Wikipedia:Featured article review/Baháʼí Faith/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC) [1].

---

Baháʼí Faith

Notified: Cuñado, Gazelle55, dragfyre, Bahá'í Faith WikiProject, diff for talk page notification 2021-11-15

Additional notifications: Dominic, Smkolins, WP Iran, WP Religion, WP Islam, WP History, WP Theology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Additional at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Baháʼí Faith/archive1#Notifications SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it hasn't been reviewed formally in over 15 years. The original FAC from 2004 is also (relatively) thin, with the nominator himself conceding that he just stumbled upon it. The FA vetting process has been improved considerably since the noughties, and different standards apply. I posted an informal review notice on the talk page last year, to some response from editors interested in the topic, who nevertheless seemed a bit preoccupied with other tasks. Nutez (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see renewed interest in doing this.Smkolins (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad this FAR is happening, I'll get started with some thoughts. I haven't participated in a FAR before so I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this, but having edited on Baha'i topics on Wikipedia a lot, I do think there are some problems with this article that need to be addressed. I just went point-by-point through the featured article criteria:

1a. Well-written – no issues to my knowledge.

1b. Comprehensive – one problem:

> I think the article needs to reflect more criticisms. This could be a "Criticism" section (see Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism) or else just integrating some material from Criticism of the Baha'i Faith where appropriate in the article.

1c. Well-researched – a few problems:

> Some sections of the "Social practices" section have no sources or few sources.

This source seems to cover most of the law mentioned - Schaefer, Udo (2002). "An Introduction to Bahā'ī Law: Doctrinal Foundations, Principles and Structures". Journal of Law and Religion. 18 (2): 307–72. doi:10.2307/1602268. JSTOR 1602268. but need to find a few more maybe though

* Smith, Peter (2000). "law". A concise encyclopedia of the Baháʼí Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 1-85168-184-1.

*Smith, Peter (2008-04-07). An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-0-521-86251-6.

might pick up the slack? Smkolins (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

> Quite a few sources (including for some important claims) are from sources that do not meet WP:RS. I could elaborate further on why individual sources aren't RS, but I'm speaking of those by Taherzadeh, Balyuzi, Esslemont, Walbridge, Hatcher, etc. These are written by Baha'i authors and published by Baha'i publishing houses and I believe this compromises NPOV in the article (not to mention using the Universal House of Justice, the governing body of the world's Baha'is, itself as a source).

> The part about the history, particularly the early history, doesn't reflect scholarly disagreements on the topic. Non-Baha'i scholars including Denis MacEoin, Abbas Amanat, and Juan Cole have written in depth about the early history of the Baha'i Faith (and its precursor religion, Babism). In particular, I have a copy of the ebook of MacEoin's extensive work The Messiah of Shiraz published by Brill and its findings are often at odds with those in this article (e.g., did the Bab actually make a prophecy that he would be followed by another messenger in 19 years as the article currently says?). I don't insist on that exact source being cited, but it should be clear to readers that there isn't consensus that the religion's early history happened the way Baha'is now believe it did.

> One citation is simply to "From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer dated 9 June 1932" and needs to be improved.

1d. Neutral – one problem:

> The "Shoghi Effendi's summary" section is based on a primary non-independent source. Unless this quote is highlighted in secondary sources, I don't think it should be in the article since it is potentially not NPOV, again the Baha'i Faith's view of itself rather than the appraisal of secondary sources.

1e. Stable – no issues to my knowledge.

1f. Copyright compliant – no issues to my knowledge.

2a. Lead – no issues to my knowledge.

2b. Appropriate structure – no issues to my knowledge.

2c. Consistent citations – no issues to my knowledge.

3. Media – no issues to my knowledge.

4. Length – no issues to my knowledge.

So overall, it is a strong article in most respects but there are some important issues to be addressed. Happy to help with improvements to the extent I have time. Also interested to hear thoughts from other editors. Gazelle55 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Just adding (mostly MOS issues) to this list, quick glance only:

• MOS:SANDWICHing

  Since we're being detailed, I don't know what that is supposed to link to because the redirect no longer actually exists? Smkolins (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I just checked, and yes it does ... ???? ... anyway, don't sandwich text in between images and tables and the like. If you still don't see it, try going to MOS:IMAGES and scrolling down to MOS:SANDWICH, which is linked in the Location section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I had no idea "Sandwich" had anything to do with "images".Smkolins (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I still don't see an instance of text between two pictures. In my view there are pictures staggered left and right as you scroll down but none are directly across from eachother. Perhaps it depends on the viewer's browser/screen size? Smkolins (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Look at this section; there's a big long timeline template that is sandwiched with the image. The timeline could be converted to a horizontal template, as one example of how to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  O - I didn't even think of that as an image. To me it's like an extension of the template. Visually it fits? Thanks for the hatnote example. Smkolins (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's good to stop occasionally and view the page on different browsers, for example, your mobile device (iPhone, Droid, etc, as that is what most readers use, according to the WMF). PS, it was not my intent to distract you to the little stuff, when there is so much big stuff that needs to be addressed, rather to call to the attention of anyone working towards a save that there are MOS breaches throughout, so you can correct as you go. It is more urgent to address POV, sourcing, and the prose issues (listiness and overquoting). The lists I put up were just to raise your awareness so you all don't introduce more problems as you go, which will later need to be fixed. For example, the faulty ellipses (see below), just added, along with faulty page ranges throughout, still being added. I also suggest you all become very friendly with scholar.google, as the sourcing seems to include a lot of lesser quality sources (news, encyclopedias). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Overquoting
• MOS:ACCIM (hatnotes go before images) I corrected, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Listiness in prose – several lists need to be converted to prose, and sourced/attributed.
• MOS:OVERLINKing (see for example Universal House of Justice); you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.
• HarvRef errors abound, indicating sourcing needs cleanup; you can install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js

Overall, fails 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Faulty hatnotes (eg, the "Main" template should be used when WP:SS is employed).
• Dated text, sample only, "The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004 included ... " check throughout needed.

  Another sample of dated text/sources, as found throughout: "Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 Iranian Baháʼís have regularly had their homes ransacked or have been banned from attending university or from holding government jobs, and several hundred have received prison sentences ..." cited to 2003. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• It's everywhere: another sample, "However, the government has never produced convincing evidence supporting its characterization of the Baháʼí community.[174] " Cited to 2008. A top-to-bottom rewrite is going to be needed here, as it appears the article has not been updated since the last review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at a cumulative diff of the edits made since the FAR opened, if the intent is to save this star, MOS-compliant editing will be needed. This diff shows the introduction of:

• Several instances of faulty ellipses, see MOS:ELLIPSIS
• Faulty page ranges throughout, see MOS:PAGERANGE
• Mixed citation styles (see WP:WIAFA); if sources are being cited with short note sfns, that should be consistent throughout (books listed in the sources, with page ranges specified in the sfn).

