Talk:Orthodox Baháʼí Faith

• /Archive01 December 2001-October 2004

Article cleanup

This article desperately needs cleaning up. Its all about why there was a split not about the religion at all. I know its had a bit of an awkward initiation, but we have Bahá'í divisions now so that can all go. It would be nice to include such things as what the orthodox plan on doing with the universal house of justice, how the administrative order works, and where major concentrations of Orthodox Bahá'ís are maybe?

Does anyone know how many (ish) Orthodox Bahá'ís there are around though? the localities bit if a bit vague. -- Tomhab 14:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro

So, it seems that there's some concern about statements in the intro of this article. I have a concern about the most recent changes, and would appreciate them at least being addressed to avoid a back and forth of reverts (which has apparently already begun).

1. It's sloppily written: in its current form the implications are that they were members that were excommunicated, and now are a new group. In reality we know that they left the group before the UHJ was established, and formed their own group. It's a sloppy sentence.
2. Hardly fair or honest not to allow that they also shun sans-guardians; it's a characteristic of each and every group. Mason enjoined the OB's to shun upon the groups inception.
3. Undue wieght cannot be leveraged against a group that the article is about. I'm sure some may want to argue semantics on this, but if a group can't express itself in it's own article, where is it supposed to. The fact that they shun sans-Guardians in return is a matter of fact. What's the problem with saying so. I would think that other than to reference the BWF for clarification purposes, what they think or feel doesn't even warrant more than a sentence in an article that isn't about them. It's about the OB's here. Why would anyone even think to invoke undue weight? Jeff 05:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to rewrite the sentence expressing the point of the sans-Guardians,and will footnote the statement. As one of the concerns was of citing sources, it seems odd that the rewrite didn't include any sources for the new version. I will. Jeff 05:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time for a detailed response for a few days, but quickly... sloppy, I agree, and I didn't write hardly any of this article. Shunning, I got that from reading Orthodox Baha'is commenting on several discussion boards. They specifically said that they consider the rest of Baha'is as misled, and not Covenant-breakers. Since the article wasn't referenced in that regard, I changed it (with good intentions). I never mentioned undue weight, so you'll have to be more specific. Cuñado - Talk 07:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

MARussell noted undue weight when he reverted back to your last in his edit summary. I understand the policy, just not sure why it is warranted here. I've been wrong before, and I'm sure if I am I'll find out soon enough. I've given this article a brief once over already, and I'm going to set out first thing tommorrow at tidying it up a little. Starting with refs, etc.

I'm familiar with what you're saying in regards to comments you've read elsewhere about "misled" versus CB's. There's a dicotomy not being addressed in this article which I'd like to take a stab at as objectively as possible. What I mean is that the Orthodox Baha'is were actually first and foremost Remey's group. Joel stole the name and his followers at the same time (I know that's biased, but you know what I mean). Somehow it should be addressed, or delineated more clearly that this group was spawned originally at Remey's proclamation (to wit: he declared the Hands and anyone who went along with them "violators"). This is sort of glazed over in the article. And the referencing is persona non grata. But, somehow this article starts to look as if it was a group of heretics who were shunned, and then formed a group of their own, sortof. That's the problem with this whole thing. It doesn't delineate the history of it's origins well, doesn't address their structur or goals, or any of Joel's recent activities. He's quite a busy body you know. I just felt that even though their presence here has been vacant in the last year or so, doesn't mean that this article can't be improved upon objectively. I'm up for improving it however I can. Jeff 09:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I should mention this before you add a bunch, since we've argued before. There doesn't seem to be any published material by Marangella other than what he posts on his website, at least no secondary sources that I know of. Most secondary sources mentioning him just say that there is very little doctrinal differences other than the leadership dispute. The Wikipedia:Notability requirements will effectively reduce an obscene expansion... "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that information about it will have been researched and checked through publication in multiple independent reliable sources."

