Talk:Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith/Archive 2

Adding to Gender Equality Criticisms
Is it just me or is it very difficult to find Bahá'í Faith specific criticisms with regards to gender equality. I know for a fact that there are people who criticise the religion for not having enough gender equality - people criticise Judaism, Christianity and Islam (etc.) for this as well - but I can't find Bahá'í specific criticisms, perhaps for two reasons:


 * 1) The overwhelming majority of scholarly works written on the Bahá'í Faith are written by Bahá'ís, and so have a natural bias. I certainly don't expect any Bahá'í authors to criticise their own religion.


 * 2) The Bahá'í Faith is rather unknown when it comes to the gender equality debate, merely because it is a smaller religion than the big four (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism) and it has less of a history (as compared to something like Judaism) to draw specific instances of institutional sexism from.

Does anyone know or have any sources I could use to add more to this section? Obviously I am looking for works critical of the Bahá'í Faith's supposed gender equality. I will continue looking and will post the sources I find here, before editting, so that we can agree that they are suitable. Hesnotblack (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This website,, I have used to show that there are critics of Baha'i Gender Equality. Hesnotblack (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The unity of religion section looks much better now. I know someone publishing soon that will be a good source for the science section. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  22:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've had a look at the source you've added and that's just the type of source I needed. I would greatly appreciate it if you can find more like this.


 * I should point out though, that in your second edit you changed "Baha'i apologist" to "Indepedant scholar". The terms are not mutually exclusive, "independant scholar" refers to someone who conducts research outside of an academia.Hesnotblack (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Also it should be noted that Lil Abdo is not a critic, in fact we can infer that she is an apologist from here. However, I wouldn't be able to put this in the article itself, as it would constitute original research - it's just something to keep in mind (and to stop any future disputes on that kind of issue). Hesnotblack (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Lil Abdo has written several articles critical of the Baha'i Faith and she is mentioned in several places with the very specific term "independent scholar". It looks like she was invited to the conference in 1995 to present criticism of the Baha'i Faith to the Baha'is there. There is no indication I could find that identifies her as a Baha'i, and it seems apparent from her writings that she is not. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  22:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I linked to that page to illustrate my point.


 * ""She noted that, ironically, the chief "feminist criticism" of the Faith was offered eighty years ago by very patriarchal Presbyterian missionaries, who criticized the slowness of the emancipation of Iranian BahÃ¡'i women. A much more thorough exploration of the BahÃ¡'i conception of sexual equality, and a more frank exploration of its differences from secular feminism, are crucial for responding to attacks on he BahÃ¡'i [sic] Faith's treatment of women.""


 * Again, you've misinterpreted the meaning of indepedent scholar - the terms (Indepedant scholar and Baha'i apologist) are not mutually exclusive, "independant scholar" refers to someone who conducts research outside of an academia.


 * I will agree with you though - we can't say for sure whether she is "independant" (as in neutral) or not. So we shouldn't put any statement of her neutrality on the page - as it is not verifiable. If you want to add that she is an indepedent scholar, explain the term whilst adding it in. Hesnotblack (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Arabic Page
I have read the arabic version of this page and it is remarkably different. There are also well sourced criticisms that we find on there. There are criticisms on the literary nature of the scriptures of the Faith and there are even criticisms of the founder supposedly claiming divinity. Of course any such addition would need to be added suitably, but I think this page could benefit from these sections.

Sadly I don't understand Arabic - I have had to use Google Translate to work out that the page says. It would be great if someone, who understands Arabic, were to translate the criticisms and bring some of them accross. Of course we should bear in mind neutrality for this to happen. One should also bear in mind that the Arabic page seems to have a lot of Muslim bias. Hesnotblack (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Juan Cole
I really dislike this part about Cole's criticism:


 * "Critic of the Faith, Juan Cole claims that Baha'i fundamentalists see the scientific worldview as a "negative counterpart" to their faith. Furthermore, he adds that these fundamentalists also reject higher education, even going as fas as denying some forms of technology, which, he says, draws parallels to the Amish.[15]"

For one, it's not a criticism of the Baha'i teachings, it's just saying he doesn't like Baha'is. Second, he is the only person I've seen coin the phrase "Baha'i fundamentalist" and it sounds to me like an attempt to use Christian terminology to smear the Baha'i Faith, not an academic or objective reality. Third, he is not a neutral reliable source, he is a former Baha'i who had a lot of personal conflict with Baha'is and then went on to rant about them.

When a particular book gets published I will be able to write the section well with the actual examples of conflict between religion and science in the Baha'i Faith. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  23:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * He says:


 * There are a subset of Baha'is that he coins Baha'i fundamentalists.
 * These fundamentalists reject science.
 * This is despite the Baha'i faith claiming to be in harmony with Science, according to him.


 * So it is indeed a criticism. As you are a Baha'i, I see how you would dislike it, but Wikipedia is not a place to remove things you don't like. I for one "dislike" the way that Joseph Kabila is presented (I feel he is far more evil to Congolese democracy than people realise) - but I would never remove information from that page - they are facts that are well cited and verifiable.


 * Cole's criticism is indeed a criticism - it may not be the type you like - indeed reading it through, if you are a Baha'i it may seem like he also dislikes the Baha'i faith and that is sadly true. A lot of the critics of the Baha'i faith simply do also hate/dislike the religion on some level, and this is true for many religious critics. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are particularly susceptible to these types of critics.


 * He may indeed be the only one to use that phrase, but that section is not there to claim such phrasing is academically valid; It forms part of his opinion. (You should remember that that section is not there to portray a stance on whether "Baha'i fundamentalists" exist, it is there to portray the various criticisms to the harmony of religion and science espoused by the faith).


 * At the same time, the use of "fundamentalism" is an area of contention on Wikipedia - I have only included it because that is what the author has said - I certainly don't mean to conflate fundamentalism and opposition to science - that is what the author is doing - for better or worse.


 * Now your third claim has me intrigued - and perhaps we can discuss this further. You say he is not a neutral reliable source, but as I understand it, most religious critics are not "neutral" in the sense you are getting at. The criticisms to the faith are, of themselves, not a neutral matter. Many Baha'is will simply reject them with their own point of view, as I am sure you will. Take a look at Criticism of Christianity, look at the sources there. Some absolutely loath the religion.


 * I should remind you that whilst what you write on Wikipedia must be neutral, a third party source need not be neutral (although argueably their position on a matter should be stated). Refer to this page. Note what is says about not getting opinion and fact mixed up - it still means you can have that opinion in the article - just that you should state that it's an opinion.


 * I will sleep on this, and I'll likely reinstate the edit tomorow. Hope I helped, Hesnotblack (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it would be helpful to stop accusing me removing things I don't like because I'm a Baha'i. This page needs a lot of work, and good editing often involves deleting content.
 * Regarding Cole, if you're familiar with his writing on the Baha'i Faith, it does not fit in the category of a reliable source. I think "conflict of interest" would be a good way to describe his writing. He tries to give the appearance of a neutral third party observer when he is really just grinding his axe trying to get back at people he feels wronged by. Him being an academic does not mean that he studies the Baha'i Faith academically. Anyway, I will fix that section soon. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  21:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You simply repeated what you said before with complete disregard for what I said. In a discussion you are meant to both talk and listen.


 * I was not accusing you, and I sincerely apologise if what I said came out that way.


 * I assumed that the reason you removed that content was due to your disliking of Cole's criticism; To quote you, "I really dislike this part about Cole's criticism".


 * You then went on to talk about him not being a neutral source.


 * Now take a step back and look at what I wrote above - do I at any point say that I believe he is an impartial source? No. In fact I'll say it right here: He is not an impartial source. Was my point that he was an impartial source? No. My point was that him being neutral doesn't matter. Again, I refer you to this page.


 * Note what is says about not getting opinion and fact mixed up - it still means you can put that authors opinion in the article - just that you should state it's an opinion.


 * Before you contest that he is not a "reliable" source, which is a slightly different thing, read this page. His criticism was part of an academic journal - it is "reliable". It is not neutral but it is reliable. To prove he, as a source, is not reliable you would have to prove that that journal is not an academic/peer-reviewed journal. You'd have to prove that it is self published. I look forward to your proof if you endeavor to do this.


 * And (again I'm repeating myself) remember that with a topic like this - almost all the criticisms are opinions exhibited by the author. How can criticism be neutral? The fact that the author is criticising in the first place shows that they are not adopting a neutral stance.