Bringing these things up now to avoid having to fix a lot of stuff later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• You can install user:GregU/dashes.js to keep WP:ENDASHes vs. hyphens in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks - I got the working though for some reason i have two showing up on my view. I tried the other tools suggested above but so far I'm not seeing them show up anywhere in my view.Smkolins (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  With the HarvRef script, you don't have to do anything to make it work ... just scroll to the bottom of the article to see the red print showing up with sources that have errors. For the Dup links script, you sometimes have to click it twice, from the toolbox on the left of your screen, and then scroll down through the article to fine indication of dupe links in red. It's tricky. Also, you don't have to eliminate all duplicate links; at times, they can be justified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Overall, saving this star will require an almost top-to-bottom rewrite and revamping of prose, sourcing and correction of MOS issues involving editors experienced with content at the FA level; a 2004 FA last reviewed in 2007 (which wasn't a review at all) that has not been maintained, the article is not even close to modern FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, thanks for the comments and for raising all these points from the MOS that I mostly wasn't aware of. I agree that the page will need a lot of work... in fact as I look at the sources more closely I can see even more of them will need replacing. I won't have time in the next couple weeks to do this scale of revisions. Seems reasonable to me that the page may FA status and can maybe regain it eventually with enough work, but if other editors want to jump in and fix everything in time then great, I can help here and there. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to dump the trivial on you, when there are larger issues, but it seems better to get everything out at once, in fairness. Others need to decide if this article is really saveable at FAR, or if it should be defeatured, with a later return to FAC when ready. The work needed here would be daunting for experienced FA writers ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• The page has not had a systematic rewrite in many years if ever - mostly people are just trying to tweak update and handle shifting set of sources and things coming published, and shifting content as it expands into separate articles, sometimes several, and sometimes those article being condensed or themselves split into other articles. Wikipedia has certain evolved over time and perhaps several of us who've been keeping up the article and related article developments are in need of a tune up of what that evolving standard is. I look forward, with others, to trying. I happily just hit a window of relative availability to partake I very much hope with others can join in. Some technical points are not my forte, partly because I'm on a Mac and various assumptions it seems wikipedia has decided on are not directly simply supported, some perhaps my own habits - i have _systematically_ used '…' vs "..." not least because Macs automatically change the later into the former. Probably also because I've been in computers as far back as 1990. There are other examples. I also use the source editing environment rather than the other because when I had to learn some techniques I was more successful at that than the mediated type which also sometimes didn't work on Macs using Safari. And what to you all may feel like standard is to me a platform choice and arbitrarily against my habits. And there are so many date patterns across the world - and though I'm limited to English I still read through diverse websites - I similarly find arguments about date formatting tedious. There are almost as many detailed rendering of dates as there are published scholarly sources - far more than 'Chicago' other 'styles' let alone Wikipedia's citation styles and that evolution. Not that I'm trying to get into a platform discussion - just a flavor of where I'm coming from. But don't mistake what may seem like noisey editing to you as clumsiness of me. On the other hand I may have relatively better access to resources through published scholarship and I believe I've show some resourcefulness at tracking things down. And I have had pokes at trying to get actual papers published in diverse professional environments while I still have a day job. I hope that day is much closer than it used to be. Be that as it may, I don't proceed from assumption that I know what I'm doing - I've been open to learning and am open to learning what makes articles better. Smkolins (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I did something to my iPad that forced it to let me override the Apple ellipsis style, but I'll be darned if I can remember where that setting is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Interesting you manage on an iPad. Congratulations on that. Smkolins (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If you all think you have enough committed editors working to save this star, it may be more manageable to switch to using the article talk page for communication, and just keep this (FAR) page updated at least once a week on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions Smkolins... I know I sometimes remove sources that I don't think are RS but in general I do appreciate you digging lots of sources up. Anyway, we can discuss further changes at the talk page. I doubt we have enough editors working hard enough to save the star but perhaps we can get there eventually. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'll take a stab today at the demographics section in a sandbox and see how it develops. Smkolins (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Doing a weekly check, I see that not only is this vague, weasly, unattributed list still present, but the tag I put on that section is gone. A section like that needs to be written out in prose, with attribution. Not promising, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It is attributed now, and a majority of sources use the bullet-list form. I don't see a problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It would have been expeditious to inquire before (someone) removed the tag. Here's what the text says now:

• When ʻAbdu'l-Bahá first traveled to Europe and America in 1911–1912, he lectured on certain progressive principles that are often listed for a quick summary of the Baháʼí teachings. There is no authoritative list and a variety circulate with various nuances. The following is an example.

  What principles did he include when he lectured ? From the following list, we don't know.

  What is the meaning of "often listed for a quick summary"? Sounds ORish and should be attributed ... And this is an FA; we don't want a "quick summary" list; it should have finely written and attributed prose. Scholars such as a, b, c and d list x, y and z as important principles.

  What are the "various nuances" and according to whom? Cite and attribute.

  The following is an example .. why was that one chosen?

This is not scholarly analysis or FA-level writing. Then the first real prose after the list:

• With specific regard to the pursuit of world peace, Baháʼu'lláh prescribed a world-embracing collective security arrangement for the establishment of a temporary era of peace referred to in the Baháʼí teachings as the Lesser Peace ...

"Specific regard"? The entire first clause is redundant; FA-level prose isn't happening.

Then in the next paragraph, we do get one person's description of the "distinguishing principles" in the form of over-quoting. It is wonderful to see the article undergoing improvements, but they aren't yet happening at the level to retain FA status. We need to write the defining principles of this religion in our own words-- not a vaguely attributed list, and not over-quoting.

