Talk:Stephen Birkland

Talisman investigation versus controversy versus work with dissidents

The Talisman investigation was controversial, but simply stating it as an "investigation" as opposed to a "controversy" is more neutral. Nevertheless, titling it "work with dissidents" is fallacious, as is labeling the participants "marginal or ex-Bahá'ís." Not only were the participants active Bahá'ís, many had served as missionaries proselytizing the Faith overseas. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Marginal or ex-Bahá'ís or apostates

If you read the source cited, Moojan Momen refers to some of the members as "marginal," but only for the time they were participants of Talisman. At that point, they were not "ex-Bahá'ís." Only later did they resigns or become former Bahá'ís, by which time the term Momen uses in his article is "apostate." Many of these individuals contributed greatly to the development of the Bahá'í Faith at great personal sacrifice. As Juan Cole, a member of Talisman, noted in his obituary for Linda Walbridge, another Talisman member who passed away from cancer, "She served as a pioneer in Lebanon in 1973-1974 and again in Jordan some years later. In Jordan she lived in difficult circumstances with two young children. She once remarked to me that she had spent much of her life in penury to serve the Faith, depriving her children in ways she later regretted." Regards, A35821361 (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Quoting and Talisman discussion

The background is referenced entirely from the One Country article. It is more appropriate to quote the actual source rather than rewrite the same information in your own words.

Regarding the description of the Talisman incident, read WP:ATTACK. Clearly this page was made in order to provide negative information about a living person. Using Juan Cole as a source is not very reliable, as he is not a third party to the story. The section needs to be toned down or deleted.

If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person.

— WP:ATTACK

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know about that policy, but certainly saw the pattern. I adjusted the flow of information to particularized that the effort was premeditated and that it was the owner, one of the plotters, who took down the email list himself. Smkolins (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The Talsiman episode is chronicled in the journal articles published by Juan Cole, Moojan Momen, and Karen Bacquet. Talisman was a purely academic forum for free discussion, unencumbered by religious censors. If there is any "attack," it is the wording which is repeatedly inserted into the this article including, for example, the reference to Talisman as "a premeditated scheme of criticizing Bahá'í institutions." Regards, A35821361 (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Several sources speak to the premeditated issue as the very reason there as an investigation. It wasn't just "purely academic" it was politically motivated by its founder and a small number of associates. Bring this all up amounts to an WP:ATTACK and threatens the reason this article was created. Kirkland doesn't have that much notoriety anyway. Think of police who do their job well but something happens and it makes the news. Wikipedia is bound to respect the legal situation of referring to people. Smkolins (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC) One of the quotes, this one from Momen:

It was the creation in October 1994 of a university-based Internet list called Talisman, created by a Bahá'í university professor "AA", that initiated a change. ….The discussions on Talisman might however have gone on indefinitely but for an episode that occurred on 7 February 1996. Unknown to the majority of the participants on Talisman, a group of marginal Bahá'ís had set up a separate secret e-mail list called Majnun. On that date, "AA" accidentally posted onto the Talisman list, a posting intended for the Majnun list. What made the posting particularly significant was that its content revealed that the discussion on Majnun was centred on finding a "winning strategy" for the marginal Bahá'ís.

Agreed with Cuñado that this page seems to have been created as an attack against its subject; as such (and seeing as notability has not otherwise been demonstrated), I've redirected this page to Universal House of Justice. If notability can be established via neutral sources external to the Baha'i community and sources connected to it (critical or otherwise), feel free to recreate it. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 13:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Contents of this page

The contents of this page are in no way, shape, or form an attack on the subject, seeing as how the contents give an outline of the subject matter's background, his religious service, and his involvement as a responsible administrator in an investigation. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

