Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

How many Bahai's are there, actually?

The page 'Major religious groups' says that there are 7 million Bahai's in the world, but when we enter the Bahai page, we learn that there are in fact 6 million Bahai's. My question is, actually how many Bahai's are there? Kazimostak 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There are exactly 6,387,416 members of the Baha'i faith, no more and no less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Accurately estimating the number of any religion is a difficult and complex task. In some regions of the world, religious persecution or government oppression may make individual believers reluctant to identify themselves. In other areas, poor communications or travel networks make it difficult to obtain data. Thus different sources give different amounts. Encyclopedias and similar sources estimate usually from 5 to 8 million Bahá'ís with most centred on 5-6 million. Encyclopedia Britannica states 7 million. -- Jeff3000 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This should really be standardised. I suggest changing both to "around 5-8 million" Zazaban 19:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It would have to fit into the pattern of the rest of the religions. Perhaps the lead references should simply be echoed elsewhere or referred to the statistics page.--Smkolins 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I know at Buddhism they show where estimates usually vary from. Zazaban 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already discussed in the demographics section and the Baha'i statistics page as per summary style. Having that much detail in the lead would not pass by WP:LEAD. -- Jeff3000 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Another reason diffreent articles will give different numbers is because they use different sources that use different definitions. Most religious statistics ultimately come from the World Christian Encyclopedia, originally edited by David Barrett, now by Todd Johnson. Their estimate of 7 million Baha'is worldwide is based on "identity," which includes people the Baha'is don't usually include (Dr. Johnson told me, for example, that if a non-Baha'i spouse attended Baha'i worship services regularly, he or she would be counted as a "Baha'i" by their definition). The Baha'i definition, however, requires someone to "declare" (state their allegiance) and then be enrolled in the community. The Baha'i numbers therefore are somewhat lower on average. 70.224.42.139 14:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)RHStockman

Ouch. I didn't know it was that bad. I recalled bits about conversions vs children raised as Baha'is but never just a spouse attending a meeting....--Smkolins 19:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But where do they get that information? -LambaJan 16:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The data collected around the world associated with Ruhi books will give a much better overall impression of the base line and the trends. RoddyYoung 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Baha'i Economics

Lets look at a link for the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty. Economic laws are very clear by Baha'u'llah and no like ? why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoddyYoung (talk • contribs) 13:21, April 13, 2007 (UTC).

Response to above statement: I don't quite understand your statement, and whether you are being sarcastic. I don't think that the Ba'hai religion will or can ever trump the laws of economics, of supply and demand. It does sound a bit like socialism/communism, which we all know doesn't work. Is that what the Ba'hai view of economics is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.37.184.156 (talk) 17:17, April 14, 2007 (UTC)

Much of economics depends on confidence. Business confidence reflect companies' sales prospects which ultimately depend on workers' confidence that they will continue to have work. Personal confidence is a counterpart of hope, which is a spiritual principle. Therefore the spiritual principles within the Baha'i Faith--which include confidence in mankind's brilliant future--will have an impact on world economics. Moreover, there is growing global distaste for the extremes in wealth and poverty. This is neither socialism nor communism, but informed global recognition that real extremes of wealth and abject poverty are no longer morally supportable. Occamy 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Baha'i version of economics (as I understand it) would be best described as a moral capitalism, rather than communism. Shogi Effendi was really clear that communism is no good, most specifically because it is without religious roots. Anyway, Baha'i beliefs, as I understand them, encourage entrepreneurship, ingenuity, and supports the idea that hard work should be rewarded with a higher salary. The two big differences between Baha'i and regular capitalistic models is that it should be acquired in an ethical way (no sweat shops, cut throat business tactics, unfair wages, etc.) and that the rich have a certain obligation to the rest of the world. The model that we see now of billionaires hording their cash and property would be out, they would be encouraged to support social development projects and charity. Through this system third world countries would be less exploited, and people living there would be given equal opportunities. At no point is it stated that "everyone should get equal wages" because not only is this unfeasible, it is unfair, because it means those with the skills and initiative would get lower wages then they deserve, but one of the key goals is that everyone can get a living wage, where they don't have problems feeding their family or dying of curable diseases. 219.28.165.29 11:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Jesse

Involvement in society

The "Involvement in Society" section would do good as its own article. Don't you think? If no one objects to making this section its own page, I will go ahead and do so.--eskimospy^(talk) 18:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to make it it's own page; First of all, it would, by itself, not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and secondly no-one will be find that article as the entrance into Wikipedia, and so there is no point. The separation will only make it more difficult to maintain the quality of the content. -- Jeff3000 19:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Society has a growing involvment from the Baha'i followers and they take the Devotional meetings, Ruhi classes, children's classes and junior youth classes out to the wider community. Notability in wikipedia is all about how it is worded. CommonWealth of Baha'i nations would be a notable involvement in society so have a go and start it. RoddyYoung 12:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another approach is to put satisfactory entries of the involvement of the religion in society in those places and topics where already present or deserving of being in wikipedia. For example worldly notable individuals, already in wikipedia, who are Baha'is or encountered the religion, and where the religion has been a notable influence. A specific example would be expanding the biographical stubs of Baha'is (many of them at this point need pictures for example.) Another would the notable action Baha'is have undertaken in development circles or governance, civil rights promotion, and many other topics - all in a way the serves the principles of wikipedia.--Smkolins 18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I point I think needs to be included.

We need to include something along the lines of "Contrary to common belief, the Baha'i Faith is not a synthetic religion." It seems to me to be an important thing to include. Zazaban 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered by the Religion paragraph which starts: "Bahá'í beliefs are sometimes described as syncretic combinations of earlier religions' beliefs...."Occamy 18:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry, must have missed that. Zazaban 18:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ishmael

I need some help for writing the section on "Ishmael in the Bahai Faith". Also, there is a sentence in the intro which needs to be sourced. Thanks --Aminz 07:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Meet you over there. MARussellPESE 13:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why all the accents, bits left out of words with apostrophes?

I think the accents, .e.g, á í, and missing bits of words that have apostrophes, e.g., in "Bahá'u'lláh" needs brief explanation. Does this affect how the words are said or only a style of writing? Thanks. - Fremte 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with transliteration from the original Arabic or Persian that the names come from; it allows the original text to be recreated; see Bahá'í orthography for more information. For example the apostrophe (') represents the Hamza or glottal stop (The glottal stop is the sound made when the vocal cords are pressed together to stop the flow of air and then released; for example, the break separating the syllables of the interjection uh-oh) Regards, -- Jeff3000 00:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you. Do you think some form of explanation might be good to include somewhere, or a link to an explanation like your good answer? I did not find such information when searching the internet. Just a suggestion from someone completely outside of this religion / system of beliefs. - Fremte 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Order of sections Beliefs, Teachings, Social Practices

Currently these section are spread throughout the page 'Bahai Faith'. Is there a specific reason for this? I would feel it is more logical to have them together. Wiki-uk 05:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the following order:

1 Demographics

2 History

3 Beliefs

4 Teachings

5 Social practices

6 Involvement in society

7 Persecution

Any comments, objections? Wiki-uk 08:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the current ordering; I really think beliefs should come first. -- Jeff3000 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then what about:

1 Beliefs

2 Teachings

3 Social practices

4 Demographics

5 History

6 Involvement in society

7 Persecution

Wiki-uk 14:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the article as is. MARussellPESE 18:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC) I don't see any compelling reason to change the order, it reads fine now.--I'm Nonpartisan 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

200 countries

Does the "more than 200 countries" part make sense? As I understand it, there are 192 countries in the UN, and maybe 2 more that aren't part of the UN -- that sounds like there are fewer than 200 countries total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.111.36 (talk • contribs) 13:21, April 13, 2007 (UTC)

This includes dependencies Zazaban 03:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Some areas are "self governing countries" under a kingdom, such as Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which belong to Denmark. For more on this see List of countries in Wikipedia. - Parsa 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Be accurate

In the first sentence you say "..founded by Bahá'u'lláh in 19th century Persia". Fine. Then you give a link to persia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire#Persia_and_Europe_.281722.E2.80.931914.29

the link is to the section "persian empire". as far as i know bab was aroung 1850. why you don't give link to iran? (to the main article of iran and not to a section about 1000-2000 years ago of iran). do you want to say you are not related to iran?

this article starts with a joke. therefore non-sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.24.167 (talk • contribs)

I take it you didn't even follow the link. Note it is headed "Persia and Europe (1722–1914)" This is Clearly when the Bab lived.

