Talk:Baháʼí Faith and the unity of humanity

Hmmm, I was thinking since the page is named for the unity of humanity and actually does mention gender it aught to have some statement about equality of the sexes. I see there is Bahá'í Faith and gender equality - perhaps that should be "See also here" or a short section added here and then "See main article" or such??--Smkolins 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already in the template on the side of the page. -- Jeff3000 23:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * true but I missed it... I wish there were stats about usage that could be referenced - to see how people travel around and don't travel around....--Smkolins 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408202119/http://www.bahai.org.za/cm/node/19 to http://www.bahai.org.za/cm/node/19

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209082606/http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/sub/geness.html to http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/sub/geness.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I believe the page New world order (Baháʼí) should be merged into this article, specifically into the section "Political unity". There is only one source in the New World Order article that meets WP:RS (the one by Momen), and the material sourced to it could easily be integrated here. Even this page's sources are not great, so I imagine it will be some time before this page is brought up to scratch and expanded enough to justify a separate New World Order article.

If no objections in the next little while, I'll go ahead and merge. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a preference one way or the other, but I also noticed that both Adamson and Smith's encyclopedias have entries for "World Order" that are not used as references on the page currently. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  21:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I think the page could meet notability requirements, but it just seems like the topic could be easily addressed on this page even if we added a few more good sources. I guess that like you I have a "deletionist" tendency... I don't see the need for a separate page unless the coverage would be WP:UNDUE here. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Rather than a formal move, just redirect to Baha'i teachings. If that page is cleaned up and the content on world order needs to expand, then it could go back here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  18:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I won't be moving the page, I would be merging and adding a redirect. But why would it go to Baha'i teachings? Isn't Baha'i Faith and the unity of humanity a more specific page that it fits under well? Gazelle55 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah either way. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  20:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On a related tangent I had added links to the Bahaipedia articles on the Lesser Peace and the Most Great Peace in the 'See Also' section on this page and the New World Order page, because they are not currently mentioned on any Wikipedia pages. But then they were subsequently removed by @Cuñado. The Bahaipedia pages on the two Peaces are also mostly a stub and need expanding. If anyone does make the effort to merge the New World Order page into the Political unity section, I hope they will also have time to expound on the concept and differing characteristics of the Lesser Peace and the Most Great Peace, and/or alternatively to also include such a write up on the New World Order page. The thing is, the Most Great Peace is also about establishing the three onenesses (God, religion, humanity) in global practice simultaneously, so I'm not sure if it should be grouped under a section on Political unity because it is insufficient to describe the Most Great Peace merely as a political project, whereas the Lesser Peace is mostly the work of international politics. And therefore, perhaps it is also inadequate to group New World Order under the Unity of Humanity section on Political unity, because it is my assumption that the concepts of both the Lesser Peace and the Most Great Peace can be grouped as successive stages in the gradual evolution of a Baha'i New World Order. Therefore, it is my opinion that if the New World Order page is merged into the Baha'i Faith and the unity of humanity page, then it should have its own main section with political unity included as a sub-section which includes a description of the Lesser Peace, and another subsection that describes the Most Great Peace. Another additional alternative which I prefer most is to create two new Wikipedia pages that each cover the conceptual goals of the Lesser Peace and the Most Great Peace, and then reference them into the existing Unity of humanity and New world order pages. By doing this it will also be easier to create comparative links and linkages between these concepts and likeminded themes covered in the discourses of other communities that have their own topic entries on Wikipedia Viltiki813196 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now significantly updated the page on the New World Order, such that I think it should remain as a standalone page, and is even in want of additional contributors to futher flesh out and clarify the points mentioned. As such, I do not think that the two pages should be merged.
