Talk:Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

History

Here's a quick history: someone made a page called "Baha'i criticism", which had a lot of POV information and was lacking in references. After a lot of debate it was voted to merge with the main Baha'i page. Everyone immediately complained about the huge amount of stuff that was just cut and pasted to the bottom of the article. So I shortened it, changed the format, and put it on a new page called Baha'i apologetics. The Baha'i page now has a short outline and a link to this page. Cunado19 29 June 2005 11:05 (UTC)

Purpose

This page is not supposed to be a debate between pro and anti Baha'is. Everyone agrees that there is a need for criticism (and response to criticism), but nobody can agree on how much or where it should go. So this page is trying to answer both needs. Personal opinions don't have a place in a Wiki article, so this page must be by reference only Or at least as much as possible. In other words, if you state an opinion, give a reference. If you state a belief, give a quote. If you say "the Bible says that alligators are pretty" then you better reference where it says that. Cunado19 29 June 2005 11:05 (UTC)

Page Outline

Here was my idea, which of course needs improvement. I tried to make an outline with 3 major topics (Christian, Islamic, and Principles). Under each of these make sub sections with a particular issue. Give a NPOV summary of why there is an issue, then the rest should be obvious.

I've provided some of the Baha'i responses, because well, I'm a Baha'i, and that's what I do. I welcome anyone to add to the argument parts, but please don't get too detailed or this page will be too big. Stick to major things. Cunado19 29 June 2005 11:05 (UTC)

Just be careful how you tone this page - If it turns into "how Baha'is can combat assaults on the religion" then people might not like it. Don't forget its an encyclopaedia. Try and get sources on this stuff rather than just implying "this is a common response to this argument". Looking alright though. -- Tomhab 29 June 2005 11:37 (UTC)

Content

I copied this from Talk:Bahá'í Faith

On the apologetics page, I'll try to get around to it. To be honest, I don't have a lot of patience for exhaustive Christian/Baha'i or Muslim/Baha'i polemic, which is its main content so far. Perhaps I can add a Hindu section, but is that really going to be the focus of this article--a religion-by-religion critique? With science, secular scholarship, and political criticisms reduced to religion-like categories within that? To me that seems misconceived. I liked the "Baha'i social principles" page idea better.

But first, the "Baha'i humor" page. Let's have all your Baha'i jokes! Dawud 2 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

Just my ideas of course. I wanted to have 3 or 4 sections. The Christian/Muslim things I put in are the most common questions, and usually the first thing on people's mind for Christians and Muslims hearing about the Faith. I don't think they need much more information.

The rest I didn't do much with. If you want to keep the theme of dividing between ideologies, we could call it "Secular/Atheist arguments" or something like that. Or we could just have some general "principles". If you think that's more important, then put it on the top of the page. I don't have much interest in that part. Diversifying the arguments I think adds some credibility to the page and avoids looking like the "Baha'i Criticism" page which was voted for merging. So I vote "no" on the "Baha'i social principles" idea. Cunado19 3 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Let's think about this in terms of the complexity of each "arena" of discourse. On a par with existing categories there could be (a) Baha'ism and science, (b) Baha'ism and Middle Eastern Studies, (c) Baha'ism and feminism, (d) Baha'ism and religious studies, (e) Baha'ism and language policy... etc. for all the areas there have been arguments in. That's a lot of information to digest, I'm afraid. I imagine that each section would have to adequately present the Baha'i position(s) as well as various critics, which could potentially bring each of them to article length. Hmmm... Dawud 4 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)

I like the idea of "Baha'ism and science", although I would call it "Scientific arguments" to keep with the same pattern.

I still think "feminism", "language" and similar things could be a few sub-sections under a "principles" section. But if you have time and desire to make whatever section with a good argument I'll put in a response. Just try to stick to major issues. I agree, this page could get too long. Cunado19 5 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)

Here's an idea. I. Objections from followers of other religions A. Christian objections B. Muslim objections C. (Other religions here as needed) Z. Liberal/ humanist objections

II. Objections from Baha'i dissidents and ex-Baha'is A. Women in the House B. Homosexuality C. Baha'i review D. Kitab-i-Aqdas E. etc.

III. Objections from rival Baha'i groups (see Baha'i divisions

IV. Objections from the academic community A. Number of Babi martyrs (Denis MacEoin) B. Current Baha'i population issue C. "Independent world religion" or "cult"? D. etc.

V. Anti-globalist objections A. A world government? B. A world language? C. One human race? D. etc.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.8 (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Just cause the section was getting too long

Not bad. I did a big remake of the page. I think it's important to separate the internal issues. And I think "arguments" rather than "objections" better describes what's there. Some of them are definitely "objections", but not all.

Let me say right away that it needs a lot of references which I didn't take the time to go through. A lot of them just need a link or quotation to someone holding those opinions. And if you want to expand any of them, try and follow the model of stating a NPOV summary of why there's an issue, argument, and response (I can do the response).

About the Christian/Islamic arguments. I realize they take up a lot of the page right now. I won't object if someone wants to shuffle the page around and put something else near the top, or shorten them. Cunado19 12:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Changes look good. And I have to say, I'm amazed at how much you know about a religion that you don't belong to? You did a good job of stating the Baha'i opinions. I'll try to do some filling in of quotes and references, but I'll be out of it for about a week. I left a quote commented out about Buddha, feel free to put it wherever it looks good. Cunado19 16:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

whoever is making a ton of changes under an open IP, the edits are getting pretty ridiculous in some cases (good in others). Please stick to major facts, and remember this is just to show a few examples of the MAJOR issues, not to extensively deliberate on a ton of issues. I can already see several arguments that need to be combined into one, or simply deleted.

Also, try to avoid using the words "some people say", "some Baha'is say", "Sometimes", "Baha'is should", "Baha'is usually".... you get the picture. I guess these are not bad place holders if you plan to come in with references later. Cunado19 16:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The interpretation of "laws regarding boys" was an old Talisman subject. I think John Walbridge introduced this revision idea, which alludes to the popularity of pederasty in the Middle East. I can look it up if you insist. It's roughly analogous to Jewish and Christian efforts to re-interpret the story of Sodom to remove the anti-gay reading.

Why on earth is four gay questions about homosexuality too many? They do cover different objections. The one about the Baha'i principle contradicting science is an especially difficult one theologically. Anyway, they didn't get covered on the site on Baha'i homosexuality. 218.167.176.136 05:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Right now the page is 45k, which is about twice what a page should be. I think just one brief response to homosexuality is plenty, considering it has its page now. Feel free to add more to the separate page if you think something is left out.

To avoid a chaotic mess on this page I'm trying to reduce each major subject to two examples, and keep them as short and sweet as possible. Several enormous books were written on the Baha'i Faith and Christianity, but I chose two questions which I thought were the most common. Even those responses are longer than I would like. I plan on combining the Hindu arguments down to two examples, and Buddhism also. That should be the end of the religious debates.

OK really, can we at least re-word the "man-on-boy rape" part? Cunado19 06:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this whole page is going to have to be split due to length. The unity-of-religions stuff is an obvious candidate, maybe some of the other religion stuff could go with that.

Since there's now a Baha'i homosexuality page, maybe we should just follow the same example for Baha'i science, Baha'i language policy, and so on. Would that sort of division do violence to any of the topics here, do you think?

Oh, the man-boy love thing. The word "ghulam" sometimes means youth, and sometimes means slave-boy. Some scholars think Baha'u'llah was condemning the act because it involved underaged boys, and some because it involved slaves (who were thus not free to refuse). Obviously the latter couldn't have happened after the constitutional period, but there ya go. I suppose "pederasty" would be sufficiently clear, if legally ambigous.

--Dawud

Or perhpas simply "paedophilia" - its a little less descript, but "man-on-boy rape" is a little overly... well you get me :).

A note on article length - its not best described in the warnings you get, but don't split something if it ruins the article. Sure try and move stuff to other articles but you can easily get articles greater than 120kbs long (recommended article sizes are 20kbs). Don't start carving up just for the sake of it.

Having said that - assuming someone has the energy to write lots of new articles (which Cunado19 seems to be doing quite well at), I reckon the simplest part to do would be to have articles such as Bahá'í Faith and Christianity or the such. Those sections would be easiest removed and linked without ruining it imho. Whatever though -- Tomhab 22:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the article

I made the homosexuality page cause I know tons of people search out that specific information, it's kind of a special case.

With the idea of possibly splitting it, I'll refrain from cutting out anything. I suggest for now we keep working on the page as it is, and see where it goes. There's really a lot more needed before the page starts looking legitimate.

Here's a question. Between Christianity and Baha'i Faith and Baha'i Faith and Christianity, which one is a Baha'i page about Christianity, and which is a Christian page about the Baha'i Faith? or is there a difference? Cunado19 00:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's see. What else would we need to make this work?

Baha'i Faith and World Religions -- include all the religion stuff, both theological and academic religion-studies.

Baha'i Faith and Language Policy

Baha'i Faith and Feminism

Baha'i Faith and Science

Baha'i Faith and the Unity of Humanity

This is do-able, and not too onerous, but it raises a few questions.

(1) Do we keep the Q&A format? I guess so, unless somebody has the energy to go and change it. The worst thing I think would be a big long list of bare quotes from the Baha'i writings.

