Talk:Baháʼí Faith in the United States

Local articles

Seeing as there's already an article on the Baha'i Faith in the Greater Boston area, it would be nice to have articles about the development of the religion in other major centres too, such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 16:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As well as the other Bahá'í schools; I'm working on Louhelen Bahá'í School and have some newspaper clippings relevant to Geyserville which then moved to become Bosch Bahá'í School. Plus other things I can think of.… so many things… Smkolins (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of schools, do you know of a good source for public domain images of some of the schools, ones that could be uploaded to Commons? I'm looking for a nice, clear picture of Green Acre to add, for instance. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd have said http://media.bahai.org/ but they don't seem to have any of Green Acre. There seem to be some at https://bahai.media but confirm. Smkolins (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

MMM - mostly old. Maybe do an image search which lands you on some collections via google and seek someone's help/permission (and nurse them along uploading....) Smkolins (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning Orthodox Baha'is

Hello @Cuñado:,
You have reverted my edit giving the reason WP:WEIGHT.
This article does not have any mention of the Orthodox Baha'i community, thus I had added 'that sentence' to the article. Present article gives an impression that there is only one Baha'i Faith! This is not the case, there are various smaller Baha'i sects and Orthodox Baha'i is one of them that claimed "50 members" in 2010. This group is notable because there are followers of the Orthodox Baha'i faith in the US, there is a wikipedia article on them, they have official websites and good presence on the internet and there have been court cases against them by the mainstream Baha'i community. The Baha'i faith itself is a small religion with very few followers so, its sect is not going to have a large following!
I think, considering the WP:NPOV, there should be a mention of them from reliable secondary/tertiary sources. My source was the Chicago Tribune. Present article is one-sided and totally favourable towards the mainstream Baha'i Faith.
Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What is npov about a group that might have numbered 50 against a group that counts at least over 100,000 and by some counts much more? "Mainstream" isn't even balanced enough.Smkolins (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be unjust to pass a judgement only on the basis of numbers. Orthodox Baha'is are notable because of the reasons I have already stated above. If you think that inclusion should be only decided on the basis of numbers then what is the significance of 77,000 Baha'is if compared to the total population of the United States? Why we need to mention the Baha'i faith as a religion in India when it has only 4572 members according to the census of 2011? You know, India's population is 1.4 billion!

I believe that Orthodox Baha'is should be mentioned on the page - let us mention that this community had 50 members in 2010. If you wish you can add more about them - like, the differences, the court case, ex-communication of those who joined that community, etc.

Edit : Please check "Five-Percent Nation" and "United Nation of Islam" in Islam in the United States article. This article should also have a short mention of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith.

Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Taking the generous number of 50 orthodox members and the conservative number of 77,000 Baha'is, they are 0.06% of the Baha'is in the US. Islam has no coherent system of leadership and organization, so that page lists all the major organized groups and ideologies of Muslims. Also, NOI played a political role in the United States and it is a household term, so has some notability. Baha'is are totally different, and it would be misleading to present tiny splinter groups as having anywhere near the weight of the Baha'i community. Anyone can make a webpage. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

My emphasis is not on numbers but on notability. Orthodox Baha'i Faith was founded by one of the most prominent Baha'i, Charles Mason Remey. They are not just a group of 50 insignificant people. They are very notable because of the following reasons : 1) Various court cases against them, 2) Their ex-communication, 3) Publication of various books and articles against them, including in Ruhi curriculum, by the mainstream Baha'i community. For notability, you just don't need numbers! I think, we should mention a few lines about them in this article. We may go for WP:3O or RFC if required.Serv181920 (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Serv181920 on all points (except for the relevance of them having a website – not sure that's significant). Doesn't need to be long. Perhaps could be placed within the context of a short section on criticism of the U.S. Baha'i community citing Juan Cole, Bei Dawei, etc. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the figure of 50 Orthodox Baha’is should appear on the Wikipedia page. The court case done by NSA of United States and the US judges giving the judgement in favour of Orthodox Baha’i Faith (That they can call themselves Baha’is) is all about notability. Whether 50 or 5000 is immaterial. Orthodox Baha’is are Baha’is First then Orthodox.Jammu58 (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue of how to address the tiny splinter groups has come up before, and Wikipedia policy does not support giving them a mention on a bunch of pages to balance out treatment of the religion. WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, one of the 3 core content policies. It says clearly:

• Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.
• An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.
• While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.
• Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
• we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources

For an example of an independent source, see this coverage by CBS News about a year ago. They did a 5 minute segment covering the Baha'i Faith in the United States. No mention of Orthodox Baha'is. The oft-used Britannica example. No mention of Orthodox Baha'is. WMBF News covered the Baha'i Faith in Depth. No mention of Orthodox Baha'is. The Niagara Foundation made an article on the US Baha'is. No mention of Orthodox Baha'is. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the policy. I believe this policy is applicable for determining the notability for AFC only.Serv181920 (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is one of three WP:Core content policies that govern "the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles". Not just new articles. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:COPO states :

Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) – All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

This is what i propose to add:

There are a few smaller groups that believe in the continuation of guardianship through Charles Mason Remey. As of 2006, Remey's followers represent two or three groups comprising a few hundred members collectively. Orthodox Baháʼí Faith had about 100 members in 1988, BUPC had about 200 members, no numbers are available for the sect that follows Enayatollah Yazdani.

Thank you,Serv181920 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cunado

Your statement that Orthodox Baha'i Faith is a splinter group amounts to contempt of US court. OBF is neither a splinter group nor a cult it believes in all the fundamentals of Baha’i Faith except the UHJ. it is already proved in court.

Wikipedia policy says:

“Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. “

“Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.”

Writing a sentence about the Number of Orthodox Baha’is in a bunch of pages is not giving undue weight. Especially when you are giving the number of three types of US Baha’is 1- Baha’is of all ages, 2- Bahais with good addresses 3- Baha’is participating in core activities.

