Talk:Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith

Purpose of this article

I understand that there are different viewpoints on what this article is supposed to be. While recognizing whatever biases people have, everyone should be shooting for the core Wikipedia policy of neutrality. And that's what I want to bring up here. Applying neutrality in this case, in my view, means reviewing a variety of sources and making the article coherent.

neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.

— NPOV

Combining this with the definition of reliable sources as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", I think the article lacks a big picture of what the article is about. It should not be a dumping ground for any and all critiques of the religion. It should also not be a place where someone lists criticisms and each one gets the "Baha'i response" to the issue. What I deleted in an overhaul of the page was largely obscure minority viewpoints that were poorly sourced. I know what the common criticisms are, but I'm not aware that they have been summarized by third party observers. Most criticism has come from Iranian enemies with a reputation for deception, Christian groups intending to smear the religion, and disaffected former Baha'is who largely criticize individuals in the administration. Only the last category could fall into the category of reliable sources (although not independent or disinterested sources). Lacking an overarching source summarizing common criticisms that is reliable and independent of the subject, the article can't be greatly expanded. My view is at odds with the idea that just because something is a criticism, it can be included.

Another approach is to describe the sources of criticism without giving them undue weight or amplifying obscure minority viewpoints. The Iranian book that someone likes to quote can be added as a source about itself. Each critic could get a section about their contributions to criticism and maybe what came of their criticism, while also listing those issues that are commonly critiqued in other sections. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Man I stumbled into this article whilest wikihopping (doomscrolling but for wikipedia), and wow what an interesting wikipedia push-pull this page is an example of. Given what I have read on the main page on the bahai faith, my guess is that their representatives are probably the most reasonable and polite advocates for their personal faith compared to the larger category of "religion representative wikieditors" -- which remember on the far opposite side of the spectrum can be like scientology wikieditors -- so I imagine on this page there is a lot of genuine good-faith push and pull arguments as a result. Still, I sense some speaking past each other here...

What Cunado said makes a lot of sense, but in addition my advice on settling this question would be first to compare how other wikipedia A-plus grade "criticism of [blank]" articles treat their subject's critics, you know look at those kinds of articles which also got featured on the homepage. Especially I'd examine ones that are NOT "criticism of" [some other faith] as a good place to start. Criticism pages for other faiths will just be neck-deep in the same issues faced here, just likely with far less reasonable people arguing on the religious side.

I mean hey, it's certainly better than continuing to reference WIKI:NPV and WIKI:BIASED at each other over and over again. But what do i know? I'm just a random doom-scrolling lurker wikieditor. -Laced8 76.174.113.253 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This page honestly reads like "Defense of the Baha'i Faith against Criticisms" rather than genuine criticisms. Critics are labelled "polemic" "apologist" etc, and every criticism has a 'Baha'i approved' reply. 167.179.188.202 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relevance of Juan Cole Book

Hi Cunado: Juan Cole a former Baha’i scholar who appeared on various television programs, including PBS’s news hour, The Rachel Maddow show, Anderson copy 360, ABC Nightline and the Colbert Report. who resigned from the Baha’i faith then he writes a book on other Faith. Here lies it relevance.Jammu58 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is that relevant to a page titled "Criticism of the Baha'i Faith"? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead

this is laughable considering the many conversations that have gone on at Baha'i Faith. The first sentence is providing a brief context. I could provide more references calling it a "religion" or "world religion" than there are "new religious movement". And as to the origin, most people don't know what "Babism" is and many sources say it has Shia Islamic origins. Would anyone like to fix it or should I? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Laughable? Why? If you have more references calling it a "religion" or "world religion" put it but keep the NRM link also. There are 10s of references from reputed sources that call the Baha'i faith an NRM. I thought 4 are enough. If you want to add "Great World Religion" add it. There are sources saying "Only a great world religion can fuse and weld mankind into one universal whole." And what kind of argument is that "most people don't know about Babism"? It is blue-linked, people can just click and check. Baha'i faith originated from the Babi movement which originated among the followers of Shaykhi school of thought (one section of Shaykhis). It is not directly related to Shia Islam.Serv181920 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If someone has never heard of the Baha'i Faith, you wouldn't say, "It came from Babism" and expect them to understand. The majority of reliable independent sources describe it similar to what I added. I can add more sources if necessary. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If someone has never heard of the Baha'i faith then why would he come and read this article "criticism of the Baha'i Faith"?Serv181920 (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