But like I said, it is pretty sloppy right now, and you're right about the need to note the difference between Orthodox under Marangella, and Orthodox under Remey. Cuñado - Talk 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Membership

I've just added an entry to the baha'i divisions page; I'll also add it to this page for now to give an idea of the numbers of Orthodox Baha'is. k1-UK-Global 12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I notice you've removed my reference to the fact that most of the 40 Orthodox Baha'is are family members; I think that this is an important point which gives an insight into the type of following that this division has. I believe that this fact is mentioned in the referenced articles too. Can you let me know your thoughts on this? I'll re-insert it if I hear nothing from you for a while. Thanks, k1-UK-Global 09:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, my thoughts were that your contributions were sloppily worded, and grammatically challenged. The reference to the family membership came from the sans-Guardian memorandum which was clearly a speculative and debasing statement, not one based on facts or any survey. I believe the fact that you've got 2 refs pinning down a number so small achieves your goal of showing the minimalistic scope and magnitude of this group. By the very nature of these matters it's implied that members of a religious community will be interrelated between husbands, wifes, and their offspring. Jeff 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oi! Jeff, please don't bite the newcomers.

One does not "speculate" in front of federal judges. The statement that the OBF's membership is limited to family members isn't speculative. It's supported by referenced exhibits, which aren't available for review unfortunately. That the OBFs responding memo doesn't counter this, one can assume the fact is uncontested.

However, I don't think that references to "family members" is clear. It suggests that they are all members of an extended family, which is most likely not the case. The NSA memoranda refers to the membership as consisting of families which I read as "nuclear families". The reference should probably go. MARussellPESE 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with MARussellPESE, the fact is both referenced and un-contested. I was quite shocked when I read the statement as I'd thought the movement was bigger and more inclusive of the wider population. This is the reason why I thought it relevant to put this in the article. The number it gives is 12 children or grandchildren of those in the Remey group, which I realise is not a majority but is still significant. If you think it inappropriate to include this then of course please say, but it doesn't appear to be speculation (referenced), is uncontested, and gives a flavour of the following of this group. And please, in future, be civil; I was upset to see your last response Jeff. k1-UK-Global 09:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. I do so enjoy opportunities to be on the side of MARussell. I also feel 'the reference should probably go'.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have had the pleasure of seeing the exhibits, and the conclusions are not based on survey, but on what they feel are logical deductions. In context it's a demoralizing statement. That's all I meant by speculative and debasing. Not really the point though, but whatever. The goal of nailing down the scope of them has been achieved, right? Kayvan, welcome aboard. Jeff 06:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, last flogging of the horse... Within Exhibit 9, pp51-56 an Orthodox Baha'i lists the family members. It's a redacted copy, meaning one can't see the names, but if you count the "is the son of" and "is the daughter of" (in reference to people serving under Remey and his council) there are roughly 9 instances, and also a large block of blacked out text, apparently a list of names, which could include at least three names but possibly more. Whether it's demoralizing is (in my POV) a POV. Last attempt: should we include that "a large proportion of followers are family members"? (a third party's opinion?) k1-UK-Global 09:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Kayvan: holding back a fact because its demoralizing is POV.

As I read the NSA's brief the question hangs on: "At least twelve individuals in Marangella’s forty-person following are children or grand-children of those that were in the Remey group." I can't find the exhibits y'all are referring to, but I presume that the exhibit corroborates the assertion. And, as the assertion is not disputed by the OBF response, one can accept it as true. However, I'm not sure that it adds much. That the group has dwindled to forty people is signal enough of the group's vitality.

As the membership of forty stipulated to, and looking at the references, I think that this article probably merits deletion per WP:Notability and merging into Bahá'í divisions where much of this material is already covered.

Notability problems:

1. Few, if any, of the sources are primary sources rather than the policy's preferred secondary sources.
2. Few, if any, of the sources are "independent of the subject".

Hence the {{notability}} tag here, and on Joel Marangella. MARussellPESE 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that no matter how carefully I say anything the point is completely missed? When did I say you should hold back a fact because its demoralizing? I was questioning whether it was a fact or just a veiled jab meant to demoralize the defendant. I concur that the point on this groups scope has been established with this one simple source, and that breaking down the 40 adds nothing to the point. Agreed. Lets move on.