There is no mention of Orthodox Baha’is in Britannica, WMBF News and The Niagara Foundation Well American Judicial System is above all.Jammu58 (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Some more thoughts: I don't think Orthodox Baha'is should be in the lead. Somewhere in the body only since they are a very small number and as pointed out sources giving an overview don't generally mention them. Serv181920, are those numbers for the United States specifically? If not I don't think they're relevant to this article in particular. Cuñado, I think WP:WEIGHT is talking about excluding *views* held by a very small minority of reliable sources from articles, not excluding very small minorities of people from articles. So Orthodox Baha'is shouldn't be mentioned on the page on Baha'i teachings, but at the same time Religion in Romania should (and does) include a sentence on the fact there are 1,900 Baha'is there in a country of 20 million (so 0.01%), despite that most overviews of religion in Romania don't mention Baha'is. By the same logic I think Orthodox Baha'is should be mentioned in this article (which is after all a long article). I don't insist that the present number of adherents is included, but I think the fact the U.S. Baha'i community went to court against them and that one of nine custodians, who was American, founded the group, should be mentioned. There is a sentence on the latter but it fails to mention Remey or that the group still exists. Also, if reliable sources criticizing the U.S. Baha'i community (such as Cole's articles) are critical of treatment of Orthodox Baha'is or others seen as Covenant Breakers by Baha'is, that should be covered. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those numbers are for the US. Proper sources would be cited in support of the proposed content. You may like to check this article.Serv181920 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The NPOV policy, "representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias" uses the key phrases of "significant" and "proportionately" that are reflected in the WP:WEIGHT part of the same policy, lower on the same page. They are not contradictory. First of all, the whole page needs a facelift. If it had a proper history section it would include short bios of many of the early American Baha'is pre-1963, which would include Mason Remey, where it would be appropriate to mention that he attempted a failed leadership challenge that resulted in some small groups that continued believing in an ongoing Guardian... something like that. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You can please uplift the page, till that time let us add the proposed content, not in the lead paragraph but somewhere in the middle or let us take a WP:3O from a neutral editor.Serv181920 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought Gazelle55 was our neutral editor? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Lol glad to hear I'm considered neutral. I don't really see a disagreement at this point since nobody disputes that the Orthodox Baha'is should be mentioned. Serv181920, I don't see an issue if you add them at the relevant point in the history since you have sources, and mention that they still exist with very few adherents. Then if other editors want to more generally expand the page they can do so when they have time.

I'm still not convinced this is a WP:WEIGHT issue because none of the facts about the Orthodox Baha'is are in dispute. They exist, they have very few members, their leader was a prominent Baha'i, they fought a court case. These are not *views*, they are facts. To give another illustration, if 1% of scientists believe X medication has Y side effect, we would not include their view, but if 1% of patients who use the medication have the side effect, we would include this information. They are a small minority but their existence is well established. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Gazelle55, Thank you, appreciate your intellectual honesty.Serv181920 (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This is obviously a weight issue. There are maybe 200 articles related to the Baha'i Faith, and those pages are not, generally, about any of the Baha'i divisions and do not need to mention them to provide intellectual balance. For example, every few weeks user:Asad29591 has popped in to the page on the Universal House of Justice and tried to describe it as controversial or disputed or opposed by Baha'i splinter groups who might have their own views of the term. That is inconsistent with the policy on WP:WEIGHT for many reasons. In the case of this article I think it would make sense to mention Remey and his schism because it primarily happened in the United States and France, and he was American. But, that means working it into the article where it makes sense, not adding it to the introduction or its own section where their weight gets amplified. Keep in mind, any moderate sized city in America has more Baha'is than any one of those groups, almost no Baha'is have ever even heard of them, and their notability primarily comes from the notability of Remey and the fact that his schism was the largest in the history of the religion. The policy on weight suggests using "See also" to mention extreme minority viewpoints. I added a "See also" section with Baha'i divisions linked. Remey is mentioned on the page among a list of notable American Baha'is. If you feel that it's really important to mention the schismatic groups, there's your place to start improving the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the edit made by Gazelle55 is well-balanced.Serv181920 (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Cunado, Firstly I would request you to read https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Secondly just like you pop in to the page of Orthodox Baha'i Faith and describe the Guardianship of Remey as controversial because it is your belief, I have come on UHJ page and mentioned it as controversial as it is our belief. The will and testament of Abdul Baha itself is a proof that the current UHJ is not as prescribed by Master Abdul Baha in his will. Just because you belong to the majority sect doesn't mean that we are wrong or you get the right to suppress us. Asad29591 (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If the brief note I put in is okay then it looks like we have consensus. We can add more on Remey, etc. later, though it's not a top priority for me. The Universal House of Justice page is separate and I won't get involved at this point. I agree about not having a whole heading for the other sects or putting them in the lead. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Number of Baháʼí in US

Hi Gazelle55 As there is a talk going on for uplifting the Baháʼís of US wiki page, I would suggest to clean up the number of Baháʼí in US. There are 5 different numbers mentioned, The Annual report of NSA , Baháʼí with true addresses, American Religious Identity Survey(ARIS), Association of Religion Data Archives(ARDA) .The Baháʼí ranging from 84000 to 525000. As the Wiki policy is to provide valid information these 5 types of numbers really do not give any clarity/validity to the Readers. It is very surprising that this uncertainty exists for US Baháʼí who are supposed to be most educated Baháʼí in the world and perhaps the most active NSA. I suggest that we should give the figures only from Bahai official sources and Govt. of US. Recently the UHJ has given total Baháʼís in the world as 5 million, let us see how much of them are in US. No doubt Bahai Faith is the only Faith which has a divinely ordained Administration, LSAs, NSAs, Continental Board of Counsellors, ABMs, System of declaration card etc. It shouldn’t be difficult for them.Jammu58 (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, this page isn't really a major focus for me, I just wanted to help resolve the talk page dispute. As far as the different contradictory sources, take a look at my long explanation here. If you have access to Margit Warburg's book, you could add what she says about the U.S. numbers to this page, that would be helpful. I think Juan Cole also suggests a lower number for active Baha'is. The fact Baha'is see their administration as divinely inspired holds absolutely no weight on Wikipedia. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality of the book "The Baha'i Faith in America"

Hello and Good day,
I had added this book "Garlington, William (2017). The Baha'i Faith in America. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0-7425-6234-9" to further reading section. Cuñado removed it giving the following reason "not used in the article, also not a neutral source"
I can understand the first half that it is not used in the article, but I am not able to understand the second half - "not a neutral source."
Why the source is not neutral? I am ordering the book from Amazon to read it fully! Would appreciate if Baha'i editors please explain the neutrality issue of this book to me. I have seen an article by Peter Terry on Bahai-Library website appreciating the book. Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Further reading is optional and primarily for distinguishing highlights when many references are used in the article. As a general rule, if a source is good for further reading it should have been used to source the article. On several pages you've added to further reading without using the source as a reference anywhere in the article.

