Talk:Baháʼí views on science

a bibliographic review Comment Suggestion
In order from newest to oldest… (preliminary as I write this, others welcomed to intersperse, annotate, etc…

Smkolins (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just went through the sources in greater detail... I'm a bit concerned about three of the sources (apologies as I should have looked in more detail when you first posted them).
 * I didn't realize Juxta Publishing Co was a Baha'i publisher... this casts some doubt on the Hatcher source. If we want to include the book on the basis of Hatcher's name rather than the publisher (going off WP:SPS), he doesn't seem to have published on philosophy of religion or philosophy of science in reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia), though he has a track record of publishing in the neighbouring field of philosophy of mathematics in reliable sources. So he is only half-way to a subject-matter expert based on WP:SPS, and WP:SPS is already something to be used cuatiously. It could be used judiciously as an example of the Baha'i viewpoint on something covered by other sources but I don't think it should be used beyond that.
 * The Faber book is better since it is a mainstream publisher and he has a history of publishing on philosophy of religion in reliable sources. That said, it's still not an academic publisher and he hasn't published about science in reliable sources as far as I can see. I think it can be used but I would say we should attribute anything likely to be disputed in-text.
 * Lastly, the Crosson PhD thesis... like the previous one I would say use it cautiously and attribute anything that might be contested to her in-text. The reason is that WP:RS says to be pretty cautious about using things from a PhD thesis that haven't then been published. They're not as stringently reviewed as journal articles from what I've seen. (All the others look high-quality to me.) Gazelle55 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft
I have a rough draft coming together at User:Smkolins/Sandbox3; contributions welcomed. Smkolins (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I just skimmed over your draft and wow, that looks like a lot of work you've done! It looks like you've found a lot of relevant material and I think a page along those lines would be a big step up over the current page. Once you've reached a point where it's mostly ready to go to the mainspace I'd be happy to look it over in more detail.
 * One thought now though is about the title. What you have doesn't go into the accuracy/inaccuracy of specific scientific claims but is rather about the overall Baha'i perspective on the relationship between science and religion. Then it covers some proposed philosophical arguments for the existence of God, etc., and how Baha'i views play out in practice (like with FUNDAEC and race relations). So with that in mind, would "Bahá’í philosophy" be a more appropriate title? I'm imagining one or more section on Baha'i views of science, one or more sections on other Baha'i philosophical arguments (like Hatcher's), and then one or more sections on the practical applications. The downside is that "Bahá’í philosophy" might be too broad to manage and overlap a lot with "Bahá’í teachings"., any thoughts? Gazelle55 (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Glancing it over, there's a LOT of text there, but I think you're lacking the independent references to give the article structure. Preferably you need to find at least one person who is academically trained, not a Baha'i, and has written a summary of the Baha'i Faith and Science. Lacking that, Smith's summaries have largely been on-point. The topics addressed in a half-page summary addressing the Baha'i Faith and science should give the section headings that can be expanded on with other authors. I think a lot of Baha'i authors' views on science need to be condensed down to just one or two sections of the main article, and at least one section devoted to the debate over evolution, and another section devoted to other tensions. Those tensions tend to be what gives the subject notability. My time is extremely limited right now so I can't help much more than throw my opinion around. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think finding a few highly reliable sources and following their structure would be a good idea. Maybe Warburg and/or Hartz cover this? Including at least one non-Baha'i author in the group of sources for the structure would be ideal, but I do think Baha'i scholars in mainstream publications are still reasonably good. Phelps will help. Smith will help too, and for what it's worth his introductory books got largely positive reviews from MacEoin too. Smith's brief 2000 entry just covers the teachings of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi on science. Hopefully other overviews in high-quality sources will be more extensive/useful.
 * I see what you mean that going into too much depth on the Baha'i apologia could be undue weight. Now that I think about it putting a lot of material on a topic that's distantly related could go against WP:DUE, which is of course part of WP:NPOV. Maybe they could be integrated into other existing pages or into another new page if they don't fit here? I suggested the title of Baha'i philosophy, but on second thought I wonder if we have any high-quality source giving an overview of such an expansive topic. It may not be workable. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, when you have a moment (which I know may not be soon, that's fine), do you know where exactly the guideline about using high-quality overview sources to determine structure and weight can be found? It seems sort of implied by the combination of a few sections of WP:NPOV (i.e., WP:STRUCTURE, WP:DUE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:BESTSOURCES), but I wonder if it's more clearly stated somewhere... would help when deciding exactly how to address this and also comes up at other pages like the Criticism of the Baha'i Faith page.