(2) Is there anything important that wouldn't have an obvious home under this system? For my part I promised a place to state / defend various scandals and accusations. I suppose these could be parceled out to their appropriate entries for the Baha'i administration...

Dawud 13:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this might get unorganized. If we made Baha'i Faith and Christianity or Baha'i Faith and Religions, then it would be more than just a sub-category of what we're doing. It seems like those titles would need a lot of extra information, and we could just avoid that by re-naming it. I suggest we consider Baha'i apologetics a sub-page of Baha'i Faith as the name implies, and make 3 or 4 sub-sub-pages, and not go beyond that.

The language stuff is mostly about Esperanto, and Esperanto is mentioned enough in Baha'i literature, that Baha'i Faith and Esperanto would get my approval and I'll contribute to it. It could have links on the Baha'i teachings page and maybe a few other non-Baha'i pages. Other language stuff could remain brief and stay where it is.

The religions is hard, so I think naming it Baha'i apologetics (religions) or Baha'i apologetics (theology) would be more specific.

Most others could go under Baha'i apologetics (principles), which would cover feminism, unity of humanity, etc. Anything else can stay brief and on Baha'i apologetics. Don't try to turn this one back into the Baha'i criticism page that got deleted. Just state facts and reference opinions.

It might look good with this near the top of the article:

Due to length of subjects, this article has been divided up into the following categories:

• Baha'i apologetics (theology) - Relating to other world religions
• Baha'i apologetics (principles) - Relating to Baha'i teachings and principles
• Baha'i Faith and homosexuality - Establishing the Baha'i perspective on homosexuality
• Baha'i Faith and Esperanto - For the relationship between the Universal Auxiliary Lanuage and Esperanto
• Baha'i apologetics (science) - Relating to scientific subjects addressed in the Baha'i writings.

Then anything left over could remain on the page. I don't like the idea of putting scandals all over the place. I noticed you threw in that case in New Zealand on the counselor page. If not by me, they'll be deleted by others who will see them as out of place attacks. If you think it must be on a page somewhere, I think this is the right page, or Baha'i divisions. But even then, there's no need to go into detail of a bunch of cases. To put it in perspective, people get removed from, or quit religious organizations all the time, and it's never any big news, but when it happens to Baha'is it gets amplified and advertised. There's no reason this subject should take up more then 2 paragraphs with some external links for references. Cunado19 08:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

For Finagle's sake, not "and Esperanto"! Is that the kiss of death or what? Esperanto is a big part of "Language Policy" history because a whole bunch of Baha'is and Esperantists overlapped back in the day. You could say the same about Communism or Theosophy, but in this case they got Abdul-Baha to pontificate about it some. Baha probably favored Arabic, which AB nixed. Dawud 13:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. "Baha'i Faith and Language Policy" is up. I took out the Q&A stuff, that seemed forced.

P.S.S. Another brainstorm, this time about religion. I think we should divide it up by religion after all (at least for the big ones), and make them dialogues. By this I don't mean format. What I mean is--remember when somebody asked "Would Baha'i Faith and Christianity be Christians on the Baha'is, or Baha'is on Christians?" Well, I think it should be both. That way, instead of having to figure out what the "other" religion would say, we could get them to actually come over and play in a common sandbox. Sound good?

This could be the start of (calculating rapidly) between 25 and a zillion entries, should other religions take up the challenge and do this with each other. Let's agree to put each pair of religions in English alphabetical order (Baha'is should love that!). That means we need:

Baha'i Faith and Christianity

Baha'i Faith and Judaism

Baha'i Faith and Islam

Baha'i Faith and Hinduism

Baha'i Faith and Buddhism

And we can let the Zoroastrians slide for now. Remember that each of these should have two sections. (1) "Baha'i Faith on _______" and (2) "________ on Baha'i Faith." Dawud 14:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Be careful how you word things. Baha'u'llah said that "God willing, it should be Arabic." But he also said that the decision was left to the House of Justice (I'm not sure how that's worded, it might say a 'world tribunal'). The point is, Baha'u'llah never said that Arabic is the language, and Abdul Baha never said Esperanto is the language. Baha'u'llah said that one option is to make up a new language. The House at any time could say it's Swahili, and that doesn't go against what the founders said. This is recognized by Baha'is, and nobody sees a discrepancy there, which your article implies. You also left out significant coverage of English, which was also incredibly emphasized by Abdu'l Baha, and which he actually learned to some extent.

I'll go over the language page soon. I think it's a good idea for a page, but it's overly critical right now and making some false statements. You even said Abdu'l Baha had sponsors???

The idea that other religions would come in and edit the Baha'i Faith and Christianity page is why I was suggesting not to title it that way. This is not supposed to be a debate page, period. I still think the best situation is to put brief, concise examples of common arguments on one single page. This is already getting very opinionated, and it's looking less and less like an encyclopedia article.

I'll refer to my previous suggestions for titling of sub-articles. But my first preference is to leave it. Cunado19 15:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

By all means, if you can find some good quotes by 'Abdul-Baha (or somebody like that) on English, add a section on English.

By "sponsors" I mean the people who invited him to speak. Theosophical lodges, Quaker meeting houses, a synagogue, the Society for Psychical Research, at least one Esperanto group...a mixture of far-sighted visionaries and kooks.

One possible solution to the "Arabic or not?" problem is to say that Baha'u'llah wasn't really talking about Arabic as an international language when he wished that everybody would learn it. Maybe that was just symbolic or something. I gather that Abdul-Baha objected to Arabic on the sensible grounds that the language is much too hard.

Encouraging Christians etc. to edit boards in cooperation with Baha'is couldn't be so terrible, could it? If Jews and Nazis could agree on a wiki biography of Hitler, then surely there's hope here.Dawud 13:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

New Pages

Bahá'í Faith and World Religions is up. So far content is more or less the same as here. (Should we start deleting duplicated stuff from the apologetics page, or not?)

This hot on the heels of Bahá'í Faith and Education and Bahá'í Faith and Language Policy. So far everything looks workable.

Next up, I think, should be

Bahá'í Faith and Science

Bahá'í Faith and Feminism

Bahá'í Faith and the Unity of Humanity.

Sound good? Dawud 06:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Did all these (with just a stublet for "science"). Now I'll see what I can do with the "apologetics" page... Dawud 12:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Its only a small point and can easily be changed but.... are Science, Feminism and Unity of Humanity supposed to be in capitals? I'm asking because I'm not sure, not because its a rhetorical question. Do the pages I've noticed you base this on (like Christianity and Science etc) have capital Science parts? The reason why I ask is that I've noticed someone once change all the Baha'i categories from uppercase to lower (Such as "Baha'i Holy Places" to "Baha'i holy places" etc).

You guys are doing a lot of work! -- Tomhab 12:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well Dawud's doing a lot of work. And yes the pages look good. I don't have any opinion on the capitalization. I have only glanced over all the new pages so far and they look like they were much needed. Without having read the pages entirely, I have two comments.

One, to keep it organized, I'll try (or you can) to make sure the Baha'i teachings as well as the Baha'i apologetics page keeps them all documented and linked.

And two, it seems to me like the apologetics and the teachings pages are similar, but kind of opposites. The teachings page should be for the most part devoid of any kind of critique, and all the new pages are in between. If you want these new pages to be a combination of teachings and apologetics, we can either separate the apologetics into its own section, or combine them throughout the text. I vote for the former, and I'm guessing you would vote for the latter. Whatever we do it should be done uniformly. Cunado19 15:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well... As long as they don't ignore each other's side of the argument it shouldn't be too bad. So much has been done it's a little hard to follow :) -- Tomhab 16:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Last I checked, Baha'i teachings (with the diacriticals--really should fix this) merely copies the "teachings" part of the main page, or a version thereof.

On capitalization, I did this more or less unconsciously, since they are parts of titles. (U.S. practice). The Baha'is have an unrelated habit, picked up from older forms of English, in which they capitalize everything referring to the Deity, His Prophets, every Word revealed by His Pen, and All Items related to Him; like that. This became a point of cultural (if not theological) friction among the contributors to a Baha'i encyclopedia, which was ultimately never published due to this and other disputes. But it looks a bit funny when applied to the devil (Who is also worshipped in some quarters) or that Malaysian guy Who recently declared Himself to be God, which is what we'd have to do if we're going to be fair about it. Dawud 03:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ps. The Malaysian guy is Sky Kingdom founder Ayah Pin. Go look, this is hilarious! And let's all ask ourselves whether our own religions aren't more or less the same. Dawud 07:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"our own religions"? What exactly is your religion? And no I don't see much of any relationship between my religion and Mr. Sky Kingdom. The big pink teapot was cool. Cunado19 13:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not a Babi but a Bob-i. See Church of the SubGenius for the one true religion.

Alas, the teapot offended the government of Malaysia and is now destroyed. 45 followers face trial Sept. 1 for exercising what they thought was their freedom of religion. Dawud 13:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources

It is wikipedia policy to cite reliable sources. As any exercise in apologetics often turns on opinion, let me reproduce key points of the this policy and guideline here:

When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources.

When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence ...

From: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

The need for citations is especially important when writing about the opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel phrases such as, "Some people say…" Instead, find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion.