 * I will now reinstate the edit. Please read through what I have wrote above. Read it through carefully. Maybe even sleep on it - I feel that personally helps me when I am thinking through a dispute. Sometimes we realise that we have been clumsy and we realise that we have completely sidelined the oppositions arguement - it has happened to me in the past. So read it through.


 * Thank you, Hesnotblack (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Unity of religion
Hesnotblack, I think it's great that you're trying to add to the article and make it less of a list. I made the same argument and I want to expand the article as well. But I removed some of your content because while trying to document criticism you're mischaracterizing the Baha'i teachings. Universalism is strongly tied to Christian doctrines, and I've never heard it applied to the Baha'i teachings. I added a note to clarify that Baha'is don't view all religions as equally valid, but progressive, so the older ones get corrupted with time. From that point of view, Islam is the least distorted from its original intent because it was the most recent and hasn't suffered the loss of cultural continuity that happened to older religions, like Buddhism or Judaism.

Also, the sources should be specific, not "many" people say... If someone voiced criticism, quote the person. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If you visit the page on Universalism, you'll notice the Bahá'í Faith is on there, though the writer claims it is of a slightly different type of universalism to the norm. I think you're right, I should be more specific, so I'll reinstate the edit with the authors mentioned. Hesnotblack (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Cuñado ☼, with regards to the Muslim part of the Unity of Religion section, I believe you have engaged in OR. You have done this in the following ways:
 * You wrote "Muslims generally regard the Baha'i Faith as heresy". Does the source, the second one, say this? Actually it says, "fanatical Muslims, particularly in Shiah Iran have sought to picture it variously as a "heresy"..." You are equating a subset of Muslims ("fanatical Muslims") with all Muslims ("Muslims generally").
 * You wrote that Muslims regard the faith as a heresy, "due to Muhammad being labeled the Seal of the Prophets in the Qur'an." Again, do the sources say this? To quote the source, all it says is that "Fundamentalist Muslim theology regards Muhammad as the last messenger whom God will send and Islam as the final religion for all humankind". Does it ever mention that it is due to what is written in the Quran? I don't think so.
 * Your use of "generally" and "commonly" give a sense that the majority believe this but some don't yet you have not provided a source for this synthesis.

This is the reason I warned you that all three sources were necessary, and this is why I wrote what I did previously. I did it to avoid OR; It is very easy to fall into that trap.

I hope you revise your edit to that section. Hesnotblack (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Main Sources
This article has thusfar been very hard to edit due to a lack of reliable, published criticism. However I believe I have found a book that can be taken as a primary source and used to further verify all sections. I believe it can also be used to add much more detail to this article. This is the book in question:

"Basiti, Masoud, Zahra Moradi, and Hossein Akhoondali. "Twelve Principles." Bahar Afshan Publications, 2014."

Furthermore, a free pdf copy is provided over an online archive, here.

So do we agree this is a good source? As I understand it, the writers are Muslims (this should be stated in the article - e.g. " Muslim critics argue ..."). Aside from that it really is an all-encompassing source. What do you think? Cuñado, Smkolins, any objections? Hesnotblack (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Commenting in here amidst a long trail of comments. Good source? (cough) Um, no I'd not hardly call it a good source. I'm not even sure it qualifies more than a self-published source - it certainly doesn't seem to speak for any organization, whatever "Bahar Afshan Publications" is. According to here it's been in existence 20 years and from all internet mentions it has only ever done this one publication. So I don't know any basis to consider it even a primary resource unless you want to make this about Mohammad Madjdi Kia's work though he seems entirely unnotable. Smkolins (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow... You actually bring up a good point! To be honest, as I did more and more searching, I started to think you were right and that it is merely self-published with "Bahar Afshan" stuck to the front of it to make it look more credible. However, page iii of the book provides the publishing information, including the "شماره كتابشناسي ملي" i.e. the national bibliography number* (3483920) given to published books in Iran, as well as other pieces of information such as author ids etc. So I can confirm that it is indeed published. However, I do understand the second part of your statement. Indeed it seems this is the only work published by Bahar Afshan Publications, being published quite recently in 2014. Does that make it a weaker source? Perhaps, but this is only one minor detail and I am not using it to cite facts; I am using it to cite opinions. Nevertheless, I currently maintain it's a reliable source. However, it is an interesting and fresh line of thinking. Smkolins, if it isn't too difficult to do so, I suggest you do more research into this publication perhaps finding a phone number etc. so we can further ascertain the reliability. Perhaps I was wrong in not wanting to bring you into the discussion (as third opinions are meant to at least start off neutral), you have seemed to bring up useful information.


 * Visit, you can use this information to find more details of its publication.


 * I look forward to working with you in the future, Hesnotblack (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Gah! I forgot something Smkolins! Like me, you probably don't understand Persian: So I'll save you the effort, here is the libary page documenting the information:
 * I found this by setting the language to English and typing "Twelve Principles" in their database search. Hope I helped, Hesnotblack (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, Smkolins, I move to reject your point. I have found another book published by the same publication: "سلام بر ذبح عظیم" It's a persian language only text - hence explaining why you couldn't find it. I found it on the Iranian National Library website, it is published by the same publication. I also found various texts by the other authors, although not all are published by this publication. Use this to find these texts (simply type the authors name in English - you can find their names from the Twelve Principles book): Hesnotblack (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In fact Smkolins, I can now completely put this one to rest, there's no point even researching this further: https://grp.isbn-international.org/search/piid_cineca_solr/Bahar%2BAfshan?keys=Bahar%2BAfshan So yes they are a publisher, and given the three ISBN prefixes, they have at least two other books. They are likely Persian language texts - which, again, would explain why we found them hard to find. I will reinstate the edit - I am once again satisfied that the source has been published and is reliable. Hesnotblack (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * See this article for an example of how your recent addition takes something completely out of context and distorts it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  01:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Cuñado, once again you are conflating opinion and fact. I understand your point - but is it relevant? If it was my own synthesis / original research (which isn't allowed), then your point would stand, and perhaps I would have to remove the edit due to that. But the points weren't mine... They were the critics' points. It was not me distorting anything, the critics on the otherhand I can't speak for…


 * Yes, they may be misquoting (or not including the full quote), but that as a point is irrelavant for the inclusion of their criticism, valid or not, in the article. Whilst it almost certainly is not the point of this page, you may include apologia stating "but Baha'is/apologists argue that they are misquoting Abdu'l-Baha". However you will certainly need a better source than you have provided. Your source should be published.


 * Now, regarding your revert: Let me clarify something. You believe the sources aren't "reliable". The main source I used for that sections, is that book I have mentioned above. It is published by a Persian publication - so it is reliable.
 * See above. Arguable at best and easily not. Smkolins (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * However, if I am honest Cuñado, I seem to think you assume "reliable" means (or correlates to) "neutral". See here. Note how it says:


 * "The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view."


 * With regards to Shaykhs and Qurayshi's criticisms however you may have a point. I believe Qurayshi may be an author and if you read this, you'll find:


 * "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."


 * However, I agree with you. I would need to first prove Qurayshi has his work published. As I can't do that right now, I'll remove him as a source for now.


 * None of this will change the existence of the section though - I'm a little confused as to why you decided to wipe that entire section. I will be reinstating.


 * Finally: If you want to have it removed, here's what you need to do, either:
 * Prove the sources are unreliable. There will be 3 or 4 now. 3 are primary, the other is that published book which is a secondary source, which analyses the primary sources.
 * Stepping in here. I believe I've spoken to this being even a poor case for that secondary source being an obscure institution that never produced anything else for some 20 yrs existence.Smkolins (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Errr... Actually now that I think of it, that is the only way you could remove this edit.


 * Again, feel free to add apologia along the lines mentioned in that blog - though it needs to be verifiable. I'm sure some editors wouldn't accomodate this, as this is meant to be a page for criticism, not criticism and apologia, but I can understand how you feel. If it's verifiable, I won't complain.


