Talk:Baháʼí teachings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compare[edit]

I think that someone should create a section for the similarities and differences between this religion and others. For example, I would be happy to help and add the similarities and differences of Bahai and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints along with other christian philosophy if I knew how. Does anyone think there is a need for this? I would find this interesting and it would also make for a better streamline of the religion topics. [unsigned by 67.131.7.194]

If you feel inspired to put in a bunch of work doing it, go right ahead. Cuñado - Talk 21:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is certainly a valid thing to do from an academic or "encyclopedia format" point-of-view. Please know that I encourage you to undertake such a task if you are up to the challenge. Just be aware while you are doing it that Baha'u'llah says: "O contending peoples and kindreds of the earth! Set your faces towards unity, and let the radiance of its light shine upon you. Gather ye together, and for the sake of God resolve to root out whatever is the source of contention amongst you...Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you" (Gleanings, p. 217). Best of luck. Nmentha 12:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New page layout[edit]

I have a proposal for changing the layout. I started an example on my sandbox. It still needs some expansion and cutting. This would also involve redirecting Three onenesses and Progressive revelation to Bahá'í teachings. I imagine an overall layout where articles branch off from the main article according to theme. Currently the pages on teachings aren't well organized and seem sporadic and sometimes repetitive. I imagine a flow like this:

Bahá'í Faith

Please comment here on this proposal: User:Cunado19/sandbox as a replacement for the current page layout. Cuñado - Talk 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new page is a definite improvement, but I would not remove the other pages. The page would get way too long. We should use the summary style. Keep the other pages as is (we should improve them as well), and include a summary of one or two paragraphs in summary of that teaching on this page. -- Jeff3000 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that Three onenesses should redirect here. Considering that two of the 'onenesses' have their own pages, it would fit better to create a new page for the third, and leave the summaries to the teachings page. Maybe create a new page on the Bahá'í concept of God, following the example of Islamic concept of God, Conceptions of God, Abrahamic conceptions of God, God in Sikhism, God in Buddhism, and Conceptions of God in Hinduism.
Another reason is that 'three onenesses' is not a very good term. I think it was coined by teachers, and not part of the writings. A search in Ocean came up with zero hits for "three onenesses". Cuñado - Talk 05:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of creating a page about the Bahá'í concept of God, but I don't think that Three onenesses should be redirected to this page. While the term is not found in Ocean, it is found in many books about the Baha'i Faith, even Peter Smith's book. -- Jeff3000 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have never liked the expression "three onenesses". I hate it actually. It makes no appearance in the foundational texts. It appears to be, possibly, North American Bahá'í jargon. Asserting that it's a "core" Bahá'í belief is actually made by somebody who isn't a Bahá'í. (See footnote 1 in that article.)

There are all sorts of "core" beliefs". Two, that seem to me, far more fundamental are these:

3. O SON OF MAN!
Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.
(Bahá'u'lláh, The Arabic Hidden Words)
Having created the world and all that liveth and moveth therein, He, through the direct operation of His unconstrained and sovereign Will, chose to confer upon man the unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him -- a capacity that must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary purpose underlying the whole of creation....
(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 65)

Those go directly to the fundamental purpose of Creation and Religion. The "three onenesses" make statements about the nature of the Creator, Creation and Religion. As my vision of God is that He's an active participant with these, statements about His purpose seem more fundamental than about His nature. All philosophical nonsense really, because if you don't have a grasp of both His nature and His purpose, neither has real meaning. That's why I've never like elevating these particular beliefs.

