Talk:Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bahá'í Faith Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bahá'í divisions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120062722/http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm to http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120062722/http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm to http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120062722/http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm to http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/manuscripts/msregisters/ms375.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.fastcase.com/Yahoo/Start.aspx?C=26917489637405405daded611067aa76e77e8a5606aee00f&D=77eca924714beb4591a4da5747d53c9c77862a89c3a754d6&AffiliateConst=Yahoo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120062722/http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm to http://www.charlesmasonremey.net/1960_proclamation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, the phrase "twin pillars" was not in the reference, the reference was just a link to a book without page numbers, the reference was a primary source, not a reliable and neutral commentary, and also, the expansion that was being inserted was unrelated to that section and ruins the flow of ideas. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Joel Marangella which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gazelle55 , Cuñado, Serv181920 It is absolutely surprising that I see whenever I edit an article giving proper reference ,Mr. Cunado comes and changes it and tries to put his own believe inside it. This is against Wikipedia policy.He takes one part of the reference and deletes the other part so as to suit his own believe. If this is the case then what is the need of putting references in the article. Example. All Baháʼís who professed belief in Mason Remey as the second Guardian implicitly did not accept the Universal House of Justice established in 1963,as it was not an original part of Shoghi Effendi's plan hence not a true UHJ.They are shunned by members of the mainstream Baháʼí Faith. The part "as it was not an original part of Shoghi Effendi's plan hence not a true UHJ" is deleted. I would like clarification on this aspect.Jammu58 (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jammu58, I don't have the book you're citing, could you copy the sentence(s) you're citing from Johnson on the talk page here? Without having seen the source, I would think "as they believed it was not an original part of Shoghi Effendi's plan and hence not a true UHJ" would be more neutral than what you put. Also I think it's good in general if people give a justification in their edit summary when removing information with a source. Gazelle55 (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gazelle55: please find the exact wordings from Johnson's Book. on page 35.

The Haifa Baha’is were the ones who, essentially, carried out Shoghi Effendi’s ten-year Crusade. Remey’s objection to the Crusade pertained to the hands, speeded-up effort to form the UHJ by 1963, not an original part of Shoghi Effendi’s plan. Remey felt that UHJ so formed could not be a true UHJ.Jammu58 (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to editing than having something tied to a reference. In context, this is introducing the Baha'i sects that remain loyal to Remey as Guardian, and the paragraph serves to quickly let the reader know how they feel about the mainstream Baha'is. Here is what it currently says:

All Baháʼís who professed belief in Mason Remey as the second Guardian implicitly did not accept the Universal House of Justice established in 1963, and are shunned by members of the mainstream Baháʼí Faith. Likewise, Remey at one point declared that the Hands of the Cause were Covenant-breakers, that they lacked any authority without a Guardian, and that those following them "should not be considered Baháʼís".

Besides misquoting the source and making the statement that "it was not an original part of Shoghi Effendi's plan hence not a true UHJ", instead of what the book says, "Remey felt the UHJ so formed would not be a true UHJ", the paragraph is more than clear by quoting Remey saying that none of them are real Baha'is, which I think is a stronger statement than saying they have issues with how the election in 1963 was organized. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jammu58, I have added that part again. I see Cuñado had removed it claiming that "it is already there in the same paragraph". I could not see that it in the same paragraph though!!Serv181920 (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi;Cunado 1-,First you have some selected books as neutral, then your say ,from neutral books everything cannot be quoted, And now you say editing is more the tied to reference. This means that your editing is above the references and should not be questioned.

2-Again, in the second paragraph you want to say How the mainstream Baha'is feel about Remey’s followers (They are shunned by mainstream Bahais.) and not the other way around

3-I leave for other two Editors to judge who is misquoting. The statement “"it was not an original part of Shoghi Effendi's plan hence not a true UHJ" is there in the book .You are denying.Jammu58 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"All Baháʼís who professed belief in Mason Remey as the second Guardian implicitly did not accept the Universal House of Justice established in 1963" is that unclear? The paragraph gets across all the main points as it was written. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of how it is phrased seems neutral and comprehensive, but Cuñado, why did you remove the statement that the election of the Universal House of Justice in 1963 was not part of Shoghi Effendi's original plan for the Ten Year Crusade? Based on the quotation from the book above it is Johnson saying so, not just Remey's view. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the election was not explicitly a plan of Shoghi Effendi. The whole transition is mentioned in detail above in the section "role of the hands of the cause". The paragraph we're talking about is introducing what happened to the followers of Mason Remey and its purpose is to establish briefly how they felt about the mainstream Baha'is. It is not a paragraph to list all their gripes. An older editor made a big deal about the steps that Shoghi Effendi laid out, which included recognition as a religious court. All that is moot anyway. Abdu'l-Baha said, "At whatever time all the beloved of God in each country appoint their delegates, and these in turn elect their representatives, and these representatives elect a body, that body shall be regarded as the Supreme House of Justice." (Makátíb-i-‘Abdu’l Bahá, Vol. III) Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Johnson's assessment should go in that section above, then, but it deserves to be included. I don't see why the paragraph we've been discussing should necessarily be brief whereas there gets to be this long tangential section above about the transition from Shoghi Effendi to the UHJ. From my understanding the largest Baha'i sects outside the mainstream are the ones stemming from Remey, so that split deserves to be well-covered on this page.

The section above on the transition currently emphasizes the set of steps taken that justified the establishment of the UHJ, which is fine. However, it doesn't put much emphasis on the fact there was a whole procedure established for the succession of the guardianship that never got used, or that there was no indication Shoghi Effendi foresaw his early death or the resulting need for a speedy election of the UHJ. I think including Johnson's statement would an appropriate counterbalance to the Baha'i view. (And it was not even just Abdu'l-Baha who wrote about the succession of guardians, but also Shoghi Effendi himself in The World Order of Baha'u'llah.) Gazelle55 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All that is fine. I've found that when things are contested, it's better to thoroughly address an issue in one place and refer to it when it is mentioned elsewhere. Otherwise you end up with a back and forth argument in the text that turns into WP:OR. In other words, if it's really important to mention that the election of the Universal House of Justice was not explicitly part of the 10 year crusade (which I don't think is important to mention, but whatever), then put it at a logical place and address it thoroughly using all the normal Wikipedia guidelines. And if that needs to be mentioned as a criticism of the election of the Universal House of Justice, then it should be clear in the text that being part of Shoghi Effendi's plans was never a requirement to make it legitimate. Speaking of consolidating information to a single place, there are numerous references to the size of the various schismatic groups that need to be consolidated into a table or something, and this page seems to be the appropriate place for that. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely agree. Do a thorough treatment at the main page for the topic for disagreement, then summarize that at other pages where it is mentioned. If other editors want to do that for this topic they have my support, though I don't plan on doing it myself (the Baha'i Faith isn't really my main editing interest, even though I have focused on it in the last month or two). I was just intervening since other editors wanted me to mediate. I think the point from Johnson could go somewhere in here, though the main articles would also be good for that material.