In the future make sure you know what you talking about before you start criticizing something. Zazaban 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that it was known internationally as Persia until 1939. It's merely a case of an incorrect link. If you want to fix it, just use this link (Persia) Peter Deer (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bahaisim

I disagree with giving this obscure term prominence by setting it in the opening paragraph. It's even-handed use is dated, and it's current usage is almost uniformly intended to be pejorative. Google it (vs. Baha'i) and compare the number of total hits. Also check out the kinds of hits it generates: Generally Christian or Muslim apologetics, or online mirror dictionaries. It has no place in the first line of the article per WP:Undue_Weight.

Serious scholars refer to this as Baha'i.[1]

As the current version is effectively a revert, I'm changing it back. MARussellPESE 02:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The book on religion in which I first heard of the Baha'i Faith not ten years ago refered to it as Baha'ism. The book was published in 1999. Zazaban 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Zazaban, I respectfully disagree. I also did the google search on Bahaism and found that most links went back to one online encyclopedia. That same site also had a duplicate entry under Baha'i, not Baha'i Faith, and the very short article was unsatifying, indeed. Most books that use the term Bahaism do not use Baha'i texts for their sources, but instead quote other books that "explain" about the Baha'i Faith in the context of cults. No Baha'is refer to their religion as Bahaism or to themselves as Bahaists. But, this gives me pause. Are Hinduism and Buddhism also incorrect?--I'm Nonpartisan 00:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I myself remember being a bit confused when I came to this article, because I had only even heard the term "Baha'ism" before. Zazaban 16:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

""Bahaism" (or "Baha'ism") has been used in the past but is fading from use." It is not fading from use. It faded a long time ago. It has its origins in Frnech Encyclopedias and other secondary sources that are no longer considered up to date or even accurate. These terms do not reflect proper usage and therefore it should be noted in that way and not so passively. 68.98.11.237 08:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone is doing a revert war on this - going so far as to log on from a different site each time! I don't think an even-handed article should recognise the term "Baha'ism" at all - like "Jehovah Witnesses" for "Jehovah's Witnesses" it is a deliberate "mistake" made purely for pejorative reasons. The sentence saying it is "fading from use" is actually wrong on two counts - it was never used "correctly" (at least not in English) and its use as a term of abuse is (alas) not "fading". Why not simply "the terms "Bahaism" and "Bahaist" are not correct" and leave it at that, assuming you want to mention them at all! Soundofmusicals 14:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Musicals, where is "Bahaism" used widely compared to "Baha'i"? No serious religious scholar uses it. Denis MacEoin stipulates to his own bias against the religion and he seems to be the only one who consistently used the term. "Bahaism" does seem to be used generally as a pejorative, but only by fringe Christian "cult watchers" and some Muslim apologists. Serious Christian apologists typically use "Baha'i" — even W.M. Miller used it. How is "fading from use" incorrect?

Describing its use as "must be regarded as incorrect (at least in English)" needs some support or it's WP:OR. I'd like to add the observation that "Bahaism" is generally used as a pejorative, but I can't find a source. So, I won't. That'd be OR too.

Scrupulously standing up for Wikipedia's Policies is very important to allow all points their appropriate expression here. That means that the Baha'is must, very often, restrain ourselves. MARussellPESE 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Take your point that calling the terms "pejorative", or "incorrect" (both true, I suspect you'd agree) is OR unless you have a source - but then surely calling them "formerly in use" and "fading from use" (both untrue, incidentally) also need a source, or it is just as OR as the other. My favourite solution would be not to mention these terms at all; if they must be mentioned, and nothing can be said about them without a source (or it is OR) - then we cannot be selective about this, and say that one unsupported statement is OR while another is not. To me this whole thing furthers the case for not mentioning "Bahaism" at all! Of course restraint is a virtue, and Wiki policies mostly have a good reason and deserve to be upheld. One needs to be strictly logical and consistent about this however. You can't logically reject text as OR when it replaces text that is already equally OR (and inaccurate into the bargain). Soundofmusicals 10:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The term is used in reliable sources (such as Iranica) so it should be included here. However, a simple search shows that it is used in a minority of sources, which is where Undue Weight comes in as it is used correctly in this article. A simple Google search further validates the sources: A Google search shows a 1 610 000 to 61 100 ratio of Baha'i Faith to Baha'ism, and if you use books.google.com with a narrowing by year the terms have a ratio of 4800 to 378 in books published since 2000, and the terms have a ratio of 1566 to 283 between the years 1900-1920. The trends show a fading of use. Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My issue with the "fading" label is that is produces the incorrect impression that the main difference between the proper name for the Faith and this one is that "Baha'i Faith" is up-to-date, and "Bahaism" (or one of its myriad variants) is just a bit old hat. The real difference is that one is correct and the other is very simply not correct at all - has never been used by the Baha'is themselves, and is (with perhaps the odd exception) never used by reputable, scholarly sources. On the other hand, among writers intent on opposition its use is in fact becoming more usual. Older attacks on the Faith at least usually called it by its proper name - more recent ones tend to balk at this. While "Bahaism" does (and should) redirect to this article - I still think that (assuming it gets a mention at all) the wrong term should be labelled as "incorrect" rather than "old-fashioned" - and its use be described as more and more confined to deliberate pejorative instances rather than "fading". Never mind, I suppose there are more important things! Soundofmusicals 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bahá'í prayers

Anyone got a position on whether there should be a general page on Bahá'í Prayer? I see there is Obligatory Bahá'í prayers but beyond that there is only [[2]], [[3]], which then refers to the reference of the prayers (so that Praise and Gratitude points to [[4]] actually plus a several of the Occasional Prayers. As it is important to the religion, and that a major distinction between the Bahá'í religion and others is the wide-scale use of authenticated prayers of it's central figures it seems to me there should be a page. On the particular question of including text from example prayers I note that the Serenity Prayer includes the text. There is List of prayers which among others lists Lord's Prayer which is provided in several forms. There is copyright but it seems to me there is free for use/do not modify .... but we do need the particulars.... We do have Prayers and Mediations to note as well.... While we're at it perhaps one on fasting? Prayer and fasting are central practices, perhaps adding consultation.... Back to prayer there are a few articles worth noting:

• Prayer and worship
• Authenticity of Some Well-Known Prayers and Tablets by Universal House of Justice, 1992-09
• Main publishing crossreferences and other crossreferences
• Prayer for Shaykh Kázim Samandar by Bahá'u'lláh and Universal House of Justice
• Source of prayer "Make me a hollow reed" by Universal House of Justice, 1999-10-26
• on protection, Illumination, fathers, among others....

and a bit down the list of things to cover could be Prayers of Shoghi Effendi --Smkolins 02:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Baha'i Prayer

I like that idea a lot. Most books for the general public that are compilations of prayers and medications often include one from the Baha'i Faith. It would be interesting to see a List of editions of the Baha'i Prayer book. It would be really interesting to learn about how the Baha'i Obligatory Prayers are different than daily prayers of other faiths, etc. I say, go for it.--I'm Nonpartisan 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am just going to drop in and say this once, but saying something, like prayer, should be done is not the same thing as people actually doing the recommended task. I am an ex-Bahai turned Agnostic-Atheist and I know for a fact that neither of my parents, one of whom still considers herself a Bahai, nor myself, recited the obligatory prayers daily. This proves that the statement "Baháís over the age of 15 recite an obligatory prayer each day." was a fallacy, and that is why I added the "should." Ego Felem Amo 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

this sentence is horrible, somebody please rewrite it

"Its cultural and religious debt to the Shi'a Islamic matrix in which it was founded is seen as analogous to the Jewish socio-religious context in which Christianity was established."

thanks T-1 19:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How's that? MARussellPESE 18:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i now understand what the hell it was supposed to say. :) T-1 00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the original better. Much more accurate. 68.98.11.237 08:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

English converts to the Bahai Faith

I am interested in the subject of British involvement in the Baha'i faith.

Did Edward Browne become a Baha'i? Was the British consul that he refers to in A Year Among Persians already Baha'i?

Is there a section of the British establishment which is Bahai and is it pushing for regime change in Iran? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sidney Harry (talk • contribs).

