Talk:Baháʼí Faith

Archives (Index)
Archive 1 02/03 – 08/04	Archive 2 08/04 – 01/05
Archive 3 01/05 – 02/05	Archive 4 02/05 – 06/05
Archive 5 03/05 – 07/05	Archive 6 07/05 – 10/05
Archive 7 10/05 – 11/05	Archive 8 11/05 – 12/05
Archive 9 12/05 – 04/06	Archive 10 04/06 – 07/06
Archive 11 08/06 – 09/06	Archive 12 07/06 – 12/06
Archive 13 12/06 – 02/07	Archive 14 02/07 – 03/07
Archive 15 03/07 – 12/08	Archive 16 03/08 – 12/10
Archive 17 05/08 – 08/14	Archive 18 06/14 – 04/17
Archive 19 04/17 –
Biographies for discussion of material relating to the history of Baha'i figures
Picture discussion of the display of Baha'u'llah's photograph
Request for comment discussion generated by a RfC of Feb 2005
Off Topic discussions removed per wikipedia policy (Wikipedia is not a discussion board)

Archives are missing

WHERE are all the talk page archives for this article? (Deleted?/ by whom? / WHY??)..

Thanks! 2A02:120B:2C26:79C0:4E3C:16FF:FE2A:C48E (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The talk page archives weren't deleted. The links have become red because archives weren't properly moved during the move of the article. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Nineteen archives and the index were moved in these 20 edits. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Two small quibbles with the lead

Hi all, just wanted to touch base about two apparent problems with the lead before making changes.

• It says Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha were the most recent Manifestations before Baha'u'llah and the Bab (not those exact words). However, there is no source for this in the lead or the body of the article. Where does this claim come from? I'm specifically uncertain about whether from the Baha'i perspective the Buddha should come before Krishna. The main historical phase of Hinduism to discuss Krishna is the Itihasa (epics), specifically the Mahabharata, which comes after the Buddha. Obviously my own reasoning holds no weight in the article, but it does lead me to think the unsourced claim may be incorrect. Should it be removed?
• The opening sentence says the Baha'i Faith teaches "the essential worth of all religions." However, this doesn't include Sikhism, Jainism, Manichaeism, Mormonism, new religious movements, etc., at least not in the same sense Baha'is teach the worth of say Christianity, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism. The source cited is a dictionary not a scholarly article which I believe explains why it makes an inaccurate claim. The article body, without a source, retreats to the claim of "the well known religions of the world" being founded by Manifestations, but this doesn't seem to be true either, given for example Sikhism, Confucianism, Daoism, etc. Is there some way this could be reworded and traced to a reliable source?

Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

No response so I'm going to add citation needed tags. Hopefully I'll find sources soon. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the first, Shoghi Effendi wrote: "There are no dates in our teachings regarding the actual dates of the Prophets of the Adamic Cycle, so we cannot give any. Tentatively we can accept what historians may consider accurate. Naturally the dates referring to Muhammad, the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh we are sure of." (Lights of Guidance, p. 503) Historians are reasonably sure Buddha lived around 400 BCE. Krishna more like 3000-1000 BCE if he was a real person. I'm not sure what the controversy is here.

Regarding the second, there are numerous dictionaries and encyclopedic sources giving similar short descriptions:

• Lexico: "...emphasizing the essential oneness of humankind and of all religions and seeking world peace."
• Dictionary.com: "...teaching the essential worth of all religions, the unity of all peoples, and the equality of the sexes."
• Dictionary of cultural literacy: "...advocating universal peace and stressing the spiritual unity of humankind."
• Britannica: "The principal Bahāʾī tenets are the essential unity of all religions and the unity of humanity. Bahāʾīs believe that all the founders of the world’s great religions have been manifestations of God and agents of a progressive divine plan for the education of the human race."
• Iranica: "...a world religion with internationalist and pacifist emphases."
• Merriam-Webster: "...a religious movement originating in Iran in the 19th century and emphasizing the spiritual unity of humankind."
• Encyclopedia.com: "...the Baha'i Faith projected a broad view of the oneness of mankind and coming unity of different religions."

