Talk:Baháʼí Faith

Inclusion of Orthodox Bahai Faith in the 'See Also' Section

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)

RfC on adding Orthodox Baha'i Faith link in the see only section of The Baha'i Faith page

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

This is a request for comment on whether the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith should be included in the see also section of the Baháʼí Faith article. The Orthodox Baháʼí Faith is a Baha'i sect that believes in the continuation of the Guardianship of the Baháʼí Faith after Shoghi Effendi. The mainstream Baháʼís consider them as Covenant-breakers and do not recognize their legitimacy. The dispute is about whether the link to the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith Wikipedia page is relevant and notable enough to be included in the see also section. The discussion on the talk page has reached an impasse, with one editor arguing for inclusion and another editor arguing for removal. Please provide your opinions on this issue and help resolve this dispute. Thank you.--Asad29591 (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of link. The Orthodox Bahá'í sect is less than a hundred members, while the mainstream Bahá'í Faith is several million members. Including a link to the former would give them undue weight. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose see long conversation above #Inclusion of Orthodox Bahai Faith in the 'See Also' Section. Copying my previous comment here: "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." I'll add that there are numerous better options to add to See Also. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Readers can find the page; it is not being concealed. Pursuing an interest in the history of the faith and its minor schisms surfaces the link pretty readily. There is essentially no doctrinal difference between the large and small sects. A see also link would be undue. Regulov (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Cuñado. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, seems WP:UNDUE, minor view. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Support including the link in the see also section. I'm not persuaded including a link is undue; the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith has been in at least one notable conflict with the mainstream Baháʼí Faith over their trademarks. If, however, the consensus is to not include a link in the see also section, I think that the link to Baháʼí–Azali split should also be removed because that article describes the Azali also basically defunct. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment – Hmm, responding to Voorts, I don't think Baháʼí–Azali split and Orthodox Baháʼí Faith are really analogous pages. I'd say the more direct analogies are between Baháʼí–Azali split and Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith, and between Azali and Orthodox Baháʼí Faith. The latter two are about present-day religious communities which are almost defunct, whereas the former two are historical events which had some prominence when they took place. I had added Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith to the "See also" section but it turns out it is already linked in the article body, so according to the MOS we shouldn't list it at the bottom. The point about the legal dispute giving the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith more significance seems fair, though. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 19:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Support Regardless of its size or importance, this schismatic group are part of the broader narrative and it is difficult to see any valid reason to exclude. Issues of WP:DUE, relate mainly to content within an article and I have never before heard them used to exclude a 'see also' - for which the criteria are 'connected-ness'. Other 'schism' articles would also seem to warrant inclusion in addition to/ as an 'umbrella" alternative to this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs)

NPOV (of which DUE is a part) applies to everything. The "See Also" section is optional and should be limited to a reasonable number, according to the MOS. There are potentially hundreds of articles that would qualify for the "See Also" section of this page, so... inclusion of links should be common sense and need to be justified if challenged. In this case, the question of sects/schisms is linked in the article to Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith, and there are perhaps 10 articles on the schismatic groups that could be linked for more information. The information is also at Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith, which is in the "See Also" section. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Consider History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses doesn't even mention the Ptolemic theory or others of the like. There's enough to write about that actually covers substance and depth without needing to talk about an infinitesimal fringe. In other words WP:DUE. We have plenty of coverage in articles close to the example. It simply isn't balanced to include it. And we're past "several" million at over 7 million and rising among the fastest growing religions over the last century. It is not a distinguished part of the broad narrative; it's obscure - it was notable at a time and then it wasn't. You don't see lists of court cases people had on articles about groups or individuals. Smkolins (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:DUE clearly applies here; the group is defunct and tiny (less than a hundred) whereas the religion has millions of followers. There are so many important articles such as articles about the founders and key figures of the religion that are currently not included in the see also section and they should be. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose – there are already a fair number of links in the "see also" section and even if we add some more, there are other more important and equally connected/related links that could be added (lots of possibilities can be seen at Outline of the Baháʼí Faith). (I respectfully disagree with the previous comment that the religion's founders and key figures should be in the "see also" section, however, since they're already linked in the article body – see MOS:SEEALSO.) I think the tiny Orthodox Baháʼí sect is notable mainly due to the crisis of succession it arose from (covered in Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith, linked in the article body) and how harshly the mainstream Baháʼís treat its members (covered in Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith, linked in the "see also" section). I suppose the U.S. court case between the mainstream and Orthodox Baháʼís has some significance, but if that's what's of interest we could just as well add Baháʼí Faith in the United States, an article for a vastly larger Baháʼí population that briefly covers the court case. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 03:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Panentheism