 * Have a nice day, Hesnotblack (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about this. I think what is needed for a page like this is a neutral source that says what the main criticisms are of the Baha'i Faith. You have made the argument that a criticism can be included because it is a criticism, even if the source is not reliable or neutral. I understand where that comes from, but it would get out of hand if the bar for inclusion was that someone makes a criticism. In the example of the racist comments, it would create a ridiculous situation if a blatantly deceptive criticism is included along with its rebuttal. But if you could find a reliable, neutral third party observer who commented on what the common criticisms are, that would be the best type of source. Not someone doing the criticism, per say. That's what makes the Abdo source good. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  22:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You said this: "it would create a ridiculous situation if a blatantly deceptive criticism is included along with its rebuttal"


 * You're playing in to you own bias with this statement. You and I may think that a criticism is "blatantly deceptive" yet unless you have evidence for that - it isn't. We can't cherrypick criticisms we think aren't "blatantly deceptive" Cuñado. What you and I may see as "blatantly deceptive", that critic and some of our readers will accept that as valid criticism.


 * At the same time, I will concede that it would be nice if we could use "neutral" third party observers... But this is the worst topic to suggest that. Criticisms are inherintly biased in nature. We must include criticisms on this page. Therefore, it is inevitable that we will include biased sources. So what I think we'll do is we will include these criticisms -  and if we can find a source that is neutral, we will include it's input as well, perhaps stating "neutral observers however note..." However if a neutral observer does not exist, we must still include that criticism - although we should certainly make sure the reader knows the source is biased (e.g. by referring to the source as critics, or referring to their history of criticism etc.)


 * Would you be willing to make that concession Cuñado?


 * Hesnotblack (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Final point, I recommed you read the neutral sources page. Note what it says about a reliable source almost never being neutral - we  need reliable sources not neutral sources. Again, I concede that if such a source exists, we should use it. Hesnotblack (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Published sources are not always reliable sources. Reliability is established if the source has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." The criticism about racism is added by two serious deceptions that are called out by McGlinn. First, the quote is taken completely out of context. If I said, "Some people say: 'the moon is made of cheese', but that's nonsense." Then someone quote me as saying "the moon is made of cheese", that is exactly what the criticism has done. Second, it's translated in an almost comical way to make it appear more racist. I'm not familiar with the individual names, but Persian attackers are known to fabricate all kinds of criticism as part of a cultural genocide against Baha'is in Iran, much of which is well documented by neutral third party observers. All this does matter if you're pushing for inclusion.

Regarding Sen McGlinn's blog, WP:V says such sources can be used "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." With some cautions. In this case, Sen is widely published enough that his blog can be used if no other reliable sources are addressing the issue.

Likewise, I think you should review WP:UNDUE, as it requires that the article "adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." If you read the examples, it does not support the idea that by providing two opposing views next to each other, it becomes balanced, regardless of verifiability. That's why you still need non-fringe commentary from several very reliable sources to establish what issues should even be included on the page. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  00:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all Cuñado, I'd like to thank you for remaining good-humoured throughout these disputes. I'll address your points in order.

Regarding the reliability of the published source
Your first point related to the book mentioned above, which you imply is not reliable. Your arguement is that, although it may be published, it does not have a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy" The reason you give for this is that the criticism is incorrect and misquoted. In order to give more substantiation to your point, you've referred to a blog that addresses the quote as a criticism. Finally, to further substantiate your point, you've stated that the quote has been taken out of context and that the translation has been completed incorrectly.

I agree with you, a published source may not always be reliable. So first, let's establish criteria for reliability.

"Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. -WP:SOURCES"

From this we can draw the following conclusions as to what a reliable source is:


 * The source is a third party. The book fulfills this criteria, as though the authors are biased, they are nonetheless third party commenters on the subject; They do not stand to gain in any way from publishing their criticism. In fact, this need not apply to our source at all. Read here. (This is more for articles where sources may have a conflict of interest, they may be purposefully written for "self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses". Yes WP:INDY does say "Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an axe to grind" but we must remember this mainly applies to articles written about living persons or a group, political or otherwise. In other words, subjects that espouse viewpoint themselves. I'd like to remind you that, " reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." - WP:BIASED)
 * It is published. Our source is published, so it fulfills this criteria.
 * It fact-checks, has a reputation or accuracy for doing so. If you read our source, it indeed includes citations and references. Now in this regard, you define accuracy differently...

At this point I could say that I have proven the source is reliable - yet if I were to do so I would be sidelining your arguement. So let us draw out the key reasons you give for why the source is not reliable. I will include my rebuttal to each. Here they are:


 * Your point: the criticism is incorrect and misquoted. My rebuttal: One cannot determine whether the criticism is incorrect for it is a criticism (as you would be stating another opinion, perhaps some apologia, as a fact to arrive at that conclusion.) If the criticism misquotes someone, that does not mean it is unreliable in this context. Even if it did mean that the source would be classed as unreliable - you are using apologia (an opinion) to prove your point - apologia that is from a self-published source.
 * Your point: The quote has been taken out of context. Mr rebuttal: This is a repetition of the above.
 * Your point: The translation has been completed incorrectly. Really now? Again this is a simple repetition of the above - your statements, or Mr McGlinns statements - are not facts. Using one biased source to invalidate another biased source is illogical.

So I hope I've proved to you that the source I have used, that book, is reliable. Yet if you still disagree, you must address my points and you must not sideline them.

Regarding Sen McGlinn's blog
You argue the WP:V says that such sources can be used "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I agree with that.

This is the full quote:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. -WP:V"

You may find it slightly amusing that there sems to be little difference between the full quote and what you wrote. But if you look more close, you'll see a difference. You'll find that "in the relevant field" is in bold.

So your points are as follows:
 * 1) He is an established expert on the subject matter. You refer to his Baha'i library page as evidence on this.
 * 2) Whose work in the relevant field has previously been published...
 * 3) by reliable third-party publications.

I'll agree partially with point 1 - he is indeed an established expert - but is he an expert on this subject matter? Point 2 also has this problem: None of his book's refer to this field of work (i.e. Misconceptions of Quotes from Abdu'l Baha, Racism in the Baha'i Faith or indeed even just simply Criticism of the Baha'i Faith.) Similarly I disagree with point 3: The Baha'i library has not published anything he has written chiefly on the topics of Misconceptions of Quotes from Abdu'l Baha, Racism in the Baha'i Faith or Criticism of the Baha'i Faith.

So in summary, whilst Sen McGlinn's works can be seen as reliable, his blog post cannot be. Furthermore as it is not published - even if it were to be somewhat reliable - it would be subservient in reliability to the book I have mentioned. (But remember my previous arguement of not using opinion to disprove opinion applies).

Regarding the criticism being undue
Before I finish, let me quote the page on WP:UNDUE: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

How much presense does your viewpoint have in reliable sources? Sen McGlinn's blog is not reliable. How much presense does the critics viewpoint have? I have at least one reliable, published source, written/translated by 4 authors. Hence I could reliably name a few adherents to that view, allowing it to become a "significant minority view" at least. Furthermore, for this classification I am giving it adequate weight - a subsection of a section of an article on the Criticisms of the Faith. Does that strike you as WP:UNDUE? Am I blowing this out of proportion?

Actually, here is a better question: What is your viewpoint Cuñado? As I see it your viewpoint is that this criticism is not a valid criticism. And yet the blog you quoted treats this exactly like criticism. So on this basis already it is not WP:UNDUE. In fact this conversation of WP:UNDUE we're having reminds of another conversation we have had in the past. There, the content was not undue for slightly different reasons, and yet you persistantly pushed on the fact that the source was WP:UNDUE until you eventually contradicted yourself. I insist you stop argueing down this line. The criticism is not undue, and you know that.

You wrote, "If you read the examples, it does not support the idea that by providing two opposing views next to each other, it becomes balanced, regardless of verifiability." Did I ever say this? Reading my previous replies I simply allowed you to add apologia if you felt that the "misquoting" apologia was not being adequately represented. And as mentioned previously, the "misquoting" does not constitute a fault in verifiability.

""That's why you still need non-fringe commentary from several very reliable sources to establish what issues should even be included on the page.""

You have not established this as a necessity. I have already agree that it is highly recommended and in a subject topic like this, it is inevitable we use the criticisms of a critic to determine what the criticisms are of the faith. A completely neutral source which merely lists the criticisms does not exist due to the very nature of this topic.

In Summary
A criticism is a criticism, and this page is to document those criticisms, valid or not. Let us not confuse validity and verifiability. Let us instead seek to reconcile our views for the betterment of this page. Let us endeavor to differentiate between fact and opinion, reliability and neutrality. Finally, let us both not let our biases deceive us, whatever they may be.

I shall sleep on this and wait for any reply. Otherwise I will reinstate the modified edit tomorow.

