 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Just a note that as " How Different Religions View Death and Afterlife" and other third party extended sources are not generally available online they take more time to gather and use specifically. Various sources already included treat the views fairly shortly. More to come. The other extended discussion i can find is at Taherzadeh, Adib (1976). The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 1. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. pp. 72–74. ISBN 0-85398-270-8. -- Smkolins ( talk) 02:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
A topic on Wikipedia should not be about when discussions of a topic appeared in different texts. Rather it should be about the topic itself, using reliable sources to back up those assertions. I think this page needs a complete rewrite. Look at how other encyclopedias treat the topic. For example look at the Baha'i Encyclopedia. I don't have much time to do the work, but I may come back later. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 22:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I attempted to cover a breadth of related aspects - only the first section covers a history of the topic in texts to show a sense of long standing interest in the topic. However that is a small part of the whole document especially now that I've extended the content. I've used responsible non-Baha'i publications extensively. Some of the sources are not especially academic in general but some are. But they are reliable as I understand it. The substance of the article is not taking sides on the reality of any phenomena perse - just the view of them recognized by researchers on the topic in their different approaches and review of the specifics. -- Smkolins ( talk) 00:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I do see the lead needing revision along those lines though. -- Smkolins ( talk) 00:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are a couple Baha'i based publications but they are used mostly to support or extend points made by more mainstream sources I think. -- Smkolins ( talk) 00:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Of the 48 cites currently included add up to 83 individual instances of which a good 48 are either non-Baha'i publications or explicitly scholarly publications or both. Of the Baha'i-sourced references to the best of my knowledge there are 23 and they are only "this exists" kind of references, not being used in the statements of summaries of the positions presented. For example the "Developing Destinctive Communities" reference is not used to state any positions of the religion on any issue - it is cited only to say such a thing exists. The points made about the various positions Baha'is have taken from almost completely from non-Baha'i and or explicitly scholarly works. Perhaps too quick a review of the article in it's current form might seem to not be relying on reliable sources but I think a careful review will make it more obvious. --
Smkolins (
talk) 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding the point I make. Use the sources to talk about the subject of the article "Baha'i Faith on life after death", not on which sources exist and when they were written. -- 16:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps I did - but the section you appear to be now focusing on is a small part, and showing that the topic has been of long and widespread interest inside the religion. It was not meant as a major section by itself but as an introduction to the relative importance of the topic. It also helps focus the attention that this is a review of a Baha'i oriented approach to an issue. I could see the same point made in a more integrated way.... -- Smkolins ( talk) 19:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's the first thing that a reader sees, and I don't really think that it is appropriate. At best it should be a small section at the very end. -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding the point I make. Use the sources to talk about the subject of the article "Baha'i Faith on life after death", not on which sources exist and when they were written. -- 16:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Of the 48 cites currently included add up to 83 individual instances of which a good 48 are either non-Baha'i publications or explicitly scholarly publications or both. Of the Baha'i-sourced references to the best of my knowledge there are 23 and they are only "this exists" kind of references, not being used in the statements of summaries of the positions presented. For example the "Developing Destinctive Communities" reference is not used to state any positions of the religion on any issue - it is cited only to say such a thing exists. The points made about the various positions Baha'is have taken from almost completely from non-Baha'i and or explicitly scholarly works. Perhaps too quick a review of the article in it's current form might seem to not be relying on reliable sources but I think a careful review will make it more obvious. --
Smkolins (
talk) 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The article presents a lot of examples of NDE like trying to validete that the Bahai believe in the after life is true. That not only is pseudoscientific (because is based among other things, in cherry picking and confirmation bias) but aslo breaks Wikipedia's neutrality, and NDE's are very ambigous by their own nature and basically prove all religions afertlife in one way or another. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 06:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- All religions' sense of an afterlife is not a problem from a Baha'i pov (see overall
Baháʼí Faith and the unity of religion.) As for mentioning it being a distraction, the point of the article is not to substantiate an afterlife, but to present the Baha'i pov about an afterlife, which includes individual testimonials.
