Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Archived 14 November 2005

Cuñado - Talk 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Population

I think the changes look great. I put back the 6-9 million adherents. I think it should say one of the following...

• while legitimate non-Bahá'í sources estimate 6-9 million.
• while non-Bahá'í sources estimate 3-9 million.

Unless of course you can provide some kind of decent source that shows 3 million. I have no doubt someone will throw "propaganda" at me again, and I don't care. Number of followers has nothing to do with how true it is. The only sources that I've heard quote such low numbers are either outdated or extremely biased, so it's misleading to call them legit. Cunado19 3 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)

And I changed it back. The population of Bahá'ís is a topic that comes up now and again on bahai-library.com, H-Baha'i, religionandethics, and similar places. Basically, nobody knows. It's hard enough to decide in principle what to count, and impossible just now to actually do it. (Minority populations spread out all over the globe don't show up that well on surveys.) Bahá'ís selectively quote a couple of encyclopedias that were foolish enough to ask them for their own population estimates, which has led some members to insist that they know the unknowable, and that the answer is upwards of 6 million (or one metric holocaust). Skeptics accuse the Bahá'ís of inflating numbers, and their own estimates have been known to dip below a million. I personally think the "true" number is between one and two million. Now the question will arise, how do we decide what a "legitimate" source is, given that most of the discussion on this is going to be found on the internet? Dawud 4 July 2005 12:52 (UTC)

Hmmmm... between 1 and 2 million? Where do you get that number from? Maybe you've been selective about your sources and chosen the most pesimistic one you could find? You won't find a discussion about religion's sizes on other articles, and they suffer from far more dubious methods of counting believers (such as including those who have been Baptised - long before they consciously decide to join). -- Tomhab 4 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like we're ganging up, but even the lowest references I've ever seen have never been lower than 3.5 million, and like I said those came from sources that had obvious bias, like Christian attackers of the Faith.

And as promised I took out the word "legitimate". And if you want to argue validity of number estimates, Christianity flaunts upwards of 2 billion, where they blanket entire populations with the tag of "Christian", when their level of participation is almost nonexistent. The estimates for Baha'is are references from encyclopedias, almanacs, and other such published books who have some kind of standard for judging. They don't just copy down what Bahá'ís say, cause in most countries independent polls show more people claiming to be Bahá'ís than the official Bahá'í lists have (see Baha'i statistics). I don't have a reference for that off the top of my head, but I can find it if necessary.

And if you're questioning the claimed minority populations, I've personally lived in the US, Mexico, Ecuador, Spain, Qatar, and right now I'm living in China. Bahá'ís I've known have lived in a hundred other countries, and yes there are tons and tons of Bahá'ís in every city, every country, in every part of the world. I know my personal experience is not a good reference, but you're making an accusation that is almost impossible to verify, claiming that the impossibility is why Bahá'ís made the claim. And that's a cheap way of arguing. Cunado19 5 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)

My reasoning is based on comparisons of "official" versus apparent actual (asked around) Baha'i populations in about eight regions. This yielded a "discount" rate such that the stated Baha'i population was usually between 4 and 10 times the actual. Oh, and as for Britannica, they didn't do a survey or anything. (How could they?) They just asked the Baha'is, and now the Baha'is trumpet the reference around as if God himself had put his imprimatur on it.

Cunando, I think the onus ought to be on the "high-ball" side to show why "low-ball" estimates are illegitimate or deserve to be ignored. Dawud 6 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)

So, you're source for estimating 1-2 million is... you. Need I say any more? Cunado19 6 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

I am the source for my own estimate, yes. The population issue has come up a number of times on various Baha'i discussion fora, however, in which some posters occasionally "guesstimate" less than a million.

The way I originally phrased it was that estimates tend to cluster between 3 and 8 million, but the "true" number might well lie outside that range. Plus an explanation of why counting is hard, and a link to adherents.com Apparently this was too wordy, and/or offensive to Baha'is. Dawud 8 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)

I just changed it to 4-8 million.