By that logic, we don't need an introduction. If you want to press this I'll request other editors to contribute. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC

How should the Baháʼí Faith be summarized in a sentence or two for the lead on Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith?

Option 1: "The Baháʼí Faith is a new religious movement that originated in the 19th century and has around 5 million adherents. It grew initially in Iran out of Babism. It's religious foundations rest on many of the teachings of the Bab."

Option 2: "The Baháʼí Faith is a relatively new world religion that originated in the 19th century and has around 5 million adherents. It grew initially in Iran out of Islamic influences but established its own laws and teachings that made a clear break from Islam."

Or an alternative. Both options have at least some support in reliable sources.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Support for Option 2

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Tarikhejtemai (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

By far the most common term used to describe the Baha'i Faith in independent reliable sources is "religion", and often "world religion" or "new religion". "New Religious Movement" might be used in 10 sources, but I can give you 30 better sources that don't use it, and some academics suggesting that it is pejorative, which is why MacEoin (someone with an axe grind) has been using it.

Regarding origins, if someone has never heard of the Baha'i Faith, you wouldn't say, "It came from Babism" and expect them to understand. The high level overview has consistently been something like, "it is a relatively new religion, and although it had its origins in Islam, the Baha'i Faith claims to be no more a Muslim sect than Christianity today is a Jewish sect." (Barrett, 2001) or "The Baha'i Faith grew out of religious influences and ideals in 19th-century Persia. Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith, was born a Muslim. While one important influence on the Baha'i Faith is Islam... the Baha'i Faith is a separate religion, distinct and different from Islam. However, the Baha'i Faith incorporates many Islamic ideals and practices" (Hartz, 2009) Only after giving Islamic context, then Hartz says, "Even more directly, the Baha'i Faith grew out of a religious movement that came immediately before it. This was the Babi Faith, or Babism." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This article falls within the category Baha'i Faith. The main article for that category is Baha'i Faith. You should use the description from that article for this one to avoid duplicated effort and conflict between articles. If you are unhappy with the description in the main article, I suggest you open the RFC on its talk page. However, as it has 20 archived talk pages, I presume its first sentence has been exhaustively discussed. Am I missing something? Jontel (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I like Jontel's point of keeping to one approach across the pages for the introductory line(s). And a lot of work went into that page's introductory lines. I wince at "new religion" for the reasons Cuñado mentions though I also wince at the use of Islam as a context. Christianity doesn't describe itself either on Judaism or on Roman Palestinian. The easy thing there is that Christianity has long since left it's roots while the Baha'i Faith has only recently transcended the focus of Iran or the emphasis on Babi period history (it's population has long left Iran behind in numbers and though Babi period based Holy Days and remembrance continue there's a lot beyond that going on now.) That recent history means that older sources, or recent ones that only use older sources, emphasize that background one way or another. But that's less relevant today as witnessed by more innovative scholarly sources that are willing to take a wider review of the religion than just its origin. Most Baha'is don't come from a Moslem context and know nothing about that. Smkolins (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Jontel, I don't see any need for a drawn out discussion here. The same could go for any other Baha'i pages that need a summary at the top. That sentence has been discussed a lot and is backed up by a lot of sources. No need for the number of adherents either. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

So any objections to using the sentence from the lead of Baháʼí Faith? Gazelle55 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is better than just mentioning "world religion".Serv181920 (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a much better case to use the phrase "world religion" than NRM. There are far more examples of independent writers using "world religion". See here: "The Baha’i faith has spread globally and is a growing religion (Smith 1987), attracting “followers from a wide range of religious and cultural backgrounds” (Smith 2008a, p. 50), and for these reasons can be defined as a world religion (Hutter 2005; Smith 1987)."