FAR is famously patient and allows time to address issues, but removing maintenance tags without understanding the underlying issue isn't making good use of reviewers' time. Think about inquiring first ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

OK that's helpful. I'll work on it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Demographics section; I mentioned above I'd take a stab at it. See User:Smkolins/Sandbox9 I'd appreciate checking it out SandyGeorgia and Cuñado, and others when you have time. Smkolins (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm glad you're working on it, but that's not there. The prose is dense, there is still considerable listiness, and there are grammatical errors. Facts are facts that shouldn't need attribution (unless controversial). Demographics section take a fairly standard format throughout Wikipedia. The demographics section of another article at FAR, Darjeeling, was just rewritten; maybe you can look at it for a sample. You might also look at Japan. You might also look at atheism (although it needs to come to FAR). I'm running quite behind at FAR due to COVID; perhaps Fowler&fowler can better explain the prose issues in your sandbox version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Will take a look tomorrow. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Fowler&fowler. I've tried to follow the Darjeeling example, with some help from Cuñado, which broadly I'd say is: newest info right at the top, in the simplest most direct language the sources support, and details follow, (and since this itself a section that has its own article keep those details to a minimum with the remainder left for that page.) Smkolins (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to re-structure the page, as I mentioned on the talk page, but realistically I haven't found the time the last few weeks, and I don't see it happening in the next week. If you feel like removing the featured status, that makes sense for now. If you want to wait a few more weeks, it's my next priority. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC to keep the process on track; FARC does not preclude further improvements and that the article's star still might be saved, but we are more than a month in, and the article is still in very rough shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fowler&fowler you are entering comments in the FAR section, when the article has moved to FARC. Could you move your comments to there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  OK, will do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Many apologies to SandyG and Smkolins for forgetting to come back to this.
• Smkolins, I think the main issue is that the text is not accessible. The article needs to be rewritten with two things in mind: (a) Will this be entirely clear to an ordinary reader anywhere in the world; will that ordinary reader be best served by this order of presentation? (b) Have I said this before, if so how does it fit with what I have said; if not, how will it fit with what I will say later? For example, I would rewrite the first paragraph in the lead in the following manner. I'm not saying that I have summarized the teachings correctly, but I have attempted to make it more accessible:

  The Baháʼí Faith is a religion founded in the mid-19th century in Iran. It teaches that all religions have grown from a single blueprint and have been fashioned by the same God; the image of that God is the composite of all humanity. The faith was founded by Baháʼu'lláh, the byname of Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí who was born in Iran in 1817. It grew at first in Iran and some other parts of Western Asia but also faced persecution there, leading to Baháʼu'lláh's flight to what is now Israel, where he died in 1892. As of 202?, the adherents of the Baha'i faith—commonly called Baháʼís—are scattered throughout the world and number between five million and eight million.

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would swap the second paragraph for the third.

  There is too much about the founders too early in the lead, but not enough to reel in the reader. By this I mean: there is too much sketchy or offhand mention, but without any hook to catch the attention of a reader who is unfamiliar with the material. When you present such material you have to do it in a way that doesn't overload the reader with details that might appear disconnected to them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's what I am able to say at this stage. The issues are more those of consistency and comprehensibility than syntax. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• I appreciate the input Fowler&fowler and hope to see how this will take shape in the article. Historically (though I only go back to around 2005) I would say that contested attempts to edit have tended towards finding more and more citations and finding language that satisfies consensus and participants in the process who are not the "ordinary reader". We keep getting into debates on points that are only settled by fine details. Additionally there has been a here-and-there editing quality to the article though also some consistency, especially by Cuñado I feel, to harmonize the article though it's been an uphill battle to get consensus on changes in language. For example you make the lead a lot easier to read, I agree, but we *often* had editors tweak the language in lots of different ways which Cuñado merged into what I feel has been a stabilizing note that has acted as a 'defense' against the continued history of attempts to tweak the first sentences. I understand and like your sentences but how does one defend against such editing of saying x with cite means it should be included when this approach you outline suggests we have to find an applicable standard that preservers readability instead of bowing to every citation?? Smkolins (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Fowler&fowler – I think I've mostly focused on source quality and neutrality in my edits but I will make an effort to focus on making the text accessible to all readers too. And that is good thinking about keeping in mind what has already been said in earlier parts when writing a later part. I also agree with your suggestion of putting the teachings before the details on the founders (i.e., swapping the second and third paragraphs in the lead). Your comments are much appreciated and I think will help me with my editing style on other articles too!

Smkolins, yes this is a very fair point that the text has gotten over-complicated as a "defence" against objections to the wording. I think we need to present things more simply in many parts of the article and this may mean less attention to minor nuances and disagreements between sources. That said, I do think the goal has to be preserving both accessibility and accuracy/neutrality, which may require some careful thought for some points. I've made some bullet points on how we can achieve that balance (though I'm open to alternate ideas from you or Fowler&fowler here).