More generally, there have been a whole lot of long talk page discussions about neutrality on Baha'i pages... to the editors who are trying improve NPOV, I'll just tell you my experience on other pages. When I feel a page is slanted, I expand the section in a way that keeps what's already there but also includes new material to balance it out or put it in context. This way, my edits are almost never reverted and I usually don't have to go to the talk page. It also makes for better pages. But of course, it takes longer. (If something is blatantly false, that is different – it needs to be removed.) I'm still always around if you want to ping me on a talk page. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:external links says,

External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.
If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum.
Links normally to be avoided: 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. 2) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. 4) Links mainly intended to promote a website 13) Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject.

Do any current entries in external links pass? I could discuss each one individually, but I don't think any would stay. This is a general page, so WP:ELOFFICIAL doesn't seem to apply. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe only these links do not qualify for EL - (1) Living Schools of Religion Vergilius Ferm, ed. Ames, Iowa: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1956. Chapter 19, "The Baháʼí Cause," by Mirza Ahmad Sohrab (pages 309-14) (2) Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him – Published by the Universal House of Justice, along with introductory statements. (3) Issues Related to the Study of the Baháʼí Faith – Extracts from letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice (4) From Gaslight to Dawn by Julie Chanler New History Foundation, NY 1956.Serv181920 (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asad29591 your edit has two glaring problems. You use a primary source to support a statement that is disputed by numerous secondary sources. So much disputed that I think WP:UNDUE applies here. Also, I don't even think it's technically accurate from the point of view of Remey. He made his announcement in 1960 and argued that the plans to elect the Universal House of Justice were wrong because he opposed it, believing himself to be Guardian. His argument was that if he were the Guardian, everyone had to do what he said, and he didn't want the election to happen. Another thing, we're dealing with the lead paragraphs, which should be summarizing the main points of the article, not going into detail. So even if you get a technically accurate wording with good primary secondary sources, it may still not belong in the lead. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will and Testament of Abdul Baha cannot be interpreted by anyone apart from the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. Your statement that "Mason Remey argued that the plans to elect the Universal House of Justice were wrong because he opposed it" is incorrect. The W&T of Abdul Baha rejects the appointment of UHJ without a Guardian being its head. Also just like our beloved Guardian Shoghi Effendi was a spiritual son of Abdul Baha, Abdul Baha has called Mason Remey also his son (spiritual one) and hence after Shoghi Effendi, Mason Remey deserves to be the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith.Asad29591 (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to believe whatever delusions you want. Articles are written according to the core content policies. I suggest you read them and apply them if you want to make contributions that remain on Wikipedia. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking fact and with references and yes my articles are according to the core content policies of Wikipedia which I have already read.Asad29591 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gazelle55 How about Baháʼí leadership challenges? This would allow the page to encompass all opponents/competitors to leadership. For example, Shoghi Effendi's family opposed him but did not form a "division" or alternative leadership. Glaysher ran a critical website but likewise is not a 'sect' or division (also he is no longer active). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuñado, makes sense to me! Gazelle55 (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Baháʼí leadership challenges" should be added to the main Baháʼí Faith page. This article is dedicated to "Baha'i division" like the one on Encyclopedia Iranica - https://iranicaonline.org/articles/bahaism-iii Serv181920 (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I want to change my recommendation to Challenges to authority in the Baháʼí Faith. I like the shorter title starting with Baháʼí... but it creates ambiguous grammar. The new title would better reflect various attacks at the central authority, like Shoghi Effendi's family, and others that weren't attempting their own sect, like Juan Cole. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The new title would better reflect various attacks at the central authority," This is your POV. Let the article be as it is for the reasons mentioned above. However, I would appreciate if Challenges to authority in the Baháʼí Faith is added to Baháʼí Faith article. Serv181920 (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuñado I agree with changing the name to Challenges to authority in the Baháʼí Faith. In addition to what you said, I would like to quote this from the Encyclopaedia of Islam which justifies the renaming even more: "numerous individuals and small groups have been expelled from the body of the movement, but no important sects have yet developed." [1] Tarikhejtemai (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...the exiled Baha'is constitute only 5000 to 8000 Baha'is worldwide according to some estimates. — Vernon Johnson, Baha'is in Exile (2020)

Total membership in the various Remeyite groups numbers only in the thousands. — William Garlington, Baha'i Faith in America (2005)

There are at least two sources that give a bigger number of Remey followers. And I understand that this could be inflated just like the official Baha'i figures.Serv181920 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first source got the numbers from an online forum of two Baha'is taking wild guesses. The second does not list its source and appears to be generously trying to compare them to the size of the mainstream Baha'is. There are only two groups that appear to have more than a handful of followers: one of them was documented by a university sociologist for 15 years and published twice on them, saying they peaked at 150 and declined in size significantly since; the other self-declared their membership in the United States as 40, and several sources say that the majority of their followers are in the USA and total might be 100. The quality of the sources are not equal, and it is truly misleading to push Johnson and Garlington's comments as indicative of their actual size. Those sources are included verbatim in a section with all references to their size. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The latest academic work (published in 2020 by Cambridge University Press; [2]) confirms the same numbers that Cuñado quoted : "As already noted, Bahá'institutions are backed up by a very strong claim of authority... Because the documentation of the transfer of authority is clear, the faith has essentially no sects. ... Today the Bahá'í community has some 5 million members; the Orthodox Baha'i Faith perhaps 100; and the Bahá'is Under the Provision of the Covenant several dozen, who are in turn divided into two sects, one of which appears to be inactive." Tarikhejtemai (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we need this page. Document all those things here.

