Misplaced Pages

Talk:Baháʼí Faith

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PearBOT II (talk | contribs) at 23:26, 5 August 2021 (Merge Talk header and Auto archiving notice per TfD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:26, 5 August 2021 by PearBOT II (talk | contribs) (Merge Talk header and Auto archiving notice per TfD)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baháʼí Faith article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Baháʼí Faith is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 22, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 30, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
June 1, 2007	Featured article review	Kept

Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bahá'í Faith Top‑importance

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Iran Top‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Theology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Archives (Index)
Archive 1 02/03 – 08/04	Archive 2 08/04 – 01/05
Archive 3 01/05 – 02/05	Archive 4 02/05 – 06/05
Archive 5 03/05 – 07/05	Archive 6 07/05 – 10/05
Archive 7 10/05 – 11/05	Archive 8 11/05 – 12/05
Archive 9 12/05 – 04/06	Archive 10 04/06 – 07/06
Archive 11 08/06 – 09/06	Archive 12 07/06 – 12/06
Archive 13 12/06 – 02/07	Archive 14 02/07 – 03/07
Archive 15 03/07 – 12/08	Archive 16 03/08 – 12/10
Archive 17 05/08 – 08/14	Archive 18 06/14 – 04/17
Archive 19 04/17 –
Biographies for discussion of material relating to the history of Baha'i figures
Picture discussion of the display of Baha'u'llah's photograph
Request for comment discussion generated by a RfC of Feb 2005
Off Topic discussions removed per wikipedia policy (Misplaced Pages is not a discussion board)

A dedicated section for leadership issue in Baha'i Faith

1. Especially after the death of First Guardian Shoghi Effendi there became two groups. A group accepted the Guardianship of Mason Remey and another accepted the claim of Hands of Cause who stated that Guardianship has ended.

2. Many authors Baha'is as well as Non-Baha'is have written on this topic. For eg: Baha'ism History - by Hutan Hejazi Martinez, Bahais in Exile – By Vernon Elvin Johnson, Religious Leaders of America by J. Gordon Melton and many more.

3. There are many followers of Charles Mason Remey (second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith) and his followers are Baha'is as they believe in Baha’i Faith and its principles and key figures and hence deserve space on this page. Refer to ‘The Baha'i Faith in America’ by William Garlington (2005), Bahais in Exile – By Vernon Elvin Johnson.

4. You can refer to other previous religions like Islam, Christianity, Jew etc. the leadership issue has been discussed and given space. The same should be there on Baha’i Faith page also.--Asad29591 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". There are also numerous references describing the Baha'i Faith as united, without schism, and the extremely small number of Remey's followers not comparable to any other religion's sects. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Cuñado, such words were not expected from a veteran like you. However, we followers of Orthodox Baha'i Faith avoid over exaggerating our numbers.

1. The followers of Second Guardian of Baha'i Faith - Mason Remey are in thousands. Refer to ‘The Baha'i Faith in America’ by William Garlington (2005), Bahais in Exile – By Vernon Elvin Johnson.

2. It is not about minority or majority. Because if that is the case then Baha'is as a whole faith (including mainstream and other sects) does not deserve a page on Misplaced Pages since since we are overall in minority.

3. Also the First Guardian of the Baha'i Faith our beloved Shoghi Effendi says that the faith cannot be judged in terms of "Numerical Strength”. Refer to World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 57.

4. Yes there is no doubt that Baha'i Faith is without schism and united but only if it is under the Guardianship.

Shoghi Effendi says:

Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Baha'u'llah would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which, as ‘Abdw'l-Baha has written, has been invariably upheld by the Law of God... . Without such an institution the integrity of the Faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn. (The World Order of Baha’u'llah, 1955, p. 148)--Asad29591 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"New religious movement"

As I said in my edit summary, new religion is *contentious*, the opposite of observing the sky is blue - one reading of "new religious movemement" is "we're too polite to call it a cult, but it's clearly not an established, respectable religion." Just read the article at New religious movement and tell me if it's a straightforward definition that we're linking to. "New religious movement" needs a citation and it's instructive that reputable citations like Britannica could have feasibly chosen to use the term but didn't. Slac speak up! 12:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right all the references in the previous section describe it as "a religion" (most common) or "a religious movement" or "world religious body". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Lacrimosus, there is an interesting discussion on this topic, here: https://bahai-library.com/essays_new_religious_movement

I would recommend reading "Letter Four" by Denis MacEoin and its reply "Letter Five" by Robert Stockman.Serv181920 (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion there (oddly in forum form) is about "world religion" vs "new religious movement". The article currently says "religion", which should be acceptable and reflects the majority of independent sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Denis MacEoin says "To say that the Bahá'í religion is a world faith on a par with Islam etc. is, whatever the arguments used to justify it, a nonsense on too many levels." He also says "I've placed it among NRMs because I haven't found a better place." Baha'i scholar Robert Stockman says: "The category "world religion" I had always assumed had been invented by Bahá'ís, and I am a bit surprised to hear some sociologists have used the term."

In the first letter MacEoin states: "Unless somebody can come up with a better classification, NRM will have to serve."