 * To be a bit more specific, it clearly says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages 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", but I don't see a clear statement that there has to be a reliable overview source to determine that. Certainly, having a review paper is helpful, but if there isn't one, or if it doesn't cover everything, are we forbidden from including other relevant material? I don't see that stated anywhere. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. In my mind it stems from WP:Notability. If the page deserves to exist, then it needs to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If an independent reliable source doesn't overview the topic, even for one paragraph, then you're probably on a page that needs to be merged away or deleted. That source establishes weight of how to address the subject. Then the content policies apply, like you quoted.
 * I edited WP:STRUCTURE. I'll see if it sticks. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  22:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Progress…and next steps
 * I decided for the focus on it being only article I decided to cut back on the various detailed examinations of philosophies of science, just referring to them.
 * I'd welcome more sources that either supplement content or help provide structure.
 * Certainly needs a lede and some citation syntax upgrading.
 * meanwhile I'm going to go looking for more…
 * Smkolins (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi,, this looks like definitely an improvement. I like having it broken down topically rather than by author. I haven't had a chance to look through all the details yet, but a few quick thoughts.
 * I think it would be good to have the first section specifically summarizing what Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice have written about this, using mainly secondary sources like the dedicated chapter in the 2022 book (to avoid falling afoul of WP:IS or WP:PRIMARY). I think readers who aren't familiar with the Baha'i Faith first need to know the general principles. As long as this is based on good sources and just says what the Baha'i writings have said without endorsing or criticizing, I think this can be presented in WP:WIKIVOICE. Then "Early applications" (currently part of the same section) could be split out into a separate section (maybe a sub-section of the "Applications" section further down).
 * I like how you put separate later sections for applications and for philosophy. I think it's good how in these sections you've attributed views of individual authors in the text, though with that said I don't think you need to list all the academic affiliations of each scholar - just "sociologist Margit Warburg", "scholar Ian Kluge", etc. should suffice rather than giving the specific universities and colleges. I can't find any specific guideline about this but I haven't seen long descriptions in other articles when attributing in-text.
 * Cuñado's changes to WP:STRUCTURE were eventually reverted. So at this stage I don't believe there's any rule that the structure has to follow the structure of an overview source (though it may be helpful as a guide). Gazelle55 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added several of those changes, a few other tweaks as I try for readability, and will seek to provide more specific quoted statements that are not directly from primary sources.Smkolins (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for putting in so much hard work on this. I don't want to be constantly nitpicking so I'll leave you to that. When you have a version close to what you want to put in the mainspace I'm happy to take a look. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, I think it's pretty well along now and maybe ready for mainspace but still could use many eyes. If people want to polish it up before it goes there, great. There are some citation structures I think that can be refined and many the lede could use more work but I think the body fairly solid.Smkolins (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think you're missing a clear statement of what the controversies are. There are several cases of scientific statements by the founders that create tension with science, and they are well documented. Evolution is the most obvious. The old version of this is currently commented out on the page. If nothing else, just copy that over to the new page and polish it off. The absence of controversy is obvious in your version. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  15:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm,, I don't really agree that we need a controversies section except for controversies that have been covered in reliable sources. The problem with putting in a polished version of the old section is that it still doesn't have reliable sources for the most part. The only ones I see in the sandbox in the "Controversies" section are two book reviews (by Stephen Lambden and Arash Abizadeh) and then one by Moojan Momen (which is mainly about metaphysics not science anyway). It ends up being a section of "some things Baha'i authors have identified as tensions and then how they propose to resolve them" rather than a section of "what reliable sources have said about controversies." If a controversy has been covered in reliable sources but the Baha'i perspective hasn't been covered in them, I think WP:RS has some provisions for including the Baha'i response from a Baha'i source, but we can't just use those.
 * , it generally looks good, my main concern is that it seems to be drifting off topic at certain points. I'll copy what you have to one of my sandboxes and make some edits, then we can compare versions. Gazelle55 (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok - I'd like to see what you have in mind. I just made a change mostly to the evolution section. I agree about reliable sources and cut one out that was least supported while adding a much better one. I'm fine with trimming down some of those other ones. I do think I'm struggling to see the best quality, through still satisfying 'reliable' in other parts and would welcome avoiding the dichotomy you speak of. Smkolins (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Title change
Following up on the merge discussion at Talk:Baháʼí teachings, there were some ideas on changing the name of this page:
 * Baháʼí views on science
 * Science in the Baháʼí Faith
 * Baháʼí Faith and science (current title)