Smkolins (
talk) 11:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- May not be a problem for Bahais but is a problem for Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. For an atheist there's no afterlife, so the presenting of the NDE testimonials as "evidence" of such in incompatible with their point of view. A lot of people do not think that NDE have anything else than organic or biological explanation. --
Dereck Camacho (
talk) 12:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- You are ignoring what I said about this is not an article about near death experiences, it is an article about Baha'i views about the afterlife. Baha'is have used their experiences this way and it is well documented. How you or anyone interprets their experiences is up to them but not the subject of the article.
Smkolins (
talk) 12:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring anything is just that the argument is still lacking sense. The article explicitly says that the NDE confirm the Bahai beliefs in the afterlife and that's a breakig of the neutral pov. --
Dereck Camacho (
talk) 15:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- It says no such thing. It says people said it themselves. I'd welcome a paper about it all but it is what it is. Nothing broken. If you want to perceive that as a flaw in the religion you are welcome to but it isn't breaking neutrality to say people said something and did so through published sources.
Smkolins (
talk) 16:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Alright I see no advance here, I will request for a mediation. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 17:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- It says no such thing. It says people said it themselves. I'd welcome a paper about it all but it is what it is. Nothing broken. If you want to perceive that as a flaw in the religion you are welcome to but it isn't breaking neutrality to say people said something and did so through published sources.
Smkolins (
talk) 16:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring anything is just that the argument is still lacking sense. The article explicitly says that the NDE confirm the Bahai beliefs in the afterlife and that's a breakig of the neutral pov. --
Dereck Camacho (
talk) 15:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- You are ignoring what I said about this is not an article about near death experiences, it is an article about Baha'i views about the afterlife. Baha'is have used their experiences this way and it is well documented. How you or anyone interprets their experiences is up to them but not the subject of the article.
Smkolins (
talk) 12:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- May not be a problem for Bahais but is a problem for Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. For an atheist there's no afterlife, so the presenting of the NDE testimonials as "evidence" of such in incompatible with their point of view. A lot of people do not think that NDE have anything else than organic or biological explanation. --
Dereck Camacho (
talk) 12:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I am also a Baha'i. I actually agree that the section on NDEs is a bit overblown. Perhaps the title of the section should be 'The Baha'i perspective on Near Death Experiences'. When titled as 'Near Death Experiences' there is an implication that the author/Baha'is are an authority on the topic. While I believe the authors' intention is sincere and heartfelt, and the text prior to that section to be accurate and well researched (We have hundreds of books by the founders of the Baha'i Faith), the section about NDEs could be reworded to make it clear that it is only a related topic and is written to describe examples of certain experiences of a small percentage of the population. Since no one who has had a Near Death Experience can prove to another living human that they really did experience that, it should be noted that these are personal accounts, not proven facts. -- AlphaOmegaEtc ( talk) 23:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, that you are a Baha'i, or not, is immaterial to the question. I'm always open to making articles better but it is based on the sources, not personal opinion. Wikipedia is not authoritative, whatever the headers say or don't. It is simply and exclusively a matter of convenience relative to the evidence provided by sources. Does not "Personal presentations" exactly speak to what you are saying? Above that it just has a section that refers to literature that has been published and those personal experiences. Find sources describing the literature in some manner and that should be included. Smkolins ( talk) 23:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow - you seem quite argumentative. It's as if you did not read my comment at all. I mentioned that I'm a Baha'i to give context, and to show that I am familiar with the topic, and the Baha'i Faith in general. Immaterial to what question?
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate what you have done, and I think it is important for people to understand what the Baha'i Faith is about. Baha'is are expected to have the highest possible morals according to the writings. Harmony, Unity and so on. That is why I've chimed in. I would like the article to be as neutral as possible.
