Jump to content

Talk:Persecution of Baháʼís

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

For this page everything needs sources and remember that information found only on websites or blogs explicitly do not meet wikipedia policies & guidelines for reliable sources. The links to personal websites are not an acceptable sources — to wit: "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources". Reliable Source: Personal websites as secondary sources -- Jeff3000 14:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian hearings

[edit]

There have been many developments in the situation in Eqypt - here's some info I have gleaned. Perhaps it could be the basis of an extension...

There had been a scheduled hearing in Sept for the Supreme Court but it was postponed for a report reviewing the facts of the case to be made for consideration. The Court is scheduled to reconvene on the matter Nov 20th.

That report was released in 12 October.

It was entirely against the Bahá'ís as far as I can find...

A blog has covered the topic in depth.Baha'i Faith in Egypt but here's a summary:

it concluded that since the Baha'i Faith is not recognized in Egypt as a "divine religion," therefore its followers in that land have no rights whatsoever and that they simply do not exist! Consequently, they concluded that Egypt's Constitutional guarantees of freedom of belief and religion do not apply to the Baha'is. That Egypt is not bound to its commitment as a cosignatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and that the Baha'is, in Egypt, should not be under its protection--since, as far as they are concerned, Egypt should have no obligations towards them! That the Baha'i are apostates (whether or not they descended from an Islamic background). That they are a threat to the "general [public] order" of the State, and that all their marriages are null and void.... That "methods must be defined that would insure that Baha'is are identified, confronted and singled out so that they could be watched carefully, isolated and monitored in order to protect the rest of the population as well as Islam from their danger, influence and their teachings." The report also calls for the original plaintiffs (the Baha'i family that won the case) to be charged for all court costs!

- note the language reminiscent of the Iranian secret plan to track Bahá'ís (but also understand that Egypt is a Sunni-Moslem country while Iran is a Shi'a-Moslem one and they have little tolerance even for eachother.)

Oct 19th President Mubarak made a speech about religious diverisity on the anniversary of the first night of the Revelation of God to Muhammad mentioned here with an open-ended call for core values of Islam for tolerance but did not mention any specifics:"Isn't it the time for a new religious discourse, that teaches people the correct things in their religion ... and promotes the values of tolerance against those of extremism and radicalism?"

Since then leading religious figures have continued to speak out against and for the Bahá'ís. Here's a report of an interview with a tolerant Muslim but also mentioning his extremist older brother.--Smkolins 18:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt’s Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favour of the Ministry of Interior’s appeal, and to reverse the lower court’s ruling of 4 April 2006 that favored the Baha'is right to being identified as such for the purpose of official documents. It also ordered the Bahá’í couple who had initiated the original lawsuit against the Ministry of Interior in order to add their daughters to their passports--to pay all court costs.[1][2] The blog occasionally referenced here, while itself not a directly acceptible source, is itself mostly collections of newspaper articles or reflects entries on several other websites. Obviously for official reference those sources should be preferred. As I am not a reader of arabic perhaps someone who is can go to the original sources and get official translations (or perhaps automatic ones) and use those as entries here in wikipedia--Smkolins 13:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the new info based on some press releases from third-party sources. -- Jeff3000 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letter Aug 16, 2006

[edit]

There's a new letter. Dated August 16th, another secret letter was sent and leaked by November. It's far more detailed about what the Iranian government is to do with the "the perverse sect of Bahaism" - a copy of the translated cover letter can be read here.

This letter and it's survey asks provincial deputies of the Department of Politics and Security in Offices of the Governors’ General to order “relevant offices to cautiously and sensitively monitor and supervise” all Baha'i social activities about the circumstances and activities of local Baha'is, including their “financial status,” “social interactions,” and “association with foreign assemblies,” and asks for information on the ‘socio-political activities’ of Baha'is – even though it is well known to authorities that Baha'is are entirely non-political in their activities in every country, inasmuch as the Baha'i sacred writings stress the importance of non-involvement in partisan politics, as well as non-violence. The news is covered by the Baha'i UN representatives to the UN (who are one of many NGOs represented there.)--Smkolins 11:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should add a couple sentences to the section on "Monitoring of Activities." -- Jeff3000 16:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rework?