There are a few other examples of similar pages:
 * Buddhism and science
 * Islamic attitudes towards science
 * Christianity and science
 * Mormon views on evolution
 * Science and the Catholic Church

The goal was to distinguish that the article is primarily the Baha'i views on scientific issues, and not scientific views on the Baha'i Faith (which largely don't exist). I think any of the titles are fine and get the point across (including current title). I tend to like shorter, natural titles, so I'll vote for the "Baha'i views on science". If we get a consensus I'll put in a requested move. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – I agree with moving to "Baháʼí views on science". As Smkolins said, it's possible that the scope of the page could change, but I'm now leaning towards putting loosely related material on pages where it fits better, rather than turning this page into a mish-mash. In any case, for the time being the proposed change is certainly an improvement in my opinion. I think this could be considered a non-controversial move if we get consensus here. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 03:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Baháʼí Faith and science → Baháʼí views on science – See discussion at Talk:Baháʼí Faith and science.&#32;Cuñado ☼ - Talk  21:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging previous participants: Cuñado, Gazelle55. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 21:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Cuñado: Perhaps an requested move should be filed to get wider opinions? In any case, there's no opposition, and you should be able to move it yourself. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 06:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I tried but got an error. The instructions led me to technical move in that case. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  23:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cuñado: Hm; I can't figure out why — you're extended confirmed, and neither the page nor the destination title is protected. I'll take a look. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 23:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support – as stated above., you were involved in an earlier discussion about a name change and you said then that you were undecided. What do you think now? It seems to me that even if the material in your sandbox turns into a broader page that goes beyond this title (e.g., also covering philosophy), we will still want a lower-level page specifically on science (i.e., this page) since it is an important aspect of the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Agreed. Smkolins (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

hammering out the drafts into a compromise
Hi, and, (and if more want in of course,) I think we're on in a lot of progress but there are some details to reach further consensus on. Mind we're starting from my draft that Gazelle55 is re-working. I think many of Gazelle55's changes are fine or I don't feel strongly about. But there are some that I think need to be examined more closely. A few points happen multiple times, but some are perhaps one at a time. Thus in sections. Let's talk it through more please? Smkolins (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi,, you're right that I made quite a few changes - more than I had really intended when I started. There's quite a bit to discuss here, so how about we move your draft into the mainspace to avoid delays, and then we make adjustments there as we discuss them? Gazelle55 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Baha'i status
I think the Baha'i (or non-Baha'i) status of a scholar is plainly immaterial. The material point is if they published on/in Baha'i scholarship. So I'd remove all references to who is or isn't a Baha'i. Simply immaterial - even prejudicial.Smkolins (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think them being Baha'i is immaterial at all. According to WP:BIASED, we should attribute opinions from biased sources in-text, and all the examples suggest we should note their bias as well as their name. If a Baha'i chemist publishes on chemistry, I agree that their religion is not relevant to their reliability as a chemist, but if they are publishing on religion, I don't see how their religious views aren't relevant. This goes for all positions, and I'm not suggesting that ex-Baha'is, for example, should be treated any differently. And of course, if sources are stating uncontroversial facts, then we don't need to attribute in the text and can use WP:WIKIVOICE—but from what I know peer-reviewed sources publish plenty of things that are opinions and not yet agreed upon by all experts, certainly in philosophical areas like this. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Having said that, though, WP:BIASED is a bit unspecific and doesn't discuss religion explicitly so if you feel I'm missing something let me know. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * These are largely university published sources discussing the Baha'is, scripturally, administratively and culturally, and their relationship with science/reasoning. I don't see any relevance of religious status unless it is shown to be relevant. These are scholars in various fields all of which, of course, reason, use evidence, examination, clear thinking. That's what's relevant. If their positions can be said through reliable sources to show a bias somehow, ok, then they are biased. As for opinions vs agreement, that's why there is specificity that scholar x compares the Baha'i view with scholar y's pov/analysis. Smkolins (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is complicated and I'm open to discussion... let me explain my thinking more since this comes up on many Baha'i-related pages. WP:BIASED and WP:RSOPINION both seem a bit ambiguous as to what's covered. I'm not suggesting that the sources have distorted, misrepresented, taken out of context, etc., but to me a source being biased or opinionated doesn't necessarily the author did those things. It just means they have a strong (contested) stance on the topic. For instance The New York Times is generally seen as a "paper of record" but their opinion pieces are still subject to WP:RSOPINION (see WP:NYT). I am less clear on whether peer-reviewed sources are covered by this, though to me it seems they should be. I do agree that the risk of bias is less if authors are writing in academic sources, since those are peer-reviewed by the broader academic community, but I don't believe that makes them neutral. And it does help that they are scholars, though again I don't think that eliminates the potential for bias. And yes, it is good to note that some scholars have connected Baha'i positions to those of non-Baha'i philosophers, but it is still Baha'i scholars doing the connecting, so I'm not sure that addresses the issue.
 * I don't know of any more specific policies or guidelines on religion or on how to decide when a source counts as biased or opinionated. On the one hand, the broader philosophical community takes a skeptical stance (I can link the PhilPapers survey for details on that if you like), and they haven't really weighed in, so my concern is that we want to make clear to readers that these comments don't represent a cross-section of philosophical opinion. On the other hand, they haven't addressed the Baha'i view specifically so we don't know if they'd take a different stance on the Baha'i Faith than they have on other religions. So from that perspective I can see that their views may not be relevant. What I'll try to do soon is ask at the Help Desk if there are any other relevant guidelines/policies that would help resolve this. In the meantime I don't mind leaving out "Baha'i" or "non-Baha'i" as long as it's a non-Baha'i publisher. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Smkolins, I asked at the help desk and it doesn't seem there are any more specific guidelines to help us navigate this, but I did get some useful pointers. Copying the question and answer here. I wrote:

"Hello, I'm wondering about identifying bias in sources. I'm aware of the guidance at WP:BIASED and at WP:NPOV but neither is very clear about when things cross the line into being "biased". In particular, I'm wondering when the religious affiliation (or absence of religious affiliation) of the author of a reliable source is grounds to consider the source biased, when it's a Wikipedia article on religion. I realize that sources should not be excluded because of bias, but I'm wondering whether it should be noted in the text (e.g., Hindu cosmologist XYZ argues that ZYX, rather than just cosmologist XYZ argues that ZYX). Is there some more specific guidance on this? For example, to say a source is biased would we have to show it has been criticized by another reliable source, or is it adequate just to show the potential for bias on the topic of religion given their religious views? I know that this is not the place for dispute resolution, so I wrote the whole question above in general terms. However, in case more context is helpful, I'm having a disagreement with another editor at Talk:Baháʼí views on science. My view was that since most of the reliable sources on the topic are by adherents of the religion in question, we should note their religion when discussing their opinions (though not when discussing uncontroversial facts). He feels that if they've published their views about the Baháʼí Faith and science in academic sources, their religion isn't relevant and shouldn't be stated. Again, not asking for dispute resolution but just if there is general guidance on this sort of case. If this isn't the best place to ask about this, let me know."

I received this reply from an editor named Tigraan:

"Nobody has answered this, so I will give it a shot. The most reliable sources for how a given religion views X would usually be scholarly articles and the like. If there is reasonable consensus across such sources, then it can be stated as a fact in wikivoice that e.g. "most Hindus believe X". If there are disagreements among such scholars, then the views need to be attributed; if the disagreement splits across religious lines, it might make sense to mention it. However, in many cases, there are no such scholarly sources. One is then forced to rely on theologians and other partisan / primary sources (even if a theologian may claim to lay down the view of adherents of faith X, which would make them a secondary source, in many cases they are mixing old information with their own beliefs/theory, which is primary). The main difficulty in such cases is to choose which views are WP:DUE to mention. Again, if it is clear that the beliefs are split by religious affiliation, it could be ok to say something like "Hindus believe X [refs to multiple Hindu theologians] while Muslims believe Y [refs to multiple Muslim theologians]". All put together, I do not think your question has a simple yes or no answer. If a person is cited as representative of the whole world’s consensus on a subject, their religious affiliation need not be stated; if they are cited as representative of a certain thought current (religious or otherwise), then it is implicit that they are part of that thought current."