 * Whereas the page on the unity of humanity relates to the underpinning virtue ethic of Baha'i practice - which deserves a page of its own, the New World Order is the description of the model of political administration that should arise from the implications of said underlying virtue ethic. Viltiki813196 (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A related reason being for keeping the separation of pages based on my updates is that I have mutually cross-linked the 'see also' sections of the New World Order page with many other pages that relate to the development of global governance, cosmopolitanism and utopian golden age visions of world peace, unity, and heavenly kingdoms, and I have done likewise for the page categorisation, which would be unsuitable to do on the page that is mainly dedicated to examining the Baha'i virtue ethic of the oneness of humanity in principle. Viltiki813196 (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contributing. If you glance over the article as it is right now, all the sources are from Baha'is. If this article were to survive a proposal for deletion, it needs significant coverage in independent sources. Those independent sources help establish the weight of coverage of different aspects of the topic. I think it would be helpful to read over WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  15:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting point @Cuñado. At this point in history, it may be difficult to find any sources outside the Baha'i community that comment or analyse what has been outlined in Baha'i scripture. If you're looking for perspectives that criticise the Baha'i-centric viewpoint, in order to provide "balanced" or neutral public discourse on the Baha'i vision, there are probably almost next to no articles of sufficient academic rigour that provide such a discription, except for perhaps the dubious informal chat forums on reddit, quora, and similar websites. Perhaps some of the scholarly outputs of Senn McGlinn provide some level of comparative or supposedly neutral critical analysis of the Baha'i new world order, however McGlinn himself is also a self-professed Baha'i. There are also a few extra perspectives on the understanding of this concept published on the bahaiteachings.org blog website, but again they are all Baha'i authors. There is also a bit of a catch-22, in which any official, formal, or ideally even semi-formal (e.g blogs) publications or analyses from Baha'i authors are obliged to go through a review process by Baha'i institutions before they can be authorised for publication. And Baha'i institutions are quite stringent in ensuring that views written up by individuals do not introduce any new theories, hypotheses, or predictions that have no real basis within the extant canon of authoritative Baha'i literature.
 * Additionally, considering the age and relative obscurity of the Baha'i Faith in current public perception, it may still take a few more decades yet until there is a more comprehensive literature base available that can provide a variety of differing perspectives and analyses by non-Baha'is that aren't beholden to the Baha'i review process.
 * In addition, if you check the section on the process of "disintegration", it outlines the Faith's perspective on how world order will evolve, whether or not anyone from the broader society is aware that the Baha'i Faith has views on their development or not.
 * So in a way, there is no real reason that there should be any literature from the broader non-Baha'i society examining the principles of the unfoldment of the Baha'i new world order, unless they had a vested interest in the trajectory of Baha'i development - which may not happen until such future time when the size of Baha'i development has much more public and visible prominence in the world.
 * Nevertheless, if you examine the variety of pages that outline the doctrines and discourses of other religions on Wikipedia, it is easy to see that they have individual pages dedicated to the exploration of each topic or implications of significant parts of their scripture.
 * Considering the nature of the topic of this page, I still think it is worthy of being independent, or interdependent, with the web of other pages that cover Baha'i topics.
 * But, in any case, I too also hope someone is eventually able to work through the corpus of extant literature related to Baha'i governance and world order that is currently available to fully flesh out this page with a variety of additional supporting references. Viltiki813196 (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, perhaps there could be entries in existing encyclopeadic publications or published comparative reviews of golden age and utopian religious themes. Perhaps also published comparative religious and political views on world order. That would require some extra digging.... There is actually also a publication by Augusto Lopez-Claros (Baha'i, employed with the World Bank) that recommends a series of reforms to the UN (furthering the advancement of the Lesser Peace), which received an award from an independent non-Baha'i organisation - here is a news article coverage: https://news.bahai.org/story/1279/ This should definitely be referenced into the section on the development of Lesser Peace.
