Talk:Orthodox Baháʼí Faith

"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)

And I'm sure you will be bold and fix that. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

‎Cuñado, your edits are not neutral.

Hi Cuñado,
You have inserted this sentence in the article "In 1966-67, Remey's behavior became erratic and showed signs of senility, causing his abandonment by almost all of his followers."
I looked into the book (page 44), it says "The criticism of Shoghi Effendi and the formation of the Abha World Faith came as a surprise to Remey’s followers, and resulted, for the most part, in their abandonment of Remey, and their split into several new groups. Leland Jensen commented, “This act caused almost all the believers to cast doubts about Mason’s sanity.” (Jensen’s 6" Epistle to Pepe Remey, p. 41; under “All Documents”) http://www.lelandjensen.net/WordPress/
I see you have not taken the name of Leland Jensen, your edited statement makes it look like a claim by Johnson himself!
Earlier today, i have also changed another of your edit for POV. Your statement : "Shiʻites have been known to picture the faith as a "heresy" or "a political movement"." is unfair! The source (a book written by Baha'i writers) says : "...fanatical Muslims, particularly in Shiah Iran, have sought to picture it variously as a “heresy,” “a political movement,” or “a conspiracy against Islam”.
Your edits does not seem neutral to me. You have been taking quotes from individuals and putting it as a general statement! You have also been using only that part which serves the Baha'i interests. That's very unfair.Serv181920 (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The statement you're attributing to me on Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith was made 12 June 2018 by someone else, who happened to be no friend of the Baha'i POV.

Regarding the statement of senility, there is the statement by Leland Jensen followed in the next paragraph with "Joel Marangella would proclaim his guardianship on the basis that Remey was senile and had, consequently, abandoned his office". The next sentence is about Reginald King's criticism of Remey. That's three of four of the main successorship claims. If you want to clean up the article, be bold, but I think my edit was accurate and well reflected in the source. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I think we should say, "three of four claimants to be the successor of Remey believed he had become senile and that his behavior had become erratic" or something like that (if that is a fair summary of all three of their views). The fourth person (I don't know who it is) should also probably be mentioned. I don't think it is reasonable to cite people vying for leadership of a community as objective sources on the person they are seeking to displace. Gazelle55 (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Page 94 of Johnson's book has this note from the author: "In the case of a guardian who lives to a ripe old age, a hundred years as in the case of Remey, are Baha'is expected to obey his orders after he may have reached senility?" Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That is definitely a better source than the people themselves, but still it says "may have reached senility". I think we should stick closely to the wording of the source on that point if we are using Wikivoice. And where does the point about erratic behavior come from? Gazelle55 (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Cuñado, you had removed the word "some", why? Check your edit here.Serv181920 (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Authority of the Hands

I removed this:

Remey believed that the hands were never given any authority on their own; according to the will and testament of 'Abdu'l Baha, they were to be in the service of the guardian and to do his bidding: “This body of the Hands of the Cause of God is under the direction of the Guardian of the Cause of God.” (W&T, p.13)

The previous sentence says:

Remey went on to declare that the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers, that they lacked any authority without a Guardian, and those following them "should not be considered Baháʼís".

That sentence includes that Remey believed that they lacked authority. This is disputed and a lot could be written about it. I don't feel like this is the page to get into details, as that seems to be consolidated in Baha'i divisions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://mybahaifaith.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Shoghi Effendi's children

I am thinking of adding this to the article? This seems to be interesting.

"After the death of Effendi in November 1957, a few years later, in 1960, an American hand of the cause and one of the most prominent adherents, Mason Remey (1874-1974), declared himself to be the next guardian. In a video shown on Youtube, orthodox adherents explain their views regarding the shift of leadership to Remey. According to one of the interviewees she became an adherent in 1955. During her first years as an adherent, she was told that one of the unique distinctions of Baha'ism was the guardianship. According to her, they did not fail to ask about Effendi's children and they were told that his children were either hiding for protection or in some school in Switzerland. However, when Effendi died and it appeared that there was no offspring, and Remey declared the guardianship, there was no doubt in their mind that the right religious leader to follow was Remey." Source - https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/61990/3421441.PDF?sequence=1

I would like to take the opinion of other editors before adding this. Thanks.Serv181920 (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sound like a fringe among a fringe theory. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Very much. It continues "After Remey's self-declaration as a guardian, he was shunned by the other hands of the cause. Among other reasons, perhaps the most weighty one, was the fact that 'Abdu'1-Baha, in his will and testament, envisioned a guardianship that was strictly hereditary. Remey, not being related to Effendi, was therefore a difficult candidate for a guardianship for most adherents. Whereas this might be [the] position of the overall orthodox Baha'is, a "position paper" posted by the Tarbiyat community in Las Vegas, does not view Remey as a guardian—nor his successors Joel B. Marengella and Donald A. Harvey. This community follows Reginald "Rex" King, who viewed Remey, Marengella and Harvey not as guardians but as "regents." These regents are to procure the rise of a second guardian in the future. After King's death in 1977, a "Council of Regents" was formed and it continues to be the governing body of the Tarbiyat community." (emphasis added) This seems to speak to further fragmentation and contradictory views of this supposed "community". Smkolins (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, that was said by one Orthodox Baha'i and published by a secondary source. I will try to find out more on this. If there are more sources then I will come back on this. Smkolins, yes that's true and I think this is covered in the Baha'i divisions article.Serv181920 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Using POV in lead

