Talk:Baháʼí World Centre

Accord with the state of Israel

There is no reason why reference to the accord with the state of Israel should be deleted, as has been done so under the pretense that it is "nonsense" and "started with the conspiracy theory of a secret accord." The reference in this article for the accord is none other than a letter from the Universal House of Justice detailing the contents of the accord and the historical background that led to its signing. If there is any "conspiracy" here, it is that Bahá'í editors on Wikipedia wish to remove any reference to it. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as especially relevant on the main page. Are we going to inventory legal agreements Baha'is act under in every country? Yes the Baha'i Center is there but I don't see any evidence it is a distinctive relationship between Baha'is and Israel and Israel and any religion that is officially recognized. Is there? You've already put it on what used to be the conspiracy theory article about the Faith. Smkolins (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

And why keep pointing out who is a Baha'i? You attribute motive where the rules of wikipedia suggest remembering good faith.Smkolins (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

1) The relations of the Baha'i communities to the various governments in the countries where they are found are, in fact, often included in the various country-specific entries. There is no reason to not include it for the relation of the Bahá'í World Centre to the government of Israel.

BY that logic the right place for this is Religion in Israel- Bahá'í, not here. The Bahá'í World Center predates the Israeli government.Smkolins (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

2) As far as I know, there is no "conspiracy theory article about the Faith." There is a Political objections to the Baha'i Faith article with a section entitled Bahá'í ties to Zionism.

Such is the progress of things. Please see [1].

3) I am glad you remember good faith, Mr. Kolins. I wish you would remember it more often, both in the context of reference to this agreement with the Israeli government as well as in the context of your interaction with me and other editors in general. So I take it you are going to stop highlighting the religion of people you discuss with?Smkolins (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, A35821361 (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@A35821361: I couldn't have written it better... on Jesus birthday! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.96 (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

1) There does not appear to be an article title "Bahá'í Faith in Israel" but I agree with you that an entry regarding the accord between the Bahá'í World Centre and the government of Israel would be equally topical for articles dealing with the Bahá'í Faith in Israel as it is topical for the article titled "Bahá'í World Centre"

2) Again, highlighting the roots of political objections to the Baha'i Faith is not merely conspiratorial musings, although you and certain other editors seem eager to want to dismiss them as such. There are valid reasons why the Bahá'í Faith has been criticized for its ties to Russian and British interests, not to mention political movements like the Young Turks and Zionism.

3) Finally, I am an American, not Persian, and do not speak Farsi. However, from my time with the Bahá'ís I picked up certain Farsi sayings. One being, "Man farsi balad nistam." Another one being, "Man cha guyam, tamburam cha zanad."

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Since there is no secret accord, and no conspiracy, I've gone ahead and integrated the information into the historical development in the article. Glad we're all on the same page, even though we have to rely on a primary source for the entry.Smkolins (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia as a Forum as you did here about Conspiracy theories against Baha'is as it is not permitted.47.17.27.96 (talk)

There wasn't ANY talk of conspiracy or "secret accord" then. Yet these same editors were talking non-sense:

"I very much doubt the document concerned exists, and, further, I suspect you know very well it doesn't exist"

LoL

The "secrecy" talk comes only from the fact these long standing editors (whoever they really are) can not get a copy for themselves apparently (the document is secret for them ONLY. That was and is the REAL question. The document's source was clearly given then (2 years ago on Wikipedia Baha'i talk page.).

We have come a long way with these editors it seems. Real Baha'is are truthful and honest. These editors are not Baha'is it seems. 47.17.27.96 (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

