Talk:Political objections to the Baháʼí Faith/Archive 1

NPOV problems
This article has loads of problems. It's not written in a neutral tone, and while certain specific limited facts are referenced, the article is itself a synthesis, which is considered original research and not permissible. The tags will stay until it is fixed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made some further edits to the page including
 * Noted some places where references are needed. Note that references are needed that specifically state what is being concluding.  Note that references are needed that reach the same conlcusion as the same statement that is being written, otherwise it is original research.  From the no original research page, "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."
 * Commented out some non-neutral language. This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay.  It's purpose is not to prove something.  Secondly it's not a Baha'i encyclopedia; neutral terms have to be used.
 * As it stands the article needs a lot, and I mean a lot of work for it to meet Wikipedia's policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I have made tons of edits and added citations for pretty much everything you asked for. I am waiting for one more source, which I should receive a soft copy of within the next day or so. I've also done my best to make the article more objective. Thanks for your help. AdibMasumian (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has made some improvements, but many of the sources are Persian-language sources which is quite problematic, and many are also Baha'i sources such as Balyuzi; it's best to have third-party sources. There is no hurry to remove the tags.  Let's make an excellent article, and then remove the tags.  Regards, --

Jeff3000 (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, the reason I am citing Persian sources here is that I don't believe there are any non-Persian sources that go into this level of detail about the accusations (for example, cases of Mr. Hoveyda and Mr. Sabeti, someone in the Shah's secret police). I have seen a few online discussions, but as you have indiciated about the "bahai Savakies" source, these online discussions cannot be used as a source. In regards to the use of Baha'i resources such as Balyuzi, again, historical events to the level of detail of Baha'u'llah's family going to his brother-in-law who was working at the Russian Legation in Tehran in the mid-1800s and asking him to intercede on behalf of Baha'u'llah is simply not covered in short non-Baha'i, English versions of Baha'i Faith's history. And non-Baha'is have not yet taken the time to write a long history of this religion. If you know of any source that goes into that level of detail, please let me know and I will use those. Typically, non-Baha'i coverages of historical events of this Faith are short and concise. Please remember, this Faith is still new (166 years old) and small (about 6-7 million in population). So, it is not yet getting the attention and coverage of a major world religion such as Christianity or Islam. The Persian sources I am including are quite detailed and have exact references for the events and for the content they cover. Until someone translates these into English, which would be quite an endeavor, I don't know of any other way to cover these claims and responses to them. If you know of another way, please let me know.AdibMasumian (talk)
 * If there are no English sources, then to meet Wikipedia's standards, we shouldn't include the statements, given that they are controversial in nature. There are many non-Baha'i sources that go into Baha'i detail; you may want to look at the Encyclopedia Iranica articles as well.  If no suitable sources are needed for very specific details, then don't put the very specific detail in the article.
 * A couple points to remember in general, first, Wikipedia has policies, and we have to work within them, and not make exceptions. These policies include verifiability, No original research, and Neutral Point of View.  Secondly, neutrality is of utmost importance, as if an article is not neutral, a reader will ignore the article in the first place.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, "The History of Accusations" you added is just excellent. Thanks. AdibMasumian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is important - the "political" ideas that many Muslims (and even some Christians) hold against the Baha'is need to be mentioned (and of course comprehensively rebutted). It is however EXTREMELY important that this be "seen to be done" in a completely fair manner, without ANY POV (incidentally, as a Baha'i I share the POV of the article - but this is not the point!). Emotive and perjorative language will only put anyone interested in impartially examining the issue right off. This article STILL needs a lot of work - but changing the completely unsuitable title it had acquired (which would have been a bit POV even in Baha'i literature, much less in a "neutral" encyclopedia) is a start, at least.

