Talk:Baháʼí views on science/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Neutrality

In my short time on Wikipedia so far I have not been involved in a neutrality discussion, though this topic has been mentioned in certain discussions I have had.

Looking at the article, I see what I believe is a textbook example of a non-neutral page. Bias is also an issue here, as is original research.

For this brief outline, I shall be focussing on the first paragraph "Life on other planets" section, though my points extend to all sections of this page. If anyone is in doubt of whether my arguement extends to the rest of the page, I will provide further examples, if requested.

Getting to the point, we see evident bias and non-neutrality in the form of cherrypicking sources to make statements and imply facts, some of which are not included in the original source material.

Let us consider the following:

"The idea of each star having planets is not very controversial. "Planet" was defined at the time as: "a celestial body which revolves about the sun in an orbit of a moderate degree of eccentricity." The Nebular Theory suggests that every star forms with orbiting material."

The first statement is a bold one, and yet it simply quotes a single news site as evidence. It does not cite a reputable, neutral, third party journel, as should be expected for a claim of this magnitude. If I wanted to, I could cite a news site that holds the opposing view. * Like this one

The next two sentences from the quote seem to add strength to the idea that this is an analysis of facts, an unpublished one. Wikipedia policy states that all analysis must be present in the sources provided, and yet we see clear synthesis here.

One can conclude that the editor/editors want to portray Science in their faith positively. This is disapproved and we need to make a clear distinction between fact and opinion. Any original research that has been synthesized from facts to push forward a point of view should not be included on this page. Furthermore, the opposing point of view in a matter should generally be stated.

I invite the regular editors of this page to discuss this matter. Hesnotblack (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and most of Wikipedia. Be bold and fix things. Your example also sucks. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"Yeah, and most of Wikipedia." What?

"Be bold and fix things." Why thank you, I'll certainly...

"Your example also sucks." ...oh.

Cuñado, please read the page on Wikipedia Ettiquette. Not only is your statement highly impertinent, it also completely dismisses my arguement without giving any reason why. Why do you think my example is not condusive for proving that there is original research and bias?

In fact this message is for anyone who is willing to reply to this section: Before you make your reply, consider if you are addressing the claims I have made.

I hope you were just in a bad mood when you wrote that; I look forward to a more sensible, fact-based response from you. Hesnotblack (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll agree that the sentence is not a thorough or even casual review of scientific history about the idea of planets around stars. Certainly when Baha'u'llah made such a claim astronomers were something approaching a century from having found any evidence pro-or-con on the question of if planets really do exist around most/all stars. But should this entry be a careful review of the history? Shouldn't that case be in its own article if it is warranted? The first half of the 20th century science had no verfiable facts about planets around other stars and opinions ranged all over the place. The Kepler probe has seemingly settled the matter it a large degree - where previous there was no evidence and then some there is now a pretty general idea that most stars, maybe all stars, likely have planets. But to be scientiically more precise and accurate it could be looked at for a more substantively supported statement would be better but I don't think it drifts from the gist of this brief review of the current position science (astronomers, various specialities of the formation of planetary systems around stars - does that have its own name yet?) has on this matter. I'm all for destinguishing fact and opinion through careful citation and absolutely we should avoid and pull out OR. But I don't think it's particularly bold to say "The idea of each star having planets is not very controversial." Hesnotblack I suggest you review the papers and sumamries about the Kepler probe's findings and what people are saying - there are quite likely many hundreds of papers and I've seen... a dozen? videos of presentations at professional academic conferences. I think the ones that address parts of the Drake equation are most likely to actually make a statement speficially about if "each star has planets". I look forward to what you find. Smkolins (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A google search for: [ kepler "every star" planets -five ] will list a long list by various publications from NASA, Space.com, ScienceDaily, Sky and Telescope, etc etc, (the reason to put in "-five" is because of a seperate result finding that one in five stars has an Earth like planet in the habitable zone which is a seperate matter.) have I think the most agreed on sentence could be something like "Thanks to the Kepler mission, scientists have evidence for and now estimate that every star has at least one planet." I do see that that Kepler article has made no such position clear on it. I think that suggestion is well in-bounds for a wikipedia statement.Smkolins (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Smkolins, my point is on the neutrality of the page. You have seemed to go to great lengths to put forward the following arguement:

1. There is lots of evidence that there is life on every planet.

Actually I specifically tried to avoid referencing that. I just addressed the reasonablness of the idea of every star having planets. That you are drawing attention to this is drawing away from the point being discussed.Smkolins (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Baha'ullah made great, accurate scientific claims (implying this is a fact).

I'm making no such claim. These points are individually being made - Baha'u'llah said x, science says y, both at some time and place and various specifics. I don't see a problem making comparing statements. Is that your point that there shouldn't be comparing statements? I'm going to largely skip over the rest of this at least for now. I have other things to do in life.Smkolins (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Go search for it on google.