Based on that, I think you're right that we don't need to mention the religious views of scholars generally speaking, though as the editor noted if there is disagreement among scholarly sources that splits along religious lines it could be worth mentioning. I don't think we have a clear case of that here so I'm fine with not mentioning affiliations. On the other hand, I still think that in most cases we should mention someone is Baha'i if they published through a Baha'i publisher (like in the case of the Kalimat Press book). By the way, for some of the points like that Baha'is oppose literalism, since it's mentioned by multiple sources and not opposed by any sources, we can probably eventually change that to be mentioned in Wikivoice. But for now we may just want to settle the issues you've already raised and move a version to the mainspace.

, the reply from the Help Desk might be of interest to you for other pages. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

RS status
Twice a RS claim is pointed at and content removed. I'd like a more clear statement of that judgement.

First at Removing sources that don't meet WP:RS and condensing the rest a bit Gazelle55 removes a whole section on that claim. I don't think it deserves to be labeled as an unreliable source. True it isn't an academic publisher but they do publish academic material and this is clearly in an academic vein (citations, tone, authors are reputable scholars….) I'd not use it as the basis of an article, but for a brief paragraph I think it's fine as a source _and_ it specifically addresses the physical aspects of biological evolution in compliment to the Kluge section and but which addresses more of a Baha'i philosophical view on the science of biological evolution.