See? Here we go ahead with hints of hidden agendas "cult leaders" this ammounts to. The objection was to any secret plans. Turns out they weren't secret at all. No secret plans exist. I'm glad it was found and thank you A3… for finding it. Alas it didn't fit your agenda of a secret plan of cult leaders. Surprise - it was world wide news back in the day. Now it's relevance in the developing management of relations is clearer and progressing. Smkolins (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody "sees" anything but you and other cultists may be. I see FACTS and CHRONOLOGY as per above (2 words completely MISSING in your conception of reality, obviously) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.96 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Persisting in discussing who is a Baha'i or not is really very strange, and you keep linking to characterizations that try to be insulting to our efforts as responsible editors in wikipedia. And if you look at my comments then you'll see I saw indirect and fragmentary reference to such an agreement and that the sources didn't make much of it so there wasn't any substantial concern to mention it. A source more completely discussing it was found albiet a primary source. It does extend some details so I can see including it as has been done. And that editor was speculating not only on what it is but what it would someday be, claimed to have it, and wouldn't post it exasperating the whole sense of secrecy and hidden agendas. None of which improved the article or our interaction. Smkolins (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

OK Smokelinks :) PEACE. (Please remember: Even when you win on the Internet you are still a retarded) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.96 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, you Smkolins and other editors of these Baha'i articles have done a good job of re-production Baha'i material on WP. However this is not what WP is intended for. These set of article could have been something much more interesting and broad for readers but this is only (more or less) a front for Baha'i PR. This is an encyclopedia and we must use a variety of perspective and sources (or lack of) to paint an honest all round perspective on this faith/cult. This is the same for all religious articles. Overall you get "B" with me-us. I am amazed WP (as a community) let you get away with that. Read the article about Jesus Himself to see what we mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.96 (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Understanding conflicts at religious-tourism sites

this actually looks like an interesting article and could have something to add. I think the way it was added [2] was more WP:cherrypicking than WP:fringe theory. Selectively taking the quotes of interviewees talking about aggression did not reflect the opinions of the authors and was a deceptive attempt to add criticism, but the study of tensions with a growing place of pilgrimage and the local community could be worked into the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Instead of removing it, add it in a proper way. It is not some "fringe theory", it is published by a reputed journal and above the quote, it was clearly mentioned that Israeli researchers conducted interviews and they found...Serv181920 (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

In general, adding a section called "criticism" and taking selectively negative quotes is not good practice. It doesn't make a good article. Adding the article about tourism should include the main points in appropriate sections of the WP article. Maybe a new section called "Tensions with expansion" or "Expanding into Haifa". I've been wanting to make a summary of the article but the authors were not good writers and it will take some work to summarize correctly. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not the "only" negative quote in that paper. It has much more on that lines. There are some positive points as well, which I / you can add in the future.Serv181920 (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Consolidation of pages

There seems to have been a proliferation of pages related to the Baha'i World Centre. For example

• Baháʼí World Centre
• Baháʼí World Centre buildings
• Arc (Baháʼí)
• Baháʼí gardens
• Monument Gardens (Baháʼí World Centre)
• Terraces (Baháʼí)
• Pilgrim House
• Mansion of Bahjí
• Shrine of Baháʼu'lláh
• Shrine of the Báb

And maybe more out there I didn't catch.

I suggest consolidating into a few articles. The two main should be Baha'i World Centre for the administrative institutions (as a fork from Baha'i Administration), and Baháʼí World Centre buildings for the structures, terraces, arc, pilgrim house, and gardens (yes I know they're not buildings, but Baháʼí World Centre physical spaces just doesn't sound as good). I think Mansion of Bahji and the shrines could stay as stand-alone articles. Merge as necessary. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

article	Daily Average all pageviews	spikes above 300 since 2015
*Baháʼí World Centre[3]	80	4
*Baháʼí World Centre buildings[4]	42	0
*Arc (Baháʼí)[5]	11	0
*Baháʼí gardens[6]	84	2
*Monument Gardens (Baháʼí World Centre)[7]	2	0
*Terraces (Baháʼí)[8]	61	2
*Pilgrim House[9]	3	0
*Mansion of Bahjí[10]	15	0
*Shrine of Baháʼu'lláh[11]	38	0
*Shrine of the Báb[12]	85	0