I think there is wide scientific agreement that there is at least one planet around almost every star. I think the scientific concensus has reached the point it is obvious.

1. So the statements are correct.

I don't think making comparing statements is artificial or unwarranted. Whether science has an agreed on position or changes that position is independent of the Baha'i sources just as the Baha'i sources are not derived from what scientists or journals have said. How would you approach the neutrality of having two statements close to eachother?Smkolins (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

1. So we can keep this Wikipedia editor's analysis.

I would say it is OR to say that science confirms religion or religion confirms science. I'm not aware any source says that.Smkolins (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so let me go through each of the points that I have inferred to be your arguement:

1. There might very well be all the evidence in the world... Does that excuse citing some news site for an otherwise substantial claim? No. In fact since you believe there is so much evidence, why don't you add it in? (Ok, I admit you can't actually do this because of what I will state is wrong with the second and last points.) Was the main focus of my arguement that this is a scientific error? No. So why have you dedicated most of your arguement to this? You have not addressed my claim that this page is non-neutral, please explicitly state your position on this before going forward.
2. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, and what you have here is an opinion. You seem to want to push this opinion as fact, WP:SYN synthesizing facts, and coming up with your own analysis for proof. Smkolins, if you want to do this then you are being biased. If you advocate for not giving the opposing view, then you are advocating bias. Please do not do this.
3. Most of what you said, and your second reply, essentially amounted to "Go search for the claim that every Star has planets". Should I be doing this or should you be doing this? My point is that you should adequately cite facts - I gave the Forbes example of what happens when you rely on a single source (that many would argue is not enough to prove a statement of this magnitude). Furthermore, your reply had undertones of religious proselytism. I am not here to learn/accept/discover the Baha'i faith, I am here to make sure that this article is neutral.
4. Perhaps, in isolation, those statements are correct, but this, again, was not the point I was making. Look at all the pages I linked to: Is there a consistent theme with them? My point is that the editor is using those facts as evidence, implicitly, of the Baha'i Faith's claim of being scientifically accurate. They have not included a reliable, neutral souce for this material they have come up with.
5. No, we cannot keep this analysis, it constitutes OR as the analysis is not published in a secondary source, rather the editor is using primary sources to imply the scientific accuracy of the Baha'i Faith, and that is there own analysis, attributed to no one. So it comes accross as a fact.

The one time where you perhaps actually addressed my arguement was where you said:

I'm all for destinguishing fact and opinion through careful citation and absolutely we should avoid and pull out OR. But I don't think it's particularly bold to say "The idea of each star having planets is not very controversial."

My point was however that where this statement was used, it was:

1. Cited by one source, a news site. I wanted to know why this one source has been used, even, by your own admission, when there are many more/reputable sources out there.
2. Used as part of an analysis. This was my main point, that you sidelined.
3. Pushing forward a point of view as fact This is the point of this entire discussion.

Please address these points.

Thank you, Hesnotblack (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Does that excuse citing some news site for an otherwise substantial claim? No."

• It could convey the broad concensus or it could misrepresent the consensus. I'd welcome a better citation - no objections whatsoever to doing that. But the observation you made that it was done in a biased manner, an example of lacking neutrality, is, to me, not a fair assesment of the state of science on whether all stars have planets. To my reading it is a neutral statement to say scientists have evidence and estimate every star has at least one planet and arguing otherwise is not listening to the body of opinion of scientists. It is very newsworthy that scientists have reached a concensus on this point for the history of astronomy but it is not a bold claim in the wikipedia sense that I think we need an especially good source with carefully crafted statements to narrowly state the truth like some bold new claim. I'll perfectly grant that a scientific statement like this is "new" ish and that 10 years ago it would be an astonishing bold claim to make for which evidence was highly debated but ten years is a long long time in wikipedia. But that's old now - it is not bold. It is a reasonably settled matter and widely stated. Someone did the work of updating that point. But I also don't think this point as a new accepted pov in science should be belabored in this article. Perhaps in a few additional sentences something could be said, suitably cited but not extrodinarily so, that efforts among scientists had begun to identify planets since x and since y it has been a widely held view that all stars have at least one planet with some suitable citation - again fine if you want a better one but NOT because it is bold for wikipedia to make the statement. The article might be better with this but I'm not sure it fits the subject close enough to worry about though I am open to revising things. I am open to a question of what style of presenting religious and science sources should be like in the article. I think a comparison is reasonble - Baha'u'llah says x and science says y. If you want the article to be longer you could say something like: In 1865(whatever) Baha'u'llah said/19xx Abdu'l-Baha said something and at the time science said whatever and now says whatever but it would have to be far more densely cited. It might make the article better. Sounds great. Lot's of work. As Cuñado said, be bold and do it. I have some interest and yes can contribute to this work too. Always want to make the article better - though arguments of neutrality seem so far unsubstantiated. I've not read the article closely in a while so I can't speak to this question on every point but so far your example seems to not fit your idea that the article lacks neutrality. But this is your lead example on non-neutrality? It.... fails to convince me... that flagging the whole article is a good place to start.

