Talk:Abrahamic religions/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Removal of Bahai

(Continued from /Archive 2

I suggest that either remove bahai from the article which is made in 19 century or just put it in small religions group. --76.68.19.254 (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a very old discussion, no need to re-open it. Removal of most Bahai content was already done, except as part of a one-line mention f other possible Abrahamic religions at t he end of the inttro, and a corresponding section on all such religions at the end. A certain (partisan?) editor recently added back a smallish but significant Bahai-specific section, which I am reverting now, since it violates the consensus already reached. Dovid (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've contributed a long list of various references to inclusion of the Baha'i Faith being listed among the Abrahamic. Here's a more recent one (a news story about an event held) What is Interfaith? which covered the the Greater Dayton Interfaith Trialogue at Common Ground Interfaith Community Center. Here's a proposal for unified government of Jerusalem suggesting the Baha'is could be included as part of the Abrahamic group of religions (p. 138). Cultures of peace: the hidden side of history By Elise Boulding mentions the Baha'is out of the context of Islam though she also states "... the overview will be confined to the Abrahamic traditions…" on page 18. The torture debate in America ed. by Karen J. Greenberg includes in. Ethnomedicine By Pamela Irene Erickson includes it. Just more bricks on the pile. Smkolins ([[User talk:Smkolins|talk]

The article is titled "Abrahamic Religions", not "The Three Main Abrahamic Religions." If you want an article about "The Three Main Abrahamic Religions", make one. This article is about "Abrahamic Religions", and therefore by default should include all of them.

Asserted Islamic Origin of the Term

It's not absurd but it is (almost) certainly a counterfactual. I don't doubt that the term given was in use before the coining of the European terms by Western academics, but without even verifying it I doubt that there is much if any relation between the two. Someone else can look at the given reference and verify that it gives more than chronological support for the assertion. It is after all common sense since the internal narrative of these religions clearly state this figure as the first founder (discounting the lineage from Adam and Noah which in universe everybody living shares) whether actually historical or not. I.e. the first with whom the sole deity (Supreme Deity looks funny if there's only supposed to be one) of this religion interacted with to form the continuous and many branched community of faith in what could possibly be historical time. ATM, my personal belief is that Abraham/Sarah probably is an amalgam of actual historical figure(s) and the names of the Hindu godhead as mentioned in Abraham. Based on current archeology there is no historical basis for events earlier than Exodus at least 600 years later and the evidence there is scant, there really being no historical nation of Israel as distinct from other Cannanite peoples before the time of Solomon. And no monotheistic religion as such until after the Babylonian captivity¹. Lycurgus (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

---

¹ Per recent archeology attesting that the Solomonic and later sites had same (multiple) deities as other local peoples.

Sikhism

I can tell it's controversial in this article, but there should be at least some mention of Sikhism even if it's just an explanation of it being considered Dharmic. It shares enough similarities with Abrahamic religions (a few Sikh's I know would even acknowledge Qur'anic/Biblical prophets as being representatives of the One God) that a mention is warranted if only to dispel what may be a common misconception. --MichiganCharms (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a section could be developed about religions closely associated with Abrahamic religions and both Sikhism and Zoroastrianism would be mentioned. But the key is to rise above "a few Sikh's I know...". We need refs for this kind of work. I'll try to keep it on my radar and see what I can find. Smkolins (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Image of religious symbol is incorrect

Islam does not have a symbol with which it is identified The symbol depicted is the Arabic word for "The God" If a symbol is required for purpose of consistency please replace it with the crescent moon Refer to this link for more details

http://islam.about.com/od/history/a/crescent_moon.htm

Thanks!

sorry for double post!!

Similarly, the Jewish symbol is inappropriate. The star is a symbol of the Jewish people, but it's not a theological symbol, as the cross and the Arabic word for God are. A much more ancient symbol, and one with religious associations, at least, is the 7-branched menorah. The important point is that Judaism and Islam don't especially value physical symbols of central theological concepts, the way Christianity often does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.73.8 (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The spread of both Christianity and Islam have been accompanied by genocide, particularly in Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.

One may as truthfully say that the increase in available food has been accompanied by genocide, particularly in Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.

Please add a source. I won't kill it again... but it won't stay.

Let the Hindutva organizations have their say... rather than remove... add whatever you want to say WITH A SOURCE... as you are changing the information over an existing source.- sinneed (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like a list of people who things Afaprof01's edits are NOT consensus or ARE

1) NOT Smkolins (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I find your "survey" inappropriate and offensive. When I look at the history file on the article, the user you're slamming has made huge positive improvements to this article that had "improve" tags all over it. Oberlin (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"01:50, September 2, 2009 Afaprof01 (talk | contribs) (71,169 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Soterios11; There are multiple religions that claim this heritage. We've gotten into disputes, and decided to limit this topic to the three major Abrahamic religions. Thanks) "

Where did "we" decide this? In January there was a small discussion, he posted comment in August and he went ahead and stripped the other Abrahamic religions from the article. Until his comment 1 was for removing Bahai, and 3 against. After his comment, chronologically, 2 more comments have been made against removal. There was also an additional comment about not removing Sikhism inbetween separately. And most of his changes were BEFORE his comment in late August. I've looked through the other talk sections and still fail to see consensus about his approach. Indeed Afaprof01 made a SINGLE comment in this entire talk page after he made sweeping changes to the article with his particular vision of it. Smkolins (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Perhaps this lively discussion page could be informed by a humble request from an editor unfamiliar with religion, and therefore a member of the audience who would be reading this article to satisfy their curiosity. Could you please direct your attention to rewriting the puzzling quoted statement below?

"There are other religions, not all monotheistic, that recognize, to a greater or lesser degree, the prophets of the Bible, the various Voodoo faiths (a syncretic blend of Christianity and African pagan religions),[12] and Unitarian Universalism.[13]"

I cannot understand this quoted statement. It is too long, too complicated, appears to mix ideas, and I am unsure what question it answers, or how it refers to its previous statements, and the paragraph in which it appears. For example, is recognizing Universalism, a characteristic of an Abrahamic faith? SalineBrain (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been cleaned up a fair but bit the other religions section is now far too small. There are several references which will be used to expand it, though not to the extent of paralleling the larger religions. Smkolins (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Afaprof is removing many reliable sources that indicate that other smaller religions are also within the Abrahamic tradition. These are not only not criticisms, but all deserve mention due to the sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also the various views on the usage of the term are best placed with the rest of the dicussion about how the term came into being, and it's usage. Seperating it out into a seperate section is against the Manual of Style which recommends not having separate Criticism sections. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And he did it with a "minor" edit, and after I fixed *his* "references". Smkolins (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph that was sourced from a PBS article because it was original research. The paragraph stated "Perhaps tainting the Bahá'í religion's claim to being an Abrahamic Religion is extreme Muslim animosity toward Bahá'i", but the source says no such thing. That Muslims don't accept the Baha'i Faith does not lead to the statement above which is unsourced. Note from WP:SYNTH that "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look again, you'll see that the article does refer to "extreme Muslim animosity toward Bahá'i." I thought that was fodder for partly explaining why there is so much resistance to the Bahá'í religion's claim to being an A.R. On re-read, I can see how my "tainting" phraseology could be mistaken as saying just the opposite, and I'm glad you took that out. I'm sorry you seem to have gotten the impression that I'm the enemy and have previously been critical of me. It's a lot nicer to have a more polite working atmosphere. Afaprof01 (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That Muslims have extreme animosity towards Baha'is is not unknown, and is sourced in the statement, but to connect it with any statement about the fact that the Baha'i Faith is Abrahamic (which is not treated at all in the source you quote) is synthesis and does not meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. Nor is Muslim's feelings about the Baha'i Faith germane about how scholars characterize the Baha'i Faith. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - what resistance is there to listing the Baha'i Faith as Abrahamic? I've already provided many that do and criticism of not doing so. I've not seen any argument from any source about why the Baha'i Faith should not be listed as Abrahamic. The fact seems to be simply that many sources don't list it - no explanation of why. At least none that I've seen yet and I've read a good many refs so far. Smkolins (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

