Template talk:Babism

Untitled

I'm not sure of the relevance of a segment of religiosity with almost no one as a follower. Almost all original Babis became Baha'is and the ones that followed Yahya all died or drifted from their faith long ago. Almost all of the world of relevance of the related articles are thoroughly Baha'i now. --Smkolins (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

just to get beyond points to facts - see Growth of religion#Bahá'í Faith which has plenty of cites of the presence of that religion aside from the dozens of articles related to the religion. As for Babis… I'm not aware of any reliable source listing them as an active religion. --Smkolins (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

compare that with (after a /lot/ of digging) these estimates of Babis:

• MacEoin, Dennis (1989). "Azali Babism". Encyclopædia Iranica. - "unlikely to exceed one or two thousand"

• Momen, Moojan (1991). "The Cyprus Exiles". Bahá'í Studies Bulletin: 81–113. - "Mirza Yahya's descendants at the present time appear to know little about their family history or religious past and can for all practical purposes be regarded as Turks and Muslims."

• Berry, Adam (2004). "The Bahá'í Faith and its relationship to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism: A brief history" (PDF). International Social Science Review. 79 (3–4): 137–151. ISSN 0278-2308. Retrieved Oct 15, 2013. - "a religious group that has since dwindled over time, and is for all purposes dying out.", "The Azalis have shown no signs of growth since Browne's(1909) assertion, giving one reason to conclude that they will cease to exist in the none-too-distant future."

I suggest this template be deleted and changes related to its introduction in various articles be undone. --Smkolins (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• My two cents Smkolins asked me to participate. I took a look at every article which transcludes this and minus the Arabic Bayán, they could all have both this and a Baha'i sidebar to navigate (at least one does). The argument that the religion is small and essentially dead is not really compelling: so are Egyptian and Hellenic Paganism, but there are still enough literature to produce articles. Clearly, there is writing about Babism and if it can justify the existence of several decently long articles which are sourced, then it's fair to navigate them. One option in terms of clutter is to use a footer navbox rather than a sidebar but I'm not sure if that really addresses Smkolins' objections. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Topically I've not problem with the carious contents. But thematically it is a mixed bag. The topics were already knitted together. Doing it this way is distraction. The effort wasn't discussed and it should have been done first and that implementation was done to the exclusion of the main arena of relevance and where the two were included it was done by another editor. I don't think the template presents anything new. --Smkolins (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of cooperation I'll see if it can be improved. Ultimately I think merging at best is all that is needed if more topics are to fit but in the mean time… --Smkolins (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

excuse me i'm a little in english but what's da mean of the number of babis or azali babis "unlikely to exceed one or two thousand"??? aren't they a normal adherents like Most people? then,,this Template is not a baha'i Template i'm a babi & our religion have rights --Islam90 (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't about rights - you are free to believe as you wish. Wikipedia uses proportionality for some of its stances on what should be covered and how. The Babis as a current religion are very rare - it isn't even useful to speak of the percentage - since almost all of them converted to the Baha'i Faith decades and more ago. The scholarly coverage of the topic is almost entirely oriented towards coverage of the Babi Faith in relation to its development into the Baha'i Faith. --Smkolins (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Koavf that the template has it's place, regardless of the size of the current community; but Smolkins reorganization is a definite improvement in matching how academic sources cover the religion and it's history, and it's names. Please bring you your concerns and counter-arguments for reverting to what I find is a sub-par version. Warm regards --- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)