I know Baha'is are not using the words "world religion" for their "faith" but I also disagree with the removal of word "new" from the first sentence. That's incorrect because it is a "new religion" with very few followers.

I will put a question regarding this on the relevant noticeboard to learn more from other editors.Serv181920 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say MacEeoin is not only not the defining scholar but a minority opinion to the point of obscurity as a class of about one. Smkolins (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine, that is your opinion about him, but the fact that the Baha'i faith is a new religion should not be censored.WP:CENSOR Serv181920 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You have no argument. The leading paragraph gives the timeframe of "established... in the 19th century" and the second paragraph gives birth/death years of the four major individuals. Nothing is censored and its current wording reflects how it is portrayed in independent reliable sources. Or... maybe you want to describe it as a "new religious movement" to fit your view that it is a neutral term that some people interpret to mean "cult". Provide a survey of reliable sources describing it as a new religious movement or stop wasting our time. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Cuñado, I'm not sure accusations are the most productive was to have this discussion. The term "new religious movement" isn't a euphemism for cult, it's a way to describe religious movements that are new, purposefully to avoid any judgment. The Baháʼí Faith is very widely considered to be an NRM, as it was founded in the 19th century. Obviously Wiki is not a source, but the NRM list article has several sources recognizing the Baháʼí Faith as an NRM. (I've listed some below) There is no negative implication in that term, all religions were new at some point. AnandaBliss (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Miller, Timothy, ed. (1995). America's Alternative Religions. Albany: SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-2397-4.
"History of the Baháʼí Faith". ReligionFacts. Retrieved 2019-05-28.

Or, even better, no adjective at all (as current text). This is the lede, where description should be kept as simple as possible - in particular avoiding the gratuitous addition of adjectives with possible POV connotations. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the lead, I was talking about a general description of the Faith. I really don't have any opinion either way bout the lead paragraph. It don't think it's inappropriate, that's all I was saying. Also, NRM has no negative connotations, it was invented specifically to avoid those types of things.AnandaBliss (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

AnandaBliss thanks for providing actual sources (intentional jab at Serv181920). The second source doesn't mention the phrase "new religious movement". The first provides this commentary on page 2 that says why it uses a completely different phrase: "Scholars have used a variety of terms to avoid the negative connotations of "sect" and "cult". Some have employed "marginal," a term certainly less pejorative then "cult," but still one that tends to minimize the importance and value of the group in question. "Nonmainstream" has had some following, but it is cumbersome. "New religious movement" has been generally embraced by scholars and by adherents of the nonmainstream religions themselves, but it has at the same time been the source of confusion: does it apply only to truly "new" (at least in the United States) religions, or does it apply to all nonmainstream faiths? The prevailing tendency has been for the term to apply to a wide spectrum of religions, old and new, but it remains ambiguous. It may be that no perfect term exists to describe nonmainstream religions succinctly, but this book adopts a usage that seems to be properly descriptive without bearing heavily pejorative connotations: alternative religions." (Miller, p. 2)

Here's another neutral, reliable source describing the Baha'i Faith in a book subtitled Sects, 'cults', and alternative religions: "A world religion with no racial or national focus... a relatively new religion... It is a new worldwide religion... (p. 244) a major world religion... (p. 248) the second most globally widespread religion... (p. 249)" (Barrett, 2001: The New Believers)

So far MacEoin, with some neutrality issues, suggests "new religious movement". A large majority of neutral third party sources don't. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that a majority of sources concerning themselves with what a New Religious Movement is would definitely include the Baháʼí Faith. I don't know what neutrality issues User:MacEoin may have, but a Faith that is new (timespan very vague, I know, generally since ~1800) is generally considered an NRM. I'm also not aware of sources that say that the Baháʼí Faith is not an NRM, which ought not have connotations beyond "religious movement that is relatively new." Personally, I think that using NRM to describe something "nonmainstream," whatever the age, is a misuse, but that's beyond this article. As for the lead, I don't think it's necessary to spell it out there, since readers can see when it was founded. Please know that I'm not opposing anything you're saying, I just don't think that NRM has or should have any negative connotations, as neutrality is the whole reason it was coined. AnandaBliss (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If there's a good, reliable source out there that says "the Baha'i Faith is a new religious movement" - using the term in the same way the article that was linked to in the intro does - then great. Provide that source, and the problem goes away. Slac speak up! 20:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem, I am not trying to get this phrase into the article, and I do not know why your tone is so adversarial. But that's not how academic sourcing typically works, the Baháʼí Faith is often featured in works regarding New Religious Movements, the sourcing for which is very easy to find. For example, the reference sections of the NRM and List of NRM articles. It is a religious movement that is new, how does that not fit the definition of a New Religious Movement? AnandaBliss (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

AnandaBliss I think that tone was directed at Serv181920, the initiator of this thread. Things like this have been going on for months. Thanks for contributing! Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think "religion" is fine, it doesn't convey any sense of how large or small it is, or how prominent or obscure. I think an editor should give a list of say four sources if they want to use "new religious movement" in the lead sentence (given its potential connotations). That is probably the best we will get since there aren't a lot of review papers available on the Baha'i Faith, given the scarcity of peer-reviewed literature on the topic compared to larger religions.