and addressing "It's a lot nicer to have a more polite working atmosphere." Forgive me but you rewrote the article at once doing a lot of good surely and also stripping major cited aspects of the article and THEN said "we" have consensus that the article should be about the big three religions only and from a discussion that started back in March and you come in in August and rewrote the whole thing?! *I've* gone out and found references saying there are other Abrahamic religions AND I've fixed references you presented - even had to drop a few and find more along the same lines because several you posted were in fact based on wikipedia - and tried to work within what you've provided rather than just whole sale revert because you effectively hijacked the article away from what had been for years. There was nothing polite about your actions. I'll grant you acted in good faith and the article surely had many problems and random damage but in addition to that you drastically changed the tone of the article single handedly and please be clear - there is no consensus that the article aught to be about the big three religions and I feel there are plenty of references for a significantly expanded section on the smaller Abrahamic religions because there are references and some significance to their existence that aught to be part of a fair neutral article. Smkolins (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What can I say, other than to apologize for apparently making your editing job more difficult and frustrating. That wasn't my intent. My goal is and has always been to improve the article. We won't always agree on how to do that, but I'll try my best not to cause you extra work. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What you can say is to apologize for presuming consensus and work for consensus and for how you justified your work and reverted others by asserting consensus when there wasn't any. This isn't about making my editing more difficult or easier. It's about respecting other contributors both historically and present. It's about the history of the article which many have worked on - I'm a fairly recent editor of this article but there are people who tried their best to make this article work and while it had gotten into a sad state in some ways you presumed a great deal to not just fix the things that were flagged as problems but shift the tone and thrust of the article in major ways without consensus and then reverted a contributor saying that their contribution didn't fit the consensus "we" had arrived at when you yourself were a new editor of the article. Smkolins (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

commonalities section

I think "Genesis and the Qur'an…" and "Acceptance of some of Judaism's religious obligations found in the Bible as a spiritual devotion to the traditions of Abraham (rather than of Moses) by Christianity (see also Biblical law in Christianity and Judeo-Christian); and by Islam, including those which have parallel accounts in the Qur'an, such as the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses" should be redone. In part they should be merged along the lines of "each scripture refers to the same individuals and stories though often with major or minor distinctions" (though calling this commonality "parallel accounts" seems off I'm now sure what to call it) - some language like that should solve the neutrality marker. Also I'm dubious of the part "traditions of Abraham vs Moses" and "Acceptance of some of Judaism's religious obligations" parts. I don't see a commonality of Christianity and Islam on either account - the point of the commonalities section. But I'm unclear on the kind of language to use to really flesh this out so rather than chop it up I'm asking for discussion and consensus.... Smkolins (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

ending sections break down parallelisms and begin to just review teachings and practices

from Worship and religious rites we suddenly break off from the parallelism of above all of which are amplifications of the commonalities section and we spin out of control. Additionally Proselytism should also be re-listed under the Commonalities section and then amplified per religion again. Someone? Smkolins (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of section; "Notable differences in beliefs"

It seems to me that that section is somewhat loaded, although it could be just me reading into it. e.g. should "Christianity without the incarnation of God is meaningless and useless" be somewhat rephrased to something like "The incarnation of God is a core (an essential?) belief of Christianity"?Gmfreak (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Also see; "quite incompatible", "quite intolerable", "quite insufficient"...?Gmfreak (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at exclusivity of Abraham

Underneath "The Significance of Abrahamic religions": "Even as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all acknowledge Abraham as an ancestor, members of the three traditions have also tried to claim him as exclusively theirs." Although is a direct quote from the reference, I have yet to see any detail or supporting argument behind this.

References I've seen do not mention the exclusivity of either religion (http://www.icmga.org/outreach/transcripts/ABRAHAM__THE_FRIEND_OF_GOD.pdf). I think this should be reworded to "each religion beleives Abraham to be a follower of their own respective religion". That is to say, Christians say he was Christian, Muslims say he was Islamic, etc.

10/17/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.154.163 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparent inconsistency

The list of Abrahamic religions in this article (main three plus those listed under "Smaller Abrahamic religions") does not seem to be in sync with List of religions and spiritual traditions. 86.133.247.170 (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Agreed. This article is lacking. Tweisbach (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree but if you read through the talk page here the presence of some religions has been of some contention. I've tried very hard to provide documentation for specific cases and tried to generally preserve their presence. I'd welcome more references to substantiate and extend the content in proportion to the balance of sources. That page seems to have too few references to specify much though I generally agree with much of what it says (though it double lists several religions - and sometimes it's hard to decide if a religion is a division of religion or an independent religion.) Smkolins (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Druze

Would the Druze faith be considered a separate Abrahamic religion? It is an off-shoot of Islam, but to my knowledge it is not considered Islam. --96.245.119.190 (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but you should find a source for the statement. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions

The intro misses some points. IMHO Abrahamitic religions are characterized by:

• linear history: in the beginning God created universe, then the history follows, and in the end (Millenialism) God will start Doom, when the good guys are rewarded and bad guys punished;
• one life: We're born into this world once, and when we leave this world it is once and for all, and we're judged on our acts in this life, after death we'll reach a nice afterlife Heaven, most of us, and the bad among us (vandals, trolls and bad-faithers) will instead reach a not-so-nice Hell or Purgatory;
• Abraham: is the first prophet;
• anti-karmic: (Book of Job) what we experience in this life is most specifically not a punishment for our own acts;
• personal God: God is a person, that decides "karma" of life acts on personal criteria — also he can be contacted for audience, but audience is allegedly rarely granted (according to a prevailing view);

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

While there certainly is content about the above and various religions and I think much of the article speaks to that across various religions there are other qualities which speak to an important place of Abraham to various religions. In one case, of the Bahá'í Faith, there are other unexamined aspects - parallels of the central figure of the religion moving from lands of the east to the Holy Land, respect for the Holy Land itself, the willingness of sacrificing a son, and of promises of the future.... Smkolins (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't use! It seems the term "Abrahamitic" was coined in about 1990 without definition. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Trinity verses 3 Gods revert

I reverted a recent addition, [1] on the following grounds. a) It added the word "Some" to make the statement "Some Christians believe that the God worshiped by the faithful Hebrew people of the pre-Christian era has always revealed himself as he did through Jesus" but it is de rigueur that all Christians believe that Jesus is the conduit/gateway/whatever to God and that the God is the same God as the Hebrew god. It's going to have to have some strong evidence to add the Weasel word "some" to this. b) It added the word "many" to the sentence "Nonetheless many Christians stress that they only believe in one God. To believe in 3 gods would be thought of as heretical. ". Once again it is de facto that Christianity is a monotheistic religion. All Christians believe in one God. If there are a few exceptions then we should list them rather than adding the word "many" to un-POV the text. c) Finally the editor pasted a big long section of text that they cross-posted onto other articles about Joseph Smith Jr which should be added to.... that article (though its not very tidy Wikipedia stuff). I had to add this in talk as the edit summary is too short. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you misinterpret the "some." It does not refer to whether it is the same G-d. It refers to whether that G-d always revelaed himself in the same way that Christians believe he does today, or whether there was some fundamental change in the way G-d revelas himself now compared to the way he revelaed himself to the Jews. Dovid (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Islam as fastest growing