Article is still biased
The concept of this article lends credibility to Iranian conspiracy theories about Bahai's and the title, by using the term "allegations" lends the theories an air of credibility. See Article_Titles for why the term shouldn't be used. Also, these are Iranian government allegations, not stating "Iranian" in the title suggests that the allegations come from multiple sources. This article is a problem for the same reasons why Allegations of Jewish dual loyalty or Allegations of Muslim disloyalty to the West would be a problem. Round the Horne (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So the article isn't biased but the name is in your view? Does that really warrant flagging the whole article? I'm open to a name change if there are sound reasons but perhaps flagging NPOV is a bit harsh. But anyway, let's discuss. Many of the actual references are, after all, allegations, and they come from religious as well as governmental representatives (minding also that the line between government and religion is hard to draw in Islam in general, and in Iran specifically.) And these allegations have been repeated in connection with court cases, as stipulated in the link you provided for guidance. All this is cited in the text. It might be nice to reference that it's not universal in society, and I'm sure it's not literally every person, but I've never seen a citable reference describe how widespread it is, except for general comments like but it is certainly beyond simply the national government and it's associates. It seems to reach into villages at least in some places. Here's a sense of a broader reaction against these allegations and the history they entail. Smkolins (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The title informs the structure of the article which is a series of accusations against the Bahai's. That isn't to say the article cannot be renamed and organized in a different way but whatever it's called an article that is nothing but a series of 'allegations' (and allegation is a legal term to refer to possible crimes) is inherently problematic. A title such as Iranian anti-Baha'i conspiracy theories would be better. Round the Horne (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New book-length response to this article
A 90-page book in both English and Persian translation has just been published online, and probably has much useful content which could be used for citations in this article. For now, I've merely added it as an External Link:

Debunking the Myths: Conspiracy Theories on the Genesis and Mission of the Bahá'í Faith, by Adib Masumian, 2009. Jonah Winters (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting! It would be great however it would be even better if this were published through a scholarly venue - university publishing, scholarly review, etc. Otherwise it's fairly limited in gravity of impact. Smkolins (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This link cannot be used, because not only is it self-published, but it originally came from this specific article on Wikipedia. See the comment on the fourth page of that article which states "The original article that inspired this book can be found at: http:// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Baha'i_involvement_with_other_powers"  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation
This page is not a copyright violation. While a lot of AdibMasumian's added content are copyright violations, I significantly altered his content in this artcile, and used multiple different articles as sources including that are listed in the references section. Using a reference does not make this a copyright violation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to leave the house in a couple minutes, but I'll spend some time later this evening, trying to remove any close paraphrasing that remains to the link in question. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How can an article that uses some 30 odd different sources in citations 124 times, and the one supposed copyright vio, used no more than 17 times, be, en masse, a copyright vio of that one source? I understand the logic of the original editor doing what he did in so many articles leading to a presumption that this article is one too - but this article is very different from where it started and has been working on to greater and lesser degrees by various contributors. I don't doubt there could be copy violations potentially, but it manifestly cannot be en-toto a copyright violation and working to correct any such content should suffice - a process I'd think it would be great for you to stick around for, VernoWhitney.  Smkolins (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not entirely a copyright violation and I have never claimed otherwise, but content containing copyright violations should not be restored, and given the record of AdibMasumian, it is a near-certainty that the entire article began as a copyvio even if the sources besides the one I listed are not readily identifiable. I blanked the entire article because the new content which has been added was not clearly separated from the original content, and so rather than having the problematic material sitting around for longer I blanked the whole page. There's a rewrite in progress at User:Jeff3000/Sandbox3 and I have and will continue to follow progress on it. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Verno asked me to review this article so that I could limit the blanking. I certainly understand the dismay of others who have contributed to this article, but unfortunately its founder has violated copyright in this and most if not all of the other articles he has edited. In addition to the foundation, for instance, content on Freemasons was later again copied from, which 2006 listing clearly predates this article.


 * Clean content added by other contributors to this article may be retained, but when that content consists of modifications of earlier materials, we face a derivative work, defined by the U.S. law that governs us in part as "A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship". Derivative works must be licensed by the original copyright holder(s) whose material is being so revised, annotated, elaborated or modified. This is why the template previously on the article's face advised rewriting from scratch. Modifying copyrighted content does not remove the copyright.


 * I have gone through edit by edit to remove all content contributor by the user whose copyright violations have been confirmed. What is currently in the article was added or more than sufficiently rewritten, mostly by Jeff3000. This content can be expanded, but material added by User:AdibMasumian should not be restored to the article. It may be used as the basis for fresh writing, but the language and structure should be original, written from scratch.