Cuñado and Serv181920, I've been watching your debates for some time now and—I know this is hard to imagine—I honestly see no compelling evidence that either of you is here in bad faith or to push POV. Can we try to bury the hatchet and work together? You have different views on what constitutes neutrality but it doesn't mean anyone's deliberately violating NPOV. And Cuñado I know you've been editing a lot longer than Serv181920 and so know the rules a lot better, but it might help if you spelled things out in disagreements. E.g., before telling an editor to stop wasting your time because they didn't use a review paper, explain the difference between a review paper and other academic papers, and why we prefer review papers for contentious points. Most people don't know this stuff. Serv181920, before assuming Cuñado is hopelessly biased, see for example that he has recently added criticism of Baha'is to the Baha'i review article, for example. Anyway, I hope I haven't enflamed things further by saying this. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55,Cuñado and AnandaBliss, I am not pushing my POV. It is a "new religion" and that is a fact accepted by Baha'is, former-Baha'is, scholars of religion and others! Here are the sources:

The Baha’i faith is a new religion founded by Mirza Husayn 'Ali

https://bahai-library.com/balci_jafarov_bahais_caucasus (This is by Azer Jafarov, the same person who claims Musa Naghiyev is a Baha'i)

The Baha'i Faith is a new religion founded 150 years ago. (Moojan Momen)

https://www.momen.org/bahai/bahaimap.htm

The Light Shineth in Darkness: Five Studies in Revelation After Christ, Udo Schaefer (George Ronald)

https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=QMwOAAAAIAAJ&q="new+religion"&hl=en

ZOROASTRIAN CONVERSIONS TO THE BAHA'I FAITH IN YAZD, IRAN (Dissertation - Stiles, Susan Judith)

https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/274855/azu_td_1321402_sip1_w.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

Islam and the Baha'i Faith

https://bahaiproofs.com/SectIslam.htm

The Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings By William McElwee Miller, Page 258

https://books.google.com/books?id=gc3_6HVvZzkC&pg=PA258#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you think I should share more sources please let me know. My experience with the Baha'is have always been unpleasant because of their double standards and their pushing and imposing POVs on others. Don't understand how this is going to help them and for how long!Serv181920 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Cuñado. Sorry if I got a little frustrated there. The Baháʼí Faith is, foremost, a religion and in the introduction, I do think it's appropriate to simply call it as such. And even though my stance is that NRM is a totally neutral term, a new reader may get the wrong message if they think an NRM is somehow different from a "regular" religion. As for the discussion below, "alternative religion" sounds somewhat marginalizing to me; alternative to what, exactly?

Serv181920, let's not get too riled up about things, editing an article about people whom you feel are "unpleasant because of their double standards and their pushing and imposing POVs on others" can get a little dicey. I frequently have to go on "Wiki breaks," myself. Any section of the article that talks about academic study of the Baháʼí Faith could reflect scholarly discussion and/or disagreement about how to characterize it, maybe that's the best way to approach things. AnandaBliss (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC) (edited)

AnandaBliss, that's correct, there should be scholarly discussions. I try my level best to produce acceptable sources but sometimes I get a feeling that Baha'i editors want to control entire wikipedia (of course Baha'i articles) and don't let anything come against their religion (be it a very minute point) even if it is from strong academic sources. Be that as it may, i am in the learning phase and I am learning from these very editors. :) And I don't let wiki-editing disturb me. Have a nice day.Serv181920 (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Alternative religion

Miller and Barrett wrote books on the subject of "sects, cults, and alternative religions". I quoted Miller above I'm repeating here so I can get the two together. They both wrote about how NRM was a popular phrase but they both chose to go with 'alternative religion' instead. Keep in mind these are 20-25 years old:

Scholars have used a variety of terms to avoid the negative connotations of "sect" and "cult". Some have employed "marginal," a term certainly less pejorative then "cult," but still one that tends to minimize the importance and value of the group in question. "Nonmainstream" has had some following, but it is cumbersome. "New religious movement" has been generally embraced by scholars and by adherents of the nonmainstream religions themselves, but it has at the same time been the source of confusion: does it apply only to truly "new" (at least in the United States) religions, or does it apply to all nonmainstream faiths? The prevailing tendency has been for the term to apply to a wide spectrum of religions, old and new, but it remains ambiguous. It may be that no perfect term exists to describe nonmainstream religions succinctly, but this book adopts a usage that seems to be properly descriptive without bearing heavily pejorative connotations: alternative religions.(Miller (1995), America's Alternative Religions. P. 2)