Removed the section saying "By some measurements, Islam is the fastest growing religion" as this doesn't add anything (see the link). By other counts Christianity is. Mike Young (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edit

"Muslims have a traditional that Muhammed, as a Mecca-region Arab, descends from Abraham's son Ishmael." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deity Section

Heya theology editors; a heads up from a film editor who just landed here on a wikilink from a movie. Under that section, the opening line says "all three religions", though four are listed (and I think Bahai might be spelled wrong, it's different than rest of the article). I didn't want to fix it myself because it's obvious you guys are in massive improvement to article mode and I'm sure the topic has lots of contention. So I just thought I'd throw it out there. Happy editing. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

More POV Vigilantism

Jeff3000 reverted my edits today. A small part of my edits were to correct an old, possibly inadvertent, vandalism (removal of a source by replacing it with a badly tagged entry, then further replacing with source needed), and to restore a counterpoint to an unsourced statement (either both should stay or both should go). The remainder of my edits brought the article back in line to a previous consensus that has not since been changed. Jeff left no note explaining his revert, which is against WP policy. I intend to republish my last edit. If Jeff doesn't like it, let him build a new consensus, with invitation of the old participants. Until the new consensus is reached, the old one stands, and the edits should reflect that, Dovid (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeff3000 has done it again. He reverted all the edits, including some not related to Baha'i. That's vandalism. Undoing the revert, and warning Jeff on his talk page against this sort of ownership mentality. Remember, UNDO requires an explanation is the edit summary, as explicitly noted in the undo-edit screen. Dovid (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There has never been a consensus to strip out the Baha'i entries. Often the entries have been stripped out unilaterally and then a multitude of editors put it back in often piecemeal fashion until it was objected to that it was here and there in fragments. Then someone would even out the information. Then someone would object that it belongs at all, sooner or later strip it all out, and here we are at least three cycles on since I came on board and I know of at least one or two others in the archives of the discussion. Jeff3000 was acting in good faith on an approach to the page as have I and others in the past. Smkolins (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

why is baha'i not included?

Baha'i is an abrahamic religion i will start off the articleJigglyfidders (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Baha'i a sub-type of Islam, in the same way as Mormonism is a sub-type of Christianity? It seems a bit odd to single out the three specific super-categories (Islam,Judaism,Christianity), and then alongside that include Baha'i. To be consistent, it would make sense to either make clear in the introduction that specific sects are covered under their respective category, or to expand the article to include views from a lot of other specific religions. Catholicism, various Protestant groups, Shia Islam, Sunni Islam, etc. 97.114.191.67 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the Baha'i Faith is not a sub-type of Islam as you state. It is an independent religion, that grew out of a Islamic milieu, just as Christianity grew out of a Judaic milieu. The religion believes that the teachings of Muhammad have been superseded by the teachings of Baha'u'llah. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. 97.114.191.67 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, why not? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Satan

One of the most important common Abrahamic belief is that of Satan, who is not even mentioned in the text. Could someone with sufficient knowledge fix this problem? 83.27.98.1 (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean Satanism? Isn't that multiple religions/philosophies? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an important and valid point. In fact, an entry already exists and mentions Abrahamic religions, so only a cross-reference is necessary WE 10041980 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC) we100480

From what I can tell on the one hand satan referenced in Abrahamic religions and touched on somewhat perhaps by Zoroastrian (usually not classified as Abrahamic but certainly with influence on and from Abrahamic religions.) However as an independent religion Satanism often claims to be mis-understood but along the same lines it seems to fail to be Abrahamic. See [2] And if it's Wiccan than it's even further afield from Abrahamic religions and part of some other category. Satan/devil could be a theme that unites the Abrahamic religions though. Smkolins (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

History/Origins

I would like to see some references on early historical accounts of monotheism. Such information is randomly scattered throughout the article. It is almost as if people do not want such a section (its absence was the first thing I noticed). It would be interesting to include a minor timeline of the developments in legitimate early Abrahamic texts (eg: texts that can be effectively dated, not modern texts purported to be from ancient times). I have heard conflicting information regarding the origin of monotheistic religious practices and thought. I have heard that the Jews developed upon the ideas of Zoroastrianism when a large population became slaves and were exposed to it. They took zoroastrianism, added their own ethnic/tribal views, and reshaped it into a more recognizable form of Monotheism. On the other hand, I have heard that it was a pure invention of the Jews. I doubt this, but it has been told to me by "professional" historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.76.141 (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am too lazy, disorganized, and slow to provide sources, but yes, I will confirm here that I too have heard multiple accounts of the origins of monotheism, most of them (although none too popular with conservative/traditionalist literalist believers) posit that it ultimately had polytheistic roots, in the ancient religions of the Near East (quite similar, in fact, to that of the other Canaanites, Phoenicians, Syrians, Mesopotamians, etc.). In addition to the monotheistic influence of Zorastorian Persia, there might have been one from Egypt as well. 173.16.125.178 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

baha'i is not an Abrahamic religion

baha'i is not an Abrahamic religion. Abrahamic religions were preached by prophets sent by God. Baha'i is a simply someone's religious philosophical views. They weren't "sent" from God like in Islam or inspired by the Holy Ghost like in Christianity. Otherwise, any descendant of Abraham can start a new religion and tell people to pray to God. Ht990332 (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation please, or is this just your opinion? LadyofShalott 18:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a disgust against Baha'i. I think it should be here, irrespectively what we think about the religion. I also think Samaritanism properly should have a more prominent place in the article, but that that is just due to a knowledge bias of us editors. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Few sources mention also Baha'i (which doesn't prove very much).

This source is one of them. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Source for one definition

Religion: beyond a concept by Hent de Vries. Per book:

• patriarchal God (p123),

• monotheistic (p124),

• God is a sacred Word (p124),

A start, maybe, but IMHO an incomplete def. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Can't have it both ways."

I admit there are difficulties including the Baha'i Faith on equal footing with the traditional Abrahamic religions but I'm not sure how to solve them. Argument from tradition is one thing but since the Baha'i Faith is only 200ish years old, and scholarly references to it are few for much of that history, it's somewhat "unfair" to use only tradition as a sufficient reason for minimizing it's presence and distribution through the article. Additionally, while it is clearly small, it's orders of magnitude larger and distributed around the world far wider, than the other smaller religions that have some claim to being Abrahamic. And it's not that much smaller than Judaism. And it seems that overall Judaism is loosing ground against world population growth while the Baha'i Faith has ranked among the fastest growing religions for as long as stats have been gathered on rates of growth.

