Talk:Free Baháʼís

Who are Free Bahá'ís
Free Bahá'ís are those individuals who accept the arguments put forth by Ruth White and Hermann Zimmer. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The page is sourced entirely from a dubious website. It has the legitimacy of a blog post. Your claims to edit Wikipedia to "provide academically-sourced, objective information on topics" is fully debunked by now. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  05:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please check the "References" section from the edit immediately prior to your deletion(s). Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Those were copied from another page. The idea that they are the founding members of a movement called "Free Baha'is" is sourced from the website with no material to back it up. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  14:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean by "those were copied from another page." In any case, your statement "the idea that they are the founding members of a movement called “Free Baha'is” is sourced from the website with no material to back it up" is false.  A simple read of any one of the citations provided would show that.  Again, a simple check of the "References" section from the edit immediately prior to your deletion(s) would have shown this to be true. To make access easier, there is even a url-link to several of those references, such as Moojan Momen's article.


 * Free Baha'is associate with the works of Ruth White, whether Ruth White used the term or not. Hermann Zimmer and Charles Seeburger certainly did use the term "Free Baha'is.  As an analogy, Jesus never "self identified" (to use your wording) with the term "Christian" although Christians view his teachings as the foundation of their faith.  Regards, A35821361 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is, the references are about White and Zimmer. There are no reliable third party sources about the subject of this article. The page's premise is not sourced by anything but a website with unclear ownership. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  18:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed it is synthesis to make much of Zimmer and then back to White to substantiate whatever is current of which itself there is almost no comment let alone linking it to earlier things. Smkolins (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Repeated deletions
Certain editors repeatedly delete large parts of this article, particularly parts of it that reference third party sources, and have ironically nominated the article for deletion because it lacks third party sources. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In case it's not obvious... this page is sourced from a dubious website that is not a reliable source. The website says that it represents a religious community founded by Ruth White and Herman Zimmer. That is the statement that needs reliable sources. The sources you're referring to are about Ruth White and Herman Zimmer themselves, people who have no clear connection to the website. This page is an obvious candidate for deletion. At best, this page is a WP:Neologism trying to amplify its own credentials, at worst, it is a WP:Hoax. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  23:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As often as you have deleted bulks of text, you may be confused as to whose sources you have been deleting. The deleted sources I am referring to were articles written by Moojan Momen, Adib Taherzadeh, and Rúhíyyih Khanum, which are all third party sources referring to Free Bahá'ís. For example, view the version of 22:43, 2 June 2017 and then your subsequent deletions.  Regards, A35821361 (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See below. Smkolins (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

OR and POV
The edits being repeatedly deleted are referenced from several works and are clearly not OR.

I can't think of any greater POV than the wording inserted and re-inserted by Cuñado and Smkolins which describes Hermann Zimmer's A Fraudulent Testament devalues the Bahá'í Religion into Political Shogism as "a scathing critique."

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See all the discussion above. The 1920s is linked two people - White and Wilhelm Herrigel - and that is linked to Zimmer in the 1970s. No source has credited this rising to anything like a "group" - all the groups together of various contradictory types amounted to about 150 many of whom did not side with this fringe group. Now leaping to the present of a current group is unsupported by any source. That's why the content keeps getting deleted that you keep basis on unreliable sources or making the case for uniting three eras in ways the reliable sources do not establish. Thus it is deleted. As for "scathing" - how about "critical"? Smkolins (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten this article for better flow, removed a few claims that were not supported by the sources, and added a few more details. Instead of "critique" I've used the word "polemic", which is specifically used to describe Zimmer's work in one of the sources I've added. --dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 14:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"Further reading section"
Hi, Why have you removed the further reading section? I am not getting your comment "removing most of the further readings per WP:Further reading". Those books are related to Free Baha'is and adds value to the article. And why are you removing their website? This seems to be a re-established small group, their website is mentioned at Bahai-Library website and Vernon Johnson's latest book. Serv181920 (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, the essay on the optional Further Reading section suggests "a reasonable number of works which a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article" and that it helps with articles with too many references so that users can more easily find a place to study further. Think of it as a place to pluck out the best among the references used. In this case, Baha'is in Exile seems to be the only source independent of the subject and it dedicates a few pages to "Free Baha'is". What you had previously was a lot of writings of Ruth White, who never herself used the phrase "Free Baha'is". The things you added were not commentary from reliable sources, they were primary sources and with a weak connection to the subject of the article.
 * Johnson's book does not mention the website in the section on "Free Baha'is", and even if it is mentioned somewhere else, the standards of Wikipedia still apply. External links still have to abide by reliable sources. A website does not represent a community. It has the validity of a blog and needs confirmation from substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I see a lot of people, Johnson included, that see a website like Glaysher's claiming to be the "Reform Baha'i Faith" and take it as a sect, where they are actually just a single individual with a blog or newsletter, with incredibly small audiences at that. The BUPC claimed tens of thousands of members on their websites, but researchers in Montana found maybe 40 or so actual members, and they have more of a community than Glaysher's newsletter. The "Free Baha'is" website has no authorship or membership data and the supposed community behind it has not been substantially documented in reliable sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  17:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok for the website. Thank you. But I think your removal of study material from "Further Reading section" is not proper. I think that material was adding value to the article. If you like you can change the title of that section. Honestly, i believe, it doesn't matters if it is a primary source or secondary. Also, i think, it doesn't matters if that material has "weak connection to the subject of the article". Do you think it was absolutely not connected to the article and it was a bad addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serv181920 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I'm looking correctly, you added 4 writings from Ruth White and one from Glaysher. It seems to me that White's writings fit best on her page as a bibliography, where they currently are. It doesn't seem to fit with the purpose of the "Further reading" section on this page, for the reasons I mentioned. For example, her writings are not actually used as references on the page itself, and the section is supposed to shore up excessive references. Glaysher is listed separately by Johnson in the category "Reform Baha'i Faith", which I don't think has the notability for its own page but could be a section on this page. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  19:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)