[edit]

While Iran certain has some of the major documentation of persecution of Baha'is, perhaps that could be made into a different article and general themes and brief reviews kept here - kind of like what happened with Egypt and the Egyptian identification card controversy. But some review of online references finds info from several other countries that could be small sections of their own.--Smkolins 18:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some links - The Baha'i Faith 1957-1988: A Survey of Contemporary Developments by Peter Smith and Moojan Momen mentions several specifics for various countries. Wellspring of Guidance Messages of the Universal House of Justice 1963-68 by Universal House of Justice mentions Indonesia, Dialogcentret - The Baha'i Faith from the June 1985 issue of Arabia but it's easy to go beyond for other sources.... Indonesia - International Religious Freedom Report 2005 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Indonesia: Non-Muslims must study Koran to marry doesn't mention Baha'is, who wouldn't probably mind studying the scripture, but seems a universal issue, Morocco has some notes too Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination : Morocco from 04/03/94 (Concluding Observations/Comments)--Smkolins 18:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think breakouts with not be much use because the vast vast majority of persecution is/was in Iran, and thus breaking out such an article will make this one a stub. Until there is other large persecution (I hope not) in other countries, I think this article should be the place for it to be documented. I'm currently working on expanding some of the documented persecution during the Pahlavi regime. -- Jeff3000 18:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps its not right to break out the Iran section, but I think we can document more than just Egypt - here's a decade of issues AZERBAIJAN: Why are religious communities in Nakhichevan "crushed"? By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service, published 10 December 2004, and LAOS: The Disturbing Prospect for Religious Freedom By Magda Hornemann, Forum 18 News Service, published 15 June 2004, and TURKMENISTAN: Orthodox to be main victims of clampdown? By Igor Rotar, Forum 18 News Service, published 17 March 2003 and ROMANIA: Concerns about draft religion law By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service, published 6 October 2005 and more to come I'm sure. --Smkolins 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that law passed in Romania ROMANIA: Controversial Law promulgated; legal challenges planned By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service, published 3 January 2007--Smkolins 19:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(removing Israel, there is no persecution)

[edit]

I think adding Israel, which I added already stating it was not persecution, gives a chance to speak of the restrictions the Baha'is do live under in Israel and in counterpoint to the expectations some might have - and that this is the right place to talk about it. Israel is a unique circumstance for Baha'is and I think it adds to the content of the page which generally outlines strict circumstances Baha'is live under and Israel does provide strict circumstances. One angle on this I have no documentation for, for why Baha'is live this was is the "someone not free, I'm not free" which is a principle of the faith - but in any case the situation Baha'is choose to live under predates Israel which is hinted at in the article, and referenced in the article's footnote/ref. If more reference could be found it could be expanded into the entry itself and would demonstrate an aspect of Baha'i approaches to religion that in part will call for silence and service in circumstances where even the least word invites argument and contention. I'd welcome comments from other contributors as to whether there should be something like what I added.--Smkolins 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has no place in this article. There is no source that states that Baha'is are persecuted in Israel, and thus putting that in this article is original research. The way the Baha'is live in Israel is a bilateral agreement between the Baha'i World Centre and the government of the region, which in the past was not Israel, and thus is by under no definition persecution. Secondly, this page is not supposed to be an apologetic, but document Baha'i persecution. -- Jeff3000 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't spoken to any of my comments except to agree with some details. I already said it was not persecution nor did I suggest it and bringing up OR is just not under discussion - and the content of the whole article dwells on restrictions too. Certainly the majority content is and should be about persecution but as I said, it provides a place to mention issues in counterpoint to how Baha'is have to live in other places. But one small paragraph amidst several screen lengths if hardly a major imposition. It is not apologetic - it isn't written in defense of anything. It's written to highlight some special circumstances that either could be viewed as persecution but is not, or where one might suppose there is special favor but there isn't. Again I'd like to hear other's opinions.--Smkolins 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point 1) This article is on persecution not how Baha'is live in other place - no place in this article.
  • Point 2) Your counterpoint is an apologetic because it is used to highlight that the Iranian authorities claims are wrong. There are much better ways to do this (i.e. references that state this) and thus the paragraph is not the way to go about this and has no place in this article.
  • Point 3) The way Baha'is live in Israel has not been viewed as persecution by anyone, and thus would be original research and has no place in any article. -- Jeff3000 21:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jeff3000 that this isn't an appropriate place for this topic. As these restrictions are self-imposed and date to `Abdul-Baha, I don't see how this fits into this article. These practices are certainly wise so as to not bait any of the local religious groups. (Consider the effect that Evangelical Christians have on the Israelis.) Yes, Baha'is can't win for losing in some quarters of the Muslim world, that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. MARussellPESE 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I still feel I'm not really being understood but perhaps it is also that I don't understand. Peace.--Smkolins 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more refs?