From: Wikipedia:Cite_sources

Additionally, wikipedia policy on the quality of sources is explicit:

For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. ... Therefore, anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.

From: Wikipedia:Verifiability

It has been expressed elsewhere that discussion groups be considered appropriate. Wikipedia policy disallows discussion boards as sources. To wit:

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.

From: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Two items currently in the article lack any external documentation.

• Bahá'í relations with Israel
• Building projects

Until sources for these sections can be produced, bringing the article in-line with wikipedia policies, I'll remove these sections. MARussellPESE 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal Opinion left by 131.252.244.164

Below is the personal opinion left by 131.252.244.164 which I agree with, but which is not encyclopedic and thus should not be in the article -- Jeff3000 15:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Cole, although somewhat informed, makes several factual errors. I question his motives, particularly when referring to "agents" in a negative connotation and "Gulf billionaires" I am an American born Bahai who can say with 100% certainty that Mr. Cole is mistaken on several accounts. The donations come from individual hard-working Bahai's, many of which are highly educated in some form of specialized training(doctors, engineers, lawyers) or proprietors. No agents exist and local Mashriqul-Adhkar(houses of worship) are being built and encouraged. (Although some say they shouldnt be built in anticipation of space shortages as a result of member growth, nonetheless we have two new freestanding Bahai Centers in the Portland area alone where I live) Bahai communities delegate how their funds will be spent based on the decisions of each individual community. If you are interested in finding out more go to bahai.org and read the Bahai's beliefs for yourself. One Planet

Criticism

Now that we deleted the criticism section on the main page, I don't think we did a good job of adding the information to this page. Although I don't agree with the relevancy and sourcing of some of Dawud's criticism, I think there's some value in having a brief list of the major points of accusations against the Faith, as long as there's a source and a really brief response.

In the section on "other issues" we should mention a few of the commonly cited things, like women serving on the House, Baha'is being Zionist agents, inflated population, expulsions, building projects, and I think that's all. It could go something like this...

Population

This guy thinks that Baha'is inflate their numbers to look more legit.

Response

That guy is judging the population of millions with no empirical data and no evidence other than his personal experience and opinion. The more official organizations that try to judge populations of several worldwide religions estimate a number higher than the self reported numbers of the Baha'i World Centre.

See? It's easy. Cuñado - Talk 01:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. But if something is covered somewhere else, that page should be linked.

Women serving on the House of Justice is covered in Bahá'í Faith and gender equality

The population issue is covered in Baha'i statistics

Expulsions is already covered on this page

Building projects, once non-personal website sources are found, needs to be added

Zionist agents is slightly talked about in Baha'i persecution, but could be added here as well.

I'll add the two links. --Jeff3000 02:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Zionism charge

Why delete this? Although the charge is not brought by generic "critics" but rather "Islamist critics", this charge at least is fairly common in Iranian propaganda. MARussellPESE 15:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

because I didn't have any sources for it, and another user put up the "unverified tag." I don't like those tags, because it makes the whole page look bad, when only the Zionism part is unverified. If we can find sources for the Iranian statements, then we should go ahead and put it back in. I'll take a look today. -- Jeff3000 16:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't be hard. A quick google check came up with this (page 2)

and another:

Two Baha'is, Sirus Zabihi-Moghaddam and Hadayat Kashefi-Najafabadi, are currently in prison for apostasy. Their death sentences were reaffirmed in February 2000. They were tried for apostasy alongside Rowhani. Four Baha'is are currently on death row--two for "Zionist Baha'i activities" and two for apostasy. [1]

and there is a book called: Baha'ism is a donation from the tools of Zionist imperialism. (2 Oct. 1974) reference number 24 in this article. Or just search the previously mentioned article for "zionist" and there are more references.

Will any of these work well? Cuñado - Talk 00:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've all-ready added academic references about the claims in the article. -- Jeff3000 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, the "Zionism" section of the article is not great, because it doesn't mention how ludicrous a point that it is. The more important fact is that Baha'is have been persecuted in the past, and it is not necessary to speculate as to why: the fact is, that it has happened. I'm going to try make an edit. Matarael (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical Claims

Perhaps it would be worthwhile in this article to contribute a list of historical statements against the Baha'is which have been proven to be completely unfounded. Such as: that we are orgiasts, polytheists, do not believe in Jesus/Muhammad, syncretists, etc. It could be useful to show that there have essentially been three waves of criticism, and the dialogue has now matured somewhat from complete fabrications, to half-truths, to now genuine questions of doctrinal belief... Thoughts? Matarael (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We'd need to be steer well clear of WP:OR here. I'm not familiar with books that have addressed this in detail. However, there may be various ABS articles, or even some Juan Cole, that are on-topic. I don't think MacEoin discusses this particular topic. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Category

This article clearly belongs in the subcategroy of Category:Bahá'í teachings or (whatever it get's renamed to). It not only covers the principle of the Independent Investigation of Truth which is one of the main Baha'i principles, but covers some of the central teachings of the religion, and how practitioners of the religion explain them. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who Inspired Who?

I added that bit about Baha'u'llah being the source of inspiration, just to show how silly it is to say that anyone was inspired by anyone on the subject. If you go on the Jesus page and say that he was just a reformer who took advantage of the Messianic ideas that were prevalent in his time, your edits won't last long.

During the time of Baha'u'llah and after, all over the world reformers were taking up the issues that he talked about. In China the Taiping Rebellion was a religious movement during the 1840's that preached equality of men and women, abstention from alcohol, abolition of extremes of wealth and poverty, and others (they happened to try to take over the government and got wiped out). As a Baha'i I know that people around the world were picking up on the spiritual currents released by Baha'u'llah's revelation (William Miller, Joseph Wolff, Joseph Smith, Hong Xiuquan, Charles Taze Russell, Shaykh Ahmad, Enlightenment Reformers), but I realize to other people, that idea would be ridiculous. We can compromise and not claim that anyone was inspired by anybody. Keep the ridiculosity down. Cunado19 01:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

PS, I misunderstood the "sponsors" thing. I'm sure you can see how someone might interpret that as "corporate sponsorship" or something like that. I'll find some stuff on English, I think that's a fun page. Cunado19 03:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The Taiping Empire was started by a Cantonese man, Hong Xiuquan, who thought he was the little brother of Jesus Christ (and therefore the second son of God). To the best of my knowledge they did not proclaim gender equality.

Miller was a New York Baptist who "calculated" from the Book of Daniel that Christ would return in 1844. He later admitted his error, but a bunch of other people didn't, and one group became the Seventh-Day Adventists. If the Baha'is officially recognize this interpretation of Daniel, I would appreciate references. Russell was basically the same sort of thing, except he mixed in some pyramid prophecy and started the Jehovah's Witnesses.

And Joseph Smith you know about, I'm sure. (I wonder why God mainly reveals himself mainly to shysters and nut-cases?) If the Christianity entries are inclined to remove this line of thinking (Jesus as a product of his times) then this indicates a serious flaw with the Wikipedia concept. Dawud 13:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. Check out Baha'i Faith and Education. I need to go hunt up quotes for all the stuff I can kind of dimly remember...

In a book called "Sources of Chinese Tradition" written by the UN for familiarization by their employees, it goes into detail about Hong and the Taiping. I don't have an electronic source and I don't even have the book right now. He preached gender equality, abstention from idol worship, abstention from alcohol and drugs, labor/land reform, abolishing extremes of wealth and poverty, and of course that he was the brother of Jesus.

Miller didn't exactly say he was wrong, he said Were I to live my life over again, with the same evidence that I then had, to be honest with God and man, I should have to do as I have done."

After choosing a day for the end of the world, then having the "Great Disappointment", he said that he would do it all over again if he could. Some people insisted that it had to have been correct, and the return was not what people were expecting (hmmm... can you see why a Baha'i would know this)

Miller picked 21 March 1843 to 21 March 1844. Then when it didn't happen he revised the date to 22 October 1844. Wolff picked 1848. Both were using the same prophecies, and yes Baha'is believe they were correct, except that their expectations were literal, not spiritual. For a reference, a Hand of the Cause William Sears wrote a book called "Thief in the Night" which goes into painstaking detail about these prophecies and this theme. The book is included if you download Ocean

Russel was a little cooky, Baha'is don't stand behind him at all as far as I know. Joseph Smith is not held in the cooky light that Russel danced in, but I don't want to get into that tangent.

Was there a point here? oh yeah! To say that Baha'u'llah inspired anybody, or that Baha'u'llah was inspired is ridiculous and opinionated, and biased if you only try to say Baha'u'llah got his ideas from elsewhere without also proposing the equal possibility that they got their ideas from him. Shall we go on the Martin Luther King Junior page and insist that he got his ideas of equality from Baha'u'llah? after all, Baha'u'llah was proclaiming these ideas a century before him? Of course not, THAT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS. Cunado19 15:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

And obviously, the Bayan is a literal plagiarism of the traditions of the Ahl Bayt iow, the Twelver Shia Muslims. --Lilac Cotton 13:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Cotton (talk • contribs)

Section headings

We lost a section here because it was deemed to be lifted from a source - having a close look at the article it is arguable that most of the real information concerned is actually already there anyway. I have replaced the "persecution" heading (of little actual relevance)with the "conspiracy theory" one. I believe this is an improvement - and in fact better than trying a "use your own words" version of the text that was deleted.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

Added mention of "inaccurate Baha'i statistics" - as this is a major criticism of the Faith, and especially of its Administration, to anti-Baha'i writers such as Cole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofmusicals (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologetics my eye!