I know people, Jeff3000 in particular, have spent a great deal of time on that article. Its components are all good and would make contributions is folded into this article. On the other hand, I've never been comfortable with holding up the "three onenesses" as some over-arching, or short-hand, set of beliefs when the Central Figures didn't do this. MARussellPESE 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page being too long. Not a consideration. Some subjects are of interests to a few. Headings at the top of the page are important pointers. What changes are made the need to have diversity is important and the longer the page the better is what I encourage. RoddyYoung 20:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a changing in format suggested above will be more inclusive (ref this link above) so that greater scope for the reader can be developed and let adaption to many fast changes in monitoring, indicating and reporting of take place. Of note are considerations that must widen the perspective. Take for example how Baha'i law, say on marriage, will impact on environmental factors, say global warming factors, in future (next 500,000 years). A broader format is needed. Good work in the sandbox. RoddyYoung 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely with Russell on the 'Three Onenesses' bit. I've never been a fan of that mental framework. That is, not since I ever heard of it, which was long after I absorbed the teachings they mean to structure. I would much prefer adding mnemonics such as this and 'Progressive Revelation' as more like footnotes to acquaint the reader with Baha'i nomenclature than as organizational tools. (Many Baha'is refer to this as...) -LambaJan 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've already updated the page, so the sandbox is irrelevant now. I held back on redirecting the two pages. Currently, the content of three onenesses is entirely on this teachings page, and given that three people support redirecting, one opposes, and one added a completely irrelevant link to YouTube, I'm going to redirect and fix the inter-wiki links on other pages. None of the content is lost in the change, since it's only an organization of links. I also started a page on the Bahá'í concept of God, which was just copied and needs work. Cuñado - Talk 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical Teachings[edit]