Regarding neutrality, Garlington is an ex-Baha'i who wrote for a disaffected Baha'i audience. He is not independent of the subject. It can be used as a source about the opinion of a disaffected ex-Baha'i, but he is not a neutral third party observer. Check out this review of the book, which says, among other things:

It was inevitable that Baha’i readers and academic readers would find fault with this book, and that former Baha’is would find much to appreciate in it. But what of the general public? There are a few indications that at least some general readers have found the author’s approach to be balanced, non-partisan, and well-informed.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've just looked at Wikipedia:Further reading and I don't see why a further reading section isn't appropriate for this article. The article has a large volume of sources and the further reading section (which, might I point out, already exists) can help point readers to the most relevant sources. Yes, the book could be included in the article—and anyone may add it when they have time—but it can also be in the further reading section in the meantime.

Sources can have POVs and still be considered WP:RS. That is why we include Peter Smith or Moojan Momen on many articles despite them being Baha'i. In fact, there is a primary Baha'i source in the further reading section right now, which clearly has a POV. Furthermore, we can't assume that somebody will not be even-handed towards Baha'is just because they are an ex-Baha'i. It doesn't mean they hate Baha'is. Many Baha'is are ex-Christians, ex-Muslims, ex-atheists, etc. but if they wrote a book about Christianity or Islam or atheism it could still be even-handed. All this to say I think the book should be added again. There's also one by Mike Mullen that could be added. Gazelle55 (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to having a further reading section, I was referring to this idea on WP:further reading, "In articles with numerous footnotes, it probably is not obvious which ones are suitable for further reading. The "Further reading" section can help the readers by listing selected titles without worrying about duplications." It seems to me that the main purpose of 'further reading' is to narrow down and clean up the references section to point to a few highlights. It doesn't make sense to me to add something that isn't used in the article. I get that it's kind of like the external links and there is a lot of room to interpret but this seems like a minimum qualification, like lists of people having their own WP page.

You're right about the item in the further reading section, I removed it. Scanning over the references I don't see anything that stands out for further reading. The article is kind of a big mess right now.

Yes everything has a point of view, and Garlington can be used as a reference in the right context, and if it's used in the article, then it makes sense to add it to a further reading section. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"It doesn't make sense to me" - this has been discussed here : WP:JUSTDONTLIKEITServ181920 (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gazelle55. Yes, if that is the case then Cuñado would remove all references of Juan Cole & Denis MacEoin's books because both of these academics are ex-Baha'is!? Likewise, all Muslim articles should get freedom from Moojan Momen's books written on Islam!?Serv181920 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of intellectual honesty, I clearly wasn't trying to remove it as a source, I removed it from FR because it wasn't used in the article yet, and I mentioned it was not a neutral source, which discourages its use as "further reading". WP:BIASED mentions: "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. 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. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."

Also from Reliable Sources WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

Garlington and Momen both have their own biases and have to be used in context. There are not many truly neutral sources writing in depth. I consider Johnson's Baha'is in exile as a neutral source because he did the research for a PhD thesis and does not seem to have a personal interest inserted. Garlington, Cole, and MacEoin (and Momen and Smith) are not a neutral sources and have to be used accordingly. Garlington will be a good reference for most things, but if he is used as a source for controversial topics it should be attributed to him in context as policy mentions above. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality is a difficult issue. I can understand what you want to say and i will try to stick to wiki policies. I just want to clean the articles with POVs. I am sure that all Baha'i related articles have a lot of POV issues, thus I want to try to help those articles, I also understand that it is not an easy task to do that because Baha'i editors are very experienced and some of them work under the guidance of the Baha'i Internet Agency. I also appreciate the honesty of some other Baha'i editors who are sincere in their balanced edits. Thank you again.Serv181920 (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not surprising to learn that Cuñado considers Garlington et.al are non-neutral sources! After all she is a Baha'i and she likes to implement Baha'i-safe ideas to every article. Vernon Johnson is neutral for her because his work is a Ph.D. thesis!! Well I would like to ask her when I had added a reference from the book of Johnson to the wiki page of "Baha'is in Pakistan", she removed the statement "Remy announced that almost all the Bahais in Pakistan accepted Remy as the second Gurdian" and replaced it with "which was only active for a few years."

So here Johnson is not neutral and Momen becomes neutral?

Moreover, where does Momen say that the NSA of Remy's group became inactive? Please share the exact source.

"Remey's support came from some Bahá'ís in the United States, France, Pakistan, and elsewhere but it was never an appreciable number and they were soon split into a number of feuding factions. There have been no major episodes of internal opposition since Remey."

Here Momen is talking about internal opposition and not inactivity of the NSA of Remey's group.Jammu58 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Jammu58 I removed the "Remey announced that..." because the source did not say that. Read Johnson's book page 40 second paragraph. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Serv181920 a lot of the Baha'i articles on Wikipedia have a pro-Baha'i bias because they were written by Baha'is, but there is no conspiracy or paid editing, or working "under the guidance of the Baha'i Internet Agency" that I'm aware of. It is very difficult to write a good article for Wikipedia and I've also been cleaning up a lot of Baha'i-related articles to reduce bias. I would really like to consolidate, merge, and reduce the overall volume of content. I've seen a lot of people try to elevate criticism, and the content usually improves in the process, but it's always a back and forth. I think you're well intentioned and your contributions are improving the articles. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like everyone agrees there are NPOV issues so let's try to work together and assume WP:GOODFAITH, and certainly not make speculative accusations against other editors. Achieving neutrality is difficult as we've all agreed so it may take some discussion to get there. Regarding above, I agree that we should focus on improving the article bodies, though further reading, see also, and external links are also important parts of Wikipedia articles. Jammu58, by the way I'm fairly sure Cuñado is a he not a she, just so you know :) Regarding WP:BIASED, I agree we need to be on guard and cite biased sources as, "According to XYZ," but I don't think we can assume sources by either Baha'is or ex-Baha'is are necessarily biased, so it may be appropriate to cite them in Wikivoice if the content isn't disputed by other sources. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Cuñado, Yes there is much pro-Baha'i bias in the Baha'i articles. To be frank, I have a feeling that sometimes you are adding to the pro-Baha'i bias, instead of neutralizing it. I have started a new section here and stated my observations.Serv181920 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Serv181920, super minor thing, but when you post on talk pages, could you please post at the bottom rather than right after the person you're replying to? It gets very confusing reading talk pages when people are posting out of order. Thanks :) Gazelle55 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Gazelle55 Please help me solve this issue. Before that my sincere apology for addressing Cunado as ‘she’ it was misjudgement. Thanks for clarifying. Please read page 40 of the book of Johnson and see that whether he is justified in removing the statement "Remy announced that almost all the Baha'is in Pakistan accepted Remy as the second Guardian” and replacing it by "which was only active for a few years." The replacement done by Cunado is not found in any of his references it is his own judgment. MacEoin reference is dead and Momen does not contain it.It is anti-Orthodox Baha’i statement in the name of neutrality. And clean-up process.Jammu58 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jammu58, sure, I'm happy to take a look. I can't find the sentence though, is that in this article or a different one? Gazelle55 (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Mason Remey Episode