[edit]

Acceleration of Iranian persecution

[edit]

There are a lot of documented cases of persecution within the last few months, and these have been reported in a series of articles on Baha'i News Service. The pace and severity of persecution seems to be increasing, and I think it would justify a new sub-section under current persecution in Iran.

Also, there are a great many photos that should be in the public domain illustrating persecution against Baha'is. These include the destruction of the National Center in the 1950s, photos of missing and murdered Baha'is, photos of demolished holy sites and cemeteries, photos of anti-Baha'i grafitti, etc. --Parsa 03:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but if it's used from the Baha'i News service then some people will consider it biased. It's better to use references from third-party observers and human rights groups. Jeff3000 has done well at sourcing this page with verifiable sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arguments for denigrating Islam as violent and possible regime change

[edit]

There are increasing instances of noting the situation Baha'is are in as documented in here and then framing this as a justification of characterization of Islam as inherently violent or of calling for regime change. I believe this conclusion is not supported by Baha'i stances but I'm not sure of any citable quotes. But I'd suggest this be an theme worth exploring. Is this page the place for it? I know I could review the instance of the Moroccan situation and the efforts of diplomacy rather than calling for regime change or denigrating Islam....--Smkolins (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe such an argument is for wikipedia to make, as it is a synthesis of published material. A good essay for a course, but not for Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this page is specifically the place for discussing a critical view of Islam or the policies of modern Muslim countries. End of neutral point. Non neutral point, as a Baha'i I think that attributing the actions of some proclaimed Muslims to be the reality of Islam is a broad and prejudicial generalization, and that most Muslims would probably find the accusation to be quite insulting. Peter Deer (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Smkolins was saying that Bahai's were making such arguments, indeed it appears he specifically said that that conclusion is not supported by the Baha'i stance. I think he was actually referring to the inclusion of the Baha'i persecution in the rhetoric of those who are already making such arguments. Jeff3000 was saying that collecting statements from some of these regime change pushers would not be as good as siting a paper of someone who has already done so. -LambaJan (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

Huge article This article is 71 kb, and a large bulk of it is about Iran. If that content was split into Bahá'ís in Iran, it would make for two reasonable articles. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the majority of the article is the persecution of the Baha'is in Iran, that article would not be much smaller, and the persecution of the Baha'is is most apparent in Iran, I disagree with the split. It should all be on the main page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While there is increasing material to document persecution of Baha'is in many places and this is leading to a longer article, there is also a problem calling a split off page Bahá'ís in Iran because there is a great deal more to the history of Bahá'ís in Iran than the persecution Baha'is have suffered there and would open up several volumes of material. Nor can I think of an easy alternative - as Jeff3000 says, most of the article is about one case and that article would be still prone to grow as events unfold. That such events are being mirrored increasingly in other countries doesn't make it easier to summarize as there are other places where events like these are simply being denied. --Smkolins (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple solution Then make a separate History of Bahá'ís in Iran or Bahá'ís in Iran article and Persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran if there is really that much material. As it stands, this article is much longer than it should be. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Article_size#Readability_issues suggests a maximum size of 30-50 kb. This article is about twice that. I agree with Jeff3000 on the "History of Baha'i in Iran" idea. There is a lot of information to cover, and very good reason to document these, but overloading the presentation diminishes it. However, I don't think splitting into "Persecutions in Iran" & "Persecutions everywhere else" articles are really useful. One option I'd suggest is setting a cut-off date, say 1979, and having "Historical persecutions" and "Current persecutions" articles.
That approach would not really cut the article down though. The article is written in more of a thesis style; so, I think another very good approach worth considering would be to really follow WP:SS and cull much of the prose into more concise summary statements and rely on the external citations for the reader's additional information. There are extended quotes reproduced here. I really think that this article can be improved on that score. We have a reference used twenty-seven times, and several instances where a reference is used three, four, or five times on consecutive sentences. That practice is, according to my old Turabian (13th ed., §9.15, pp. 124-125), poor form; and to me a sure sign that, in Summary Style writing, the material can be streamlined. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could a superstructure suit? A template of the various articles - and break this one up into some articles (general article on persecution with brief reference to Iran, Egypt and other countries; historical situation in Iran(which could actually grow somewhat longer); a focus on events near the Revolution, and recent history of oppression in Iran since the Revolution, and then put the template on all the article pages.--Smkolins (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed on current situation