Most of this article is not about the subject described in its title!

I'd like to see the "Baha'i apologetics" matter kept here - and the various criticms of the Baha'i Faith hived off to a new "Criticism" article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely disagree, this article is appropriate as it is. Most of the reliable sources that discuss the issues on this page are framed as apologetics, and criticisms. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"Apologetics" for a religion (or anything else) and "polemics" against it both necessarilly have a strong POV, and prima facie at least are unencyclopedic. Some of the Baha'i articles may well be "apologetic" to a degree that leaves them in a state where they need to be rewritten in a more dispasionate tone - but I think on the whole they are reasonably fair (certainly much fairer than opponents of the Faith would be!!). On the whole most Baha'i articles at least mention all the relevant "facts", including those that are not notably factual. On the other hand we need to recognise that quite a large proportion of our readers are more or less hostile, while the great majority really don't give a toss. The purpose of the Baha'i articles from an encyclopedic point of view is not (or should not) be to convince anyone, but simply to provide (all) the facts in as neutral a tone as possible - what we don't want (as Baha'is or as Wikipedia editors) are articles that non-Baha'i readers will (perhaps rightly!) regard as obvious "Baha'i propaganda". This article is currently very strange, and I think it does either need splitting, or renaming - the lead (which is NOT a summary of the article, and is in fact on another subject altogether) is followed by a list (NOT a complete one by the way) of criticisms that people raise against the faith - each one linked to what ought to be a fair (and dispassionate) assessment of relevant facts (rather than arguments). If they (as opposed the sources) really ARE "framed as apologetics not criticisms" then this is basically an admission that they have a non-neutral POV! Hysterically biased prose, that taks about (for instance) "Iranian conspiracy theories" is really totally unacceptable. The picture it presents to "the public" is one of a mob of closed-minded fanatics. This is not only far from the impression we would (as Baha'is) like to convey, it is also (on the whole) far from the truth. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The list of items in this page are mostly not criticisms (i.e. unity of religion, etc, etc) and are not meant to be criticisms, and in fact if you look at the history you are the one that has added to the list to make it more a list of criticisms, like the Baha'i statistics page, where in fact that page has very little to do with criticisms, and in fact the criticisms regarding the statistics virtually all come from the blogosphere are self-published sources and by definition are non-reliable. Again, most of the criticisms come from polemic sources that by definition are not reliable, and there are very little reliable sources that deal with the criticisms, and most sources deal with apologetics, and that's the way Wikipedia should deal with it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I hit an edit conflict with Jeff, so if the following seems disjointed: apologies.

These are all sound points, Sound. If I can summarize them for, hopefully, ease of consultation:

1. Some Baha'i articles may be more or less apologetic — thereby compromising their encyclopedicness.
2. All the Baha'i articles must be encyclopedic. This will most fairly represent the Faith and the reflect the best efforts of the Baha'i editors here.
3. This particular article is strangely organized with a start on an introduction and then a series of links to potentially problematic articles.
4. There is potential that the reader, some hostile, will take apologetic articles as evidence and/or confirmation of the Baha'i community's defensiveness at variance from the truth.

(Sorry, Sound, if I garbled some of it, but I want to address your most salient points.)

I couldn't agree more with your basic points here. (I started a project page several years back to track this.) I'm certain that Jeff does as well.

There are probably two threads in the editorial history that merged with this article. These are that early on there was an almost incessant drumbeat to add "Criticism" sections to every article and the other to add even whole "Criticism" articles. While the latter can get bounced for being NPOV, generally lacking references, and being WP:CONTENTFORKs, "Criticism" sections have been much more difficult to address.

There has been a penchant among the journalists for some time that "fairness" in presentation means "equality" in the material presented. This has unfortunately crept into the general consciousness and masquerades as critical thinking. Fortunately, WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID both come to the rescue and allow the editor to ease the tone down. Under those circumstances the "criticism" is presented with whatever genuine source is available and then the Baha'i response is presented with its sources. This "blending the criticism into the article" approach is a valid WP:CRIT method following the WP:SUMMARY style. And I think that it most effectively presents the whole of the picture rather than separating articles or sections.

However, as the drumbeat for a "Criticism" article never really died, I think that this article be came a dumping ground to collect these into one place with links to the various articles.

So, it would appear that points 1, 2 & 4 of my summary of your points stand without contention. It's been on the minds of the long-serving Baha'i editors here for some time. If you see any problems with particular articles please have at them. I you want to flag me or Jeff, please feel free.

On the third point (This strange article). I'm all for deleting the material on Making the Crooked Straight as off topic and already covered in Bahá'í Faith in Germany. The discussion on apologia could go to the Bahá'í literature article.

But, what would be a good thing to do with the rest. I think that deleting these links will raise an understandable hue and cry. Would a re-title of the article work? What would be both accurate and NPOV? MARussellPESE (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually LIKE the part of the article that has a brief summary of the "criticisms" concerned, with a link to the specific article on the subject - even if the article linked to IS a little "apologetic". I think it is probably just what some of the people disturbed by running into a positive article on the Faith are looking for. Every religion (philosophy, scientific hypothesis etc. etc.) has "difficulties". The main article on the Faith actually mentions most of these quite frankly (for instance "no, we don't approve of homosexuality" and "yes, Baha'u'llah did have three wives") - but of course a hostile or doubtful reader is unlikely to go through a long article to extract this kind of thing. We get a fair few comments like - "ah, but you don't mention"... (when of course we DO). In this context, a "criticisms" article (call it what you will - provided the title is descriptive and not misleading as it is at present) consisting, at least for a start, of the body of this article, complete with those links would be really good. What exactly you'd do with the current lead I'm not sure. Seems to me if you want to do an article on the subject of Baha'i apologetics then it is totally inadequate. Do we actually want an article on Baha'i apologetics? Because if so then there is obviously a lot of work to be done (and no, its not something that would interest me!!). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a suplementary post to adress some of the points raised by Jeff. The worst we could be accused of so far as the criticism itself not being reliably sourced is setting up a straw man. The fact is that people DO criticise the Faith. We have all heard (and/or read) most of the points they raise. A common one in Australia is "it looks good, I might be interested if you cut out all that god nonsense". I believe atheism is less popular in the U.S.? Similarly, a lot of criticsm is basically honest disagreement with particular Baha'i teachings. If you're a racist then the idea of the oneness of humanity isn't going to look very attractive. If all salvation comes from Jesus the the oneness of religion is plain blasphemy. Then there are criticisms based on the idea that we don't follow the teachings strictly enough (no women on the UHJ etc.). And finally there is the real (*VERY naughty word*) like "they're all Zionist spies!!!". If we hear this sort of thing frequently - or read it in many blogs, then I don't think that the fact that there IS a criticism to a certain effect is something that really needs a strict academic "cite" (not that it isn't nice if we can find one). The answer to the criticism needs to be well cited where at all possible of course - especially when it's more than just "well - basically you're right there - we like it that way".

I am concerned that Baha'is (on the whole) think that the articles are just fine, but some of imagine that anything that would raise an eyebrow at a cluster meeting is unfavourable POV and needs to be expunged immediately. As a result, at least some of the articles look too much like sectarian propaganda to be taken seriously as sources of information by non-Baha'is (even reasonably fair minded ones). Like justice - NPOV needs to be seen to be done. Both the interests of Wikipedia (and, even more importantly, the interests of our Beloved Faith - if you'll excuse me going all earnest for a moment) are best served by being completely open in a way that actual Baha'i literature might not be (for whatever reason) and presenting an opposing POV now and then, even if we immediately go on to knock it down. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand me. I strive very much for neutrality, and if you look at my edits on the Baha'i pages I remove material immediately if it is from a pro- or anti-Baha'i view and I strive to always use sources that are published by third-parties (i.e. non-Baha'i publishers). You may notice that in many of the articles I've sourced I've used Amanat and MacEoin as sources which can never be seen as being supportive of the Baha'i institutions. Also What I'm not trying to say is that there are not criticisms, but they are either (1) self-published and giving them any space doesn't abide by Wikipedia's policies of verifiablility or they are (2) from polemics (such as William Miller's book, or many of the Iranian propoganda) and also don't meet WP:V or they are (3) fragmented and by themselves don't meet WP:UNDUE. However, don't tell me that they are not included in Wikipedia when they are well sourced. For example the supposed recantation of the Bab in the Bab page and so forth, but there is no academic work itself on the totality of the criticisms and that lends to the fact that there isn't enough material to create one on Wikipedia. If you want to restructure this page to be more apologetics, go ahead, but the creation of a criticism page is not appropriate. Also if you want to edit the other pages to add more neutral statements, go ahead, of course based on reliable sources that don't go beyond WP:UNDUE. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Going to meditate a bit more on this one - just reading all the different definitions out there of "apologetics" (consensus seems to be "a defence of a viewpoint (especially a religious one) from attack") is giving me pause. By no means so sure (on profound reflection) about what needs to done - although most of the lead definitely belongs elsewhere. Incidentally Jeff - I am not blind, and am therefore well aware that you have shared my concern about Baha'i articles on Wiki (and done far more than me to adress these) for a long time. In principle I don't much like the idea of a "criticisms" page either - in fact I have argued against the necessity for one myself in the past, but... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no criticism!

