Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 21

As I said in my edit summary, new religion is *contentious*, the opposite of observing the sky is blue - one reading of "new religious movemement" is "we're too polite to call it a cult, but it's clearly not an established, respectable religion." Just read the article at New religious movement and tell me if it's a straightforward definition that we're linking to. "New religious movement" needs a citation and it's instructive that reputable citations like Britannica could have feasibly chosen to use the term but didn't. Slac speak up! 12:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right all the references in the previous section describe it as "a religion" (most common) or "a religious movement" or "world religious body". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Lacrimosus, there is an interesting discussion on this topic, here: https://bahai-library.com/essays_new_religious_movement

I would recommend reading "Letter Four" by Denis MacEoin and its reply "Letter Five" by Robert Stockman.Serv181920 (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion there (oddly in forum form) is about "world religion" vs "new religious movement". The article currently says "religion", which should be acceptable and reflects the majority of independent sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Denis MacEoin says "To say that the Bahá'í religion is a world faith on a par with Islam etc. is, whatever the arguments used to justify it, a nonsense on too many levels." He also says "I've placed it [the Baha'i faith] among NRMs because I haven't found a better place." Baha'i scholar Robert Stockman says: "The category "world religion" I had always assumed had been invented by Bahá'ís, and I am a bit surprised to hear some sociologists have used the term."

In the first letter MacEoin states: "Unless somebody can come up with a better classification, NRM will have to serve."

I know Baha'is are not using the words "world religion" for their "faith" but I also disagree with the removal of word "new" from the first sentence. That's incorrect because it is a "new religion" with very few followers.

I will put a question regarding this on the relevant noticeboard to learn more from other editors.Serv181920 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say MacEeoin is not only not the defining scholar but a minority opinion to the point of obscurity as a class of about one. Smkolins (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine, that is your opinion about him, but the fact that the Baha'i faith is a new religion should not be censored.WP:CENSORServ181920 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You have no argument. The leading paragraph gives the timeframe of "established... in the 19th century" and the second paragraph gives birth/death years of the four major individuals. Nothing is censored and its current wording reflects how it is portrayed in independent reliable sources. Or... maybe you want to describe it as a "new religious movement" to fit your view that it is a neutral term that some people interpret to mean "cult". Provide a survey of reliable sources describing it as a new religious movement or stop wasting our time. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Cuñado, I'm not sure accusations are the most productive was to have this discussion. The term "new religious movement" isn't a euphemism for cult, it's a way to describe religious movements that are new, purposefully to avoid any judgment. The Baháʼí Faith is very widely considered to be an NRM, as it was founded in the 19th century. Obviously Wiki is not a source, but the NRM list article has several sources recognizing the Baháʼí Faith as an NRM. (I've listed some below) There is no negative implication in that term, all religions were new at some point. ^{[1] [2]} AnandaBliss (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Or, even better, no adjective at all (as current text). This is the lede, where description should be kept as simple as possible - in particular avoiding the gratuitous addition of adjectives with possible POV connotations. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the lead, I was talking about a general description of the Faith. I really don't have any opinion either way bout the lead paragraph. It don't think it's inappropriate, that's all I was saying. Also, NRM has no negative connotations, it was invented specifically to avoid those types of things.AnandaBliss (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

AnandaBliss thanks for providing actual sources (intentional jab at Serv181920). The second source doesn't mention the phrase "new religious movement". The first provides this commentary on page 2 that says why it uses a completely different phrase: "Scholars have used a variety of terms to avoid the negative connotations of "sect" and "cult". Some have employed "marginal," a term certainly less pejorative then "cult," but still one that tends to minimize the importance and value of the group in question. "Nonmainstream" has had some following, but it is cumbersome. "New religious movement" has been generally embraced by scholars and by adherents of the nonmainstream religions themselves, but it has at the same time been the source of confusion: does it apply only to truly "new" (at least in the United States) religions, or does it apply to all nonmainstream faiths? The prevailing tendency has been for the term to apply to a wide spectrum of religions, old and new, but it remains ambiguous. It may be that no perfect term exists to describe nonmainstream religions succinctly, but this book adopts a usage that seems to be properly descriptive without bearing heavily pejorative connotations: alternative religions." (Miller, p. 2)

Here's another neutral, reliable source describing the Baha'i Faith in a book subtitled Sects, 'cults', and alternative religions: "A world religion with no racial or national focus... a relatively new religion... It is a new worldwide religion... (p. 244) a major world religion... (p. 248) the second most globally widespread religion... (p. 249)" (Barrett, 2001: The New Believers)

So far MacEoin, with some neutrality issues, suggests "new religious movement". A large majority of neutral third party sources don't. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that a majority of sources concerning themselves with what a New Religious Movement is would definitely include the Baháʼí Faith. I don't know what neutrality issues User:MacEoin may have, but a Faith that is new (timespan very vague, I know, generally since ~1800) is generally considered an NRM. I'm also not aware of sources that say that the Baháʼí Faith is not an NRM, which ought not have connotations beyond "religious movement that is relatively new." Personally, I think that using NRM to describe something "nonmainstream," whatever the age, is a misuse, but that's beyond this article. As for the lead, I don't think it's necessary to spell it out there, since readers can see when it was founded. Please know that I'm not opposing anything you're saying, I just don't think that NRM has or should have any negative connotations, as neutrality is the whole reason it was coined. AnandaBliss (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If there's a good, reliable source out there that says "the Baha'i Faith is a new religious movement" - using the term in the same way the article that was linked to in the intro does - then great. Provide that source, and the problem goes away. Slac speak up! 20:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem, I am not trying to get this phrase into the article, and I do not know why your tone is so adversarial. But that's not how academic sourcing typically works, the Baháʼí Faith is often featured in works regarding New Religious Movements, the sourcing for which is very easy to find. For example, the reference sections of the NRM and List of NRM articles. It is a religious movement that is new, how does that not fit the definition of a New Religious Movement? AnandaBliss (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

AnandaBliss I think that tone was directed at Serv181920, the initiator of this thread. Things like this have been going on for months. Thanks for contributing! Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think "religion" is fine, it doesn't convey any sense of how large or small it is, or how prominent or obscure. I think an editor should give a list of say four sources if they want to use "new religious movement" in the lead sentence (given its potential connotations). That is probably the best we will get since there aren't a lot of review papers available on the Baha'i Faith, given the scarcity of peer-reviewed literature on the topic compared to larger religions.

