Talk:Baháʼí review

Reference to Abdu'l Baha

This is a reference showing that Abdu'l Baha intiiated the necessity for assembly approval. I'm not sure how it should be worked into the article: Cuñado - Talk 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

So great is the importance and so supreme is the authority of these assemblies that once 'Abdu'l-Bahá after having himself and in his own handwriting corrected the translation made into Arabic of the Ishraqat (the Effulgences) by Sheikh Faraj, a Kurdish friend from Cairo, directed him in a Tablet to submit the above-named translation to the Spiritual Assembly of Cairo, that he may seek from them before publication their approval and consent. These are His very words in that Tablet: -- "His honor, Sheikh Faraju'llah, has here rendered into Arabic with greatest care the Ishraqat and yet I have told him that he must submit his version to the Spiritual Assembly of Egypt, and I have conditioned its publication upon the approval of the above-named Assembly. This is so that things may be arranged in an orderly manner, for should it not be so any one may translate a certain Tablet and print and circulate it on his own account. Even a non-believer might undertake such work, and thus cause confusion and disorder. If it be conditioned, however, upon the approval of the Spiritual Assembly, a translation prepared, printed and circulated by a non-believer will have no recognition whatever."

(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 23)

Criticisms

These selections, as of 30-Nov-05, are un-documented and likely found only on websites or blogs and are therefore dubious. These explicitly don't meet wikipedia policies & guidelines for reliable sources. The links to Frederick Glaysher's site is not an acceptable source — to wit: "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources". Reliable Source: Personal websites as secondary sources

If acceptable sources can be found please add them. MARussellPESE

Juan Cole

Before we get into a revert war, some questions:

Is there a reason why Cole's name shouldn't be linked to the Wikipedia article about him?

There article's source should be given,and linked to, as is usual. *The Baha'i Faith as Panopticon* is a peer-reviewed academic article which appeared in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Juan Cole has made public statements identifying himself as an unenrolled Baha'i -- a concept which is outlined in Wikipedia's "Baha'i Divisions" article. In fact, the very article cited mentions the author "maintaining his private faith". Any mention of Cole's religious adherence should specify that he is no longer a *member of the Baha'i Faith*, as opposed to "not a Baha'i". Or his religious adherence should simply not be mentioned at all, which I can live with.

Finally, I don't think that slipping in a link to an opposing article to Juan's is appropriate here -- especially since Jeff does not seem to want to provide a link to the article that is being quoted from. If we're going to quote from the *Panopticon* article, a link to it should be provided. As far as Ian Kluge's refutation, it is not in the same league -- it's just a web article he put up, and is not published anywhere else that I know of. Besides, providing a refutation is not necessary here -- the point of providing a quote from Cole is as an example of the critique of Baha'i review policy. That such critique exists is a fact. If you want to bring refutations into it, then that should be in the section defending the practice.

It is simply not NPOV to quote from an article to illustrate a point, decline to link to it, but instead put a link in to warn everybody: "This is a bad article". 69.232.171.33 January 12, 2006.

I don't mind not putting Juan Cole's affiliation. I had actually previously took it off, but given your first edit, but it back in. Regarding the inline links, and the link to the web article, both should be in this article. But the response article should also be there because the opinions he states outside of the Baha'i review question are refuted by the Baha'i Faith, and to be provide both opions and be neutral, both should be there. Furthermore the academic journal that the article in does not allow rebuttal articles.

I'm going to make these changes, and if you disagree makes some more changes, and comment on them here, and let's see if we can mesh something that is acceptable to both of us. -- Jeff3000 15:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The changes I've made is to put the rebuttle link in the external links, which is a better place for it, and to add a little paragraph saying that Baha'is don't think Juan Cole was a disinterested observer. -- Jeff3000 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cole's Wikipedia article should be linked to. He's an interesting figure.

"Panopticon" should likewise. It is on a personal site — but was published.

