Talk:Lua Getsinger

this lede edit

Perhaps this should be discussed… Smkolins (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2020 (PST)

Citing vs appropriate summary

First there is the matter of citation. In general the lede doesn't need citations if it is a fair summary of the article. However there are exceptions to rules so maybe it deserves citation. Mentions to these issues occurs at:

* "…a task for which she was greatly thankful for but later felt deeply betrayed by Fareed.[6]:p123 Eventually there was defamation of Lua’s character after Fareed left the religion.[6]:p125"

• "In some quarters her independence and styles were criticized among Baháʼís and called her a “Magdalene"[6]:p320 and her status became conflated with the failure of Fareed to remain faithful to the Baháʼí covenant.[3]:p47 The only legal option for divorce in DC at the time was because of adultery and was that way until 1935.[6]:p413 Edward tried to minimize publicity of seeking a divorce even to moving to other areas that allowed other means of divorce but there too delays mounted and he felt an urge to return and be done with it.[6]:pp321-2 In letters of Edward in America he maintained she had not been “a wife to me” for nine years, her lacking “affinity” to do so he said she said.[6]:pp321-2"

• see also the whole section at "Defended"

So given all that a question is does it need to be cited and is the lede entry an appropriate summary of the text? Smkolins (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2020 (PST)

Maintaining multiple articles

Noticing that this article is exactly the same as the one on Wikipedia[1] I would suggest it is not beneficial to maintain two copies. First, from a technical standpoint the copying site (in this case bahaipedia) is punished heavily by Google. Search "Lua Getsinger" on Google and bahaipedia does not show up even in the first 5 pages. In that sense, this article is hidden. Second, Smkolins is put in the position of needing to maintain two versions of his article unnecessarily, extra effort that could be directed elsewhere. If we did keep this article here as-is, and assuming some good contributions would be made both here and on wikipedia, neither article improves as much as if there was just one copy and all effort directed to a single location. Lastly, edits like the one in question are going to encourage comparisons between our "version" and the one on the "neutral" wikipedia; meaning we will be a source for criticism related to censorship whether it is justified or not. For these reasons I suggest a revert to the August 2017 version of this article here and any other similar articles. David (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2020 (PST)

I very much agree that excising facts from the wikipedia version can only give off an appearance of partisan repression. I am reminded of a quote in Lord of the Rings where near the start of the first one the Hobbits must travel with Aragorn, who at this point they do not trust nor know. Frodo's justification is that a true servant of the enemy would look fairer, feel fouler. In this sense I feel it is best, within reason, to acknowledge the humanity of our community rather than seeking to present an idealized version, (at least in the context of an encyclopedia). I am not sure I agree that we must keep the same content as wikipedia overall, as there are tonal wording changes which would be highly beneficial in allowing a 'Baha'i' audience to more easily engage with the facts presented, but any facts themselves should not be removed. Jagar (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2020 (PST)

Another point in favor of 'differing' articles is that wikipedia may reject Baha'i sources as not being notable coverage, which is not something we, as a Baha'i perspective wiki, would do, so we may incorporate additional information here deemed non-notable to a general encyclopedia. Jagar (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2020 (PST)

It was an avowed purpose in the early days to echo content from Wikipedia when I first learned of Bahaipedia. But I think that day is passed. I'm sorry I put Lua's article here. And I definitely dont have time to keep up with everything - a consequence of my statement 'for every mountain i have uncovered there is a mountain range waiting below the sands'. More often since then I have used a particular line in wikipedia to help define what, for me, goes in Bahaipedia, and similar to Jagar's comment, though I can see that too is not a final solution, if a final solution can be defined. Wikipedia has a notability threshold of 'enough' independent sources and in this context that means non-Baha'i publications. However Baha'i sources for Bahaipedia are vetted so to me Bahaipedia can start from 'enough' vetted sources for judging an article aught to exist. Figures and regional histories, about which little is said in the wider community but which Baha'i sources write more or less. Compare Terah Cowart Smith and John Harrison Mills or Nipo T. Strongheart - each largely unknown in a sense of a collected biography or review of work but one covered more locally if in multiple places and the other on some larger scale though still never "gathered". This is difficult to define though - Van Der Hoonaard's term 'biographical zoning' could leave a lot said about someone in some place but very little, like being a Baha'i, in another place. Like Leslie Pinckney Hill, or an article that deserves some attention is Beatrice Hulon Morrow Cannady Franklin Taylor mostly known as Cannady though she married four times, has a book and television series about her, and minimizes her Baha'i status in the face of a great deal studied about her activity in the black community and racial justice. But this may be a lot more to discuss than just here. But this may be a sluggish situation where the broader scholarly environment might pick up a theme previously ignored and then would that mean an article from Bahaipedia 'graduates' to Wikipedia? It's a question though presently the closest I can come is Alain Locke's status. Also see the evolution/history of the Matthew W. Bullock article.

But to pick up on the other thread I also don't want to have the coverage to be reduced to where things all went right or just how things ended and forget how they started or how they got that way. I want to cover the available truth which in my estimation tends to show transformation, engagement, time and again, if the trail of information goes far enough. But not to say that a theme has to guide coverage - I just see it popping up again and again. But where the actual vetted content leads is where it leads. Smkolins (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2022 (PDT)

There's no reason to be sorry, I still think there is value in mirroring articles from Wikipedia if there is a chance it will be deleted from there. But, your articles are not in that category, and so this creates the opportunity to explore two different types of presentations. One for Wikipedia and another that perhaps mostly (only?) uses the available Baha'i sources. This would result in an article that was less a thorough coverage of someone's life, and more a coverage about how their life and activities related to the Faith, which I think more closely fits with people's expectations from articles here, and this also could be the framework for guidance to future editors. David (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2022 (PDT)

Let's also discuss this here: Bahaipedia_talk:Scope_of_articles David (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2022 (PDT)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.kalimat.com/Written.html (archive)
  • In Lua Getsinger on 2021-11-28 05:22:28, 404
  • In Lua Getsinger on 2023-11-19 08:16:30, Not Found

The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [1]. --BahaiBot (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2023 (PST)