Cuñado and Serv181920, I've been watching your debates for some time now and—I know this is hard to imagine—I honestly see no compelling evidence that either of you is here in bad faith or to push POV. Can we try to bury the hatchet and work together? You have different views on what constitutes neutrality but it doesn't mean anyone's deliberately violating NPOV. And Cuñado I know you've been editing a lot longer than Serv181920 and so know the rules a lot better, but it might help if you spelled things out in disagreements. E.g., before telling an editor to stop wasting your time because they didn't use a review paper, explain the difference between a review paper and other academic papers, and why we prefer review papers for contentious points. Most people don't know this stuff. Serv181920, before assuming Cuñado is hopelessly biased, see for example that he has recently added criticism of Baha'is to the Baha'i review article, for example. Anyway, I hope I haven't enflamed things further by saying this. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55,Cuñado and AnandaBliss, I am not pushing my POV. It is a "new religion" and that is a fact accepted by Baha'is, former-Baha'is, scholars of religion and others! Here are the sources:

The Baha’i faith is a new religion founded by Mirza Husayn 'Ali

https://bahai-library.com/balci_jafarov_bahais_caucasus (This is by Azer Jafarov, the same person who claims Musa Naghiyev is a Baha'i)

The Baha'i Faith is a new religion founded 150 years ago. (Moojan Momen)

https://www.momen.org/bahai/bahaimap.htm

The Light Shineth in Darkness: Five Studies in Revelation After Christ, Udo Schaefer (George Ronald)

https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=QMwOAAAAIAAJ&q="new+religion"&hl=en

ZOROASTRIAN CONVERSIONS TO THE BAHA'I FAITH IN YAZD, IRAN (Dissertation - Stiles, Susan Judith)

https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/274855/azu_td_1321402_sip1_w.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

Islam and the Baha'i Faith

https://bahaiproofs.com/SectIslam.htm

The Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings By William McElwee Miller, Page 258

https://books.google.com/books?id=gc3_6HVvZzkC&pg=PA258#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you think I should share more sources please let me know. My experience with the Baha'is have always been unpleasant because of their double standards and their pushing and imposing POVs on others. Don't understand how this is going to help them and for how long!Serv181920 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Cuñado. Sorry if I got a little frustrated there. The Baháʼí Faith is, foremost, a religion and in the introduction, I do think it's appropriate to simply call it as such. And even though my stance is that NRM is a totally neutral term, a new reader may get the wrong message if they think an NRM is somehow different from a "regular" religion. As for the discussion below, "alternative religion" sounds somewhat marginalizing to me; alternative to what, exactly?

Serv181920, let's not get too riled up about things, editing an article about people whom you feel are "unpleasant because of their double standards and their pushing and imposing POVs on others" can get a little dicey. I frequently have to go on "Wiki breaks," myself. Any section of the article that talks about academic study of the Baháʼí Faith could reflect scholarly discussion and/or disagreement about how to characterize it, maybe that's the best way to approach things. AnandaBliss (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC) (edited)

AnandaBliss, that's correct, there should be scholarly discussions. I try my level best to produce acceptable sources but sometimes I get a feeling that Baha'i editors want to control entire wikipedia (of course Baha'i articles) and don't let anything come against their religion (be it a very minute point) even if it is from strong academic sources. Be that as it may, i am in the learning phase and I am learning from these very editors. :) And I don't let wiki-editing disturb me. Have a nice day.Serv181920 (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cuñado, Smkolins, Excommunication is also a Baha'i term and used multiple times in all kinds of sources. Why are you removing it? Gazelle55, what are your thoughts?Serv181920 (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A quick check finds the vast majority referring to Christian history or people who were named covenant-breakers complaining about their treatment. I think other uses are extremely rare and usually by people trying to reference the idea and if you look at the excommunication article it's full of Christian references and makes the point repeatedly that other religions don't fit well with the label as I said repeatedly in the edit summary.Smkolins (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• To elaborate I only found a single use by a national assembly using the term as seems to be described here. Nothing other administratively. Smkolins (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I will put some sources tomorrow if I get time. Have a nice time.Serv181920 (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, Adamson uses "shun" and "avoid association"; Smith uses "avoid association" and "excommunicate". Technically the dictionary definition of excommunicate is, "officially exclude (someone) from participation in the sacraments and services of the Christian Church". I'm not really hung up on which word to use. They all are fairly synonymous. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think "shunned" is pretty clear already. We could also have "excommunicated," but I think the key point then is whether the sources being cited use the word. Or if a lot of sources used the term, then we would need to add one that does before putting the word in the article. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the critical difference (and the reason "excommunicated" doesn't quite fit as a Baha'i term) lies in the exclusion of participating in the sacraments of the Catholic/Christian church. Sacraments are non existent in the Baha'i Faith. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. We should add "Baha'i faith" section to "Excommunication" article and mention the difference.Serv181920 (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are the sources for "excommunication" in the Baha'i faith:

• Johnson, Vernon (2020). Baha'is in Exile: An Account of followers of Baha'u'llah outside the mainstream Baha'i religion. Pittsburgh, PA: RoseDog Books. ISBN 978-1-6453-0574-3.