Hope you have a great day, (and sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes!) Hesnotblack (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree on several points. For example, the source is not a third party, it is politically and religiously motivated to defame the religion. Having its own references does not mean that it is fact checked or peer reviewed. You still have not properly addressed the issue of undue weight. I have asked Smkolins to comment as well. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  20:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You make several counter-points without following them through, or providing evidence.


 * First of all, you state that the source is not a third party, and that it is "politically and religiously motivated to defame the religion". Does that sound like not a third party or does that simply sound like the source being biased/non neutral?


 * You state that the source is not a third party without citing the definition for third party:


 * "A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials. -WP:INDY"


 * "[A] "third-party" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome.-WP:INDY"


 * So tell me two things, in this regard, Cuñado:


 * What vested interest do the authors/publication have in "the outcome" from producing their works?


 * Stepping in here. The "institution" never produced anything else and existed for 20 years with only this one thing to show for it. Smkolins (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You have a good point, although I'd like to know where you found this information, as I can't seem to find it myself. Nevertheless, whilst your comment is on the topic, it still does not answer the question: What vested interest do the authors/publication have in "the outcome" from producing their works? Hesnotblack (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * See above, I have laid this claim to rest. Hesnotblack (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What is your definition of third party and why does it differ from Wikipedia's?


 * Now, coming on to your second point: "Having its own references does not mean that it is fact checked or peer reviewed" I understand this point to a certain degree - we should remember the book has 4 authors, and, indeed, if you read the aknowledgement, the book has been proof read etc. A fifth person is also mentioned to have helped in the research. So it does indeed fulfil the criteria of "fact checked". The references and inclusion of citations help to further document the attention to detail that has been given to fact checking. Before you simply contradict my point, without evidence, I ask you to refer to this when attempting to define "fact checked".
 * Of course the above comes with a reminder - the section on sources, you'd argue, seems to support your view - until you read above, "An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:" Those are requirements for articles, so the number of third party sources etc. relates to articles not section. Indeed it says, "Once an article meets this minimal standard, additional content can be verified using any reliable source."


 * Coming on to your final point. You said, "You still haven't addressed the issue of undue weight" I dedicated an entire section to this, so perhaps it would be helpful if you actually showed me how I haven't addressed it rather than just contradicting me for sake of arguement. I refer you to here: WP:DR. Take a look at the image of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. You are simply contradicting with little to know evidence.


 * Finally you've said, "I have asked Smkolins to comment as well." I detect something of a veiled threat here... Why Smkolins in particular I ask? Why not a neutral third party observer with no history of editting on this page? Why have you chosen someone who is potentially biased? Wikipedia's policy on third opinions states:


 * "Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute. -WP:3"


 * So in conclusion, I believe my points still stand. Smkolins is not a neutral third person, please do not elicit his opinion. Until you can provide clear evidence that is. Have a nice day, Hesnotblack (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we avoid making personal attacks about me sideways? Facts don't need sides to be "clear evidence" whoever presents it. Smkolins (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It was not my intention to make any personal attacks, I apologize if I have done so. Also the above sentence you quote was actually mistakenly placed after the bit about you not being a neutral third person, it should read: "So in conclusion, I believe my points still stand. Until you can provide clear evidence that is. Smkolins is not a neutral third person, please do not elicit his opinion. Have a nice day" Hesnotblack (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh and Cuñado, I look forward to your response, please do not wait for a revert to reply. Hesnotblack (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand that you thought my replies have been tirse. I have largely given up on quoting policy to you as you have entered a realm of moral relativism that I don't think it is any more productive. My short comment was simply to acknowledge that we are not in agreement on how to use the source. I asked for Smkolins help not as a threat, but because I know nobody else who would even be interested in commenting, and someone unfamiliar with the subject would have to dig through a large amount of text to gain context, so it is unlikely that there will be anybody but you and I babbling away.
 * You can use the Iranian source. Use it as a source about itself, without quoting an obviously misleading statement as reliable just because it's published and you want it to be true. Look what I did with Cole and try to copy that style of sourcing criticism. Summarize the main points of the book or something, or I'll do it. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  04:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that this discussion has taken a turn for the worse... You started off your reply by saying I thought your reply was terse (spelt with an e), and indeed I did think that. But you have replied this time with an equally terse reply which now falls into the realm of subtle ad hominem attacks. (Yes, sadly by responding to this I am falling down the pyramid too.)


 * You say that you have given up on quoting policy as I have entered the realm of moral relativism. I have not fallen into the realm of moral relativism - I'm not even sure what you mean by this phrase. Perhaps you mean, "I think I am right and I will not accept anything you say". Cuñado, I trust you as an honest editor; In the past I have conceded to parts of your arguements - I continue to do this even now. If you can honestly prove to me why we shouldn't have this source/section, without simply contradicting me with little evidence, and by addressing the points I make, I will concede defeat on this one.


 * With that said, I disagree with the rest of what you have written, on the grounds of you perhaps not even wanting to argue or discuss this anymore.


 * You said you asked Smkolins for help not as a thread, "but because I know nobody else who would even be interested in commenting, and someone unfamiliar with the subject would have to dig through a large amount of text to gain context". What do you mean by this? If by "gain context" you mean read what we have written, this is required. If, however, you mean use that blog you've quoted to realise that the quote that the author criticised may have been misquoted, then you have not listened to a single thing I have said this entire time. Yes, the criticism can be though of as invalid if you accept that blog as a source, but even if you were to do so that is not a reason to include a section saying "critics argue x". Yes x may not be true; As a Baha'i you likely believe none of these criticisms are true and that is a respectful position, but it nonetheless stand that what the author has said is a criticism "valid or not". Finally, your measure of validity may not, and likely is not, going to be accepted by other people, especially non-Baha'is. I myself am quite open to such a blog - I agree with the author - Abdu'l Baha has been misquoted - regardless the point still stands that that is his criticism.


 * "You can use the Iranian source. Use it as a source about itself, without quoting an obviously misleading statement as reliable just because it's published and you want it to be true. Look what I did with Cole and try to copy that style of sourcing criticism."


 * Now you are giving me orders? Without proving your point in the least bit, you are now subtly demanding I use the source in this way. Cuñado, if you do not have concrete evidence, I cannot accept and do your bidding - that's not how Wikipedia works - we must come to a conclusion/concession.


 * You know as much as I do that this is a criticism, like it or not, think it valid or not. It must be included in an article that hopes to list all criticisms of the faith.


 * I am particularly hurt by the last part in the former sentence, "because it's published and you want it to be true". At any point I could make the accusation that you are doing this because you are a biased editor, who doesn't want this criticism to appear on this page, but I haven't done that. (I have done it accidentally in a different dispute though - I sincerely apologize for this.) To think you are now accusing me of being biased - and wanting "it to be true" is heartbreaking. I want this page to be full of detail - it was the page the inspired me to edit on Wikipedia, when I saw how lack luster it was - I am not simply doing this to attack your religion, in any way shape of form. That said, I strongly believe in neutrality, and I thought that this page could use a non-Baha'i editor seeing its current editorial staff.


 * In conclusion, my points still stand. We should both realise that we can be wrong sometimes, I have certainly been wrong in the past. If you reply to this please ensure you answer my points. I may (and likely will) counter-argue, you should be able to answer my counter arguements. If you cannot, then realise that this source and that this section should be included. Use your time to perhaps reword/redo that section without removing the criticism, if you were to argue for the removal of the second quote, I wouldn't complain - it's from a primary source. Or perhaps we could use our time to further improve this page. Think it over Cuñado. I will revert that edit in a weeks time, giving Smkolins time to research further and join the discussion. By the way, whilst I still maintain that the blog you quoted is not reliable, I think it can nevertheless be used in apologia for that section if you so wish. That is the concession I am willing to make. What concession will you make?