Klug's critique should as well. Ian Kluge is no mere blogger. He's a poet and philosopher (published in both arenas) and so that would have some merit. I'd embedded it in the section for the reader's ease, but Wikipedia format leans more towards the "External links" section where Jeff3000's just put it.

Whether Cole is a "Bahá'í" or not is an interesting question. Like any faith with a well-developed hierarchy, the Bahá'í Faith asserts the right to determine for itself who is, or is not, a believer. (The Catholic Church does as well.) The discussion on "Bahá'í divisions" lacks clarity on this. We don't see that one could "accept" Bahá'u'lláh and then pick and choose certain beliefs. I warn new Bahá'ís that there's something in this religion that they will not only be uncomfortable with but think is flat wrong. It'll be different for everybody, and likely surface at an inopportune moment. But if we agreed with every last thing before we encountered it, we're either not thinking (which I've seen Bahá'ís do), or we're capable of writing it ourselves (which only God could). The point is not to agree with everything, but to meet the challenge of disagreeing.

I'm not sure that that question could ever be closed for people outside the faith as it revolves around fundamental understandings of "freedom", "liberty" etc. Hopefully these edits hit a middle ground. MARussellPESE 17:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff -- you're correct, you *did* edit out the reference to Juan's status; I guess I was looking at an earlier edit. My apologies; it is better just to leave the matter be.

Having Kluge's article as an external link is fine with me. Yes, Ian is academically qualified, but his refutation of the *Panopticon* article is only a web source -- and my understanding is that Wikipedia doesn't accept those.

I edited out the mention of the reasons the administration disagreed with Cole -- they have never made a public statement about him specifically, only general statements about "internal opposition" on the Internet. Juan, himself, however, has told the story of his experience repeatedly, in quite vehement terms. I tried to make things as neutral as possible under the circumstances.

One solution I thought of is that we can side-step issues about Cole, by quoting a less controversial author on the matter of review. There is Barney Leith's "Should the 'Red Flag' Law Be Repealed?" -- an article which appeared in *Baha'i Studies Review*, and itself passed the review process. [1] I just thought I'd throw that out there for your consideration. The biggest disadvantage to Leith's article, as opposed to Cole, is that it is rather dated.

As for unenrolled Baha'is -- they think they are Baha'is, and if one is going to maintain a neutral point of view then that has to be accepted. It would not be for an encyclopedia to judge whether or not someone is a "real" believer in one religion or another. Membership, of course, is objective -- one is clearly either an official member of a religious organization or not. But adherence is subjective, and it would be a big mistake to get into questions here about whether a person's statements of faith are legitimate or not. 69.232.171.33 January 12, 2006

Thanks 69.232.171.33 for the very constructive comments and edits. I agree with most everything you said. I haven't read Leith's article. Can you send me a link to it, if it's online. Thanks -- Jeff3000 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, just noticed the link, I read your changes through the "Show changes" option, where the link was not extremely visible. I'll take a look at the link. -- Jeff3000 04:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. These are thoughtful considerations. I'm not at all uncomfortable with Cole's paper provided that there's balancing discussion to get to NPOV. Review is grating for many academics and deserves discussion.

I think Leith's article is also interesting and I'll add it as an external reference. It's thorough and well balanced, and, having read both, I believe superior to Cole's. But if Cole's article is removed and reduced to an external reference, many would see that as supression.

I don't think the Allison Marshall link passes muster as "verifiable" as it's a tertiary source. Can we consider removing it?

MARussellPESE 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally like having Alison Marshall's link there -- I think the external links should provide a variety of points of view. I wouldn't call it "tertiary" - it is the story of her own experience with review. You could, however, call it "anecdotal", and the source is her email postings to talisman9@yahoogroups, and I don't know how that flies under Wikipedia's rules. If personal anecdotes are allowed concerning review, there are a whole lot of them out there. :-)

You are correct that removing Cole's quote probably would raise some protests, so it might not be worth it. I only suggested it as a way of keeping peace here, but I'm pretty content with things as they stand now, really. I was just bothered by not having a link to *Panopticon*, which is rather unusual if you're quoting from an article, by following the quote by a link the the Kluge article, and by not linking to the Wikipedia article on Cole -- but now that's all fixed, I don't have any further complaints.