It is there at least 4 times in the above source.

• Geller, Randall S. (2018-12-20). "The Baha'i minority in the State of Israel, 1948–1957". Middle Eastern Studies. 55 (3). Informa UK Limited: 403–418. doi:10.1080/00263206.2018.1520100. ISSN 0026-3206.
• Momen, Moojan (2007). "Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community". Religion. 37 (3). Informa UK Limited: 187–209. doi:10.1016/j.religion.2007.06.008. ISSN 0048-721X.
• Smith, Peter; Momen, Moojan (1989). "The Baha'i faith 1957–1988: A survey of contemporary developments". Religion. 19 (1). Informa UK Limited: 63–91. doi:10.1016/0048-721x(89)90077-8. ISSN 0048-721X.

In the above source Smith and Momen says "Shoghi Effendi had no children, and he himself had previously excommunicated his siblings and cousins..."

and

"In turn, this doctrine is supported by the policy of excommunication of those 'covenant-breakers' who vehemently oppose the authority of the centre"

• Bacquet, Karen (2006-05-01). "When Principle and Authority Collide: Baha'i Responses to the Exclusion of Women from the Universal House of Justice". Nova Religio. 9 (4). University of California Press: 34–52. doi:10.1525/nr.2006.9.4.034. ISSN 1092-6690.

Above source states "Any sort of organized protest movement would be considered “covenant breaking” and result in excommunication,..."

• Ellwood, Robert S. (1975). "Book Review: The Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings". Missiology: An International Review. 3 (3). SAGE Publications: 387–389. doi:10.1177/009182967500300317. ISSN 0091-8296.

Above source states "...much of Baha'ullah's own family was excommunicated."

• Fussell, Anita (1973-03-18). "Orthodox Baha'i: A Minority Viewpoint". Lincoln Journal Star. Lincoln, NE. p. 2F. Retrieved 2020-12-19 – via Newspapers.com.

These are just a few sources. I can produce more if our Baha'i friends don't agree with these. Serv181920 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't used - I said it was a loaded term and had a Christian focus that non-Christian religions find it objectionable. But fine let's review some alternatives:

• 687 uses of "covenant-breaker" at Bahai-Library.com
• 396 uses of "apostate" at Bahai-Library.com
• 348 uses of "excommunicate" at Bahai-Library.com
• 127 uses of "Ex-Baha'i" at Bahai-Library.com
• 49 uses of "disenrolled" at Bahai-Library.com

Why aren't we talking about "apostate"? Smkolins (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I also found this in Udo Shaefer's book:

The divine law does not contain a legal definition of this offense, but from the scriptural passages, it is clear that only exponents of subversion and sedition are covenant-breakers (naqidu'l-mithaq): they who "sow the seeds of doubt in the hearts of men" and promote "discord" and bring about "division." 'Abdu'l-Baha calls them "mischief-makers" who are "seeking leadership." Because they do not declare their evil intentions openly but instead "they secretly sow the seeds of suspicion" — "sweet in words, ... but at heart a deadly poison" — they are also referred to as "hypocrites" (al-munafiqun). As the covenant-breaker has struck with his axe at "the root of the Blessed Tree" the divine law provides that covenant-breakers, along with all who continue to associate with them, be cast out from the congregation of the people of Baha. The believer who has been excommunicated is no longer a member of the Baha'i community.

https://bahai-library.com/pdf/s/schaefer_introduction_bahai_law.pdf

Edit: Smkolins, I noticed your comment just now. Will read it and respond.

Serv181920 (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Smkolins, You have only searched bahai-library.com. There are other sources also. And don't you think your findings are WP:OR Serv181920 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Its a representative sample of available sources. It conveys a pattern. I didn't summarize to add documentation. I showed pretty plainly that excommunicate is a minor term at best and we're spending a lot of time discussing it when the vast majority of sources do not and other words are at least as common as that one, and that one is often cited in the very article as not fiting well with non-Christian religions. Smkolins (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920, I think you've amply shown that "excommunicate" is used in reliable sources. So I think you should feel free to create a Baha'i section on the "Excommunication" page. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see what happens. Smkolins (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920, you have a pattern of giving a few sources that state your point and then insisting upon it, whereas what you should be doing is surveying many sources to see what is the common way to address the issue. I don't care about this issue but your style is not persuasive. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Smkolins, I wanted to touch base about including that India number. I see I made a typo in my edit summary which probably made it unclear... what I meant to write is we don't need *two* estimates for one country. My point was that the paragraph right above (citing The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004) already gave a list of the largest national populations (including India's, which it estimates at 2.2 million). I apologize since with that typo it looked like I was saying we shouldn't have individual country estimates at all. With that in mind, is it okay if I remove the point again since the same info is already covered? Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Gazelle55 I can see what you mean and my edit didn't fix it. But it's a broader problem actually. Most of the information is repetitious but the later data seems more relevant and slightly echoing the problem of other pages where there is a pseudo-continental breakdown blending into countries and the later data is mostly countries. I'd favor some kind of merger while keeping the best of both. Perhaps something like:

The world's largest Baháʼí population according to the Association of Religion Data Archives lives in India, which in 2010 was home to an estimated 1,897,651 Baháʼís,[102] and its religionists are the largest numerical religious minority in Iran.[107][108] This was out of a generality in Asia of about 3.6 million from a nearly contemporaneous analysis by The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004.[106] The religion is also the largest numerical religious minority in Panama[109] and Belize,[110] and the second largest international religion in Bolivia,[111] out of a generality of Latin America of some 900,000.[106] The Bahá'ís were the second largest international religion in Zambia,[112] and was the third largest international religion in Chad[114] and Kenya,[115] out of generality of Africa of 1.8 million.[106] Aside from these countries, numbers vary greatly and no country has a Baháʼí majority.[106]

This is just a rough draft. Make sense? Or are the 2020 numbers out yet? If so maybe re-write the whole section and mind that the 2004 World Book probably isn't a good overlap. I'd welcome suggestions.Smkolins (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Smkolins, sure I like the idea of integrating the continents and countries. What you wrote looks good in general to me (though I find "religionists" a bit awkward compared to "adherents").

As far as sources, I agree that more recent would be better. The World Religion Database released 2020 numbers by country behind a paywall. I looked into this before and it looks like Wikipedia wouldn't allow us to include the whole list for copyright reasons, but I have access and could add the top few largest numbers. I'll have to check if they list percentages this time. For continents, there is also this 2019 article based on the World Religion Database. And probably there are other sources I'm not aware of too. Gazelle55 (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I've asked my library for a copy and they've agreed to get one. I'm to be notified when it comes in. Though with covid mucking things up I don't know when that will happen. Smkolins (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I fear that the copy at hand might need some sprucing up. It hasn't been reviewed formally in almost 15 years, and I'm not sure it complies with MOS rules at present. There are for instance incomplete citations (^{From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer dated 9 June 1932}), ^{[citation needed]}-tags, short stubby paragraphs, lists, see also-section, image tagging problems, as well as sandwiched images. Nutez (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes it's a bit of a mess. I find it much easier to work on simple articles with fewer sources. In the last few years I've acquired many books from independent sources covering the Baha'i Faith, so I can help clean it up, but we're talking about a significant amount of time involved. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I edit articles on Baha'i topics a lot and would be happy to help with gradually cleaning this up. In the meantime, I'll put a few thoughts here. I think another major shortcoming (as Cuñado was alluding to) is the large number of non-independent, non-mainstream sources used for much of the information. There are quite a few high-quality sources that can be added instead. The persecution section quite reasonably focuses on Iran, but after that a broader selection of countries could be used rather than focusing so much on Egypt. I think a (brief) criticism section is also appropriate as per Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism. The basis for that already exists at Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith. One last note is that while Peter Smith's books of 2000 and 2008 are good sources, we don't want to rely on them excessively for the article. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a GREAT idea. I don't know that I'll be able to spend a lot of time editing the article myself, but I'd be happy to contribute my thoughts on talk pages/votes/whatever depending on the need. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, for anybody working on cleaning up this article, this edited book may be the best resource available yet. It doesn't seem to include non-Baha'i contributors such as Warburg, Amanat, and MacEoin, but overall it is up-to-date, comprehensive, and features a broad range of contributors. I haven't found a way to get access yet but other contributors might have options. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I got that in the mail two weeks ago but haven't had much time yet. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The symbol of the Baha’i Faith is the nine-pointed star, not the five-pointed star stated in the article. 2600:6C4E:1200:16A5:CC5D:B828:13F:DECE (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

please check the citations. The five pointed star is more officially 'the' symbol. The nine pointed star is used more casually but it is mentioned on the symbols page. Smkolins (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed the term “controlled-infiltrated Sect” (sic) and replaced it with “sect” and hyperlinked “relatively new religion” to New Religious Movement. I understand there is something contention around the NRM thing but that’s not really what I’m commenting on. Feel free to remove the word “sect”. I considered removing it entirely and still am. What exactly could that mean other than conspiratorial accusations of heresy? How is “controlled-inflated sect” anything other than subjective/vandalism? I very well might be missing something, so let me know or reword at will. I’m watching the page. -.+ThAYYta+.- (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It's well documented in the note and makes it much more convoluted to read with such inclusions, aside from very pov content being mingled with sources. Also there was a fair bit of discussion bring this to a concensus how this is described. Smkolins (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Pardon, Gazelle55, about , but how does a Master of Arts thesis from the University of Arkansas count as "do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources" as you put it? Smkolins (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Smkolins, in WP:SCHOLARSHIP (which is a part of WP:RS), it says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I am sure there is a good source that talks about Queen Marie's conversion out there, but I think for this page in particular we want the source quality to be going up, not down. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Gazelle55, would you care to review the main article for more satisfactory sources and instead of just subtracting actually make the article better? Smkolins (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Smkolins, I appreciate your concern for improving this and other articles and the hard work you have put into improving Wikipedia. That said, I think we have some major differences as far as what "makes the article better". If you copy the article into your word processor you will see that the article is already long enough as per WP:SIZERULE, so expansion of content on Baha'i topics should be on the more specific pages, not necessarily a lot on this one. More to the point, I strongly believe that insisting on source quality improves the pages. Even still, I haven't gone on a blitz and removed all the unsourced or poorly sourced material from this page, because like you I would rather wait for better sources. I removed this material because it was new and it's already been noted on the talk page that this page needs cleanup to maintain its Feature Article rating.

To be clear, what I do on Baha'i pages is the same as what I do on other pages. I am interested in the topic of entheogens/psychedelics, and yet I make a point of removing sub-par sources from those pages and try to reflect the full range of scholarly opinion on the topic. If you go to psychedelic experience, the page is still not perfect, but it is a lot closer to encyclopedic than when I started—and reflects my own view less! Conversely, I have been slowly but steadily adding a lot of sources and content to Baha'i House of Worship. I was even thinking I'd like to get it to Feature Article status.