 * I look forward to your reply, Hesnotblack (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh and also, in case you are wondering, the reason I will not let this dispute go is because I've realised how crucial it is for this article. You could remove other criticisms from the page, which are similarly from non-Baha'i sources, on the same basis as this. This pages future is in jeopardy if I allow you to say that such a source isn't allowed to be used. Hesnotblack (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If you think the future of the page hinges on this issue, I think you've really misunderstood me. I also wasn't meaning to give you orders, I was trying to hint at ways of editing better. Any source that is verifiable can be used about itself, even self-published unreliable blogs. The source seems clearly verifiable, but you have to use it correctly. The one issue you chose to draw from it was clearly misquoting and in other ways demonstrating the authors' lack of reliability. The work sits in a category of polemic attacks that are often sponsored by the Iranian government (they even produce soap operas showing Baha'u'llah being seduced by British spies to subvert the Iranian people), the history and current situation of the propaganda are referenced extensively here and here. Skimming over the book, it feels very similar to Iranian propaganda, and that tells me it doesn't sit as an objective third party observer. So it would be appropriate for a source about itself, but the contents shouldn't be used to source ideas that are not about itself. Adding the (mis)quotes from `Abdu'l-Baha was inappropriate because it leads the reader to think that the statements made in the book about the Baha'i Faith are reliable. I hear you say several times that you can include any verifiable criticism because it is criticism. No. The article must be sourced from reliable sources. If you were to say "these authors claim that `Abdu'l-Baha made racist statements ", then you're all good. But if you say "`Abdu'l-Baha said that Africans are cows ", then you've got a problem. And again for 4th or 5th time, undue weight has to be addressed when the vast preponderance of critical sources do not mention the issue of racist language, and for good reason. This article needs a few overarching sources to draw from to establish priority and weight. I'm not sure where to get those at the moment but I'll try to find something.
 * And thanks for pointing out the tirse error. I was a little surprised I got that wrong. I had a friend named Tirsa in college, I must have been influenced by her. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  08:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"I also wasn't meaning to give you orders, I was trying to hint at ways of editing better." I apologize for misreading you. It's also nice to see you in such a positive mood, you seem much more like your normal self.

Back to the matter at hand, you bring about two points:


 * 1) "The article must be sourced from reliable sources." Suggesting the book is not reliable. The examples you give above this seem to be your evidence toward this. Cuñado, I think it is probably my fault to not make it clear that I was always talk about Wikipedia's measure of reliability. I understand now that you are talking about a completely different type of reliability - all my comments have been made in light of Wikipedia's measure - i.e. the binding one. The measure you are talking about is not reliability - it is perceived factual accuracy. The problem with factual accuracy is that you need to establish facts to first prove them. Cuñado, in a topic like this, the dissenters will never accept certain positions as facts, even when proved to them, unless it is done by a completely neutral, reliable source.
 * 2) You argue that undue weight is also established from there not being many sources which mention the topic. Refer to the page on WP:UNDUE. Also the reliability of the source can impact whether it is undue or not, see |WP:UNDUE#Reliability_can_help_judge_due_weight. When judging undue weight, we must look at where the matter is mentioned. We should not look at areas where there is a lack of mention of the matter as evidence for WP:UNDUE.

With all that said, I believe we are arriving at our conclusion. You said: "If you were to say "these authors claim that `Abdu'l-Baha made racist statements ", then you're all good. But if you say "`Abdu'l-Baha said that Africans are cows ", then you've got a problem."

It strikes me only now that in the edit I attribute the quotes to `Abdu'l-Baha directly! So I agree with you, I must state that it is what the authors say he said. I will reinstate the edit now, with this crucial change.

Have a nice day, Hesnotblack (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and Cuñado, if it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure I make more spelling errors than you do, so no need to fret over "tirse". I did find it funny that you had a friend in College called Tirsa though... Hesnotblack (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Polemic and Apologist
Definitions:

Polemic = a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something Polemicist = a person who engages in controversial debate Apologetic = of the nature of a formal defense or justification of something such as a theory or religious doctrine. Apologist = a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

I think these are fairly unbiased terms for both the attacks on the religion and the defense of it. I didn't add apologist to the description of McGlinn because I already described him as 1) Baha'i, and 2) a blogger, which in few words conveys that he is writing apologetically and also that he is not writing in an official capacity or from a reliable publisher. In the case of the Twelve Principles and the other sources making the racist claims I included 1) Iranian, and 2) polemic, because it is noteworthy that this criticism has not appeared (as far as I've seen) in any western attacks on the religion and is basically unheard of, and also unlike McGlinn being mentioned as a Baha'i, describing it as polemic quickly conveys that the literature is written entirely as an attack on the religion. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  20:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree that we can conflate "Polemic" and "Apologetic" as similar terms. I don't think a writer/author would be so offended if their work was waived as Apologetics, rather, for some, this may be seen as desirable. On the other hand, a polemic piece of work can be waived as devoid of any real justification, analysis and logic - it is taken simply as a ruthless attack. Even you admit this when you say that it conveys "that the literature is written entirely as an attack on the religion".


 * You argue the source is Polemic. If you can provide a source which cites it as such, then you may retain this tag. Similarly, I will remove Apologetic, even though I would still argue that it doesn't have as much of a negative connotation as Polemic. If you were not to be argueing for inclusion of Polemic, I doubt you would have such a problem with "apologist", a term that is accepted and used for all religious individuals participating in the formal defence of religious doctrine.


 * "describing it as polemic quickly conveys that the literature is written entirely as an attack on the religion." This is your own analysis, hence it constitutes Original Research.


 * Hesnotblack (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a bit surprising, because I feel the same about "polemic", it is simply a descriptive term, and I think the book is polemic at face value, it doesn't need a reviewer to say that. It's entire contents are dedicated to attacking the Baha'i religion. I think those words are in a way opposites, and yes they both imply a lack of neutrality. I would not consider an academic (or some other neutral) review to be polemic, even if it is negative. Neutral observers simply don't dedicate that much time and effort into writing a lengthy attack on the religion, and don't get me started on the obvious errors and stretched logic present. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  22:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"I think the book is polemic at face value, it doesn't need a reviewer to say that." ""Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."-WP:V"

""Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material"-WP:OR"

I think those two quotes, from Wikipedia policy, sum up my side of the arguement.

At this point, Cuñado, let's agree to disagree. I have already made the concession to not include both terms. Let's not beat a dead horse.

Hope I helped, Hesnotblack (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Divinity claims
This wording: "This supposed claim of divinity has been criticised by Christian authors who point this out as a doctrinal difference between the Bahá'í messengers."

Isn't totally clear, and the reference doesn't clearly describe it. What is the doctrinal difference between the Baha'i messengers? Who are the messengers being described? <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  07:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is what I was referring to,

"" Leader 	God Krishna 	Polytheistic; pantheistic; Hinduism ultimately adopts a monistic/impersonal ultimate reality. Moses 	Monotheistic, personal. Zoroaster 	Dualistic; two supreme beings (one good and one evil). Confucius 	Polytheistic; but gods are secondary in importance to ultimate reality. Buddha 	A supreme God is irrelevant; the gods are also; modern Buddhism is, variously, polytheistic or humanistic. Jesus 	Monotheistic, personal, Trinitarian, God has a Son who reveals God perfectly. Muhammad 	Monotheistic, personal, Unitarian, God has no Son. The Bab/Baha’u’llah 	Ineffable, unknowable.

Even when we compare Baha’i with just one other religion, Christianity, the problems are still insurmountable. "-Ankerberg"

However I realise now that I've made an error, I removed Shaykh when I should have removed Ankerberg (Shaykh is the one who lays the divinity claim). Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Have a nice day, Hesnotblack (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing content without Discussion
Could we please refrain from removing content without talk page discussion, or at the least, an adequate edit summary?

With Azadeh Haiati you have a good point, his criticism appears on what seems to be a blog site. However, they do write articles too, like this one. Notice who the Author is. Also notice that Wikipedia explicitly allows articles, although for such a biased article, we are obviously required to make its bias clear. However what I included was not an article - it was indeed a blog post, but a blog post from someone who has written something a bit more reliable on the subject of "Criticism of the Bahá'í Faith". As you know from our discussions on Senn McGlin, this is technically allowed. I will however make a concession and remove it if it causes you too much arguement/distress. (Argueably I should remove Senn's for the same/similar reasons, but I already agreed to that concession).

Now on to Cole. I understand that as a Bahá'í you disagree with what he says, but you must realise that Wikipedia is not a place for you to espouse your own views. He is a reliable source; He stays. No questions. Reliability is not based on your/my objective view on the world, Wikipedia tells us how to measure reliability. Let's stick to that.

Your wording edits are becoming a bit of a habit now. Could you at least explain your reasoning for them?

Finally, you do not remove an entire section with "Go read the Wikipedia page on x". That amounts to non-neutral editing, you know that. Whilst we might agree on somethings, other people won't. We base Wikipedia content on sources not on our own opinions.

Phew... That was a long one. I look forward to your reply. Have a nice day, Hesnotblack (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Attitude towards Black Africans
I'd like to welcome SOM back to this page.