There's no criticism in this article, yet the Criticism of Bahá'í Faith redirects here. I suspect there once was an article on Criticism of Bahá'í Faith, but it has disappeared in the process. Is this the same kind of process that exists within the Bahá'í Faith itself where all criticism is hushed down and too open critics are expelled? Then since this is Wikipedia, Wikipedia policies override internal Bahá'í rules, and Bahá'í adherents shall here act according to Wikipedia policies. It is reasonable to believe that Shi'a Islam criticises Bahá'í, while most other religions may or may not care about Bahá'í. I have seen a lot of personal critics of Bahá'í when googling for "Bahá'í" and "criticism", mostly former Bahá'í that have rejected Bahá'í, so there are at least Shi'a Islam and internal critics. I'm trying to come to grips with Bahá'í, reading both from its own standing point and from the critics standing points - I'm treating my own Christian Lutheranism this way too, this is just a matter of understanding by reflecting - but if there exists no criticism, I'll come to suspect that there's something weird about Bahá'í. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The internal critics you refer to are not verifiable or reputable, so Wikipedia's own standards exclude them. The greatest actual criticisms of teachings and practices are all mentioned on this apologetics page, and the details are on the sub-pages with further information. What is considered criticism depends on the person. The House of Justice is only for men; some people don't think that's a big deal. The non-acceptance of homosexuality is vile to some; others think the opposite. In other words, contentious issues are not tagged as criticism, they are just stated as fact, and the reader can reach their own conclusion. The things you're looking for are all on this page already. If you're surprised by the lack of depth on the page, then that says something about the religion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Say if there was a criticism site and somebody said - "The Baha'is are very wicked because their women don't wear the veil - they worship God in the same room as the men, and do not even cover their hair there"... (Believe me, there is an "anti-Baha'i" website that basically says this!) Then does that tell you more about the Baha'is, or about the people making the "criticism"? On the other another person might say - "They claim to have equality of the sexes but their supreme body has nine men on it and no women. Many Baha'is even find this a little strange." Well that point IS there and the Baha'i explanation, for whatever that might be worth to you, is there too. The main site on the Faith has everything laid out - including what some people find weird, incomprehensible, or hard to take. This site further treats each specific "FAQ" in a straight forward, informational, encyclopediac way. What you might miss is rhetoric, sophistry, and abuse - well if these things are important to "coming to grips" with the subject, there are plenty of ant-Baha'i sites out there to pick from! Christianity doesn't get the treatment you are looking for on Wiki either, nor do other religions and no more should they. A good encyclopedia is not about making up your mind for you, but giving you the facts to make up your own mind. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this seems like a bit of a gravedig, but I really have to agree with people who are saying that it seems...odd to say the least that the Baha'i Faith doesn't get a criticism page in the same way Christianity and Islam do. 108.48.190.62 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Read above and below. Tons of talk to reflect on. --Smkolins (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism article

I think every other faith has a criticism article, so I think there should be one for this as well. Any thoughts? --Be happy!! (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that this article, after being remade to reflect that it is a list of criticisms, should try to be as detailed as possible to match, say, the ones on Christianity and Islam. 108.48.190.62 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Read above and below. Tons of talk to reflect on. --Smkolins (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I took out the line about the zionist conspiracy charge "justified" by the presence of the B'hai temple in Israel. Nothing "justifies" an unproven charge -- I replaced it with "rooted in-part in." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.54.211 (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Issues discussed elsewhere"

If we start to discuss them here as well then we really get off the point of the article (in so far as it HAS a point at all. That's what the links are for, after all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Answer the above before adding more details - the whole point of this section is that the issues are fully discussed elsewhere - all we should have here is a brief mention. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This article!!!

OK - I promised a long time ago to go away and meditate (even pray, and I fear I pray only under extreme provocation) about this article - here is the results - no discernable divine guidance (alas), but at least my earnest opinion, for whatever it might be worth!

The "lead" here (apart from the last sentence) is very specifically about a particular book, and needs (if it going to be here at all) to be more suitably titled (NOT Bahá'í apologetics") - which is no subject for a general encyclopedia, and which it is not about, anyway.

The body of the article should be in an article called, as this one used to be, "Criticism of the Baha'i Faith": a simple statement of the objections that people have - or the reasons they give, when all is said and done, for not being Baha'is (even of the not very devout variety, like me) themselves. The "objections" are "short and sweet" in themselves - if they needed to be expanded at all then it would probably be up to the "anti-brigade" to do the expanding - without any "question-begging" on either side (that's what fairness means, folks!).

It is important that the objections are properly answered - but not (please) here. For starters they are answered very well indeed in the main article - and this refutation is repeated, and in some cases amplified, in the special articles on specific questions linked to (for heaven's sake!) under the heading for each "objection".

I am again thinking very strongly of deleting that totally incongruously inappropriate lead, and moving the remainder to its actual subject heading. In the meantime, please refrain from expanding bare statements of objections with what will otherwise soon become replicas of information which can already be found (in duplicate!!) elsewhere. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Criticisms"

The bulk of this article is effectively a list of "difficulties" some people (most of them, we hope, not Baha'is themselves) have with various tenets of the Faith. There is no need HERE to add detail about a particular difficulty, to answer the difficulty, or to remark that Baha'is are not themselves particularly troubled by the difficulty. Each difficulty is linked to a detailed treatment of the question - we assume that anyone interested enough to pursue the matter will simply click on the link. Several topics about are well worth reading, or re-reading, by anyone who wants to add notes such as "But the Baha'is themselves are happy with this". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

New lead

This is (deliberately) very short and to the point - and probably needs a good rewrite. I have plugged it is regardless as I have entirely because, after a lot of pussy-footing around the problem of a lead that had nothing whatever to do with the article that followed did need to be urgently addressed (see several remarks above. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we have a similar goal, just approaching it in a different manner. Please edit more. Editor2020, Talk 02:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

On Baha'i Statistics

The fact is that some very trenchant critics of the Faith have laid great stress on the "fact" that Baha'i statistics are deliberately deceptive. The point being, perhaps, that "if they lie so much about this how can you trust what they say about anything else?". Now of course we don't want anything as NPOV as this - what we do say here needs to be a fairly blunt but reasonable statement of what is actually said in criticism of the Faith in this context. Ideally it wants to be referenced and all, to make it clear we are not setting up a straw man. Since a positive article on the subject is linked - no need to repeat its basic argument here. Now I've tried to work out what might replace this section, without getting very far - has anyone else any ideas? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Think I have got this about right now - added my own "cn" tag because we do really want a reference here to avoid the "straw man" criticism. Comments welcome. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

NPOV? - Level of detail?

At least one editor feels this article is (from one side or the other) biased.

It is the function of an article like this, as opposed, perhaps, to a tract either defending or attacking the Faith, to present a fairly even-handed statement about what the usual points of controversy actually are. The aim has been to achieve the desired "balance" by keeping it short and simple

What we DON'T want is lengthy description of arguments "pro and contra". Nor do we NEED such detailing (at least not here) - because the detail is all well covered in various other places, which are specifically linked, and where (we hope) such sufficient relevant detail as can be properly documented is added in an unbiased manner.

The libel that Baha'i properties in Israel are mostly "stolen" from their rightful owners (for instance) is well covered in the Political objections to the Baha'i Faith article - even the few instances where a case could be made are documented and referenced. Certainly no need here for unreferenced and not carefully factual coverage of the subject. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Slavery

This seems to be unredeemed original research - don't put it back without a reliable source! -Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand that the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh's ownership of slaves is deeply disturbing, particularly to those who wish to use an encyclopedic reference like Wikipedia to promulgate the Bahá'í Faith. Nevertheless, the references provided do constitute "unredeemed original research." A35821361 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the following - the germ of truth in all this is indeed very interesting - but the facts (or at least the single most damaging "fact") are at variance with the truth, in so far as any of the sources you list are concerned. See the following. I share your disturbance that anyone would wish to "use an encyclopedic reference like Wikipedia to promulgate the Bahá'í Faith" - thoroughly unethical, and in any case most unlikely to be productive anyway, surely.

Apparently the whole question of The Bab and Baha'u'llah owning slaves was raised by one Peter Terry in 1999 - in an email message to the Universal House of Justice. Can’t find his original email – but a copy of the reply is readily available in several places, both Bahá'í and “otherwise”. You can surely locate one of these through a Google or Yahoo search “Servants in the Households of Bahá'u'lláh and the Báb”. Interestingly, all the texts you refer to in the new version of the “Slavery” section of the “Criticisms” article (as well as several others) are mentioned in this email – even the supposedly suppressed Black Pearls. Etexts of most of these are also available – and they are, not surprisingly, quite innocent of any of the “criticisms” in your new section. (I have personally “electronically scanned them” with “cntrl F”). Where this matter is referred to in any of the Bahá'í sources you cite (I note you don't cite any non-Baha'i ones)it is stated that Baha’u’llah freed all the slaves in his household as soon as he could (presumably on the death of his father, when they became his to free) – and gave them all the option of entering his employ as free paid servants. Unsurprisingly they took the choice of leaving his household – all but one who chose to stay, with his new status as a free paid servant – the loyal Isfandiyar –(who is of course a Bahá'í hero in his own right). Apart from this your new section could have well been directly derived from the text of “Servants in the Households of Bahá'u'lláh and the Báb” – since it contains no references not mentioned in that work – and only its single most damaging statement specifically contradicts that work. As for the Báb owning slaves (apparently the receipt for the purchase of one exists in Bahá'í archives – so this fact is certainly not a “secret”) it has to be remembered that the Báb was at no time subject to Bahá'í law. It is still interesting, at least, in view of the very powerful and unequivocal condemnation of slavery in the Kitab-i-Aqudas!