From which I see top article traffic for Shrine of the Bab, Baha'i Gardens, Baha'i World Centre, and Terraces (Baha'i), followed by BWC buildings, Shrine of Baha'u'llah, and the least traffic articles being Bahji, Arc, Pilgrim House and Monument Gardens. But I see thematic alignments that outweight mere traffic considerations: even though Baha'i Gardens and Terraces area each individually ranked high they seem a very natural merger. Baha'i World Centre may serve as a top article from which all the rest split, if they split. The ones that don't split off - around the mid-range traffic articles and down (details as to which ones exactly,) - just stay in the Baha'i World Centre article. There may also be some sense of Shrine of the Bab being a cluster with Terraces and Gardens. Yeah? Smkolins (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the view counts. Here's what I propose, along with number of pages in Adamson and Smith's encyclopedias, respectively:

Arc (Baháʼí) (1.5, 1.5) merge to Baháʼí World Centre (1.5, 1.5)

Baháʼí gardens (x,x) merge to Terraces (Baháʼí) (1, <0.5 part of 'Shrine of the Bab')

Pilgrim House (x,x) and Monument Gardens (Baháʼí World Centre) (<0.5, x) merge to Baháʼí World Centre buildings

Mansion of Bahjí (0.5,2) merge to Shrine of Baháʼu'lláh (0.5, redirect to Bahji)

I'll add tags on the articles for a week or two. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Just want to add my general support for this, it's about time that we consolidated a few of these articles. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 04:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Support – Quality over quantity and the topics are closely related. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

These merges are all complete. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Cherry picking for negative views

Regarding this removal. The article itself had 29 interviews by asking people for criticism and then asking them for more names to interview. In other words, they sought out complaints, not taking a sample of the population as a whole. Their methodology itself is cherry picking for criticism. Then the addition by Serv181920 took individual quotations from among them to find the worst possible wording, and originally only provided those negative views. That was a clear violation of NPOV. I fixed it by actually reading the article and trying to use the author's own summaries of what the issues were, but Serv181920 restored the original addition, which takes two quotes from non-notable individuals instead of the authors' summary.

Also, the criticism he is trying to add is already in the article: The interviews suggested that the expansion created conflicts with some locals who perceived the construction as "misleading and/or overly aggressive and exerting undue power and political influence over decision-makers... Disputes emerged not around values but primarily around questions of physical planning and local nuisances."

See WP:CHERRY: "Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject (positive and negative), a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. As such, fact picking is a breach of neutral point of view by a failure to assign due weight to viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

If you want to keep edit warring, this will turn into an RFC and you will lose. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am not cherry picking, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." WP:NPOV

What you are doing is removing anything that is critical of your religion OR changing it in such a way that all the criticism is gone. That's not fair.Serv181920 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

What you quoted supports my argument. You did not present the sources fairly and cherry picked the most critical way to present the information. You did not use the authors' summary of their research, but took quotes from an interviewee that was the most extreme among them and left it at that. Your version was dishonest, and I fixed it by including both positive and negative views that appeared in the same article. My version included the criticism that you were trying to push. If you perceive an honest summary of the source as "not fair", then blogging might be a better venue for you. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Like most of your edits, this edit also has a pro-Baha'i bias. Be fair and honest. You think this approach of removing critical things is going to help the Baha'i Faith? And what do you mean by this statement? "then blogging might be a better venue for you."Serv181920 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think your view of what is "fair and honest" is wildly different from me. You have consistently, over many pages, done nothing but promote negative views of the Baha'i Faith. You are familiar with every argument proposed by a few anti-Baha'i bloggers and every edit is directly or indirectly promoting those views. There is nothing wrong with that if you're following policies. The back and forth of proponents and opponents has somehow spewed out some pretty good content on all kinds of pages on Wikipedia. I think this case is pretty straightforward. You brought in a reliable source and cherry picked the excerpts that made the Baha'is look bad. But the way you wrote the material did not reflect the article accurately. I tried to make an accurate summary that included all the main points and some interesting excerpts, with both positive and negative views of Baha'is with roughly the weight they appear in the article. I also made it more clear that it was a survey of 29 individuals, not a representation of the city. I could have used the same method as you to only cite the positive views in the article, but that would not be "fair and honest". Again, intro to WP:NPOV: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. What did I include or exclude that was not fair, proportionate, or representing the significant views in the article? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Just want to say I see a well reasoned thought out approach to the policies that help make articles better here in Cuñado's approach.Smkolins (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)