A second time this comes up at Removing source that does not meet WP:RS (also the idea expressed definitely needed to be attributed in text even if it was a RS) I'm fine with clarifying language but I need a clearly understanding why it doesn't mean RS. On the other hand if another source can be found that is satisfactory I'm fine with that - but simply labeling the Journal of Baháʼí Studies unreliable is not appropriate. Not independent I can buy, not not that it is unreliable.Smkolins (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So I think I removed two sources there:
 * Regarding the Master's thesis, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP (which is a section of WP:RS), specifically the last sentence of the section of dissertations. (I defended a Master's thesis and then tried to publish part of it in a related journal and got squarely rejected, so personally I can see why theses aren't counted as reliable.) Even the Selena Crosson PhD thesis is a borderline case based on that, though I didn't remove anything from that source.
 * Regarding the Journal of Baha'i Studies, I had this section of WP:SCHOLARSHIP in mind: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." The journal is published by the Association for Baha'i Studies (which is connected to the Baha'i administration) and they even state here that they want submissions "correlating the teachings of the Bahá’í Faith to the needs of humanity," which makes it rather hard to believe they would publish anything that presents the Baha'i Faith or its teachings unfavorably.
 * Will get to other questions you raised soon. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh—looking back at what you wrote, I think there's been some confusion. If the source you're concerned about is the 2001 Kalimat Press book, I didn't remove it, just moved it further up in the evolution section. You can see in my sandbox that everything from it is still there. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If there was, my apologies. I agree on removing the master's thesis which I did myself as it was the weakest entry but as I found a more substantive source and also didn't want to over balance the section on evolution, I myself removed the masters. I did see the Kalimat source removed but guess I was misreading the edit step. If showed "-" normally showing deletion. Apologies Smkolins (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the Baha'i Studies that "correlating the teachings of the Bahá’í Faith to the needs of humanity" includes the very substance of this article which is honesty, clear reasoning, validity. That doesn't make it biased save that it is looking at addressing Baha'i content and its relationship with wider society and scholarship. Smkolins (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, glad to have agreement on the book and on the Master's thesis. Regarding the journal, I wasn't try to say it was unreliable on the basis of WP:BIASED – I was saying it was unreliable on the basis of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, in particular the section I quoted above. The key sentence here is: "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." That alone invalidates it. But another relevant line is "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view." That is why I mentioned the policy seeking submissions "correlating the teachings of the Bahá’í Faith to the needs of humanity"... they are interested in submissions correlating Baha'i views with the needs of humanity, but presumably this means they aren't interested in submissions arguing that there are tensions between some Baha'i views and the needs of humanity or that some Baha'i views are irrelevant/neutral to the needs of humanity. Thus, they are seeking "mainly to promote a particular point of view".
 * On the other hand, the journal Occasional Papers in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies had an editorial board with Baha'is and non-Baha'is, so I think it counts as a reliable source. I'm not sure about other Baha'i studies journals – would have to look into those if it comes up. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Scholarship in Baha'i studies on the analysis of and relationship with the broader issues/situation/history of the topic
Removing this since it currently no makes no mention of the Baha'i Faith and needs to be connected to the article topic. I can see tweaking a bit but the article *is* about the scholarship in Baha'i studies on this issue, and that includes the views on the paralysis or unsatisfactory condition the wider case has gotten into as commented on in scholarship in Baha'i studies so this is clearly appropriate content and is very well sourced. It belongs at least in some form. Smkolins (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this more, I think you're right that this could be included with some tweaking, though I think the heading "Science vs religion" should probably be changed. Gazelle55 (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm always open to considering better wording but it's clear there is a strained relationship between the disciplines of religion and science, however that should be framed in language and used in the sources. Smkolins (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How about "Commentary from Baha'i studies"? Since we want to make clear why this material is in this article rather than just at Relationship between religion and science. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Nature/situation of Baha'i administration over differences of opinion
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gazelle55/sandbox_13&diff=next&oldid=1090653520 This is outside the article scope. Yes, she briefly mentions social scientists, but nonetheless it is a point about administrative structure not science]. I think you miss the point Gazelle55 - it is not that she mentions social scientists, it is that she makes the point on how Baha'is work differences of opinion and that's Warburg's analysis - that Baha'is are tripping over the issue internally, suggests an alternative, (not taking a stance on that - just that is the point she's making) and this source discusses how Baha'is structurally avoid toxic arguments - like how the general community has for centuries (which goes back to the above section that indeed the broader community is in divided stance between science and religion.) I'm open to rewording to make the point more clear - perhaps the above and this section can be reworked together but have to avoid SYNTH. Smkolins (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right, Smkolins, I did misunderstand why you included it. I've just read the relevant pages from Warburg to understand more fully what she is saying. That said, I don't see any direction connection between Warburg's point and Ripley's point. Ripley's book is about politics and as I understand it she is saying the Baha'i system of elections avoids problems seen in conventional politics with campaigning and political parties. Warburg's argument is that the Baha'i administration's position on scholarship stops Baha'i scholars from exploring positions that go against the official Baha'i view of the religion's early history. Ripley discusses Baha'i elections but not Baha'i views of scholarship, whereas Warburg discusses Baha'i views of scholarship but not Baha'i elections.
 * From your comment above, it sounds to me like you're saying: whereas Warburg says the Baha'i administration's stance on scholarship leads to conflict between science and religion, Ripley says the Baha'i administration's system of elections avoids the conflicts generated by partisan politics. So you are comparing two different aspects of the Baha'i administration and whether they cause two different kinds of conflicts. To me, making it sound like Warburg and Ripley are giving alternate perspectives on the same issue is WP:SYNTH, but correct me if I'm missing something (again). If they're not addressing the same point, and if Ripley isn't talking about science, I don't think the Ripley source belongs in this article. May be perfectly good for another article. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ripley's work is not just about politics. She delves into a variety of examples and why people and institutions get into unproductive and toxic relationships that lead to partisan bias that refuses to listen, stops compromises, and fuels fruitless arguments - and she also analyzes how people got/get out of those situations including particular skills and patterns of institutional effort (again not just in politics, she also for example addressed the history of a former gang member.) Out of her analysis of failures of argumentation, of the failure of reasoning, she hold's up Baha'i administration as an example which as a policy of governance, of the architecture of governance, makes a prime example of how to avoid failures of reasoning, like Warburg says is her worry. Emphasize the conflict issue and people draw up sides - but if the Baha'i system itself is designed to break down sides and make governance work then that is relevant. Methods and structures that improve the chance of clear thinking is part of good governance. I'm not putting Ripley directly on the same point that Warburg brings up about statement(s) by Khan as Ripley doesn't address that issue - but the process of sides in Baha'i processing, of saying this is a breakdown point of the type of toxic argumentation, that is exactly what Ripley was addressing. Smkolins (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving a bit more explanation on Ripley's book. I see now that it's not just about politics but about partisan mindsets and toxic arguments more generally. But does Ripley say that science is currently engaged in toxic arguments, or that the religious and scientific communities are engaged in toxic arguments with each other? That's what I feel she'd need to say for this to not be SYNTH. We can't assume that tension between science and religion is inherently toxic – I know from a Baha'i perspective this shows a need for reconciliation between the two, but to make that step on Wikipedia it would have to be in the source. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Race unity when it wasn't the scholarly opinion in general and specifially
Removing material that was about race unity, only tangentially linked to the article topic). I'd argue the material directly extends the commentary on a point that deserves attention in general (racism) and specifically because it was sourced as an example of how Baha'is administratively and culturally managed to stand out on an unpopular point of view that had a different slant in science and scholarship and did so in a distinct and persistent way that was not about simply arguing science was wrong (it was) but not just getting into sides as an argument. A distinct case but in line with the above.