The term 'new religious movement' is used by most present-day sociologists of religion to avoid the pejorative overtones of 'sect' and 'cult'. This might seem a good solution, but once again there are problems of definition. Not all NRMs are new... Rodney Stark avoids this problem by redefining an NRM as a 'novel religious movement'... Eileen Barker proposes an arbitrary cut-off point at World War II; new religious movements are those founded, in their present form, since then... There are further problems with the term NRM... The term 'alternative religion' avoids the 'newness' problem of 'NRM' by simply and arbitrarily distinguishing between mainstream, established religions and movements which are an alternative to the mainstream. Again this depends on social context; there is nothing alternative about being a Mormon in Salt Lake City.. and again the dividing lines can be debated endlessly... This distinction tends to depend partly on an intuitive and individual understanding of what is generally socially acceptable as "standard'... The term 'alternative religion' thus ties in rather well with how mainstream Christians write about 'sects and cults', but without being pejorative.(Barrett (2001), The New Believers: sects, cults and alternative religions. P. 24)

It is a real problem what phrase to use here. "New religion" is undefined and relative, and was sitting with a pointer to new religious movement. I haven't seen any source besides MacEoin, so far, use the phrase 'new religious movement' and its issues are well articulated by Miller and Barrett. 'New religion' without the link to NRM would work and matches some sources, but I don't see what that adds when 'new' is relative and the dates are given in the first two paragraphs. 'Alternative religion' is supported as a less pejorative phrase by Miller and Barrett, yet still communicating that it's not mainstream, but I haven't seen any sources using that phrase for Baha'is (and it would need several good sources). Calling it a 'world religion' (as it sat for years on WP) has some sources supporting it but I can see why it's not ideal here. 'Religion' seems to be incredibly neutral and anyone with a brain can see the dates and judge for themselves whether it deviates from their perception of "standard" that Barrett says is the whole point of sociologists trying to come up with a phrase. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Serv181920 for the sources. The ones from Momen, Stiles, and Jafarov look reliably sourced, and I believe we can count MacEoin from above since "new religious movement" is similar to "new religion". My best guess is that the other three aren't WP:RS, though the last one from the missionary press might be. We are still waiting for the result of Jafarov/Caucaz.com at the reliable sources noticeboard but my current opinion is that it is good. So I think we have a case for stating "new religion" in the lead sentence, though with the link removed for the reasons Cuñado gave. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Gazelle55 U missed Udo Schaefer (3rd Link), William Hatcher also writes that the Baha'i faith is a "New" religion. Check "Bahá’í Studies Vol. 2 (1980)". "Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements (2005)" also states that Baha'i faith is a "New Religion". I believe - it should be linked with the NRM article.Serv181920 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Anthony A. Lee characterizes the faith as a new religious movement in his recent study The Baha’i Faith in Africa: Establishing a New Religious Movement, 1952-1962 (Leiden, NL: Brill, 2011).Serv181920 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can make the leap from "new religion" to "new religious movement" since as other editors noted above the term seems to have its own set of connotations. But since Anthony A. Lee, Denis MacEoin, and the Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements all use the term I will add the link. Thanks for digging up the sources! (About Schaefer, I don't think it's RS because it's written by a Baha'i for a Baha'i publisher... I could only find one article Schaefer published in a non-Baha'i source so it's not clear to me he has a strong academic reputation on the subject that would allow us to overlook the lack of independent review. Hatcher and Martin have a non-Baha'i publisher but as you note they don't use the term "new religious movement.") Gazelle55 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, what is your source for this sentence "and other attempts to convey that it is new (relative to well-established faiths), not mainstream, and with no racial or national focus."?Serv181920 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you read this talk page? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have the source, cite it. That's simple.Serv181920 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on the topic just raised, but just wanted to clarify above, Serv181920, I was saying you were NOT trying to push POV, not that you were. Sorry, the wording was a bit unclear. And same for Cuñado. Anyway, will mostly be off Misplaced Pages for the rest of the month so hope you guys work things out in a civil way. Gazelle55 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You know Gazelle55 I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages so I am learning how the RS and Notability work here. I am not at all trying to be aggressive or rude to anyone, including Baha'i friend/s here :) On the contrary, I see Baha'i editors trying to bite me. :) Never mind. I take it easy. Have a nice time. Bye.Serv181920 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes (they tried to bite u!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.236.36 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Explanatory note

I'm not sure exactly what the objection is, but the note currently says, "The Baháʼí Faith is described in reliable sources as a 'religion', 'sect', 'relatively new religion', 'world religion', 'major world religion', 'new religious movement', 'alternative religion', and other attempts to convey that it is new (relative to well-established faiths), not mainstream, and with no racial or national focus."

I find the pushback quite surprising as your goal was to push for new religious movement, and Miller and Barrett are quoted above in this talk page talking about the purpose of that phrase being to convey the two points that the movement is new and nonmainstream. The last part about "no racial or national focus" is a reference to the uses of 'world religion' and 'major world religion', and the phrasing comes directly from Barrett. In an explanatory footnote that already has 6 citations for phrases, and considering what is being written and where it is, I think WP:BLUE and WP:OVERCITE are applicable here. The same goes for why I didn't put a citation on the 'religion' description, because that is by far the most common term used and... duh. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I was expecting a citation after this sentence "other attempts to convey that it is new (relative to well-established faiths), not mainstream, and with no racial or national focus." That's all.Serv181920 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Garlington