Forming of various sects and their present status is what this page discusses.Serv181920 (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I cited say there are no sects in the Baha'i religion, the name "Baha'i divisions" contradicts that and is not a befitting name for the page. This page basically deals with challenges of authority in the Baha'i religion and hence Challenges to authority in the Baháʼí faith would be a much better name for it. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, include the Cambridge source (Robert H. Stockman, Wilmette Institute) in the article. Don't destroy the article because Robert Stockman who works for Wilmette Institute says there are no sects in the Baha'i faith. There were sects which are inactive and there are still some sects that are active, the number of their followers can be discussed and mentioned in the article. Johnson has written an entire book on this topic.Serv181920 (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the name change would involve deleting material on schismatic groups, if that's your concern. I was thinking of moving out the material on the formation of the House of Justice and moving in material on the family of Shoghi Effendi. A good article trying to cover many topics (like this) would be summary style and link to other articles for more details. In this case, Muhammad-Ali, Ahmad Sohrab, Shoghi Effendi, Mason Remey, Universal House of Justice all come to mind as summarized here and expanded on their own articles. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Cunado said I am not suggesting deleting anything from the article or “destroying” it, the article can be as it is but with a different name. Also not only Robert Stockman says there are no significant sects in the Bahá’í religion (peer-reviewed and published by the Cambridge University Press), but as I already mentioned, Encyclopedia of Islam says so too. There are a few splinter groups comprised of only a few hundred individuals collectively, less than 0.006% of the population of Bahá’ís (5M), we cannot obviously call them “divisions”, nor the individuals who were expelled from the faith. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baháʼí divisions → Challenges to authority in the Baháʼí Faith – Consensus was reached on the associated talk page in April-May 2021, but I never followed up on the change. The system gave me an error while trying to move it myself. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That title seems potentially POV, and the word "challenge" only appears once in the article. I'd much rather see a formal RM on this than an informal discussion among people who already have the page watchlisted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the sentiment and I think there are problems with both titles. Consider that the Islamic equivalent is Islamic schools and branches, which is also POV but maybe the best option. Islam really only has two denominations, and some overlapping schools of thought. The Baha'i Faith has had one single denomination, and several failed attempts at forming breakaway groups. The introduction to this page displays that it is not so much about true divisions as the attempts to challenge the accepted line of authority. There is also one major category of opposition (Shoghi Effendi's family) that is not included because they never attempted to form an alternative leadership. There are also some examples of opposition to the Universal House of Justice that likewise don't have alternative leadership and didn't form a "division" or "sect" but should probably consolidate onto this page. I prefer the longer "Challenges..." but I'm also fine with leaving the current title and expanding/reorganizing content. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think "Challenges to the Baha'i leadership" could be better than "Challenges to authority in the Baha'i Faith", since it makes clear that the authority in question is the Baha'i leadership as opposed to say governments in the jurisdictions in which Baha'is live. "Leadership" is probably also better than "authority" because it doesn't have the possible non-neutral implication that the authority is legitimate.

  A possible issue with using the word challenges, though, is that it would exclude some things that are probably relevant. For example, Kalimat Press has been in tension with the Baha'i administration for many years now and Baha'i bookstores are instructed not to carry their books. That said, to my knowledge they have not challenged the authority of the Baha'i administration/leadership per se. Sen McGlinn's membership was revoked by the Baha'i leadership but he says he supports their authority and would like to re-enroll. People like Denis MacEoin have criticized the Baha'i administration without "challenging" it as such. But it's possible these things are just a different topic that belong at Baha'i administration rather than here. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Challenges to the Baha'i leadership" makes sense, another option could be "Challenges to successorship in the Baha'i Faith". The article in its current form and content goes over those that challenged the authority of each head of the faith after the passing of the previous head (Baha'u'llah, Abd'u'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi). Tarikhejtemai (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur "Challenges to successorship in the Baha'i Faith" is a succinct NPOV title that covers the main point and related issues in the article.Meditating (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Cuñado: and @Gazelle55:, what do you guys think of "Challenges to successorship in the Baha'i Faith"? thanks Tarikhejtemai (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems good to me, and narrows the topic a bit more so the article can be more focused. I say go ahead with it. Gazelle55 (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not a big fan of that title. I think the "authority" title is the closest. Anyway this thread is dead because someone rejected my non-controversial move request and it needs to go to WP:RM. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A serious issue is to face that it's clear from over a century of instances that a system has reached a settled condition - none of the covered content still exists in any strength that reaches reliable sources to speak as a leadership. Neutrality shouldn't defend fringe ideas. As for what should be discussed on this page - well the trouble is there are several interlocking articles, aren't there - Covenant-breaker, Covenant of Baháʼu'lláh, - beyond Baháʼí administration - and as stated above things that weren't challenges of the existence of the authority but other kinds of issues. Maybe "Challenges for Baha'i leadership" ? It's shorter than "Challenges to successorship in the Baha'i Faith". Smkolins (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Opposition to Baha'i leadership"? It seems to capture all the examples, unlike "Successorship...", and it's more neutral than "Challenges to authority...". It also doesn't imply that there is more than one denomination of Baha'is, which the "Baha'i divisions" title suggests. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A problem that immediately comes to mind with "Opposition to Baha'i leadership" is use of "Baha'i leadership" as the object in the title could be construed as referring to individual members that serve (or served) on Bahá'í institutions and who were personally attacked for various reasons (but that is rightfully not a topic of this article and it'd be inappropriate to even get into that). Perhaps "Opposition to successorship in the Baha'i Faith" keeps the focus on the article's content regarding "successorship" without some of the issues "challenges" raises. Meditating (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Opposition to successorship in the Baha'i Faith" is very befitting to the article. Successor, successorship, oppose, and opposition are frequently used in the article; 30 times collectively. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to make sense of all the options. I see two sub-questions discussed above: 1) opposition vs. challenges, and 2) authority vs. leadership vs. successorship.

On the first point, I think I prefer "opposition" since it sounds very neutral, though "challenges" isn't terrible.

On the second point, I'm not sure any of the three is perfect. "Authority" is a bit vague (does it apply to the whole administrative order, or just to the very top?) and potentially non-neutral. "Leadership" solves the neutrality issue but has the same vagueness as "authority." "Successorship" is an awkward and uncommon word and makes it sound like people are opposing the concept of successorship rather than the particular successors. I would suggest a fourth option, "succession," which is a more common word. That said, when it is paired with "opposition" (i.e., Opposition to succession in the Baha'i Faith), I get the same sense of opposing the whole concept of there being successors.