The sentence above "It is simply and exclusively a matter of convenience relative to the evidence provided by sources." makes no sense to me at all.
The 2 sections you refer to (Literature, and Personal presentations) are within the section titled 'Near Death Experiences'. I was only suggesting a more neutral main title rather than one that is suggesting that we Baha'is are some kind of experts on the topic. We are not. And I suspect Dereck was trying to point this out. What exists out there about NDEs are all personal accounts, and I think it is fine to mention NDEs as something like a "See Also" topic, but it does not directly support, or relate to the main topic "Baháʼí Faith on life after death".
I have seen the Reinee Pasarow video, and her account sounds wonderful to me. I had an "out of body" (OBE) experience when I was 14. So, please understand I believe these accounts. But most people will not. I told some college friends about my OBE and they said "Oh, that was just a dream". Consider your audience. That's all I'm saying. Thanks, -- AlphaOmegaEtc ( talk) 20:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't look for argumentation. Assume good faith. Really. Truly it doesn't matter to the fairness of sources that you or I are or are not Baha'is. As soon as it does such a person would be accused of bias. God forbid! And personal experiences have no place in editing - it is all about fair uses of fair sources. As for your proposal of 'The Baha'i perspective on Near Death Experiences' - the problem then is a source that says it is an authoritative (scholarly or institutional) perspective rather than individual presentations. I don't know of any such statement. It has been looked at, it has been published about, but I'm not aware there is "The Baha'i perspective…". Perhaps "Perspectives of some Bahá'ís on Near Death Experiences" but it seems to be excessively wordy. Smkolins ( talk) 00:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I give up. You and I do not see the point of sharing information on Wikipedia the same way at all. I won't disturb you anymore. -- AlphaOmegaEtc ( talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- AlphaOmegaEtc thanks for your suggestion, I think is a good suggestion. Alongside some more explicit explanation that the article is not saying that the NDE confirm the Bahai believes of life after death and some review of the redaction to make it more neutral may be enough. Also it could be a good idea to make it on its own article and/or having an article for Religious views of near-death expeciences. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 19:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like to see more input about the lenghty presence of the Near Death Experiences section. I think it might be breaking the Neutral Point of View as, at least on its current phrasing seems to endorse that NDE are evidence that the Bahai believes in the after life are true. NDE experiences are a very subjective and controversial topic; practically all religions see them as "evidence" of their belief system and people of different religions generally have NDE that coincidentally correspond to their respective belief (Christians report angels and Jesus or hell with fire and devils, for example). Thus its presence on an article about one particular religion might be over-reaching, but I would like to see other people's opinions. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 14:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well I'm not sure where this is happening but if it is happening here, see above.
Smkolins (
talk) 00:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I agree this needs some work – here are some more specific thoughts. (Sorry I'm a bit long-winded!)
- The first problem is that a lot of the sources in the NDEs section do not meet WP:RS. While non-academic sources can sometimes be used on Wikipedia, WP:RS says "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Baha'i publishers are not mainstream publications.
- If we go to Near-death experience#Explanatory models there are various proposed explanations, so I agree with you that we need to avoid implicitly endorsing a given perspective. I think the (unsourced) statement "some have specifically examined parallels between the statements in the scriptures and scholarly statements about stages of near-death experiences" is probably not NPOV. Moreover, while WP:SUBPOV allows a separate article for a particular view of a topic (i.e., the Baha'i view of NDEs), we still need to make clear how it relates to the overall balance of opinion in RS. Quote from WP:NPOV:
In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject.
- So in summary, I think sources that are not reliable should be removed. Some sources might need a little discussion to decide if they meet WP:RS. What is left of the article should be adjusted to make clear there are various views on this, including materialist views like you said. Gazelle55 ( talk) 20:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The redirect
Talk:Bahá?í Faith on life after death 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:Bahá?í Faith on life after death until a consensus is reached.