 * I am sorry for the collateral damage here. This is one of the most frustrating problems in keeping Wikipedia copyright compliant: users who place content here in defiance of our copyright policies waste the time of other contributors. Cleaning up after them can set back an article years. I'm glad that so much of this one had already been rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am making some further edits to this page, and I wanted to document them here, so that there can be no misconception where they are coming from:
 * 1) Added introductory sentence in the "Russian and British ties" section. The content of this sentence comes from Wikipedia's article on Anglo-Russian Entente
 * 2) Added final sentence in the "Russian and British ties" section. This is my own content.
 * 3) Added introductory sentence in the "Zionism" section. The content of this sentence mostly comes from Wikipedia's article on Zionism
 * 4) Added sentence on the accusation of fund donations. This is my own content.
 * 5) Added introductory sentence in the "Bahá'ís as agents of the Shah's regime and its secret police". This is my own content.
 * 6) Added final sentence in the first paragraph of the "Bahá'ís as agents of the Shah's regime and its secret police". This is my own content
 * 7) Rewrote Freemasonry section with my own wording.


 * I am grateful to the coordinated efforts to make this article clean and back in service. I've got an interest in a couple others that were similarly compromised but I've got to tend to my daughter getting ready for bed before going to school tomorrow! Time, what is it? Smkolins (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
This article has been cleaned as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Text entered at creation duplicated at least in part material from, with more added from the same source later. Other content added by this contributor under his username or IP may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly The Most Ridiculous Article On Wikipedia
Why is there a racist, sectarian, anti-Iranian tract masquerading as a Wikipedia Article? The only thing this article does is build up straw men and knock them down. This article should be taken down for the same reason there is no article on Wikipedia entitled 'American Anti-Scientologist conspiracy theories' or 'Irish Anti-Protestant Conspiracy Theories' or 'Catholic Ant-Communist Conspiracy Theories' or 'Chinese anti-Falon Gong Conspiracy theories'. To frame the discussion of all the problems the Bahai sect has had with other Iranians under the rubric of irrational 'Conspiracy Theories' of the latter is to operate from the get-go from a hopelessly biased POV. This article is unsalvageable, and should be swiftly deleted. 70.29.64.212 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * and yet so well documented to occur. However I will disagree that it is racist, sectarian, or anti-Iranian. This addresses various claims made through government policies. It does not make these statements and allegations a matter inherent in the Iranian peoples characters. As for straw men - no sir, or mame as the case may be - all citations point it actual usage in Iranian media from government sources. That they can be knocked down just goes to show.... As for the need for other articles - if there are reasonable citations of outlandish claims made against a group I've no problem with such an article. This is not an attempt to cover every issue the Baha'is have in Iran - it is an attempt to outline various systematic and organized programs of misleading information used to denigrate the Baha'is.Smkolins (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to have to say this - but actually the NAME of this article (as opposed to the content) IS more than a little POV. It presumes that the Iranian objections to the Faith listed are invalid (they are, but the title of the article perhaps isn't quite the place to say so). In fact I'd hesitate to use the word "conspiracy theory" at all. The proponent of a conspiracy theory (generally) believes the rubbish he is pushing to be the truth, wheras most of the people pushing this kind of (very naughty word expunged) know very well they are lying (to the point of adjusting the so-called "evidence") - and are doing it with the express purpose of deceiving others. What about something like "Sundry Objections to the Baha'i Faith". Or even give the opponents of the Faith their "criticisms" article they're so fond of asking for, and include this rubbish, with rebuttals, as part of that. For that matter - a lot of what's now in the "Apologia" article perhaps really belongs with this stuff (either instead, or as well as). I think it is important that each "criticism" of the faith is documented, so that no one can say we're setting up straw men, and that the "answer" in every case be as clear and succinct as possible, as well as referenced. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since posting the above I notice that the article used to have a much more descriptive, less POV title - even moving it back to that title would be preferable to doing nothing! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals,

I'm the guy who first made this complaint(my ip may have changed). I want to thank you for improving this article immeasurably since early April. I still think this article is rather one sided, the "Freemasonry" section in particular seems kooky(is this considered notable?), but all in all it's a world of difference.

About the "Zionism" section: The main issue raising suspicions on this front is that the highest Bahai political, theological, and decision making body, The International House Of Justice, operates out Israeli occupied Haifa and is on excellent terms with the state, while generally speaking practically all other religious groups feel persecuted. The location of the shrines is not an issue, and the 'counterpoint' of Israel not being in existence in the 1800 is meaningless, no one disputes or is surprised by this. 70.26.58.240 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Masoud