I was thinking of not even replying to this, as you have written the exact same thing as before. You have misunderstood that the main premises of this discussion are neutrality, original research, synthesis and editor bias.

"though arguments of neutrality seem so far unsubstantiated." I invite you to actually read my arguement above. My arguement that this page is not neutral is substantiated. I have linked several statements of mine to Wikipedia policy - Smkolins, I don't do this to make the text look pretty - I am substantiating my arguements. Above, again, you completely sidestep my main points which I even clarified and stated as to how the example shows non-neutrality. Please stop ignoring my arguements, I mention original research and synthesis several times and yet you completely sidestep them. I have repeated several times that this article contains unpublished analysis of primary sources which strongly suggests that it is not neutral.

If you want to leave this discussion then that's fine. If you want to stay on then let me give you some advice (perhaps you'll notice this is a copy & paste of what I've already said and perhaps you'll notice a lot of repetition):

Was the main focus of my arguement that this is a scientific error? No. And yet time and time again you bring up the same discussion on whether the scientific belief of there being planets orbitting around every star is correct. Was the main focus of my arguement that this is a scientific error? Again, no. Stop mentioning it.

So why have you dedicated most of your arguement to this?

" But the observation you made that it was done in a biased manner, an example of lacking neutrality, is, to me, not a fair assesment of the state of science on whether all stars have planets. " Was the main focus of my arguement that this is a scientific error? No.

You have not addressed my claim that this page is non-neutral, please explicitly state your position on this before going forward.

Hesnotblack (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And I'm not particularly thrilled to read a long entry discussing diverse ideas especially when, to me, it kind of goes off the rails and the perpetuated point of view goes on and on about things I don't think I'm trying to defend. It's like reading a paper each time I step into this. It is not user friendly for wikipedia editors to contribute if there are paragraphs of arguing diverse points. There is a standard of wanting a collegial and good faith atmosphere broadly demonstrated and I'd like to see that maintained in good spirit. Arguments for improving the articles are always on topic. Arguments otherwise do not maintain an atmosphere respecting the good faith people have tried to put into work in wikipedia in a volunteer self-motivated approach. Please keep to short discussions if you can. I think there is good work that could be done collabroatively but taking time to read long analyses is time consuming, frought with opportunity of misunderstanding and exacerbating the situation with consequences to points that are not being made, and some of use have limited time to contribute to a consensus. Smkolins (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"And I'm not particularly thrilled to read a long entry discussing diverse ideas especially when, to me, it kind of goes off the rails and the perpetuated point of view goes on and on about things I don't think I'm trying to defend. " I take it that you agree with my point that this article is not neutral then. That is the point of this section

"Arguments for improving the articles are always on topic." Not in a section named "neutrality".

"Please keep to short discussions if you can. I think there is good work that could be done collabroatively but taking time to read long analyses is time consuming, frought with opportunity of misunderstanding and exacerbating the situation with consequences to points that are not being made, and some of use have limited time to contribute to a consensus." Ok, I can sympathize here. Not all of you have the time to read my arguements for why this page is not neutral, but if you want to come into this discussion you should be willing to put time aside to do so. WP:DISPUTE says we must read and address the oppositions points, if you can't/won't do this then please don't join in the discusssion.

Have a nice day, Hesnotblack (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't bring up the planets issue. You did. As for how the article could be made better, I quote myself from other parts you did not address: "I'd welcome a better citation - no objections whatsoever to doing that."… "Perhaps in a few additional sentences something could be said, suitably cited but not extrodinarily so, that efforts among scientists had begun to identify planets since x and since y it has been a widely held view that all stars have at least one planet with some suitable citation - again fine if you want a better one"… "The article might be better with this but I'm not sure it fits the subject close enough to worry about though I am open to revising things. I am open to a question of what style of presenting religious and science sources should be like in the article. I think a comparison is reasonable - Baha'u'llah says x and science says y. If you want the article to be longer you could say something like: In 1865(whatever) Baha'u'llah said/19xx Abdu'l-Baha said something and at the time science said whatever and now says whatever but it would have to be far more densely cited. It might make the article better. Sounds great. Lot's of work. As Cuñado said, be bold and do it." But you refused to take up any of those points. What is the framework of engagement to be done? Well I spent the evening at a public talk on racism. Sorry I spent the time elsewhere and then only here enough to see that you didn't feel I engaged you anywhere. I feel similarly. You have a nice night too. Smkolins (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"I didn't bring up the planets issue. You did."