As you can see, several changes have been made to this page - in particular a standard of citing content has been established.

As I understand it, you believe that the following is NPOV: "For example, in Twelve Principles (2014) `Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying that Black Africans are "cows" with "human faces", among other things."

This is found in the source in page 70, looking at the quote at the bottom of the page. The assertion being made in the above statement is that the book quotes a historical figure as saying x as substantiation for the book's opinion that the historical figure is y. In other words, the above statement is an opinion not a fact. I welcome any changes you feel necessary to make this even more clear, if you so wish.

I point you to WP:YESPOV which gives the following relevant guidance:
 * 1) Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
 * 2) Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

From those two points we can come to the conclusion that we are allowed to portay (biased) opinions as long as it is made clear that they are opinions. This is not in breach of NPOV.

One could argue however that the cherrypicking of such a source to only show one side of opinions is in itself biased. However, this is why this section also includes the other (apologetic) point of view, given by Senn McGlinn. Therefore the section itself is balanced.

Also, with your earlier edits you seemed to undo my revert of a vandal, calling my revert vandalism. I was restoring what was already there - I assume you made a mistake and wanted to refer to the IP user's edit as vandalism. Pleae make this more clear in the future.

Please excuse me for any spelling errors. Have a nice day. Hesnotblack (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The point here is essentially not "opinion" but "fact". In this case it is undisputed fact that `Abdu'l-Bahá used phraseology that is certainly less "carefully politically correct" than people would use nowadays. So far so good. But even "critical" treatment needs to be fair. The substance of the section as I have left it IS fair - it refers to remarks that were really made, so that even if the inference drawn about what was meant is far-fetched - there is at least the authority of actual statements - and it is a fact that some opponents of the faith have interpreted the statements as prejudiced. On the other hand - "Twelve principles" is at lest extremely biased, and makes so many hysterical statements without any supporting evidence that we'd have to accept it as the opinions of the authors rather than confirmed fact. Any "quotes" from `Abdu'l-Bahá in this source would have to be backed up in a less NPOV source, surely? Wikipedia rules about LIVING people are very strict indeed, for obvious reasons - but "quotes" even from historical people do need definite direct sources - somewhere the original quote came from, so we can verify that he really said it. On the subject of balance - Senn McGlinn refers only to `Abdu'l-Bahá's undisputed statements - he gives no opinion about the matter from "Twelve principles" and it is in fact highly unlikely he ever saw it - hence there is no "balance" of that point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry Soundofmusicals, but I'm going to have to disagree with you.


 * ""The point here is essentially not "opinion" but "fact".""


 * Not at all. Read the section:
 * "The Bahá'í Faith espouses the need to abolish racial prejudices. On the other hand, critics have claimed comments made by `Abdu'l-Bahá showed racial prejudice about Black Africans."


 * It is the critics that claim this. It is not a fact. The only fact here stated is that, there exist some critics who claim `Abdu'l-Bahá made such remarks.


 * According to WP:NPOV, I shouldn't even use the wording "claims" as it (typically) denotes bias - yet I have done this anyway to add further weight to the fact that this is an opinion. I do find it strange though that nobody has quoted this Wikipedia policy and replaced all instances of the words "claimed" with "said"...


 * ""The substance of the section as I have left it IS fair.""


 * I would agree - but only because the previous version is also "fair". Really when it comes to "fair" things we must realise that this is a matter of opinion - some editors would consider attacking/vandalising the Traditional African religions page as "fair". Other editors and I however would disagree, we would label this as disgusting, racist and persecutory behavior. So in order to determine what's fair we need an agreed upon criteria - and that, I would argue, should be Wikipedia Policy. Your revert simply removed the details of what the critics say are racist quotes. In other words you are removing a verifiable opinion, that come from a reliable albeit certainly not neutral source. One naturally asks why you must remove such a point of view. I urge you to read the discussions above in determining whether your revert is resonable.


 * "On the other hand - "Twelve principles" is at lest extremely biased, and makes so many hysterical statements without any supporting evidence that we'd have to accept it as the opinions of the authors rather than confirmed fact."


 * The book can be categorised as a criticism of the Baha'i Faith. Tell me SOM, is there such thing as a neutral criticism? Of course not. The very fact that it is a criticism immediately points to its bias. In a page such as this almost all the actual criticisms will come from biased sources. But what you are hinting at here is not neutrality, it's reliability. These are two different things, reading WP:OR we find that sources must be reliable but need not be neutral. If they are not neutral however, WP:NPOV tells us we need to state the sources claim as an opinion. This is what has been done - again I invite you to go over the wording my edit and make this even more clear if you feel this is necessary.


 * Is the source reliable? Read the discussion above - it was all to do with the reliability of that source. Now your claim that they make "hysterical statements without any supporting evidence" is simply not true. They quote primary sources, which I had previously included alongside the citation for Twelve Principles. Feel free to put this back up if you want more verifiability.


 * This is what the authors of that book cite for that particular quote:
 * "`Abdu’l-Bahā, Makātīb (Egypt), vol. 1, p. 331."


 * ""Any "quotes" from `Abdu'l-Bahá in this source would have to be backed up in a less NPOV source, surely?""


 * Read the discussion above, this has already been discussed at length. Unless we go to the primary source (i.e. literally where he said it, which I think is what you wanted), as given above, no such source exists, and we can expect that no such source exists - criticisms aren't neutral!


 * ""Wikipedia rules about LIVING people are very strict indeed, for obvious reasons - but "quotes" even from historical people do need definite direct sources - somewhere the original quote came from, so we can verify that he really said it.""


 * The primary source above fulfils this, although I would still argue that it is not needed. I am not including the opinions of the critics as a matter of fact - I am including it as a matter of opinion. It is possible to include an opinion of someones (as an opinion) which states that "x said y" even when others would argue "x did not say y". Also noticing the words, "but "quotes" even from historical people do need definite direct sources", we must be careful not to conflate Wikipedia policy with your own interpretation of what policy should be. Again, if such a policy does exist then we have that primary source - you can include it if you want.


 * ""On the subject of balance - Senn McGlinn refers only to `Abdu'l-Bahá's undisputed statements - he gives no opinion about the matter from "Twelve principles" and it is in fact highly unlikely he ever saw it - hence there is no "balance" of that point. ""


 * You must not enter a dispute without thoroughly reading the sourced material. You are an experience editor - I find it strange that you have not read the sources propery. He does indeed confront the quote that Twelve Principles quotes - scroll down and you'll see it. (Note in his translation he writes "cows" as "beasts".) Thus he gives the opposing opinion on the same quote - this is balance. If you're arguing that he needs to address the book "Twelve Principles" by name, then none of the apologia on this page adds balance and we should remove all apologia from this page. None of it attacks specific critics, with the sole exception of the reviews of Juan Cole's Panopticon. You do not need to respond to a critic by name to respond to a criticism - that is just common sense... Cuñado was the one to add in the McGlinn rebuttal and he did so rightfully; it balances out that section.


 * In summary, I believe my points still stand. A lot of what we're discussing now has been discussed above in the "Main Sources" section. Before responding to my arguements please read through the source material carefully. I will only revert my edit once we reach concensus - or until the discussion reaches a standstill (with no replies).


 * Hope you have a nice day, and again, welcome back to this page: We missed you! Hesnotblack (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there a primary source - i.e. a reliable quote, for the "cows" bit? Honestly? sure a critic will necessarily be biased, but this goes well beyond "bias". Any source, on any subject, that is quite this hysterical - (stand by that word) is surely not "reliable" about anything. Nor is any source, I would suggest, that has quite such an extreme NPOV. `Abdu'l-Bahá's slightly "dated" remarks aren't bad enough to make their point so they make something up? Doesn't it look a lot like that, even to you? Perhaps not - but although one might be able to argue all day on this one - can you begin to see the point? Or can we constructively compromise?


 * Would it actually be fairer (not to mention more authentically disturbing criticism) for us to quote instead a remark we know `Abdu'l-Bahá DID make? These are not hard to get hold of - come from Bahá'i sources, which makes them much more damning if you accept the premise that they are "racist", and are genuinely unassailable (except, perhaps, in terms of McGlinn's rebuttal). Imagine something like this -
 * In 1912, the Bahá'i editors of Star of the South quoted `Abdu'l-Bahá as writing in a letter to a friend [insert non-PC remark here].
 * Sure you can dig up something like this if you try. Or I might have a go even. ---Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, the primary sources for the quotes (which I avoid using as we have two secondary sources which mention them anyway) are these: `Abdu’l-Bahā, Makātīb (Egypt), vol. 1, p. 331. and also  `Abdu’l-Bahā, Khaṭābāt (Tehran), vol. 3, p. 48.