I've seen an almanac quote over 9 million, but after searching for a long time I couldn't find a source. The same goes for the lower limit, there is no source that is up-to-date and somewhat legitimate that claims less than 4. And right now there are no sources quoted for under 5, so that's being generous.

You're right about the difficulty in counting, I've read the explanations on adherents.com, and I think they did a good job of explaining. If you want to edit Baha'i statistics be my guest, it definitely needs some less biased observations (I wrote it).

I gave my personal experience to show that the established facts seem to be accurate, and you gave your personal experience to propose a conspiracy theory against the Baha'is. The fact is, you're right, only about one fourth of the community shows up to events. But we're not counting attendance, we're counting how many people call themselves Baha'is (which can be done privately). Independent statistics are taken all the time (I don't know how), and they show that the Baha'i estimates are accurate, if not lower than the true number. On this one I'm not gonna budge without some evidence, and I don't mean from the I Hate Baha'is.com website. If you can't provide a good recent source I'll move it to 5-8 million. Cunado19 03:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

To give this some perspective, consider the situation of Scientology. They claim upwards of ten million these days. This is true, provided you accept their premise that anyone who fills out those cards they send through the mail offering "Free psychological test" is a Scientologist. Well, the Bahá'ís count different ways in different countries. Typically, believers are asked to sign a "declaration card" and are kept on the rolls until they ask to be disenrolled. Many drift away from the faith (or were never really in it to begin with) without doing so. So are they Bahá'ís or not? Is an atheist who was baptized Catholic still a Catholic? Who decides? In this case we have the added problem of not being able to know either figure with any confidence. 218.174.180.152 13:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Bahá'í Faith vs FAQs

This article does not seem to be the right place for the Criticisms of the Bahá'í Faith section. There is nothing comparable in the Islam or Christianity articles. Some of the issues raised are no-brainers that are either unsupported POV, or easily countered. It is tempting to provide clear counter-arguments, but neither the criticisms nor the answers help the flow of the article. Can everyone add their own criticisms? Would it be appropriate to add such a section to the articles on other faith communities? Some people have genuine concerns and questions; while Wikipedia endeavours to be an authoritative encyclopedia and not a forum for discussion or for original research, there should room for FAQ articles on the Baha'i Faith, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. that would be separate from the main article. Rather than being accusatory, questions could be phrased more helpfully, such as:

• If the Baha'i Faith promotes the equality of men and women, why are women excluded from the Universal House of Justice?
• Is the requirement to shun Covenant Breakers contrary to the Baha'i principle of religious tolerance?
• What is the stance of Baha'i/Moslem/Christian scripture on homosexuality?

...and so on. People antagonistic to the Baha'is/Moslems/Jews/Christians (and general inquirers) would have space to ask reasonable questions, and believers (and others) would have the opportunity to provide well-referenced replies. Considering that matters of faith will always have believers and unbelievers, FAQs would provide an opportunity to highlight the respective arguments while enlightening the general reader. I therefore recommend that the Criticisms section be removed and its reasonable questions be transformed into a separate FAQ. It should be interesting to start FAQs for other religions too. --Occamy 5 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Never liked the section that much to be honest, but not been so sure as to say much. I reckon we should gut all but the most widely written about ones and address the arguments in subsections for it. I can think of three or so big polemic claims (such as women on house of justice, stance on homosexuality and authoritive leadership), but the others are simply my opinion against yours etc... -- Tomhab 6 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

I started a "Baha'i criticisms" page, but it got deleted on the primary grounds that criticism should not be separated from the page of the thing being criticized. In other words, it's bad form to have one page for the pro- crowd, and another for the anti-'s.

I would support linking as many of these as folks want, to some page where the details can all be hashed out. Women-in-the-House is already in the House of Justice page, for instance.

I suggest that as a matter of principle, that Baha'is ought to recuse themselves from editing criticism of their religion, unless perhaps they have criticisms to add.Dawud 6 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)

We're back to the same original argument. People want to provide details of criticism, and Baha'is don't want to have a bunch of criticism without a proper response (like me). But everyone agrees that anything more than a brief summary on the main page is too much.

I vote for Occamy's idea. Nobody liked my apologetics idea, so let's try an FAQ page and see what happens.