Apologies, I simply meant to use that section as an example of OR and a breach of neutrality.

"I quote myself from other parts you did not address: "I'd welcome a better citation - no objections whatsoever to doing that.""

Great to know we're on the same page with this one.

"I think a comparison is reasonable - Baha'u'llah says x and science says y."

I'll have to disagree here. If we read WP:SYNTHESIS, it makes it clear that we should not join two sources, A and B, to implicitly put forward a conclusion C.

"If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here."-WP:SYN

"But you refused to take up any of those points."

I apologise if I have done so. (With what Cuñado said, if you look the history of the article, you'll see I made a start at doing this.)

"What is the framework of engagement to be done?"

As I understand it, you agree with me that the page has problems with verifiability in some instances - this is a secondary matter - what is more important to address is the OR and NPOV issues. Start by stating your position clearly - do you believe that the page has such issues? If you agree, then there is not much more to discuss, unless you want to actually discuss how to get rid of all the OR, which I would willing to discuss. If you do not believe the page has such issues (NPOV, OR and synthesis), then clearly demonstrate how this is not so. Consider numbering your points and fragmenting your writing for easier digestion (this is something I too could do better).

"Well I spent the evening at a public talk on racism. Sorry I spent the time elsewhere and then only here enough to see that you didn't feel I engaged you anywhere."

...

Anyway Smkolins, I hope you found my reply helpful. Please remember to keep a level head in these talk page disscussions. I welcome and value your contributions to these discussions, yet you need not join in if you don't want to.

Have a good day, Hesnotblack (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

When can we expect some changes? I would suggest starting with the Medical section. The quote is taken out of context and seems to favor the privileged who assume a superior role through various means. One of the conceits is that they know more. As a medical advocate (unofficial), I see this. Med/pharma in cahoots (say, opiate issue where these little ones (as in, degreed youngsters) looking for some type of forgiveness saying: but we did not know). Doctors not seeing persons (rather, they love the mean). Of course, what I am talking complicates matters, but the quote, to me, assumes some type of balanced view, not a purely materialistic bent as we have seen come about. To be brief. Other sections could be bolstered, too.

Conjectures are part of science. Mathematics is full of them. Hence, a lot of what might be problematic here on this page could be marked such. After all, it's trying to lift awareness to a framework that respects life (and its offspring - a large variety including us). Some might say, revelation. But, that is conditioned upon the audience and its capacity.

BTW, I write in that 'Science and Religion' is (has been) my main focus in life. I even got John McCarthy's attention for a little bit, enough for him to register the impetus.

A suggestion. I have not done this yet on Wikipedia but have elsewhere. This page could go similar to anything dealing with Islam and science, as a lot of what I have read shows a parallel twixt these two views (1200 years of difference, of course, and more). jmswtlk (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Conjectures are part of science. Mathematics is full of them. Hence, a lot of what might be problematic here on this page could be marked such. After all, it's trying to lift awareness to a framework that respects life (and its offspring - a large variety including us). Some might say, revelation. But, that is conditioned upon the audience and its capacity."

Indeed; The conjectures in this article constitute Original Research.

"This page could go similar to anything dealing with Islam and science, as a lot of what I have read shows a parallel twixt these two views (1200 years of difference, of course, and more)."

We just need to be careful as to how that parallel is drawn. From editorial synthesis? I hope not. But what I think your eluding to is the use of sources that draw these parallels themselves. This is definitely what this page needs, and it also needs the opposing view, with the differences between the Faith and science outlined.

This page may be apropos: Islamic attitudes towards science. Notice the section on "Biological evolution" which includes alternative (critical) views. But, I have seen many more subjects covered in other discussions. So, this Wikipedia page is fairly minor. Perhaps, that's the point (encyclopedias are summary). jmswtlk (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"When can we expect some changes?"

Ah the crucial question. I myself do not edit on this page regularly but I have made a start with removing some OR. I think we should all participate in these changes. We should all remove content that engages in primary source analysis. With your particular suggestion, I think I'll remove that quote in its entirety for now.

Perhaps, it was 'medicine' that grated, as the focus might be health care (physical, mental, and spiritual), in general. I have read about work being done by Baha'i 'psyches' (both med and non) as part of their practice. I am sure that we could find a whole lot more. Would that not be appropriate? Too, I saw where Shoghi Effendi is quoted as noting that ESP is an issue of Psychology. The list could very well be much longer; actually, why go with only those things that the SciFi-influenced world likes to consider? jmswtlk (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be great if you could use your expertise to help. Hesnotblack (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Disclosure. In 2008, I bounced from this page to a blog to cover the subject (Ontological Musings ... ). From time to time, I have come back here to see if there has been progress, hence I noticed this debate.