So I don't see any perfect options in all that. I think the least bad option would be "Challenges to succession in the Baha'i Faith" (my favorite but with the possible issue that "challenges" sounds non-neutral) or "Opposition to the Baha'i leadership" (like Cuñado said, but with the added). Or if someone has another suggestion I'm listening. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it would be best if we reached consensus among the editors here before we propose a move and bring in other editors who may not know as much about the topic. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this title for months and I agree that nothing actually works well. I want to copy here the points from WP:TITLE:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
• Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

I think the current title is superior when it comes to concision, naturalness (people would search for "Baha'i divisions/schisms/sects/denominations"), and consistency (other major religions use "denominations" or "schools and branches"), and the longer ones fail those criteria. The current title has the problem of impressing on the shallow reader that there are many denominations of the Baha'i Faith, but numerous sources make clear that there is only one major branch of the Baha'i Faith and several failed attempts at schism. I don't have a good solution but I think this helps explain why I don't see a good option here. I also considered "Baha'i schism attempts" but that doesn't sound very neutral either. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, and the five characteristics. Please note that it also says that "However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others." I think in our case precision is the most important one and should be favored over others. As an example, Baha'i Clerics, satisfies all characteristics except for precision, but clerics do not exist in the Baha'i faith, so it is wrong to have an article by that name even if it looks natural, recognizable and concise. Baha'i divisions I feel has the same problem. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed precision should lead. How about "Attempted schisms of the Bahá'í Faith" (I can live with "Opposition to Baha'i leadership" too) and make a redirect for each of Bahá'í divisions/schisms/sects/denominations? Smkolins (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggested "Attempted schisms of the Bahá'í Faith" is very good, it encapsulates key points of various issues discussed above on the title change matter. The idea of creating redirects for each attempted schism also sounds good. Meditating (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tarikhejtemai that we shouldn't give up precision even if it would mean meeting the other criteria, and agree with Smkolins that redirects would be good for the specific groups. I'm not sure "Attempted schisms" is neutral since it implies the goal was schism whereas those individuals would say their goal was to install a different successor, not to create multiple Baha'i groups.

How about "Disputes over succession in the Baha'i Faith"? I think it is recognizable, natural, and precise. It is not that concise but nothing that's precise really is. Then the last criterion is consistency with similar pages, but I don't think that's possible since unlike other religions the Baha'i Faith has only one major branch. (List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement does exist for a movement that is say 99% united, but even in that case the splinter groups are significantly larger than in the Baha'i case.) Gazelle55 (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only larger but continue to exist in numbers, organization, and activities. The Baha'i splinter groups that yes tried to offer a very different view on the leadership of the religion were rejected and thus ended up being splinters as they refused the judgement of the community and its avowed leadership. They could have just given up their objections and observations as mistakes and kept with the community and its avowed leadership. They didn't, and they've all but disappeared with avowed documentation to say so. There's no one else. Splinter groups, disconnected from eachother and often antagonistic to eachother, that have been dwindling away. Do we address only where they came from only or where they went in the title? Just as we as impartial contributors in good faith operate within a context recognizing the Baha'is being a tiny minority of society in general so must we as impartial contributors in good faith need to write clearly about the balance of reliable scholarship on the status of these groups.Smkolins (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, Smkolins, they are virtually non-existent today and that's why "Baha'i divisions" and "List of Baha'i denominations" aren't good titles. Cuñado seemed undecided above between the existing title and a wordier one, so that's why I mentioned the Latter-Day Saints denominations page... I was trying to say why it does not make a good parallel but didn't explain that very clearly. So just to be extra clear this time, I know WP:TITLE includes similarity with other similar pages as a criterion, but I think this case is different enough from other pages that we shouldn't focus on that criterion. On the remaining four criteria, I think "Disputes over succession in the Baha'i Faith" looks like the best option. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smkolins, Cuñado, Tarikhejtemai, Meditating, how do you feel about moving the page to "Disputes over succession in the Baháʼí Faith"? This seems to correctly place the emphasis on historical (and unsuccessful) attempts to challenge the Baha'i leadership and seems NPOV to me. That said, if others don't like this one, I would agree to any of the others proposed above as improvements over the article's current title. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing to try for a solution to this, Gazelle55. But I do hesitate with "Disputes over succession..." mainly because "disputes" suggests a back-&-forth by various parties, which wasn't the case. I still think "Attempted schisms of the Bahá'í Faith" seems to best deal with key points from the various issues discussed above. It'd certainly be nice to just settle this, and not keep going on forever with it -- as the existing title isn't good, so the sooner it can be changed the better. Meditating (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meditating, I'd be fine with that, and like you said it would be good to get a consensus on something since the current title is not good. That said, wouldn't it be correct to say "Attempted schisms in the Bahá'í Faith" not "Attempted schisms of the Bahá'í Faith"? That's what my intuition tells me, and when I google various wordings, I can't find any sources saying "Schism of [the thing being split]", just "Schism of [year]".

Hi Gazelle55, hmm interesting usage question you raise. I suppose it could be either, depending on how one is looking at it -- if someone is attempting to create a division "within" the Faith then I guess "in" would be better, vs if the attempt is to break-off "from" the Faith then "of" might be more appropriate. When I look at a religion with many schisms, like Christianity, using "in" seems appropriate as its sects are usually included under the greater umbrella of what is called "Christianity". But for the Bahá'í Faith it seems any attempted schism is clearly not going to be able to exist as a "branch" under a greater Bahá'í umbrella per Bahá'u'lláh's Covenant, so I'd lean towards "of" for that reason. Meditating (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wasn't trying to change the meaning, in my mind it was a grammatical question. If you think "Attempted schisms of the Baha'i Faith" is fine in terms of grammar, then maybe my intuition is off here. So I agree to your proposed title. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazelle55 Thanks for tagging me, I prefer "Attempted schisms of the Baha'i Faith" over "Disputes over succession in the Baháʼí Faith". To me it captures the content of the article more accurately than the latter suggested title. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the in/of debate, I could go with either but there is Schism in Christianity, Muhammad in the Baháʼí Faith, and Faith in the Baháʼí Faith as precedent and Google searches seem to lean that way. I'll vote for Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith. If no objections I can put in the move request, but everyone will need to comment again on the formal move. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well it sounds like we have consensus except over "in" vs "of"... My intuition is still that "in" is more natural, but if we put in a move request I will support whichever gets proposed, I don't consider it too important. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed! :-) Smkolins (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream group of Baha'is are well known for downplaying and belittling non-mainstream Baha'is. This article from the details all the way to the title are full of this downplaying. Free Baha'is number in the thousands for example. Reform Baha'is have enough members to do fireside across the province in which I live, in generally most towns I've journeyed to. While I am not knowledgeable on Orthodox Baha'is, they have legal recognition. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source and it is clear this article is written by dismissive Baha'is trying to appear more homogenous than the reality of the situation. I almost feel endangered so much as bringing this topic up because of how heavily this belittlement occurs online and the in-person shunning that these alternative Baha'is are subject to. I am not a Baha'i, but I believe these people should be able to read this article and get an inclusive, unbiased view that reflects the lives of these real people. There is no place for downplay and belittlement on an unbiased site like Wikipedia.

