Talk:Subh-i-Azal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Much Better Wording of the Intro ATM

'Subh-i-Azal (1831–1912, born Mirza Yahya) was an Iranian religious leader of Bábism who succeeded its founder the Báb as the central authority of the religion after the latter's execution in 1850. He is known for his later conflict with his half-brother Baháʼu'lláh over leadership of the Bábí community, after which his followers became known as Azalis.

This is excellent. It is also the truth of the matter. According to Niraqi and every other source before the Baha'i re-imagination and creative rewriting of earlier events, Baháʼu'lláh publicly and outwardly paid obeisance to Subh-i-Azal in word and deed until 1866 CE. Niraqi, for example, states:

“…in his [earlier] professed declarations of servitude [towards Ṣubḥ-i-Azal], [Bahā’u’llāh] would make the cap of pride and boastful vainglory reach the summit of the heavens…” in tadhkirāt al-ghāfilīn (Remonstrance to the Heedless Ones), CUL, E.G. Browne Collection, MS F.63(9), 172, online, http://bayanic.com/showPict.php?id=tazk&ref=0&err=0&curr=0 (pagination at 171 in digital Bayanic.com edition).

--2001:8003:ED8F:EB00:563:5F06:B9A0:E690 (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Do not remove sources and then claim you are cleaning up the article

Removing relevant sources from the bibliography and claiming you are cleaning up the article is vandalism. Stop it! 2001:8003:ED8F:EB00:C0FD:47AF:3A54:1336 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

If there are references that are not used in the article, they get removed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

And upon what basis is this determination made other than your own? Leave it alone because what you are doing is a form of intellectual vandalism. 2001:8003:ED8F:EB00:D4E0:5622:579E:2FC4 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources you are removing are also catalogued sources appearing on *WorldCat* as well as the catalogue of the *National Library of Australia*. So what you have determined as "unreliable" is your own bias, and has nothing do with with any objective determination or criteria to anything that Wikipedia is specifically saying. See for yourself:

https://search.worldcat.org/title/1452284554

https://search.worldcat.org/title/1452285135

https://search.worldcat.org/title/1452285121

And given that these citations are more recent than the others, by any objective academic (or even non-academic) criteria they not only require inclusion but override the older cited works, and so must be cited because they are about the topic of the entry.

2001:8003:ED8F:EB00:D4E0:5622:579E:2FC4 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The reference section is for sources being cited in the article. Four of the sources I removed were not in the article, and three of those were from Wahid Azal (real name Nima), who is an online troll, not a reliable source. The fifth thing I removed was a cite to Wahid Azal that was redundant to another reference. User:Qalandar303 in 2022-3 added the same citation repeatedly to this page ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) and was later banned indefinitely from editing due to general incivility and legal threats (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive349). Now less than two years later we have an anonymous account trying to insist on inserting the same reference, using the same "Do not remove..." talk page headers ([6]).

Please stop disruptive editing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Your reasons are irrelevant, display bias, and are outside of the scope of valid reasons that Wikipedia claims for bibliographic citations. Furthermore, you nor the Haifan Bahai organization are proprietors of any entry on Wikipedia. This means you do not own any article or entry here. You have been reverted, and will continue to be so indefinitely. If you continue to misbehave, brow-beat and bully, rights are reserved to take further action.

2001:8003:ED8F:EB00:9CF2:F974:5F1F:12FE (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reference is not redundant. It is related to this sentence: When Cyprus was leased to Britain in 1878, he lived out the rest of his life in obscurity on a British pension, while interacting with many of the island's Sufis. The other reference given is a work of Moojan Momen, a Bahá'í, i.e. a believer in the Bahá'í religion which is theologically hostile to Subh-i-Azal, the topic of the article. The article cited is clearly biased against Subh-i-Azal and his family, for example, it says, without citing any source: "Jalal Azal died on 5 April 1971 of a cerebral stroke, exacerbated by his tendency to excessive alcohol consumption. His wife remained in Famagusta and used to commemorate his death by an annual announcement in the newspaper." Adding a newer reference from a non-Bahá'í author helps to support the sentence with references from both sides. In context of the subject of the article, I find it hard to believe in the reliability of Moojan Momen's article, published in a Bahá'í journal (with enforced religious and theological policy, again, hostile to the subject of the article), and the unreliability of an article published in an independent magazine. Mineemod (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment Mineemod and I would toss both references. My point is that Wahid Azal is not a reliable source and should not be used on Wikipedia. Moojan Momen has a level of academic credibility but in this case a better source should be used. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is Wahid Azal an unreliable source? He has done a bit of research surrounding the Azali/Bayani religion. I know some of his original works are controversial and very hostile especially to the Bahá'í religion, but that is not a reason why exclude him as a source for Azali-related articles. This is an area that has not had much interest from researchers in the past two decades, despite its relevancy in Iranian history, we don't have the luxury of picking our sources. The papers that were introduced in the edit war are properly written, including citations for facts discovered by others as well as original research enabled by the author's position in the contemporary Bayani (Azali) community.

For example, articles about more marginal religious groups frequently use primary sources, e.g. Community of Christ. The article about Mírzá Muhammad ʻAlí also relies primarily on Adib Taherzadeh, a highly biased source, and still, it is written from a relatively neutral point of view (partly also thanks to your work). If we decide to reject both Bayani and Bahá'í sources, not much will be left. Therefore, I suggest keeping the reference to "Invoking the Seven Worlds", which was published in a magazine not affiliated with the Bayani community. It can be also be used as a reference for further improvement of the article. I'm not against removing the other references which are unused currently; I might restore them and cite them when improving the article in the future if I deem them reliable enough. (And other people can still find them in the history through this talk page.)