Of course, I am interested. But, there is some element that might not be apparent. Take time. There is an expectation of 1000 years til the next Manifestation; but, too, the whole framework is 500 thousands of years. Science will undergo many transformations over that period. Just look at the past 150 years. So, we are talking potential bullets beyond what has been done here. Perhaps the thing is some bit of comparison (science says this, Baha'i might suggest that).

On the planets and life, there is this: Through His potency the Trees of Divine Revelation have yielded their fruits, every one of which hath been sent down in the form of a Prophet, bearing a Message to God’s creatures in each of the worlds whose number God, alone, in His all-encompassing Knowledge, can reckon. (find source) But, 'worlds' can be considered to include more than that which is planetary in mode.

Science can be seen, in part, as dealing with the 'what and how.' We still have 'how and why.' And, 'whence (more than why)' as might be thought to be the main concern of quasi-empiricism. jmswtlk (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for editorial synthesis. Nor is it a place for original research. Please bear this in mind. You have some interesting ideas - why not write a paper instead? Hesnotblack (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment jmswtlk, but the page needs to be sourced from reliable, published sources. The talk pages are more a place to discuss edits than a forum of ideas. If you have any books on the Baha'i Faith and science you can take ideas sourced in the book and share them here to figure out how to include them in the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That was indeed Hesnotblack's point: since source A and B cannot be used to for a conclusion C (that is not part of A or B), this implies that a source D would be necessary which makes that conclusion or comparison; that would be the source to summarize. If such source is missing, the content is considered unsourced and may be challenged or removed. Similarly, when wondering what an article should contain and what weight to put for each point, it's most useful to consult a tertiary source doing a similar survey of the literature. This means that we really need to find sources on the topic of Baha'i and science and summarize those. Then if views portrayed by the source are known to contradict science, it would be possible to use another source about that (i.e. per WP:PSCI if it was advocating astrology, but that is just an example and is a later step)... —PaleoNeonate – 18:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Fully agree with PaleoNeonate. I removed some offending material but there is more to be done. There are some reliable sources on the page, but there are a lot of primary sources and others that are not WP:RS, which help create the impression of more support for the Baha'i position than reliable sources have actually offered. I'm adding another template accordingly. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Adding "Turning copper into gold" to this article

Hi Cuñado,
I had added the following to the article today and you have removed it stating that I am using Primary sources!

Turning Copper into Gold
Baháʼu'lláh claims:

"Is it ever possible,” they ask, “for copper to be transmuted into gold?” Say, Yes, by my Lord, it is possible. Its secret, however, lieth hidden in Our Knowledge."

— Page 346, Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh

"For instance, consider the substance of copper. Were it to be protected in its own mine from becoming solidified, it would, within the space of seventy years, attain to the state of gold."

— The Book of Certitude

Some Bahá'is try to justify these claims by saying that these statements are metaphorical. * Buck, Christopher (2016-08-13). "Inner Gold: Alchemy of Attributes". bahaiteachings.org/. Retrieved 2020-11-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) Some claim that Baháʼu'lláh was narrating the beliefs of others.* Basiti; Moradi; Akhoondali (2014). Twelve Principles: A Comprehensive Investigation on the Baha'i Teachings (1st ed.). Tehran: Bahar Afshan Publications. p. 176. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
While Shoghi Effendi says:

"There may come a time, for all we know, when the mass of many atoms can be changed by scientists. We have no way of proving or disproving at present the statement of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Just because we cannot demonstrate a contention in the Bahá’í Teachings does not mean the contention is not true."

— Helen Hornby, Copper Can be Transmuted into Gold, Lights of Guidance

What kind of Secondary sources you are expecting? I see Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi, the Universal House of Justice has been cited-over many times. You want me to put these quotes only if they are published in some Baha'i/non-Baha'i book? Please let me know. Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There are some authors writing about the question of copper-into-gold, like Sen McGlinn. I read a long paper about it a few years ago I'll track down. For secondary sources, you need someone reliable writing their opinion about it, not using the original text and forming an interpretation in the way you write. For example, you could quote Baha'u'llah saying that Baha'is can have two wives, then say, "However, Abdu'l-Baha taught monogamy", leading the reader to think there is a controversy going on (there is not). Peter Smith's "Concise Encyclopedia..." is a good place to start to figure out how certain issues are dealt with (in this case, no mention of copper-to-gold). As I recall from reading people's analysis, Baha'is could interpret the phrase from Baha'u'llah as being metaphorical or something that could be proved in the future. It is not a settled issue and not really controversial. I have not found a source summarizing what are the main tensions with the Baha'i Faith and science, but I know this would be in the top 10 so I support including it, just not the way you wrote. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cuñado – need a secondary source. Gazelle55 (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh but I don't think Sen McGlinn's blog will do, that's WP:SPS. Gazelle55 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes Sen McGlinn's blog-ness is a problem, but he has done a lot of research on some obscure topics and has the benefit of being a published author on Baha'i topics. I have used him on WP while mentioning he's a blogger. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi,
So, if I want to add quotations from the Bible or the Quran in an article, I cannot do that because it is a primary source?
I had stated in my edit that "Some Bahá'is try to justify these claims by saying that these statements are metaphorical. Some claim that Baháʼu'lláh was narrating the beliefs of others." with references from Secondary sources. Thanks.Serv181920 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's an example of a few ways to quote the Bible:

1. The Bible teaches that donkeys can talk.(quote Numbers 22:27-30)
2. The Bible includes a story in which a donkey talks to its rider.(quote Numbers 22:27-30) Author John Doe gives this as an example that contributes to anti-scientific beliefs in Christianity.(ref)
3. The Bible includes a story in which a donkey talks to its rider.(quote Numbers 22:27-30) The preponderance of Christian authors addressing the nature of these verses have concluded that they are mythological in nature and not meant as a literal account,(ref to academic survey of Christian literature) yet 45% of Christians surveyed in the United States and Canada responded that they believe in talking donkeys.(ref to survey)

Your edit was somewhere between 1 and 2. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok fine, Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether or not those secondary sources qualify as WP:RS. That said, I'm concerned about the source quality in the whole article, not just the part you added... I think what you added is equally valid to a lot of the material on the page so I don't mind leaving it until the page as a whole is sorted out. Ideally we want journal articles, books from academic presses, or at least reputable news organizations (see WP:RS). My feeling is that the article should be shortened quite a bit to reflect the smaller number of high-quality sources we actually have on the topic. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as the content of what you wrote I think it's actually very neutral. I think a case could even be made that you were being fairly charitable towards the Baha'i POV in what you wrote. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I think we need to discuss which sources count as reliable. Pinging Serv181920 and Cuñado as the most active editors right now on this page and Baha'i pages in general, since this is also relevant to Baháʼí prophecies, Homosexuality and the Baháʼí Faith, and many of the refs on other Baha'i pages. Some relevant quotes from WP:RS:

"Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

"Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. [...] Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications."

"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised."

"Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."

From WP:SOURCE:

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

*University-level textbooks

*Books published by respected publishing houses

*Magazines

*Mainstream newspapers"

And finally, one more from WP:RS:

"If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

In this article, Smith (2000) is clearly a reliable source, and Lepain (2015) may be. Beyond that I believe all the sources are directly from the Baha'i writings or else from Baha'i publishing houses. These sources need not necessarily be removed, but they are reliable only about themselves and need to be contextualized with reliable sources. I won't be changing anything in the short term, but if better sources don't emerge after some time I think this page should be trimmed down and then merged into Baha'i teachings or another Baha'i page. Ditto the other two I mentioned above. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55,

I think, defining reliable sources WP:RS for Baha'i related articles is a difficult issue, especially when there are editors not working sincerely and trying to impose their or their religious POVs to every article. For some of them, books published by "Oneworld Publication" becomes a reliable source while some books published by "Kalimat Press" becomes unreliable! Peter Smith becomes reliable but William Garlington unreliable! They themselves include matter from Gary Matthews' book, but when another editor uses the same book, their content is challenged! Baha'is are free to use Baha'i published books but Orthodox Baha'is should take their content from the so-called neutral sources, like Johnson's!

Be assured, that I will not break wiki rules, I will try my level best to remove pro-Baha'i bais from the Baha'i articles, and I appreciate your help, edits and your honesty.

I am also not able to understand why only "Smith (2000) is clearly a reliable source"? Smith, Momen etc are Baha'is, they do have their own way of writing, where they omit a lot of things that they feel is "unnecessary"! why one should rely on and accept "only" their scholarship?

I feel most Baha'i editors try to hide or censor things that they believe don't serve the interests of their faith.

Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Serv181920, thanks for being committed to WP guidelines. Yes, you're right, there is a big problem with POV on the Baha'i articles, and yeah RS is always complicated because there are grey areas. Overall many of these pages give an air of objectivity to what is actually just the Baha'i view of itself. Full disclosure of my own bias: I'm a former Baha'i who first learned about the Baha'i Faith on Wikipedia of all places and I now feel I was kinda misled by Wikipedia's coverage. Actually, when I was Baha'i I used to edit as ThomasEdistar. I still think most Baha'is are honest people who sincerely believe in what they say.