[edit]

This page needs some update on the current situation. I will see if I get time soon... Help is welcome. Wiki-uk (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Persecution"

[edit]

I wanted to remind everyone of this. Unless an action, or view, or law (etc.) is specifically labeled as "persecution" (by a reliable source), it should not be in this article. This article is about persecution of Bahai's, not unfair acts against them, or anything that is not persecution.

To be "persecution" it must be called "persecution" by a reliable source (preferably multiple ones).

This is an accordance with consensus on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34#Persecution. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video:Quenching the Light

[edit]

There is a great video that highlights all the injustices in Iran. http://www.kdkfactory.com/quench/ Where can we add it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.201.144 (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be a good video, it cannot be added to the article. Self-published sources like youtube videos are not considered reliable sources and thus don't meet Wikipedia's verifiability policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video is made by a production company - its not self-published and lists all sources. take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.202.33 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one might also be interesting - [3]--Smkolins (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the MEMRITV clip needs to go in. It's straight from the horse's mouth and WP:V as hell. It should probably find a place in Anti-semitism as well as others. We should ID the time stamp for ease of reference to Baha'i because this is mostly an anti-semitic diatribe. (-13:30 & -6:25) The ignorance passing for education is actually quite shocking. "Oliver Cromwell, the dictatorial prime minister of England, placed England entirely at the service of the Jews in the 17th century." This famous protestant's inviting the Jews back to England makes him their agent? This is a man still hated in Ireland for his anti-Catholic policies. Protocols have been exposed as a forgery for decades and here we have the cream of Iranian academie treating it as authentic.
WRT "Quenching The Light", I agree with Jeff3000 that it probably shouldn't go in. The sources are already directly idenfied here, so this would arguably be linkspam here. MARussellPESE (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I watched the video and looked at the sources, the video has been shown in so many stations and has had a great influence, so I think it should be up.

If anyone can provide references for this - "shown in so many stations"..."has had a great influence".... that might qualify. Smkolins (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
on TV: The film has been shown on Iranian TVs, but I guess there is no way of confirming that. The only TV that it can be confirmed is K11UU TV which has acquired the rights and shown it as well (http://www.kdkfactory.com/quench/read.htm) as far as influence, it has inspired to projects ( WorldArt Collective, and Freedom to Believe Foundation).


Since everyone agreed [MEMRITV] was on target we need to look at this. I've never used a video as a citation so at least need some guidance if I'm going to do this - but I high suggest someone with more experience do it. One challenge is that the source is limited in it's access so there is the question of alternative access. I've also seen extensive commentary and summary of points about the whole derivation of anti-Baha'i approaches like done via GrieboskiReport. There were constructive works done at Targets of Conspiracism and Economic Strangulation all from www.iranpresswatch.org and whether directly or indirectly these all go to the anti-Baha'i underpinings. I was also very impressed with the analysis at Irony in Irani which presents a huge issue, as amy the Kurd letter if it can be substantiated more (I think.) Smkolins (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February actions

[edit]

A number of comments have been made in recent days that might be useful additions - here's urls to pursue:

  • The apology of academics that was out just before the trial was announced <http://www.iranian.com/main/2009/feb/we-are-ashamed> and has gone on to gather over 300 signatures from non-Baha'i Iranians. There is now a website collecting them. I've already compared some of the names against articles in wikipedia and made small additions.