I think it is a bit awkward to use the footnotes from the main page repeated across many pages. A link to the main page should be sufficient, and each page needs modified introductions based on its specific content. The main contention here is Serv181920's insistence on the NRM phrase used everywhere, which I think has been resolved in two different RFCs and no longer needs to be entertained. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it has spread globally but the Baha'i communities are very small, some communities comprise of 9 members only. And most "Baha'is", at least in my home country (India), still believe and practice Hinduism. They have not yet "fully converted" to the new religion. Baha'is don't have good reputation in stating their numbers. Many people believe that the Baha'i population numbers are inflated. We can also add this subject to the criticism article. I will add it when I am able to find good sources. And I don't want to add NRM to "every article".Serv181920 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, I'm fine with removing the notes from the sentence here. And sure it can be adjusted according to the needs of the page, looks fine to me but feel free to edit. Serv, I would definitely support adding that point... especially for India but I think it may apply elsewhere too depending on the sources available. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources on the Baha'i Faith and science

Serv181920, Cuñado, I'm trying to clean up this article as the basis for a well-balanced criticism section in the main Baha'i Faith article. And now I wonder, do we have even a single RS that covers the Baha'i Faith and science? I see that Smith (2000) has discussed nuclear power but that is a highly specific point (and not one of criticism). I ask since you guys seem to have more books on the Baha'i Faith than are available to me. Anything in Smith (2000 or 2008), perhaps? For the moment I commented out the section since it didn't cite RS. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55, please check this https://books.google.com/books?id=EGbZMLCmE1IC Serv181920 (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Serv181920, thanks for linking. I'm just concerned that it is neither an academic source nor from a mainstream publisher or news organization. And Matthews doesn't appear to have any academic credentials. Looks like it would lead to pro-Baha'i POV, though it could be used to balance out other sources. I'll keep looking around for sources. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55, will try to find better sources.Serv181920 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But not urgent :) Gazelle55 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Structure

I think I found an answer to the problem of this page having no overarching structure and being full of random criticisms. New Religions by Carol Matthews (2005) documents many religions and has a chapter on the Baha'i Faith, with 3 pages dedicated to "controversies", giving a list of about 10 of the main issues that come up. Seems neutral and independent. I got the book today and I'll try to work it in. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, much better to base the organization off a source given it's available. Thanks for your hard work. We will probably need to find a way to work in criticisms that aren't covered in the book, though. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I was able to read a few pages of that book. This book looks to me like the book of Paula Hartz. I feel it has a pro-Baha'i bias. The criticism are very soft (I am ok with soft-criticism) and many criticisms are not covered at all. If Cuñado wants to adds them, let him not disturb the criticisms from other sources.Serv181920 (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of your feelings, this type of reference is as good as it gets for sources. It is from a major publisher, its author has no connection to Baha'is (as evidenced by some obvious errors in it, like mistaking the Kitab-i-Aqdas for the Hidden Words), and it is part of a series addressing many religions, so the authors are good at differentiating and finding interesting facts. I think you are mistaken to believe that any and all criticisms can be listed on this page just because they are criticisms. The page should list significant issues and controversies, not be a list of any and all things critical. That's why you need a reliable source saying, "What are the main issues/controversies?" and the article should be structured according to those sources. This is clearly evident in WP:NPOV. I link it all the time, but actually read it. Read section WP:ACHIEVE NPOV. It gives policy on structure, weight, balance, bias, and tone that need to be met. For example, if someone publishes a long paper that mentions on page 79 that Baha'is are not doing enough to save the whales, good for them. It's accurate, it's published, it's verifiable, but it doesn't deserve its own section on this article, or maybe not even a mention. It is not significantly covered in many reliable sources. The article giving the whale issue coverage would not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This is why your section on "silence on human rights abuses" is going away. Cole's comment is incredibly narrow (really just a criticism of McMullen, not the Faith), and Cole wrote it during his years of scorched-earth-attack-everything incoherently phase. MacEoin's comment is likewise based on his experience with a single Baha'i community, and does not represent a significant criticism even among MacEoin's own criticisms. Besides that, the issue made me eye roll. It's weak to say that Baha'is are in the wrong for not resolving genocides that the world's most powerful institutions cannot fix. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that only significant criticisms should be included. Also that it is useful to have a source to guide the organization. That said, I don't think that means we should remove criticisms (if they have been significantly covered) that are not in that particular source, since it is after all just one source, and three pages is hardly an exhaustive survey for criticisms of an entire religion. If you are thinking of removing sections that currently exist, would appreciate if you discuss on the talk page first. One section that perhaps should go is the "divinity" section, which seems to be based on just one footnote from MacEoin quoted verbatim. Better to have an overall summary of his criticism in the book. Gazelle55 (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should not be structured on a single reference. The page currently lacks any structure at all. The way I typically edit, I would look for 4-5 such structural views and try to form a majority opinion for major sections. Another odd thing is that there is a distinct set of criticisms from Christian polemics, and another, different set of criticisms from Islamic polemics. Most others are criticizing from a western liberal point of view. I haven't seen any reviews at a higher level that describe the different sources and comment on them. That would be very helpful here.