Dawud, I think if we format it right we can include what you've been wanting from the very beginning. Cunado19 6 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)

One more thing. You're right some of these are no brainers and wasting valuable space. Dawud, if you insist on being the only editor, then edit. Cunado19 6 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

Come now, I make no such insistence. What exactly are you asking of me? To set up another a "criticisms" page? To link the ones here to other places? Or to pare down the list of criticisms on this page?

Having written it in the first place, and the author's love for his own work being blind, I'm having trouble seeing which ones are "no-brainers." All of them come up regularly in discussion fora, justly or not. But they do tend to come from different sources. For instance the "women-in-the-house" and gay issues are discussed a lot by Baha'is themselves, while history distortion/scandal among the leadership gets aired mainly by the exes, who are sometimes also Middle East experts (like Juan Cole).

My objection to Tomhab's edits was that they turned a lot of very clear, specific objections into muted, vague ones with unfelicitous grammar to boot. Dawud 8 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)

I love it when you say unfelicitous. Cunado19 02:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I changed the homosexuality part. This is a huge issue, and it's a good one for the apologetics page. People are polarized on this issue, and try to fit the Baha'is into one of two categories, when really it's neither. You're wording was a little misleading, and will put Baha'is in the category of "anti-homosexual" (i.e. they hate gay people), which they're not. But they're not "pro-homosexual" either. Absolute chastity is required for anyone who is not married, so it's more like they're anti-promiscuity. The stance on homosexuality comes from not allowing gay marriages.

The last four criticisms seem to me like they should be taken off. They are too general or obvious and could be applied to any organization, church, government, etc. Cunado19 16:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right that homosexuality is a huge issue, but the problem is not that it's misunderstood. (How could it be, when so many religions are having the same discussion?) The problem is that a lot of Baha'is are liberal by inclination, and therefore have difficulty with the official teaching that homosexuality is wrong. I hope that Baha'is will not try to soften this into something that WOULD be hard to understand, such as a reference to homosexuality which lacks the crucial information that the Baha'is are officially against it. [Ps Just checked out the revision. "not progressive" is fine--that ought to be obvious what's meant.)

The last four criticisms are NOT general. Few religions confidently predict that they will grow to become a major world religion, or support a world government so unambiguously as the Baha'is. Many of their Christian critics see this as one of the big danger signs. (After all, the antichrist is said to be a globalist.)218.174.180.152 13:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the last 4 are NOT general. The last 5 ARE. I'm just repeating what I already said, one is a criticism of democracy in general, the next is a criticism of religion in general, the next is just a general statement saying that there might be corruption (???political intrigue???), the next is a prophecy, and the last is saying a general statement about world-government, not even necessarily related to the Baha'i Faith. Now my turn to make a prophecy... "I WILL DELETE THESE". Cunado19 02:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had problems with that myself. On one hand these are important criticisms; on the other, it seems unfair to raise them without giving any detail or discussion; and on the third hand (!) there's not enough room for that. Give me a month, and I can link them to their places on the Baha'i apologetics board. Would that be satisfactory?210.60.55.8 03:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Could you please make an account and sign on with a name. It's hard to follow a string of numbers. Cunado19 03:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I don't know where else to have this discussion, so I'll put it here. I'll use this later for the apologetics page.

I'll go back to my previous statement that the Baha'i Faith is neither pro or anti-homosexual (as understood by the general public). I have no doubt that some Baha'is, feeling the need to put it into one of those categories, have put it in the anti category. Here are some examples of quotes that might put it into one or the other category, and you'll see why it's really neither. By 'pro' I don't mean that it's supported and encouraged, but that it's not condemned and homosexuals are not shunned or scolded. The same standard of chastity and flagrant immorality is applied to everyone, not exclusively homosexuals. Relative to other Faiths, the Baha'i Faith is incredibly tolerant of homosexuality, without compromising its belief that it is fundamentally a perversion of the sex impulse. Cunado19 02:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Bahá'í law restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married." (Shoghi Effendi)

"according to the Bahá'í Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse." (Shoghi Effendi)