I've thought about writing some more about the ethical problems that Baha'i review poses for academics, which is an issue that Leith brings up -- but I'd like to get a good source on academic ethics before doing that. We also could add a quote from Leith to accompany the one from Cole. 69.232.171.33 January 13, 2006

My objection to the Allison Marshall link is that it's not to her personal site but to Glaysher's — hence my viewing it a "tertiary" source. This kind of link doesn't pass wikipedia muster I think. It's a poor link, not a poor opinion.

I think it'd be outstanding to see something on the ethical dilemmas review presents Bahá'í academics. That would be a helluva addition to the article. There's plenty of material to present a Bahá'í administrative perspective, but the academic ethical position should be presented fully and fairly alongside.

MARussellPESE 16:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

O.K., I see what you mean -- but Alison doesn't have this particular material on her website. The only other source would be the talisman9 archives, and you have to subscribe to that list to access them.

Well, as I understand the academic dilemma, any third-party interference is considered wrong -- whether it's from a religion, or business, or the government, or whoever. At the very least, it would cast suspicion on the academic work in question, that it doesn't truly reflect the writer's research. However, for the Wikipedia article, I need more than just my understanding. I'd like to find a written code of academic ethics, but when I google, I mostly come up with codes for students about plagiarism and things like that. But I'll keep looking.69.232.171.33

The Academic Freedom article seems to be a good place to start. I'll have to look it over with respect to this issue.

One issue is that Review creates a de-facto conflict of interest. A straight-forward approach, although not one that necessarily resolves this, is to self-identify the potential conflict publicly. The failure of so many medical researchers to identify their relationships to pharmeceutical companies is currently an issue facing that discipline. MARussellPESE 22:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Penalties

Can you provide a source for the "penalty" statement. Is it different than the penalty for breaking any other Baha'i law or legislation? -- Jeff3000 16:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The penalty for not abiding by review is loss of administration rights, and some scholars have been threatened with it. So, in that since, yes it is rather on the level of breaking Baha'i law -- but since this isn't a Baha'i law, it should be made clear that the policy has "teeth"; it isn't something is just voluntary. However, the impression that I have is that the administration is not really anxious to impose this penalty. I've heard of people who can "get by" without review, especially if they are publishing in obscure academic journals, but the threat of sanctions is used occasionally to ensure compliance. I'll see if I can dig up a source for you. 69.232.171.33 January 18, 2006

Does the policy apply to Wikipedia contributions?

Presumably, much of the Wikipedia content on the Baha'i Faith would be expected to be written by its adherents. Is it common practice for Baha'is to seek clearance for contributions here? —Wookipedian 04:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

no clearance is needed for Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 07:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? —Wookipedian 02:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Read a little more about how Wikipedia works. There are no rules. Well there are rules, but anybody can edit them. Writing articles involves contributions from hundreds of users, and it is a constantly changing atmosphere. Editing Wikipedia is not considered 'publishing' in the sense that Baha'i review is required for. Cuñado - Talk 03:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

From [2] "The function of Literature Review is explicitly not extended to Internet content". As to why? some understanding can be obtained from reading this. -- Jeff3000 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To me, the subject of the non-application of the policy to Internet content seems sufficiently interesting and relevant here that I think it would be good to put something about it into the main article along with a summary of the reasoning involved. I'll be happy to do some/most of the work on phrasing that, but the subject is outside of my expertise. Is it worth trying? —Wookipedian 06:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A section could be added, but I couldn't find the original source for the statement (even though I've known it for a while, and seen the original document), so unless we can find that document, there isn't a very good verifiable source for the statement. -- Jeff3000 13:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)