Charles Mason Remey was an important American Baha’i having lived with Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi, Abdul Baha calling him as his Son. Hence the Mason of Mason Remey episode is must for American Baha’is Wikipedia page. Just by calling him a “Covenant Breaker” and “Shunned out of the Bahai Community” does not justify his role in development of US Baha’i community. Jammu58 (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, yes it should be added. What is your source for "Abdul Baha calling him as his Son" ? I think, there is more that can be added to expand the proposed section.Serv181920 (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Charles Mason Remey: A Historical Chronicle p.17 is where Abdu'l-Baha calls him his son.--Illuminator123 (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Noted, Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Section "Legal Issues"

Hi:Gazelle55 , Cuñado, Serv181920:It was not expected that Cunado will change my edit of “legal issues” of US Baha’is.This topic was very much relevant to the Baha’is of US wiki pages as it directly relates to them. I didn’t find any logic why the heading should be deleted and replaced by half sentences and merged with Mason Remy schism . I have used the same sentences used in Wiki languages elsewhere with proper references. It also surprises me that a separate heading is given to “Involvement in Morocco” and lengthy explanation of “Persecution of Baha'is in Iran” their real place should be “Baha'is of Morocco” and “Baha'is of Iran” pages. I am sure these are not Edits but concealment of Information’s will like to remind my Co-Editors, that Johnson the researcher wrote in his Book, Bahais in Exile ,”“A Faith which tries to control the information from its adherents is either a false Faith or immature one.”Jammu58 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this Jammu58. The page is organized based on historical periods so I think the court cases could be placed in those sections, not in the Mason Remey schism section or a separate section. There is no sense in putting events that happened after 1963 in a section about the period before 1963, which seems to imply the schism no longer exists. On the other hand, I think it's undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to have a whole "Legal Issues" section for a few intellectual property cases. I am at a loss for why the explanations you wrote were shortened... does not strike me as neutral and no explanation was given. I think they should be restored (especially given we have whole sections for one event regarding Morocco and one historical survey that somehow has its own Wikipedia article). Gazelle55 (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, I think he merged it because he thinks those cases were related to Mason Remey. But adding them to "1921–1963" section is definitely not correct. I am also not getting why Cuñado has shortened it when it is directly related to the US Baha'i community and well-summarised.Serv181920 (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Jammu58, your addition was a copy/paste from another article, without any editing to make sense in this context. It's also a strange expansion that is undue weight. I tried to include it in context with Remey because that is the most logical place to mention the trademark disputes, but you reverted to your original version. You have to give me something to work with that's in the ballpark of good editing. Try reading over the sections before and after the place you're trying to add material and think about context.s Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Persian Hands

Hi:Gazelle55 , Cuñado, Serv181920: Again I am trying to loop you. The matter of Persian hands playing a very coordinating activity amongst themselves which got rid of Mason Remey which even Johnson mentioned in his book and which due to your Bold attitude could appear on Mason Remey page. Cunado believes that is UNDUE on Bahais of US pages. Mason Remey was an American Bahai. It was a secret collusion between Persian Hands of Cause. Why it shouldn’t appear on the page.I dont say as a seperate section but it can appear on Mason Remey Schism section. Please help solve this issue.Jammu58 (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Garlington wrote 192 pages about "The Baha'i Faith in America". He dedicates one whole paragraph to Mason Remey's schism. It's so short, I'll even copy it here: "At this point, Mason Remey, a Hands of the Cause member and president of the International Baha'i Council, responded by declaring that, according to `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament and Shoghi Effendi's later pronouncements, the Guardianship had to continue in order for the Baha'i Faith to receive divine guidance. He subsequently claimed that, because of his position as president of the International Baha'i Council and his close relationship with Shoghi Effendi, he should be the new Guardian. He then openly made an appeal to the world's Baha'is to accept his claim. The Hands of the Cause reacted by eventually declaring him and his scattered followers covenant-breakers. Thereafter, Remey went on to establish what he called the Orthodox Baha'i Faith, remnants of which still exist today."

Anything beyond that is probably WP:UNDUE. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Jammu58, Cuñado is incorrect about Garlington. There are more paragraphs about "Mason Remey's schism". I don't know why only one "so short" paragraph is visible to Cuñado! Here are some more excerpts, for example this one - "Total membership in the various Remeyite groups numbers only in the thousands." Or this "The transition of authority appeared smooth until Shoghi Effendi’s chief American lieutenant, Hand of the Cause Mason Remey, declared that the Guardianship had to continue and that because of his position as president of the International Baha'i Council he should be the new Guardian. The Hands reacted by declaring him a covenant-breaker, after which he went on to establish the Orthodox Baha'i Faith.". There are more mentions about schism in detail. It is not "so short" as Cuñado claims.

Regarding "Secret Conclave and the role of Persian Hands" you may like to check this book https://www.google.com/books/edition/Melchizedek_the_Temple/5-nRmv8oCdkC - See Page 337.Serv181920 (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pinging me. Unfortunately, my knowledge about the Baha'i Faith is more from the perspective of the Baha'i writings, philosophy, comparison to other religions, and my own experience of the Baha'i community... I don't know enough about the history to judge this event or WP:WEIGHT. If there is a more specific issue I'm happy to help. Gazelle55 (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920, I had checked every index pointer to Remey and saw your references. They are trivial mentions of him. The paragraph I quoted is the most in-depth coverage of his claims. I don't see in your comment any more details than I already provided. Point stands that the coverage given on this page is more than is given in a book-length coverage of the Baha'is in America.