So again, I think the content of the article related to the Baha'is should be moderated, but not relegated on equal footing with the smallest religions that belong in the article. Certainly any adjustments should be done properly.Smkolins (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Afaprof changed the structure of the article greatly without any discussion, and in fact didn't even spend the time to maintain all the sources that other editors have spent time sourcing from reliable sources. While the way the weight of the previous edit of the page may have been inappropriate, Smkolins makes some good points above which were not considered. Furthermore, as noted in multiple discussions above, there seems to be an even amount of editors who think the mention of the Baha'i Faith should be in the page, and it has significant sources noting it as Abrahamic. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you and with the recent restructuring. It is along the same vision for the article that I got beat up about a few months ago. I would agree, though, that there is room to mention Bahai in the opener, and enough material should be allowed to briefly cover the same topic set as the main article covers for the Big Three. Dovid (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps its notoriety is itself something that should be in the article - perhaps something like: (redoing below)

Smkolins (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC) I realized the question arose what to do with that paragraph amidst what was there which got into moving/changing paragraphs so here's a suggested complete redo of that section including updated information for minor Abrahamic religions:

(section division just for Baha'i Faith)

{{main|Bahá'í Faith}}

Though smaller and younger than the well known Abrahamic religions, the Bahá'í Faith is nevertheless significant because of its activities, distribution and numbers. It was profiled in the French language encyclopedia Fils d'Abrahamwith one volume devoted to the religion. Since its inception the religion has had involvement in socio-economic development by creating schools, agricultural coops, and clinics. More recently Bahá'ís were urged to seek out ways, compatible with the Bahá'í teachings, in which they could become involved in service of the communities in which they lived. The religion is almost entirely contained in a single, organized, hierarchical community, but is recognized as the second-most geographically widespread religion after Christianity. The only countries with no Bahá'ís documented as of 2008 are Vatican City and North Korea. In 1988 it entered Mongolia. Official estimates of the worldwide Bahá'í population come from the Bahá'í World Centre, which has claimed "more than five million Bahá’ís" as early as 1991 The Association of Religion Data Archives (relying mostly on the reviewed content of World Christian Encyclopedia) estimated some 7.6 million in 2005.The Bahá'í Faith has also consistently been placed high in the statistics of growth over these various releases of data from 1970 to 2005.

There are several specific characteristics of the religion which bear on the topic. Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, has claimed a lineage of decent from Abraham through Keturah and Sarah. Additionally Bahá'u'lláh actually did loose a son, Mírzá Mihdí albeit to an accident. However this son asked his life be given up in the cause of the religion and was accepted and his grave and place of death are visited while on pilgrimage at the Monument Gardens.

For a broader review of the religion see:

• God in the Bahá'í Faith
• Progressive revelation
• Manifestations of God
• Bahá'í literature
• Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity
• Bahá'í Faith and gender equality
• Bahá'í Faith by country

(in a distinct section named Smaller Abrahamic Religions)

Several religions often of less than 1 million, down to tens of thousands, members are mentioned occasionally in lists of Abrahamic religions: Samaritans,, Yazidi, Druzes,Mandaeism, Manichaean, Rastafari movement and Alawites. Indeed restricting the members of the group to three has been criticized.

Smkolins (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC) If there are no objections I may get bold and put some version of this in (my latest thinking trims the leading paragraph and might do a one sentence extension next to the list of articles. But I don't want to give the appearance of sudden changes pretending at consensus as has been done in the past by others. Smkolins (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

References

If you notice your edit removed all the references that Smkolins spent a significant time collecting, and replaced them with text numbers like [54] that don't point to anything. Even if you're going to move all the content to the end you should fix the references. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the references; that was a careless error that I believe is now repaired. Thanks for pointing that out.

According to the "approval" rules in the present test, there's no way the article can be approved with the three vs four disparity. And simply making them all read "four" doesn't fix the problem. If the Ency Britannica-quality sources don't consider Bahai to be Abrahamic, it doesn't behoove Wikipedia to override that. Unfortunately, so many of the Bahai sources are self-published and/or come from their offices. If Bahai is now legitimately recognized as a new fourth Abrahamic religion, we need to see that in print from major academic sources like EB.

I realize something of the effort Smkolins has put into this article and appreciate that. However, that doesn't trump the fact that the article ends up being an effort to force a new, fourth religion into what for hundreds of years has been recognized as three main world religions. EB and virtually every academic major source lists the three main world religions. I'm trying for a compromise in the last section, allowing Bahai to be listed, but shortening it considerably. As the article appeared, there was far more detail on Bahai in this article than on the other three. I'm suggesting that supporters of the Bahai details make sure the Bahai research appears in the Bahai article. Actually, none of it belongs here. Thanks for pointing out the editing errors.

─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Baha'i Faith has a place in this article; I can easily find sources that indicate; at least in a broad sense, that it's part of an 'Abrahamic tradition'. However, to me that's not the same thing as positing it directly alongside the three other religions on a point by point basis in the context of this article; which is where this article was before the last big edit. I'm not seeing support in my reading for the notion that it deserves anywhere near that 'weight' here. WP:DUE is pretty straightforward: "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views". To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I'd have to say I can't see it as appropriately mentioned in the lead and the 'point by point' material with the "Big Three" throughout the article approach is over the top in terms of undue weight, in my opinion. I looked over the references that were offered in support of an argument for giving the Baha'is a larger presence in the article and to tell you the truth, despite their number; I thought the only relevant ones were the very limited number that were completely independent and appeared reliable. If I were you, those are the one's I'd utilize to substantiate a brief and contextually appropriate mention of the Baha'i faith here and let it go at that. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unfair that Bahai was removed and grouped together with smaller groups. Bahai is the 4th largest abrahamic religion. It is larger than the others mentioned in the smaller list. Religious studies books of the past decade also explicitly include Bahai as among the major world religions. Abraham started with Judaism, and there is no reason we should agree with Islam being the final abrahamic religion. I think it should be restored to the previous vesion before Afaprof01's edits but with less text on each Bahai paragraph. As of now it looks silly to have each heading at the end instead of the relevant section.

Addition

Hi, i noticed Bahai is classified among the smaller religions. I have added the headings in the appropriate parts because Bahai is larger than Mandeism, Druze, Yazidi and other smaller religions. Someone65 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mormon

I think that Mormonism classifies as its own religion as it has its own book, and very dstinct teachings from christianity. Should Mormonism have its own section? Someone65 (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

While within the context of Christianity Mormons may seem very different, from outside it is pretty clearly a denomination of Christianity. Likewise there are many flavors of Judaism and even Islam and going into those differences doesn't really relate to why the religion as a whole is Abrahamic. At least that's my take from reading through the subject. Smkolins (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This article talks about each religion coming after the other, and drawing influence and/or accepting certain things from the one preceding it. I would say Mormonism is to Christianity as Christianity is to Judaism. It has much additional scripture and prophecy, and (as some might say of Islam or Christianity to their predecessors) doesn't necessarily view the Bible (as it's been translated, or so they say) as always valid (but that the Book of Mormon would explain such-and-such more fully/accurately). To throw a personal thought in, I am a Christian but not Mormon, and do not believe that Joseph Smith received divine revelation, but of course neither do I believe that Muhammad did; still, Mormonism is different enough, I think, to warrant at least a subsection mentioning the differences.76.121.212.176 (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What this article doesn't do is get into divisions of religions. It doesn't mention much of Shia though Shia is the only major divisions of Islam but it's about about 10% of all Moslems (and then only in a one sentence clarification on a religious matter really internal - perhaps that whole line should be taken out, and the section it's commenting on be more generalized so it's true of Sunni and Shi Moslems.) It doesn't mention Protestant vs Catholics vs Orthodox let alone wider members of Christianity like Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah Witnesses, it doesn't mention Judiams' divisions though that's been commented on as well. Then there would be cross divisional relationships. Perhaps something like List of religions and spiritual traditions would be more suited to listing divisions under the categories of religions - perhaps that article could be mentioned here in this article. I guess fundamentally it should be driven by sources that discuss Abrahamic categorization and the divisions among the religions. I see very little of that myself. I'd welcome references. Smkolins (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

JUst to clarify and refine my own statement - I recognize there are also statements with a catholic focus. But it does so with a minimum of getting into denominational differences. Smkolins (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism is different from the Catholic/Protestant split, Mormanism has its own book and they also claim Smith was inspired by Angels or something, so if Ba'it faith is included as a separate section so should be the Mormon faith, it follows Jewish-Christian-Mormon, each religion added to the privious faith with a new book (books)Ceezmad (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Bahai