Although this conversation seems to be dead, I thought this was a significant addition to the dialogue on how to classify the religion, from Garlington, The Baha'i Faith in America (2008), pp. 182-183:

Initial reflection might cause one to classify the Faith as a new religious movement: that is a religious group outside of the cultural mainstream whose appearance on the American scene is realtively recent. While such a classification may be sociologically convenient, it is somewhat misleading... The Baha'i Faith is somewhat of an anomaly when it comes to religious classification. The religion would seem to fall into a certain gray area somewhere between a new religious movement and an independent world religion.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Denis MacEoin

And this is by MacEoin who believes that the Baha'i faith should be categorised as a NRM."Is the Bahá'í Faith a World Religion?" (PDF). Baha'i Studies. He also states:

The Baha’i religion is a small international community whose members wish to be perceived as adherents of a ‘major world religion’. This creates problems for Baha’is, since outside observers may contradict their self-perception and use different criteria to evaluate their status.

Serv181920 (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Stausberg, Michael; MacEoin, Denis; McGlinn, Sen; Stetson, Eric; Glaysher, Frederick; Momen, Moojan (2008). "Challenging apostasy: Responses to Moojan Momen's 'Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha'i Community'". Religion. 38 (4). Informa UK Limited: 384–393. doi:10.1016/j.religion.2008.08.009. ISSN 0048-721X.

Lacking in cristicism and controversies

Surely the article requires a section about criticism and controversy. For examp0le claiming to be liberal and enlightened but placing numerous conservative rtestriuctions on followers has been something mentioned by several ex-bahais, yet their voices aren't being added here. Also, for many arabs they are seen as traitors, for being an islam-originated and iranian religion that now chooses to make its headquarters in Israel, which is a big explicit cause of its exclusion in Iran and Iraq. The main mantainer of this article seems to be a hardcore promoter of the religion which goes against wikiedías conflict of interest policies (see: Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest. --186.141.135.203 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The points you raised are already integrated in the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they want to show a rosy picture on wikipedia, some of these full-time Baha'i editors think that by controlling the information they are serving their 'cause'.Serv181920 (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't bite. I'm a volunteer. I'm acting in good faith using good sources. So should us all. Smkolins (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliments that editing in my spare time is of such high quality that I appear to be editing "full time". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thumbs up.Smkolins (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with IP editor above and Serv: A section at the bottom should be included to report about the many controversies surrounding this Faith/Sect. I notice that Baha'i talk-page Archives no. 17 & 18 (e.g. section: "FA?") have similar comments by many other editors. Cheers! 172.58.236.41 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Although exciting for trolls, Misplaced Pages policies and essays discourage creating a "criticism" section that consolidates negative views (and sections on "praise"). See WP:STRUCTURE: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

See also essays Misplaced Pages:Avoid thread mode, Misplaced Pages:Criticism, and sections dedicated to criticism get this tag: Template:Criticism section, which says: This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material.

For example, two of the most common criticisms are about the lack of women on the Universal House of Justice, and the absence of gay marriage. Both of those issues are mentioned in the article in the appropriate places, with links to more details on that particular issue. There is also an article dedicated to criticism, and it's linked in the "see also" section of this article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

are you user:Cunadi remotely suggesting we (as 3 unrelated editors) are wp:trolls for suggesting any IMPROVEMENT to this article as per policies for editing wikipedia??172.58.236.41 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, you've been added to my record of mis-spellings of my user name.

Second, you clearly didn't read anything I linked to. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

YOU WIN User talk:Cuñado! 172.58.236.41 (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate section discussing "criticisms" in little more detail. There are other criticism as well - 1) Baha'i Censorship (Review) 2) Baha'i portrayal of their population 3) NRM or a World Religion? 4) Claim of unity and the practice of shunning 5) Infallibility of the UHJ 6) Translation and accessibility of original writings 7) Involvement in political affairs (influencing government decisions on some matters) 8) Not teaching this beautiful religion in Israel 9) Teaching Vs Proselytizing etc. Misplaced Pages articles on Christianity, Islam and Judaism all have a criticism section.Serv181920 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Should there be a section on "Praise and accomplishments"? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The main accomplishment I see is for "Illuminatis" (unbeknownst to most Baha'is) to have taken control of that Sect! 172.58.239.18 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Your edit summary was hilarious, it must have brought smile on the face of our dear Baha'i editors. BTW I have not seen many practicing Baha'is, most practicing Baha'is may be living in Iran or may be some parts of the US / Canada (I mean Persian Baha'is living in those countries).

Cuñado, why not! Please.Serv181920 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You are an agent of the Iranian government, Serv181920. I am a CIA operative (at least I took the precaution NOT to login-in) ;-) 172.58.236.248 (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive me if it all seems a bit "incoherent" because there are MULTIPLE persons sitting behind this computer or editing this thread (I personally work from 9-5pm E.T) 😀 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.236.248 (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, all former-Baha'is are agents of Islamic Iran ;) Juan Cole, Denis MacEoin, William Garlington, etc. and all descendants of Baha'u'llah who believe that the current Baha'i faith with its administration is invalid are also agents. We receive our payments twice a year. LOLL.