E.G. Browne was never a Baha'i. He was academically interested in the religion of the Bab, and the movements that grew out of it. And the British Consul, Mr. Abbott, was similarly never a Baha'i. There are no Baha'i establishment, either British or otherwise, that is pushing for regime change in Iran; one of Baha'u'llah's laws was obedience to the government of one's country. Baha'is all over the world, are however, trying to raise concerns about the discriminatory practices that the Baha'is in Iran are facing; they just want to be treated like any other Iranian in Iran. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for all Bahá'í and Bahá'í-Related Articles

Dear Everyone,

This may have already been discussed, but if not I would like to open an idea for consultation. The basic idea is that, while it is desirable to stick to the correct orthography of "Bahá'í" with a-acute and i-acute within each article that has to do with the Faith, I wonder if this is equally important when using the text for a URL. For instance: any article referencing the faith is "Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith" which is almost completely unreadable. Really, wouldn't "Bahai_Faith" or even "Baha%27i_Faith" be preferable--even if less accurate?

Yours sincerely, Matarael 00:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, after rereading what I have here... it's not so much that we should change our "default" pages, but rather when linking between articles we should link to the non-acute, non-dashed version.

So, when linking between articles, you would link to "Bahai_Faith", which would automatically be redirected to "Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith" thus preserving all of the accents, etc. but still showing up in someone's URL as something readable and nice.

Matarael 01:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually IE already shows the correct form in the URL location box (with all the accents) and Firefox will show the correct form in Firefox 3.0 which will be released in the fourth quarter (I'm using a beta right now, and it displays just fine). So all those funny escaped characters will be a thing of the past for all in a couple of months. Regards -- Jeff3000 03:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff3000, I just got Gran Paradiso to check it out, and you are indeed correct. Good to know! My concern still remains, however, when one copies and pastes the article, into say, an email, it comes with the escaped characters... If no-one else sees this as an issue, fair enough. Matarael 02:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you go to Asian language Wikipedias then every single page loads that way to accommodate the 5,000 or more characters. I don't see it as a big deal here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuñado, That may be true, but this in no way has any bearing on an english wikipedia site or english wikipedia reading audience. Diacritic marks in links only obfusticate otherwise useful article identification. Matarael 02:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Accents are one of my pet peeves in regards to the interoperability and cross-platform nature of the internet. Many folks use Windows-generated accented letters, and these come out looking like garbage in my emails, and even on web sites which I view. Wikipedia makes use of Unicode characters, and these should be used rather than symbols specific to one computer or another. Editors should educate themselves, not just on non-English characters, but on common punctuation such as em dashes: — . Parsa 23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Al Afghani

Researhing the Muslim Brotherhood and Freemasonary in Egypt, I see that the conspiracy web-sites believe that Al Afghani was a secret Baha'i, Can this be verified or rejected? Sidney Harry 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there's such a thing as a secret Baha'i, aat least I've never heard of one. Zazaban 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jamal al-Din al-Afghani was not a Baha'i either. Cole believes that al-Afghani thought that the Baha'i Faith could be an ally in reform of Islam and sent copies of an anti-British Muslim periodical to Baha'u'llah, but there was no response from the Baha'is. [5] Also, from that article Cole writes "In 1896, an assassin with ties to Jamalu'd-Din al-Afghani killed Iran's Nasiru'd-Din Shah. Both in Iran itself and among Iranian expatriates, many blamed the Babis for the incident (few Iranians made any distinction at that time between Babis and Baha'is). Until official word came from Iran that the Baha'is were not involved, many Shi`ite Iranian expatriates were calling for a retaliatory massacre of the Baha'is in Egypt."

Later on, Rashid Rida and Muhammad `Abduh, two disciples of al-Afghani had a major dispute between each other on the Baha'i Faith. `Abduh admired the Baha'i faith, but he was not willing to give up on Sunni Islam and Rida rejected many of the Baha'i changes.

Momen also writes about al-Afghani's relationship with Baha'is. He writes:

"It has been suggested that Sayyid Jamalu'd-Din Afghani was in contact with the Babi exiles in Baghdad in the 1850s.[3] Certainly he was very familiar with the movement and provided the information on this subject that went into Butrus al-Bustani's Arabic Encyclopaedia.[4] He appears to have wanted to remain in contact with the Baha'i leaders in `Akka since he sent them copies of his newspaper, Urwatu'l-Waqtha, from Paris in the 1880s.[5] It would appear from Afghani's writings that he felt a great deal of antipathy for the Baha'is[6] whom he saw as potentially breaking up the unity of the Islamic world therefore his continued contacts may well have been because he found the ideas emanating from this source useful to him in formulating his own views." [6]

What you are likely seeing on the forums with the connection of the Baha'i Faith to some individuals, is more likely a form of discreditation. There have been many times when opponents of a person will call that person a Baha'i to discredit him. It happened with the former Prime-Minister in Iran, Hoveyda, and even more recently opponents circulated notices that Mahmoud Abbas was a Baha'i.[7][8] [9] [10] Both of them were never Baha'is. Regards, -- Jeff3000 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Started in Iraq, not Iran!

The article claimed that the faith was founded in Iran. While the Babi movement was, the Bahai faith wasn't; it was founded in Iraq, after the Babis were expelled in 185x (1854? I forget). Baha'ulla founded the Bahai faith, depending on who you ask, in 1863 or 1866, in Iraq. I've corrected the mistake in the article, assuming it was simply made out of ignorance, but I'm worried that claiming it was started in Iran (because the Babi movement was) is accepted, in which case it should be changed back. It doesn't seem correct to me (as there are non-Bahai Babis, the Azalis, which proves that the Babi movement is different from the Bahai faith), but I'm not an expert on the Bahai faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerdol (talk • contribs).

The declaration of Baha'u'llah was in Iraq, but the origin of the Faith is very clearly in Iran. Actually this is a very slightly curly one, and someone else may want to comment.Soundofmusicals 07:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

While Baha'u'llah declared while he was in Baghdad, he claims that he came to know of his mission while he was in prison in Tehran, Iran. Also the religion predominately spread in Iran after 1866 (when Baha'u'llah made his claim to be the one promised by the Bab public). The Encyclopedia of Religion article agrees with this and states that the religion was started in Iran. Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Bahá'ís believe such-and-such"

The word believe is used many times in this article. Examples:

"Bahá'ís believe in a single, imperishable God...Bahá'ís believe that God expresses this will in many ways...Bahá'ís believe that human beings have a "rational soul"..."

This is common style, but it is very hard to verify that the adherents actually believe what the teachings say. If we're trying to be factual, (this is an encyclopedia,no?) then we might have to say "Bahá'ís are supposed to believe" or "The teachings of blah say such-and-such" or something.

One might say that by definition, if you don't believe all the required beliefs, then you aren't a Bahá'í. This might be the position of many Bahá'ís. But what to do when you find someone who calls themselves Bahá'í, but doesn't believe one of the teachings?

This is an argument that could be made about many articles about religions. I think it could be solved with a little thought and rewording.

-Misha

216.254.12.114 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"But what to do when you find someone who calls themselves Bahá'í, but doesn't believe one of the teachings?" Baha'ism, unlike Christianity or Buddhism, is highly organized, so I would consider the inclusion of heterodox beliefs unnecessary. We don't need such roundabout language in this article. 137.22.15.42 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I don't really like the current introduction. I want to propose this and see what people think. I mainly just changed the second paragraph, and I removed the refs for viewing pleasure on the talk page.

The '''Bahá'í Faith''' is a worldwide religion founded by [[Bahá'u'lláh]] in 19th-century [[Persian Empire#Persia and Europe (1722–1914)|Persia]] ([[Iran]]). There are around six million Bahá'ís in more than 200 countries around the world.

According to Bahá'í teachings, religious history has unfolded through a series of [[God]]'s messengers, who brought teachings suited for the capacity of the people of their time, and whose fundamental purpose is the same. Bahá'u'lláh is regarded as the most recent, but not final, in this line of messengers that includes [[Abraham]], [[Buddha]], [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] and others. Bahá'u'lláh's claim to fulfill the [[eschatology|eschatological]] expectations of previous Faiths coincides with his mission to establish a firm basis for unity throughout the world, and inaugurate an age of peace and justice, which Bahá'ís expect will inevitably arise.