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)

Follow-up on reorganization discussion

Smkolins and Cuñado, I wanted to briefly follow up on a talk page discussion here last year (see here). Both of you had put forward some tentative proposals for reorganizing the page, and I raised some objections at the time and said I'd follow up but never did. At this point I don't have a clear idea of the exact way the page should be organized and I would probably support whatever someone else implements as long as it's clear and neutral. I don't plan on doing any major rework of the page. I could help out here and there if someone else was reorganizing - though I don't know if either of you plans on this now that the FAR is over. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 02:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Some miscellaneous thoughts on the previous discussion while it's fresh in my mind – in case an editor decides to rework the page at some point. A few books were suggested there that could be used as models for the organization. I think the source by Warburg (2001) looks the most promising since it's about the right length and generally uses simple headings that could be understood by someone with no background on the Baha'i Faith. However, I don't think the current headings are terrible and it might make more sense to make incremental improvements to the organization rather than redoing the whole page in a sandbox. I do like how she has sections for prayer and the nineteen-day fast rather than folding them inconspicuously into "Exhortations". I don't really like "Fundamental beliefs" as a heading (why not just "Beliefs"?) and "Baha'is in the world" strikes me as too vague to be helpful to readers. During the FAR someone commented about how some parts before the "History" section were hard to understand because they referred to various Baha'i leaders who hadn't been introduced yet, so perhaps the history should appear earlier or else some of the descriptions above it should be clarified. I think sections for "Administration" and "Criticism" would also be valuable additions. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 02:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Gazelle55. I also saw the archiving of that discussion and lamented the lack of action. I have a great interest in doing the re-org on this page and Baha'u'llah but it would take a long time, maybe 20+ hours per page. It's definitely on my radar and when I get around to it I'll be requesting comment. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

While I have been somewhat active in some research and publishing, I too have interest. Just now - last couple weeks - I've been dealing with a fairly severe case of covid. But thanks for reaching out. So many things to be done! :-) Smkolins (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Using Wikidata items to facilitate generation of references

I have begun to experiment with Wikidata items as an efficient way to include reliable sources in articles I am editing. I am sharing these items as a resource in my user page space here.

One advantage of the use of the Cite Q template is that the same Qnumber can be cited in any language in Wikipedia.

One disadvantage is that you need to add the {{rp|page=17}}</nowiki}} Once a Wikidata bibliographic item has been created and all the properties have been added: author, date, title, DOI, ISBN, etc have been entered, it will generate the complete reference. For example: * You can use the cite Q template with the <nowiki><ref></ref> <ref name="Abdolmohammadi_20240202">{{cite Q|Q124691289}}</ref> You can see the result in the reference section below.

• Or you can use the {{sfn|Abdolmohammadi|2024}}</ref> by manually adding <nowiki>{{cite Q|Q124473137}} to the References. The example will not work in the talk page, only in the main article. The Abdolmohammadi article is newly published.

Anyone can edit and/or create Wikidata items.

Related to the Baha'i Faith

• Paula R. Hartz (1 January 2007). World Religions: Baha'i Faith. Facts on File. ISBN 0-8160-6608-6. Wikidata Q124473137. {{cite Q|Q124473137}}
• William S. Hatcher; J. Douglas Martin (2002). The Baha'i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-06-065441-2. OCLC 50124755. Wikidata Q115796499.
• Robert Stockman (1985), Origins 1892-1900, vol. 1, Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, p. 277, OCLC 247261709, Wikidata Q124473862
• Robert Stockman (1 January 1995). The Baha'i Faith in America: Early Expansion 1900-1912. Vol. 2. Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. p. 400. ISBN 978-0-85398-388-0. Wikidata Q124474264.
• Peter Smith (2022). "The History of the Bábí and Bahá'í Faiths". The World of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxfordshire: 12. Wikidata Q124473374.
• Robert Stockman, ed. (2021), The World of the Bahá'í Faith, Oxfordshire: Routledge, p. 666, doi:10.4324/9780429027772, Wikidata Q124464995
• Baháʼí Faith, Wikidata Q22679