Yet again, a well-intentioned editor has added hundreds of words about Bahai, with clear attempt to establish it (incorrectly) as a recognized Abrahamic religion on par with the three that are historically, religiously, and academically recognized for centuries. This is getting quite tiresome!─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at above discussions. There are at least 5 editors including me that believe bahai is notable enough to be included in this article. Unless you can get a consensus it should stay as it is. I am strongly in favour of including the Bahais because i think it gives a religious, dogmatic, dictative statement and the article is currently too assertive when limited to 3. Bahais is the 4th largest religion and rouping them with smaller is unfair. Also, "on par" is subjective. Someone65 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't accept that if something is true "for centuries" that therefore it is the last word to be said. But beyond that how exactly have the entries placed the religion on par with the three? I see specific gaps and weight of content not on par with the three but also distinguishing from other proper claimants to the label who are even more remote - and all carefully cited I think. And why start still another section on the topic of inclusion of the Baha'i Faith? We haven't finished even one yet. Smkolins (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Smkolins: What would you call "having finished even one (section on the topic of inclusion) yet?" I respectfully point out that there are multiple articles already existing on the Baha'i faith. For example: Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity, Bahá'í Faith by country, Bahá'í Faith and the unity of religion, Bahá'í House of Worship, Bahá'í teachings, Bahá'í calendar, etc. etc. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to the talk entries discussing the religion for this article. Sections in here have been started and dropped repeatedly rather than actually seeing one of these through. The other articles, if they are germane to this discussion at all, speak to the overall notability of the religion especially against that of smaller religions. Smkolins (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no desire to offend anyone in this; however as I've stated elsewhere on this talk page in the past, for me at least, I don't think that "notability" is what's at issue; I can easily support an inclusion of the Bahá'í Faith in the article; for me it's about due weight. And again, as I said earlier, in my opinion, including a matching point by point inclusion for the Bahá'í Faith in each of those sections directly alongside the other three faiths can too easily encourage the creation of an impression for a general reader that the Bahá'í Faith is in fact on an equal footing in terms of its size and overall historical influence with those other faiths. Please note carefully that I'm not talking about its actual "validity" as a religion in any sense here; in my opinion it's just as "valid" as the others; it's simply not as influential, nor is it in any way comparable in size. Because of this; in my opinion; I agree that its overall presence in the article should be maintained within the boundaries of the "Smaller Abrahamic religions" section. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems at least one other editor agrees the religion should be in a separate section by itself. I don't disagree - it does help make the case that the religion is not on par with the other religions in being considered Abrahamic. But I'm still not at peace with what is mentioned and what isn't mentioned. However on the whole I find the relative weight approximately appropriate given the weight of sources currently available. I may tweak the content of the section a bit but am also open to seeing how others want to make that content evolve. Smkolins (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Afaprof01, you might take note that every [3], [4], [5], [6] online post of The children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam by F. E. Peters, John L. Esposito also posts the review which includes "Though this update would have been improved by including the fourth Abrahamic faith, the Baha'i religion, it is recommended for academic, religious, and public libraries of all sizes." from a reviewer at the Library Journal. If/when I find the source of that review I'll add it as a reference. Smkolins (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Afaprof01 concerns but the article sounds POV as of now. I have tried to make it look neutral, so i tink this version is better. Someone65 (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK folks, can we get agreement that the Baha'i Faith deserves to not be treated categorically like the smallest religions? There are *many* refs that mention it vs a few refs at most the mention each of the others, not to mention these other religions are from 10s of thousand to around a million vs over 7 million for Baha'is, and actively growing since systematic stats have been kept, plus available refs detail specific bits of info relevant to the article whereas the other religions are only generally and superficially examined. And to be clear I cut several instances of duplicated information about the religion, cut small sections not necessary to the article as well as trimming back from parallel treatment. Smkolins (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While being considered one of the "big 3" may add prestige in some people's thinking to the Baha'i religion, it is being done so at the expense of questionable (at best) research. Let's say that an astronomer holds the Big Dipper Ursa Major constellation]) as more prestigious than a lesser known constellation in which a star he has found actually belongs. Yet, from time immemorial the Big Dipper has been recognized in many cultures as a distinct grouping of an astronomy of seven. Our fictitious astronomer begins a campaign to have his newly-found star included as the eighth star in the Big Dipper based on various logic. Would we consider the astronomer's claims reputable, even if by some stretch some similarities can be shown?

What gets accomplished? Astronomy books must be rewritten if the matter can be proved. Astronomical charts must be redrawn and republished. Although Ursa Major has been defined that way for eons, something questionable at best is allowed to redefine a very well-known "truth" based on very scant data.

Because the pro-editors who keep adding Baha'i back into this article go into such detail about the religion, and almost nothing about evidentiary data to prove the validity of the claim that there are four instead of three main Abrahamic religions, I'm afraid I get the impression that the motive for the ad infinitum replacement of mostly the same text is promotion of the Baha'i religion--not historical-theological establishment of Baha'i as one of the major Abrahamic religions that have been well established for umpteen centuries as "the Three." The Baha'i editors keep adding back so many words of text that they overwhelm the article. That's not proper. If this pattern keeps up, it will be time to call for a WP:RfC or admin action. This has become foolish and disruptive.─AFA Prof01 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I have proceeded with more care than you have in the development of this article - repeatedly you've broken syntax and proceeded using terms like consensus when there was no consensus. And I and others have provided significant substantiation both in general and in particular aspects of the appropriateness of the religion in this article, then I have been fair to the world of references. As you've kept up a pov that the religion is not substantial I've provided evidence that it is far more substantial than even smaller religions, of which I detailed even more than were present originally, in particular to this article. However in the past I had been party to representing the religion on par with the other religions. I now see from a broader review of the evidence that is not true. I would participate in an approach to cut the periodic attempts by random editors to not spreading the religion in parallel to the other religions until such time as a significant reference is found to game-change the situation if it ever arrives. I specifically re-engineered my contributions to that end, however the Baha'i Faith is closer to the size of Judaism than it is to the total population of all the smaller religion combined. The fact that various details of the religion in light of Abrahamic characteristics exists speaks to it's relative significance compared to these largely regional smaller religions and lumping it in with that group would be unfair to the evidence. Admins have and I'm sure will be reviewing the article - just as I'm sure it's contentious history is not limited to this question. I believe my contributions and those of the host of the participants have been honorable. I'd welcome closer attention from them. Smkolins (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this topic, but my understanding but this to boil down to whether Bahai is, as it claims, in a historical line following from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and then Bahai. If so, it should be included, if not, then not. But we seem to have the problem of "is this so"?. IMHO, there is. I'd say include it but with a NPOV statement that not all agree it is so and why. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This quote from an earlier comment by Ht990332 was never really refuted or confirmed. It makes valid points that need to be considered: ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Baha'i is not an Abrahamic religion. Abrahamic religions were preached by prophets sent by God. Baha'i is a simply someone's religious philosophical views. They weren't "sent" from God like in Islam or inspired by the Holy Ghost like in Christianity. Otherwise, any descendant of Abraham can start a new religion and tell people to pray to God. Ht990332

Give me a break AfaProf. The comment above is a from a troll, and not neutral in any respect. Smkolins has provided tons of references stating that the Baha'i Faith is an Abrahamic religion, and you've either removed the references and believed trolls like the above. Who defines what religions are sent from God. From a Jewish perspective, Christ is not a true prophet sent from God, from a Christian's perspective, Muhammad was not a true prophet sent from God, and from a Islamic perspective, Baha'u'llah was not a true perspective from God. Every earlier religion does not accept the claims of the next religion, and that history has repeated itself over and over in the course of history. What defines if a religion is true or not depends on individuals investingating the religion themselves, rather than believing others, and then having faith in the religion. However, that's not what were are discussing here. Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability, and Smkolins has provided tons of verifiable reliable sources that claim the Baha'i Faith is an Abrahamic religion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact this pattern, one of the points made in the article about what is Abrahamic, is something I've consciously avoided expanding on in the Baha'i section in order to restrict it's proportion. Perhaps as a specific characterization it and the other specific characteristics should be commented on in the Baha'i section along with the more basic or unique qualities already mentioned. Actually now that I think of it this seems to go to the core of Rlevse's comment as well. Smkolins (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits to the "Islam" section under "The Religions"