 * It was also utilised by the Baha'i International Community as the basis of a contribution to the UN consultative processes to mark the 75th anniversary of the UN in 2020. These would be useful references to incorporate. https://www.bic.org/statements/governance-befitting-humanity-and-path-toward-just-global-order Viltiki813196 (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If a subject does not receive significant coverage in independent sources, then its article can be deleted. If you find articles about topics of other religions that are self-referenced, then they can be deleted. There are some exceptions. There are some authors that are Baha'is but have independent notable credentials themselves that can add weight. For example, Peter Smith and Robert Stockman are considered academic experts and sought after by non-Baha'i publishers, so they are preferred over some other Baha'i authors like Taherzadeh. Margit Warburg is not a Baha'i but wrote a lengthy book (Citizens of the World) about the Baha'i Faith from a sociologist perspective. If you don't already have one, I recommend you pick up a copy of Smith's Concise Encyclopedia (2000) and maybe Adamson's A to Z of the Baha'i Faith (2007), and if you want to spend a lot of money, Stockman's World of the Baha'i Faith (2022). Generally avoid primary sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  05:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding Taherzadeh and Nakhjavani. They are former members of the Universal House of Justice (supreme governing body of the global Baha'i community). Although having no real authority as individuals, their publications still carry the weight and wisdom of their close reading, experience and learning as members of that central instution, almost comparable to the centricity of the works of Shoghi Effendi, or even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
 * In that sense @Cuñado, are you saying that we should avoid citing primary sources who have a direct hand in articulating the original themes and ideas that influence the nature of the Baha'i community development, and instead cite secondary or tertiary sources who have themselves interpretted or summarised the intent of the primary or original sources through their own lens, but exercise no real influence on the Baha'i community, more like passive spectating commentators? Viltiki813196 (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, having reviewed the wiki guidance on reliable sources, publications authored by the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi should be viewed as primary sources, while the publications of current and former leaders of the central institution of the Baha'i Faith that is the members of the Universal House of Justice should be dually treated as both primary and secondary sources. Primary in the sense that their publications are tantamount to their central influence on the trajectory of Baha'i development during their service on Baha'i institutions, and secondary in the sense that their publications are derivative works that offer commentary, elaboration and elucidation on the words of the former leaders of the Baha'i Faith, as well as historical context.
 * Furthermore, "independent" sources would be a useful to strengthen the claibre of the wiki page, but it is my opinion the existence of a wiki page should not hinge soley on the presence of independent sources.
 * In my opinion, it would be prejudicial to delete a wiki page because it cites the publications of the former central leaders, and current and former UHJ members. If all Baha'i Wikipedia pages depended on the availability of the musings of completely independent authors, then most Baha'i topics would be conflated into a single wiki page called "Baha'i Faith", which would have an endless array of sections and sub-topics that outline various dimensions of Baha'i thought.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#%22Secondary%22_does_not_mean_%22good%22
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#%22Primary%22_does_not_mean_%22bad%22 Viltiki813196 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you described it correctly regarding primary/secondary. It can be difficult to distinguish what is primary or secondary because it changes depending on the subject.

However, whether a page exists or not is entirely dependent on the independence and weight of sources. See WP:NOTABILITY. Once an article passes notability, the content does not have to be sourced entirely from independent sources, but those are required to have an article. For example, the article on Adib Taherzadeh could be justified because other people wrote about him in a significant way. Even if all the other authors were Baha'is, they can be considered independent because in this case the subject is an individual and those other authors have no financial or social conflict of interest. If Taherzadeh's widow wrote a biography about him after he passed, it could be used to source authoritatively some details on where he grew up, but not a lot else.

In the case of the page on 'New World Order', it is describing a Baha'i principle, so it needs notability established from outside of the Baha'i community. Lots of people write about the Baha'i Faith, and if this principle is given significant coverage from them, then it has weight and notability. You can imagine someone trying to create an article about some obscure teaching that only a few Baha'is have mused over but gets no other coverage, then it gets deleted. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  15:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * In that case, until there are sufficient independent authers, the entire contents of the New World Order page should be moved into a subsection of a page that lists different versions of utopian, eschatological, or prophetic thought. Or a page that lists different versions and visions of world governent, federalism, democracy, and peace.
 * Or the page on Baha'i unity. Or copied across all of the above. Viltiki813196 (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the Most Great Peace, is the key social transformation goal and end purpose of the entirety of the Baha'i teachings, a vision that the great majority of Baha'is are likely to encounter however minimal their attention at some point.
 * Perhaps we need to find non-Baha'i authors that have had critical interactions with the Baha'i vision of a golden age of world peace, justice, unity and global democracy. There probably are authors that have performed such investigations, either single-mindedly or comparatively with other versions of utopian/prophetic/political thought. And that would probably justify the keeping of the page on New World Order. Just need to find those sources. Viltiki813196 (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Viltiki813196 There are many scientists, who call utopian ideas utopian. For instance, "To explore an interpretation of movements like the Baha'i as utopian, rather than reactionary and antimodern, is in itself an important contribution of this study." https://www.jstor.org/stable/206967 Geysirhead (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your interest and your input here. I've been pretty slow to reply to this since I originally proposed the merger... my bad. A few thoughts in response to the above discussion.