 * Hi Masoud. The whole article documents a thoroughly "kooky" set of accusations. They are "notable" ONLY because they are used for justification for vicious persecution (including murder, judicial and otherwise, desecration - not only of shrines, but the graves of ordinary people, and other systematic abuses of human rights. The Freemasonry one may seem non-notable if one regards Freemasonry in a neutral or even a positive light but it is a powerful criticism for people strongly antagonistic towards the Masons. In this context it is at least worth pointing out that Baha'is are actually forbidden to join the Masons. For proponents of the "Zionist" criticism it is by no means "accepted that Israel was not in existence" until the Baha'is had already been there for many years, nor that the Baha'is did not choose to be located there, but were deliberately exiled there as part of 19th century persecution - this particular criticism is usually aired in a way that ignores these facts. To be fair, even the idea that the Baha'is somehow have a "special relationship" with the Israeli state would be difficult to sustain, without, for obvious reasons, going into any details here. Baha'i are in any case taught to be loyal and faithful to the governments of all the countries in which they reside, even when relations between the Baha'i administration and government are less than ideal (which happens, and not just in Muslim countries).


 * Having said that - I could of course see the justice in your original criticisms of the article and have done my best to meet these. As a Baha'i, I am naturally concerned about my co-religionists in Iran (and some other Muslim countries) but I see the cause of these people as served better by a fair article (which I hope this one now is) rather than a highly emotive one, which it definitely had become. The cold hard truth (alas) is quite bad enough, and needs no hyperbole or exaggeration. Thank you anyway, both for raising this in the first place, and for commenting favourably on my efforts. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Soundofmusicals,
 * Again, thank you, i can barely recognize this article. It's a world of difference from the filth it was before. I don't mean to debate your faith, or demean it in any way. But I feel there is a very strong anti-Iranian POV in the way this article is structured. For example, the article acknowledges, one of the first acts in this groups early history was an assassination attempt against the Shah(again, not that their anger wasn't justified), but locates this as a section called 'Accusations and reasons'. Excuse me, but it's not an accusation, it's a fact, and an assassination is an intensely political act. Now the information is mostly there, so this isn't as egregious an article as it was a earlier on, but it still smacks of POV. There are similar biases throughout the article.


 * The article still engages in straw-manism. The 'British Ties' section gives Ten Lines worth to laying out a theory about a specific person being a recruited by British Intelligence and then disproving it, but buries the obviously more 'meaty' point that the head of the religion was proclaimed a knight of the British Empire.


 * What I meant about Freemasonry is this: No one in Iran knows what the hell a Freemason is. Absolutely no one. Freemasons are an American obsession. While there may have been some Bahai Freemasons, this isn't a point of controversy in Iran for the Bahai. I don't think the single, highly charged article referenced is enough for the inclusion of such a section in this article. I also object to the prominence given to the ban on secret society membership by Effendi. I don't think this is the proper venue for highlighting Bahai religious beliefs. We shouldn't reference religious teachings as if they are authoritative accounts of real world behavior, everybody is imperfect. Also, do Bahai's find it offensive to refer to Baha'ullah and the Bab by their names? If not I would highly urge you to make the change. I think referring to these leaders by their religious titles improper in the context of secular article.


 * I also don't understand the nature of your objection to my point about the Zionism section. What do you mean it is not accepted that Israel did not come into existence in the middle of this century 'for the proponents of these criticisms'? That's patently ridiculous, EVERYONE knows when Israel was 'created', and when the Bahai came into existence. Pretending otherwise is just absurd.


 * Again, the point that raises suspicions with Iranians isn't the locations of the shrines, but the location of the decision making body. This is outright misrepresented in favor of setting up another straw man argument. The suspicions about possible Bahai relationship with Israel has nothing to do with their expulsion from Iran in the 1800s, it's just nonsensical to discuss it again in such detail in this section, as it has already been discussed multiple times. You may feel any suspicion against Bahai is unwarranted, but I don't think covering up the causes for the concerns is the solution. Personally, I don't assume Bahai are any better or worse than anyone else.


 * Also unclear is the distinction made between the 'Bahai Faith' and the Bahai religious administration. A 'counterpoint' offered in the SAVAK section is that some people who were raised Bahai, were not 'initiated into the faith', or later expelled/suspended from the 'Bahai Faith'. This is extremely confusing for non-Bahai. For most people(not just Muslims), 'Faith' is something you either have or you don't, not something that you need to be initiated into or can be 'removed from' by a body of your peers.


 * If you want to keep those rebuttals, I think a solution would be to rename this article "Political accusations about the Bahai Religious Administration". This is something we should give thought to in either case, as it more accurately captures the essence of all the accusations(eg. non of the accusations discussed refer in any way to any theological aspects of Bahaism).