"it is clear from the teaching of Bahá’u’lláh that homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be reconciled, but is a distortion of his or her nature which should be controlled or overcome. This may require a hard struggle, but so also can be the struggle of a heterosexual person to control his or her desires." (Shoghi Effendi)

"While recognizing the divine origin and force of the sex impulse in man, religion teaches that it must be controlled, and Bahá'u'lláh's law confines its expression to the marriage relationship. The unmarried homosexual is therefore in the same position as anyone else who does not marry. The Law of God requires them to practice chastity." (Shoghi Effendi)

"No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and homosexual relationships He looks upon as such, besides being against nature." (Shoghi Effendi)

"Briefly stated, the Bahá'í conception of sex is based on the belief that chastity should be strictly practiced by both sexes, not only because it is in itself highly commendable ethically, but also due to its being the only way to a happy and successful marital life. Sex relationships of any form, outside marriage, are not permissible therefore, and whoso violates this rule will not only be responsible to God, but will incur the necessary punishment from society." (Shoghi Effendi)

"They (homosexuals) should be treated just like any other people seeking admittance to the Faith, and be accepted on the same basis. Our teachings, as outlined in “The Advent of Divine Justice” on the subject of living a chaste life, should be emphasized to them just as to every other applicant, but certainly no ruling whatsoever should be laid down in this matter. The Bahá'ís have certainly not yet reached that stage of moral perfection where they are in a position to too harshly scrutinize the private lives of other souls, and each individual should be accepted on the basis of his faith, and sincere willingness to try to live up to the Divine standards" (Shoghi Effendi)

"Bahá'u'lláh has spoken very strongly against this shameful sexual aberration, as He has against adultery and immoral conduct in general." (Shoghi Effendi)

"Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of sex. Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, is spiritually condemned. This does not mean that people so afflicted must not be helped and advised and sympathized with." (Shoghi Effendi)

"Homosexuality is forbidden in the Bahá'í Faith by Bahá'u'lláh; so, for that matter, is immorality and adultery. If one is going to start imposing heavy sanctions on people who are the victims of this abnormality, however repulsive it may be to others, then it is only fair to impose equally heavy sanctions on any Bahá'ís who step beyond the moral limits defined by Bahá'u'lláh. Obviously at the present time this would create an impossible and ridiculous situation." (Shoghi Effendi)

new pages

Running List

I rearranged this to make a running list of recent new pages.

• Bahá'í apologetics
• Mishkin Qalam
• Bahá'í symbols.
• Bahá'í teachings
• Bahá'í laws
• Homosexuality and Bahá'í Faith.
• Continental Counselors
• study circles
• entry by troops
• Seven Valleys
• Shaykh Ahmad-i-Ahsa'i Cunado19 12:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Open IP Edits

Cunado, it's Dawud. I assure you that none of my edits today were disestablishmentarian by intent. I thought that now that other pages go over these controversies, the Baha'i central figures could be summarized more concisely without them. (Does Mason Remey really need to appear in an article which is now exclusively about the Haifa group?)

As for the laws, I fail to see what distinguishes the first three from the "other" laws and ordinances. Why not just have one list?

Sorry for not signing in, but frankly I don't see why you get so worked up about it.218.167.176.136 12:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. Now the section on "Apostolic"/"Iron"/"Golden Age" is doubled.

Hi, for the laws, it was only a formatting thing. I tried my best to incorporate your content changes. It just wasn't pretty having one enormous list with no sub-bullets.

The anti-establishment comes from the title and content you changed. Having the Baha'i Faith "become institutionalized", and then giving the impression that the Hands of the Cause were "regents" is a little fishy. You took out some important information about how the Faith went from Abdu'l Baha to present day. I don't feel the need to mention Remey, I left it because people were calling me a propagandist. Frankly, I'm glad you cut out a lot of bulk from the article.

These pages are targets for a lot of people trying to do damage to the image of the Faith at any cost. An open IP is a red flag to see if something crazy was done. Cunado19 14:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Pictures and Template

I added some pictures, shortened the disambiguation disclaimer, and shortened the Template:Bahá'í, which had links that went nowhere.