Additions in *Bold*; deletions in -italics-; notes afterwards in parentheses

• still regarded *by Muslims* as (i.e. not by everyone)
• -Unlike Judaism,- Islam ... is universal (Judaism is actually open to converts)
• -unlike Christianity- *like Judaism*, its theology of God is -simple and easily grasped- *based around a single divine Person (rather than something like the Trinity)* (This sounds more neutral; Trinitarian and Unitarian Christians won't argue here about whether or not the Trinity is a Christian doctrine, and we remove the subjective comment about the theology of Allah being understandable and replace it with something that accomplishes the definition)

76.121.212.176 (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-controversial edits (Bahá'í and other religions)

I believe the set of edits I just made won't offend anyone (at least, won't offend them any more than the status quo). I have not meaningfully changed, added, or removed content, with the exception of two non-English references (which are discouraged in EN WP). Even that removal does not affect much, as the two refs were in the "list" ref, which are a long set of bullets, hence, missing two items form a long list should not remove any verifiability.

I corrected several typos, and revised some sentence structure.

But the big edit relates to overall structure of Bahá'í+smaller religions. A lot of the argument about inclusion of Bahá'í is equally appropriate to the other religions. Therefore, I:

• renamed the "smaller religions" section to be "other religions,"
• folded the content of "controversy of only established religions" to the top of this new section, so t hat it can introduce the topic of adding other religions,
• made specific mention of rationale for controversy
• made specific mention of Bahá'í as a strong candidate
• folded the Bahá'í section as a subsection immediately following
• placed the other "minor" religions' content in a new subsection below that
• Reordered some sentence within Bahá'í so as to draw attention to what Bahá'í is, religiously, in contrast to and in concert to Abrahamic religions.

Finally, I removed a new section (via revert) that was rambling, bordering on incoherence, about "brahminism" or something like that.

One can quibble about the details of the restructuring, but I think it makes the overall article better organized and more easiliy understood, ESPECIALLY about Bahá'í and the "others." If anyone has issues with it, please discuss before reverting or changing it wholesale. As I said, I don't think there's anything controversial, but on this article, one can never be certain. Dovid (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly think these changes are purely non-controversial, though I do see they were thought out. However I'd like to still bring these opinions and acts to a consensus based on as much fact as possible. To that end, I'd like present more information that I think counters these changes.

• About the non-English references. First I'd like to note that:

1. there are English parts of the reference, though I can't reference them directly (see [7]) (the poster included includes an English version it says "Le poster existe en français, en anglais, en néerlandais et en italien." though the poster itself isn't online with enough resolution to be of use.) And there is comment on the work in English by the same author[8] in scholarly publication.
2. the fact that the reference is from 1987 gives some substantiation that we're not talking about purely recent history in the internet age, so it adds to the context more than just as another member of the list of references
3. the source is part of an ongoing developing Encyclopedia directly related to the subject of the article.(see [9])
4. I am using the non-English source to simply state the fact of the review, not anything from the source that would require translation to understand.

If necessary the fact that English related content on the ref is available could certainly be added to the article.

• About the overall restructuring - as a further substantiation of the relative importance of a distinct Baha'i section perhaps it could be added that the religion has been a contributing member to international as well as intranational initiatives. Consider this statement and ref:

In 1948 the Bahá'í International Community registered with the UN as an international non-governmental organization (NGO) and in 1970 was granted consultative status (now called "special" consultative status) with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Consultative status with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) followed in 1976, and with the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) in 1989. Working relations with the World Health Organization (WHO) were also established in 1989. Over the years, the Community has worked closely with the UN Environment Program (UNEP), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the UN Development Program (UNDP).*"Bahá'í International Community: History of Active Cooperation with the United Nations". Bahá'í International Community. 2008. Retrieved 2010-08-01.

Perhaps some version of this should be condensed and used in the article - this further distinguishes the prominence of the religion from ethnographic (if that's the right word) Abrahamic religions (if it is the right word then perhaps it would serve to group them in a more sophisticated way than simply saying "smaller" or even "other".)

Towards the end of building consensus I'd like to extend a thanks to participants in the discussion as the more principled the approach to the discussion the greater the facts that have been brought to light. I hope this can portend a better approach to article development that it's had in the past.

--Additionally I'd say "However, it differs from the established Abrahamic faiths in its increasing universalism.…" is a very different change in tone from "Following the pattern of increasing universalism it even extends the same basic respect…" - points made and substantiated in the lead of the article and so not keeping with the spirit of the article. Smkolins (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

o -and just to be clear I don't think the Brahma related edits are controversial. Smkolins (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Outdenting myself, I'd like to request we agree to back up to this version and discuss. I awaken to see things deteriorate so far that bots have begun to revert changes. Smkolins (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the non-English refs... if there is an English ref, that could be linked to directly. However, I do think that the section is over-referenced. If there is something in teh article that is sourced form that ref and nowhere else, that would make sense. Otherwise, it doesn;t really add anything, and is questionable, even if there are some English bits and pieces.

As to the NGO, etc. text, that should be fine, kept shrt. Perhaps something along the lines of, "There are been Bahai Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), and relationships with United Nations organizations, since 1948."

Re: Universalism, I don't see much difference. I'd call it quibbling, but you can do your own revision. I won't argue with it.

Re; Reverting... whyever did you do that? All the material you've put into a response here has consisted of:

1) Arguing about two refs that might still need a basis for inclusion 2) A new edit having nothing to do with my edits that you or anyone could easily add and that I do not dispute 3) A minor wordsmithing of one other sentence

Reversion undid a lot of very small positive tweaks I have done, and a significant restructuring that benefits the article overall. What's the rationale for taking them out? It would require significant effort to put all those positives back into a reverted version. So why do that? Edit in the small changes you want, and levae the other valuable edits in place. There's a difference between merciless and cunterproductive. I can take merciless. I don't understand counterproductive. Dovid (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Smolkins, I added in the suggested NGO/UN text and ref. Please do your own copyedit for tweaking universalism. I still don't like the long list of refs even without the non-English. I reverted your reversion. It takes away from the article. What does the article lose?

• a whole bunch of minor improvements I made
• a guide that helps the reader the duality of the inclusion/exclusion (included in the article as a possible AF, exclusion form the bulk discussion of the established three. Otherwise, the reader has to go through this Talk page just to understand what the heck is going on and why the article seems bi-polar
• taking away a possible misimpression that Bahai is more prominent than any of the three established faiths, because Bahai gets a top -level heading where the three do not

What about the relative prominence of Bahai? I agree. So, I had already made specific, prominent, emphatic reference in the intro, to the Bahai, and I placed Bahai first (at the expense of the small paragraph of the others almost getting lost), and I gave Baha'i its own sub-section, uniquely. I don't see any reason for losing the advantages given above, and I see a whole host of problems with the reversion. I'm glad you at least posted that you were going to do it about 19 hours before you started reverting. If it was a small change reverted, or vandalism, that's OK. But I think this was more important than that, and harder to recreate. It was also disingenuous to say that you were only reverting a bot change. I'm not a bot. Dovid (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As for a revert taking away small good changes, I'd like to agree to the major issue(s) and clearly things were being done out of phase with talking. I think several people have said talking is good. So let's talk and then agree rather than prejudging agreement and then getting into changes from there.

