Talk:Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith/Archive 3

Esperanto

 * "In 1985 in the Universal House of Justice’s primary institutional document to the peoples of the world, though singularly instructed there as the fundamental principle of the Faith that “necessitates the most urgent attention”, 28 of the 29 leaders of said Body responsible for framing authoritative Baha'i documents since 1963 have as individual believers de facto marginalised said principle, all nine current members have rejected meaningful consultation on said instruction considered binding on all members of the congregation and shunned their whistle blowing critics. Abdul Baha, whose teachings House members as individual believers pledge in writing to obey along with the instructions of the Universal House of Justice, has described the principle in question as “the very first service to the world of man”. Such is the backstory moving Esperantists in a high quality, long established periodical online and in print to depict Baha'i leaders, among other reproofs, as “virtually criminal”."

I removed the section on Esperanto. For one, it was not written in a neutral way. Two, its source was in the language of Esperanto. Three, it falsely equates Esperanto with the universal language.

There is potentially a criticism related to the universal auxiliary language. Basically, Baha'u'llah talked about Arabic as the best language. In one place Abdu'l-Baha talked about Esperanto being a good attempt at universal language, but in another he said that Esperanto won't be it. Early western Baha'is piled in to Esperanto and thought they were advancing the principle. In practice English (or a future reformed English) is becoming the universal language. But any criticism is only a half-truth. A thorough reading of the original text says that the universal language will be decided by a world tribunal of governments, not decided by the Universal House of Justice. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  15:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added the section in question above so it can be easily referred to.
 * First of all, I'd like to say I agree with you that this section should be removed. This is for the following reasons.
 * The section is not in coherent English and so is hard to understand.
 * The section does not actually quote any critics, rather it engages in original research from the sources to come up with its own criticisms.
 * I do not even feel I understand what the criticism is, (is it that a universal language was stated as a requirement but never adopted?). If this section is to be reinstated it must clarify the actual criticism.
 * So I agree with Cuñado that this section should be removed. However, on a side note:
 * "There is potentially a criticism related to the universal auxiliary language. Basically, Baha'u'llah talked about Arabic as the best language. In one place Abdu'l-Baha talked about Esperanto being a good attempt at universal language, but in another he said that Esperanto won't be it. Early western Baha'is piled in to Esperanto and thought they were advancing the principle. In practice English (or a future reformed English) is becoming the universal language. But any criticism is only a half-truth. A thorough reading of the original text says that the universal language will be decided by a world tribunal of governments, not decided by the Universal House of Justice."
 * "There is potentially a criticism related to the universal auxiliary language. Basically, Baha'u'llah talked about Arabic as the best language. In one place Abdu'l-Baha talked about Esperanto being a good attempt at universal language, but in another he said that Esperanto won't be it. Early western Baha'is piled in to Esperanto and thought they were advancing the principle. In practice English (or a future reformed English) is becoming the universal language. But any criticism is only a half-truth. A thorough reading of the original text says that the universal language will be decided by a world tribunal of governments, not decided by the Universal House of Justice."


 * Cuñado this is not a discussion forum for whether you think a particular criticism is valid or not. The fact you did not even mention the true flaws with the section but instead immediately entertained it and refuted it (which is not the job of a Wiki editor) shows ambivalence to Wiki policy. Please refrain from this in the future.


 * I have put in bold a particularly worrying use of language from you. It is not your job to make your own analysis of any sourced material (though in this case the material was someone else's OR). Again, a reminder that you should refrain from doing OR yourself. Also you must remember that as an editor you must be impartial.


 * Hesnotblack (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliability
I made an overhaul of the page. I think there may have been a misunderstanding of reliably sourced criticism. Just because something is a negative criticism, doesn't mean it gets to be on the page, it still has to be reliably sourced. And in general, the page needs a reliably sourced and neutral reference describing what are the major criticisms of the Baha'i Faith, its teachings, founders, and administration. Miller, Cole, and the Iranian sourced are clearly not reliable sources, they have an axe to grind. Cole in particular does a good job of hiding his bias and looking independent, but when you dig in a little it's obvious that he is not. The best source I found was Lil Abdo, but they only mention the issue of gender equality. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  00:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You have simply removed entire sections of reliably sourced material from this page without giving any reasonable explanation. This is ridiculous.


 * We have been through this exact argument in the past several times. Yes those sources are reliably sourced - you are conflating reliability with neutrality. Read, from WP:BIASED:
 * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."


 * It is clear to me that you think that a page on the criticisms of this faith should be given by people who are not truly critical of this faith (people who are affiliated with the faith or adopt a neutral stance towards it). You are literally saying we should avoid the criticisms of the critics. That is not what this page is for. This page is for the criticisms of the critics.


 * Hesnotblack (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If you would like to add information to the page, you should use reliable sources. Likewise, I think you are editing in a non-neutral way. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)