I suggest the name be changed to "Sects of The Baha'i Faith"

BombadGeneral123 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Following the best scholarly sources recognize the infinitesimal nature all these groups have become and mostly disappeared. Just familiarize yourself with the sources. Smkolins (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main scholarly source that is independent has been Johnson. His documentation is of the ideological disputes, but his book is clear that many of these "sects" represent a small handful of people and a website that gives the appearance of a community. Most of his documentation is of the followers of Mason Remey because they are the largest and most organized, but even they represent no more than 200 individuals. If you find a reliable source documenting any schismatic Baha'i groups, please add it. The page is a reflection of the sources, not personal experiences. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about condescending Smkolins. I am familiar with the sources and, I will bring forward citations for what I've said because groups like the Free Baha'is are by no means a blip on the radar, and the RBF can't be defunct if they hold events in my city. I will get ahold of an RBF member to get additional sources verifying they are not defunct. I expected to be shut down like this for fighting for accuracy involving a disliked minority group.

Cuando, thanks for your detailed reply. While I know some sects have websites I've hardly seen them aside from the RBF website (which, unlike the actual group, IS defunct). There is a clear discrepancy between the actual reality and what is displayed on this page. It seems to me that this page, regardless of source, is written from a biased point of view. Perhaps this means sources can be inaccurate or outdated. Please understand that you are pushing someone else's agenda by defending a page out of sync with the facts of the matter though and be careful. I believe this page is a reflection of personal experiences backed up by supported citations. The opposite is also possible to do using different citations. The solution is to find the middle ground and be unbiased in the Baha'i split. And before anyone says it, yes, I have read every topic in this talk page, and further believe the talks show this pro-mainstream bias. I have done my reading thoroughly and am not here making baseless claims. Wikipedia needs to do better here.

BombadGeneral123 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that while articles can always be improved the fact than an article has had the history this one has and arrived at this point is itself telling. Reliable sources are all in wikipedia, not povs, your, mine, or anyones. It's really the sources. Smkolins (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BombadGeneral123 you may want to glance at the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Smkolins is right, the only thing that matters is good sources. If any schismatic group has been documented by independent, reliable sources, then it can be added. What province are you in? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize Wikipedia cannot be trusted if it does not uphold the truth. I have said at length now that this page is pov, highly out of sync with the reality of things using sources obviously are unreliable if they contradict with the real offline world. Be it that they're just outdated, or inaccurate, or misleading, or whatever reason that has caused people to write this polemic Wikipedia article effectively spitting on the same people it writes avout5. If I get a bunch of sources with an opposing bias, I have the power to rewrite the history books just like the main body of Baha'is I guess. If enough well-eyed sources say it, I guess the Holocaust never happened. I'm just disappointed to be frank at how backwards this is. I live in Canada and don't wish to specify where but I've had brushings with RBF in multiple cities for varying reasons, it's kind of silly to posture that they don't exist as this article boasts. I will try and get some material from them, and considering I'm not affiliated with them. But, I'm thinking not to because I'm starting to believe this page is run by the vanilla Baha'is trying to stomp out competitors. At the very least, if you won't change the sources don't be so disparaging toward these groups. No other religion has a spitroasting page like this and it's, because Baha'is go out of their way to do things like this. As an Ahmadiyya follower myself we've even come under fire by these Baha'is. Given that I no longer trust this page or this website, I am dropping the mic here. If I get some killer resources from those RBF guys at their next feast I'll get someone to pass it along maybe but I don't think it's worth it. I'm just upset that you guys don't care about the facts and that these people will probably be misrepresented for generations to come. This is an issue maybe I need to fight against in real life rather than online.

BombadGeneral123 (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out here that the only coverage of this in an independent, reliable source is in Vernon Johnson's Baha'is in Exile (2020). He writes about 4 pages on Frederick Glaysher. He notes that his rebellion began in 2004 and the rest of the coverage is decicated to his views. There is nothing further regarding how many may have followed him or how long he continued. From a cursory glance at less reliable online material, his movement appeared to have attracted a handful of people and Glaysher became inactive. The idea that there is some kind of conspiracy here is bonkers. The page reflects the best available sources on the subject. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BombadGeneral123, thanks for your interest in making Wikipedia more neutral. You've said above you have sources that give a different view than what is found in this article. It is part of Wikipedia's neutrality policy (WP:NPOV) to cover the views of all significant viewpoints in reliable sources (see WP:RS for what is meant by reliable sources if you're not familiar with it). So the sources you mention should be covered too. However, you haven't shared any sources yet so it's difficult to say whether they are reliable at this stage. By the way, for what it's worth, I'm not Baha'i and would make a point of ensuring sources got proper coverage. But you'd have to share them. Also, you should take a look at WP:AGF... basically, it says to be polite and civil and discuss article content rather than criticizing editors. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BombadGeneral123. The purpose of the title is clearly for mainstream/Haifan Bahai editors to delegitimize minority Baha'i sects. Naming the article "Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith" leaves the reader with the impression that what is being discussed in this article is not schisms/sects, but "attempted schisms" (i.e. not schisms).