I think the big House of Justice picture at the top is a good idea, and makes it clear that this is the Haifa group. And it's just a cool picture. Cunado19 04:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree--the picture does look nice.

Why is there now a section specifically on the United States? That seems odd to me.

Damn, I forgot to log in again. Sorry, it's Dawud.

I had a source for that information. I don't think it exists on a world level. If it's not good delete it.

PS, I'm changing "throngs" to "masses". It sounds too much like "thongs". Cunado19 09:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The image Image:Bahaitemplatestar.jpg doesn't shrink well at all and also doesn't have a licence which will mean someone will just delete it if you're not careful. Steps:

1. Get a licence - find out where it was from and what you believe it to be available under (find a link and I'll get a licence if you're having trouble)
2. I'll edit the pic (if the licence allows) so it fits better at 80px

and it'll look a lot better. As a personal preference I don't like the globe in the centre - its hardly a typical image. Nine pointed start is good though.

Universal house of justice pic is alright but a bit blue. Also can't find a licence for it. I'll see if I have one I can put up. -- Tomhab 23:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

OK nothing as good as that but theres always Image:Universal house of justice.jpg -- Tomhab 23:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad someone knows what they're doing, cause I don't. I edited the Image:Bahaitemplatestar.jpg to take out the globe and tint the background, to blend in better with the grey template background. Now it's Image:Bahaitemplatestar2.jpg. Since anyone and their mother can make a nine pointed star, I think now it goes in the same category as Image:Christian cross.png, which has the following tag...

Template:PD-ineligible

But I really don't know.

Give me a few days and I'll find out where Image:SeatofUHJ.jpg came from. I'm pretty sure it can be used freely. Cunado19 00:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As a follow up, I realized that *.jpg extensions don't support transparency, and I ended up just making my own image. I can't figure out how to delete the other two. Cunado19 03:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Did a good job. Sorry about being a pain, but its worth doing things right. Don't worry about the other images - I'll add a tag that the copyright is unknown and let someone delete them if and when they want - only an admin can delete images. -- Tomhab 11:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Where Now?

I just moved (and edited) the sections on the Golden Age. Since the preamble of the "history" section starts with the Bab and ends with the Golden age, it makes sense for the content to reflect this. And it flows better, I think. Plus puts the House in context.

I deleted the American stuff, mainly because I couldn't see the point of it. I think it might be meant to underscore demographics or emergence for obscurity.

In general, I suggest approaching a page like this from the perspective of somebody who knows nothing about the topic (like my mother), and isn't that interested. But maybe she needs to know for some reason, like when one of her colleagues turns out to be a Baha'i. So, what information would somebody like that want / need to see? And in what order?

Newspapers are very good about getting the basics out in the first paragraph, and I think this entry does that reasonably well. I've been stripping down the historical material not because I don't love the history, but because they've all got their own entries now, and all my mother would really need to see are a few key names with capsule descriptions (and a bit more for the founder).

On laws, think about what non-Baha'is most need to know. In this light, the law against drinking alcohol is probably more deserving of inclusion than the ones concerning Baha'i funery practices. Marriage is important, because a lot of people can be expected to want to know about the Baha'is because someone is marrying one, and who are these people?

There seem to be a whole lot of new Baha'i-related entries now, which aren't reflected in the capsule at the top. So far it hasn't been very systematic. For instance we've got Baha'i humor and Continental Counselors but nothing for the Seven Valleys or Four Valleys, let alone Writings of Baha'u'llah.

Since Baha'i apologetics is turning out so huge, and Baha'i teachings probably will too, I propose that a logical progression would be to do a separate entry for each social principle. Homosexuality and the Baha'i Faith already exists, and the three onenesses could be pressed into service. Comments? Dawud 13:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. If I were a Baha'i marketing person, I would most want to get out to the public information about the faith's charitable projects.