Do we actually want that Baha'i Faith and slavery article? No OR for it of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There are several other points to note. First fact that slaves were noted among Persians was something hardly talked about and today Persian-African studies hardly mentions the area to the point that if Abdu'l-Baha and others actually talked about it, it is a breaking of the social norms of the day and since. A number of recent scholarly discoveries lend further awareness on what happened and what it means - see

• http://bahaiteachings.org/a-slave-educates-a-prophet
• http://bahaiteachings.org/bahaullah-frees-the-slaves
• http://bahaiteachings.org/liberating-every-slave

though I've yet to see exactly how this could incorporated into the advancing subject hereabouts. Mischaracterizations abound. One article published is at The Ethiopian King, by Nader Saiedi Translated by Omid Ghaemmaghami, Baha’i Studies Review, Volume 17 2011 doi: 10.1386/bsr.17.181/7 - - - - as references for contexts at the time

• http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/amcdouga/Hist349/resources/imperial%20eunuchs.pdf
• http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080673
• http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/38508/12480962345Disputed_Freedom.pdf/Disputed%2BFreedom.pdf
• http://15minutehistory.org/2015/08/26/episode-70-race-slavery-abolition-in-iran/
• http://ajammc.com/2012/06/20/the-afro-iranian-community-beyond-haji-firuz-blackface-slavery-bandari-music/

Smkolins (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Another whole concern is are there actual criticisms of the Faith documented out there in reliable sources because of this issue or is this just trying to develop the criticism? Smkolins (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

After my own research on this I don't think we can justify excising ("censoring") it - but from all the sources I have read it is currently highly POV - the "references mentioned lend its more contentious statements little or no support. It needs to be rewritten in a fair and balanced manner - and brought into harmony with the sources (probably no need to go into others) - the "main article" is a straight cut and paste - and needs, to be fair, to include matter concerning the background (like slavery had only just been abolished in the British dominions - and remained legal in the United States in 1844). What I have done for the moment is to correct the totally unreferenced claim that Baha'u'llah sold a slave to pay a debt(!) - replacing it with the fact that while he inherited slaves he only retained one, and then as a free paid servant. Anyone who likes to have a shot at getting the rest redone, and adding specific cites for particular facts - would be grateful - I am undergoing treatment for very bad cataracts at the moment and am still effectively half-blind. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of the Bahá'í Faith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127015745/http://www.aa.psu.edu/journals/war-crimes/articles/V1/v1n1a3.pdf to http://www.aa.psu.edu/journals/war-crimes/articles/V1/v1n1a3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Slavery and statistics

I appreciate attempts to brainstorm controversies and keep the page thorough, but these two sections are not controversies. There are no third party sources on any of the sub pages referencing them as controversies or documenting anybody criticizing the Baha'i Faith for these subjects. In my life I've never heard of these as any kind of controversy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is quite a widespread rumour that the Baha'i administration is guilty of deliberate exaggeration of the number of believers. To be honest - we have all seen that one, haven't we? Having the link here (referring to the specific article) is probably helpful in countering this argument rather than otherwise. The slavery one also crops up here and there - it is, again, useful, both from the point of Wikipedia as a comprehensive encyclopedic treatment of all the topics it covers, and also a fair, open, and transparently honest depiction of our Beloved Faith. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both - that I've heard no serious review arguing Baha'is inflate numbers while at the same time I've heard lots of non-experts (i.e. actual academic/profession practitioners of demographic statistics in religion) castigate Baha'is on the matter. I do however have an example professional review that comments directly on the relatively high quality of data from American Baha'is - see page 2 of "Religion Census Newsletter" (PDF). RCMS2010.org. Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies. March 2017. Retrieved March 17, 2017..

I have not seen or heard of Baha'is inflating numbers. I think what you're referring to is that most Baha'i membership rolls have lots of inactive people that don't show up at events or aren't known. That is not inflating, it has to do with the difficulty of maintaining an accurate count of membership, and people tend to change their beliefs without telling anyone. It is just difficult to get a count of any religion, not anything specific to Baha'is. Again, there are no reliable third party sources anywhere on Wikipedia pages (that I've seen) showing this as a controversy. It looks like original research. The same goes with the slavery reference. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And I agree I have not heard of Baha'is inflating numbers from reliable sources of any type but I have heard it a common refrain in conversations and by people largely inexperienced in the nuances such as you point out, Cuñudo. As for the slavery part, again, I don't know any reliable sources that take the Baha'is to task because early leaders of the religion had slaves but I have seen the occasional raised eyebrow until it is considered what was normal in the period. People seem to sometimes think slavery only existed in America and the whole idea it was common enough in Persia is new to most people and that there was a process of transition Baha'u'llah personally lead to ending slavery, vs an ultimatum that just killed it off, is something people I know have had to grasp. Smkolins (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Smkolins - did you actually post the above - somehow it seems a bit suss to me! anyway, assuming it is your post, and the signature is not "faked" - my answer is on this outdent --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want "reliable sources" just wipe this article - I'm quite serious: "reliable sources" as such simply don't come into it. The "sources" that (for example) hammer the stale old argument about exaggerated membership numbers, or claim that Baha'u'llah "didn't abolish slavery" are indeed "not very reliable", which is largely the point of the exercise. By definition they have a heavy axe to grind, and little or no regard for the facts. Unfortunately, it IS worth answering them - in an open manner, that includes what partial truth there is there. The "actual truth" is that the usual figures quoted on Baha'i numbers are not even from Baha'i sources, and Baha'u'llah NEVER owned slaves (he inherited some, who he freed as soon as he could) - and He DID abolish slavery (within the Faith anyway) - the text in the Aqdas couldn't be much more specific. I will concede that these things are not part of a rational controversy, with two well argued sides, both based on arguable interpretations of the facts. But that could be said of most so-called "controversies", couldn't it? So what is the answer, not have a criticisms article at all and get accused of one-sidedness? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am probably quite wrong, but I almost get the impression that some earnest people really do feel that the articles on Wikipedia should have nothing in them that couldn't pass muster on the official Baha'i website. In a way I agree, that would be nice. In the case of a comprehensive, "public" encyclopedia article, on the other hand, we have to have something inclusive of a non-Baha'i point of view - albeit fair. It's not simple. The record of prolonged discussions of Baha'i editors (by no means just me) with some at times pretty virulent anti-Baha'i people on the talk pages of several articles on these topics shows how this "hard road" can lead to more complete, objective, and ultimately (at least to a fair-minded reader) more convincing presentation. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that the entire page needs to be deleted. There are a few common objections people have, like homosexuality or men on the Universal House of Justice, and it's useful to make a list. But I'm suggesting that I've never personally heard of these two issues as controversial in the least, and I don't see any third party sources saying it. It is almost deceitful to list them here as criticism. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest version

The idea of grouping "objections" under main headings is a very good one - I have introduced my own version of this here - hopefully it "works" fairly well. I quite agree that the specific objections have widely variable relevance, basis in fact, motivation etc. I don't think this article, which is basically a list, needs to have anything subjective (from either side) - nor do we need (not here, anyway) to evaluate - either by adding emotive or slighting language, or omitting what we "don't like" (however trivial or irrelevant it may seem). I have however cut a couple of statements that are simply patent falsehood, or raised gratuitous conclusions. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Statistics

The article currently says that a criticism is allegedly inflated membership numbers. There are currently no reliable sources mentioned on this page or the sub-article Baha'i statistics. This is lacking verifiability and making a vague statement. To make this criticism, someone would need to show evidence that someone knowingly inflated numbers. What I've seen in my personal experience with numerous religious groups is that people give two numbers, one is membership on paper, and one is more like "how many people we see at least once a year". In the case of Baha'is, the NSA of the United States releases a number of enrolled Baha'is, and it's broken down to known good addresses, but nobody knows what the participation is because that is not tracked. If someone suggested that the published membership data is inflated because it includes inactive people, then they are misinterpreting the data. There doesn't even seem to be a controversy here. Please add a reliable source showing criticism of membership inflation or remove the section. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We have been through this one several times now - to recapitulate (yet again).