Smith's summary

Peter Smith wrote this as part of a summary of the Baha'i Faith for Virginia Commonwealth University:

IV. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES The Baha’i Faith is now a worldwide movement and the challenges which face Baha’i communities in one part of the world may be quite different from those in another. For the Baha’is in the Middle East the key issue is religious freedom. In Iran, the Baha’is have faced an ongoing campaign of persecution ever since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Despite being the largest religious minority in the country, they have faced waves of arrests of their leaders and many of their most active members – around 200 of whom have been murdered and executed; the banning of all their activities; and the attempt to totally exclude them from all aspects of civic life (including education and the burial of their dead). Considerable difficulties have also been encountered by the Egyptian Baha’is, who have also been denied many civil rights.
By contrast, whilst the Baha’is in the West have often been able to gain considerable public attention and sympathy, their numbers have generally remained small, leading to anxieties in some circles about the failure to achieve a greater impact. Small but very vocal groups of Western Baha’is have also expressed discontent over Baha’i practices which they deem illiberal, notably the restriction of membership of the Universal House of Justice to men and the prohibition on homosexual activity (including marriage). Intellectual tensions have also surfaced about ‘academic’ interpretations of the Faith.
It is very difficult to make any generalizations about the very diverse Baha’i communities of the ‘Third World’. In a number there are certainly practical challenges in consolidating a national Baha’i community with limited resources and in dealing with harsh social realities – including the displacement of refugees, poverty and crime.

His summary is carefully worded. The issues that I mentioned (women on House and homosexuality) are generally concerns for western Baha'is and non-issues elsewhere. The academic issues are "tensions" and extremely limited in scope. A section focusing on negative viewpoints needs a carefully thought-out title (i.e. not 'criticism'), and several reliable references stating what are the major points of tension, similar to Smith's summary. The weight of the issues/challenges/criticism needs to be proportional to it's appearance in the preponderance of reliable sources. Keep in mind Jimbo Wales' comment that " are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Who is Peter Smith? A Baha'i? What languages he knows? How many of the original writings of the Baha'i faith he has read in Arabic / Persian languages?Serv181920 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cuñado for linking to WP guidelines and overlooking the bad behavior in the above thread. That said, I think you have overlooked a key section of WP:CRIT: "For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." I do agree, though, that we would want multiple sources... Smith has a stake and this and an accompanying potential bias (as Serv181920 notes), likewise MacEoin or Cole. By the way, though, I was looking at an article by MacEoin recently and he praised Smith for not showing the biases that (according to MacEoin) other Baha'i scholars have exhibited. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

One more thought: it may be best to refine/shorten the criticism article first (quite a few sources aren't up to par), then improve the lead there and use that as the basis for a criticism section here. Since this is a feature class article. Happy to help with that, though I haven't had much time for WP lately (real life, *sigh*). Gazelle55 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's start w/more *serious* or verified stuff/FACTS:

"List of high ranking Iranian officials referred in the above: Hoveyda, thse Shah’s 13-year Prime Minister as well as Minister of the Imperial Court and Minister of Finance; Mehri Rasekh, Farah’s boon companion; Gen. Abdol Karim Ayadi, the Shah’s special physician, who held 23 high-ranking government jobs; Gen. Ali Mohammad Khademi; Gen. Sani’ee, Minister of War; Habib Sabet and Hojabr Yazdani, two major economic supports and two financial arms of the Zionists in Iran; Mansoor Rohani, the Shah’s minister for 13 years; Mrs Farokhrou Parsa, Minister of Education and holder of tens of other jobs; Shapour Rasekh, the Shah’s sincere advisor; Hossein Amanat, the famous capitalist, designer and executor of the Shahyad Monument; Parviz Sabeti, Director of Internal Security of the Shah’s security police; Lili Amir-Arjomand, trainer of the Shah' children."

I know some of those people personally😀 THEY ARE INDEED ***BAHA'Is***...

assertions, include that Hoveyda (who was the prime minister of the late Shah of Iran), was of Baha'i extraction and a freemason. Moreover, Hoveyda had many ministers of Baha'i *extraction* (despite the fact that there were not many Baha'is relative to Iran's general population) at that time." 172.58.236.36 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of what you wrote can be found in a better source, check this : "ANATOMY OF PREJUDICE, Reflections on secular anti-Baha’ism in Iran" by H.E. Chehabi - here : https://www.academia.edu/5024035/Anatomy_of_Prejudice_Reflections_on_Secular_Anti_Baha_ism_in_Iran Serv181920 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55, Juan Cole believes that the Baha'i faith "resembles other esoteric offshoots of Shi'ite Islam such as Ismailism or the Nusayris in having an onion-like series of layers, with an outward one presented to outsiders." I think we should add this also to the new proposed section. My sources are : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5906.00076 and https://bahai-library.com/cole_mcmullen_bahai Serv181920 (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920, thanks, I will take a look and try to work it in, I think there is some truth to that for sure (not that my opinion matters here). Gazelle55 (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The title

The title of this article looks like the ' and í are smushed together. Therefore it kind of looks like a blob above the i. It's it possible to fix?