I think you're edits are getting much better. And I like the idea of keeping the main page as brief and condensed as possible, with tons of links to more pages. I like how the page is developing, so that every section has a link to a "main article". speaking of new pages, try study circles and entry by troops. They still need a lot of work, but they were empty before. Cunado19 14:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Seven Valleys, the Four Valleys redirects to the Seven, see the intro. Ask and you shall receive. Cunado19 15:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Aqdas

I'll acknowledge there's some debate about whether, in practical application (for example as contemplated by Shoghi Effendi in his never-implemented Baha'i courts throughout the middle east) the Aqdas would legally be discrete or considered as appended to the laws attributed to the Bab and Muhammed. For the article, I don't care about that... as long as criticism of its content is listed in the article's list of criticisms. Most Europeans and Americans entering the Baha'i faith over the past thirty or forty years had little clue they were joining a religion whose tribal desert laws have little or nothing to do with the values and traditions of the western enlightenment which the Baha'i faith has sought to align itself with (for the benefit of rich ladies in Chicago and Geneva) ever since the days of charismatic and lovable AB, who was likely the best thing ever to happen to that religion. The Aqdas wasn't even available to US members for most of the 20th century. Many were shocked to hear about it. Wyss 21:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the history lesson. This is not a page for you to wage a personal crusade against the Baha'i Faith. The information you have is not accurate. Cunado19 00:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

IMO you've either mis-read my post or have information about the Baha'i faith that is not accurate (that's the norm for English speakers, even believers).

I'm not on a personal crusade against the Baha'i faith. I think Remy was sadly mistaken, ambitious and not very good with people btw. Sorry if I provoked you or made you feel bad, please remember this is just a talk page, if I post here again I'll try to be more alert to your sensitivities so as not to distract. I was only reacting to an edit remark that the Aqdas is a discrete body of laws.

The Aqdas supercedes as to its text and otherwise functions in the context of the Babi and Islamic traditions of law it sprang from. This is well-documented. The historic reluctance of the Baha'i faith to disclose this to new European and American members is also well-documented. This does not imply bad faith on the part of Baha'i leaders, only eagerness to save the world.

The long practice of the Baha'i leadership in selectively redacting and altering texts by SE, AB and B for the purpose of conforming its public image to perceived (and changing) recruitment needs is well-documented. Enthusiastic but mis-informed believers (especially in the west) have long projected their own hopes and beliefs onto the faith, innocently spreading these misconceptions to newcomers, causing roughly equal measures of glee and dismay in the leadership. The Vietnam War era spike in membership is an often cited example. Growth is ultimately thwarted, however, as believers are deepened and discover that the faith is very different from what they thought (or hoped) it was. This process can take months, years or decades but is one reason why membership numbers have stagnated for the past thirty years.

My only goal in these edits has been to ensure that the two last criticisms on the article's list (worded in a neutral, encyclopedic context) stay in some form.

Overwhelmingly, I think the Baha'i articles on WP are informative, helpful, and encyclopedic. I was very pleased to run across them! Wyss 01:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, and believe me I'm not sensitive. The crusade I was talking about was your edit, not the talk page. The arguments you bring up have very reasonable answers. Criticism on this page is sensitive because people are eager to flood this page with anti-Baha'i sentiments. Dawud and I have been working on how to do this. The list on the main Baha'i page is not supposed to be comprehensive, but just give a few of the most mentioned examples with references.

If you have referenced and documented arguments about doctrinal issues (not just your opinion or a net-forum) then put them on Bahá'í apologetics, which is a mess right now cause we're in the middle of a bunch of stuff. If your crusade is to post all the anti-administration information, use Bahá'í divisions. Cunado19 02:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It's neither and truth be told, if you're streamlining, the only criticism that I'd like to see kept (of the two I mentioned, if I was asked to choose :) is some sort of reference to the redacted/altered texts... but I think the article is helpful and if you've been inundated with attack-type, opinionated posts I understand why you want solid cites.