I have worked a bit on the Mystical Teachings section, tried to clarify some points on the nature of heaven, hell, and reincarnation in the baha'i faith as well as providing an explanation for the nature of angels in the faith. I would be much obliged if anyone would be willing to read over the section and catch any mistakes I made, whether factual or use-of-wikipedia wise. I am new to the faith and to wikipedia editing. Allah'u'abha. Aeroplane 08:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions.
An item of critical import to editing here is to meticulously cite one's sources. Unfortunately, your edits don't quite do that. The statement on bodhisattvas has no source, and is incorrect in my opinion. The passage from the Iqan doesn't say what you've stated it does. The Abrahamic religions' vision of "angels", and the Buddhist as well, is that these are entities that stand apart in the creation — neither human, nor manifestations of the divine, but some intermediary. This is not what the few references to angels says in the Baha'i Writings. If one reads on in the Iqan one finds this which reiterates the full statement in the passage you quote:
"And now, inasmuch as these holy beings have sanctified themselves from every human limitation, have become endowed with the attributes of the spiritual, and have been adorned with the noble traits of the blessed, they therefore have been designated as "angels." Such is the meaning of these verses, every word of which hath been expounded by the aid of the most lucid texts, the most convincing arguments, and the best established evidences."
{Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 79-80)
One also finds these elsewhere:
"As to His saying: "And will send His angels, etc.": These "angels" are souls who through spiritual power have burned human qualities by the fire of divine love and become characterized with the attributes of the exalted ones and cherubim."
(Compilations, Baha'i Scriptures, p. 25)
"Ye are the angels, if your feet be firm, your spirits rejoiced, your secret thoughts pure, your eyes consoled, your ears opened, your breasts dilated with joy, and your souls gladdened, and if you arise to assist the Covenant, to resist dissension and to be attracted to the Effulgence!"
(`Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - `Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 360)
"Angels are also those holy souls who have severed attachment to the earthly world, who are free from the fetters of self and passion and who have attached their hearts to the divine realm and the merciful kingdom. They are of the kingdom, heavenly; they are of the merciful One, divine. They are the manifestations of the divine grace and the dawns of spiritual bounty."
(`Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - `Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 409)
So, "angel" is a fair description of very advanced human souls.
Also, reincarnation is rejected in every sense, not just "traditional" ones. `Abdul-Baha treats this at length in Some Answered Questions.
MARussellPESE 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank, you, and I apologize for the bodhisattvas comment, I realize it was not a great one, and I was looking for some parallel, a bodhisattva is a very advanced human soul. However the differences outweigh the similarities, though the idea of bodhisattvas may have found it's origin in the Buddha's original teachings on angels now that I think about it. You have better explained the concept.
However, I do not agree on the issue of reincarnation. I have read 'Adbul-Baha's explanation of this concept, and understand it I believe, however I do not think it is wrong to draw a parallel between the Baha'i belief in advancement through worlds and reincarnation, in fact the Buddhist idea of reincarnation, though different encompasses the idea of advancement through spiritual worlds, Deva's reside on a different spiritual plane, the difference in the concepts however is that Baha'u'llah teaches that it is our very person, not just some abstract spirit that is removed from our persona that advances. I think. We Baha'i believe in continuous life through progressive stages, but continual rather than ending and beginning again in another form; as the article states, but from the point of an outsider, the difference is minimal, and the similarity serves to make the concept more understandable. Perhaps an explanation of the Baha'i concept of the soul/spirit is in order, though I do not believe I am up to that.
I may be misunderstanding the purpose however, in trying to draw parallels. And i suppose relying on parallels gives the impression of a syncreic religion, and that is hard to explain the fallacy of; independent explanation may serve better in avoiding this point. I wonder though, if you could help me understand how I cited incorrectly, I thought I had not. Aeroplane 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using primary materials to advance an argument, in this case that two notions are similar is original work and is not allowed in Wikipedia. You must instead find reliable secondary sources that advance that argument; and also the positions must also abide by undue weight that points of view that are held by a small minority do not have place in Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was going about this incorrectly. Sorry and thanks, I will try to hold to those in future editing. Thanks. 71.209.28.112 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current writeup is very misleading, IMHO.
From God Passes By: (the Day whereon “thy Lord shall come and the angels rank on rank,” and “The Spirit shall arise and the angels shall be ranged in order.”) and (the Dove and the Angel Gabriel respectively, descended upon, and revealed itself, personated by a “Maiden,” to the agonized soul of Bahá’u’lláh).
Are we to believe in the terms of the first quote that all 'angels' took bodily form with Baha'u'llah and in terms of the second quote that whoever 'appeared 'was one of those. Of course, 'human' may very well (and does) mean that part of Creation which can advance and has done so for ages without end? Yet, we're talking time-frames that go beyond any modern view of 'human' (which then puts limits on what we can think about angels - granted, what we say is not of consequence to their reality anyway).
Right above the Iqan quote used, you will find this: (By “angels” is meant those who, reinforced by the power of the spirit, have 79 consumed, with the fire of the love of God, all human traits and limitations, and have clothed themselves with the attributes of the most exalted Beings and of the Cherubim.)
Is not Cherubim used in the lineage of Abraham?
From the Gleanings: (the Day in which men and angels have been gathered together)
From the Tables of Abdul-Baha:(As to what thou hast seen in the dream, concerning the letter which reached thee from me, and angels were enclosed in it and they surrounded thee: Know thou verily, that letter is this glorious writing whereby I address thee; and, verily, this is full of angels of confirmation from the Kingdom of God and they will assist thee to serve the Cause of God in the vineyard of God.)
There are many, many more. I did not know that we could categorically say how the Baha'i belief is different than Islamic (in so far as we use the Koran and not traditions; we were told to become very familiar with Islamic teachings) at this point.
So, there is a lot that we need to learn in this regard. For short, angels are, have power, and help us. jmswtlk (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The write up could point to this page, Who are the Prophets? (Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá taught that there are no levels of being other than the three discussed above: human beings, the Manifestations, and God. There is no hierarchy of demons, angels, and archangels. Insofar as these terms have any significant meaning, they are seen as symbolic of varying stages of human development, imperfection being demonic and spirituality being angelic.). Of course, 'human beings' has a much broader connotation than that found on the Bahá'í_Faith_and_Science section about Evolution, and, we have really not much idea about what might be involved (is this an issue that 'science' ought to concern itself with?). 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMSwtlk (talk • contribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bahá'í teachings. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for the Universal House of Justice[edit]