I have little interest in going to war over this, but I just have to note that I think it would be irresponsible to attempt to delete these articles simply because no one from the group has been willing to expand upon its content. An article of this nature requires someone with intimate knowledge of the subject to step up contribute. Just from their websites alone there is plenty of primary source material to give a more thorough article. I can't argue with your points about policy MARussell, but certainly a group that at one time held the attention of thousands of believers in America alone who turned to Joel as their Guardian qualifies as notable. The historian Vernon Johnson has published papers and is writing a book on the Baha'i Faith's Guardian groups. Obviously OBF and Joel have been noted by at least this one third party. To the extent that they have dwindled does not take away from their notablility, does it? Again, I'm not looking for a long drawn out thing, for I personally think Joel is a charlatan. I'm just saying, these articles are not irrelevent, maybe just incomplete? Jeff 07:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what's irresponsible in standing on WP policies. I've spent considerable time cleaning up Baha'i articles and others mentioning Baha'i and getting them into shape viz. a viz. policies. (WP:Undue_Weight & WP:V were the most abused.) I've even policed articles of "hostile" groups. It doesn't seem out of line to apply the same to other articles as well.

I'm not endorsing deleting the data, just merging what's redundant. There's been a tag on Joel Marangella's biography asking for any references for over a year and a half without anything added. I put it there. I've not done any research because I genuinely think he's not notable from a WP sense. Now that we know he's got forty followers, that seems to seal it.

And, yes, to the extent that any subject has dwindled in importance so does it's notability. Notability is fluid. MARussellPESE 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I certainly don't object to sticking to policy. I wouldn't want to see their existence deleted from Wikipedia when they are part of the history of the Faith. Despite how one feels about their existence, they are part of the tapestry, right? Even if the number becomes zero, they still are part of the picture. I would support a merger of the redundant data barring anything substantial being contributed. Jeff 01:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC) That's fair

I agree, even if they were to disappear it is important to keep info on them alive for posterity. PS, the number 40 refers to O.Baha'is in USA, this means there could be more overseas. k1-UK-Global 13:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello from an Orthodox Baha'i from Canada. If there is just 40 Orthodox Baha'is in USA, it is perhaps due to the fact they are not getting everyone to sign a card and boast big numbers afterwards, a practice I saw on the heterodox Baha'i side. The treat of shunning also may explain why people prefer keep quiet. The heterodox Universal House of Justice becomes more and more authoritarian, so the proposal here made against the Orthodox Baha'i themes on Wikipedia will only help this dictature. Martin

Agree, even if they disappear completely they are notable enough to mention and have their own page. Whether the OBF page exists separately or gets merged into something else doesn't really matter. I've tried to consolidate a number of pages, even things I previously made. The current page does not have much unique content, and is mostly a repeat of the Baha'i divisions page (in fact I don't know think there is anything not repeated). Even if an Orthodox Baha'i individual comes along and tries to expand it, unless they add verifiable and factual information, it will get canned. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Article merge

Info is alive on this group in Bahá'í divisions.

I've just merged the Joel Marangella article into "Bahá'í divisions#Orthodox Bahá'í Faith". There were a couple of websites in the Marangella article that aren't in "Divisions" that I added. Little else was not in both.

Looking at this article, I can't see anything that isn't in "Divisions" in one place or another and covered better there. The whole "Nature of the dispute" section is covered in greater detail in Divisions' "The founding of the Universal House of Justice" section. The opening and "Announcement" sections are in the Divisions' "OBF" section. This articles references and external links are reproduced in Divisions.

If I were to merge this article, it'd be not much more than redirecting it. If there's something worth saving here, that isn't redundant with something in divisions, someone should take care of it. I'll hold off on merging. MARussellPESE 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Either way sounds fine. If this article stays then it needs to be cut down and cleaned up. This has obvious consequences for the BUPC article too. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Cunado, you want to cut down this article to what exactly? There's an intro and two sections. And, I'm failing to see these "obvious consequences for the BUPC article" you speak of. What does this article have to do with the other? This article has no substance, sources, or contributors. I'm one of this articles main contributors according to the history, and I don't even know that much about them.