 * The basic outline of what sources are considered reliable is at WP:SOURCETYPES (you may have read this already since you linked to another section of the reliable sources guideline above). There are quite a lot of sources on the Baha'i Faith that meet this description. In general, books from Baha'i publishers won't qualify, but there are quite a few books and articles by Baha'i authors that do count because they're by mainstream publishers. Academic publishers in particular are ideal. Happy to discuss further about what sources are considered reliable on Wikipedia (sometimes there are grey areas).
 * Anyway, while I do think there are good sources that could be used for this page (as you said), for example Warburg's 2006 book Citizens of the World, the question is whether somebody currently wants to put in the time to find them and rewrite the article with those sources. If so, we could keep the page. Do you think you're planning to do that soon? Otherwise, like I said above, I think it's easier to merge it into this article and perhaps recreate the article at a later time. There is a good discussion to be had about whether it's more important to have more articles or fewer, better ones. I personally lean towards the latter, especially on Baha'i topics where there are currently so many articles with shaky sources.
 * I do agree with you that primary sources can be used in certain contexts, but we have to be pretty cautious and I don't think the current use meets the guidance at WP:PSTS. It says "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." I think currently there are a lot of large passages based on primary sources, and this is made worse by the fact that many are primary AND non-independent. For the moment, I'm going to remove sections sourced directly to Shoghi Effendi but leave in the Shoghi Effendi quotes sourced to Peter Smith's book. Let me know if I'm missing anything here.  Gazelle55  Let's talk!  14:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed poorly sourced material from the article. Unfortunately, even most of what was sourced to Smith wasn't actually in his book. I left in a couple sentences with poor sources and just marked them with "better source needed" since the points are key. Viltiki813196, I should add that I agree with you that the New World Order page shouldn't be merged into the "Political unity" section since it isn't entirely political -- it can be its own section. That said, I'm waiting to hear whether you would like to expand the New World Order page, because if so a merger won't be needed.  Gazelle55  Let's talk!  15:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Kia ora @Gazelle55. I'm a bit time constrained to dedicate attention to this page, except as an adhoc by-product of my other investigations. To test, are academic Baha'i publishers ok, such as the Journal of Baha'i Studies or is that not independent enough? - perhaps it is a (evolving) "POV" journal.
 * I am not very familiar with the the broader (and elusive) scholarship beyond the Baha'i-centric academic publishers, and I am not sure when I will next be giving attention to review these topics and reference the extant spectrum of literature. Viltiki813196 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose, to comparatively contrast, if one were to contribute to wiki pages on Chinese governance and politics, one wouldn't solely reference from Chinese govt supervised publications such as the Qiushi party journal, or CGTN media, but would require complementary or contending perspectives and analyses from independent outlets and institutes across the globe e.g. Lowy Institute, CSIS, FPR, all the independent scholars and news outlets, etc. etc.
 * China receives so much attention, it is easy to gather a diverse array of sources of perspectives on CCP and Chinese governance that don't harmonise with each other to comprehensively inform wiki pages.
 * But it is not so easy for the Baha'i Faith which doesn't garner as much international attention from diverse independent agencies... So the ratio of "perspectives linked to Baha'i Faith" to "perspectives independent from Baha'i administration" is prob still quite strongly biased to the former - a symptom of being still very much in a nacscent stage of developing Baha'i community theory-praxis and worldwide implications.
 * Another reason for the dearth of multiplicity of "independent" sources could be that the primary vs. independent perspectives may actually tend to reinforce in synchronised harmonious step with each other... And therefore, independent sources might frequently seem like they are either primary-esk sources or simply regurgitating primary source perspectives.
 * Hypothetically, perhaps a dynamic of harmonious dialectical agreement between primary and independent sources is likely to arise in regard to organisations that can be understood as fluid internal-external/public-private "discourse communities" that exercise a strongly free and democratic organisational structure - which the Baha'i Faith is both.
 * As opposed to the CCP which perhaps has stronger controls on the official permeability of internal/external discourse both on the party and on China and its foreign policy positions, and nor does it feature the organic dynamism of democratically organised institutions. Hence the large gap in perspective positions between primary and independent sources on China/CCP. Viltiki813196 (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)