This idea that there are no other sects besides the mainstream one is tacitly refuted by other Wikipedia articles. For example, the opening line of the article on Orthodox Baháʼí Faith says "The Orthodox Baháʼí Faith is an extremely small Baháʼí sect". While it opens with the belittling qualifier "extremely small", it nevertheless acknowledges that Orthodox Bahais ARE a sect, as the title of this article should too.

Smkolins in his comment makes a vague allusion to "the sources" but did not link to "the sources" or provide quotes from these "sources" that say that the sects being discussed in this article are "not sects" but are instead "attempted". This makes his comment difficult to respond to. I however will provide a source that refers to Orthodox Bahais as being a "religious schism":

https://casetext.com/case/nsa-uhg-v-national-spiritual-assembly-of-bahais

No use of the word "attempted" here, which makes sense because if they were an "attempted schism" (i.e. not a schism) then most likely no one would have bothered to fight this court case.

It is really laughable that this article's title has remained as it is for as long as it has, and it serves as a clear counterexample to Wikipedia's purported neutrality.

Trident765 (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream Haifan Baha'i editors, such as Cuñado, have been using (emphasis on use) Wikipedia since its inception in 2005 as a mechanism to aggressively push official sectarian lines and talking points of the Haifan Baha'i administration, and to systematically de-legitimize all groups, individuals, tendencies, contrarians, and alternative narratives to the official one. In other words, they have used Wikipedia as a vehicle for literal propaganda - being allowed to get away with it by Wikipedia corp without any proper checks, balances and accountability, or otherwise strong-arming, muscling out or gaming the system against the interests of others - and so they have made this space for themselves as a place to implement a policy of damnatio memoriae (i.e. damning the memory) of all groups, individuals, tendencies, contrarians, and alternative narratives going against the Haifan one. What is ironic is that such aggressive policies of damnatio memoriae and similar is actually a recognized human rights violation under international law and (due to it being a policy pursued by Nazis and Stalinists on the state level) is codified as criminal behavior in most of the EU member states. This article (with its evolution/devolution), for example, could theoretically be used as a basis for a criminal case brought against the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Germany (as the representative of the Universal House of Justice who has the final word over the actions of the Bahai Internet Agency) under several provisions of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB). And need one remind the editors that the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Germany has already lost one lawsuit in the past in a legal complaint that the German Council of Protestant Churches initiated against it in the early 1980s over the revelations made in Francesco Ficicchia's book: a lawsuit that saw the Haifan Baha'is of Germany soon have their recognition status as a religion revoked by the West German government of the time until a German administrative court in Stuttgart gave it back to them in 2014 (meaning, the legal status of the NSA of Germany was as an NGO throughout the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s until 2014 and not as an officially recognized religion in the Federal Republic of Germany).

The UHJ and the Bahai Internet Agency for whom these individuals act, don't seem to realize that they and the authorities directing them over such policies have indeed opened themselves up to countless issues of serious liability in law in multiple jurisdictions. Add to that these individuals, such as Cuñado, have gone all over Wikipedia since 2005 aggressively vandalizing countless religion oriented entries with the mention of Bahai (many of them ostensibly unrelated to anything Bahai), and the issues become quite obvious and blatant as to what it is they are here doing: using Wikipedia as a vehicle for transmitting Haifan Bahai propaganda and the systematic demonization of its political enemies on the level of policy.

Fortunately, the scale of the evidence and documentation that they are in fact engaged in this very practice is well beyond the scope of anything they can reasonably deny (with much of it being available on the Edit and Talk pages of Wikipedia itself), and sooner than later such evidence and documentation will be used in professional public fora, such as courts of law, that will produce an outcome for them not too dissimilar to the one handed down in 2007 by an Illinois District Court and upheld in 2009 by an appellate one when they gratuitously attempted to trademark the name "Bahai" against the OBF and BUPC.

That said, the Haifan Baha'is are not the only corporate entity engaged in such underhanded practices on Wikepedia. Numerous articles, many of them published in reputable outlets, have detailed for years now how this is business as usual at Wikipedia and that numerous governments, state actors, corporate actors and similar have been systematically using Wikipedia as a vehicle of propaganda and the protection/transmission of their PR interests. This is why many, many universities and institutions of higher learning throughout the world have actually banned the citation of Wikipedia at their institutions. Qalandar303 (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This entry Criticism_of_Wikipedia and a few of its citations is worth your while to read through. You will see that the concerns you have expressed are present in other contexts. Qalandar303 (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trident765 and Qalandar303, you should become familiar with Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and instead of anecdotes present independent sources. Smkolins (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for you, the actions of you Haifan Baha'i hacks under the direction of the BIA is not on the level of conspiracy theory but actual, documented conspiracy fact that - for anyone with the pockets and wherewithal to do so - can nail your organization's tail to the wall in any real litigation brought against you - which will come, rest assured. Qalandar303 (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smkolins, it is almost as if you did not read my post. I provided a quoted a source in my comment whereas you did not.

Can you elaborate on what exactly in the Wikipedia:Fringe theories would imply that minority sects such as Orthodox Bahais should not be referred to as a sect?

Also, since you are a Haifan Baha'i I am not sure you a neutral person to be moderating this article. I noticed you removed the POV tag without leaving a comment explaining why, even though it is clear that there are serious questions about the POV of this title. Trident765 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trident765 there was a long discussion of the title above on the talk page. When someone says "schism" or "sect" they imagine a substantial movement within the religion. The LDS church is largely unified, but still has a splinter group of 250,000, and a few smaller groups of 5,000, with their own history going back at least a century. The dozen or so Baha'i schism attempts have never attracted more than 200 members and all of them declined to a rump within a generation. Changing the article title to "attempted schisms" better reflects how they are described in independent reliable sources. None of them have got off the ground. The orthodox baha'is in the USA have fewer than 40 members, and that is well documented. It is only vehement enemies of Baha'is that come along to prop up the status of schismatic groups, not neutral academic researchers. Wikipedia should reflect the subject as it is presented in neutral, reliable sources. If you find new or better sources, please share. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cunado, when someone says "schism" or "sect" they imagine a schism or a sect, which is what Orthodox Baha'i Faith is. Here is the definition of schism:

a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.

Here is the definition of sect:

a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.

Neither of these definitions makes a reference to a minimum number of people.

Cunado you wrote "It is only vehement enemies of Baha'is that come along to prop up the status of schismatic groups, not neutral academic researchers. Wikipedia should reflect the subject as it is presented in neutral, reliable sources. If you find new or better sources, please share."