Yes, Moojan Momen has some academical credibility, but as a Bahá'í, his work is subject to pre-publication review from the Bahá'í organization, again much hostile to Subh-i-Azal due to historical reasons. Mineemod (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Moojan Momen actually does not possess academic credibility and he has been accused of plagiarism in one notable instance, i.e. his *Introduction to Shi'i Islam* which was originally the work of AKS Lambton.

The only reason that you say Wahid Azal is not a reliable source is because 1. he is not a Baha'i and 2. he has challenged with strong evidence the Baha'i narratives on the subject. Bias, on the other hand, are all the Baha'i sources used here, and especially Momen as well as Manouchehri. 2001:8003:ED8F:EB00:402B:202C:1DCD:7586 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You may wish to note that Cuñado ☼ is using a sockpuppet account to edit war. User_talk:Smkolins is the sockpuppet account. 2001:8003:ED8F:EB00:9992:4F0A:2A38:86A4 (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe Smkolins is a sockpuppet of Cuñado, the patterns in their work, both time and language, are different enough to assume with high certainty they are different people. Mineemod (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I do believe he is, and he hasn't as yet denied it either. 2001:8003:ED8F:EB00:402B:202C:1DCD:7586 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Really. It's true until denied? Um, "No, I am not Cuñado." There. I guess that proves it. Jeez. If anyone really has to check, be my guest. Smkolins (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Methinks thou protesteth too much CarnelianSun108 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Wahid Azal is an online troll that is mostly focused on attacking Baha'is. He is not an independent academic source. He is not a primary source, he is an unreliable secondary source. We need reliable secondary sources that process and summarize the primary sources. Azal has two Britannica articles, two encyclopedia of Islam articles, an Iranica article, Abbas Ammanat, David Barrett, Edward Browne, and Paul Carus. They are all independent authors or publishers and this entire article should be sourced mostly from them. I would remove Balyuzi and most of the Baha'i materials unless the citation is to support what Baha'i sources say about him. Wahid Azal is a pathetic, uncredible, washed-up loser who makes outlandish claims of representing what's left of the Azalis. He has no credentials. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Cuñado is an online hireling of the Bahai Internet Agency that is mostly focused on attacking all enemies of the Haifan Baha'i organization. Wahid Azal doesn't seem to be alone here. Whoever is deemed an enemy of Haifa, is attacked by :Cuñado per this specific policy directive of the Universal House of Justice (circa 2000):

Although deepening the friends' understanding of the Covenant and increasing their love and loyalty to it are of paramount importance, the duties of the Auxiliary Board members for Protection do not end here. The Board members must remain ever vigilant, monitoring the actions of those who, driven by the promptings of ego, seek to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of the friends and undermine the Faith. In general, whenever believers become aware of such problems, they should immediately contact whatever institution they feel moved to turn to, whether it be a Counsellor, an Auxiliary Board member, the National Spiritual Assembly or their own Local Assembly. It then becomes the duty of that institution to ensure that the report is fed into the correct channels and that all the other institutions affected are promptly informed. Not infrequently, the responsibility will fall on an Auxiliary Board member, in coordination with the Assembly concerned, to take some form of action in response to the situation. This involvement will include counselling the believer in question; warning him, if necessary, of the consequences of his actions; and bringing to the attention of the Counsellors the gravity of the situation, which may call for their intervention. Naturally, the Board member has to exert every effort to counteract the schemes and arrest the spread of the influence of those few who, despite attempts to guide them, eventually break the Covenant.The need to protect the Faith from the attacks of its enemies may not be generally appreciated by the friends, particularly in places where attacks have been infrequent. However, it is certain that such opposition will increase, become concerted, and eventually universal. The writings clearly foreshadow not only an intensification of the machinations of internal enemies, but a rise in the hostility and opposition of its external enemies, whether religious or secular, as the Cause pursues its onward march towards ultimate victory. Therefore, in the light of the warnings of the Guardian, the Auxiliary Boards for Protection should keep "constantly" a "watchful eye" on those "who are known to be enemies, or to have been put out of the Faith", discreetly investigate their activities, alert intelligently the friends to the opposition inevitably to come, explain how each crisis in God's Faith has always proved to be a blessing in disguise, and prepare them for the "dire contest which is destined to range the Army of Light against the forces of darkness.

As such Cuñado is not an independent editor and works on behalf of a corporate directive issued from Haifa. Therefore, Cuñado is himself a pathetic, washed up, hireling clown and uncredible tool and complete loser who without any shame celebrates sexualizing his own sister as his alias Cuñado. He has no credibility to be talking about anyone else's when he is nothing but a sock-puppet and tool of a cult peddling propaganda. He and the organization he answers to must be defied for their attempts at falsifying history all over Wikipedia and brow-beating and bullying anyone who defies their organized falsification attempts. His ad hominem and incessant attacks are also not in keeping with a credible editor. He should be banned from Wikipedia together with his sockpuppet account User_talk:Smkolins CarnelianSun108 (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen such a poor contribution to a wikipedia dialog. Smkolins (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Is that all you have to say? No denial that you are a sock-puppet account? Fine. Attack and then gaslight is all that you Baha'is know. So wow yourself.

Also, the items you keep removing are not self-published. They are published by a label and are catalogued by a national library as well as WorldCat. Put that in your cluster and smoke it. FYI CarnelianSun108 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)