Regarding the book you referenced, it is self-published. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, there is another paragraph starting with "During its short history, the Baha'i community has seen its leadership make use of the covenant-breaking charge on a number of occasions.... Of greater interest to the contemporary American scene are those covenant-breakers who have sprung from the original followers of Remey. These include followers of a faction that split off under Donald Harvey and who now recognize as their leader Jacques Soghomonian, a resident of Marseilles, France. Another group of covenant-breakers, known as the Orthodox Bahai Faith..." There is even more. And Garlington's book is NOT the ONLY allowed source. If there are other RS, they can also be used.

Thank you for the info about that book. Yes, it is published by AuthorHouse. And self-published sources can be used on wikipedia. Jammu58, please check this page for more info : https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works

I would like to know how is "George Ronald" and "OneWorld Publications" reliable publishers for wikipedia when both of these are owned by the Baha'is themselves?Serv181920 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

George Ronald, Baha'i Publishing Trust, and the various Baha'i-run academic journals (like Lights of Irfan) can be used to explain the Baha'i perspective, but they have to be balanced by better sources. I think we have all agreed on that in a past discussion. Smith's book from OneWorld gets its reliability from his academic record, but as we said before it should be attributed to "Baha'i historian Peter Smith" for controversial points. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing is complicated and it depends on the work itself, the author, the publisher, and what is being sourced. George Ronald and OneWorld can't be labeled as reliable or unreliable as a blanket declaration. Reputation and peer review are important. "Likely to be challenged" is important. In the case of the book proposed, the author has no reputation or credentials, it is self-published, the thing being quoted is not about the author, it is sourcing something controversial and likely to be challenged, and its inclusion (on this page, at least) is really obviously undue weight. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The author has a page at https://independent.academia.edu/RobertJKonczyk and one of his co-authored work has been published by Newman Springs Publishing. If you want to "challenge" the content, please do so. Share your concern other than "undue weight". I believe that the proposed edit by Jammu58 can be accommodated in a suitable place.Serv181920 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV and not dismissible. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I found two more sources. The Baha'is of America: the Growth of a Religious Movement (McMullen, 2015, New York University Press) and World Religions in America (Neusner, 2009, Westminster John Knox Press) with a 17-page chapter on the Faith in America. No mention of Remey in either. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I and Serv are supporting the edit to be included. Gazelle is neutral, only opposed by Cunado. So majority wants it. Moreover according to WP UNDUE, “The reliability of a source can help you judge the weight to give the opinions of that source. The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion.” Since a very reliable source like Johnson did mentioned it, I think Cunado shouldn’t have any problem.Jammu58 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Still no opinion on the matter, but want to note that consensus on Wikipedia is not reached through voting (see WP:VOTE). Gazelle55 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jammu58, the subject of the article is the Baha'i Faith in the United States. I found two books about the subject, and a chapter about it. One of them briefly mentions Mason Remey's attempt at schism with very little detail (copied above). Johnson's book is about Baha'i schismatic groups. It is not about the subject of this article and includes many details. Even there, the issue of Remey's claim of collusion among the Hands of the Cause is not given significant coverage, it is briefly mentioned among perhaps 30 other details about the transition. You and Serv181920 have consistently not followed WP:WEIGHT by claiming that as long as something is published in a reliable source, then it can go on any page. My application of WP:WEIGHT is pretty straightforward in this case. Even if you now came up with a source that did cover the Baha'i Faith in America, and for some very strange reason it mentions Remey's memoirs, it would still be a minority among sources and may not warrant inclusion. If you want another opinion, there is Smkolins, or there are other routes to get third opinions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Reading over the dispute, I now think Cuñado is correct. The key point is that the topic of Johnson's book isn't this article's topic. And it seems like the event in question happened in Israel, not the United States. The point could potentially be included in other Baha'i articles like Baha'i divisions or perhaps others. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Cuñado and Gazelle55 - how important things are to the subject of the article, not flypaper for trivial mentions in obscure details most people don't mention or if they do it is brief. Smkolins (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi:Gazelle55 , Cuñado, Serv181920,Smkolins:Your are just pushing your POV. “Neutrality requires that each article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. In proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.”

The happenings at Bhaji after the demise of Shoghi effendi is a significant view point. It is not “flypaper for trivial mentions in obscure details. The haifan Bahai who for years propagated that no other Bahai division/sects exists does not want it to give it a significance.

Secondly it is published in a reliable source. I agree in one or two paragraphs but writings two or three lines is US Bahai pages is not giving UNDUE weight.

I understand you all are scared that if the US Baha’is come to know about conspiracy in those dark nights at Bhaji which changed the destiny of the Baha’i Faith totally and which corrupted the fundamentals of the Baha’i Faith of coming of future Guardians and How a sincere Baha’I, Remey who worked as a shadow to Shoghi Effendi , was casted out of the Baha’i Faith by secret collusion between Persian Hands of Cause, by an Islamic concept of BADA which other Hands of Cause may not have heard also then certainly US Bahais will start feeling soft corner for Remey and maybe they start questioning their independent investigation of truth.

I would like to remind all my co-editors as Johnson said : “A Faith which tries to control the information from its adherents is either a false Faith or immature one.” Here we are trying to hide some important facts from Baha’is. It is not a minority issue but a majority one.Jammu58 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your intentions in such a clear and unambiguous way. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, let me try to clear a few things up since this seems to be coming up over and over. First of all, I am not a Baha'i – in fact I am ex-Baha'i! You need to assume WP:GOODFAITH, for me as well as other editors. I have recently argued in favor of a "Criticism" section at the article Baha'i Faith and have been cleaning up Criticism of the Baha'i Faith to prepare for that. So it is a bit ridiculous to accuse me of pro-Baha'i POV. As for the Baha'i editors? Denis MacEoin once wrote the following about Peter Smith: "[he] is someone whose work I have often praised for its general freedom from the many biases that, I believe, mar the work of many other Baha'i writers [...] Smith writes with respect for the facts yet in a vein that is, inevitably, openly sympathetic to his subject." That is pretty much the review I give to Cuñado's editing.

Secondly, Wikipedia is not written for any particular group of people such as American Baha'is. It is written for anybody who wants to know about the topic.

Thirdly, WP:NPOV talks about giving due weight to different points of view, it is not talking about mainstream Baha'is, Orthodox Baha'is, Azalis, ex-Baha'is, etc. It is talking about points of view on the topic in reliable sources. And yes, when we decide if a source is reliable, one thing to consider is possible biases, but many other things go into what is reliable. The sources Cuñado is mentioning are not Baha'i sources, so in this case we don't need to worry about a pro-Baha'i bias.