* If disagreements between sources get too esoteric for this article, we can put them in the more specific articles and link to those in this article. In that case, I think it's essential that, while not explaining the disagreements between sources, our wording is compatible with all majority and significant minority perspectives (as per WP:DUE). So for example, rather than saying the Baha'i Faith is a "relatively new religion" in the lead sentence, I think we could say just that it is a "religion" or an "Abrahamic religion"... this way we dodge the question of whether to call it a world religion vs a new religion.

Except I'm having difficulty imaging a subpage about whether the the religion is a world religion vs a new religion and all the other relatively uncommon or old examples of what it has been called. I would be in favor, instead, of having a settled pov about the description and refer all arguments about it to that settled point which could be a hidden text with basically the current note's contents in it and some summary of this guidance of what is an appropriate content and what isn't for Wikipedia's standards of an FA. Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

* Some nuances or disagreements between sources might be important enough to go in the body of this article, but it would still be better not put them in the lead. In that case, again I think we can phrase the lead in a way that's accurate and avoids taking a side, and then the details will follow below. I think that would be a good idea for the two footnotes in the lead sentence (I was one of the editors quibbling over the wording but I see now that this will just confuse most readers). If there is no way to phrase something accurately without going into a bit of detail, we could try to keep it out of the lead paragraph and then explain a bit of detail in a later paragraph of the lead. For example, I'm not sure there is any way to explain the Baha'i teaching on the unity of religion in the first sentence in a way that's simultaneously concise, clear, and accurate.

Unless there is some policy about how to arrive at a consensus beyond what I have learned about wikipedia - which is what I'm asking for above - I don't know a way except repeated consensus building which has always rested on better and better sourcing and including those sources has been the way that settled development was preserved. Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

* Where editors disagree over wording, we can try to reach consensus on the meaning at the talk page and then think of a way to phrase that simply, rather than having that debate in the article by adding extra clauses and references. For example, there was one point where I wrote "a handful" of Babis were involved in the attempted assassination of the Shah, as opposed to "a few" as it said before, and then you dutifully added another reference to clarify it was just three. I wasn't actually trying to change the meaning... I was just using a different word since my source (Warburg) said "few". I'd be willing to go back to "a few" and remove the extra citation to keep things simpler for our readers.

Save that people have debated and tended to color debates about all kinds of things about the religion and if they get into this detail then a 'handful' sounds like 5 which as it turned out was actually an exaggeration - something that has been a feature of many of the debates until we can find an actual source credible and specific enough. I've participated in many years of many vociferous debates which is why I went for the actual detail rather than the generalized terms people went to and it has succeeded in make the page more stable, if, as above, relatively difficult to read as point after point after point has been debated over the years. Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, we can discuss simplifying individual parts of the article in more detail at the talk page if there are others that have become too complicated. My bad for any parts where I contributed to making the wording a bit of a labyrinth. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that was so long winded! I will make sure to avoid that in the article. ;) Gazelle55 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I'm asking Fowler&fowler (and anyone who can provide guidance) for how or what standard in wikipedia can deal with such debated details without needing to state those details and provide sources for them to maintain readability. In other words what applicable rule or policy actually makes this work? Is it really practical to say 'featured article status clears this level of readability and that point x with source y while credible is actually too obscure for this article and since it is a singular source doesn't rise to being a stand alone article' ? Or do we have to do a hidden note per my suggestion for each point with hidden text pointing to such details? Or is there some other method? Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comments of Fowler&fowler: Hello all.

I took another look at this article, and also at three sources, which in the ascending order of resolution (i.e. of delving into details) are: (a) Peter Smith's short summary article, An Introduction to the Baha'i faith, available at the British Library web site, (b) Page 3 of Peter Smith's book, An introduction to the Baha'i faith, Cambridge University Press, 2008, and (c) page 26 of Juan R. I. Cole's, Modernity and the Millennium: The genesis of the Baha'i faith in the nineteenth century Middle East, Columbia University Press, 1998.

In my view, the article needs to be written at a level of resolution halfway between (a) and (b) with occasional vignettes of level (c). As it is, it seems to be skimming the trees, kind of like the short articles in the Seventh Day Adventist Magazine in my dentist's office during my childhood (with no disrespect meant to the Adventists.) Please tell me, how did you manage to write an article such as this without mentioning early on (as Peter Smith does in (b)) that the Baha'i faith grew out of Shia Islam in Iran? Or, how can you deadpan your way through the voluntary 19% tax in Baháʼí_Faith#Exhortations? Have there never been objections? Have no stories about its excessiveness been run in newspapers? Why, in the same section, are embalming or cremation frowned upon by the Baha'i faith? It is better to have just two or three examples of exhortations but with explanations, or related stories, than a long vanilla list.