Thx, Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Believe it or not that was an adjustment to try to more faithfully arrive at the correct actual punctuation and someone initiated a system-wide reset of all spelling approximations to more faithfully render the more correct punctuation and there was support from several people and no voice against it loud enough to deter the process going forward. So basically it was a concensus adjustment that renders a bit differently depending on browser and OS and situation. Smkolins (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Baha'i faith is not a cult.

Hello friends, can we add this sentence to the lead paragraph?

"It is not a cult, a reform movement or sect within any other religion." Serv181920 (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Hatcher, William S.; Martin, James Douglas (2002). The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. Baha'i Publishing Trust. ISBN 978-1-931847-06-3.

Hmmm, seems unnecessary to me. The article says it is a religion, so that seems to be implied already. Plus the source has a pro-Baha'i POV which makes it not ideal for that kind of judgement. What I wonder is why the history section doesn't make more clear that the Baha'i Faith emerged out of Islam. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem relevant to the lead paragraph, but in the section Religion:

Baháʼí beliefs are sometimes described as syncretic combinations of earlier religious beliefs. Baháʼís, however, assert that their religion is a distinct tradition with its own scriptures, teachings, laws, and history. The religion was initially seen as a sect of Islam because of its belief in the prophethood of Muhammad and in the authenticity and veracity of the Qur’an. Most religious specialists now see it as an independent religion, with its religious background in Shiʻa Islam being seen as analogous to the Jewish context in which Christianity was established. Muslim institutions and clergy, both Sunni and Shi'a, consider Baháʼís to be deserters or apostates from Islam, which has led to Baháʼís being persecuted. Baháʼís describe their faith as an independent world religion, differing from the other traditions in its relative age and in the appropriateness of Baháʼu'lláh's teachings to the modern context. Baháʼu'lláh is believed to have fulfilled the messianic expectations of these precursor faiths.

It seems like it could be worked in. Also not a great source having a Baha'i saying, "we're not a cult". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I forgot about that part under "Religion"... I think that says enough about the relationship to Islam. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is this - "The religion was initially seen as a sect of Islam because of its belief in the prophethood of Muhammad and in the authenticity and veracity of the Qur’an" - The source of this sentence is not that good. There are other things to consider - like Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha both portraying themselves as Muslims in the Ottoman territories. Otherwise most knowledgeable people know very well that Baha'i faith is a sect of Babism not Islam. The Babi religion abolished Islam in the early days of its history in the conference of Badasht.

I think we should include the proposed sentence in the lead paragraph. Baha'i writers have also written papers such as this one - https://bahai-library.com/vaccaro_good_tree - May be it can be worded as the Baha'is believe that the Baha'i Faith is not a cult........ then source it with Baha'i sources.Serv181920 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, agree with your points regardings Islam and Babism. Regarding the cult matter, do we have some other source saying it is a cult? Or why is it necessary to deny it? Gazelle55 (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe I can find few sources claiming that.Serv181920 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There are numerous Christian authors saying the Baha'i Faith is a cult, but that does not reflect the significant viewpoints in the preponderance of reliable sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920, that would deserve to be included on the criticism page, and then, eventually, the criticism section here (though I don't personally agree). But remember, RS only, no apologia. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some Christian and Muslim authors. There are newspaper clippings saying that "the leader of Baha'i Cult visits America" and there is at least a PhD Thesis saying that "Baha'i faith is believed to be a cult in Pakistan." and there is an article in "The Guardian" newspaper saying that the "Baha'i faith is not a cult." There are sources, and I can find more sources.Serv181920 (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks for mentioning these. Unfortunately it seems like none are high-quality sources. Regarding PhD theses, WP:RS says this:

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

That thesis also has a clear potential bias as Cuñado pointed out. Christian and Muslim authors likely have the same problem, though it would depend on the individual sources. For the older newspaper articles, keep in mind WP:AGE MATTERS. We don't necessarily need a high-quality source that says it's a cult, but we would need a high-quality source that says others have said it is a cult to give context. If we have that, then we can compare it to RS saying this isn't the case. Gazelle55 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Will find more sources when i get time. This is not a high priority, have a nice day.Serv181920 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Excommunication is also a Baha'i term

Hi Cuñado, Smkolins, Excommunication is also a Baha'i term and used multiple times in all kinds of sources. Why are you removing it? Gazelle55, what are your thoughts?Serv181920 (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A quick check finds the vast majority referring to Christian history or people who were named covenant-breakers complaining about their treatment. I think other uses are extremely rare and usually by people trying to reference the idea and if you look at the excommunication article it's full of Christian references and makes the point repeatedly that other religions don't fit well with the label as I said repeatedly in the edit summary.Smkolins (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