Asad29591, I have engaged with you repeatedly on many pages over many months, and you have consistently shown a disregard for policy and an inability to contribute outside of an extremely narrow POV that represents a tiny minority. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of sources describing the Universal House of Justice as the governing body of Baha'is. A few million Baha'is follow it, and a few dozen people dispute its legitimacy. You have consistently failed to consider WP:UNDUE, which states, among other things: "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." It is meaningless to add a reference to the statement about the Univesal House of Justice and it causes WP:OVERCITE to require citations for every such obvious statement. From the point of view of Wikipedia, it is not disputed by a significant minority, and it doesn't need to be cited in every case. Now will you accept the obvious application of policies and guidelines? My experience says no, and I don't feel the need to explain reverts after months of doing so to no effect. Feel free to escalate. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cuñado I don't find it wise to respond to multiple personal attacks that you have tried doing on me just because even after being a Baha'i I do not share the same belief as yours. My point is very simple per Wiki Policy if something is mentioned which is disputed it has to be cited. The Will and Testament of Master itself is a proof of falsehood which you are trying to propagate. The highest governing body is Guardian and not UHJ. I understand your ego doesn't allow you to follow the wiki policy so let us do one thing. Let us both come on a consent and close this by not putting any citation but mentioning that per the mainstream Baha'i belief the highest governing body is UHJ however other sects differ from this point of view.--Asad29591 (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Baháʼí Faith and slavery be merged into this page (Baháʼí teachings). There are not enough reliable, independent sources to justify a separate article on slavery. Of the ones in the article right now, I believe only Cole's is reliable and independent (and it is self-published, so as per WP:SPS it is not ideal). Peter Smith's books may have something too, but even still that is at most two. Currently the article is heavily based on non-independent sources, which makes it impossible to verify its neutrality, and some of the material is clearly WP:SYNTH. Baha'i views on slavery are part of the Baha'i teachings, so there is no issue with the content being out-of-scope. In fact, it should be mentioned at least briefly regardless of what happens with the merger.

@Serv181920, Smkolins, Cuñado, Tarikhejtemai, and A35821361:, let me know if you have any objections/comments. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • as sources for a stand alone article I agree. I think the content could be trimmed but still largely incorporated with the context of the whole article and relative weight. I think the bahaiteachings.org articles by Dr. (PhD) Buck are usable sources if not independent and speak to some telling points. Smkolins (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for tagging me, I think it would be better to merge the article with Baha'i laws as the prohibition comes from Kitab-i-Aqdas directly. Also in my opinion we do not need the examples subsection. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, Baha'i laws would be a better destination. And I agree, the examples sub-section could go; it doesn't have any high-quality sources. Regarding Christopher Buck, good point, I see he has been published by Routledge, SUNY Press, and other good academic sources on the topic, so I think we could include his views from BahaiTeachings.org if they are attributed in-text. Cole's SPS could provide a counterpoint for that. As regards a stand-alone article, though, it just doesn't look like we would have enough sources. We have two sentences from Smith, then could have some interpretation from Buck and Cole attributed in-text. That's it. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources [note plural] that are independent of the subject," whereas this topic hasn't received that kind of coverage. Of course, if I have missed some good sources, please do let me know. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the stand-alone article (after I revised it), but it could be merged into Laws as Smkolins mentioned, trimmed with relative weight. I don't think we should set a precedent of using bahaiteachings.org. It has a very low standard for inclusion, similar to the Huffington Post. It could be used if the author is independently notable and then only following WP:SPS. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your edited version is definitely an improvement, Cuñado. I agree about not generally using bahaiteachings.org, though I think Christopher Buck is a case where we could use it. The article currently relies heavily on non-independent, primary, and non-reliable sources, however, which means its neutrality can't be verified. So I don't support leaving a stand-alone article. We could trim it down to only the better sources, but then it would be extremely short and would not meet WP:GNG. Let me know if I'm missing something, Smkolins. If no further objections in a while, I'll do the merger. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gazelle55 for tagging me. I have no objection and contrary to what Tarikhejtemai says, I think "Examples" section should be there. It should be clear for the reader that the Bab and Baha'u'llah both inherited (or owned) slaves (the Black Pearls). In fact I was happy with this version of the page.Serv181920 (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serv181920, I do think this information is accurate and I would like it to be available. The source, though, is clearly not independent, and that means its presentation might not be neutral. If we find a good source I think the info could definitely go on pages for the Bab, Baha'u'llah, and probably others. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The supreme governing institution of the Baháʼí Faith is the Universal House of Justice, situated in Haifa, Israel[edit]

This statement needs citation from a authentic secondary source. Per the will and testament of Abul Baha the highest/supreme institution is Guardianship and not UHJAsad29591 (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Asad29591, for pointing out the lack of a source. I added the appropriate tag in the article. If you have a reliable secondary source saying something different from the current version, please go ahead and update the text. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another merger proposal[edit]

I want to propose that the page Baháʼí Faith and science be merged into this page, specifically into the section "Harmony of religion and science". Basically the problem is a lack of reliable sources in the article, which was discussed over a year ago there at Talk:Baháʼí Faith and science#Reliable sources.