Anyway, I'll stop there. Yes, hopefully I will get to adding that in due time. As you say, there are good sources on Queen Marie's own page. Feel free to incorporate them yourself if you want them included sooner. I'm happy to switch them over to sfn after, which is a bit more mindless than doing content. Again, despite our differences of opinion, I appreciate your hard work and your desire to inform our readers as well as possible. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, was probably overreacting there. I'll see where that can fit into the article and add some material from the other page soon. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to close the loop on this, I couldn't find a way to fit it naturally on this page but if someone else sees a way go ahead. The problem is that since it's not totally clear whether she converted, it will take more than a quick note to talk about her neutrally, and having a longer explanation on this page is probably WP:UNDUE. So instead, I added it to History of the Baháʼí Faith. I also copied the sentence about the Samoan king there. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Cuñado, I appreciate you trying to turn the list under "Social principles" into prose, but I am wondering about the source for the second sentence here, specifically for the claim "and other progressive ideas for the early 20th century."

When ʻAbdu'l-Bahá first traveled to Europe and America in 1911–1912, he gave public talks that articulated the basic principles of the Baháʼí Faith.[34] These included preaching on the equality of men and women, race unity, the need for world peace, and other progressive ideas for the early 20th century. Published summaries of the Baháʼí teachings often include a list of these principles, and lists vary on wording and what is included.[35]

I would argue that this should be attributed in the text (e.g., "according to Peter Smith", if it is coming from the source of the previous sentence). The article Progressivism probably needs some work but you can see there that the meaning of the term has changed over time, and it's not clear which sense you're referring to if any in particular. Also a couple other issues, which I hope to get to soon myself. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As I understand the primary criticisms of the article facing FA is that nuance gets in the way of message. I would say there are many sources that speak to the progressivism of 'Abdu'l-Baha's efforts - race issues, women's issues, war issues - but pounding away with a bunch of resources clutters this. I'd argue it's broadly demonstrated. Do we really need to document it over and over, labeling each scholar? I could go back to the 19th century and the progression of the Baha'i Faith in more ways which Abdu'l-Baha was distilling down into speeches. Do we really need to do that? Smkolins (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the definition of progressive: 1) favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters. 2) making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.

There are further definitions about "progressive parties" in politics.

Overall I think the meaning is clear and accurate (especially with the reference to the early 20th century), but as always, be bold and make any improvements you want.

Smith's Concise Encyclopedia has a better approach under the heading "Baha'i Principles", page 70. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, no I didn't mean to say we need to attribute everything to a given source. We can use WP:WIKIVOICE for things that express a consensus of reliable sources. I was referring only to the point about progressive for the early 20th century.

Regarding the definition of progressive, yes, thanks for sharing this. I'm not trying to be pedantic or bring up obscure issues about the etymology of the word. But the narrative of history that we are progressing through stages of social progress (as opposed to just technological progress) in a more-or-less linear fashion is not a universally shared one. In fact many of my professors, fairly or not, were quite dismissive of this as a now-refuted "evolutionist" view of history. So to insert a line in Wikivoice that assumes this narrative without citing a source doesn't seem NPOV to me. More specifically to the Baha'i Faith, I can recall both Warburg and MacEoin having reservations about the idea that the Baha'i Faith was far "ahead of its time" on social issues (though no doubt there are elements of truth to the idea). For now I'd be fine with just having a source on that sentence. If I can find the sources disputing this account, then we'll have to attribute in text to show the debate between sources (or relegate the matter to a footnote to keep the text uncluttered). Hopefully will have time to get to this soon. Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cuñado: The text was put in by your 11 January 2021 edit without a citation, shortly after was removed by Serv181920, re-added by you with the citation {{sfn|Barrett|2001|p=24}}... which when you click on it jumps to "Barrett 2001, p. 24.", click on that and it jumps to:

Barrett, David A. (2001). "Global statistics for all religions: 2001 AD". World Christian Encyclopedia. p. 4.

There is no David *A* Barrett and page 4 is not the same as page 24, but no mind, as a reader I would assume the book title was the guiding part. Somewhere within the next few days (I got tired of tracking down the details) "Barrett 2001" wound up as:

Barrett, David V. (2001). The New Believers: a survey of sects, cults, and alternative religions. London: Cassell & Co. ISBN 1-84403-040-7.

An attempt by you to add David B. Barrett back in just made it more confusing.

My original point still stands: that the citation as it sits now DOES NOT VERIFY, and in fact has never verified because the citation always failed or was messed up by confusing/swapping the two Barretts, or having two Barrett-2011s in the article, confusing the poor {{sfn}}. If you want to keep the content, then please find a citation you can personally verify today, with a correct page number, and preferably use a version I can also verify, like this one online at OpenLibrary.org (with the big blue 'Borrow' button) which I checked and cannot find anything similar to "Barrett calling Baha'i an 'alternative religion'" on page 4 or 24 or anywhere near there. I'm sure you had some reference you were looking at. Just cite it where it 'works' in Wikipedia. Grorp (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Grorp, all the links seem to work fine for me. When I put those in I recognized how crazy it is to have two David Barretts with different books published in 2001 that both have descriptions of the Baha'i Faith. What a strange world. David V. Barrett wrote The New Believers, which is what my links all point to when the sfn points to Barrett 2001. David B. Barrett wrote World Christian Encyclopedia, which has this in its reference: ref={{sfnref|World Christian Encyclopedia|2001}}, which means its pointer is {{sfn|World Christian Encyclopedia|2001}}.