To elaborate I only found a single use by a national assembly using the term as seems to be described here. Nothing other administratively. Smkolins (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I will put some sources tomorrow if I get time. Have a nice time.Serv181920 (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, Adamson uses "shun" and "avoid association"; Smith uses "avoid association" and "excommunicate". Technically the dictionary definition of excommunicate is, "officially exclude (someone) from participation in the sacraments and services of the Christian Church". I'm not really hung up on which word to use. They all are fairly synonymous. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think "shunned" is pretty clear already. We could also have "excommunicated," but I think the key point then is whether the sources being cited use the word. Or if a lot of sources used the term, then we would need to add one that does before putting the word in the article. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the critical difference (and the reason "excommunicated" doesn't quite fit as a Baha'i term) lies in the exclusion of participating in the sacraments of the Catholic/Christian church. Sacraments are non existent in the Baha'i Faith. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. We should add "Baha'i faith" section to "Excommunication" article and mention the difference.Serv181920 (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are the sources for "excommunication" in the Baha'i faith:

Johnson, Vernon (2020). Baha'is in Exile: An Account of followers of Baha'u'llah outside the mainstream Baha'i religion. Pittsburgh, PA: RoseDog Books. ISBN 978-1-6453-0574-3.

It is there at least 4 times in the above source.

Geller, Randall S. (2018-12-20). "The Baha'i minority in the State of Israel, 1948–1957". Middle Eastern Studies. 55 (3). Informa UK Limited: 403–418. doi:10.1080/00263206.2018.1520100. ISSN 0026-3206.
Momen, Moojan (2007). "Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community". Religion. 37 (3). Informa UK Limited: 187–209. doi:10.1016/j.religion.2007.06.008. ISSN 0048-721X.
Smith, Peter; Momen, Moojan (1989). "The Baha'i faith 1957–1988: A survey of contemporary developments". Religion. 19 (1). Informa UK Limited: 63–91. doi:10.1016/0048-721x(89)90077-8. ISSN 0048-721X.

In the above source Smith and Momen says "Shoghi Effendi had no children, and he himself had previously excommunicated his siblings and cousins..."

and

"In turn, this doctrine is supported by the policy of excommunication of those 'covenant-breakers' who vehemently oppose the authority of the centre"

Bacquet, Karen (2006-05-01). "When Principle and Authority Collide: Baha'i Responses to the Exclusion of Women from the Universal House of Justice". Nova Religio. 9 (4). University of California Press: 34–52. doi:10.1525/nr.2006.9.4.034. ISSN 1092-6690.

Above source states "Any sort of organized protest movement would be considered “covenant breaking” and result in excommunication,..."

Ellwood, Robert S. (1975). "Book Review: The Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings". Missiology: An International Review. 3 (3). SAGE Publications: 387–389. doi:10.1177/009182967500300317. ISSN 0091-8296.

Above source states "...much of Baha'ullah's own family was excommunicated."

Fussell, Anita (1973-03-18). "Orthodox Baha'i: A Minority Viewpoint". Lincoln Journal Star. Lincoln, NE. p. 2F. Retrieved 2020-12-19 – via Newspapers.com.

These are just a few sources. I can produce more if our Baha'i friends don't agree with these. Serv181920 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't used - I said it was a loaded term and had a Christian focus that non-Christian religions find it objectionable. But fine let's review some alternatives:

687 uses of "covenant-breaker" at Bahai-Library.com
396 uses of "apostate" at Bahai-Library.com
348 uses of "excommunicate" at Bahai-Library.com
127 uses of "Ex-Baha'i" at Bahai-Library.com
49 uses of "disenrolled" at Bahai-Library.com

Why aren't we talking about "apostate"? Smkolins (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I also found this in Udo Shaefer's book:

The divine law does not contain a legal definition of this offense, but from the scriptural passages, it is clear that only exponents of subversion and sedition are covenant-breakers (naqidu'l-mithaq): they who "sow the seeds of doubt in the hearts of men" and promote "discord" and bring about "division." 'Abdu'l-Baha calls them "mischief-makers" who are "seeking leadership." Because they do not declare their evil intentions openly but instead "they secretly sow the seeds of suspicion" — "sweet in words, ... but at heart a deadly poison" — they are also referred to as "hypocrites" (al-munafiqun). As the covenant-breaker has struck with his axe at "the root of the Blessed Tree" the divine law provides that covenant-breakers, along with all who continue to associate with them, be cast out from the congregation of the people of Baha. The believer who has been excommunicated is no longer a member of the Baha'i community.

https://bahai-library.com/pdf/s/schaefer_introduction_bahai_law.pdf

Edit: Smkolins, I noticed your comment just now. Will read it and respond.

Serv181920 (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Smkolins, You have only searched bahai-library.com. There are other sources also. And don't you think your findings are WP:OR Serv181920 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Its a representative sample of available sources. It conveys a pattern. I didn't summarize to add documentation. I showed pretty plainly that excommunicate is a minor term at best and we're spending a lot of time discussing it when the vast majority of sources do not and other words are at least as common as that one, and that one is often cited in the very article as not fiting well with non-Christian religions. Smkolins (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920, I think you've amply shown that "excommunicate" is used in reliable sources. So I think you should feel free to create a Baha'i section on the "Excommunication" page. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see what happens. Smkolins (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920, you have a pattern of giving a few sources that state your point and then insisting upon it, whereas what you should be doing is surveying many sources to see what is the common way to address the issue. I don't care about this issue but your style is not persuasive. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)