Some of the sources are directly from Baha'i religious authorities, which goes against WP:IS. Many are from Baha'i journals, which I think are covered by the following from WP:RS: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." Then we have books from Baha'i publishing houses, whereas WP:RS indicates we would want "high-quality mainstream publications" if we aren't using academic sources.

Overall, while I can see some Wikipedia editors tried to put the sources used into context, without proper reliable sources we can't really ensure the neutrality of the article. (Ideally, it would be nice if an article on this topic cited scientists or philosophers of science.) Anyway, I think we should remove the material without good sources there. What would be left is a few sources that could be semi-reliable on the basis of WP:SPS because they are by authors (Moojan Momen, Peter Smith, Christopher Buck) who have published on the topic in reliable venues. The (brief) pieces sourced to those is what would be added to this article.

Pinging Cuñado for being involved in the earlier discussion. (Not pinging Serv181920, who isn't active on WP anymore.) Gazelle55 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Broadly agreed since most sources included already are not independent but also the new The World of the Bahá'í Faith has a chapter by Steven Phelps exactly on the topic and published independently. So improvement of content in summary style via merger with anchoring in the new text and or other independent sources as well as not independent? Smkolins (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be a page on the Baha'i Faith and Science? Yes, it's notable and gets independent coverage. In a college course on the history of modern Iran my professor covered the Baha'i Faith for like 30 minutes and the main takeaway was that the equality of men and women and the unity of science and religion were the most important social teachings that contrasted with society of the time. Is this page well written? No, the page has not had a top-to-bottom remake in recent years and has suffered from people poking around at whatever section they have a personal passion for. I suggest focusing on improving rather than merging. Also, you need independent coverage to establish the structure of the page, but there's nothing wrong with using credible Baha'i sources to fill out details. Since Baha'is have pre-publication review, we don't suffer from fringe theories (much). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see what more I can find. Smkolins (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that the topic is important and I think there are probably several reliable sources on the topic—Smkolins has pointed to one great one and I expect the introductory books by Smith, Hartz, etc. have something to say. I'm more saying they aren't in the existing article so it would be simpler to merge it into Baha'i teachings and then someone can eventually spin out a better version when it's been written. But if we want to keep the article, I would be okay with just heavily trimming it and then building off the remaining article. I've gotten my hands on a few books including Smith's encyclopedia so I could help with expanding too, though I don't have access to that new Stockman book with the chapter Smkolins mentioned yet.
If we're trimming what would we leave in? I think we'd be left with only a stub article. I agree that when deciding how to organize a page, very good quality sources are good, especially things like review papers. But as I understand it WP:RS applies to content in general and that should be our benchmark for whether to use sources, Baha'i or non-Baha'i. There is WP:ABOUTSELF but I don't think it really applies here (though I'm open to being convinced). Especially if we move on from the general Baha'i principle to whether specific statements can be reconciled with science, we definitely need WP:RS and if it were possible we'd want WP:SCIRS. I'm not saying that the sources Wikipedia identifies as reliable are always right... maybe Baha'i authors writing for Baha'i publishers are actually closer to the truth than researchers following the ethos of mainstream academia. But I think we can agree that for Wikipedia, that's not our judgement to make, we just follow WP:RS. Similarly, maybe the Baha'i review leads to the best books, but for Wikipedia it's stated that peer review should be by the mainstream academic community.
If we keep the article, I would suggest we rename the page something like "Baha'i view of science" to match Islamic attitudes towards science. Pages like Buddhism and science and Christianity and science cover the relationship in both directions, i.e., the views of scientists on the religion and the views of figures within the religion on science. That isn't the case for this article. Anyway this has gotten too long. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reflecting on a brief literature search, and in a context of how I've learned how to search databases, I see a bit of a diversity to consider. For example there is "science and religion" but there is also "faith and reason" and not just in the formal studies of practice by the application in individual lives. Another aspect is the history of the use of the teaching of the religion - when was it applied where, by who. So there are diverse approaches to the topic, not just the direct issue of reasoning on a cycle of tested evidence and reflection and … something categorize differently though to the people doing it they may think they are doing the same thing. That should be considered in any renaming consideration.