Unlike this article, the BUPC page contains volumes of information about the group that's not mirrored in the few paragraph summary on Baha'i divisions, and it has actual primary and secondary, and tertiary sources. I've even emailed Frank Slatter of OBF directly to warn him of these steps that were being taken here, and it was obviously of no concern to them. They've never taken an interest in these articles. Its certainly not that they're lacking in material to create a healthy article. But whatever your concerns here might be, I don't see what they have to do with anything concerning the BUPC page. They're apple and oranges Jeff 03:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In re-reading this article it seems redundant in its entirety, but want a fair hearing. If there's any discussion on the BUPC pages, let's take them there and please stay on topic. MARussellPESE 02:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability established

«If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject.»

http://books.google.com/books?id=jxIxPBpGMwgC&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=%22orthodox+baha+is%22&source=web&ots=Bkat9zkQxc&sig=QOLNTurAgWXjUDBsaP9pQtE9xJg#PPA259,M1

Exploring New Religions (by George D. Chryssides) mentions the Bahá'ís under the hereditary guardianship (Orthodox Bahá'ís). We would be one of the «splinter groups», «despite claims sometimes by Baha'is that the movement is unified and unbroken by schism».

«Adopting an objective stance, this book examines the teachings and practices of a wide variety of new religious groups. It also explores the societal responses to such religious movements.»

Another independent source mentions the Orthodox Bahá'ís:

http://www.bahairesearch.ir/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=125

Shortly, according to W in talk.religion.bahai: «This is Bahai-Pazhuhi (Bahai Research), i.e. one of the most thorough online portals in the Persian blogosphere - and generally the most balanced and scholarly - covering Bahaism of all shades and colors. The specific page you have brought up is a long thread of discussions basically summarizing most of the positions on your websites regarding the guardianist position, with translated quotations from sundry sources and such like. Point to a specific sub-section of the page you wish translated.»

Another independent source, a reputed on-line dictionary, lists the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith and the Orthodox Bahá'ís:

http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/browse/indexOr23.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.27.221 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith is thus clearly established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.27.221 (talk • contribs) 2008-01-30

Wow! A book mentions the OBF in passing and its notability "is thus clearly established"? Not even close. This article really needs to be merged into the main Baha'i divisions article. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon User:198.168.27.221, if you look closer at the new source you've linked to here, the mention of this group links back to a summary of this very Wiki article. See the dilemma with your reasoning? The sad fact is that both the Marangella group and the Harvey/Shogomaonian groups have been quite inactive and asleep at the helm so to speak over the years. They seem to have taken the position that they don't need to teach or be active in any way (esp. Harvey's), but just need to have believers in the guardianship. You don't need to rely on these weak sources you found, but rather their own sites could be used as a source about themselves. It's just that no one has bother to contribute from it. The sans-guardians who would like to promote the idea that they are not a notable group might ask their own NSA why then they are suing them in Federal Court over violating an injunction against Remey if they are inane and not notable. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I cited that source as it is a dictionary that will likely use this info for future editions. As for notability, for sure there are a lot more for that. For the Orthodox Baha'is, they do translate their texts into diverse languages, like Spanish, French, and Indian languages. They have international conferences, newsletters, booklets and books. That should be quite enough for being notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.27.221 (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like there are bigger issues that go beyond these notability concerns. There are issues with that as there are no secondary sources; their primary ones seem to be the extent of it. But if the only content on this page is mirrored on the Baha'i divisions article, then this should be expanded or merged. As the ANON User above noted, there are plenty of primary sources to do that with. There are also the details contained within the recent Illinois court case (which they won) that could be considered worthy of noting. I'm not intimate enough with the details to do it myself, or I'd lend a hand. Maybe an OBF believer might be willing to contribute? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Further reading" section

Hi @Cuñado: Please tell me why have you moved the book of Joel Marangella from "Further reading" section to "references" section?Serv181920 (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to browse Wikipedia:Further reading. Things included in "further reading" should be neutral sources, not a partisan manifesto. Also, "further reading" is a way to point out a few sources when the reference list is too long. The current ref list has four entries, so the further reading section is really unnecessary and should probably just be deleted. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

But Baha'is do add what you call "a partisan manifesto" to Baha'i related articles!Serv181920 (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)