The phrase "essential worth" accurately carries the idea that there is value in all religions. It doesn't say that every doctrine is considered true or that every claim to prophethood is accepted by Baha'is. It is inclusive of Sikhism, Mormonism, etc. The more nuanced descriptions are further down in the article. This has been rehashed many times and we keep going back to this wording because it is the lead sentence and needs to be concise. It is also well sourced. Nuance is below in the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that I had conflated the time the text about Krishna was written with when Krishna lived (or may have lived), so thanks for setting the record straight there. I still think a source would be ideal (not sure this is WP:BLUE), but I'll leave it until I can find one. My bad on the other point, I didn't realize this had already been discussed and I see there are other sources beyond the dictionary backing this use of "essential worth." Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem and if you have an idea for the lead please propose it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"Baha'i Faith is a new religion teaching the essential worth of all religions."

Hi Cuñado,
This sentence "Baha'i Faith is a new religion teaching the essential worth of all religions." has POV issues. Can you please share the source of this sentence? Neither dictionary.com says that nor the Encyclopedia Britannica! Furthermore, you are using a dictionary definition in the lead section of an important article. See WP:DICTS. FYI, dictionary.com explicitly states in its terms and conditions found here: https://www.dictionary.com/e/terms/ that "NEITHER DICTIONARY, NOR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES.... MAKE ANY WARRANTY... AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, COMPLETENESS..." then why don't you use a more reliable source! If that is not possible let the citation be tagged with . Thanks. Serv181920 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned two sections up, there are numerous sources saying similar things. The wording in the article correctly reflects how the Baha'i Faith is summarized in the first paragraph of the preponderance of sources.

• Lexico: "...emphasizing the essential oneness of humankind and of all religions and seeking world peace."
• Dictionary.com: "...teaching the essential worth of all religions, the unity of all peoples, and the equality of the sexes."
• Dictionary of cultural literacy: "...advocating universal peace and stressing the spiritual unity of humankind."
• Britannica: "The principal Bahāʾī tenets are the essential unity of all religions and the unity of humanity. Bahāʾīs believe that all the founders of the world’s great religions have been manifestations of God and agents of a progressive divine plan for the education of the human race."
• Iranica: "...a world religion with internationalist and pacifist emphases."
• Merriam-Webster: "...a religious movement originating in Iran in the 19th century and emphasizing the spiritual unity of humankind."
• Encyclopedia.com: "...the Baha'i Faith projected a broad view of the oneness of mankind and coming unity of different religions."

If you have an alternative wording, please propose it and get a consensus. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Only one source, dictionary.com, is using those words. I would suggest something like "The Baháʼí Faith is a new religious movement that believes in the oneness of God and the oneness of religion." All those who have some basic understanding of the Baha'i Faith knows very well that the Baha'i Faith aspires to bring a NWO based on the Baha'i principles. All Baha'i teachings and activities are focused on achieving this aim. I think "teaching the essential worth of all religions" is WP:PUFFERY or at least a POV that is not neutral. Thanks. Serv181920 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Current full wording: ...a new religion teaching the essential worth of all religions and the unity of all people.

Sources use "essential oneness... of all religions", "teaching the essential worth of all religions", "essential unity of all religions... founders of the world's great religions... are agents of a progressive divine plan", "emphasizing the spiritual unity of humankind", "coming unity of different religions".

As I mentioned, the current version is an accurate reflection of many sources. It is a complicated issue that is laid out in much more detail below in the article. "...essential worth of all religions" seems to be a good balance for the lead. "...oneness of religion" is less descriptive and phrasing like "unity of all religions" or "unity of major religions" runs into some problems.

Why did you drop the mention of "unity of all people?" That is part of all but one example above. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "essential worth of all religions?" Please elaborate.

"As I mentioned, the current version is an accurate reflection of many sources." This is your POV!

