Talk:Shoghi Effendi

Reliable sources
Hi,, thanks for contributing to the article and for your concern about source quality. That said, it seems the sources you are using don't meet Wikipedia's standards. First, make sure to read WP:RS to see which types of sources are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. Basically, we want academic sources, articles from mainstream publishers (so not Baha'i publishers), or articles from mainstream news outlets. We also need to be very cautious using primary sources (see WP:PSTS), which generally includes any religious scriptures or in this case texts by Shoghi Effendi. Lastly, we should use independent sources (see WP:IS), which definitely means not using books by the article subject, and generally means not using sources from anyone involved.

I know it can feel like there are a lot of rules about sources on Wikipedia, but basically the goal is that we aren't doing our own analysis, just reporting what reputable sources have already argued. In general, if you stick with academic sources you won't go wrong. The academic can be a Baha'i (for example Moojan Momen), a non-Baha'i (for example Margit Warburg), or an ex-Baha'i (for example Denis MacEoin) - all are acceptable. It seems you are trying to emphasize quotes from Shoghi Effendi that suggest he should have had a line of successors. If reliable sources emphasize this, go ahead. But if reliable sources don't emphasize it or don't bother to mention it at all, neither should we. Wikipedia is not here to push any viewpoint, just to describe the viewpoints given in reliable sources.

With that said, a ton of the sources in this article don't meet Wikipedia's standards for good sources. They need to be replaced with better ones and you're welcome to help with that. In the mean time, I'm adding a template at the top of the page to alert other editors to the issue. If you have any questions let me know. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Gazelle55,
 * I understand that The World Order of Bahaullah can be considered as a original research and the second reference I have put of Baha'i world can be considered as a Baha'i source. However the third reference I have put of 'Flow of Divine Authority' by Brent Poirier is neither a original research nor Baha'i source. It is a secondary reliable source. On the Basis of that the quote can certainly be put on Wikipedia. Asad29591 (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Please review the Core content policies. The World Order of Baha'u'llah is a primary source, not original research. A source might be primary or secondary when discussing different subjects. Brent Poirier is a Baha'i author. Besides that, you're entirely missing the point. You are trying to jam in a quote from a primary source that might support your disputed interpretation of the Guardianship. If you want to contribute, you should start from the point of view of, "what do reliable sources say about Shoghi Effendi" and write the article accordingly. Nobody is disputing that the quote is real, it's your narrowly focused POV pushing, combined with an incredibly poor understanding of how to use sources that is the problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  17:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi,, thanks again for trying to follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and thanks also for your polite response. As you say, The World Order of Baha'u'llah is not a good source (not secondary, not independent). I would say The Baha'i World is a secondary source, but again it is definitely non-independent. As for the article by Brent Poirier: it is a secondary source and probably we could say it is independent, but I still don't think it is reliable based on WP:RS. It is not from the Baha'i writings or written by the Baha'i administration, but it is written in a Baha'i journal. Here is a quote from WP:RS:


 * "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."


 * From that quote, you can see that these Baha'i journals, which are run by Baha'is only, are not reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. A similar guideline says we shouldn't use publishers that aren't mainstream. Therefore, we also can't generally use books by Baha'i publishers like George Ronald.


 * Furthermore, the bigger point is what Cuñado is saying. Not every piece of information that can be found in a reliable source (assuming you do find one eventually) should be in the article. We are summarizing the most important points about Shoghi Effendi. He wrote about all kinds of topics, not just the guardianship, and we've already included one quote about his views on the guardianship. Why not have a quote on his views on the importance of an auxiliary language? Or a quote on his views on sexuality? Or a quote on his views on Hinduism? Since Shoghi Effendi wrote so much in total and we obviously can't put it all in the article, what we do is summarize material from secondary sources. See WP:DUE for the relevant policy. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , the material I removed was from a primary non-independent source (see WP:PRIMARY and WP:IS). Please explain why you are re-introducing the material and why you are adding further material from a primary non-independent source. I have no doubt that you are adding an authentic quote and I see the point you are trying to make, but you need to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If you want to improve the article, maybe help find better sources for all the parts sourced to Shoghi Effendi's widow. As is, it seems you are just trying to push a point of view (and I would not say that if the pattern was not repeated again and again). Gazelle55 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Gazelle55,
 * "The Guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred Head and a distinguished member for life of that body (UHJ)." This statement is quite clear and does not need any other source or reference. If you speak about going against the policy of Wikepedia then Cunado has been doing so on regular basis. Asad29591 (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I have clashed with Cuñado sometimes too, but in general I've found he follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and he has always been willing to discuss with me in good faith when we disagree. Are there some of his edits in particular you are objecting to? I'd be happy to try to mediate. I agree that there is a general problem with a pro-Baha'i bias on Baha'i articles and I have been working over time to fix that.
 * Regarding the quote from 'Abdu'l-Baha, you say the quote "does not need any other source or reference". But actually, yes it does, it needs a source that meets WP:RS. This is not just me and Cuñado making up an arbitrary rule, the same point has been raised recently by a senior editor at the page Baha'i Faith. You can't just cite whichever part you like from a religious text, you need a secondary source that discusses the text and you follow the secondary source's judgment about which part is important. It may simply be the case that no reliable secondary source has considered that quote particularly important. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Marriage
Regarding this deletion that has been reverted several times. This deletion is obviously motivated by animus towards his wife, as Asad mentioned in the edit summary "Rúhíyyih Khánum broke the covenant". The reference is to David Hofman quoting the statement in an introduction to a book about Shoghi Effendi. Another example of the same quote used in a brief overview of Shoghi Effendi is The Life of Shoghi Effendi. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  17:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Cunado,
 * Firstly you should understand why something is deleted. You must have certainly read rules of Wikipedia. The reference which is used is original source and goes against the rules of Wikipedia. Also when I deleted you were reverting several times without a valid reason, hence I also reverted the same since it it your common practice to delete or revert stuff that does not match with your personal belief which you assume to be true. Put a correct source and let that be there or else just remove it. Asad29591 (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)