I have physical copies of both books and I can provide contents on request. I glanced at The New Believers page 24 and the reference to "alternative religion" is the only example that is not in the section on the Baha'i Faith. The book subtitle is Sects, Cults, and Alternative Religions, and page 24 is a lengthy discussion on why "alternative religion" is the most neutral way to describe all the examples in the book.

I wasn't sure if you were removing it based on contents or the sfn pointer problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The links did not work fine. "Alternative religion[8]" linked to Barrett V. I made a change. You should go back over all the other Barrett 2001's and separate them. Note: The title of the book is insufficient to indicate it was meant for each and every religion in the book. Yes, please, provide a copy of page 24 where it says that about baha'i. Thank you. Grorp (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

this addition is good, but I feel like it should be in article and not in the lead. The lead should be extremely concise. Any thoughts? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of that is already in the body but some of it would be a good addition. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 03:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed though I'll note the editor added a source, so not to loose track of that. I noticed a ton of wikilinking done in recent edits that seems overly enthusiastic though the copyediting seemed very good. Smkolins (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello friends! I removed the included image of Baha'u'llah, as the 2005 decision ruled that it is vandalism to include it on this page (although it is permitted on the Baha'u'llah page). However, the very cool and good-faith @Smkolins pointed out it would make more sense to have consensus before making such a change. Education-over-easy (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 8#Full name and photo. The conclusion: Broad consensus for inclusion of the photograph at the top of the article following MOS:LEADIMAGE and no strong policy argument not to do so; WP:Gratuitous is mentioned but the consensus is that this image does add sufficient value to the article regardless of any potential for offence.

The discussion was a bit chaotic, but the consensus from 2005 is no longer relevent. If you have a proposal, you could propose an RFC for a change, but you need to have a policy-based proposal. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That 18 year old discussion is of no relevance in 2023. Wikipedia is not censored, and there is no policy-based reason to exclude the photo. Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The Orthodox Bahai Faith is a Baha'i sect which believes in continuation of Guardianship and accepts Charles Mason Remey as the second Guardian. While it shares similarities with the mainstream Bahai Faith, its belief in Guardianship is something that distinguish it from the larger Bahai community.

Given the Orthodox Bahai Faith's historical and theological connection to the Bahai Faith, it is appropriate to include a link to the Orthodox Bahai Faith in the "See Also" section of the Bahai Faith Wikipedia page. The inclusion of a link to the Orthodox Bahai Faith would provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the religious landscape of the Bahai community and allow them to explore this distinct religious movement further.--Asad29591 (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not a significant, even measurable, fragment of a group that has itself broken into factions of mere handfuls of people. It is unwarranted to mention it. 20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Orthodox Baha'is are an extreme minority (generously, 100 out of 5 million, or 0.002%) and may be almost defunct. Independent sources generally don't even mention them when covering the Baha'i Faith. Asad29591, you've spent the last two years trying to promote your beliefs here. WP:PROMOTION: You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Cuñado,

Thank you for your response to my message about including a link to the Orthodox Bahai Faith in the "See Also" section of the Baha'i Faith Wikipedia page.

I understand that the Orthodox Bahai Faith is a small community within the broader Baha'i community, and its beliefs may not be shared by the majority. However, as a follower of the Orthodox Bahai Faith, I believe that it is important to recognize the diversity within the Baha'i community and acknowledge the existence of different religious movements that have historical and theological connections to the Baha'i Faith.

The inclusion of a link to the Orthodox Bahai Faith would not only provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the religious landscape of the Baha'i community but also allow them to explore this distinct religious movement further. Furthermore, it would adhere to the Wikipedia policy of being neutral and providing a balanced representation of the subject matter.

I understand that you may have concerns about the significance of the Orthodox Bahai Faith and its representation on Wikipedia. However, I assure you that my intention is not to promote my beliefs or convince others of their merits. Rather, it is to ensure that readers have access to accurate and relevant information about the Baha'i Faith and its related movements.

If you are not willing to reconsider your decision to remove the link to the Orthodox Bahai Faith, I would like to request arbitration to resolve this matter. It is important that we maintain a respectful and constructive dialogue in order to reach a consensus on this issue.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Asad29591 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think one problem with the "History" section of the article is that it jumps from 1957 to 1963. Sources I've seen spend time on the crisis of succession (if we may call it that) in that period so I think it would make sense to mention the custodians and Mason Remey's challenge before the election of the UHJ. It's possible the Orthodox Baha'i Faith could be mentioned briefly there as having arisen from Remey's challenge, though I'm on the fence about that since it's not such a central detail. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 03:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, Asad29591, you're welcome to seek outside input to resolve your dispute with Cuñado, but asking the arbitration committee to intervene is the highest level of input and you should seek input at lower levels first. Based on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, I think starting with a WP:RfC would be more appropriate. Also, perhaps improving the history section in the way I suggested above would solve the problem – let me know your thoughts on that. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 04:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Gazelle55,

Thank you for your message and suggestion to improve the history section of the Baha'i Faith Wikipedia page. I agree that it would be beneficial to provide more context on the crisis of succession in the Baha'i Faith and include information on the custodians and Charles Mason Remey's challenge before the election of the Universal House of Justice. I will be happy to work on making these improvements in the future.

However, as of now, I would like to respectfully request the inclusion of a link to the Orthodox Bahai Faith in the "See Also" section of the Baha'i Faith Wikipedia page. As a sect of the Baha'i Faith, the Orthodox Bahai Faith has historical and theological connections to the larger Baha'i community, and I believe that it is important to recognize the diversity within the Baha'i community and provide readers with access to accurate and relevant information about related movements.