Baha'i faith believes in the oneness of religion and the oneness of humanity but this belief is directly related to the Baha'i inspired New World Order that Baha'i Administration aspires to build. And this is not some conspiracy-theory that I am making-up. Thanks. Serv181920 (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Mention of NWO sent me to New World Order (conspiracy theory). There is not a single mention of the Baháʼí Faith in the article because the faith is a religious aspiration while other is a political social threat. The two are polar opposites that happen to use the same 3 words as desriptors. The galvanizing language used by conspiracy theorists has no kinship with the healing words of Baháʼu'lláh. ―Buster7 ☎ 22:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

On wikipedia you are supposed to be a neutral person and assume good faith WP:AGF. You are not supposed to use the words like "galvanizing language used by conspiracy theorists" or "healing words of Baháʼu'lláh". This could reveal your bias/love towards your faith. If you want me to share with you some quotations (from the Baha'i writings) about the so-called Baha'i New World Order, a Baha'i Super-state, a Baha'i commonwealth please let me know, I will share some for you. Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No Need. In order to point out my bias, you have displayed you own. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

New world order (Baháʼí) is linked in the third paragraph of this article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the tension Serv181920 is getting at is that Baha'is teach the divine origin of other religions, but also that in their current forms they are corrupted and should be replaced with the Baha'i Faith. So mentioning the unity part but not the condemnation of the current forms part could be seen as misleading. That said, the sources focus on the teaching of the unity of religion so I think the article should reflect that—as always, it's not our judgement to make. I don't see why "essential worth of all religions" is more pro-Baha'i than "unity of religion," so I don't see an issue with using it given it's a bit easier to understand. The article body should reflect the details of the Baha'i view, though. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bahai's believe in progressive revelation...the building of one religion upon another. Not rejecting that religion. Your comment that Baha'i's consider other religions corrupt is completely off-base and remarkably untrue. I have never seen "...and should be replaced with the Baha'i Faith" in any of the writings nor any hint that older religions need to be rejected. You come to mediate by throwing gasoline in the fire. ―Buster7 ☎ 00:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Gazelle55 the way you described it is accurate. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Buster7, Sharing some quotations for you:

• "This basic teaching of Bahá’u’lláh was to preserve the Faith from being corrupted like Islam which attributes binding authority to all the reported sayings of Muhammad." -Shoghi Effendi
  
• "Likewise, the foundation of the religion of Muḥammad is no more, but its outward form remains in the hands of the Muslim divines." - 'Abdu'l Baha
  
• They (Muslims and Christians or Azalis!?) have rejected the bounty of God and His proofs and have repudiated the testimony of God and His signs. They have gone astray and have caused the people to go astray, yet perceive it not. They worship vain imaginings but know it not. They have taken idle fancies for their lords and have neglected God, yet understand not. They have abandoned the most great Ocean and are hastening towards the pool, but comprehend not. They follow their own idle fancies while turning aside from God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting." -Baha'u'llah (Lawh-i-Ishraqat)
  

Thanks.Serv181920 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing, Serv. ―Buster7 ☎ 02:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Serv181920. But details about the exact relationship between the Baha'i Faith and other religions (the different religions, including Baha'i, obviously have very different takes on many questions, not just this one!) belongs in the body of the article rather than the lede, which is to give a quick "general idea". You are perfectly correct that the Baha'i view on this point is not so simple as is sometimes imagined - hence the careful wording "essential worth of all religions" - other religions can have "essential worth" without necessarily being carbon copies of Baha'i, or each other. Criticism of the actions and views of followers of another religion (think of Jesus and the Pharisees!) does not necessarily "deny the essential worth" of the religions concerned. The lede sections of many Wikipedia articles could well leave a "misleading" impression, but then the avoidance of misleading superficiality is what the rest of the article is for, isn't it? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"New religious movement"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam and the Baha'i Faith

https://bahaiproofs.com/SectIslam.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative religion