 * Lastly, I'd like to suggest that this kind of accusation-centric discussion of relations between Bahais and Iranians is one dimensional and poisonous. I think that ideally, the content of here could be transferred to some article that gives a fuller account of Iran-Bahai relations, that includes in addition to the current topic, things like Bahai complaints about Iran or groups of Iranians, and features prominent Iranian-Bahai scientists or entertainers etc..If we could make a change like that, it would go a long way to alleviating the point-counterpoint syndrome that dominates the current article.


 * Masoud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.58.240 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Persecution of Bahá'ís
I removed the Category:Persecution of Bahá'ís, which you reverted, citing the reason: "Relevant - since these accusations are generally aired as justification of persecution." This article is just an essay (a very one-sided essay, at that) – it does not constitute "persecution". Many of the people and events cited would qualify as Category:Persecution of Bahá'ís, but they would need to have pages about them, for the category tag to be relevant. This article title is "accusations", which (presumably) lists conspiracy theories about the Bahá'í religion. Because of this, I request that you revert your reversion.

If sufficient, credible sources exist (without the use of original research, which this article contains much of), then it would be good to create a new page, titled Bahá'í conspiracy theories. However, remember to avoid categorical assertions and weasel words.

After reading through this a bit more, I agree with the previous IP person, that this is a pretty ridiculous article. Sadly, they proposed that argument 5 years ago, and this article is still ridiculous. For this reason, I've added maintenance tags: NPOV, written like an essay, all significant viewpoints, and weasel words. I've also suggested that the article be merged with Persecution of Bahá'ís, since that's where this information should go. Hopefully, as the page is merged with Persecution of Bahá'ís, all of the issues might be fixed. Also, the Category:Persecution of Bahá'ís already applies to the page, Persecution of Bahá'ís, so that would be covered.


 * KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 15:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And I support the reversion. Whipping out attacks of someone being "too close" to the article and hints of "original research" and arguments to either delete, merge, or rename the article, are all together a pretty narrow range of ideas about what's going on with respect to the subject. Maybe you don't understand the issues. Perhaps you should read the sources. --Smkolins (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Can tags on this one be justified? Also removed long discredited "conspiracy theories" from article title.
I look forward with bated breathe to constructive changes (from the helpful gentleman (or lady, perhaps) who inserted the remarkable battery of tags on this one) to improve its "quality". (NOT)

Nonetheless - the article does not really do its subject justice in some ways, and probably could do with yet another rewrite. It will STILL (how ever much it is pruned and moderated) probably attract hysterical reaction from some quarters - but having an article about the subject (as opposed to an article on these terms) is very far from "ridiculous". People who order the bulldozing of whole cemeteries on the grounds that the people buried there remain fit targets for further persecution, even after death, must have very powerful motivation. A fair statement of that motivation seems to be far from "ridiculous". On the other hand such an article needs, perhaps, to be a little less closely linked to fellow religionists of the bulldozed corpses. Does no one else care, perhaps? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Monster "tag"!
This article is (alas) quite factual, and has many valid references. It cannot be disputed that it might benefit in places from more dispassionate writing and while it is not notably biased or unfair perhaps a reorganisation that separated the criticisms and their rebuttal, and gave them even more equal weight might be useful.

Does someone want to add more material from a Muslim point of view? This needs to be reasoned, cited, and certainly at least as dispassionately stated as what is already there.

Does anyone (preferably NOT a Baha'i him/her self) want to have a go at a complete reorganisation of the headings?

Something along these lines would actually render it more in keeping with Baha'i teachings anyway! (IMHO)

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

more possible sources
--Smkolins (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (and possibly other chapters - "Reflections on secular antiBahaism in Iran", "The historical roots of the persecution of Babis and Baha'is in Iran", "The comparative dimension of the Baha'i case and prospects for change in the Future", …
 * (and possibly other chapters - "Reflections on secular antiBahaism in Iran", "The historical roots of the persecution of Babis and Baha'is in Iran", "The comparative dimension of the Baha'i case and prospects for change in the Future", …
 * (and possibly other chapters - "Reflections on secular antiBahaism in Iran", "The historical roots of the persecution of Babis and Baha'is in Iran", "The comparative dimension of the Baha'i case and prospects for change in the Future", …