Regarding the "Alleged silence" stuff, that would only pass the very low bar of any-and-all criticisms, which is unacceptable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, Your analysis of Juan Cole is WP:OR. And is there a policy that states that footnotes carry less weight then the content? Both the established scholars are former-Baha'is and both have written about silence of the Baha'is on the persecution of non-Baha'is in a critical tone. I think it should be there. Two important scholars giving their opinion IS a "significant" coverage. Moreover this is not a notability issue!

WP:ACHIEVE NPOV says : "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

If you think direct quotes are misleading in any way, you are free to edit and improve the section.Serv181920 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism Cuñado gave of Cole is OR. Serv181920, I would recommend taking a look at WP:QUOTEFARM, though I agree that the appropriate response to excessive quotations is paraphrasing, not removing the material. I was the one who mentioned the footnote thing... I'm not saying don't cite footnotes, but I'm saying we should generally try to summarize the overall message of a source rather than take one quotation. MacEoin's book is hundreds of pages long so I wonder if there is more than that in terms of criticism – I don't have access to the book. But I take back the thing about removing the point on divinity. I will reduce it to a paraphrase.

Cuñado, I agree that it would be nice to have a few sources and take the general approach from most of them for the organization. Right now we have teachings/history/institutions, which seems to be just something someone came up with some time ago. It seems like secular Western critiques have been most likely to make their way into RS, though I agree it would be nice to cover religious criticism as well. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I created this page in 2005. That was also me creating the current structure years ago, and I recognized then that the whole thing lacked sources for structure. Carol Matthews, Garlington, and I think I've found a few others that give a list of significant issues/controversies/criticisms can be used for an outline. I'll share on the talkpage when I have time.

Yes my opinion about Cole is irrelevant, but Momen's paper in Religion says something similar and is published in a peer reviewed, independent journal[1]: In all three of these papers [1998, 2000, 2002], Cole's prime aim seems to be to find ways of portraying the Bahá'í community as the sort of "cult" demonised in the 1970-80s. ... As Juan Cole reworks the story, Mazandarani was reprimanded for contradicting official Bahá'í history, he was made to sign a prepared confession, the book was withdrawn from circulation, the publication of further volumes of the history were prohibited and he was silenced for the rest of his life (Cole, 1998b). In fact, none of these five things happened but they do support Cole's personal plausibility structure as an academic who is in conflict with the Bahá'í authorities. Just as heroes have to be created to populate apostate mythology, so too do anti-heroes. In the above Mazandarani myth from Cole, the role of anti-hero is given to Mr Furutan who was the secretary of the elected national council of the Bahá'ís of Iran at that time and who is portrayed as tyrannical and called an "Inquisitor" and a "bigot" (Cole, 1998b). Most core Bahá'ís remember him as a kindly man who was always very humorous. Iranian Muslims remember him as the person who in the 1940s gave talks on Iranian national radio about raising children, in which he introduced the idea to Iranians that it was wrong to beat their children.