Miller and Barrett wrote books on the subject of "sects, cults, and alternative religions". I quoted Miller above I'm repeating here so I can get the two together. They both wrote about how NRM was a popular phrase but they both chose to go with 'alternative religion' instead. Keep in mind these are 20-25 years old:

Scholars have used a variety of terms to avoid the negative connotations of "sect" and "cult". Some have employed "marginal," a term certainly less pejorative then "cult," but still one that tends to minimize the importance and value of the group in question. "Nonmainstream" has had some following, but it is cumbersome. "New religious movement" has been generally embraced by scholars and by adherents of the nonmainstream religions themselves, but it has at the same time been the source of confusion: does it apply only to truly "new" (at least in the United States) religions, or does it apply to all nonmainstream faiths? The prevailing tendency has been for the term to apply to a wide spectrum of religions, old and new, but it remains ambiguous. It may be that no perfect term exists to describe nonmainstream religions succinctly, but this book adopts a usage that seems to be properly descriptive without bearing heavily pejorative connotations: alternative religions.(Miller (1995), America's Alternative Religions. P. 2)

The term 'new religious movement' is used by most present-day sociologists of religion to avoid the pejorative overtones of 'sect' and 'cult'. This might seem a good solution, but once again there are problems of definition. Not all NRMs are new... Rodney Stark avoids this problem by redefining an NRM as a 'novel religious movement'... Eileen Barker proposes an arbitrary cut-off point at World War II; new religious movements are those founded, in their present form, since then... There are further problems with the term NRM... The term 'alternative religion' avoids the 'newness' problem of 'NRM' by simply and arbitrarily distinguishing between mainstream, established religions and movements which are an alternative to the mainstream. Again this depends on social context; there is nothing alternative about being a Mormon in Salt Lake City.. and again the dividing lines can be debated endlessly... This distinction tends to depend partly on an intuitive and individual understanding of what is generally socially acceptable as "standard'... The term 'alternative religion' thus ties in rather well with how mainstream Christians write about 'sects and cults', but without being pejorative.(Barrett (2001), The New Believers: sects, cults and alternative religions. P. 24)

It is a real problem what phrase to use here. "New religion" is undefined and relative, and was sitting with a pointer to new religious movement. I haven't seen any source besides MacEoin, so far, use the phrase 'new religious movement' and its issues are well articulated by Miller and Barrett. 'New religion' without the link to NRM would work and matches some sources, but I don't see what that adds when 'new' is relative and the dates are given in the first two paragraphs. 'Alternative religion' is supported as a less pejorative phrase by Miller and Barrett, yet still communicating that it's not mainstream, but I haven't seen any sources using that phrase for Baha'is (and it would need several good sources). Calling it a 'world religion' (as it sat for years on WP) has some sources supporting it but I can see why it's not ideal here. 'Religion' seems to be incredibly neutral and anyone with a brain can see the dates and judge for themselves whether it deviates from their perception of "standard" that Barrett says is the whole point of sociologists trying to come up with a phrase. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Serv181920 for the sources. The ones from Momen, Stiles, and Jafarov look reliably sourced, and I believe we can count MacEoin from above since "new religious movement" is similar to "new religion". My best guess is that the other three aren't WP:RS, though the last one from the missionary press might be. We are still waiting for the result of Jafarov/Caucaz.com at the reliable sources noticeboard but my current opinion is that it is good. So I think we have a case for stating "new religion" in the lead sentence, though with the link removed for the reasons Cuñado gave. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Gazelle55 U missed Udo Schaefer (3rd Link), William Hatcher also writes that the Baha'i faith is a "New" religion. Check "Bahá’í Studies Vol. 2 (1980)". "Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements (2005)" also states that Baha'i faith is a "New Religion". I believe - it should be linked with the NRM article.Serv181920 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Anthony A. Lee characterizes the faith as a new religious movement in his recent study The Baha’i Faith in Africa: Establishing a New Religious Movement, 1952-1962 (Leiden, NL: Brill, 2011).Serv181920 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can make the leap from "new religion" to "new religious movement" since as other editors noted above the term seems to have its own set of connotations. But since Anthony A. Lee, Denis MacEoin, and the Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements all use the term I will add the link. Thanks for digging up the sources! (About Schaefer, I don't think it's RS because it's written by a Baha'i for a Baha'i publisher... I could only find one article Schaefer published in a non-Baha'i source so it's not clear to me he has a strong academic reputation on the subject that would allow us to overlook the lack of independent review. Hatcher and Martin have a non-Baha'i publisher but as you note they don't use the term "new religious movement.") Gazelle55 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, what is your source for this sentence "and other attempts to convey that it is new (relative to well-established faiths), not mainstream, and with no racial or national focus."?Serv181920 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you read this talk page? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have the source, cite it. That's simple.Serv181920 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on the topic just raised, but just wanted to clarify above, Serv181920, I was saying you were NOT trying to push POV, not that you were. Sorry, the wording was a bit unclear. And same for Cuñado. Anyway, will mostly be off Wikipedia for the rest of the month so hope you guys work things out in a civil way. Gazelle55 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You know Gazelle55 I am relatively new to Wikipedia so I am learning how the RS and Notability work here. I am not at all trying to be aggressive or rude to anyone, including Baha'i friend/s here :) On the contrary, I see Baha'i editors trying to bite me. :) Never mind. I take it easy. Have a nice time. Bye.Serv181920 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Explanatory note