You are gaslighting in hopes that a 3rd party observer won't notice that I already addressed this. I already provided a link to a US court case which describes the Orthodox Baha'i Faith as a "religious schism".

Trident765 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence that the OBF has 40 members in the US other than your own say so. Your position is sectarian propaganda, and two American courts have already addressed the issue. Qalandar303 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qalandar303, here's a quote from the attorney writing on behalf of the Orthodox Baha'is in 2007: "the [Orthodox Baháʼí Faith] in the United States is a very small religious community, composed of only about forty persons".

That quote is in the article. If you want to be taken seriously, start by reading the article that you're arguing over. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you highlight yourself, it is from 2007. It is now 2023: 15-16 years in the future. Tell me again who should be taken seriously here? Your biased assumption - based on the stagnant growth in numbers of your own cult - is to project stagnant numbers on your adversaries, even though you have no iota of evidence beyond an attorney's statement from 2007.

Be that as it may, your motivation in citing the lowest numbers is in order to deprecate your schismatic rivals and inflate your own.

Try again. Qalandar303 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stockman also gives estimates in 2013 and 2020 of about 100 worldwide for the same group. The only other estimate is based on comments in an online chat forum. Quite the opposite of your accusation, the page reflects the available sources, and you're complaint is based on wild accusations that lack reliable sources. If your comments are just parroting Iranian government propaganda, you won't be taken seriously here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stockman's assertion possesses no credibility or verifiability. Robert Stockman is also a permanent staff member of the National office of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the USA who have a vested interest in peddling complete fictions against their rivals. Your source is therefore biased and unreliable.

I am a known antagonist and opponent against the Iranian regime. Nor is criticism of Haifan Bahaism equivalent to being an Iranian government shill, which in any case are closer to your home than mine. So take your slur and shove it up your glazed-eyed cultist backside. Qalandar303 (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qalandar303, please take a look at WP:CIVIL. It is a Wikipedia policy and it allows for productive discussions on talk pages. As for the source that Trident765 provided that uses the word schism, it is not ideal. Take a look at WP:SOURCETYPES - it doesn't mention court documents. Could you provide some academic sources or sources from mainstream publishers that describe "schisms" in the Baha'i Faith? I think the Stockman sources are fine given the guidance at WP:BIASED. Keep in mind that on Wikipedia we cannot write everything that is true, only what has already been published in reliable sources, so even if the Orthodox Baha'i Faith has in fact grown, we are waiting for a source to report that. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 12:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, please familiarize yourself with Criticism_of_Wikipedia and its sources then kindly cite WP:CIVIL to Cuñado as well who is presently trying to engage in an edit war with me elsewhere here. I am well aware of how the Bahai Internet Agency spins on Wikipedia, cherry-picking sources and excluding those which may contradict official Haifan Bahai narratives; however, where the OBF is concerned, Robert Stockman is not an unbiased source because he is a Haifan Bahai official with an axe to grind with the both OBF as well as the BUPC. Qalandar303 (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qalandar303, you've raised a few points so let me address them each.

Firstly, I am aware that Wikipedia is not perfect and has been criticized. Unfortunately, it is not clear how to fix that since policy changes that might help address one problem would often contribute to other problems. You're free to suggest changes to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, but you've had to get consensus on that at their respective talk pages, which will require a lot of cool-headed deliberation there. Until then, we operate under the existing policies and guidelines.

Secondly, maybe Cuñado shouldn't have accused you of parroting Iranian government propaganda, but in fairness it was only after you accused him of using sectarian propaganda. However, you said considerably worse things, such as telling him "shove it up your glazed-eyed cultist backside" and accusing another editor (without providing any evidence) of working for the Baha'i Internet Agency. Please apologize. If you tell me where you believe Cuñado has been edit warring, I'm willing to take a look.

Thirdly, I do think Wikipedia articles on the Baha'i Faith have an overall problem with a pro-Baha'i bias. If you work constructively, I'm happy to help you with fixing that. I've worked on this problem on many articles. Cuñado has been cooperative and has always engaged with me in good faith.

Fourthly, Robert Stockman can be included. WP:BIASED says the following: "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 also says this: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." The Stockman sources for the OBF numbers are published by Bloomsbury Academic and Cambridge University Press, which means they were edited by those academic presses, which provide both editorial control and fact-checking. Regarding independence, Stockman working for the US NSA is somewhat of a concern, but given it is in an independent academic publisher, I don't think this is a problem. Take a look at Talk:Baháʼí views on science#Baha'i status for a discussion about whether Baha'i authors are considered biased (with the input of senior outside editor).

Lastly, I'll add that if you have sources making your points, they can also be used in the article if you're willing to provide them. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 16:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gazelle55, there is no such thing as an ideal source. But a source can be better relative to another. I provided a source, a US Court case, referring to Orthodox Bahais as a "religious schism". However, neither you, Cunado, nor Smkolins provided a source support the idea that the Orthodox Bahai Faith is not a sect but rather an "attempted sect", which leaves nothing to compare my source to. Would you please provide this alleged source which is better than mine that says that the Orthodox Baha'i Faith not a sect but an attempted sect? I understand that you, Cunado, and Smkolins assert that this exists among the references, but we will need to look at a direct quote from a specific source in order to have a serious discussion.

Trident765 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may regret feeding the troll... but I don't think Stockman "works" for the NSA. His full time job is as a university professor teaching religious studies, and his "job" for the Wilmette Institute, is either volunteer or paltry pay to organize classes for Baha'is. He is commonly used as a scholar on the Baha'i faith in independent publications.

I really enjoy getting accused of working for the Baha'i Internet Agency. It's a great compliment to think that I'm such a good writer that my little bits of free time outside of my actual job give the appearance of someone editing full time.

Gazelle, thank you for responding.

Trident, I understand what you're asking for and I have all the source material. When I have time I'll put the quotes together on the talk page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The troll is yourself. You probably enjoy being accused of working for the BIA because you work for the BIA. To my knowledge, neither you nor any other Haifan Bahai fundamentalist editing articles here has denied the accusation - EVER.

Stockman is a biased source. His perpetual position at the National office in Wilmette precludes his objectivity. Juan Cole accused Stockman outright of this back in the 1990s publicly.