 * That's great, but the problem isn't just the sources. It's a defense article, entirely devoid of neutrality. And it's full of assertions, with authors having written everything as though they were absolute, rather than writing just about the facts. Also, as I stated at Articles for deletion/Political accusations against the Baha'i Faith, the fundamental premise of the article already exists within Persecution of Bahá'ís. It's a duplicate article, with a different title, written as an essay. Those sources seem fine to add – to the Persecution of Bahá'ís page – after it's merged, and NPOV is fixed. KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You speak as if the assertions are on an arguable and to be debated whereas the sources outline unique history of the stance the governments of Iran have had in relation to making Baha'is. Baha'is are not making up these wild ideas - they have been promoted quite independently and it is the soundness of the sources that make the reality clear. Find reliable sources that make the case of any of this. I can't find one.


 * And the uniqueness of the case of Iran also is prominent in the sources - there were brief cases for the Soviet period in the degree of persecution though perhaps less in the verbiage come to think of it, or Egypt though events took the government and society in some other directions and the language against the Baha'is had less repetition and duration, whereas the Iranian case has certainly gone one far longer and sustained. In any case this section is for finding more sources about the issue. --Smkolins (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * --Smkolins (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * --Smkolins (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea, I get it. It's unique – just like everything else is unique. Everyone and everything has a story. That's irrelevant. Much of this falls under Persecution of Bahá'ís, the article still needs to be Neutral Point of View, it still needs to abstain from Weasel Words, it still sounds like an defensive essay, and it still shouldn't make categorical assertions. You keep arguing the same things, over and over. "Special case", "unique circumstances", "but it's different", "good sources"... yea, I get that. But everyone thinks that their religion's persecution is unique/special. There's nothing special or unique about persecution. The Soviet Union (largely atheists) persecuted people of any religion. That's extremely similar to Iran, which persecutes Bahá'ís and people who aren't Jewish, Christian, or Muslim (and even they can be). There's nothing unique or special about this. It's government-backed persecution, combined with conspiracy theories.
 * I've redirected the page to "Bahá'í conspiracy theories".
 * Over the next few days, I'll get around to fixing up the page, to clear it of weasel words, POV, defensive rhetoric, and combining the relevant aspects with the Persecution of Bahá'ís page. Don't even worry about it, I'll take care of it.
 * KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 00:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You've proceeded without consensus. I'll take care of it?! --Smkolins (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea, I get it. It's unique – just like everything else is unique. Everyone and everything has a story. That's irrelevant. Much of this falls under Persecution of Bahá'ís, the article still needs to be Neutral Point of View, it still needs to abstain from Weasel Words, it still sounds like an defensive essay, and it still shouldn't make categorical assertions. You keep arguing the same things, over and over. "Special case", "unique circumstances", "but it's different", "good sources"... yea, I get that. But everyone thinks that their religion's persecution is unique/special. There's nothing special or unique about persecution. The Soviet Union (largely atheists) persecuted people of any religion. That's extremely similar to Iran, which persecutes Bahá'ís and people who aren't Jewish, Christian, or Muslim (and even they can be). There's nothing unique or special about this. It's government-backed persecution, combined with conspiracy theories.
 * I've redirected the page to "Bahá'í conspiracy theories".
 * Over the next few days, I'll get around to fixing up the page, to clear it of weasel words, POV, defensive rhetoric, and combining the relevant aspects with the Persecution of Bahá'ís page. Don't even worry about it, I'll take care of it.
 * KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 00:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You've proceeded without consensus. I'll take care of it?! --Smkolins (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * State-sponsored Persecution of Baha’is in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Siyamak Zabihi-Moghaddam, Contemporary Review of the Middle East, May 27, 2016, doi: 10.1177/2347798916638207 --Smkolins (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Bahá'í ties to Freemasonry