I'm not sure exactly what the objection is, but the note currently says, "The Baháʼí Faith is described in reliable sources as a 'religion', 'sect',[1] 'relatively new religion',[2] 'world religion',[3] 'major world religion',[4] 'new religious movement',[5] 'alternative religion',[6] and other attempts to convey that it is new (relative to well-established faiths), not mainstream, and with no racial or national focus."

I find the pushback quite surprising as your goal was to push for new religious movement, and Miller and Barrett are quoted above in this talk page talking about the purpose of that phrase being to convey the two points that the movement is new and nonmainstream. The last part about "no racial or national focus" is a reference to the uses of 'world religion' and 'major world religion', and the phrasing comes directly from Barrett. In an explanatory footnote that already has 6 citations for phrases, and considering what is being written and where it is, I think WP:BLUE and WP:OVERCITE are applicable here. The same goes for why I didn't put a citation on the 'religion' description, because that is by far the most common term used and... duh. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I was expecting a citation after this sentence "other attempts to convey that it is new (relative to well-established faiths), not mainstream, and with no racial or national focus." That's all.Serv181920 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Would like to add "Denominations" section.

There is no mention of Baha'i denominations in this article. There should be a small mention of Remiyites and other small groups. What do you think?Serv181920 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

They are mostly extinct groups and a couple very very small groups. Not notable in a general sense of the article and only occasionally qualify in separated articles.Smkolins (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be undue weight and is not reflected in independent reporting on the religion (e.g. CBS report), except for trivial mentions of them being very small, a mention which this article already has. They are fully enumerated in Baha'i divisions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I would be adding this sentence "Some estimates list them in the thousands (5,000 to 8,000), but those estimates are considered to be exaggerated by some people." (References from Warburg's and Johnson's books)Serv181920 (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not an accurate reflection of the sources on their size. It's cherry-picking a less reliable source over a more reliable source. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is also going to be this also "those estimates are considered to be exaggerated by some people."Serv181920 (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Out of the two largest groups, one self-reported to be 40 people in 2007, the other was documented by university observers over 15 years to be about the same size (and to lie about claiming to be in the "thousands"). After those two the size drops off significantly. Of the two sources mentioning "thousands" (Garlington and Johnson), one does not cite any source or firsthand knowledge, and the other lists his source as an online forum where two Baha'is took guesses at their size. Their mention of "thousands" seems to be a generous way of saying that they're really small, but the reality is they are much much smaller. These should not be given weight over sources with firsthand knowledge of the groups. There are also three sources giving them as 100 or "a few hundred". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on what should be included, but to clarify, what is the source claiming they are lying about thousands? Sounds important here. And I don't think we get to pass judgement on whether Garlington and Johnson's own sources are adequate, that is taking on the role of a scholarly reviewer for ourselves. Same reason we can't just have a sentence pointing out that WCE and WCD and WRD and ARDA and Adherents.com don't have good underlying sources. But I do agree there is a need to balance different sources and reflect WP:DUE. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Garlington's lack of sourcing doesn't mean we can't use it, just that there are clearly better sources that put the numbers significantly lower. Sometimes bias can be introduced by stating facts as opinions. From WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice... the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." If Garlington and Johnson had said they were in the "thousands" and spent a page arguing that they are not in the hundreds, but in the thousands, and explaining their reasons why they think so, then I'd call this contested and agree to mention sources and differences. That's not the case though. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