I meant Smith (2000) was reliable because it comes from a major non-Baha'i publisher (at least based on this: Oneworld Publications). Perhaps I'm confused, I thought Kalimat Press was Baha'i? I just meant Smith (2000) was the only one out of the sources that are currently in this article. It would be great to have MacEoin, Cole, Garlington, Johnson, Warburg, etc. if they've written something relevant. Smith and Momen might have a bias, so might ex-Baha'is or Orthodox Baha'is, but if they have a mainstream publisher I think they count as RS. My concern is just that for many topics the Baha'i Faith is not large enough that researchers have spent time writing about it. Gazelle55 (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

* Also—if you feel you're being subjected to a double standard at a certain article feel free to ping me. And if we can't resolve it there's always RfC or the NPOV noticeboard. Gazelle55 (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gazelle55, Thanks for the info about yourself. Good to see a former Baha'i editing Baha'i articles without any grudge, appreciate that. Even I think that most Baha'is are honest people and they want to really help the suffering mankind. But when I see some wiki articles I feel the pro-Baha'i bias is/was deliberately added to the articles, pages of 'opponents' were vandalised and edited in bad-faith. That's not good to see.

Read about "Oneworld Publications" here : https://bahaipedia.org/Oneworld_Publications (While it is inspired by a Bahá'í worldview it does not aim to be a Bahá'í publishing company)

Read about "Kalimat Press" here : https://bahaipedia.org/Kalimát_Press (In 2005 the National Spiritual Assemblies of the United States and Canada asked Local Spiritual Assemblies not to distribute books from the publisher due to concerns at their editorial policy)

I believe "Brill" who has published books of Denis MacEoin to be much better and reliable than the "Oneworld Publications" who has published the works of Smith.

Thank you. Serv181920 (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Gazelle55, I agree with your assessment. I'm curious what specifically you think you were misled by? I think the Baha'i articles over many years have followed the same trend as all of Wikipedia. Early on there was a ton of new content and not much reliance on establishing notability for new pages or understanding how to use sources, and not an overall plan for structure and how many articles are needed. I've found that so much content is repeated on many short articles that they need consolidation or deletion. I would rather have 20 really good articles than 100 poor ones. Caveat to that is that sometimes terms need to be defined and linking to a section in an article gets ugly sometimes. Serv181920, you and I have some differences of opinion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Serv181920, definitely Brill and MacEoin are reliable. No disagreement there. I didn't know that about Oneworld... it does suggest that Smith's 2000 book wasn't subjected to any form of non-Baha'i review. That said, Smith has published a lot on the Baha'i Faith in reputable journals, so the book may be considered reliable to an extent based on his name rather than the publisher's. WP:RS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." And here it is a step up from self-published even if not from a university publisher. Thanks for clarifying about Kalimat Press. It looks like they did a 24-part scholarly series which could be useful, though I think it still doesn't count as vetted by the broader scholarly community.

Cuñado, your approach makes sense. I think there is a lot of merging and consolidation to be done (in some cases without necessarily removing much content). I haven't been editing Wikipedia for too long so I didn't know that about the overall history. As far as being misled, the only thing I think is highly inaccurate is the ARDA/WCE/Britannica numbers that appear in dozens of articles... though those are certainly RS. I more just mean that I find aspects of the Baha'i Faith that might turn away potential converts are generally downplayed or relegated to more peripheral articles. I don't necessarily mean this is cause of deliberate NPOV. At that time I wasn't as skeptical about sources so the seeming independence of Wikipedia from any particular religion served (for me) as a stamp of approval on what I learned from Baha'i sources. So that ties back to the need to only cover topics/sub-topics where we have well-vetted sources to prevent pro-Baha'i spin. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Gazelle55, Oneworld is Baha'i inspired, so, for me, it is never going to be a 100% neutral source. Peter Smith is a Baha'i scholar and his encyclopedia is mostly sourced from Baha'i sources only. For instance, for Raj'a (Return), Page 293, he cites Momen, Baha'u'llah's Epistle to the son of Wolf, Kitab-i-Iqan, Tablets of Baha'u'llah Revealed after the Kitab-i-Aqdas - he also cites Browne and MacEoin but he does not site any Shaykhi or Shi'i source. AFAIK, he does not know Persian or Arabic languages. For Remeyite groups (Page 292) he cites Collins, UHJ, his own work SBBR, and Balch (i don't know about him) - he does not cites any of Mason's own works! I believe this particular encyclopedia is written by the Baha'is, on the advice of the ITC and for the benefit of the Baha'is.Serv181920 (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Economist magazine has had some good commentary on Wikipedia over the years. Like The battle for Wikipedia's soul from 2008 (I'll leave some quotes because I have a subscription and you probably can't see it):

“ It can either strive to encompass every aspect of human knowledge, no matter how trivial; or it can adopt a more stringent editorial policy and ban articles on trivial subjects, in the hope that this will enhance its reputation as a trustworthy and credible reference source. These two conflicting visions are at the heart of a bitter struggle inside Wikipedia between “inclusionists”, who believe that applying strict editorial criteria will dampen contributors' enthusiasm for the project, and “deletionists” who argue that Wikipedia should be more cautious and selective about its entries.