  • As for the substance of the article, the independently published material is the basis of the article that justifies it and should be a substantial part but other sources can and should be used as part of the responsible vetted set of materials, aka reliable sources, though less independent, that can touch up some aspects after the independent sources have been used up to their full, in the manner commensurate with Wikipedia approaches to things. I will say there is a natural tension in Wikipedia approaches. Where a summary exists, it lends itself directly to summary of summary statements which fits into Wikipedia easily. But where a summary does not dwell at length on a topic, but the topic is covered many times in many places, then the Wikipedia standard of no original work and no synthesis means that coverage of the topic has to be detailed and less summary because you are only allowed to summarize sources as they stand in themselves and assembling them into coverage has to be neutral and systematic to cover the topic. It will be interesting to see how this develops. If we are assembling something of a task force on this then I'd say leave the present article alone while we consider a draft somewhere. Smkolins (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you Gazelle and just to clarify, my reference to pre-publication review adding some value was about this particular subject, not a general statement about reliable sources. When it comes to the 10 or so points of tension where the Baha'i writings overlap with science in some way, this page could suffer from fringe theories being presented as the official Baha'i interpretation of the issue.
I'm not aware of it but there must be some independent author who has listed those points of tension and commented on them. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I mostly agree with what both of you are saying. Cuñado, yeah I see your point, the Baha'i review does make it a lot easier to say what the Baha'i viewpoint is rather than just what some Baha'i individual thinks. Smkolins, I agree that some sources give specifics but not summaries, some give summaries but not specifics, and we have to stick with the sources.
I suggest that we comment out the section about the specific scientific claims, which is where I especially think we want better sources, but leave the lead and the "Overall Baha'i attitude" section as is until better sources can be found. If that is okay then I will do that and remove the merger templates.
As for whether to rename the page, I agree this is complicated since the page ideally will cover several different facets and these don't all fit neatly under "Baha'i view of science". And as Smkolins said different terms are used in different contexts. I think we could eventually discuss the Baha'i attitude/teachings, specific points of tension (e.g., ether, missing link) or confirmation (e.g., nuclear power), notable Baha'i scientists, which writings cover the topic (like the Tablet to Auguste Forel), historical context of those writings, etc., etc. It is a big undertaking and even the page Relationship between religion and science needs some work in my eyes so it is a broader problem. Since we want to have broad scope to include different facets in the article but at the same time don't want to suggest the article covers the views of the scientific community (who don't seem to have commented much), I suggest we move the page to "Science in the Baha'i Faith". Gazelle55 (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with commenting out the details for now. I prefer not to delete since it would be hard to start over without something to work off.
I also agree with the title "Science in the Baha'i Faith", though I'm curious what Mr Kolins thinks. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Smkolins for putting together all those sources. The first one is clearly relevant. As for the rest, I can't tell from the titles but if you found something relevant in them then I think they think they look like high-quality sources. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It will take some time to summarize each and then figure out how a whole article would result plus I'm sure there are other sources out there. I can say on brief review that those listed are more than just trivial mentions but it will have to develop. I know the ebook version of The World of the Baha'i Faith is not nearly as expensive and I hope more libraries pick it up. (sigh) Then there is the rest. Smkolins (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I hope it is available soon! I commented out the specific claims section and then removed the merger templates and the template for neutrality issues. The page seems fine at this point apart from relying a lot on scriptural/UHJ sources. To me the specific claims section had the sense that it was replying to a list of criticisms, but it wasn't clear that any reliable source had actually levelled that list of criticisms against the Baha'i Faith.
Anyway, Smkolins, any objections to moving the page to Science in the Baha'i Faith? I think that name would fit with the sources you've collected as well as what's there right now. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking to wait until the whole set of sources if roughed out. Certain science is a major word in the process but reason/reasoning and empirical checking, is also there. Smkolins (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baháʼí_teachings&oldid=1198918896"