Related to the Báb

• A
• Pejman Abdolmohammadi (2 February 2024). "The Social and Political Thought of Sayyed ʿ⁠Ali Moḥammad Širāzi, the Bāb". Eurasian Studies. 27 (1): 102–126. doi:10.1163/24685623-20230144. ISSN 1722-0750. Wikidata Q124691289.
• Friedrich W. Affolter (January 2005). "The Specter of Ideological Genocide: The Bahá'ís of Iran" (PDF). War Crimes, Genocide, and Crimes Against Humanity. 1 (1): 75–114. ISSN 1551-322X. Wikidata Q124658583.
• Muhammad Afnan; William Hatcher (1985). "Western Islamic Scholarship and Bahá'í Origins". Religions. 15 (1): 29–51. doi:10.1016/0048-721X(85)90058-2. ISSN 2077-1444. Wikidata Q124680903.
• Abbas Amanat (1989), Resurrection and renewal : the making of the Babi movement in Iran, 1844-1850, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, p. 461, OCLC 18256692, Wikidata Q124659024 See also Talk:Q24883743 Abbas Amanat

B

• H. M. Balyuzi (1973), The Bab: The Herald of the Day of Days, Oxford, Wikidata Q124618091{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

H

• William S. Hatcher; J. Douglas Martin (2002). The Baha'i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-06-065441-2. OCLC 50124755. Wikidata Q115796499.

L

• Todd Lawson (1987), The Qur'an Commentary of Sayyid 'Alí Muhammad, the Báb, p. 426, Wikidata Q124617904

M

• Abbas Amanat (1981), The Early Years of the Bábí Movement: Background and Development, Wikidata Q124686189
• Moojan Momen (11 February 2011). "WOMEN iv. in the works of the Bab and in the Babi Movement". Encyclopædia Iranica. ISSN 2330-4804. Wikidata Q124568789.
• Moojan Momen (21 September 2018). "Millennialist Narrative and Apocalyptic Violence: The Case of the Babis of Iran". Journal of the British Association for the Study of Religion (JBASR). 20: 1–18. doi:10.18792/JBASR.V20I0.24. ISSN 2516-6379. Wikidata Q124680832.

N

• Nabíl-i-A`zam (1932), The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl's Narrative of the Early Days of the Baháʼí Revelation, translated by Shoghi Effendi, Wikidata Q2966758

S

• Peter Smith (2022). "The History of the Bábí and Bahá'í Faiths". The World of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxfordshire: 12. Wikidata Q124473374.
• Peter Smith (1987), The Bábí and Baháʼí Religions: From Messianic Shiʻism to a World Religion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 243, OCLC 60866681, Wikidata Q124610666

I hope this is helpful. I would like to share this with other Baha'i-related articles and with Baha'i project, Baha'i Faith. Oceanflynn (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

References

5-8 million or 8 million?

Completely Random Guy, thanks for contributing. I disagree with the change in numbers in the lead. I built most of the page Baháʼí Faith by country and I've been through all the sources. There is a lot of nuance to the numbers, and the 8 million number came from the Baha'i World Centre, based on "information received from Baháʼí communities across the world, and on reputable external sources". As with any religious movement, there is a wide variation in levels of adherence. If you count those that are actively participating in community life, it's probably 3 million (my guess, based off Warburg's 2001 estimate), if you count those that are self-professing Baha'is, it's probably 5 million, and by the loosest standard (used by World Christian Encyclopedia and others), it's probably 8 million.

The lead has to be very concise, so "5-8 million" seems to capture the spirit of it without having to use qualifiers like "active". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. If there is a discrepancy in the sources, it can be fleshed out in the main body of the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! So I changed the numbers due to the Baháʼí Faith by country Wikipage, where it states that in 1965 there were over a million practicers, in 1991 5 million, and in 2020 8 million. I understand this to be a solid increase over time of practicers of the faith. I thought we were combining 1991 numbers and 2020 numbers to give a rough estimate. I would be okay with putting 5-8 million, not a problem, I just thought the more specific the better.

Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)