I don't mean to decry the effort put in, which is obviously considerable (with so many parent- or linked articles written), but this article, the flagship in some sense, seems to be the least attractive. Why is that so? Examine History of the Baha'i Faith, for example, which is so much more readable. Is there some kind of unintended effort afoot, a sanitizing POV at work, in the final output, a reluctance to add any juicy tidbit, gossip, rumor, innuendo, or bring in the inevitable shadowy figures, for example? Or are the three of you by being too critical, or too exacting, managing to sap the article of any individuality or character? Or have you interpreted the precis to be an oversimplified summary, written in simple declarative sentences? This is something you need to figure out for yourselves. Also, I notice, since I made my comments on September 23rd, the article has been edited just three times. Is the heart there?

At this point, these are the main issues for me. The way out, from my viewpoint, would be to summarize more from (b) or a source like it, to add more details, more nuance, more controversy, show more of the underbelly, and so forth. But it will require work. At FAR, they give time, if people are willing to put in the effort. That last decision is yours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have never viewed this article as being able to overcome the deficiencies; it is too far off the mark. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Responding briefly to Fowler&fowler's comment, "how did you manage to write an article such as this without mentioning early on (as Peter Smith does in (b)) that the Baha'i faith grew out of Shia Islam in Iran?" One of the more intractable problems in summarizing the Baha'i Faith is balancing technical accuracy with readability, while fending off attacks from people trying to smear it. Technically speaking, the Babi Faith started in 1844 in Iran directly from Shia origin, and the Baha'i Faith started in 1863, announced by Baha'u'llah in Baghdad (not Iran), but almost all the Babis eventually became Baha'is, and at least 90% of Baha'is were of Iranian descent until about 1950 (now they're a minority). For readability, we should say that it began among Shias in Iran in 1844, but people who are not friendly to Baha'is will try to emphasize the separate religions of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Another confounding issue is the attempt to assassinate the Shah by three Babis that resulted in collective punishment, mass executions, and the exile of Baha'u'llah, when he chose to go to Baghdad (he could have gone elsewhere, so he wasn't exiled to Baghdad, but from Iran). It is difficult to summarize all this in the lead while keeping it accurate and readable. Thanks for the feedback. I'll make some improvements soon. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That was my sense that you guys are worrying too much about optics, about not being smeared. To write a comprehensive article you need to stop worrying and present the good, the bad, and the ugly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding POV issues, I agree with Fowler&fowler -- as I've said on various talk pages, most of the Baha'i articles on Wikipedia have a noticeable pro-Baha'i slant and this one is no different. Yes, I can think of a few editors who seem to have a genuine anti-Baha'i animus, but I think the much bigger problem is that the articles largely stick to the Baha'i narrative. To some extent that's because many of the academic sources are written by Baha'i academics like Peter Smith and Moojan Momen (whose work is WP:RS), but it's also because other researchers haven't been cited as much. I don't see bad faith on the part of other editors (I think they are editing in a way they think is accurate and fair), but I think we can do better. I guess while they feel they get undue pushback from critical editors, I feel I often get undue pushback when I try to use a balanced approach.

Anyway, regarding the necessary push—I don't have much time to devote to this article in the near future so unless there is a big push by others I think we should just remove the FA star immediately and conclude the FARC process. Maybe it can regain FA status eventually but that will take quite a while at this rate. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a delist from me, then. Hog Farm _Talk 20:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Delist, way too many issues as demonstrated throughout this FAR; this article would be better worked off-FAR and resubmitted to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources
References

• Delist serious issues have been shown to exist. (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Delist the issue of the sources outlined above require more work than what can be accomplished in a short FAR process. I suggest that, if editors are interested, that they work on the article and bring it to FAC. Z1720 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Delist I'm sorry user:Gazelle55, user:Smkolins, and user:Cuñado I have to vote so. I do so with a heavy heart anytime vital articles are moved out of WP:FA and hydrogen-weight fluff floats in at FAC, all because it follows some arbitrary rules concocted by talk page mavens at MOS. But that is not the conversation I have the time nor the heart for these days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.