• It is standard fare on anti-Baha'i websites - not to mention an obsession with the "Wikipedia Baha'i Opposition" among editors here, that there are almost no actual Baha'is at all but we claim that there are squillions of us all over the place and we are about to "take over the World". I exaggerate but not very much. The "Baha'i Statistics" article is a specific reaction to this kind of nonsense. Losing the link to it in this article would be negative from every angle.
• Like almost every section in the article, the "Criticism" is not really very valid (all kinds of reason, which I won't go into here). But if we censored out all the sections of this article that were not very valid we would be basically deleting the whole article. We don't (and quite right) go into any detail - in particular we don't either elaborate or "verify", nor do we justify or rebut any of the points made - a link to a "special" article that examines the question concerned (hopefully in a sensible, fair, NPOV way) is clearly the way to go. In a way this article functions as a kind of disambiguation page.
• It IS arguable that this whole page, which the WBO mob argued for so hard and long, is load of [naughty word] and needs to go. If that were to become a Wiki consensus I personally would have very few (if any) regrets. But if it is to stay it does need to mention all of the main salient points, however daft they may seem from anything other than the point of view of a committed opponent of the Faith. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

India claims 2 million Baha'is, and even if that is an exaggeration, there are still lots and lots of Baha'is there. The US claims 130,000, which is a phony figure deriving from Wilmette's propensity to simply raise its claims rather than bothering with real teaching. (Juan Cole)

The writings and webrants of various folk are full of statements like this - to claim that There doesn't even seem to be a controversy here. Please add a reliable source showing criticism of membership inflation or remove the section looks like wishful thinking. Of course Cole's nonsense isn't a "reliable source", and could never be used as a reference - the POV is anything but "N". But I quote the above, which I dug out using Google, to demonstrate that it's not a "straw man" either. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I get your point. Like I've said before, I'm not trying to delete the page or cover up criticism, I think the article needs a major style rework. It currently looks uncredible and sits awkwardly between a summary style article and a stand alone list article. If it is to be a summary style article with parent/child relationships, then the parent (this page) should have summaries similar to the lead sections of the child article. In this case it doesn't. Some of the articles being summarized don't mention a controversy. Some don't have sub-articles. The current page is also not a list because it tries to summarize the controversies... poorly and with no references.

As an aside, the Cole example is not a quality reference, it's just personal ranting. I honestly, truly don't think there is a controversy going on over numbers. I know what the real controversies are, and I have no problem elaborating on them here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(outdent)

Not suggesting for a moment that the Cole nonsense is anything but that - included it here rather than "referencing" it in the article for that very reason. What it DOES prove is that Cole definitely raises the allegation. And everywhere Cole has been, a good many others have followed, alas, as you have no doubt noticed. There is, as far as I can see, no valid "controversy" about most of the "criticisms" raised here - certainly not from a Baha'i point of view, or that of a fair-minded non-Baha'i either for that matter. But then that isn't the point. My "problem" with elaborating each "criticism here is that it would constitute WP:UNDUE in spades - since almost all the points are well covered elsewhere - not just in the main article, but also in each of the "sub-articles" linked here. The value of the article as it is is that it brings together a series of very succinct statements that serve as starting points where someone actually seeking the facts can go by following the link. If it doesn't fit some stereotyped "category" of article very well then so be it. I think the nearest "category" is in fact a disambiguation article (sounds strange, and of course it isn't quite the same thing, but think about it!)

In any case, I remain, at least at the moment, quite unconvinced that the article you are describing would be an improvement on this one, for what it tries to do. It would definitely be a totally different article and it would need to be rewritten from scratch. Are you prepared to write your alternative article (perhaps offline) and stick the result in your sandbox, where we can all have a look at it and come to a sensible consensus? I have done something similar with several of "my" history of aviation articles - in fact I am in the process at the moment. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Figures quoted in Bahá'í-cited sources often differ markedly from those tabulated from official government census data.

Nation	Census data	Bahá'í-cited data
Barbados	178	3,337
Belize	202	7,742
Canada	18,945	30,000; 46,826
Guyana	500	11,787
India	4,572	1,897,651; over 2,000,000
Mauritius	639	23,742
Norway	1,015	2,737

References

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This table started as census vs Baha'i cited but it was never really "Baha'i" sources - that's why the current table has all three columns. Smkolins 20:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

And THIS is just one of the reasons THIS ARTICLE doesn't (and shouldn't) go into specific detail - we have a whole article for Baha'i statistics, which should be reasonably complete in itself (within the bounds of WP:UNDUE) - and where all comments, such as Mr A35821361's latest, belong. This is really nothing more than a place for finding articles that cover points sometimes cited as criticisms of the Faith. So far as is possible, matter that might be contentious should be kept to a single article, conducting what is really the same argument in a rack of different places is patently fraught and unproductive. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Forbids slave trade, not slavery

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas outlaws the slave trade for Bahá'ís, but does not ban slavery.

It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God's servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet. Thus, by His mercy, hath the commandment been recorded by the Pen of justice. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bondslaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him. He, verily, is the All-Wise, Whose wisdom encompasseth all things.

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 45)

A35821361 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is really splitting hairs! It can really only be sustained by taking the first sentence and ignoring the rest of the verse. How can a verse including the words "all are but bondslaves before the Lord" be taken as permitting slavery? - in fact if that was the whole thing one could only take it as prohibiting the practice as well as the trade. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And anyway - while we have a specific article linked here - any argument about it belongs on the talk page of that article, not here! I was as remiss as Mr. A35821361 for answering his comment here rather than on the right talk page. Having the same discussion going all over the place instead of on one page is obviously quite unworkable. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of the Bahá'í Faith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708151832/http://christopherbuck.com/Buck_PDFs/Buck_Islam-Bahais_2005.pdf to http://christopherbuck.com/Buck_PDFs/Buck_Islam-Bahais_2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Slavery yet again!

Since Baha'u'llah freed the slaves he inherited from His father it is non-neutral to imply that he was a slave-owner in the sense that (for instance) George Washington was. Neutrality cuts two ways. In any case the note in this article is meant as a link to the specific article on the subject. We don't need full detail here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"Right to life" vs abortion.

The Baha'i viewpoint on this one seems to be pretty close to neutrality - it certainly doesn't seem to be one that attracts much "critical" attention. If it were mentioned in one of the main articles on the Faith, or had its own specific article, then it would be justifiable to note it here. Otherwise, with due respect, it is a bit of a strawman. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The only strawman is stating the restrictions on birth control is limited to a prohibition on abortion, when in fact it also extends to all forms of permanent sterilization (including vasectomies and tubal ligations). Regards, A35821361 (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe the standard for the article is there is some documentation in reliable sources that the topic is notable to mention in this article, not everything you can think of A358…, nor everything the world struggles over. Smkolins (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned before on this talk page, this article is essentially original research unless you have reliable sources documenting what the criticisms are. It's not supposed to be a page where editors brainstorm criticism. It's worse when some of the linked articles themselves don't even mention a controversy because it basically doesn't exist. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Citations?

Of course the article hasn't any citations - for the same reason a disambiguation page hasn't any! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If this is the case then the linked pages should have a criticism section - yet the linked pages just have an explanation of the given topic. E.g. for Unity of Religion - the page on that does not talk on the criticism to that idea. Perhaps it doesn't need to, as that's meant to be the purpose of this page. This page is certainly structured like a disambiguation page but it is crucially not a disambiguation page - it is meant to address the criticisms against the Bahá'í Faith. If you want a better idea as to the level of citations I think this page should have, take a look at Criticism of Christianity. Is that like a disambiguation page or is it like an article which lists and explains the various criticism against the religion? Hesnotblack (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I am going to put the citations tag back up, but only because I believe this page is in deep need of citations in its current state. (If I had the time I would find and try to cite the whole article myself.) If you disagree or revert the page again then I guess we'll have to discuss it on here. Hesnotblack (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You may actually have a valid point there about there being insufficient "objections" to Baha'i teachings on the linked pages. But even granted this one - the question has nothing whatever to do with citations as such. Think for a moment, what would such a citation verify? and would it make the linked article any more balanced or relevant? Citations add nothing to disambiguation pages, which this one has become over the years, whatever may have been the original intention. No logical reason for it to follow the exact format of the equivalent page for another religion, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually... had a further look at the actual linked articles, and many of them of them do include objections - even where this is not the case, a clear positive statement of what is believed is not at all a bad thing to refer someone looking for objections to. Surely the obvious objections are implied - can't someone from another religion/non-religion supply their own? What exactly would a more balanced article include - "But Christians and Muslims don't accept this", however well cited, would not, I fear, be terribly helpful.---Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if for sake of arguement I agree with you, that this is a disambiguation page, then this means this page should make as few statements (criticisms) as possible (and in turn the linked pages should have criticism sections). That would negate needing to have citations.

The reason why Wikipedia has citations in the first place is because people may question a statement and, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, these statements should be neutral facts - facts that need evidence backing them up. Thus, following this line of reasoning, this page should make as few statements as possible.

However, I think you'd agree with me that this shouldn't be the case. This article should document and give a reasonable level of incite into the criticisms against this faith. For this reason this page requires to make statements and therefore these statements need citations. Currently there are many statements being made on this page, and they do not have citations, which is the reason I wanted to put that tag up. So hopefully you understand why I believe this page, in its current form, requires citations.

There is a logical reason for it to follow, to some extent, the format of an equivalent page for another religion. That logical reason is simply that it is the same type of page. Logic would dictate that similar pages should follow similar "format"s. I believe you circumvented my point that I was making with regard to the criticism page on Christianity. My point was that it has citations for each criticism as some may claim that a certain criticism "isn't a criticism". How would you combat that? Again this is the reason wikipedia has citations - so people can not remove facts which they believe are not accurate.