Lastly, the point you are talking about could potentially be included in articles such as Baha'i divisions or Mason Remey or perhaps even History of the Baha'i Faith, but it has nothing to do with the United States and did not take place in the United States. If you would like to discuss including the point at a different article, I am open to being convinced.

Anyway, thank you for contributing to the discussion and to Wikipedia and I hope we can reach consensus soon. To clarify, does Johnson himself say that the Persian hands colluded, or does he say that Remey claimed they did? That could make a difference for whether the point gets included on another page. Cheers, Gazelle55 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55, I think Jammu58 wants to say that our dear Baha'i editors are POV pushing.

I believe that the concept of BADA and termination of guardianship is a minor but important issue and it should be mentioned in more Baha'i articles, but since it is not directly related to the Baha'is of the US, so may be a short mention saying that, "They claimed that the guardianship was terminated as they believed that "God has changed his mind", using an Arabic (and Islamic) word BADA." This sentence can be added just after "In 1957 the Baháʼí world came upon a crisis when Shoghi Effendi passed away without having appointed a successor. The appointed Hands of the Cause organized a way to fill the central leadership until a decision could be made by the Universal House of Justice, which was elected in 1963 and ruled that under the conditions that prevailed, no second Guardian could have been appointed." Serv181920 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Jammu58's comment above makes it clear who is POV pushing. Putting the weight issue aside, your proposed wording is not accurate. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have checked his comment. Btw, what is the inaccuracy, Cuñado?Serv181920 (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Hands of the Cause never claimed that the Guardianship was terminated. They discussed many facets of the situation, including three separate individuals that could potentially be the next Guardian. Their public statements said that no Guardian was appointed and the matter was left for the House of Justice to decide because it was given the authority to decide on issues not covered in Baha'i scripture, like the situation of no eligible appointees. There is a big difference between the ideas that may have been floated during those discussions and the public statements made by their collective decision. Even if some people had the opinion that there couldn't be another Guardian, the decision wasn't announced until 1963 and outside of Remey's memoirs (which are clearly self-serving) nobody used the phrase BADA. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Cuñado. I am interested in reading more about this. Can you guide me to the source for what you have stated?Serv181920 (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Gazelle and Mr. Serv please let me know what is the problem with my proposed wordings, I have used the same wordings which Johnson has used. So, I am POV pushing and inaccurate? This is exactly the problem with Cunado. His comments always, I find are either untrue or sarcastic.
Gazelle your ideas are clear and not mesmerising like others. Sorry I did not accuse you. Every question for clarification need not reach the level of accusation. Well this page is for Baha’is of US i.e. Those Americans who follow the Baha’i Faith and “Secret collusion amongst the Persian Hands” is very much related with Baha’i Faith. This is the need, neither my edit is POV pushing nor WP:UNDUE. If you look with a broader angle you may find that the US supreme court has not considered OBF and BUPC as UNDUE.I leave the matter over here.Jammu58 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, it is no problem, I misunderstood you. I am happy to comment, but first, could you paste the relevant section from Johnson's book here? Since I don't have the book. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55, here is the cut and paste from Johnson's book.

Remey goes on to mention that the Persian hands spent the night together at Bahji, the mansion of Baha’u'llah, and the next morning — November 20, 1957 all the hands met again. Remey continues: Following prayers and some mention of the Guardianship to the effect that no will or testament had been found in the safe or in the desk of Shoghi Effendi [on the previous day], Dr. Muhajir, the youngest of the Persian Hands, sprang to his feet proposing that the Will and Testament of the Master ‘Abdu’l-Baha be pronounced BADAH and that the Guardianship be ended forever and closed forever.

This was immediately seconded and carried enthusiastically and supported by all the Persian Hands, who spoke to the point supporting the putting aside for a thousand years (until the coming of the next Manifestation) the institution of the Guardianship — allowing that the next coming Manifestation might then possibly see fit to reestablish the Guardianship if he thought best in a thousand years from this present date — but as far as this dispensation was concerned that there should be no more Guardianship. A suggestion by Ugo Giachery prompted Remey in the thought that the Persian (or Iranian) hands "had consulted together" during the night hours they spent together at Bahji and "had made this arrangement to pronounce the Guardianship Badah and thus railroad the matter through and carry the day." Since Ruhiyyih Khanum concurred with them, their point was carried by the majority.

See my Edit below:

Remey writes in his Daily observations, In the meeting of the Hands on November 20, 1957, Rehmatullah Muhajir, the Persian Hand, proposed that the Will and Testament of the Master, Abdu'l Baha be pronounced BADA (God changing His plan) and that the Guardianship be ended forever. This was immediately supported by all the Persian Hands who spoke supporting this motion, each repeating practically word by word the same argument.It was suggested by Ugo Giachery that the matter was decided beforehand during night-hours when these Persian hands met at Bahji. Since Ruhiyyih Khanum was with the Persian hands, majority of the hands approved the suggestion.[34][11] Johnson 2020, pp. 10-12.Jammu58 (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thx for sharing, I believe this could be added to Mason Remey, Hands of the Cause, and Baha'i divisions. We could talk about whether it is WP:DUE for History of the Baha'i Faith... I lean towards no unless Johnson endorses the claim himself... at this point it is just something Remey claimed.

I appreciate you suggesting the phrasing above. Let me suggest this revised version to be clearer and more neutral:

"According to Remey in his book Daily Observations, at the meeting of the Hands of the Cause on November 20, 1957, Rehmatullah Muhajir proposed "that the Will and Testament of [...] ‘Abdu’l-Baha be pronounced BADAH [God changing his plan] and that the Guardianship be ended forever." Remey further states that all of the Persian Hands of the Cause immediately supported the proposal (along with Rúhíyyih Khánum), and that Ugo Giachery suggested they had decided this the night before in a meeting at the Mansion of Bahjí."

I don't think this or any version belongs in this article, however. Any part of Baha'i history may be of interest to American Baha'is, but this page is specifically for information about the Baha'i Faith in the United States. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55: Yes I agree it is more neutral version thanks for the efforts you took for resolving this issue. Yes it may not be suited for Baha'is of US. But for Baha'i Faith you may reconsider your opinion. What happened in Bahji is related to the History of Baha'i Faith because:

1-The matter of Guardianship is part of Will and Testament.