Any suggestions? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I love it. Zazaban 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I may propose some changes. There is some vital information in the current introduction that should be weaved into the new version. Let us do some work on it before we post it. Nevertheless, very nicely done. Nmentha 07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I will propose the changes on here rather than change them immediately on the page. I believe that this is a better approach. Nmentha 07:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Few changes: fixed grammer with "includes", added Manifestations of God link because of pertinence, added Krishna for implications and scope, fixed grammer with "coincides" Nmentha 07:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I just made a few more small changes of punctuation and grammar. I also changed the "eschatological expectations of previous Faiths" to "eschatological promises of previous religious scriptures". This is due to the unfortunate truth that the expectations of many Faiths could not and would not be fulfilled, that Baha'u'llah reveals great lengths about how people's expectations blinded them from the true spiritual meanings. So Baha'u'llah does not claim to fulfill expectations, and certainly not those professed by other Faiths. In reality, he claimed to fulfill the promises of the previous Manifestations and their revealed word. I have used the words "previous religious scriptures" although this may not be sufficiently accurate. Perhaps there is an alternative? Nmentha 08:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We already discussed which religions to include. Anyone familiar with Buddhism knows that Buddha accepted Hinduism, the same way Jesus accepted Judaism. I think it's best to make the list as short as possible. If we mention Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, then we've covered about 75% of the world's population (the rest being non-religious or tribal) Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Gautama Buddha does not recognise Krishna, which is the figure is question here. Hinduism should stay. Zazaban 06:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems as if Krishna has been removed from the introduction despite the agreement on the talk here...odd. I will put it back for the benefit of the article.68.98.11.237 (talk)

No critique?

These articles don't seem all that good encyclopedically without a presentation of critical viewpoints to balance it out and give a neutral point of view. For example, some consider the process of "Baha'i review" a form of censorship. I haven't noticed a mention of that in these articles yet. Of course Wikipedia must not take a stand with critics or create the appearance of such a stand, either (it must not take any stands, period.). But there needs to be a fair and factual, honest summary involving viewpoints both pro and con. Especially with articles like Baha'i apologetics, supposedly labeled as discussing critical viewpoints, but does not really give any exposition of them. What do you think of all this? I'd suggest the "featured" status of this article be reviewed. mike4ty4 09:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Taking these in reverse order, the "featured" status is historical. It earned it already, but it's the past. Second, the general practice of discussing critiques is one this page has gone through repeatedly - that's how the the apologetics page came into existence if I recall right. Third, the neutral virtue of being made a featured article meant that uninvolved editors already ranked the article neutral and fair without a critique section back when it was actually awarded that distinction. It also had a small section on the oppression of the Bahá'ís - again the topic is secondary to the main thrust of the article. As for any question of "review" that may apply in other peer reviewed articles published through Baha'i publications, well first Wikipedia isn't one of those venues and second if it's worth a discussion, it's not here.--Smkolins 16:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and actually taken to featured article review just four months ago, and the article passed the review, with a couple changes. Wikipedia's guidelines on criticism actually encourage content to be placed throughout the article rather than a section called criticism. For example, the editors in the Islam article are trying to merge the information in the criticism section of that article throughout that article. And that is what this article does; things that some people see as negative (or positive) are presented as facts throughout the article without leading the reader to a conclusion so that the reader makes their own decision on what is good and what is bad. In my mind that is the most neutral way of approaching the discussion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 16:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about a "criticism" section per se, but I do not see any "sprinkled" critique either. Where is this, anyway? mike4ty4 07:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above the main negative aspects (as seen by some and not by others) of the Baha'i Faith are included as facts in the article without making any value judgement; they include that only men are appointed on the Universal House of Justice, that marriage is only defined between a man and women (i.e. Homosexual marriage is not allowed), that even though the Baha'is do believe that there can be no divisions of their religion due to the lesser covenant divisions do exist, that covenant-breakers (members of the other divisions) are shunned, and that the religion is a combined form of other religions (syncreticism). Regards, - Jeff3000 14:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was not saying Wikipedia should be making value judgments, as that's not it's point -- see the neutrality policy. What I was discussing was the inclusion/exclusion of certain third-party (ie. not Wikipedia) opinions in the articles. mike4ty4 02:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The POV questions of an outright "criticism section" in any religion article aside, in this case WP:Undue Weight, & WP:V also bear on edits. MARussellPESE 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike4ty4, when it comes to the subject of Baha'i Literature Review, please think globally. This article isn't just about the Baha'i Faith in the U.S (where there are some who question administrative procedures concerning approval of manuscripts submitted for publication by writers who are members of the Baha'i Faith), but the history and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith as a whole. Throughout the world, Baha'i Publishing Trusts have some version of review for accuracy. That's just good editorial procedure, as also done by medical and law journals. Many, many pages abound on the Internet where the subject of Baha'i Review is debated. This here Wikipedia, is an encyclopedia article. It might be interesting, however, for someone to write an article about peer review (in all subjects), what it is, why editors and editorial boards require it, why some writers chafe at it, etc. Done from a neutral point of view, we could all learn quite a lot.--I'm Nonpartisan 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually see Bahá'í review for more on that subject. A page has already been made. That is a good example of how something could be negative to one reader (censorship), or positive to another (responsible publishing practice). That issue itself is not even mentioned in this article, since it's not notable or relevant in an overview of the religion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

external links

Just curious why bahaikipedia.org is not included. 60.53.156.179 09:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Because as per policy from External links and reliable sources, links to other wikies are to be avoided as they are not considered reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe in this case it would be acceptable to include a link to that project because the Faith has no other source where all information, from a Baha'i perspective, is gathered together, which makes it valuable to those wishing to study more relating to the Faith. In this case I think it is acceptable to follow Wikipedia:Use common sense. 60.53.71.182 03:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that reasoning does not work; it would only work if the purpose of Wikipedia was to promote the Baha'i Faith, which is against the neutral point of view policy. Wikis by default are not reliable, but there are many reliable sources here that are linked, and for those who are interested they can go to those neutral sites. This page is not used to promote the Baha'i Faith. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"This page in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." NPOV looks to me to deal with the way articles are written, surely it does not make sense that external links must also only be neutral in their point of view, nothing could be used in external links in religious articles if that were the case. The only way to present neutrality is to link to both sides, in which case I can go find an anti-Baha'i site to go along with Bahaikipedia if you wish. 60.53.71.182 04:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia and covers everything even External links. Pro-websites must be avoided as well as anti-websites, because both are considered unreliable. Links that have editorial oversight to be considered reliable, and that's what books do. The External links are used for links to the official link of the organization, as well as information that is reliable but can't be added due to copyright infringements (such as the text to books, etc). Links to be avoided include those that are factually inaccurate or contain unverifed information, and links to wikis among other things. Wikipedia is not used to promote other websites. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for spending the time to clarify 60.53.71.182 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How about http://www.bahistory.net ? It seems to meet more of the 'verifiable' and 'npov' criteria and has lots of information about the faith. 60.50.170.246 04:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lewis

The comment form Lewis does not add anything on the knowledge about the Bahai faith. It is to be questioned what such a comment on the so called islamic authorithies is doing there. Also the objectivity of Bernard Lewis, advisor of the Bush administration is easily questionable. Following the logic provided in this paragraph could you please add a comment on the Jewish and Christian laities and authorities having always had great difficulty in accommodating post-jewish and christian monotheistic religions such as the Muslim religion?

Kind regards Arash

NB the above unsigned cooment added to article by non-registered editor - I have moved it here Soundofmusicals 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. The last section really adds little to an understanding of the basic facts and tenets of the Baha'i Faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsa (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point; the point of the Lewis statement that it instructs to why the Baha'is are being persecuted; because Muslims don't have a way to put the Baha'is into their world view. The sentence should stay. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Baha'i Faith

I think there is need for an article on Criticism of Baha'i Faith, there are articles on critisim of many religions on wikipedia but not Baha'i Faith e.g., Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of Islam. The idea of not having those articles have been discussed many times and we can see the consensus result as still keeping them in wikipedia. All reasons for why to have it for other religions apply here too. I think it gives a venue for supporters to answer to critisim and everyone to get a NPOV idea from both sides.Farmanesh (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with this. The last section really adds little to an understanding of the basic facts and tenets of the Baha'i Faith. Parsa (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• This has been discussed ad-nauseum as recently as september [11]

Please refer to that discussion. It covers the fact that the practice of presenting as facts topics some would criticize throughout the article as is carried out in this article is actually in keeping with preferred wikipedia style, gives examples of some said facts, points out that editors are trying to bring other articles in line with that practice and gives links to other policies that bear in on this, such as undue weight. LambaJan (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I have seen that discussion before and I think it is valid as far as it goes for not having a seperate section in Bahá'í Faith article. Some religion's articles have such section inside the main article and what has been said before is an answer to why not to have that section inside Bahá'í Faith article.