Tartar
Torte 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Just a note that as " How Different Religions View Death and Afterlife" and other third party extended sources are not generally available online they take more time to gather and use specifically. Various sources already included treat the views fairly shortly. More to come. The other extended discussion i can find is at Taherzadeh, Adib (1976). The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 1. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. pp. 72–74. ISBN 0-85398-270-8. -- Smkolins ( talk) 02:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
A topic on Wikipedia should not be about when discussions of a topic appeared in different texts. Rather it should be about the topic itself, using reliable sources to back up those assertions. I think this page needs a complete rewrite. Look at how other encyclopedias treat the topic. For example look at the Baha'i Encyclopedia. I don't have much time to do the work, but I may come back later. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 22:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I attempted to cover a breadth of related aspects - only the first section covers a history of the topic in texts to show a sense of long standing interest in the topic. However that is a small part of the whole document especially now that I've extended the content. I've used responsible non-Baha'i publications extensively. Some of the sources are not especially academic in general but some are. But they are reliable as I understand it. The substance of the article is not taking sides on the reality of any phenomena perse - just the view of them recognized by researchers on the topic in their different approaches and review of the specifics. -- Smkolins ( talk) 00:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I do see the lead needing revision along those lines though. -- Smkolins ( talk) 00:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are a couple Baha'i based publications but they are used mostly to support or extend points made by more mainstream sources I think. -- Smkolins ( talk) 00:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Of the 48 cites currently included add up to 83 individual instances of which a good 48 are either non-Baha'i publications or explicitly scholarly publications or both. Of the Baha'i-sourced references to the best of my knowledge there are 23 and they are only "this exists" kind of references, not being used in the statements of summaries of the positions presented. For example the "Developing Destinctive Communities" reference is not used to state any positions of the religion on any issue - it is cited only to say such a thing exists. The points made about the various positions Baha'is have taken from almost completely from non-Baha'i and or explicitly scholarly works. Perhaps too quick a review of the article in it's current form might seem to not be relying on reliable sources but I think a careful review will make it more obvious. --
Smkolins (
talk) 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding the point I make. Use the sources to talk about the subject of the article "Baha'i Faith on life after death", not on which sources exist and when they were written. -- 16:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps I did - but the section you appear to be now focusing on is a small part, and showing that the topic has been of long and widespread interest inside the religion. It was not meant as a major section by itself but as an introduction to the relative importance of the topic. It also helps focus the attention that this is a review of a Baha'i oriented approach to an issue. I could see the same point made in a more integrated way.... -- Smkolins ( talk) 19:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's the first thing that a reader sees, and I don't really think that it is appropriate. At best it should be a small section at the very end. -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding the point I make. Use the sources to talk about the subject of the article "Baha'i Faith on life after death", not on which sources exist and when they were written. -- 16:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Of the 48 cites currently included add up to 83 individual instances of which a good 48 are either non-Baha'i publications or explicitly scholarly publications or both. Of the Baha'i-sourced references to the best of my knowledge there are 23 and they are only "this exists" kind of references, not being used in the statements of summaries of the positions presented. For example the "Developing Destinctive Communities" reference is not used to state any positions of the religion on any issue - it is cited only to say such a thing exists. The points made about the various positions Baha'is have taken from almost completely from non-Baha'i and or explicitly scholarly works. Perhaps too quick a review of the article in it's current form might seem to not be relying on reliable sources but I think a careful review will make it more obvious. --
Smkolins (
talk) 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The article presents a lot of examples of NDE like trying to validete that the Bahai believe in the after life is true. That not only is pseudoscientific (because is based among other things, in cherry picking and confirmation bias) but aslo breaks Wikipedia's neutrality, and NDE's are very ambigous by their own nature and basically prove all religions afertlife in one way or another. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 06:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- All religions' sense of an afterlife is not a problem from a Baha'i pov (see overall
Baháʼí Faith and the unity of religion.) As for mentioning it being a distraction, the point of the article is not to substantiate an afterlife, but to present the Baha'i pov about an afterlife, which includes individual testimonials.