Coming on to what I believe was your last point, as I understand it, you seem to think that those pages don't need critical sections as "a clear positive statement of what is believed" shall help the reader deduce the criticism of the faith. First of all I have to say that I respectfully disagree. The point of this page is to point out the criticisms against the faith. If you move this "job" onto the linked pages then one of the purposes of those page should be to show objections against certain articles of faith. If they omit this then no page meets this need to point out criticisms. In light of that, secondly, I'd like to remind you that wikipedia pages should be neutral, and it does not seem so neutral to not mention criticisms because they are "implied" or because people of other belief systems can "supply their own" criticisms in their minds.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! It is meant to give you information and facts. It is not meant to give a one-sided point of view, and then expect you to "supply" your own points. The people reading this page want to learn what the objections are - they don't want to be told to "supply" their own criticisms! Hesnotblack (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This has all made me think whether this page could do with just more detail in general (along with citations of course!). Let me know what you think. Hesnotblack (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

First - I like your re-wording of the lead. The original was mine (as you may have gathered) - and yes, I do have a (fairly obvious) bias, although I tried to put it in as neutral a way as I could. On the other hand, while an article about what the members of a religion (or non-religion) believe should definitely be as factual as possible about those beliefs - the question of what would constitute "balance" can be a delicate and difficult matter, and would vary from religion to religion and topic to topic. It will differ between religions with many sects and divisions with widely divergent ideas (say Hinduism) and those with basically a single doctrine. Talking about one religion at a time is probably more encyclopedic than trying to compare two of them - for instance bringing Christian or Muslim doctrine into a discussion on Judaism might be rather "fraught". The Wiki "powers that be" very rightly advise us against turning the talk page of an article into a discussion blog or forum, and tell us to restrict ourselves to discussions likely to improve the quality of the article concerned - but within this commonsense provision this is evidently a matter on which differing views can be held. Finally, the purpose of a citation is to lend support and verification to a specific point and a tag requesting one should not be applied to indicate that someone thinks an article is "biased". If you haven't already done so, read the article WP:CITENEED! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me, if you read my points above, I am not accusing the article of being bias (although I do suggest that the idea that this page is a disambiguation page is misleading, and following through with that line of reasoning, I stated that the linked articles should have criticism sections - something you suggested shouldn't be done, as "[people may] supply their own objections", which suggests bias on your part - not the articles; My edit has nothing to do with this discussion here, I was simply making the intro come across more neutrally), nor do I condone the usage of the citation tag to indicate the article is biased. Indeed I have read that article which you linked before putting the citation tag at the top of the page, and as I outlined in my first point - the page meets the requirements for that tag. Again, I never told you that I believe the article is bias and therefore needs a citation tag. To suggest so is simply not true. When someone can question material it is necessary to back that material up with citations so they may not question it. This is stated in the article linked.

Also I never tried to make this talk page into a discussion blog or forum... Where did I make any such statement that would lead to this conclusion? All my statements have been with the purpose of improving this page via adding more citations to it. I had to add detail to my point to ensure you wouldn't refute it.

My last point with regards to wikipedia being an encyclopedia is especially pertinent. We must cite facts. This page makes facts. Therefore, logic dictates, we cite the facts this page makes. You suggest that this is a disambiguation page. A disambiguation shouldn't state facts. That way there is no need for a disambiguation page to be cited - as you suggest. But this page does state facts. Wouldn't you agree?

Please tell me which part of this you don't agree with - as the way I see it, you seem to be fundamentally disagreeing with citing this page for no particular reason (or a reason that leads to a logical contradiction, as outlined above).

Also again, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the citation tag I placed was because of I thought the article was biased... Even if it was biased, the reason I put the citation tag up was because the page makes statements without verifying them (sorry to keep hammering this point but I really want you to understand my reasoning). You even agree that this is the point of the citation tag. So I see no reason not to put it up. Unless you can come up with a clear reason for not putting up the tag, I may put it up again in a few days. If you take it down again, without supplying a good reason, I think it would be best if we could get an admin to arbitrate on this or something. As I am quite new to wikipedia, I am not sure how this works - would be great if you could explain it to me or link a help page.

(Sorry for any grammar/spelling/other minor mistakes, unfortunately I don't quite have the time to proofread my response this time, also sorry if I came across as being angry - I'm not :) ). Hesnotblack (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'll chime in that one of the angles of the history of the article is people posting what seems like arbitrary individual opinion as a criticism and the point has been made that at least a citable basis needs to be made that it is in fact a published criticism in reliable sources. As for the balance of content about here vs other articles… I'd say it depends on the strength/breadth of reliable sources that speak of the particular subject as a criticism - whereas most would seem to be about the subject in a broader context or examination which then leads, to me, to being most relevant in a dedicated article about the subject which should here be just summarized, albeit with citations, briefly. But this would also demand of editors a careful, mindful, balanced approach, in a context where some long winded editors have sometimes gone to great lengths to foster non-encyclopedic content and conspiracies only falling short and faltering in their attempts when the actual rules and policies of wikipedia are brought to bear with much effort. Such an effort actually robs development of other articles and gets tied up in knots of incompatible points of view and lack of oversight to achieve a worthwhile effort. And this article had been a magnet for such issues in the past though it is not the only example. It might be helpful to understand this.Smkolins (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I previously made the same argument as Hesnotblack, that this page is inappropriately lacking citations and sits in between a summary style and a list. It's on my long term plan to do a complete makeover of the page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Abortion

Is BeleifNet's summary brief unsubstantiated statement "which does not include promotion of abortion rights" constitute an actual criticism? May I even specify that it is the promotion of abortion rights that is being pointed at if I read the grammar carefully - rather than abortion rights itself. Smkolins (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The promotion of abortion rights relates to promoting abortion as a right of the mother, which the Bahá'í Faith does not support by supporting the opposite - i.e. not allowing abortion. Thus, in my opinion, it is pointing to the actual abortion rights. It is also listed with other critical points.

More proof that it's a criticism? I'd point you to the words "Hot Issue". Regardless, the Bahá'í viewpoint matches up with the right to life arguement, which in turn is criticized. Thus the Bahá'í view by extention is criticised. Regardless, I believe that the source is relevant - though I might try to find another just to add clarity to this.

Hope I helped. Hesnotblack (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well you "helped" by using an unreliable source. So ... No? You didn't? And you engaged in OR by lining up one point to make another. And you've now multiplied the length of time this discussion goes on and on and on. You also seem to agree the source you used in the first place is weak. I would say that your pov that the religion does not support the option of abortion as a gross oversimplification - it is perfectly allowed with medical advise that it is needed to preserve the life of the mother. Rather than an actual criticism this presentation here comes off as a knee jerk reaction of hot-button issues elsewhere being painted onto the religion. Smkolins (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, I have had more time to reflect on this source and have spent the last hour searching for a more concise and clear source. The more I look - the more I'm inclined to agree with you, as I really can't find any article which points to abortion conclusively as an actual "criticism" of the religion. I agree now that there is a certain distinction to be made between "lack of promotion" and "After looking through some of the more pressing criticisms of the faith, I will remove the section as it is unsubstatiated - although if anyone reading this does find much more concisive evidence that this is an actual criticism then they should undo my edit. Please don't use BeliefNet as a source - it's wording begets a different meaning from the point that is trying to be backed up. Hesnotblack (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you pursued the factual accuracy. Taking the time to check on such matters might save some air time discussing points that turn out not to be what one thinks is actually best. It was the point I was making too based on my expereince as a researching Baha'i and long time contributor to wikipedia. And I don't think being a Baha'i is inherently biased. I recognize good scholarly content when it comes both as a editor of wikipedia and as a Baha'i. There is no need to bring up if I should use BeliefNet as a source and there is no need to lecture me. I do apologize if my points were not clear and my tone misleading - I was trying to be friendly. I hope we can both move on in good faith in ways that actually make wikipedia better - which has always been my approach. There is a major text I'd consider using as a source for the article - a PhD that was turned into a book - if I can find it. It's about "Baha'i Lore" and involves unsubstantiated "hearsay" type knowledge passed around as fact and the PhD recognizes actual mistakes actually documented. But I have other projects I work on too. Smkolins (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• BTW for prosperity sake I want to note my comments here were in the context of Hesnotblack's comments that he later deleted here. Smkolins (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Archive of this page

What happened here? A bot archived a bunch of this page into archives by month, but the current talk page does not link to the archived discussions. It also did not archive the older posts. Does anyone have an idea on what to do? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

well rats. I tried to set it up but it appears wonky. I'm not an expert on this though…. The urls to the individual archives is there but the syntax for showing them seems off.Smkolins (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

btw note I set it to only run archives on things 120 days old…. Smkolins (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• the sample I tried to follow is at [2]. (sigh) Smkolins (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the search box actually works… but I cant get the archives themselves to show… so far….Smkolins (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've asked for help… Smkolins (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If possible, it might be easier to just put it all back together and try again. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Really not sure. But the content is all there. If you search for 2005 you'll see the various months from 2005 that were archived and so on. Smkolins (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)