• Foreign language refs - the map/graphic that is in english that lists the Baha'i Faith among the Abrahamic religion is PART of the the French language books. And the French language books are in general notable as a reference because it long predates references used elsewhere and are part of an ongoing work that stretches down to today. They also spend substantial numbers of pages reviewing the religion compared to simply listing it as Abrahamic.
• Smaller religions subsection - the main objection I have to that structuring is that it's vague. All the other religions are clearly ethnographic. That is a structuring of information that means something. The Baha'i Faith stands uniquely beyond such a scope and has a variety of supporting information. The simple fact that if a religion is listed beyond the 3 then it's almost always the Baha'i Faith that is listed is another example. The long list of references was compiled specifically because editors kept insisting that it was too minor to be listed so it shows a diverse world of references from legal, religious, and governmental sources which is, again, an aspect of notability that none of these ethnographic religions has. I can't see a section on the religion at the bottom, and composing less than any section of any of the 3 connotating that it's more prominent. Really!?
• Bot reverting. Apologies if I wasn't clear. No I was not reverting a bot (though I did by accident.) What I was "reverting" was a cumulation of changes not agreed to, changes other editors made that broke things so badly a bot actually reverted him. I restored the page to where it was before the most recent round of talk you initiated so that we could have a useful place to continued the conversation from. You thought some of these changes were not controversial. I disagreed. Others when ahead and made more changes but broke many things. A bot reverted him. I restored things to where they were so we could talk. In the the talking about all this we use facts and information - that's great. In the comment of editors it tends to get landblasting and comments on who the editors are or are not that fits in the space and I find crippling to the discussion by fair minded people. Smkolins (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Expanding slightly on the small good vs larger changes and editing - frankly as long as small good edits are made at the same time as large controversial edits it's hard to separate them. For example when I made a round of significant changes I seperately did a number of small edits separately so that if things needed to be settled on the separate question it could be done so without involving the small edits. I recommend that approach - it presumes less of others. Smkolins (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

let's try to come to agreement

Factors favoring a section exclusive for the Baha'i Faith

• Size - the Baha'i Faith is closer to the size of Judaism than to all the ethnographic religions combined. "In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13 million, of whom about 40% reside in Israel and 40% in the United States." (It says in the Judaism lead.) Baha'is were about 7.6 million in 2005 (about 2/3rds of Jews) and all the smaller religions are about 2 millions (about 1/3 of Baha'is). In fact Baha'is outnumber the Jews in Israel or the US. Baha'is have also been noted in in growth stats since the 1970s (when the stats began to be taken) though regional scholarly work noted the impact of the religion since the 1950s. Refs available.

• Diversity - Baha'is are the second most widespread religion, missing only in Vatican City and North Korea, and, in order of size, it's 10 largest populations of adherents are from: India, United States, Vietnam, Kenya, DR of the Congo, Philippines, Zambia, South Africa, Iran, Bolivia (see here according to third party sources that have been studied and found to be in reasonable agreement.) The smallest religions are all ethnographic, though each with their own histories. There has been talk above about adding more members to this list but of course we need sources (the Yazdi are considered part of the Yazdânism Khurdish religious group but I hadn't seen that grouping listed as Abrahamic though I did find the Yazdi listed.)

• Breadth of sources - if a source mentions more than the 3 then it will almost certainly list the Baha'is. These sources come from a variety of fields including religious studies, religious thinkers, legal researchers, and government positions on classifications. This classification is not new, and had been maintained for some time. For several of us this was long though to be the sole real determinant of proper placement in wikipedia but it seems it isn't as repeatedly the religion was entirely stripped from the article. And not a single ref has ever been brought forward against the categorization while criticisms of restricting it to 3 have.

• Details of relationship - the religion shares many, almost all, of the characteristics of the category though it's dwelt on only briefly, but in addition to this there are a couple of factors that uniquely help define a relationship with Abraham, upon whom this category depends. Baha'is have long claimed, and others have noted, that the founder of the religion was descended from Keturah, a claim no other religion has put forward, and that there was a comparison made with the sacrifice of Abraham and circumstances of loosing one of the founder's sons.

Now whether you think this justifies getting a section of it's own, can we at least get rid of the subtext of "POV Vigilantism" and etc. Please note several Baha'is have contributed in recent history explicitly to reduce the over all size of the religion in the article even over the contributions of others. We are being responsible contributors and to keep taking jabs is uncalled for. We have certainly not gone around jabbing fingers at other editors making substantial controversial and unscholarly changes with accusations about what religion they represent.

Factors favoring putting it within a "Smaller religions" section

• Maybe the overall structure of the article would be more normal

• It's smaller than the 3.

• It's comparatively younger than the 3.

Smkolins (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smolkins' suggestion and reasons here. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Afaprof's latest edits

Afaprof's latest edits have a number of problems:

1. In this edit, not only that remove the vast majority of the sources that state the Baha'i Faith is Abrahamic, but he writes in a comment "Reviewers??? They are not qualified as scholars." The references he removes are third-party publishers that qualify as reliable sources, and qualify as verifiable. That he disagrees with them has no relevance. He further classifies that the sources needs a NPOV check, but in fact the sources are either from academic encyclopedias or Jewish and Christian sources, not from Baha'i sources. Christians and Jews themselves classify the Baha'i Faith as Abrhamic. If we consider the rest of the article, outside of the Baha'i content, it is quite poorly referenced — many sections are not referenced at all, and others are referenced by primary sources such as the Bible and the Qu'ran which are usually not enough, as secondary sources are needed. See WP:PSTS
2. He changes the wording "has sometimes been listed as Abrahamic by scholarly sources in various fields" which is supported by the citations to "a few other religions claim Abrahamic lineage and consider themselves entitled to the title "an Abrahamic faith" which is not supported by the sources, and is his original research which is against Wikipedia's policies.
3. He notes Wikipedia:Article size, but the size there is about readable prose, which if you remove all the citations is 58.5K which is just over the 50K recommended limit, and not the 100K which he notes.

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted Afaprof's latest pruning effort because such pruning does not have consensus. He's been not only reverted by those that he says are so called Baha'i pushers, but by other neutral editors. The length of the Baha'i section is not out of place, considering there is no content in the totality of the article talking about the Baha'i Faith, except for the section on the Baha'i Faith. Further his pruning of that section has certain fundamental problems, which are:

1. As I noted above he changes the wording which states "recently the Bahá'í Faith, which dates only to the late 19th century, has sometimes been listed as Abrahamic by scholarly sources in various fields" which is supported by the reliable sources to "a few other religions claim Abrahamic lineage and consider themselves entitled to the title "an Abrahamic faith" which is not supported by the reliable sources. I would challenge him to find the sources that says the religions "consider themselves entitled". In fact that the sources documenting the correct statement are from non-Baha'i sources.
2. Secondly, he removes content that specifically makes the connection to Abraham, and thus is very germane in this article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Another point, Afaprof just tried to remove my comments above instead of actually addressing them. He actually noted in his edit where he removed my comments on the discussion page "Wholesale revert is not solving anything", but if he had actually looked at the edit, he would have noticed that not only did I not revert all his changes, but that I also pruned the Baha'i section myself, removing the ungermane information that had no connection between the Abrahamic tradition and the Baha'i Faith, rather than his haphazard pruning, removing the precise paragraphs and statements that make the connection to the Abrahamic tradition. On a second note, his edit comments from this edit with an edit comment of "Reverted good faith edits by 216.196.76.76; Continued reversion of so much Bahai detail is tantamount to vandalism" which actually had noting to do with Baha'i content in the article is misleading. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Symbol of Islam