According to Balch (sociologist from University of Montana who studied this group in-person for 15 years) in "Fifteen Years of Failed Prophecy" (Routledge, 1997), "Since 1980 membership in the BUPC has fluctuated considerably, but it probably never exceeded 200 nationwide, despite Jensen's claims of having thousands of followers around the world. In 1994, the last year for which we have a membership list, there were only sixty-six members in Montana and fewer than twenty in other states. The Wyoming and Arkansas contingents disbanded after the 1980 disconfirmation, but new groups were formed in Minnesota and Wisconsin... By 1990 the group probably had fewer than 100 members nationwide... the defection rate accelerated in the 1990s..." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, I am reminded of this note in WP:RSCONTEXT: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." Though I'm not sure we're at that point with these sources... I'd think it depends how much more in-depth Balch is about the numbers question compared to Garlington and Johnson. To avoid having undue weight we might want just one sentence and then a note giving a bit more detail. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The recent "The Baha'i Faith, Violence and Non-violence" (pp 36-37) by Cambridge University Press clearly says that the Baha'i faith does not have any sects, there has been a few splinter groups each usually with less than 100 people in them but they usually were short-lived. Also Moomen says in this work (published by Religion) that the groups cannot really be considered sects as they are not creating alternative ways of being a Baha'i, with functioning alternative communities. Their main purpose is opposing the mainline community and the appointed authority.Tarikhejtemai (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Stockman, the author of "The Baha'i Faith, Violence and Non-violence" and Momen are both Baha'is. So, they are not the best sources to claim "that the Baha'i faith does not have any sects."Serv181920 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines, both sources are very reliable: If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. If there was any bias or inaccuracy in the above-mentioned sources the peer-review and fact-checking processes would have handled and removed them. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Stockman or Momen in a reputable publication are about as good as MacEoin in a reputable publication. All three have some biases and if they have contending opinions then should be attributed. In this case Stockman is accurately describing that there no serious contenders for sects and they have all disappeared soon after their founder tried to split off. I don't even see this as disputed. Anyway the article has already been edited to include a reference to their size. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Lacking in cristicism and controversies

Surely the article requires a section about criticism and controversy. For examp0le claiming to be liberal and enlightened but placing numerous conservative rtestriuctions on followers has been something mentioned by several ex-bahais, yet their voices aren't being added here. Also, for many arabs they are seen as traitors, for being an islam-originated and iranian religion that now chooses to make its headquarters in Israel, which is a big explicit cause of its exclusion in Iran and Iraq. The main mantainer of this article seems to be a hardcore promoter of the religion which goes against wikiedías conflict of interest policies (see: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. --186.141.135.203 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The points you raised are already integrated in the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they want to show a rosy picture on wikipedia, some of these full-time Baha'i editors think that by controlling the information they are serving their 'cause'.Serv181920 (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't bite. I'm a volunteer. I'm acting in good faith using good sources. So should us all. Smkolins (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The title

The title of this article looks like the ' and í are smushed together. Therefore it kind of looks like a blob above the i. It's it possible to fix?

Thx, Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)