Khatabat is where both Senn and the Book got the cow/beast faces quote.

Original Source for Khatabat p.48:

Senn McGlinn quotes these in his article, which I urge you to read over as it seems you've just skimmed through the top most section. Also SOM, we cannot just use a primary source in this section, we need the secondary source to provide the analysis (i.e. the actual criticism) otherwise one could argue "it's not a criticism" (and it would constitute original research). I believe my points still stand and I look forward to your reply. Hesnotblack (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually I've had a really good time going into this - I am at an age when the opportunity to learn completely new things has become relatively rare, and I find any mind broadening experience thoroughly enjoyable. I must admit I suspected that this


 * `Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying that Black Africans are "cows" with "human faces"


 * might be a more or less "confected" quote from a source that would not be "reliable" by any possible criterea, and that - assuming that we wanted to make the legitimate point that some people HAVE criticised `Abdu'l-Bahá (not quite the same thing as criticising the Faith, but let that pass) for writing some non-PC things - it would be better to find a more reliable quote. This is all I was saying in my last, as you might have gathered if you had actually read it.


 * On the other hand, since you are so attached to this particular quotation - let's actually look at a a form of it that runs a little more than 7 words:


 * The wild tribes have no superiority over animals. For example, what is the difference between African blacks and American blacks? The [black Africans] are cows that God has created with human faces. The [black Americans] are civilized, intelligent, and have culture. In this trip to the black centers, schools, and churches in Washington there were extensive talks with the blacks, and they understood all the points like the intelligent people in Europe. So what difference is there between these two types of blacks other than nurture, with one in utter ignorance and the other in the peak of civilization?


 * 'This is actually the passage as is quoted in your source! The context already adds considerable nuance - even in this rather literal translation. Not that Black Africans are like animals in human form is much of an "improvement" - especially out of context, but even in context! Many of us would think that even this is more than a little racist - or at least ethnocentric - by twenty-first century standards.


 * The [black Africans] are like animals in human form. The [black Americans] are civilized, intelligent, and have culture. [...] what difference is there between these two types of blacks other than nurture, with one in utter ignorance and the other completely civilized?


 * This is a fair, properly translated quotation of `Abdu'l-Bahá's words - in the context that even our source saw fit to provide (in fact they provide more context than we do!). The words themselves are not particularly attractive, to be honest - even in this form, but they cannot be attacked down the track, as the original very brief quotation might, as badly translated, out of context, or of suspect authenticity. They are not in any way toned down or whitewashed - in fact to a critical mind they could very well reveal a streak of insensitive ethnocentricity, if not racism, in `Abdu'l-Bahá that non-Bahá'is (and Bahá'is for that matter) might find disturbing.


 * I won't edit the article text itself until we have reached an agreement on this point - but what about the following as a proposed replacement for the passage in question:

''The Bahá'í Faith espouses the need to abolish racial prejudices. Critics have claimed that comments made by `Abdu'l-Bahá are contrary to this principle, and show racial prejudice against Black Africans. For example, in Twelve Principles (2014) `Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying: "The [black Africans] are like animals in human form. The [black Americans] are civilized, intelligent, and have culture. [...] what difference is there between these two types of blacks other than nurture, with one in utter ignorance and the other completely civilized?"

Sorry, in your previous reply, I forgot to mention this:
 * You are conflating reliability and neutrality. Please read the linked discussion point. The source, the book is reliabile, unless you want to try to prove it is self-published or something along those lines.

With that established, we realise we are dealing with a reliable, non-neutral source for a topic where such sources are not just suitable but required. If you start editting their quotations for the sake of conforming to another (non-neutral) source or your own views then that is non-neutral editting. This is what I've seen you do above.

Now coming on to your current arguements, first I applaud your suggestion of a concession. I will consider it going forward but your current reasoning for this concession is flawed: You are either pointing toward another POV source and saying it's more reliable (which it isn't, self-published vs published) or you are using your own opinions of what the translation should be by removing parts of the primary source.

For third-party reading this discussion, this is the line of contention from Khatabat, p48:

"ميان سياهان افريک و سياهان آمريک اين ها خلق اللّه °البقر علی صورة البشرند آنان"

The annoying thing you'll discover with this quote is, much like some sections of Baha'i scripture, it switches language halfway through. Most of it is in persian, but the latter part is in arabic. The very word of contention is: البقر. The meaning of this word? According to an Arabic-to-English dictionary, this means "Cow".

The place I have taken the source from is the official Baha'i library page - if anything the primary source should be biased against such a quote - but it isn't - it's all there in plain err well maybe not so plain Persian/Arabic.

So even if I go along your line of reasoning, which in my opinion is completely unreasonable, we still end up with the Cow faces quote. I see no reason to censor or remove this from the article.

Also, I'm afraid you can't decide what/which is a better translation, nor can I for that matter, as this would be Original Research on our part. Unless you want to quote a completely neutral, academic, non-Baha'i translator who says "x is the correct translation", you can't resolve this matter like the critics/apologists would. Wikipedia is a place for facts - it is a fact that the book quotes/misquotes Abdu'l Baha saying this, whether this is wrong or right on their part.

To be honest I really am repeating myself; All of this has been discussed above (we even had an interesting discussion on the reliability of the source - as it seemed to be self-published at first). I ask you to read this and read the sources again thoroughly.

Now finally I realise I have made a mistake in citation that may the reason for this whole discussion. I noticed it in your suggestion above: sfn|Basiti|Moradi|Akhoondali|2014|pp=69-70 should be sfn|Basiti|Moradi|Akhoondali|2014|pp=69-71 as the footnote for the quote (where the primary source is given) is on the next page over. I apologize for this mistake; It may very well be the reason for your confusion on why no primary source was quoted.

So I suggest we add in your own addition and that we also add in the cow faces part, as it is part of the (wrong or right) secondary source analysis. Senn McGlinn has compelling arguements against this critique which you must find horrendous. If you are unhappy with it from a religious point of view (although you should be being neutral) then you can take consolation in this.


 * ""might be a more or less "confected" quote from a source that would not be "reliable" by any possible criterea, and that - assuming that we wanted to make the legitimate point that some people HAVE criticised `Abdu'l-Bahá (not quite the same thing as criticising the Faith, but let that pass) for writing some non-PC things - it would be better to find a more reliable quote.""

Sorry, this is the conflation of neutrality and reliability I was talking about. Read the linked discussion above - the source is reliable and no amount of saying a certain line isn't (without any evidence) will change this. Either prove the source is self-published or abandon repeating that the source is not reliable. Read WP:SOURCES.

Now somewhere you said you wanted to make sure that this book is giving an opinion. I wholly agree with you here - if you want to add more clarification the please do so.

Have a nice day and I look forward to your reply. Hesnotblack (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ""I won't edit the article text itself until we have reached an agreement on this point -""


 * We hadn't reached an agreement, so you shouldn't have editted the article text by your own admission.


 * I will not revert your edit now - edit warring is pointless and fruitless. Perhaps we should seek some form of arbitration? Or a (neutral) third person could join?


 * That said, I understand that you are getting tired of this discussion but to be honest I feel as though you haven't been reading my arguements (which are a direct response to your arguements). How can we come to a consensus if you constantly contradict what I say without reason? Let me highlight some of this to you:


 * You state that this part of the article is fact not opinion. I have stated that this is not true - the statement is that such a criticism (valid or not) exists.


 * The criticism (the cow faces part) is not fair. This may be true but that is an opinion, and this is a hotly contested criticism. Let's not forget WP:NPOV


 * "Twelve principles" is extremely biased. I agree, it's a critical work on a religion - of course it will be extremely biased!


 * You constantly imply that extreme bias somehow affects reliability or somehow in itself delegitimizes the source. Read WP:SOURCES. Reliability =/= Neutrality. I have constantly told you to look at the discussion above which is on this same topic. You claim this discussion is getting to long and yet you are not talking the courtesy to read the previous discussions.


 * The quote needs to be something Abdu'l Baha actually said. (Actually it doesn't - if it doesn't have any historical precedence you can simply put this below) Regardless, I've supplied primary sources that the secondary source quotes. You've started your own analysis of these, removing parts of the original quote.