I would also like to assume good faith with Cuñado and not take the internal faith matter out in public. Hence, I would like to put the Orthodox Bahai Faith in the "See Also" section for now and end this discussion.

Thank you for your understanding and support in this matter.

Best regards,

Asad Asad29591 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• What is most distinguishing is that they broke with the community and practically died out. Why is this important? The community's diversity is hugely represented by the hundreds of countries it is organized in, the diversity of people across a century has reached the point of notability enough to have articles about them in Wikipedia. I see no relevance of this particular mention. Smkolins (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Asad29591, I'm fine with just including a "see also" link for now. That said, I replaced it with Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith since that is a more general topic, from which the reader can then find individual sects. I think that also addresses Smkolins' concern since that focuses on the historical attempts rather than sects that currently have many adherents (there is no such sect aside from the main group). Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 18:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Cuñado, thanks for removing links that were already in the body. In response to your point above, I don't think WP:DUE is relevant, since it's about the distribution of opinion in reliable sources, not how common a viewpoint is in the world. Your other point was that reliable sources typically don't even mention the Orthodox Baha'i Faith because it's so miniscule (and maybe defunct). I'll have to look into that to make up my mind on whether it deserves to be in the "See also" section. I'm leaning towards including it. In the meantime, Asad29591, if you have some general source on the Baha'i Faith and it discusses the Orthodox Baha'i Faith, feel free to share it. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 14:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Gazelle55, you're good at compromise and consensus, and you're editing in good faith. I don't have the same feelings for Asad29591 due to experience over the last two years. Even his current proposal is framed as a chance for more people to see the link and learn about his beliefs, not an objective improvement to the article. An overview of related articles, I think, wouldn't pluck out the Orthodox Baha'i Faith for further exploration. Why not Baháʼí Esperanto League, FUNDAEC, World Religion Day, Baháʼí Faith in South Carolina, Muhammad in the Baháʼí Faith, Martyrdom in the Baháʼí Faith, or Baha'i Faith in [any country]? South Carolina alone has 100 times the members of the Orthodox sect. FUNDAEC is a high functioning non-profit that has operated for half a century. World Religion Day is an international holiday initiated by Baha'is. Orthodox Baha'i Faith is a sad example of disunity and egotism. Maybe it's interesting for that reason, but it doesn't seem like the thing that would normally be included in See Also here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Cuñado I think I'm convinced by what you've written. It's not just a question of whether it could be included but whether it's more important than other things that could be included. I added several more that aren't in the body. Asad29591, if you still think it should be included, please explain why this link, out of many possible links, deserves to be on the list. I tried to assume good faith with you for a long time but your edit history gives a clear sense of WP:PROMOTION. If I'm wrong and you actually want to improve the article, feel free to work on the history section (where mentioning Mason Remey would make sense). By the way, there is a much longer list of relevant articles at Outline of the Baháʼí Faith and I've added Orthodox Baháʼí Faith there – I think that's sufficient. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 20:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55,

Thank you for taking the time to consider my request and including other relevant links in the "See Also" section. I understand your concerns about my previous edits, and I apologize if I gave the impression of promoting a specific belief system rather than seeking to improve the article. I appreciate your suggestion to work on the history section and will consider it going forward. Regarding the inclusion of the Orthodox Bahai Faith link, while I understand your perspective that it may not be the most important link, I believe it deserves inclusion as it represents a distinct branch of the Bahai Faith and has historical and theological connections to the larger Bahai community. I really appreciate that you have included the Orthodox Baha'i Faith in the Outline of the Bahai Faith, however the Orthodox Baha'i Faith still deserves a place in the see only section. Asad29591 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Cuñado,

Thank you for sharing your personal perspective on my request to include a link to the Orthodox Bahai Faith in the "See Also" section of the Baha'i Faith Wikipedia page. I understand your concerns and appreciate your suggestions for other related articles.

I agree that an overview of related articles could include many different topics, such as the Baháʼí Esperanto League, FUNDAEC, World Religion Day, and the Baha'i Faith in different countries. These are all valuable and informative topics for readers to explore.

Regarding the Orthodox Bahai Faith, I understand that it is a smaller sect but that doesn't mean it deserves no space in the see only section. It cannot be denied that it has historical and theological connections to the mainstream Baha'i community, and its inclusion in the "See Also" section would provide readers with access to accurate and relevant information about related movements.

I apologize if my proposal was not framed objectively as an improvement to the article, but rather as an opportunity for more people to learn about my beliefs. My intention was to provide readers with a resource for learning more about the diversity within the Baha'i community, and I believe that including the Orthodox Bahai Faith in the "See Also" section would serve that purpose.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and input on this matter. Asad29591 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Gazelle55,

Thank you for your response to my request to include a "See Also" link for the Orthodox Bahai Faith on the Baha'i Faith Wikipedia page. I appreciate your willingness to consider including the link and understand your decision to replace it with Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith.

I agree that Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith is a more general topic and can provide readers with information on the historical attempts to break away from the main community. However, I still believe that including a specific link to the Orthodox Bahai Faith would provide readers with more direct and accurate information on this related movement.

Hence would request you to reconsider putting "Orthodox Baha'i Faith" also in the see only section. Asad29591 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Smkolins,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my request to include the Orthodox Bahai Faith in the "See Also" section of the Baha'i Faith Wikipedia page. I appreciate your feedback and respect your assumption on the matter.

However, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the Orthodox Bahai Faith has no relevance or importance to the larger Baha'i community. The Orthodox Bahai Faith is a sect of the Baha'i Faith that has historical and theological connections to the larger community, and its members continue to practice and follow their own distinct beliefs and practices.