As noted on your talk page, the balance of the article as it was created was devoted to the "Controversy" section which is entirely negative in tone, which is inappropriate for a biography; see WP:COATRACK. As well, notability outside of primary (i.e. Bahá'í-related) sources has not been established, therefore the article fails the test of notability. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 11:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree the article was sourced and framed as an attack, not as a biography of the individual. Salient points of the original post were avoided resulting in a biased review of events which constitutes an attack. Smkolins (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, all relevant perspectives of the Talisman investigation are covered, including the letter by the Universal House of Justice. The article was not framed as an attack, but an unbiased accounting of the incident. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your contention that the article is an "unbiased accounting", but even if it were, the article as written places undue weight on the investigation, to the point where its purpose is essentially to recount the story of the investigation. This makes the article a coatrack for the Talisman investigation, which is a form of attack and unacceptable for a BLP. Creating an article about an otherwise non-notable individual for the purpose of highlighting one specific event is at best a mistake, and potentially duplicitous. If you're so intent on seeing the incident covered in some form on Wikipedia, I would suggest you try to work it into Criticism of the Bahá'í Faith, seeing as it's not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article.

By the way, since we're discussing things here, I'll refrain from redirecting this article back to Universal House of Justice for the time being, but unless we make some progress towards establishing the subject's notability, I do intend to redirect it there. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your contentions. The subject of the article is a notable individual, including for his service in various roles in the hierarchy of the Bahá'í Administrative Order as well as his election to the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing body of that religion whose believers hold to be collectively infallible. His investigation of the Talisman discussion group, an independent academic forum, is presented without prejudice, including the perspective of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. Therefore your conclusion that "Creating an article about an otherwise non-notable individual for the purpose of highlighting one specific event is at best a mistake, and potentially duplicitous" is without basis and contrary to the fundamental Wikipedia principle of Assuming Good Faith. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to disagree with my view, and I thank you for remaining respectful and willing to work together with others to find a way forward. I'd like to suggest that the notion of "notability" which you seem to espouse may not be the same one which is used on Wikipedia. From WP:BIO:

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

• If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
• Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not.

So, in this case:

• There is no indication that Birkland has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Note that of all the sources cited, none can be considered "intellectually independent of each other" or "independent of the subject": They are either aligned with the Baha'i World Centre, or against it and ideologically aligned with each other, in that they are known to be polemically opposed to Bahá'í institutions and the Bahá'í administrative order in general. It's good that you've tried to provide multiple sources, but the fact remains that they are not independent of each other nor of the subject.
• Moreover, I argue that all of the sources included are, in fact, primary sources, which, while they can be used to support content, cannot be used to prove notability. First, all the sources about Birkland's life are provided by the Bahá'í International Community, which is directly affiliated to Bahá'í institutions. Second, the sources cited in the Talisman section are individuals who were directly involved in the incident described. Apart from Juan Cole and Karen Bacquet, who were clearly involved, the only other source given is Moojan Momen. Momen is generally a helpful and reliable source, but he was also a member of Talisman at the time of the incident; thus, he, also, should be considered a primary source for that section. Moreover, he does not once refer to Birkland, the subject of this article, in the work cited. We are therefore left with no sources that can be used to prove notability for this article.
• If your contention is that the Talisman episode is in itself noteworthy enough, then the article still fails WP:BLP1E: "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event..."

This illustrates what I mean when I say that notability has not been proved. If you are interested in retaining this article, then please provide some sort of independent, verifiable proof of the subject's notability; otherwise, please acknowledge that the article is not worth retaining and allow it to be merged into Universal House of Justice. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

For comparison, Jehovah's Witnesses are numerically larger than Baha'is and well known. They have a 7-member Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and only two of them have articles, both of which have notability problem tags. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the reason for the deletion for large sections of this article?

The material being eliminated is well-cited and from objective third party sources. The individual who is the subject of this article is notable for a number of reasons. What is the reason for deletion of the material? Regards, A35821361 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I won't presume to speak for Cuñado or Smkolins, who, with you, have done the bulk of the work on this article, but reading the entirety of this talk page should be enough to answer your question. The onus is on you to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your additions conform to Wikipedia policy, and not the other way around. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)