 * You say we should make sure it is put accross as an opinion. I have agreed to this several times.


 * You say that things are missing from the sources, whether it's Senn McGlinn apparently not addressing this exact criticism or if it is the primary source. This very clearly shows me your not reading through the sources in their entirety (although some of the blame is on me to for forgetting a page from Twelve Principles).


 * In summary, I have addressed all the points of your arguements and yet you have not addressed any of my arguements, apart from maybe my first response which you simply contradicted. Aside from one quotation of WP:LIVING, you have not quoted any policy; I have quoted policy yet you seem to not have read what I've quoted.


 * So what should we do from here? I will wait a few days, if I get no reply I will revert the edit to either the original, which was written by both Cunado and I, or the current version, adding the contested part back in, expecting no response from you. Otherwise I expect either further discussion, a concession, or a recommendation of some sort of arbitration from you.


 * Have a nice day. Hesnotblack (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, Soundofmusicals, I haven't received any response from you, so I will reinstate the contested sentence. Hesnotblack (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Not about either of us - but the quality of the article - which as an opponent of the Faith such as yourself I would have thought was very much more important to you than anyone. Provided the context (that, at the worst, casts some doubt on Abdu'l Baha's cultural bias towards "primitives" as opposed to racial (colour) prejudice) is to be retained you are welcome to the "cow's faces" which is to an English speaker, however anti-Baha'i he might be, plain funny - and certainly not likely to be taken seriously at all. As far as I can see it is you who is not "reading the sources" and is "not responding to arguments" - but I am not going to waste time and nervous energy to make this article (of all articles) better. If you could only see it - a ludicrously biased POV weakens your case with anyone who is not already a committed "Baha'i opponent" - if that's the kind of thing you want then go for it, when all is said and done. Above all - don't claim this result as a joint effort between us, since you have bulldozed your own POV over all my attempts to get things into the form of a proper encyclopedia article. Best wishes anyway --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals, let's control our anger.

When I first read your reply I got quite angry, and I was about to post a vitrolic reply to what you've said. However I have had time to calm down and think about what you've said and what my reply would have yielded me. With this in mind, please read my revised reply:

I believe, and it is a contested belief, that I have given every reasonable attempt to listen to your side of the discussion. I have disagreed with most on your points, but I have read and considered your point of view without wielding the sword of "bias" (i.e. I did not call out your bias and use it as a way of attacking your arguements). I have attacked your arguments throughout, I have not attacked you. Many editors would be very displeased with my behaviour, for in the face of someone who seems to be breaching WP:NPOV, I have said nothing, only defending the nature of the sentence in the article, its verifiability and reliability.

'''And you know what? I'm not going to start now. Soundofmusicals I don't believe you are engaging in biased editing.''' I believe you are a fair-minded contributor to this article and I very much value your opinion, even if I thoroughly disagree with it. I am not an opponent of your faith, though nor am I a supporter of your faith. I started editing this particular page when I noticed how lacking it was. As someone who as a casual interest in religious studies, I thought I could contribute and make the article better. In truth I have added very little to this article on my own. It is thanks to kind folks like you, Cuñado and Smkolins that this article has improved in both detail and verifiability. It is through discussions and disputes with you guys that I have learnt a great deal about Wikipedia policy.

I think the great thing about Wikipedia is there will always be disagreements - these disagreements fuel change and make Wikipedia what it is.

Now, coming on to the end of this dispute, I was thinking of making a concession (removing the faces part) but I just can't bring myself to do it, especially when I read something like this: "since you have bulldozed your own POV over all my attempts to get things into the form of a proper encyclopedia article."

Throughout this entire dispute I have been quoting policy several times... It is particularly hurtful that you seem to not have taken any notice of this; Instead you are now characterising my responses as being non-neutral. So I will not make a concession of good will, only because I feel you lost your own good will when you attacked me - why should I return this favor?

Nevertheless, whilst you may attack me and accuse me of non-neutrality, I will not return suit. I turn the other cheek. I believe your discussion on this topic has been neutral. I put my trust in you as editor who has contributed to this page and helped it out several times.

Please do not make me regret my words. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Hesnotblack (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of Debate: In section "Attitude towards Black Africans", the following was removed as such:

I, Hesnotblack, argued for the inclusion of removed sentence, "`Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying that Africans are "cows" with "human faces"." which I argued was sourced, whilst Soundofmusicals argued against this by saying that this was not something the historical figure said - citing what he saw as the lack of a primary source.

My initial points:
 * 1) The sentence is neutral.
 * 2) This is because it is a statement of opinions, which WP:YESPOV provides.
 * 3) Nor is it cherrypicking for the Senn McGlinns apologia is included.

Soundofmusicals's First rebuttal:
 * 1) The contested sentence is not an opinion, it is fact.
 * 2) The criticism is not fair.
 * 3) The book where backing up the sentence is extremely biased.
 * 4) Quote requires NPOV source.
 * 5) Senn McGlinn is not referring to sed criticism/is not referring to the book.

My Rebuttal:
 * 1) The sentence does portray an opinion.
 * 2) A Wikipedia editor cannot decide what is "fair".
 * 3) Twelve Principles is very biased...
 * 4) ...But policy allows inclusion of biased source where it is shown to be an opinion.
 * 5) No true criticisms are neutral.
 * 6) Source is reliable.
 * 7) Primary source exists, it was just not given.
 * 8) McGlinn is addressing the criticism in the book.

Soundofmusicals's Second Rebuttal:
 * 1) There exists no primary source.
 * 2) Source made up quote.
 * 3) We should include something the historical person did say.
 * 4) We should come to a compromise on these terms.
 * 5) We should include something unassailable.

My Second Rebuttal:
 * 1) Primary source exists for the quote.
 * 2) Same source is quoted by McGlinn.
 * 3) Prior arguments still stand.

Soundofmusicals's Third Rebuttal:
 * 1) Source (Primary and/or Secondary) is not reliable.
 * 2) Hesnotblack avoided my point that the source is not reliable.
 * 3) A fairer translation of primary source omits contested opinion.
 * 4) A fairer translation is unassailable.
 * 5) So we should include this fairer translation.

My Third Rebuttal:
 * 1) Not yet willing to make such a compromise.
 * 2) Conflation of neutrality and reliability.
 * 3) Primary Source included contested opinion.
 * 4) One cannot decide which is a better translation...
 * 5) ...for it would be original research.
 * 6) Add in your translation also add in claim of faces part.
 * 7) Agree we should make it clear that it is an opinion.

I further argue:
 * 1) You instated your translation despite promising not to before a consensus is reached.
 * 2) Contested part of the article portrays an opinion not a fact.
 * 3) Criticism is not fair but this is inconsequential...
 * 4) ...it is an opinion.
 * 5) Twelve Principles is indeed biased...
 * 6) ...this doesn't matter.
 * 7) Neutrality does not affect reliability.
 * 8) Quote is something the historical figure said...
 * 9) ...even though this is not the assertion being made in the contested sentence as...
 * 10) Contested sentence gives an opinion of what a historical figure has said.
 * 11) We should make it more clear that this is an opinion.
 * 12) Soundofmusicals is not reading the source material...
 * 13) ...McGlinn includes the primary source.
 * 14) We should seek arbitration.
 * 15) If I get no reply, I will reinstate the contested edit.

I say:
 * 1) I have received no response from you so...
 * 2) ...I will reinstate the edit.

Soundofmusicals's Last Rebuttal:
 * 1) Quality of the article will suffer due to inclusion of contested sentence.
 * 2) Hesnotblack is an opponent of the Baha'i Faith.
 * 3) Contested sentence is anti-Baha'i.
 * 4) Contested sentece is funny.
 * 5) I will not waste time making this article better.
 * 6) Hesnotblack is biased.
 * 7) Hesnotblack's arguments weaken his case for anyone who isn't a Baha'i Opponent like him.
 * 8) Do not claim this (revert) is a result of our joint effort.

My Last Rebuttal:
 * 1) I am not an opponent of the Baha'i Faith.
 * 2) I am not non-neutral.
 * 3) We should be civil.
 * 4) I do not think Soundofmusicals is biased.
 * 5) I thank Soundofmusicals for his contributions to this article.

So ended the debate, Soundofmusicals reluctantly decided not to revert my readdition to the article, claiming I was biased.

Hesnotblack (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Niyaz
I found this book by Sufi Niyaz that may be useful. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  22:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)