The picture showing three symbols is wrong. The symbol of Islam isn't Arabic Text; it is the Crescent. Maybe the Crescent can have Arabic Text on itself, but only Arabic Text can't be the symbol of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.245.190.63 (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The symbols

The first two symbols are correct, the Star of David in Judaisam and the cross in Christianity, but the third symbol, in Islam is not. The word Allah written in Arabic alphabeth is a great word, however that is not a symbol of Islam during the history. The symbol of Islam is a CRESCENT MOON and that thinks 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. So please change that and put a right symbol. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniensis (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

article structure

the article appears to be based on the idea that "there are three Abrahamic religions. We will now give a brief discussion of each, sorted by topic". This is pointless. What this article needs are not "1.Judaism, 2.Christianity, 3.Islam" h3-subsections to every h2-section, it needs a coherent discussion of the commonalities and differences of the three religions for each point. Only when we do this will the article be useful. Summaries of Jewish, Christian and Islamic tradition seen in isolation can just be consulted in the articles linked. The discussion of the common roots and historical split of the religions, on the other hand, will justify the existence of this as a separate topic. The relevant period is that of Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, say AD 100 to AD 700, during which time the three religions emerged. Without a solid understanding of the cultural landscape of Late Antiquity, it is impossible to understand anything about the topic. Listing various random facts on each religion is not helpful. --dab (𒁳) 12:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd think a principled approach with themes could be useful as this structure will tend to invite continnued uneven semi-parallel development and loose cohesion which has happened more than once over it's history. But also keeping an eye on more recent developments too. Restricting the content to speak to <700AD isn't going to cover enough.Smkolins (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article attempts to do exactly what you describe -- it gives major headings that cover themes of "Abrahamicness" and try to show how each of the Abrahamic religions play to those themes. This makes perfect sense to me. I tried to do the same to the Bahai section a few months ago, weeding out the parts that were irrelevant to Abrahamicness, and emphasizing those that were relevant. I do agree that we could add some material exploring the overall concepts of Abrahamicness, which itself would help clarify why the other main headings have been included. Dovid (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the work on the Baha'i content was it was occasionally being stripped completely out and so content was developed to substantiate its presence which actually lead to all the other additions of religions. The question was how much space to use and where and trimming the content left open the whole argument to this cyclic stripped that had been going on for some years. Going heavy on citations - that another editor has now stripped out - and heavy, but not equal to the three, reference to the religion - was a way of trying to stabilize the content. But it was unsupported by most editors so it collapsed back to what we have, and again, some whittling. Stability seems ephemeral. As for the overall synergy of the article the super parallelism seems to me to be an invitation to alittle addition here and there, unevenly, as long as it emphasizes the religions, rather than the principles of Abrahamism. The natural urge is to contribute towards bits and pieces and which will tend to unbalance things again, followed by an attempt by someone to even the content, and then this whole argument all over again. I reviewed the historical development of the article and talk pages and watched this happen before I became involved and it's been repeated since I got involved. At least that's my view on things. Smkolins (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a particular problem with the Baha'i section but not the article overall. The bits and pieces for each is understandable, but that's typical for WP articles. You only get content that editors feel like contributing. I do have a solution to recommend for the Baha'i content. Take the main sections heads that are applied to the rest of the article, and include a short paragraph on each, in the same order, in the Baha'i section. I wouldn't create them as subsections -- you know there'll be grief over that. But it could look something like:

Introductory material, including the significance statement article already starts with, and any existing material that does not fit under the other "headings" below

The supreme deity: The religion emphasizes monotheism and believes in one eternal transcendent God.[79][80][81] See God in the Bahá'í Faith.

Religious scriptures: (currently has no content, this provides an oppt'y to add that content in a way that the "stripologists" can't really argue against)

End times and afterlife: Bahá'ís believe that Bahá'u'lláh is the latest, though not last, of the series of messengers of God and that this series of interventions by God in human history has been progressive, each revelation from God more complete and based on the teachings of those that preceded it, and each preparing the way for the next.[84]

Worship and religious rites: The religion is almost entirely contained in a single, organized, hierarchical community. The religion accepts the premise, and is a victim, of the theme of a Prophetic tradition pattern in that it accepts the founders of the previous major Abrahamic religions as Manifestations of God come with revelation under one God.

Proselytism: I think there used to be some content, since removed, on not proselytizing except under certain conditions and using certain forms, and there could probably be a link to some section of the main Baha'i article.

This will bring MORE balance to the Baha'i coverage, and make it fit better with the rest of the article at the same time. Dovid (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Coming up with content and citations is not a problem - just look back through the history. Having it be supported so we don't get into another edit war is another matter. I'd say from my pov that what you are suggesting is close to what I was suggesting and would accept it. Smkolins (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Baha'i section you have suggested seems pretty sound.

My only comments would be a request to re-phrase the sentence containing, "Is a victim, of the theme of a prophetic tradition..." as I wonder how one could be a "victim" of prophetic tradition, or what being a victim in such a context actually means. Daniel De Mol (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to read what is meant? "The religion accepts the premise, and is a victim, of the theme of a Prophetic tradition pattern in that it accepts the founders of the previous major Abrahamic religions as Manifestations of God come with revelation under one God(foot notes) and has been persecuted and rejected as a religion." So then go to that section and it says "They all believe that God guides humanity through revelation to prophets, and each religion recognizes that God revealed teachings up to and including those in their own scripture. However, each rejects revelations claimed by the later religions." Smkolins (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, understood now, I think it was owing to the discontinuity as the three more well known Abrahamic religions are discussed seperately from the Baha'i faith. Perhaps this could be improved without the re-creation of an edit war by ammending the final sentence in Prophetic tradition section to "Islam accepts that God revealed guidance for Jews and Christians and then adds their own percieved revelations in their scripture , yet like the Jews and the Christians reject the concept of revelations or prophets after their own."

In this way the connection would be made clearer, without mentioning the Baha'i faith, and it may be clear enough without the Baha'i section being written in a standalone manner.Daniel De Mol (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, a re-phrase is necessary, the same thing could be stated, "The religion accepts the premise, of the theme of a Prophetic tradition pattern in that it accepts the founders of the previous major Abrahamic religions as Manifestations of God come with revelation under one God(foot notes) and has had it's adherents persecuted (especially by the Islamic government of Iran) and been rejected as an authentically revealed religion, by the bulk of the adherents of it's historical predecessors."

In this way incorrect connotations of suffering arising from word 'victim' can be avoided as the religion has benefited in terms of growth rather than suffered by drawing new members from other Abrahamic faiths who found the jump easier owing to continuity of prophetic theme. Also saying Baha'i faith has been rejected as a religion without qualifying by who, or to what extent it has been rejected as a religion could easily be mis-read as implying that it is considered nothing more than a political ideology almost universally among non-adherents. Daniel De Mol (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Article mixes BCE/BC usage; per WP:ERA only one style per article is recommended

This article presently uses both the AD and Common Era notations. Per WP:ERA, only one of the notations should be used in one given article. I understand that the subject of this article is all three Abrahamic religions, so maybe some will feel that Common Era is appropriate, but I prefer to use AD/BC personally. What are some community thoughts on this issue?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 04:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks it looks like the BC system was the first convention and also most prevalent--86.10.164.130 (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

CIS is an editor who for 6 years diligently attempted to change BCE/CE to BC/AD, often using sockpuppets for that purpose, and who is now banned. Please don't edit articles solely for the purpose of changing ERA styles, as you've been doing, or you'll be banned too. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

... and now both accounts have been blocked for sockpuppeting. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)