Along the same lines This seems to be true and would be a fair assumption in a research paper, but on Wikipedia we have to be very cautious interpreting primary sources (especially since the source denies this was the reason, even if it may have been the real underlying reason) needs to be better than 'we need to be careful'. I'd accept a more focused statement such and so said he was fired because of xyzzy but not that it be removed period. This is an example of how the Baha'i views on science were handled at some tension to the point people were fired from jobs for the stance. Smkolins (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So firstly I do agree that the point about how Baha'is sided with the minority of scientists instead of the majority who endorsed scientific racism is definitely noteworthy and important, and it is covered by the Crosson source. And as you can see, I left all the points about that from the source in my version. The problem is that as you say, you were extending the point, specifically by bringing in additional material that wasn't connected to the article topic or else wasn't in the source. I totally agree that racism is an important issue and that the Baha'i response to it should be covered if we have sources, but I don't think this is the right article for sources that don't connect the issue to science (which would be a clear violation of a very important guideline, WP:SYNTH). I would suggest making a section for that material (and eventually, other related material) at Baha'i Faith in the United States and/or Baha'i Faith and the unity of humanity. Then I think it would make sense in this article, after pointing out that Baha'is sided with the minority of scientists on the issue, to put "(See Baha'i Faith and the unity of humanity.)" or something like that. We could also make that a "see also" link at the top of the "Implications" section. In general, I think the point about how the science of the day was wrong and the Baha'is went against it without opposing science in principle is definitely an interesting point, but we need to stay on topic and put it where it's appropriate. If you like I can look further into the guidelines around this, but in my experience off-topic material is only ever included to give brief background so that a point will be understood, never to extend it. E.g., Schizophrenia gives a sentence explaining what an adverse childhood experience is in order to then say it's a risk factor for schizophrenia, but it doesn't then go on and talk about why child abuse is a big problem, even though of course it is.
 * As for that source about the professor losing his position, I think there are several reasons it shouldn't be included. Firstly, the source doesn't say anything about his talk to the Baha'is, so it is off topic and tangential. To me that is the key point. Secondly, the reason I said we need to be very cautious about it is that it is a primary source and that is what WP:PRIMARY says. Thirdly, WP:PRIMARY is clear that there can be no interpretation of primary sources unless it is from a reliable, secondary source, but saying he was fired for his views on race is definitely interpretation because what the source explicitly says is that this was not the reason. Fourthly, WP:AGEMATTERS needs to be taken into account... as it notes there, old sources may be good for pinning down facts close to the time they were written, but aren't good for interpretation, for which we should prefer recent sources. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I'll be thinking more about this. For example for me there was the context that earlier the religion had favored engagement with science and technology and learning by raising up schools but I didn't go on at length about those schools (like the first girls schools, not just the social norm of boys schools.) But I still feel some inclination this content matters even if some could and should be used elsewhere (such as the history of the Bahá'í Faith in the United States. as for being fired - the source is I think an official statement on the matter and not just someone's opinion, scholarly or not. And I didn't claim he was fired because he spoke at a Baha'i event - he was fired for speaking for the same opinion the Baha'is were speaking up on the matter and in his case it got him fired (he was also promoting the same position in his classes.) The point here is the degree of unpopularity of the position wasn't just theoretical. But I'll think on it more. Maybe there are more sources on this too. Smkolins (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to hear your thoughts when you have them. Regarding the professor, yes a better source could help with the issues around WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGEMATTERS, but that source would also have to connect him losing his job to the Baha'is. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Moved the draft in my sandbox to the mainspace
Hi, I've moved a version from my sandbox to the mainspace. I know we have some issues still under discussion so I'm open to making further changes. But I figured it was better to get the material we agree on visible and then perhaps later add some that I removed if that's what we decide based on discussing. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. We'll circle back around perhaps after this FA thing on the main page. I also had a bit of a research project I've been working on elsewhere which turned into quite a project. Smkolins (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure no problem. And good luck with the research, I was actually thinking recently that with all the sources you've compiled for the by country articles you could probably get a research paper published on Baha'i history in some part of the world. Then we could cite you. :-) Gazelle55 (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)