The result is that novices can quickly get lost in Wikipedia's Kafkaesque bureaucracy. According to one estimate from 2006, entries about governance and editorial policies are one of the fastest-growing areas of the site and represent around one-quarter of its content. In some ways this is a sign of Wikipedia's maturity and importance: a project of this scale needs rules to govern how it works. But the proliferation of rules, and the fact that select Wikipedians have learnt how to handle them to win arguments, now represents a danger, says Andrew Lih, a former deletionist who is now an inclusionist, and who is writing a book about Wikipedia. The behaviour of Wikipedia's self-appointed deletionist guardians, who excise anything that does not meet their standards, justifying their actions with a blizzard of acronyms, is now known as “wiki-lawyering”.

Mr Lih and other inclusionists worry that this deters people from contributing to Wikipedia, and that the welcoming environment of Wikipedia's early days is giving way to hostility and infighting. There is already some evidence that the growth rate of Wikipedia's article-base is slowing. Unofficial data from October 2007 suggests that users' activity on the site is falling, when measured by the number of times an article is edited and the number of edits per month. The official figures have not been gathered and made public for almost a year, perhaps because they reveal some unpleasant truths about Wikipedia's health.

It may be that Wikipedians have already taken care of the “low-hanging fruit”, having compiled articles on the most obvious topics (though this could, again, be taken as evidence of Wikipedia's maturity). But there is a limit to how much information a group of predominantly non-specialist volunteers, armed with a search engine, can create and edit. Producing articles about specialist subjects such as Solidarity activists, as opposed to Pokémon characters, requires expert knowledge from contributors and editors. If the information is not available elsewhere on the web, its notability cannot be assessed using Google.

”

I followed this trend myself, initially creating lots of new pages, and now mostly just deleting them.

Editors peaked in 2006-2008 for Wikipedia overall, and the same for Baha'i articles. I edited during that time and later spent a few years not looking at Wikipedia. A lot of the work since then is cleanup of the early expansion, not making new articles. The original content was mostly written by Baha'is in the way that they normally write, which is to quote primary sources and commentary from people like Taherzadeh. Definitely no big Baha'i conspiracy going on involving Baha'i institutions, just a bunch of highly educated white men having fun in their free time (like almost every editor of Wikipedia).

Relating this back to the thread... I'm now a minimalist and want to clean up and reduce content, and I have tried to make the same arguments as Gazelle55 on many pages in recent years about needing neutral sources that establish notability and set up a framework for page content. All that takes many hours of work and is not easy. For many Baha'i articles on Wikipedia, there are no neutral sources out there. Just like the make-up of editors, material is either from Baha'is or from people antagonistic to the Faith who have an axe to grind. I try to use sources that are closer to the middle and use them in context if the content is likely to be challenged. That means Smith and Momen and Garlington and Browne are often the best type of sources available. Truly independent sources are rare and often don't go into much detail, so if you really want to use them to establish notability, there would only be 10-15 articles. For example, Britannica has <10 articles related to Baha'i topics. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting to hear, thanks for sharing the benefit of your subscription. I don't have any reason to believe there is any conspiracy behind the Baha'i articles, I hope I didn't come off as saying that. That said, while I'm happy to help newcomers and try to make the most of their contributions, I do think it's important to establish notability. I do remember coming to this article in particular and thinking, "Wow, there are some possible objections but they have been looked at in detail and it looks like people agree these don't hold any weight." Whereas people of every religion have come up with explanations for apparent problems with their scriptures, it's just that there are more sources from non-members around to provide the critical POV.

I might disagree with both of you when I say that I don't think WP:IS is primarily addressing POVs. I think it's talking about personal or financial conflict of interests in sources. If Fethullah Gulen gets an article about the Quran and science published in a journal, that doesn't violate WP:IS. If he publishes an article praising the schools his movement runs in a journal, the source isn't independent cause he has a financial stake. So I don't think there's any issue with using Smith, Momen, Cole, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong here. If I'm right, then I don't think we'll be down to 10-15 articles, though we will be down some.

Smith certainly has a POV. When he's published in OneWorld is different from when he's published in a journal... he should probably be included as "Baha'i historian Peter Smith argues..." for any controversial points, and I don't think that book alone can prove the notability of the Baha'i prophecies page. In a journal can be treated as reliable I think, since it goes through non-Baha'i peer review. WP:RS says generally the more people involved in reviewing a text the more reliable. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cuñado, that was interesting.

Gazelle55 "Baha'i historian Peter Smith argues..." for any controversial points - this sounds reasonable. Thanks.