesting discussion on the reliability of the source - as it seemed to be self-published at first). I ask you to read this and read the sources again thoroughly.
Now finally I realise I have made a mistake in citation that may the reason for this whole discussion. I noticed it in your suggestion above: sfn|Basiti|Moradi|Akhoondali|2014|pp=69-70 should be sfn|Basiti|Moradi|Akhoondali|2014|pp=69-71 as the footnote for the quote (where the primary source is given) is on the next page over. I apologize for this mistake; It may very well be the reason for your confusion on why no primary source was quoted.
So I suggest we add in your own addition and that we also add in the cow faces part, as it is part of the (wrong or right) secondary source analysis. Senn McGlinn has compelling arguements against this critique which you must find horrendous. If you are unhappy with it from a religious point of view (although you should be being neutral) then you can take consolation in this.
"might be a more or less "confected" quote from a source that would not be "reliable" by any possible criterea, and that - assuming that we wanted to make the legitimate point that some people HAVE criticised `Abdu'l-Bahá (not quite the same thing as criticising the Faith, but let that pass) for writing some non-PC things - it would be better to find a more reliable quote."
Sorry, this is the conflation of neutrality and reliability I was talking about. Read the linked discussion above - the source is reliable and no amount of saying a certain line isn't (without any evidence) will change this. Either prove the source is self-published or abandon repeating that the source is not reliable. Read WP:SOURCES.
Now somewhere you said you wanted to make sure that this book is giving an opinion. I wholly agree with you here - if you want to add more clarification the please do so.
Have a nice day and I look forward to your reply. Hesnotblack ( talk) 11:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
"I won't edit the article text itself until we have reached an agreement on this point -"
Well, Soundofmusicals, I haven't received any response from you, so I will reinstate the contested sentence. Hesnotblack ( talk) 22:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Soundofmusicals,
let's control our anger.
When I first read your reply I got quite angry, and I was about to post a vitrolic reply to what you've said. However I have had time to calm down and think about what you've said and what my reply would have yielded me. With this in mind, please read my revised reply:
I believe, and it is a contested belief, that I have given every reasonable attempt to listen to your side of the discussion. I have disagreed with most on your points, but I have read and considered your point of view without wielding the sword of "bias" (i.e. I did not call out your bias and use it as a way of attacking your arguements). I have attacked your arguments throughout, I have not attacked you. Many editors would be very displeased with my behaviour, for in the face of someone who seems to be breaching WP:NPOV, I have said nothing, only defending the nature of the sentence in the article, its verifiability and reliability.
And you know what? I'm not going to start now. Soundofmusicals I don't believe you are engaging in biased editing. I believe you are a fair-minded contributor to this article and I very much value your opinion, even if I thoroughly disagree with it. I am not an opponent of your faith, though nor am I a supporter of your faith. I started editing this particular page when I noticed how lacking it was. As someone who as a casual interest in religious studies, I thought I could contribute and make the article better. In truth I have added very little to this article on my own. It is thanks to kind folks like you, Cuñado and Smkolins that this article has improved in both detail and verifiability. It is through discussions and disputes with you guys that I have learnt a great deal about Wikipedia policy.
I think the great thing about Wikipedia is there will always be disagreements - these disagreements fuel change and make Wikipedia what it is.
Now, coming on to the end of this dispute, I was thinking of making a concession (removing the faces part) but I just can't bring myself to do it, especially when I read something like this:
since you have bulldozed your own POV over all my attempts to get things into the form of a proper encyclopedia article.
Throughout this entire dispute I have been quoting policy several times... It is particularly hurtful that you seem to not have taken any notice of this; Instead you are now characterising my responses as being non-neutral. So I will not make a concession of good will, only because I feel you lost your own good will when you attacked me - why should I return this favor?
Nevertheless, whilst you may attack me and accuse me of non-neutrality, I will not return suit. I turn the other cheek. I believe your discussion on this topic has been neutral. I put my trust in you as editor who has contributed to this page and helped it out several times.
Please do not make me regret my words. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Hesnotblack ( talk) 16:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Summary of Debate: In section "Attitude towards Black Africans", the following was removed as such: [6]
I, Hesnotblack, argued for the inclusion of removed sentence, "`Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying that Africans are "cows" with "human faces"." which I argued was sourced, whilst Soundofmusicals argued against this by saying that this was not something the historical figure said - citing what he saw as the lack of a primary source.
My initial points:
Soundofmusicals's First rebuttal:
My Rebuttal:
Soundofmusicals's Second Rebuttal:
My Second Rebuttal:
Soundofmusicals's Third Rebuttal:
My Third Rebuttal:
I further argue:
I say:
Soundofmusicals's Last Rebuttal:
My Last Rebuttal:
So ended the debate,
Soundofmusicals reluctantly decided not to revert my readdition to the article, claiming I was biased.
Hesnotblack ( talk) 17:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Niyaz, Sufi A.Q. (1960). The Babi and Bahai Religion (PDF) (2004 ed.). United Kingdom: Islam International Publications.
I found this book by Sufi Niyaz that may be useful. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)