Smkolins (
talk) 11:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- May not be a problem for Bahais but is a problem for Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. For an atheist there's no afterlife, so the presenting of the NDE testimonials as "evidence" of such in incompatible with their point of view. A lot of people do not think that NDE have anything else than organic or biological explanation. --
Dereck Camacho (
talk) 12:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- You are ignoring what I said about this is not an article about near death experiences, it is an article about Baha'i views about the afterlife. Baha'is have used their experiences this way and it is well documented. How you or anyone interprets their experiences is up to them but not the subject of the article.
Smkolins (
talk) 12:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring anything is just that the argument is still lacking sense. The article explicitly says that the NDE confirm the Bahai beliefs in the afterlife and that's a breakig of the neutral pov. --
Dereck Camacho (
talk) 15:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- It says no such thing. It says people said it themselves. I'd welcome a paper about it all but it is what it is. Nothing broken. If you want to perceive that as a flaw in the religion you are welcome to but it isn't breaking neutrality to say people said something and did so through published sources.
Smkolins (
talk) 16:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Alright I see no advance here, I will request for a mediation. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 17:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- It says no such thing. It says people said it themselves. I'd welcome a paper about it all but it is what it is. Nothing broken. If you want to perceive that as a flaw in the religion you are welcome to but it isn't breaking neutrality to say people said something and did so through published sources.
Smkolins (
talk) 16:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring anything is just that the argument is still lacking sense. The article explicitly says that the NDE confirm the Bahai beliefs in the afterlife and that's a breakig of the neutral pov. --
Dereck Camacho (
talk) 15:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- You are ignoring what I said about this is not an article about near death experiences, it is an article about Baha'i views about the afterlife. Baha'is have used their experiences this way and it is well documented. How you or anyone interprets their experiences is up to them but not the subject of the article.
Smkolins (
talk) 12:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- May not be a problem for Bahais but is a problem for Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. For an atheist there's no afterlife, so the presenting of the NDE testimonials as "evidence" of such in incompatible with their point of view. A lot of people do not think that NDE have anything else than organic or biological explanation. --
Dereck Camacho (
talk) 12:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I am also a Baha'i. I actually agree that the section on NDEs is a bit overblown. Perhaps the title of the section should be 'The Baha'i perspective on Near Death Experiences'. When titled as 'Near Death Experiences' there is an implication that the author/Baha'is are an authority on the topic. While I believe the authors' intention is sincere and heartfelt, and the text prior to that section to be accurate and well researched (We have hundreds of books by the founders of the Baha'i Faith), the section about NDEs could be reworded to make it clear that it is only a related topic and is written to describe examples of certain experiences of a small percentage of the population. Since no one who has had a Near Death Experience can prove to another living human that they really did experience that, it should be noted that these are personal accounts, not proven facts. -- AlphaOmegaEtc ( talk) 23:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, that you are a Baha'i, or not, is immaterial to the question. I'm always open to making articles better but it is based on the sources, not personal opinion. Wikipedia is not authoritative, whatever the headers say or don't. It is simply and exclusively a matter of convenience relative to the evidence provided by sources. Does not "Personal presentations" exactly speak to what you are saying? Above that it just has a section that refers to literature that has been published and those personal experiences. Find sources describing the literature in some manner and that should be included. Smkolins ( talk) 23:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow - you seem quite argumentative. It's as if you did not read my comment at all. I mentioned that I'm a Baha'i to give context, and to show that I am familiar with the topic, and the Baha'i Faith in general. Immaterial to what question?
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate what you have done, and I think it is important for people to understand what the Baha'i Faith is about. Baha'is are expected to have the highest possible morals according to the writings. Harmony, Unity and so on. That is why I've chimed in. I would like the article to be as neutral as possible.