Finally, stop removing sources from articles such as Subh-i-Azal that disagree and contradict your cult's ideological narratives unless you are willing to justify your reasons which you don't. Qalandar303 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nima, show me a reliable source saying that Robert Stockman is not a full-time professor of religious studies at a major university, and that he has a "position" at the national Baha'i center. I'm curious what this position is. Maybe I can apply on the "position" for myself. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cuñtado, Robert Stockman himself. Off you go now to apply for your promotion in the bAO. Qalandar303 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trident765, that is a fair request. It sounds like Cuñado is going to provide some sources, at which point I'm happy to discuss further. At the time of the previous move discussion, I favored "Disputes over succession in the Baháʼí Faith" as an NPOV title but eventually agreed to the current title. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 07:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the name change that was discussed April 2021 to May 2022, there seemed to be no perfect name for the page and editors settled on the current Attempted schisms in the Baha'i Faith in favor of the older Baha'i divisions. Other ideas were

• Baha'i leadership challenges
• Challenges to authority in the Baha'i Faith
• Successorship in the Baha'i Faith
• Opposition to leadership in the Baha'i Faith
• Disputes over succession in the Baháʼí Faith
• and variations of those.

As documented in the article, there have been about 12 attempts at alternative leadership. None of them have held more than maybe 200 supporters, and all of them declined over time. Almost all are defunct. Only 3 have held more than a small handful of followers. There is also the case of Shoghi Effendi's family who opposed him but had no alternative leadership. Most reliable sources describe the Baha'i Faith as united and without major schism.

Thus, Baha'i divisions seemed to imply a weight to the schismatic groups that didn't reflect the article. Leadership challenges or challenges to authority or opposition to leadership are probably the most technically accurate but sound weird and are maybe not neutral. The succession ones sound weird and don't encompass some of the examples of opposition outside of succession. Attempted schisms seemed to be the best option, though it has a neutrality challenge.

Trident765 wrote above: The purpose of the title is clearly for mainstream/Haifan Bahai editors to delegitimize minority Baha'i sects. Naming the article "Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith" leaves the reader with the impression that what is being discussed in this article is not schisms/sects, but "attempted schisms" (i.e. not schisms).

There is an opposing concern that titling the article "Baha'i divisions" or "Baha'i schisms" would introduce its own incorrect POV. We're not talking about a minority schism. Let's set the extremely low bar of membership of 20 people. There is only one schismatic group currently active that has been documented to meet that threshold by reliable sources (and even so, it's mostly people guessing, not research data, and already dated). They are concentrated in the USA, where they self-reported about 40 members in 2007. There are more mainstream Baha'is in any major city in America. That is not a minority schism, it is an extreme minority that would not be notable if not for being the only example of a schism at all.

The definition of schism: a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief. Calling them a schism implies that the two "parties" are strongly opposed or even remotely comparable in strength. Most Baha'is don't know anything about these attempted schisms and don't pay attention to them. They are not "parties" to a debate.

The neutrality challenge with the title of attempted schisms was acknowledged in the name change discussion. Here are some reliable sources that give context:

• As there are no big schisms in the Baha’i religion... there has been no big schism in the Baha’i faith so far (Demmrich 2007)

• there is a high degree of cohesion within the movement and that the authority of the mainstream Bahai leadership is seldom challenged... Since all of the schismatic groups of this period [1921-1957] found their raison d’être in the rejection of religious organization, it was inevitable that they should be short-lived and restricted in their influence... the number of adherents to the Orthodox faction remains extremely small. Although successful in Pakistan, the Remeyites seem to have attracted no followers in Iran. Other small groups have broken away from the main body from time to time, but none of these has attracted a sizeable following. (MacEoin 1988)

• The next schism came when Abdu'l-Baha was challenged by his half-brother Muhammad-Ali, whose followers had considerable influence in the Akko area... The group does not exist any more; ... Shoghi Effendi's leadership was challenged by family members... none of the descendants tried to organize a competing group of Baha'is; ... [Herman Zimmer's] group has been a rallying point for "Free Baha'is" around the world ever since. Their number is uncertain but probably not more than a few hundred; ... [Remey's] followers had begun to split into smaller groups, the largest of which was led by Joel Marangella who claimed that Remey had appointed him to be the third guardian. On 25 August 1980, I interviewed Marangella's son and it was evident from the interview that Orthodox Baha'is was an organization that lacked any communal religious life... (Warburg 2001)

• The Baha'i Faith has weathered a number of attempts by individuals to usurp the leadership of the faith, all of which have failed. The Baha'i Faith remains to this day an undivided faith, unlike so many other religions. (Hartz 2009)

• After the death of Shoghi Effendi (1957) the only significant oppositional movement was that led by the veteran American Baha'i C.M. Remey, who claimed to be the second Guardian. The movement subsequently splintered, some groups remaining active... Globally, the Baha'i community has maintained its unity. (Smith 2000)

• Remey's followers soon became divided into a number of antagonistic factions, and by the time of his death (in 1974), the number of Bahá'ís who recognized his claims had greatly diminished. A few Remeyite splinter-groups continue to operate in the United States. (Momen & Smith 1989)

• Remey succeeded in gathering a few supporters, mainly in the United States, France, and Pakistan ... The followers of Remey have decreased in importance over the years, especially as they fragmented into contending factions ... [the group led by Joel Marangella] number no more than one hundred ... Small Remeyite groups are now confined to a few states in the United States. (Momen 1995)

• By 1990 [Jensen's] group probably had fewer than 100 members nationwide ... the defection rate accelerated in the 1990s. (Balch 1997)

• When Remey died, several of his lieutenants vied for the position of "third" Guardian, dividing his followers into numerous sects, none of which have grown ... [no Baháʼí schism] has succeeded in garnering substantial support, with most groups eventually dying out altogether. (McMullen 2000)

• the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith has perhaps 100 members, and the various other groups together probably total another 100 at most. (Stockman 2013)

• Today the Baháʼí community has some 5 million members; the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith perhaps 100; and the Baháʼís Under the Provisions of the Covenant several dozen, who are in turn divided into two sects, one of which appears to be inactive. (Stockman 2020)

I understand the complaint with the title but it is not easily fixed. If your proposal is to simply change it back to "Baha'i divisions" or similar, you need to address the problems I tried to note. If we change to "Baha'i schisms", then the threshold for inclusion would really only include Muhammad Ali and Mason Remey. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]