I think this should be merged here. It doesn't have a life outside of these issues in this article as I understand it.--Smkolins (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There previously was a subsection in this article titled Bahá'í ties to Freemasonry, however that was deleted on 10:50, 28 May 2016 by Soundofmusicals with the reason that "This section has very marginal relevance - as it is cultural, even religious rather than political." With that being the case, Bahá'í ties to Freemasonry should stand as its own article. A35821361 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , care for a rethink? There may be internal similarities (per Soundofmusicals's comments on that talk page) but externally I think it only comes up with agendas of political or social worries, (which take on the form of political when lifted from worries to actions or spurring to actions.) --Smkolins (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The ideal encyclopedia article is to the point, balanced and dispassionate. The original form of this one was a powerful and well-reasoned but intensely partisan attack on (some of the arguments of) the enemies of the cause, by someone with an insecure mastery of the English language - not the sort of thing anyone wants on Wiki, on any subject, and from whatever point of view. The faith is better served here by "good" articles than by classically bad ones. To put this another way - while we want the articles on the Faith to be fair - they are far more likely (IMHO) to to be taken seriously by an "uncommitted" reader if they are scrupulously "warts and all". Now, we were assured by a most vociferous critic of the original article (who for all his lack of sympathy and ignorance did have a point or two) that the "Freemasonry link" bit was a not an issue, and irrelevant and why did "we" even mention it. Point (if there is one) is that it's not "us" who normally mention it - so I took it out altogether. Our most recent "gadfly" put it back, but in its own article. If "the other side" feel it is significant enough, then by all means leave it in, but putting it into an article about political objections seems a little unfair to the Masons, apart from being off-topic. For all that I don't like having my name taken in vain here, as if I was an authority of some kind (which, sadly, I'm not) I do in this case tend to the "leave it as it now is" side. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that content in the other article should be merged back into this article. The subject of that article by itself is not notable enough, and it is is used as a political objection in the sense that any outsider from Iran was seen as a political force.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the notability of an article about the Masons and the Bahá'í Faith (in fact IMHO it has no notability whatsoever, even as a section here) but so long as it sticks to the facts it does no real harm, and I'd leave where it is. We're in the realm of what people more or less opposed to the Cause want on Wikipedia. If "they" want an article on "us" and the Masons, for whatever reason, it probably isn't up to "us" - as good Wikipedia editors scrupulously avoiding any hint of religious bias, to tell them what they can and can't have. Our interest in such articles should be restricted to correcting factual errors, and countering unreasonable inferences. Wikipedia is NOT a teaching tool (nor a propaganda source for anything else for that matter). We need to respect this, or we shouldn't be here at all. Further - the question is NOT "political" in the normal sense of the word - I'd rather NOT open possible floodgates to more and more esoteric interpretations of that word. It is VERY important to keep articles like this strictly to the point. Very simply, it's not a political argument, at least not one with any validity. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, so it happened anyway while I wasn't looking - in spite of my earnestness expressed above I will accept that I'm a minority on this point. But we do need to have the link redirect to the appropriate part of the article! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevance and notability?
There may well be quarters in which acquaintance with prominent Jewish people is evidence of "Zionist" activities. Not in an encyclopedic account to which it is barely relevant. This whole article was unduly partisan in a "pro-Baha'i" and needed "balance" - but going too far the other way with barely relevant assertions "cited" to well-known "anti-Baha'i" writers is even less appropriate. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the title of the section "Bahá'ís as agents of Zionism" is objectionable. Looking at the history of the article, however, it is clear that the title was placed there by a "pro-Baha'i" as you term it.  I suspect the objectionable title was chosen to dismiss any relation between Bahais and Zionism as being purely conspiratorial.  Nevertheless, it remains that Abdulbaha encouraged the Zionists' settling of Palestine and met with not merely a prominent Jewish individual, but someone who was the chief financier of the movement. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In spite of the above - your efforts to reduce bias in the earlier form of the article is actually much appreciated. Just that we have probably already reached the point where we have the right balance between the risk of partisanship (for OR against) and, frankly, just making more of the subject than is really appropriate in a general encyclopedia article as opposed to an exhaustive thesis. (Undue weight and all that). Your further constructive comments (as always) remain welcome. Have you though of revamping the lead paragraph a little, to make it a better introduction for the more balanced article? May even have a shot at this myself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This relates to your comment above, which I didn't initially notice. "Encourage" is a bit strong - he certainly didn't discourage (then) Jewish aspirations re. the Holy Land - but just how relevant and notable is this in context? Try another wording of this perhaps? -Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In the header of the section, "agents of" has been changed to "ties to" and in the text the word "praised" replaced with "stated." Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