However, the rational for having a seperate article dedicated to Criticism of Baha'i Faith (e.g., Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of Islam) is still valid as has been discussed extensivly on talk pages of Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of Islam.Farmanesh (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of those articles are POV Forks and pretty unencyclopedic to boot as they are one-sided apologetics pieces. There is already a more balanced Bahá'í apologetics article. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would invite you to see the same forking page more carefully. Specifcicly here What content/POV forking is not, Articles whose subject is a POV. It very clearly excludes 'critisim' articles from forking problem. Farmanesh (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how the "Baha'i apologetics" and the "Criticism of... " will be different. That page was originally given the title of "Criticism of the Baha'i Faith" and it has essentially had the same function, so how would a new page be different? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Baha'is

In September user Violetriga removed nearly every Baha'i from the List of Bahá'ís article, citing a discussion on unsourced lists of members of other religions. I think it would be an easy matter to source most of these individuals from secondary sources and public statements. Parsa (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to see what happened, but I've done exactly that for many Bahá'ís who have articles in WIkipedia though I focused on many secondary individuals (not Hands of the Cause for example, etc.) Actually there was banter that the List was less supportable than the Cateogry though I also recall someone going ahead and updating the list...--Smkolins (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this should get interesting. The complaint was based on a case of the Christian list. I don't know the situation over there but great host of the Baha'i entries were sourced on their respective pages - I've revered the edit so saying. I'll guess we'll see what happens next.--Smkolins (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Checking around a bit I see that we already follow the suggested Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions, and as a matter of citation the United Nations member states has almost no citations on its page for example. I don't see any rule that says the lists page must have the documentation.--Smkolins (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

should there be a page on Roger White?

--Smkolins (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure! He's a published author, and the Canadians would like it.--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only if you can find secondary sources to reference for the article. Parsa (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A selection of references - worked for William Sears, Universal House of Justice, volumes XIV to XIX of The Bahá'í World, ...

• The Emergence of a Bahá'í Consciousness in World Literature - The Poetry of Roger White by Ron Price (book)
• The Emergence of a Bahá'í Conscriousness in World Literature - The Poetry of Roger White (article)
• Tributes to Roger White & Reviews of his work
• Roger White, Writer and editor, "poet laureate" of the Bahá'í community (2 June 1929-10 April 1993), by Robert Weinber Baha'i Studies Review, vol. 7 (1997).
• The Creative Circle: Art, Literature, and Music in Bahá'í Perspective By Michael Boynton Fitzgerald, Published 1989, Kalimat Press, ISBN 0933770286
• Book Reviews of One Bird, One Cage, One Flight - collected reviews
• Some volumes published by Roger White(one about Emily Dickinson)
  • ISBN 978-0-85398-088-8
  • ISBN 978-0-85398-345-3
  • ISBN 978-0-85398-205-8
  • ISBN 978-0-85398-162-0
  • ISBN 978-0-85398-109-4
• mentions being printed in Canada's national newspaper as part of a eulogy
• Roger White Academy named after him.

--Smkolins (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) One stumbling block is that wikipedia already has two Roger whites - one with a redirect. Roger White takes you to Roger Lowrey White and the other is Roger Bourke White. Somebody needs to make a disambiguation page? And I'm still looking for broader references....--Smkolins (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nine Pointed Star Not Symbol of Baha'i Faith

the Universal House of Justice, in a letter dated 22 August 1963 to a National Spiritual Assembly, states:

We wish to point out that the symbols of the Most Great Name and the nine-pointed star, although Bahá'í symbols, are not in any way the symbols of the Bahá'í Faith in the sense that the cross is the symbol of Christianity or the crescent the symbol of Islam.

a letter dated 28 October 1949, written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, indicates that:

The 9-pointed star is not a part of the teachings of our Faith, but only used as an emblem representing "9".... Strictly speaking the 5-pointed star is the symbol of our Faith.

There is a whole lot more on this. http://bahai-library.com/index.php5?file=uhj_nine_pointed_star

I just thought that the use of the nine pointed star predominantly as the symbol of the Baha'i Faith in Wiki articles might be misleading. I was wondering what thoughts you all had on this. Peter Deer (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The nine-pointed star is not the official symbol of the Baha'i Faith (as also stated in Baha'i symbols), but it is the most commonly used (see bahai.org, bahai.us, multiple other books, places, literature), so it's use here is appropriate as the most recognizable symbol for most people. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The nine-pointed star is ubiquitous. It's on every prayer book I've bought since about 1980. Using the five-pointed star would be problematic in some ways. Color it red, and it's the communist star. Color it white, and it's the U.S. Army's or an American Brigadier General's. Draw it as a stick figure and you have a pentagram. Put a circle around that and you have a pentacle. All create serious potential confusion.

Almost nobody uses a nine-pointed star (except, oddly, the South African Army, Navy, & Air Force) so the confusion is minimized considerably. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's all well and good in avoiding confusion, but the problem with that is it is not as accurate. All minor differences aside, Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic at least to a degree, and the information provided should try to attain accuracy the best it can. I am not specifically proposing that it all be changed, I'm just wondering if the overuse of it is misleading. Peter Deer (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I know a dozen Baha'is with 9-pointed tatoos, and Baha'is wear 9-pointed necklaces, and there is nothing indicating a problem with it, I think it's use here is appropriate. In practice it has become the most commonly used symbol. The Jesus fish is likewise not an official symbol of Christianity, and the star and crescent is not of Islam, but they are widely accepted and in practice they're used. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Locke

I found that the Wikipedia article on Kevin Locke left a lot to be desired. I had some fun tonight updating it, come on over, there's lots more that can be done.--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added lots more to the Kevin Locke page, but I need to put out the word for a picture of him. Can someone tell me more about the rules of using photos from flickr? I thought I saw that when these are "up" they are copyright free? It's time for someone to also put up a page for Patricia Locke, who was a MacArthur fellow. Can Wikipedia link to youtube videos? I know that there is at least one of Kevin performing.--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Krishna

See also #Introduction above. As the introduction is necessarily short and to the point, we do not need to include a list of all the prophets that Baha'u'llah mentioned.

See this image for a breakdown of the world's population by religion. The majority of the world are followers of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese religion.

Mentioning Krishna is tricky because Baha'is believe that we don't have the authentic scriptures any more from Buddha or Krishna. To mention that Krishna is a prophet might imply that all the current teachings of Hinduism are correct according to Baha'i teachings. This would require more of an explanation than we need in an introduction. Another problem is that most people understand Krishna to be a mythical deity of legend, not an actual person with spiritual teachings. Buddha, however, lived 2 thousand years after Krishna, and can be considered more authentic. It's important to mention Buddha to give the idea that the Baha'i Faith is not only related to the Abrahamic Faiths. See this article about authenticity of previous scriptures. Please stop adding Krishna to the list. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree entirely. All of these objections are non sequitur. We should not be tailoring this article to our presumptions of the tastes of readers. That's WP:SOAP if one's not careful. This article should state what Baha'i teaches — and it specifically identifies that Lord Krishna is a Manifestation of God. Consider that, to some, deleting Him is insulting. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not meant to be insulting. The entire list could include Noah, Zoroaster, Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. We could add three more to the current list, but in the interest of keeping it shorter and focused I wanted to intelligently choose a few. Muhammad, Jesus, and Buddha are the 3 most recent prophets on a timeline. Adding Krishna does have complicating factors, and to say that the current teachings are corrupted is not my words, it comes from Shoghi Effendi. Please read the linked article above. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, by the same reasoning I wouldn't mind removing Abraham. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Idaknow: considering that the highest Baha'i population is in India, personally, I'd keep Krishna on the list. Wikipedia in English would be the go to web page for anyone from India looking, don't you think?--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What is germane is that this religion explicitly identifies these figures as Manifestations of God. I see no reason to pick and choose.

Excluding a figure because their religion's scriptures are, or are not, authentic is non sequitur. Personally, I don't consider the vast majority of the New Testament authoritative, and only a fraction of the synoptic Gospels remotely authentic — but I'd object mightily to exluding Jesus.