The sentence above "It is simply and exclusively a matter of convenience relative to the evidence provided by sources." makes no sense to me at all.
The 2 sections you refer to (Literature, and Personal presentations) are within the section titled 'Near Death Experiences'. I was only suggesting a more neutral main title rather than one that is suggesting that we Baha'is are some kind of experts on the topic. We are not. And I suspect Dereck was trying to point this out. What exists out there about NDEs are all personal accounts, and I think it is fine to mention NDEs as something like a "See Also" topic, but it does not directly support, or relate to the main topic "Baháʼí Faith on life after death".
I have seen the Reinee Pasarow video, and her account sounds wonderful to me. I had an "out of body" (OBE) experience when I was 14. So, please understand I believe these accounts. But most people will not. I told some college friends about my OBE and they said "Oh, that was just a dream". Consider your audience. That's all I'm saying. Thanks, -- AlphaOmegaEtc ( talk) 20:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't look for argumentation. Assume good faith. Really. Truly it doesn't matter to the fairness of sources that you or I are or are not Baha'is. As soon as it does such a person would be accused of bias. God forbid! And personal experiences have no place in editing - it is all about fair uses of fair sources. As for your proposal of 'The Baha'i perspective on Near Death Experiences' - the problem then is a source that says it is an authoritative (scholarly or institutional) perspective rather than individual presentations. I don't know of any such statement. It has been looked at, it has been published about, but I'm not aware there is "The Baha'i perspective…". Perhaps "Perspectives of some Bahá'ís on Near Death Experiences" but it seems to be excessively wordy. Smkolins ( talk) 00:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I give up. You and I do not see the point of sharing information on Wikipedia the same way at all. I won't disturb you anymore. -- AlphaOmegaEtc ( talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- AlphaOmegaEtc thanks for your suggestion, I think is a good suggestion. Alongside some more explicit explanation that the article is not saying that the NDE confirm the Bahai believes of life after death and some review of the redaction to make it more neutral may be enough. Also it could be a good idea to make it on its own article and/or having an article for Religious views of near-death expeciences. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 19:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like to see more input about the lenghty presence of the Near Death Experiences section. I think it might be breaking the Neutral Point of View as, at least on its current phrasing seems to endorse that NDE are evidence that the Bahai believes in the after life are true. NDE experiences are a very subjective and controversial topic; practically all religions see them as "evidence" of their belief system and people of different religions generally have NDE that coincidentally correspond to their respective belief (Christians report angels and Jesus or hell with fire and devils, for example). Thus its presence on an article about one particular religion might be over-reaching, but I would like to see other people's opinions. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 14:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well I'm not sure where this is happening but if it is happening here, see above.
Smkolins (
talk) 00:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I agree this needs some work – here are some more specific thoughts. (Sorry I'm a bit long-winded!)
- The first problem is that a lot of the sources in the NDEs section do not meet WP:RS. While non-academic sources can sometimes be used on Wikipedia, WP:RS says "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Baha'i publishers are not mainstream publications.
- If we go to Near-death experience#Explanatory models there are various proposed explanations, so I agree with you that we need to avoid implicitly endorsing a given perspective. I think the (unsourced) statement "some have specifically examined parallels between the statements in the scriptures and scholarly statements about stages of near-death experiences" is probably not NPOV. Moreover, while WP:SUBPOV allows a separate article for a particular view of a topic (i.e., the Baha'i view of NDEs), we still need to make clear how it relates to the overall balance of opinion in RS. Quote from WP:NPOV:
In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject.
- So in summary, I think sources that are not reliable should be removed. Some sources might need a little discussion to decide if they meet WP:RS. What is left of the article should be adjusted to make clear there are various views on this, including materialist views like you said. Gazelle55 ( talk) 20:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The redirect
Talk:Bahá?í Faith on life after death 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:Bahá?í Faith on life after death until a consensus is reached.
Tartar
Torte 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)