2-Moreover Cuñado writes: The Hands of the Cause never claimed that the Guardianship was terminated. They discussed many facets of the situation, including three separate individuals that could potentially be the next Guardian.

This shows Guardianship was integeral part of Baha'i Faith.Jammu58 (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that is on-topic for History of the Baha'i Faith, my concern there would be about WP:DUE. Do reliable sources on the history of the Baha'i Faith discuss that event at all? This would be the key question. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jammu58, Serv181920, and Cuñado, I have added the text on the alleged meeting at Bahji to Mason Remey (using my wording). I am not really able to judge accuracy or due weight, so if there are any issues you can discuss it on the talk page there. We have consensus on not adding the material to this page. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Slow in growth

Serv181920, my revision of your addition by McGlinn that you reverted was a major improvement. You have had the tendency to cherry pick negative views and quote the original sources at length. That is not good editing. First of all, McGlinn's words are a response to Momen's article, and not part of the journal's mainspace, making it not an ideal source. McGlinn mentions that the decline in new enrollments was "analogous to the general growth in unchurched religion", which I supported with the recent Pew data to put in context. A long quote of the source is bad writing. It should be summarized and written in a neutral way, the way a sociologist would write, not selectively quoting for the worst possible angle. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There's also more than a bit of speculation since both were suggesting studies should be done.Smkolins (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, I agree about summarizing sources not putting long quotes (as per WP:QUOTEFARM). However, I am not so sure about the Pew poll you have added. I don't think it is misleading, but nonetheless this seems like WP:OR to introduce a source that doesn't mention the article topic – am I missing something here? Gazelle55 (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

My inclination was to delete McGlinn's comments since he speculatively suggests a reason for a decline in Baha'i enrollment numbers in the US, but you have seen how well it goes deleting poorly sourced long quotes that Serv181920 cherry picks for negative views. McGlinn also comments that it was "analogous to the general growth in unchurched religion" so it seems appropriate to provide a reference to the trend and put it in that context, and the numbers he gives for declining enrollment are interesting. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado. I have stated numerous times that my only motive is to balance the POVs and I try to use good academic sources. This source should be acceptable and the so-called "cherry pick"ing of "negative views" is according to the policies of wikipedia. You are free to write official Baha'i views from good sources - clarify those "negative views". Baha'i faith have certain issues and if those issues are produced with good sources then the intellectual honesty demands that you accept it. Pushing only "Positive views" and censoring "negative views" is not good. You have yourself produced a long quote of "Abdul Fareed" at "Baha'i Faith in Pakistan" article but you want to censor this quote from Sen McGlinn whom you believe a good source and you have yourself admitted in the past that you consider him reliable and cite his blog entries sometimes on wikipedia.Serv181920 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis. You picked one scholar out of a group who greatly disagree on most things and I summarized what little might be said of of a common pov however limited and in the context of wider issues. It doesn't deserve an extended quote. Smkolins (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, is there a policy that says you can include a source that doesn't mention the topic for context? (Genuine question, not a rhetorical one.) If not, wouldn't it be better just to cite McGlinn for the context along with his point? I also don't think the way you compared the two is accurate, because McGlinn specifically says "It appears analogous to the general growth in unchurched religion, but it is more rapid by far." Gazelle55 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, this was my attempt to incorporate it rather than delete it. I kept the data without the opinion (which I still think should disappear, correlation is not causation). A decline in enrollments is an interesting topic and if someone actually published on it they would no doubt detail the trend of religion in America. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm don't really follow. McGlinn DID actually publish on the topic and he DID mention the overall trend, so why not cite him? And I have added the opinion again with an adjustment to make sure we are following WP:RSOPINION, see my long edit summary. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and I'll leave it alone. I meant publish a paper about the slowdown in growth. The current reference seems like a side note in an emotional response to Momen's article (also not sure if the response counts as "published"). If someone actually did research, that would be interesting. It would be useful to have a graph of enrollments/withdrawals every year for 30 years, and another with percent change each year, then have some data on narratives. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Why there is no mention of latest government census?

I see to mention of Baha'i figures from census.gov? Is there a reason for excluding figures from this source? Serv181920 (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that religion in general has long not been a point of analysis by the US government. I think they last did it in the 1930s? Smkolins (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There is this PDF file on census.gov website "https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s0075.pdf", surprisingly it does't even mentions the Baha'i faith. What could be the reason?Serv181920 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That's burrowed from another source and note that it reports results in thousands and left "uncategorized" a group as large as 800,000 or so and on a scale of 4 million and up refused to say. Interviews between 50 and 100 thousand people could pick up maybe 25 and 50 Baha'is and easily end up uncategorized. I'm having difficulty in their website finding anything detailed to break down what was in uncategorized. Smkolins (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I found the 2008 report archived noting "The long list of religious classifications supplied by ARIS respondents’ calls for a shorter, more manageable list for most analytical purposes. Therefore, for Table 3 the ARIS respondents have been collated into the following 13 religious groupings of varying sizes:" and placed Baha'i under "Eastern Religions" (note btw _not_ New Religious Movements) and in that category left 400000 to about 1.7 million uncategorized after separating out Buddhist. Smkolins (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The US census does not collect data on religion. The last religious census that I know of was ARIS in 2001. They cold-called 732,000 random phone numbers to get 50,000 survey results. I doubt that is even possible to replicate now. The NSRI of 1990 noted: "the range of miscount for small groups of 200,000 or fewer adherents could be proportionately very large. Quite possibly, the NSRI underestimated many small groups and overinflated others." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Search this without quotes "census.gov Table 75. Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Population". You will find an XLS file. This file also fails to mention the World Baha'i faith. Serv181920 (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/population.html

It seems there are very few Baha'is in the United States.Serv181920 (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it easier to find where the term *is* used? U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, p58: "Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Population: 1990 and 2001" which has 28000 in 1990 and 84000 in 2001. Want to describe that rate of growth? Smkolins (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I also found this interesting document - https://sites.tufts.edu/gis/files/2014/11/Kolodner_Alex.pdf

Gazelle55, do you think we can add something from this?

Among other things, it also states:

The maps detail the physical location of the Baha'is across America by County and by State. When comparing the data from 2000 and 2010 regarding Baha’i population and percentage of population, I unexpectedly found some communities to be declining even though national Baha’i totals are growing. There are several possible reasons for this, not all of which indicate a shrinking community. However, reaching the exact cause would require input from the National Baha’i Office—an impossibility at this time.