Excluding a figure because the current understanding of them among their followers is, or is not, mythical is also non sequitur. The logical fallacy behind the Triune God was exposed by the Arianists well before Muhammad disposed of it — but I'd object mightily to excluding Jesus.

Nonpartisan's point is, in my opinion, not reason enough to include Krishna as I think mine presented is the stronger argument. However, his point is very well made with respect to the global reach of this religion's claims. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why not all of them? <sarcasm>We can add Moses, Zoroaster, Adam, Noah, and Confucius with an explanation of how he's not really a major Prophet but he's highly revered.</sarcasm> Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Because <no sarcasm> Confucius is not a Manifestation of God, and Krishna is a holy figure to around a billion souls. Moses' absence is now fixed. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And then there's the question of Hud(prophet), whom nobody knows about, nobody worships and most Baha'is don't know is a Manifestation of God. What do you do there? Nice little Wiki page though.--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case I'd just leave it. This is a topic sufficiently obscure that it would definitely clog things up. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to some kind of change - I was going to suggest a general statement linking to the Manifestation of God - perhaps change

According to Bahá'í teachings, religious history has unfolded through a series of God's messengers who brought teachings suited for the capacity of the people at their time, and whose fundamental purpose is the same. Bahá'u'lláh is regarded as the most recent, but not final, in a line of messengers that includes Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad and others.

to

According to Bahá'í teachings, religious history has unfolded through a series of God's messengers who brought teachings suited for the capacity of the people of the era, and whose fundamental purpose was to guide people in what is right. The Bahá'í scriptures revere these figures as Manifestations of God and include the founders of almost all of the major religious groups whether Abrahamic or Eastern.

However in pushing attention towards the Manifestations of God I think that page should also list, and more than just list, far more figures than are listed currently.--Smkolins (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Top Picture

Is there a consensus about the picture at the top? Could anybody tell me what it was about? I would prefer this version. The Universal House of Justice is important for the administration and the community. But the Baha'i Gardens are much more famous and represent the Faith much better. --79.210.113.178 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion and I would rather have the picture of the House of Justice on top. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please link to this discussion? Why would you prefer the picture of the House of Justice? --79.210.113.178 (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bahá'í Faith/archive13#Picture at the top of the page. That is more about copyright information, but it was brought up. It really comes down to preference so I don't have a good explanation, other than I think this is an informative and useful image at the top of this article. The image and caption of the House of Justice is more informative than the gardens, and implies that the religion is sizeable and well organized. I don't feel the gardens carry that, and I don't think either is 'more famous'. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with many of Cuñado's comments, but I'm not above a review of the what picture to put there - perhaps someone could draw up a list of pictures that are completely acceptable to, or already in, Wikipedia. The garden one in particular has some odd left/right balance issues compositionally from the lay of the ground.--Smkolins (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer another image too. As a provisional corrective I reworked the current image and put it straight. --Mipago (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the current image, and the rotation of it is just fine, since it's the perspective the viewer would have from that image. Furthermore, the cropping of the gardens around the picture, makes it lose the surrounding area which is important. Get consensus before changing the image. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As a professional Media Designer I know what I am talking about. The picture needs rotation! Take a closer look at the lamp! Anyway, do what you want. --Mipago (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

His

Shouldn't all the 'his' be changed to 'His' when regarding God or any Manifestation? Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a neutral point of view. See the Manual of Style for guidelines regarding the capitalization of deities. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Regarding deities, nouns and proper nouns are capitalized but not pronouns. Peter Deer (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith is on the list of cults

Someone here might want to verify that this is correct and properly sourced. Sorry if I'm violating wikipedia protocol by mentioning it here. --Vlvtelvis (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true. Folks call us a cult in the media. I as a baha'i have no objections to being on that list, as if you look on the list you'll see Buddhism, Christianity, and many others. I'm surprised that Islam isn't listed on there though, as I've personally had to defend it from people calling it a cult.

Also, read the article about the Baha'is and how it's a cult of Zionist spies. Very entertaining. Of course, they neglect to mention that the Baha'is were based in Palestine before it became Israel, and they were based there because Baha'u'llah was imprisoned there by the Muslim authorities back when Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. Peter Deer (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The author of the cite they used obviously has a biased opinion. He is attacking the Baha'i faith. Surely we can't use any silly old source? Corn.u.co.pia Discussion —Preceding comment was added at 03:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That'sa lot of "cults" there. As long as the page links to this page, no worries." —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As a source of things that 'have been called cults' I think it's very reliable, as it's calling Baha'is a cult. It's just a list of groups that have been called cults in some media outlet, and the Baha'is certainly qualify in that regard. The list is accurate. Now if it were a list called "list of evil satanic groups" or something absurd like that would be a different matter. Peter Deer (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Most cult watch groups do not include the Baha'i Faith. It depends on how one uses the term "cult". A cult generally means an organization that emphasizes mindless following; that weakens family bonds; that takes all your money; that has a charismatic leader to whom excessive personal devotion is given. Due to the Baha'i emphasis on independent investigation, most genuine cult-watch groups do not include the Baha'i Faith. Cult-watch groups that seek to simply discredit Baha'is due to different beliefs, do include it. The Baha'is I know would point out that the Baha'i Faith makes them more devoted to their parents and children, more faithful to their spouses, and more productive and involved members of society; so the term "cult" does not stick. Brent Poirier. 24.63.162.219 (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of a cult. Originally the term just meant a religion. I would say the Bahais are a bona fide new religion, rather than a "cult", but some of their views are controversial. The article is a bit one sided. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

with all this vandalism

I wonder how much needs to go on in order to lock it down to just registered users?--Smkolins (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been sufficient vandalism. Peter Deer (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the history. I'm also aware of WIkirage on Vandalism which seems to have pages being ravaged that aren't protect. Still..."I wonder how much needs to go on in order to lock it down to just registered users?"--Smkolins (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Compare with this one.--Smkolins (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Manfred von Richthofen - Winnie the Pooh - and Satire are all pages on my watchlist that are much worse than this! Actually this page isn't too bad really, although you wouldn't want to be too sensitive about some of the really stupid vandalism.Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So there's no solid line of when a page get's protected? Those look to have had more reverts than the World Social Forum one I pointed to above.--Smkolins (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing Links

I've noticed every now and again, links and passages go missing if they are non-apologetic in tone and content. For example, I re-added H-Baha'i (after it went missing) and it was immediately reverted. H-Baha'i is the most well-known site for academic study of the Baha'i faith, and contains valuable translations and resources that are not available elsewhere on the web. To remove such material simply because they are not apologetics contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Sufisticated (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Wikipedia policy... Peter Deer (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but given that the day after I went back to look at the articles I edited (Baha'i Faith and Baha'u'llah both the innocuous links I'd added (one to each article) were missing, I don't think Good Faith covers that! The same person followed me from one article to the next.)Sufisticated (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing they didn't "follow" you, but rather had those on their watchlist. Assuming that they "followed" you to promote a devious agenda and assuming that they didn't have a good or productive reason and going and accusing them with little evidence is not assuming good faith. And you did not say "this person reverted these edits and I would like to know why" you made an accusation and a prejudicial assumption as to the motivation of those edits.

Your concerns may very well be legitimate, but your approach is uncalled for. Peter Deer (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to give some examples, as I don't recall what you're talking about. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I did, H-Bahai. Actually there used to be quite a few links there in External Refs and at one stage it was divided into 'official' and 'other' links but that's been edited. Mind you, the artificial dichotomy was a bit silly anyway. Sufisticated (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

An admin came and deleted all but one or two external links (see this edit by Aaron Brenneman). Since then people have slowly added back a variety of links, most of which have been deleted. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't know why h-baha'i was deleted, seemed like an alright site to me, but I didn't investigate it greatly in-depth just enough to where it didn't seem like a Leland Jenson site or a "Baha'is are a cult of zionist spies" site. Actually, I'd be interested in hearing from the admin that removed it initially what criteria it didn't meet that got it removed. Peter Deer (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sufisticated - I suspect your fear that people are "out-to-get-you" is largely, if not entirely misplaced. The accumulation of what gets called "linkspam" is regularly cleaned by admin and others - this has included "official" (="pro") Baha'i sites as well as those classed as "unoffical", (="anti" - either straight-forwardly or subtly). Like Peter Deer I am not sure what the the official criteria are (although they are presumably to be found somewhere) but I have noticed that among other things editors jump on anything that is obviously pushing an agenda (ideological or commercial) - especially a personal one, or is loaded with OR and POV which would not survive scrutiny in a Wiki article. If Wikipedia articles ever became a kind of index to "plug" sites of various kinds it would obviously have changed its basic nature, so you can see what they are getting at.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, H-Bahai which is part of H-Net is hardly linkspam or anti-Baha'i. It is "an international consortium of scholars and teachers" hosted out of the University of Michigan. It is also the best online source for academic material on the Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i religions. It is surely worthy of inclusion..o0o.Sufisticated.o0o. (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit by Modify