Smkolins (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I think that catches up all these entries and similar. There might be more characterization of the kinds of remarks each actually asked for but the length would get far longer unless regrouped into themed sections. For now at least a chronology was simpler to accomplish. 'Course there will be followup on this quickly evolving series of events. There are rumors the trial was delayed 2 weeks which I've not seen officially anywhere. At some point the US Committee should come back; I saw Kirk was out of town for the week. Smkolins (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found the government reference - http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3691755&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2 Smkolins (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought that this link might be pertinent: http://www5.irna.ir/En/View/FullStory/?NewsId=358451&idLanguage=3 Particularly because it is a government press release and because of the statements that (A) They would attend hearings in the week following the 17th of February (which to my knowledge have still not happened) and (B) that they would have defence lawyers present (which they have been denied access to, as verified above). This would point to the duplicity in the way the Iranian government deals with the persecution of Baha'is. It also has the choice line, "... members of the sect would have no problems for living in Iran as was the case for them in the past." Carsonc (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Concerned Scientists with particular anecdote from 2007!

[edit]

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, INC. FOR THE YEAR 2007 - "Baha’i students in Iran were denied access to their National Entrance Examination scores in 2007. The test results were made available electronically on July 31. When around 800 students of the Baha’i faith logged on to the website, they received an error message informing them that their files were “incomplete.” Several students reported that the National Education Measurement and Evaluation Organization did not respond to phone calls and letters asking why their test results were inaccessible. When two students inquired in person to the Organization's office in Tehran, one official stated that he had “received orders from above not to score the tests of Baha’i students,” while another official suggested that a student would receive his test scores only if the student’s family renounced their faith. We called for the complete publication of all test scores without discrimination." Smkolins (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a ref on situation in Iraq

[edit]

2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices > Near East and North Africa - Iraq - "After the MOI cancelled in April its regulation prohibiting issuance of a national identity card to those claiming the Baha'i Faith, four Baha'is were issued identity cards in May. Without this official citizenship card, the approximately 1,000 Baha'is experienced difficulty registering their children in school, receiving passports to travel out of the country, and proving their citizenship. Despite the cancellation, Baha'is whose identity records were changed to "Muslim" after Regulation 358 was instituted in 1975 still could not change their identity cards to indicate their faith.

Constitutional provisions on religious freedoms countermand the Revolutionary Command Council Resolution 201 of 2001, which mandated the death penalty for adherents of the Salafist branch of Islam (Wahhabism) and Law No. 105 of 1970, which prohibits the Baha'i Faith. There was selective enforcement against Baha'is, but no been formal repeal." Smkolins (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more refs on developments in July

[edit]
  1. U.S. panel demands release of Baha'is facing trial in Iran (mentions Roxana Saberi who wrote a letter asking for the action.)
  2. INTERVIEWS: Roxana Saberi On Her Imprisonment In Iran on NPR
  3. Iran: Seven members of Baha'i religious minority face possible death sentences
  4. It is not just democracy that is illegal in Iran; By Cherie Blair, a barrister at Matrix Chambers (THE TIMES, 09/07/09) Smkolins (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

should the Arrest of Bahá'í leaders section be spun off into it's own article with brief summary here?

[edit]

I think so... Smkolins (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

might need an entry on Uzbekistan

[edit]

I'll see if there is more news or a general history but see "They can drink tea – that's not forbidden" wherein registered groups and meetings were broken up, and parents who had signed permission for their children to attend were fined. Here's another Uzbek cable operators forced to air propaganda Smkolins (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UZBEKISTAN: Two more foreigners deported for religious activity Smkolins (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brunei? International Religious Freedom Report 2007. Apparently there are some 30-40 Baha'is there and "Despite constitutional provisions … the Government restricted the practice of non-Muslim religions by prohibiting proselytizing of all faiths other than the Shafi'i sect of Islam. … It has banned several other religious groups that it considers deviant, including … the Baha'i Faith." Smkolins (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article

[edit]

I know it's been discussed (unsuccessfully) before - see above - but I'd like to suggest again that this article is split up. I suggest that Persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran had had enough coverage in independent reliable sources to be valid as an article in itself, and it would make the length of this article more manageable and give it a more global perspective. It would also link in well with the Bahá'í Faith in Iran article. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this page is already 90% about the actions in Iran, and everything else is a stub. If the sections for the other countries were large by themselves, then a discussion could be in separating the content, but at this point, the Persecution of Baha'is virtually means the Persecution of Baha'is in Iran. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with sourcing new information

[edit]

Regarding this material added by Minissa:

According to a US panel, attacks on Bahá'ís in Iran have increased since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president.<ref name="cnn2008-05">{{cite news |title=Iran's arrest of Baha'is condemned |publisher=CNN |date=2008-05-16 |accessdate=2008-05-17 |author=CNN |url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/16/iran.bahais/}}</ref> In January of 2011, 56 Baha’is were in jail because of their beliefs; as of May, 2013, 116 were imprisoned but at least another 448 are awaiting trial or sentencing. Some are deprived of any communication with others, and have not had formal charges laid; in recent months in Semnan, mothers with nursing infants as young as 1 month of age have been imprisoned.[[User:Minissa|Minissa]] ([[User talk:Minissa|talk]]) 22:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC) <ref>{{cite news |author=Bahá'í World News Service |title=Iran Update |url=http://www.news.bahai.org/human-rights/iran/iran-update.html |publisher=news.bahai.org |date=2008-06-19 |accessdate=2008-06-19}}</ref>

Minissa, if you could provide a link to the source I will show you how to put it into a proper citation. I only reverted because I didn't want to leave it cited to the old source and because you signed in the article, which is messy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be happier if the sourcing were stronger. I see CNN covered it and that is good but it would be better if one of the watchdog agencies concerned about events in Iran - and there are many - would wish to make a statement about the increasing nature of the persecution of late. There is certainly a sea of reports about it.--Smkolins (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

another reference of the echo of Tahirih in modern Iran

[edit]

Kazimi, Masaq (May 6, 2013). A Tale of Resilience: A Documentary on Baha'i Persecution (PDF) (Thesis). San Diego State University. p. 37. {{cite thesis}}: Unknown parameter |thesis= ignored (help) --Smkolins (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

annual survey cite

[edit]

"159 reports were received involving the arrest of 531 citizens, 12 incidents of violence, 66 incidence of home searches, 1 incident of closure of a religious prayer site, 39 incidents of prevention of economic and commercial activity of religious minority, 88 incidents of summons to security and legal entities and 9 incidents of suspension from studies. 79 religious minorities were sentenced to a total of 3620 months in prison, 200 months probation, 75 lashings and 41,030,000,000 rials in fines. In this area, 49% of the cases involved Baha’i minorities, 16% Christian and Dervish and 14% Sunni minority. Arrests of religious minorities increased by 36% in relation to last year." - Human rights activists in Iran publish disturbing annual report summarizing human rights violations in 2013, irandailybrief.com, 23 January 2014 (I'm guessing this could be filed as a news article)

--Smkolins (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

another recent ref

[edit]

Joshua Castellino; Kathleen A. Cavanaugh (25 April 2013). Minority Rights in the Middle East. Oxford University Press. pp. 135–138. ISBN 978-0-19-967949-2. --Smkolins (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Political accusations against the Baha'i Faith

[edit]

The foundation of the article already exists within the article, Persecution of Bahá'ís. Reading through the article – Political accusations against the Baha'i Faith – it's severely slanted, asserts several points as "true" or "false", claims "historical accuracy" based upon claims, and makes argument cases within the article, itself. KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 14:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

opposed - the basic difference being that this one is a review of persecution more broadly and one focuses on the case of more particular efforts visible in only one place on earth. The case in Iran is unique - no other government speaks so about the Baha'is. Egypt began to approach the same level of abuse and persecution but then the government and overall situation there changed and no sources have adequately reviewed how things have changed to speak to what's going on. But of Iran the situation is quite clear and unparalleled in any other present society. Historically perhaps the case in the Soviet period would be worth documenting even to the point of mass graves but it is at least one change in government and society removed from the present case in addition to being many decades back and largely changed. The cases for the points under consideration in Iran rise even to the point that diaspora Iranians, as well as perhaps a single in-country non-Baha'i individual of note, have spoken out about it. This is true of no other country. --Smkolins (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this at Talk:Political accusations against the Baha'i Faith#more possible sources. Please redirect discussion there. KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 20:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your considerations in multiple places. I didn't want this just sitting here unspoken to.--Smkolins (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Persecution of Bahá'ís. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which Islamists?

[edit]

This sentence in the lead paragraph needs to be more specific. "Thus, Baháʼís are seen as apostates from Islam, and, according to some Islamists, must choose between repentance and death." Which Islamists? Who is Roy Mottahedeh? What is "One World Publication"? The sentence seems to be exaggerated and misguiding and the source is a Baha'i source. Please provide a better neutral secondary source. I am removing the sentence, you are free to add it again with new wordings and better sources.Serv181920 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Baháʼís&oldid=1235931016"