Momen's article has more. Besides the criticism (of not responding to international disasters) being about someone's book and not the Baha'i Faith, the criticism isn't included in any overview of significant criticisms (that's a thing now that there are overviews found), there is also the fact that Cole's criticisms were so motivated by animus that he stretched the truth repeatedly in order to bolster his attempt to disparage Baha'is (as noted by Momen). That last part makes him less desirable as a source if there are better sources. If the bar is raised to anything over "any-and-all criticism allowed as long as it's published" then the section on "Alleged silence" doesn't make the cut.

Here's another way to look at it. If I put this article up for deletion, what sources give it notability to pass? Notable, neutral, reliable sources need to define what the controversies are. If multiple secondary sources are discussing the topic of "Criticism of the Baha'i Faith", then the article has notability to pass AFD. The article should be based on those sources. Currently there are none. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55, this document is also a good source to expand this article. https://bahai-library.com/pdf/m/maceoin_bahaism_globalizing_religion.pdf Serv181920 (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, thanks for finding more sources. I look forward to seeing the new article structure once you have had time to implement it. I don't have a strong opinion about including the human rights point or not, ideally we would want better sources, since as you say one is a review of a book, whereas the other is more of an internal Baha'i communication than an article that's been through review. Regarding the Momen article, I think it would be good to cover Momen's response, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include Cole's points, which as you know were also published in peer-reviewed journals. Keep in mind, also, that Momen's article was published along with four critical responses. Dawei (2010) also criticizes Momen's article. Momen can say that Cole and co. are mythologizing the Baha'i administration into a repressive monster, those responding seem to feel Momen is mythologizing them into these caricatures consumed by hatred of the Baha'i administration. Best if we just cover the various things that have been published on the controversy without taking sides. Thanks Serv181920 for the source, I'll take a look. Gazelle55 (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think MacEoin's linked article has a few things that will work. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Two more sources for expansion 1) https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/61990/3421441.PDF?sequence=1 2) Making the invisible visible by Denis MacEoin.Serv181920 (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit: One more source - "Religion and Cyberspace" by Morten T. Hojsgaard, Margit WarburgServ181920 (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Yet another source - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233302524_Challenging_apostasy_Responses_to_Moojan_Momen%27s_%27Marginality_and_Apostasy_in_the_Baha%27i_Community%27 Serv181920 (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Gazelle55, I got my copy of Sergeev's Theory of Religious Cycles today. I'll post some ideas about articles structure as I have time (it's one of 4 things on my short list). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, glad to hear that. Let me know. I won't have time to do too much in the next little while but I hope to help after that. Thanks Serv181920 for finding these, feel free to Be Bold and add some points from these, or I may get to them after we have some idea of the general structure of the page. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sargeev works with the Wilmette Institute, eager to read his criticism of the Baha'i faith.Serv181920 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit: I think he has only tried to justify these 5 criticisms. He writes: "There are a number of Bahá’í doctrines that are either incompatible with or represent an apparent step backward from the Enlightenment worldview. These are the doctrines of infallibility and the conflation of religion and state, the prohibition of organized dissent and homosexuality, and the ineligibility of women to serve in the Universal House of Justice." I am sure there are many more criticisms. One another source is "Illness and authority in the Baha'i faith" by Priscilla Gilman Serv181920 (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Found another source https://online.ucpress.edu/nr/article-abstract/9/4/34/95521 Serv181920 (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Summary and moving forward

Okay, I'm finally returning to this. Firstly, regarding the overall structure, it looks like we have three sources mentioned that give an overview of the article topic:

• New Religions by Carol Matthews (2005)
• The Baha'i Faith in America by William Garlington (2005/2008)
• Theory of Religious Cycles by Mikhail Sergeev (2015)

I haven't gotten access to the sources, but I believe Cuñado has them. What's the status of this?