While I personally see no harm in the edit, I think that it may bear noting that the usage of the Bab's title does not seem to ever appear without the definite article, whereas the Buddha, on the other hand, is often simply called "Buddha," much in the same way Jesus of Nazereth (whose title was 'the Christ') is more often referred to as "Jesus Christ" or just "Christ." Peter Deer (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph in the lead about the recent rise in persecution. The lead is meant to be quick summary of the article, not for specific recent events. A sentence in the persecution section may be appropriate, and a section in the Persecution of Baha'is section. I will write one up for that case. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"the" sounded nicer to me when I was editing, but like you say, Peter, it's fine if it's omitted as well. I don't know if this was already discussed at some point. Jeff3000, I was wondering if it would be ok to have some sort of summary sentence for the article as a whole following the main part of the lede, just to give the reader a sense of what the article is going to talk about. When you removed the one that had been added, was this intentional, or was it accidentally done in connection with the removal of the persecution part? modify 03:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to this sentence: "This article looks at Bahá'í beliefs, the history of the Bahá'í Faith, involvement of the Bahá'í community in the larger society and the persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran and other countries.". Generally Wikipedia articles do not mention themselves and I do not see any other featured articles have this sort of mention, and I think it lowers the encyclopedic nature of the page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was just wondering if the deletion was intentional. modify 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have made the mistake of referring to one edit when you have recently made several without specifying very well which one. However, you seem to have pinpointed which one I was referring to quite adeptly, but I think there's a misunderstanding. One one of your edits your summary was (make "the Bab" consistent with "the Buddha") and my statement was that as far as the vernacular of it at least they are not generally consistent with each other and that I didn't think you needed to make edits to establish such a consistency. Peter Deer (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I might have replied to your message before I fully understood what you were saying. The comment of mine that you refer to, "make 'the Bab' consistent with 'the Buddha' ", was talking about the hyperlinks rather than the use of the definite article. At the time of the edit, there was a hyperlink for all of "the Bab" but only for "Buddha" in "the Buddha". The edit I made was to make the hyperlink for "the Bab" smaller so that it would be consistent with the hyperlink for 'the Buddha'. So the comment I added to the edit was a potential source of confusion. When you referred to the matter of the use of the definite article, I was saying that I personally didn't care whether it was left there or removed at some point. I hope I've understood things now. Cheers, modify 19:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge of God

I don't know how to start a new topic, so I will put this here, and welcome the next person to move it if desired. I am concerned about the inadequacy of the section on attaining the knowledge of God, and I would like to see it have more depth. For example, this sentence: "According to the Bahá'í teachings the human purpose is to learn to know and love God through such methods as prayer and reflection." I think this use of the word "methods" reduces the quest for knowledge of God to a mere repetition of "techniques" and leaves out the relationship to the Manifestation of God; the spiritual work one does in detaching from the material world and engaging with the spiritual realm; as well as obedience to the laws. For example, this quote from Abdu'l-Baha speaking of knowledge of God, through knowledge of the Holy Spirit: "I ask God to expose thee to its fragrance, move thee by its breeze, enkindle thee by its coals of fire and illuminate thee by its brightness. Turn thyself wholly to it -- thus thou shalt be enabled to ascertain its influence and power, the strength of its life and the greatness of its confirmation. Verily, I say unto thee, that if for the appearance of that Divine Essence thou desirest to have a definite proof, an indisputable testimony and a strong, convincing evidence, thou must prepare thyself to make thy heart empty and thine eye ready to look only toward the Kingdom of God. Then, at that time, the radiance of that widespread effulgence will descend upon thee successively, and that motion rendered thee by the Holy Spirit will make thee dispense with any other strong evidence that leadeth to the appearance of this Light, because the greatest and strongest proof for showing the abundance of the Spirit to the bodies is the very appearance of its power and influence in those bodies." (Baha'i World Faith, p. 368) Another example is this passage: "There is, therefore, only one way to God and that is through the realization of his Manifestation or Prophet in that age. Christ called the world of the prophets the word in the verse of 'the word became flesh' while 'Abdu'l-Bahá calls it the Will. Anyhow it is only through these that we can know God. These manifest the Divine attributes and therefore by knowing them we can know God. The mystic path that the traveller should follow is therefore to the Prophet. By coming in contact with Him will he obtain peace." (From a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi dated November 29, 1929, Lights of Guidance, p. 510) I think that the "knowledge" of the Manifestation of God, the development of a relationship with the Manifestation of God, is what is intended by the Guardian's use of the term "a personal God" and is what Baha'u'llah speaks of in the Book of Certitude when He counsels the true seeker. The very first passage in the Gleanings, which relates the knowledge of God and of the Manifestation of God, to knowledge of one's own true self, is also relevant. Brent Poirier 24.63.162.219 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Such a type of inclusion would need citations from secondary sources, not the primary works of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi since that would constitute original research. Such sources should be from reliable sources, preferably from non-Baha'i sources. If you can find a reliable source, please add a statement to the article in a neutral fashion, and also not in too much detail, as excessive detail should be included in the sub-articles as per summary style. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just ran into an edit clash while Jeff was working on it too! If you are serious about editing this page (and others), Brent, it is as well to realise from the beginning that this is a general encyclopedia, and we have an obligation to keep things verifiably factual and balanced - and for this to be "seen to be done" by any fair-minded non-Baha'i. Also, as Jeff hints, you have to keep things fairly concise and to the point - which inevitably means that some very complex and "difficult" questions get inadequate and simplistic treatment. That's just how it is. Having said that - the whole idea is that you CAN edit the article - just be detached, that is, don't be too upset if some of your edits get changed back again!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

With all the above comments in mind, I'd also suggest the Faith in the Bahá'í Faith article which gets at some of what you are saying I think.--Smkolins (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Or the sub-article God in the Bahá'í Faith, which seems like the appropriate place to expand on man's relationship with God from a Baha'i perspective. I agree with the comment about changing the term "methods" to something else. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

order

The page is currently ordered this way

1 Beliefs

2 Demographics

3 Teachings

4 History

5 Involvement in society

6 Social practices

7 Persecution

I think it's strange to have separate sections for beliefs and teachings. They could be combined, and maybe reduced a bit. Also, I think this would be a more logical order

1 Beliefs (combine teachings into this)

2 History

3 Demographics

4 Involvement in society

5 Social practices

6 Persecution

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that teachings should be moved up before demographics, but I think the beliefs and teachings section should remain seperate, because the beliefs are more fundamental in that they define Baha'i cosmology that the teachings stem from. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronuciation

The common English pronunciation is /bəˈhaɪ/. Nearly everyone that is not actually Bahai pronounces it that way—as do a lot of Bahai, come to think of it. Of course, people may approximate the Persian [bæhɒːʔiː]. However, that is not a possible English pronunciation, and should not be listed as such. /ɒː/ does not exist in English. Currently I have it "/bəˈhaɪ/, or as Persian: بهائی[bæhɒːʔiː]", showing that both pronunciations are found, but not getting too specific on how people approximate the Persian. If we wish to explicitly give the more Persianized pronunciation, that would be /bəˈhɑːiː/, per Random House, or perhaps /bæˈhɑːiː/, which is what the OED lists. kwami (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the common English pronunciation is not the two-syllable /bəˈhaɪ/, which is incorrect. I live in an English-speaking country, and the proper pronunciation by all, is three syllables as baa-haa-eee. Now, what the IPA the exact IPA is, I don't know, but the two-syllable is wrong. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I also live in an anglophone country, and two syllables is what I normally hear. It's also listed that way in Merriam Webster and Random House. The three-syllable pronunciation is also correct, of course, but I've found three different transcriptions in three dictionaries, depending on how the first a is treated: the OED has it as the a of cat, /bæˈhɑːiː/, MW has the a of father, /bɑːˈhɑːiː/, and RH has the a of sofa, /bəˈhɑːiː/. It would be OR to choose one, and unwieldy to list them all. kwami (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The clincher is that the Bahai narrator, who discusses the proper pronunciation in the audio reference, uses two-syllable /bəˈhaɪ/ in normal conversation ("we Bahais" at the very beginning of [12] is /wiː bəˈhaɪz/)! If he uses it himself, certainly it is acceptable! kwami (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Jeff, three syllables is drawling it out a bit. The "ordinary" English pronunciation, without trying to imitate Arabic/Persian too closely (or getting into either IPA or "Italian" vowels) is "Bu-hi" with the "u" as in "but" and the "hi" bit pronounced like the American greeting. This assumes a fairly open dipthong - consisting of the "a" sound in "father", followed by the "ee" sound in "feel", rather than a "clipped" sound, as in "lie", or "try", but it is a dipthong (two vowels run together) not two syllables! Or are we quibbling about "accent" - the way even Baha'is pronounce the word (and others!) does differ from place to place.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I added all three trisyllabic pronunciations (they are reliably sourced) in the footnote so they don't overly disrupt the text. kwami (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine for me. I noticed that the pronunciation guide on the Bahá'í World News Service Website shows:

• Bahá'í: Ba-HIGH
• Bahá'u'lláh: Ba-ha-ul-LAH
• Báb: Bahb (Bob)
• 'Abdu'l-Bahá:Abdul ba-HAH

Wiki-uk (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Interselector

I have reverted the edits by Interceptor. His edits include multiple problems. First it goes against the long-standing consensus to not include every religious leader that Baha'is see as Manifestations of God (see Talk:Bahá'í_Faith/archive15#Krishna). Second the text is written with a Baha'i POV, rather than an academic point of view which goes against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Response to Jeff3000s comments:

The policy of excluding Krishna is not for a long time yet a "long-standing consensus". Indeed, the very essence of Bahaism is that there are no core differences regarding the messages and teachings of the major world religions, which in turn would imply that is is very much justified and even essential to include the names of those religious leaders.

To omit Krishna on the grounds that his existence is undocumented, one would also have to omit Jesus, Muhammed, and others as their existence cannot be verified for certain either.

Reagrding the NPOV accusations, Jeff3000 himself quotes heavily from "Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era" (J. E. Esslemont, 1923) which most definetely cannot be regarded as a NPOV either. I thoroughly support the book, and just intend to outline that this article an never be fully written in a NPOV. For this, all followers of Bahism would have to restrain from editing the article. (which is highly unlikely to happen!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interselector (talk • contribs)

I guess you don't understand Wikipedia. Yes Krishna is a Manifestation of God in Baha'i thought, equal to the others, but the lead is not meant to be exhaustive list. It is not about being undocumented, at all, as the discussion pointed to above makes clear; it's about conciseness. Wikipedia has a consensus policy that you should read.

Secondly, the while the text was before referenced by "Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era" it was clearly written in a more neutral fashion. Notice that you version uses terms like "ever-advancing society" which is generally how Baha'i texts are written. Also your version used capitalization for words such as Teachers and Founders which is a way the Baha'i texts would be written, and not academic. So not only are you claiming that the page is not neutral, but you are indeed making it less neutral. Finally, the use of "Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era" has been replaced by another source, from Cambridge University Press, which as a University press, per Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, is one of the most reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Jeff3000, instead of issuing unfounded accusations, try and live up to your "Barnstar of Patience". For I see none of those attributes awarded to you in your recent behaviour. I very much do understand Wikipedia...what I don't understand is when "veteran editors" feel they have the authority to impose their opinion/writing style/article structure on to other users. Adding Krishna is not about compiling an exhaustive list. It is about coherence. If, say, someone reads in the Krishna article that Krishna is regarded as a manifestation of God in Baha'i faith, then it is worth referring to that fact in the Baha'i article. Furthermore, the adding of Krishna (a whopping 7 characters long) will not make or break the article. Let common sense prevail over stubbornness and dogmatism.

You will certainly argue otherwise, but, while reading the history of this article, one can easily get the feeling that you and a few others think that you have sole authority over the structure and content of the article. It may be true that you, among others, have contributed significantly towards this article, but it doesn't belong to you. Let me remind you of one of Wikipedia's core principles: If you don't want your contribution to be mercilessly edited, don't write it!

Issuing me with a 3RR after two edits reeks of wounded pride...i don't have to remind you that you are not immune to edits and/or warnings.

Peace, Interselector (not Interceptor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interselector (talk • contribs) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that instead of commenting on the content issues that I have pointed to above, you have commented on the editors. Let's leave it at that. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Interselector, it's quite appropriate to post a 3RR warning after the second revert in such a short time. It's a polite way of warning a novice user that they're out of line.

Also, it's tenditious to insist that the seven-characters must go in, despite having been sent to the archives to review the extant consensus. If you want to re-open the discussion with new material, then here's the place to do it. Re-hashing old arguments, though, isn't a useful pursuit. (I argued for Krishna' inclusion, by the way, so you may please keep the ownership accusations to yourself.)

In fact, Jeff3000's been polite. Your comments here on him rather than content are verboten personal attacks. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

International Plans, Current International Plan and Study Circles sections

All, My m:Exclusionist bias is showing, but why are these sub-sections in the main article? They have nothing to do with our "Involvement in Society".

I know WP:NOTPAPER, but I genuinely think these sections are WP:SOAP. To wit: I think that information covered in this article should stand the test of time. I am long-enough-of-tooth to remember several different approaches to strengthening human resources and teaching. Anybody remember the big green binder? Each One Teach One? One Planet One People Please? Assembly Development Modules? Core Curriculum? They were all the very latest thing and sure to move mountains. And they did to the extent that they set the stage for the next step. Study circles are certainly an innovation, but they will be replaced at some time in the, probably, not too distant future.

No other major religion's main article contains this kind of entry. They read like adverts and seem self-aggrandizing. I think that these hit the WP:SOAP button hard enough to have them removed. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had problems with those sections as well, since it's hard to reference such new material. I would seriously cull the sections with one to-the-point section with the material that meets all the WP:V standards. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the focus of past plans were (One Planet One People was a song, not a plan), mentioning the current thrust of the worldwide Baha'i community seems very appropriate. The current five year plan falls into a series that began in 1996 and will culminate in 2021. I can work on making the section less aggrandizing, and adding references, but don't delete it all. Also on this point, the other religions of the world are not organized as a single administration and thus don't have a worldwide direction for the community. The fact that Baha'is have that level of organization is noteworthy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"One Planet, One People Please" (Seals and Crofts, 1980) was a theme song that was used extensively in the early eighties in the States. (I heard it at almost every event for about four years). My point is that these initiatives and plans come and go, and are not, in themselves, notable.

I serve on an ATC in an A-cluster. So, I'm intimately familiar with the distinguishing characteristics of this cycle. But, I don't think it intellectually honest to give this particular phase prominence.

"Also on this point, the other religions of the world are not organized as a single administration and thus don't have a worldwide direction for the community." Really? Check out the Mormons, Witnesses, and Adventists. Their main articles' sections on their expansion work are a paragraph long.

These sections should have genuine third party WP:V sources if they're to stay. JBS, the House, the Ruhi Institute do not really qualify. They get over the WP:SELFPUB bar only by being in an article about itself, but these are the weakest sections in the whole article because all of the references therein are self-published. The policy makes this quite salient point: "… if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

We should hold the main article to the very highest standards.

If this is to be in WP, then it should be in sub-article(s) with mention and links here. (It is indeed odd that there isnt' a "Baha'i Teaching" article. These sections would actually be better suited for this kind of a sub-article.) Nor should even an abbreviated discussion be in "Involvement in Society" but in a separate section on "Expansion Activities" or some such.

I'm about to go on vacation, so I won't be getting to this till Christmas. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved some stuff around and deleted some parts that seemed promotional. I think it's a real improvement so thanks for bringing it up. BTW, Mormons, Witnesses, and Adventists are all still technically the same religion, but even those don't have plans that are on par. All three of them are waiting for the world to end. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Back from Disney World. Much improved — and better situated in the article. Some other religion articles carry "current trends" sections, so this does seem pertinent at this weight.

We should give due where it's due. "Mormons, Witnesses, and Adventists are all still technically the same religion" … not if you ask them, mainstream Christians, or me. "even those don't have plans that are on par" No, Mormons are even more focused and organized. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20