Hi Cuñado, you are misleading the readers by mentioning your personal opinion in the lead paragraph of the article. You cannot mentioned words like 'Small' or 'extremely small' as it shows your biased approach and disrespects the Orthodox Baha'i Faith. It is a sect just like Mainstream Baha'i Faith is a sect. So lets be respectful and call it a sect without having personal grudges about the group whose beliefs you differ with. Asad29591 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I that it is your opinion that has clear been the issue being pushed. Reliable sources have been clear about this. Smkolins (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The source, MacEoin in this case, uses the phrase, "extremely small". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In that case it should be specified that as per this specific scholar the Orthodox Baha'i Faith is assumed to be extremely small. Asad29591 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Mr Asad29591, MacEoin is not a Baha'i, and has written antagonistically against the Baha'i Faith for the last 30 or so years. By any objective measure, his description of the Orthodox Baha'is as "extremely small" is accurate and not motivated by animosity towards them. There are only 2-3 good references to their size, all of which are dated. If there were more than a handful of Orthodox Baha'is, then that needs to be documented by independent reliable sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You said that MacEoin "has written antagonistically against the Baha'i Faith for the last 30 or so years" however, his content about the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith is "accurate"? It's just because you agree with his infomation? There are Orthodox Bahá'í websites from distinct countries but you erased this information too. Bha.univ (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I was responding to your supposition that MacEoin is a Baha'i author and therefore biased when speaking on Covenant-breakers. Regarding the websites you mentioned, anyone can make a website, and they are not reliable sources for anything that is likely to be challenged. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Asad29591, you seem to feel the current presentation is not neutral, and I agree that Wikipedia must be neutral. However, let me share a couple sections of WP:NPOV (Wikipedia's neutrality policy) with you to show why there is no issue with describing the Orthodox Baha'i Faith as "extremely small":

Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction.

In other words, if reliable sources say the Orthodox Baha'i Faith is extremely small, we should state that without making it sound like it is disputed. If we have a reliable source that explains Orthodox Baha'is believe their denomination is larger than that, we can mention that, but not in a way that casts doubt on the estimate from the reliable source. Please understand I mean no disrespect towards followers of any religion or sect, but we still need to include reliable information. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Heretical

Regarding this change by Asad29591 that I reverted.

The original said, they are considered heretical Covenant-breakers by the majority of Baháʼís. While those who supported Mason Remey similarly feel that the majority strayed from the original teachings. Asad29591 removed the word "heretical". That word is needed because a general audience would have no idea what 'Covenant-breaker' means and being considered outcast heretics by Baha'is is a significant part of understanding the subject.

Likewise, Asad29591 added that Orthodox Baha'is regard the majority as Covenant-breakers. The sentence already used the phrase "similarly" to show that there is some level of parity in feelings between the two, which also helps elaborate what 'Covenant-breaker' means by adding to the definition that it means straying "from the original teachings". If this seems unfair to more explicitly describe the feelings of the majority, it is because the feelings of heresy are far stronger among Baha'is then the Orthodox Baha'is, who do not, in practice, avoid the former and do try to recruit almost exclusively from them. Being a tiny obscure minority, their identity is intimately bound up with the reason for their secession, whereas the majority mostly do not even realize they exist.

If the wording seems non-neutral, certainly improve it, but it should be written in an encyclopedic manner with no regard to potential offending sensibilities. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Cuñado,

Thank you for pointing out my recent edit on this page. I understand your concerns about the removal of the word "heretical" in the sentence describing the beliefs of Orthodox Baha’is. However, using the term "heretical" is potentially biased and could be seen as pejorative. Instead, I opted for the more neutral phrase "considered Covenant-breakers". Also your comment that ‘general audience would have no idea what Covenant-breaker means’ is baseless because there is a page dedicated to Covenant Breaker and the same has been appropriately linked. So those who wish to know more can go on that page and read.

Your again and again using the wrong terms like ‘Majority’ ‘tiny obscure minority’ clearly shows that you are in no mood to assume good faith and are here to promote your biasly trained POV. We should be respectful towards each other and either remove the tag of ‘Covenant Breaker’ or keep it against the name of each other. So I leave the ball in your court here.

I completely agree with your point about writing in an encyclopedic manner with no regard for potentially offending sensibilities. However, I also believe that it is important to strive for neutrality and accuracy in all descriptions, particularly when it comes to contentious topics such as religious differences. Asad29591 (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)