I believe that it is important to recognize and acknowledge the diversity within the Baha'i community and provide readers with access to accurate and relevant information about related movements. Including a link to the Orthodox Bahai Faith in the "See Also" section would provide readers with a fuller understanding of the history and diversity of the Baha'i Faith.

I understand that you may have concerns about including a sect that has broken away from the main community, but I would like to emphasize that this is not an uncommon occurrence within religious communities. Furthermore, including the Orthodox Bahai Faith in the "See Also" section does not necessarily endorse or promote their beliefs or practices, but rather acknowledges their existence as a related movement within the larger Baha'i community.

I hope that you will reconsider your position on this matter and agree to include a link to the Orthodox Bahai Faith in the "See Also" section of the Baha'i Faith Wikipedia page. Thank you for your time and consideration. Asad29591 (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Asad29591, yes I do agree that the OBF has historical and theological links to the mainstream Baha'i Faith, and so I agree with your broader point that it is related to the article. I'm not convinced it should be added, though, since there are other more prominent topics that are also related and deserve that space instead. You said to Cuñado that the other related articles could be added along with the OBF article, but we need to keep the size of the "see also" section to a reasonable length as per MOS:SEEALSO. There are already 16 links, and I would ask you to suggest which of those is less important than the OBF. No, 16 is not a hard limit, but even if we were to increase that number somewhat, I don't think the OBF would be first in line to be added. There are so many improvements that could be made to articles on the Baha'i Faith and yet it seems you're really fixating on this one minor change, which (like almost all your edits) just happens to help promote your personal views. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 18:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Gazelle55,

Thank you for your reply and your explanation of your reasoning. I respect your opinion, but I still disagree with your assessment of the importance and relevance of the Orthodox Bahai Faith link. I think that this topic is not a minor or trivial one, but rather a significant and interesting one for the readers who want to learn more about the diversity and history of the Bahai Faith. I also think that this topic is not a personal or biased one, but rather a factual and neutral one that is supported by reliable sources.

I understand your concern about the size of the "see also" section, but I don't think that adding one more link would make it too long or cluttered. I also don't think that adding this link would imply removing any other link, as they are all relevant and informative in their own ways. However, if you insist on keeping the number of links to 16, I would suggest removing the link to Baháʼí Faith and science, as I think that this topic is less directly related to the main article than the Orthodox Bahai Faith. This is just my suggestion, and I'm open to hearing other opinions.

I hope you can reconsider your decision and restore the link to the Orthodox Bahai Faith in the "see also" section of the Bahai Faith Wikipedia page. I think that this would be a fair and constructive way to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of the article. I also hope you can understand that I'm not fixating on this one change or trying to promote my personal views, but rather trying to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing free and accurate information to everyone.

As we seem to have reached an impasse on this issue, I would like to propose requesting comments from other editors who are knowledgeable or interested in the topic, either on the talk page or on a relevant noticeboard or WikiProject. This is a way to seek input from a broader community of editors on an issue that affects one or more articles. If you agree to this proposal, we can request comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Asad29591 (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Asad29591, we don't have hard criteria for what constitutes a more important "see also" link, but I don't think the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith page is more important. Honestly, I might normally just add the link to settle the issue, but there has been an ongoing pattern of you picking some very minor issue relating to the OBF and starting a protracted dispute about it, so I'm holding out against this change. I've said many times that I do think there are POV issues on Wikipedia's Baháʼí Faith pages, but I don't think this is one of them. Anyway, you've heard my thoughts – this seems to be really important to you, so feel free to start an RfC if you wish. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 15:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55, thank you for your response. I appreciate your honesty and your acknowledgment of the POV issues on Wikipedia’s Baháʼí Faith pages where mainstream Baha'is come and dominate and try to portray other sects as covenant breakers. I agree that we don’t have hard criteria for what constitutes a more important “see also” link, but I still think that the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith page is relevant and notable enough to be included. I don’t think that this is a very minor issue, but rather a matter of providing comprehensive and accurate information to the readers. I also don’t think that I’m picking protracted disputes about the OBF, but rather trying to address the gaps and biases that I see on Wikipedia’s Baháʼí Faith pages.

As we seem to have reached an impasse on this issue, I would like to follow your suggestion and start an RfC to seek input from a broader community of editors on this issue. I hope that this will help us resolve this dispute in a constructive and civil way. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Asad29591 (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I have added some info on this with links and references on a number of pages including the Panentheism page. Cyrus19Baha (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Cyrus19Baha You should start by noting the welcome message left for you suggesting getting used to Wikipedia needs for citations and scholarly reliable sources. I'm not saying your effort was entirely off base but your points need to use citations and not the ones common in Baha'i circles of just using what we internally accept as authoritative. In Wikipedia "authoritative" are such published materials as through vetted venues like scholarly journals or publishing houses like universities and such foremost. I think the direction you were going in could be well developed but you desperately need to learn to cite materials in a wikipedia-savvy way first. I suggest learning how to use a sandbox area, study citation syntax, and develop your sources. Smkolins (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like I have done that now. Please take a look. Cyrus19Baha (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If you mean God_in_the_Baháʼí_Faith#Two_Positions_and_Panentheism I don't see your suggestion of improvements. Please be specific where you think you are improving where you wrote. As is this will have to be removed as it makes all kinds of unsupported statements.Smkolins (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This whole section is written by me. Cyrus19Baha (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware - but I don't see any sources. See your talk page. Smkolins (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok I’ll work it on that. Cyrus19Baha (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)