The results also indicate that the Baha'is tend to be located in Counties that have a higher percentage of Black populations in Illinois and South Carolina. Similarly, Baha’is in South Dakota live in areas with a high percentage Native American population in the Southern Counties.

Serv181920 (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That source is also used in the South Carolina article. I will say it is based on the 2010 World Christian Encyclopedia source. I'm kind of hoping to see what what when a 2020 version is created somewhere. Smkolins (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Smkolins, in response to this statement "which has 28000 in 1990 and 84000 in 2001. Want to describe that rate of growth?" I take the opportunity to produce this image, I don't know if this is true or fake. I leave it to your good conscience.Serv181920 (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting - looks like something amidst a lot of noice in the data to me. Worth including? and Also note that map you suggest shows the vast majority of the counties of the nation have around 11 to 900 per 100,000 of the population as Baha'is save in the great plaines and south. It would almost be OR but I could suggest racism being a retarding force on the growth of the religion? Got a phd somewhere… Smkolins (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't work in a library and I am not as educated as you. :) Serv181920 (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

1. The fact that a source doesn't mention Baha'is doesn't necessarily imply there are few Baha'is. That would be WP:OR.
2. As for ARIS 2008, as Smkolins said, Baha'is got grouped with "Eastern religions" in the summary report. I looked through about 15 sources but couldn't find a full report. The blog post Serv181920 shared may be right but we would need a better source.
3. The Alex Kolodner document is just something they posted on their university website, not something with a proper publication procedure. We could use it as WP:SPS if Alex Kolodner has a record of publishing on the topic in reliable sources.
4. As other editors said, the US census doesn't collect religion data, see here.
5. Congrats Smkolins on your PhD! Gazelle55 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The point of quoting the NSRI was to say that groups under 200,000 are too small to use their survey method. The sample size would have to be much larger to reduce the margin of error comparable to the size of the group. That's why Baha'is don't appear on Pew surveys and probably why Baha'is were grouped into "Eastern Religions" for the 2008 survey. The phone surveys are also affected by certain biases like how much of the surveyed group does not speak English, for example, if a lot of Baha'is recently immigrated from Iran. Each of the 54,000 respondents in 2008 that answered "Baha'i added" 5,581 to the number of estimated Baha'is. I'm not sure how to calculate the margin of error, but I'm sure it's plus or minus tens of thousands. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado I agree. Gazelle55 (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

intranational goals to be integrated with the international goals.

Cuñado, Gazelle55, and others, I have a draft section at [1] I'd welcome some input on how to integrated into the existing section, approximately, at Baháʼí_Faith_in_the_United_States#Later_developments. It may even be possible to make a table if wanted though it would be substantial in size - but is key to the large scale stable growth of the religion in each of the states, so perhaps some space should be spent on that (perhaps presaged by the goals of the First Seven Year Plan. It seems to me those two achievement are keystone moments in the history of the religion in the US. Smkolins (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I recommend breaking out a new article, 'History of the Baha'i Faith in the United States'. There are enough sources that focus on the early Baha'is of America at length (Stockman, Garlington, McMullen) that the article is easily notable. Maybe the name could be "America" instead of the United States, since most early coverage included Canada until the NSAs were split at some point. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The material looks relevant and I don't have a strong opinion about how it should be integrated so I say go ahead. That said, since the article is quite long already, I do like Cuñado's idea of splitting off a history article and leaving only a summary in this one. Certain countries (the United States, Iran, maybe India) have enough written about them that sub-articles wouldn't be unreasonable. This is a bit of a tangent but I was similarly thinking an article for "Persecution of Baha'is in Iran" might be good so that the "Persecution of Baha'is" could discuss other countries more... since unfortunately it seems Baha'is have been persecuted in a lot of countries. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on all points - just that developing secondary articles is a much bigger task: splitting things up, summarizing, adding missing content. I am presently working on documenting more information about these Ten Year Crusade developments (which saw a near doubling of assemblies) and more can be done about the impact of the First Seven Year Plan (which included goals of at least one assembly in each state and province.) I'm wondering about a general history article on America (US+Canada) and even having that be split up, say around:

• Early period of the Baha'i Faith in America (sections on up to 1910, 1911 - 1921, 1922 - 1948 ends with Canada splitting off)
• Middle times in the US (sections 1949 - 1952, 1953 - 1968, 1969 - 1975, 1976 - 1986, 1986 - 2006) (and a separate article on the rest of the history in Canada up to the present)
• Recent times in the US (2006 - Present)

or something. I'll see if I can develop a base bibliography in the three periods and see how things develop. Things that pop to mind with a bit of looking around…(not in any very particular order):

• Stockman's Baha'i Faith in America v1&2
• Hollinger's Community Histories, Whitehead's Some Baha'is… 3 v's
• Hogensen's Lighting the Western Sky, 2 volumes on the Maxwells, of course Hoonaard's The Origins of the Baha'i Community of Canada, 1898 - 1948

[and biographies of many individuals could be referenced briefly (Moe's Aflame with Devotion, Morrison's To Move the World, and Stockman's Chase biography, lots more… linking out to article biographies as they exist or should be developed)

• Hampson's The growth and spread of the Baha'i Faith PhD
• McMullen's two books Religious Construction of a Global Identity and The Baha'is of America - The growth of a religious movement
• Bramson's Baha'i Faith and African American History, The Story of the Black Men's Gathering by Landry, McMurray & Thomas, Lights of the Spirit by Etter-Lewis and Thomas, Anchor of Faith by Landry and Thomas
• I'm sure there are more…. Various chapter/articles amidst many other publications. But I'm still worried there's uneven depth of information broadly towards the early period even though later times have tremendous import, like the impact of the Ten Year Crusade inside the US. Anyway, you can see a breadth of difference between all that and just wanting a section addition i was proposing. lol Smkolins (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, as you show covering the available sources on history would be a huge task. So for now I think that's great to just add to the existing article. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ok, I've incorporated what I was thinking could fit in the article. Someday I hope the tables I've generated in the draft page could work as part of some sub-article somewhere.Smkolins (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear I *do* think someday there should be a break out set of articles on the religion in the US. I'm just not ready to make that a focus of months of work at present. But I'll be doodling on draft pages… :-) Smkolins (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)