`Abdu'l-Bahá's knighthood
This has always been an acknowledged as fact here (for what it may be worth) - endless piling on of side details seem to be giving it grossly undue prominence. Even recent edits, however, have acknowledged the "seminal" nature of Lady Blomfield's Chosen Highway - which gives a far too glowing account (much too favourably partisan) for our context here - including a description of the "charitable" activities involved. If we (perhaps justifiably) decry any tendency towards pro-Baha'i bias here, we don't want the opposite tendency either. Have trimmed this back to a version which is fair, succinct, and makes it clear the degree of "reason" that exists for this "objection" without being partisan in either direction. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No one disputes, as far as I know, that the knighthood of Abdulbaha is an acknowledged fact among Bahai circles. What you dismiss as "side details," however, is the very crux of why the British knighted him. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The "revised" version (before your latest efforts) already made it clear that the matter was (rather) contentious. The "official" Baha'i line (a la Lady Blomfield) of the (real and well documented) "charitable work" did need balancing with the other reasons, as actually expressed by British sources: but identifying one side over the other as "the very crux of the matter" would be inappropriately partisan, whichever "side" it came down on. Fact is both sides now have about the right weight. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of the reference to Blomfield's Chosen Highway is important. Far from being a "side detail" of a "partisan," hers is a firsthand account by a leading contemporary Bahai about the specific aide that Abdulbaha rendered the British military leading to his being knighted.  Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

"Bahá'ís and political activity in the Ottoman Empire"
I have several problems with this whole section - although I want to discuss its possible removal before doing the deed!

1. Chronology - at WHAT time - in context this must mean the late WW1 period / early twenties, just before `Abdu'l-Bahá's death. "At THAT time" there was no longer a Sultan for `Abdu'l-Bahá to have had contact with his political opponents, as the last Sultan of Turkey had been deposed ten years or so earlier (in 1908). This makes nonsense of the worst implications of the section.

2. Relevance. This article is about (current) political objections some opponents of the Baha'i Faith habitually use (among other things) to justify persecution. What exactly has the alleged "political activities" of `Abdu'l-Bahá in the years leading up to 1908 got to do with the subject of the article? Is this still raised as a bone of contention in (say) Iran in the early twenty-first century. I trow not.

3. General notability. A present day rather dogmatic Baha'i might feel that `Abdu'l-Bahá might have been wiser to have avoided all contact with the "Young Turks" while they were in open opposition to the then rulers of the Ottoman Empire - but the text makes clear that this "contact" was not subversive - more like bringing the Faith to their attention in a reasonably favourable light. Something for an opponent (or sensible supporter) of the Faith to get under the collar about? The Baha'is make no claims of prophethood for `Abdu'l-Bahá (or they shouldn't, since he denied such claims himself) so he might be allowed a very minor lapse of complete wisdom and prescience now and then. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * To address your concerns:


 * 1. Chronology - Sultan Abdul Hamid II was deposed in 1908 by the Young Turks, beginning the Second Constitutional Era under Sultan Mehmed V.  Just before the end of World War I, Sultan Mehmed V died and Mehmed VI became the new Sultan.  The abolition of the Ottoman sultanate finally occurred in November 1922.


 * 2. Relevance - Bahai political activity in the time of the Ottoman Empire highlight the assertion of the opening sentence of this article, that "Opponents of the Bahá'í Faith have accused the faith's followers of various "political crimes", such as dual loyalty and being involved with foreign or hostile powers." It should be noted that Wikipedia article titled dual loyalty, links to "Political objections to the Baha'i Faith" through a redirected link for Iranian anti-Bahá'í conspiracy theories, when in fact political objections against the Bahai Faith are not merely conspiratorial but rooted in historic fact.


 * 3. General notability - The sensibilities of a dogmatic Bahai should not be the litmus test of whether this subject matter is notable or not. Neither should the degree to which Abdulbaha's contact with factional agitators constitute politically subversive activity, and therefore objectionable enough to be included in this article.


 * Regards, A35821361 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful clarification of the Turkish historical context (proves even I am not infallible!) - although this only makes it even clearer that `Abdu'l-Bahá's "activities" were in actual support of the then dominant political powers-that-be in the Turkish government of the time (the days when the Young Turks could be regarded as "factional agitators" being long past). To describe these "activities" as "subversive" is, frankly, grotesque. Support of, and loyalty to, the government of the day is by any rational argument the direct opposite of "subversion". My mention of a hypothetical "dogmatic Bahá'í" was certainly not in reference to your own goodself, nor, as I hope you have noticed over our several exchanges, little me - but to a very strict Bahá'í who may have been troubled by ANY political activity at all by `Abdu'l-Bahá - given that such activity is so strongly discouraged by Bahá'i teaching. But this objection is hardly in context, is it? On balance - your own comments confirm that the section is not relevant to the point here and can be safely deleted. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)