We also have some additional sources:

• Cole's three articles (1998, 2000, 2002), mentioned in the next source
• Marginality and Apostasy by Moojan Momen (2007)
• The responses published along with Momen's articles
• Bei Dawei's article from 2010 that we discussed on the Baha'i Faith by country talk page
• MacEoin's article in a 2005 anthology
• "Illness and authority in the Baha'i faith" by Priscilla Gilman
• When Principle and Authority Collide: Baha'i Responses to the Exclusion of Women from the Universal House of Justice by Karen Bacquet

There are also some others which might or might not be relevant:

• Making the Invisible Visible by Denis MacEoin, which seems to me to be more like criticism of books than of the Baha'i Faith itself
• "Religion and Cyberspace" by Morten T. Hojsgaard and Margit Warburg -- I don't know the connection to the topic but it was mentioned above
• This thesis... someone will have to tell me where the criticisms are included
• Two by Denis MacEoin (here and here, which may be more relevant to the Baháʼí studies page)

I think we should follow the overall pattern of the top three for the organization. However, I think that at this point if there has been a full academic article published on the topic, that should suffice to show significant coverage (this is not a topic with a whole lot written on it). I don't agree with removing anything not in the summary sources, especially without discussion. Cuñado and Serv181920, does this sound reasonable? Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Funny you wrote this. I have been tied up in other projects since June and tomorrow will be my first free day. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, lucky timing, I guess. Anyway, I appreciate you adding content. Of the existing critiques, I see two where the sources don't appear to indicate they are points of criticism -- the plurality of wives point and the point about Shoghi Effendi's (lack of) successor. I think those could potentially be removed, depending what your additional sources include.

Another thought: I've just looked at Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Christianity and the leads are pretty focused on the criticism, not on giving background on the religions themselves. I think we should do likewise. What you've done strikes me as providing extra background that can be found at the main Baháʼí Faith article or the History of the Baháʼí Faith article. Also, as discussed earlier on the talk page with an RfC, I think we should stick with the wording from the main article for the first sentence, unless you want to challenge it there. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course feel free to edit but within a week I think I'll have the body worked out. It's pretty time consuming. I spent over an hour skimming Warburg's book until I realized that she doesn't provide a list of controversies.

Regarding the lead, I don't think it's desirable to repeat the lead at Baha'i Faith on all pages word for word. There is a lot of tailoring to the subject of the article. If there is something in the current lead that is bothering you, be bold, but I wouldn't copy over the 10 footnotes in the first sentence. It just makes a mess. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll just let you edit and then we can consider improvements once you have a first draft. That should go more smoothly than having me changing things without knowing where you're going with the overall organization. For the lead sentence, I agree it can change based on the needs of the article, but in this case I don't see a reason for that. I restored the previous wording (without the footnotes -- I agree with you there!) since a very brief idea of the teachings seems more relevant to the article than the number of adherents. Gazelle55 (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Another source with a (short) "controversies" section: "The Bahāʾī Faith" by Lil Osborn. Includes just women on the UHJ and homosexuality (and also notes that these may not be seen as relevant in the developing world). Gazelle55 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Another excellent secondary source for this page. Hopefully I can help integrate it. On Shi'i criticism of the Baha'is. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Chafed

I kind of liked the "chafed" wording. Definition: "become annoyed or impatient because of a restriction or inconvenience". Seems to fit pretty well, but not a big deal. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a nice word, I like it too. But it was that sense of being annoyed at an inconvenience that didn't seem neutral to me... seems to imply the issue is with the time delay rather than perceived censorship. Gazelle55 (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"Talk:Criticism of the Bahá?í Faith" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Talk:Criticism of the Bahá?í Faith has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § Talk:Criticism of the Bahá?í Faith until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Useful source

This list can be used to expand this art. may be: Common objections to the Baha'i sect. 172.58.239.53 (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)