Now aside, so far as reasonable answers go, long ago I knew someone who knew both SE and MR personally. Through the thick of it she was always unswervingly loyal to the covenant and Haifa (they noted her when she passed away) and the faith was so strong in her heart but she was a sharpie and privately very direct... independent and feminist! "Never judge the faith by its believers!" she would say, then tell such stories... of course there are reasonable answers, given let's say in the belief one is sparing people from what they're not yet ready to bear. Anyway I've said more than enough and I'm not interested in editing Baha'i articles, much less vexing anyone still alive who knew her. I like what you've done. Wyss 03:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

As a reference for the future, here are the last two items that she was referring to...

• The Bahá'í faith enhances or removes details of its history and other information for propaganda purposes. An Inquiring Mind
• Many laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas are unsuitable or obsolete. My story as a Bahá'í

Cunado19 15:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Wyss presents a rather cynical view of the Baha'i Faith's expansion in the West. People are attracted to the faith for numerous reasons, ranging from the intensely personal to recognising the need for a fundamentally new world order. New Baha'is then learn more about the faith according to their interests rather than through ulterior motives of the Baha'i administration.

Wyss suggests that the Kitab-i-Aqdas was withheld from the West because people would be shocked by its "tribal desert laws". However the converse explanation that the Universal House of Justice's extensive Notes to the Aqdas are needed by most Baha'is for their detailed cross-references and explanations would explain the long wait for the official English translation.

Concerning Wyss's statement that the laws of the Aqdas "...have little or nothing to do with the values and traditions of the western enlightenment....", the past sixty years alone have witnessed such enormous changes in western values and sentiments that Wyss is comparing the laws with a fast-moving target.

One last point: Wyss supports his/her arguments by stating that they are well-documented; I would appreciate references in addition to those kindly provided by Cunado19. Thanks. --Occamy 21:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The wait was at least eighty years and the fast moving target exacerbated the lack. There were "whispers" (so to speak) about its content among the deepened. I heard some when I was little and in my early teens and they were spot on accurate, by the bye. Everyone knew it was because there was a fear of alienating western believers and that's what I was told. I wouldn't say the motives were ulterior, but idealistic and pious. AB had an overwhelming, good-intentioned and personal impact on the faith's advancement in the west and I think some tend to forget that. He didn't publish the Aqdas in English and it wasn't for want of translation and concordance. Anyway please take these comments as original research on a talk page. I leave it to Cunado19, whose take is encyclopedic enough for me. Wyss 21:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate getting in long discussions on talk pages. But I can't help myself.

with regards to someone teaching the Faith Shoghi Effendi said "Let him refrain, at the outset, from insisting on such laws and ordinances as might impose too severe a strain on the seeker's newly awakened faith. He should rather nurse him, patiently, tactfully, and yet determinedly into full maturity." (that was from memory, it might not be exact)

Becoming a Baha'i is not dependent on being in strict accordance with the laws, so homosexuals, alcoholics, and prostitutes are all welcome, even though those lifestyles are contrary to the Baha'i laws. With the attitude that Shoghi Effendi eloquently talked about, and the perfect example of Abdu'l Baha as he embraced the West, it's clear that laws are fundamentally second place to acceptance of Baha'u'llah, which ultimately leads to a transformation of the human character.

On an individual level and on the level of an entire civilization (Western), the same principle is applied. If the laws were ever hidden or purposefully not-translated, it's because the laws are not important or applicable until a person has a deeper understanding of Baha'u'llah, which the West did not have. What would the Aqdas be without having the Dawnbreakers and Gleanings? which Shoghi Effendi did translate, saying that the Dawnbreakers "inspires the youth". Even now there is a long list of laws that don't apply to the West, which is interesting to read over.

As a side note, my friend recently became a Baha'i and asked me what the laws are, and instead of giving him a long list of details, I told him 3 things to focus on: try to read the writings or pray every day, don't drink alcohol, don't backbite (gossip). Cunado19 01:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

General page improvement over the last year.

I know, I know, talk pages are to discuss what should be done with the page, not places for discusission, but I want to take just a moment to congratulate the constellation of editors who have been working on the various Baha'i pages over the last ten months.

When I began editing the Baha'i pages in February 2003, there were a total of six pages related to the Baha'i Faith. The feasts and holy days were not in the day pages. Even as recently as when the Faith was a front-page featured article last October, the page, and the cluster of pages was primative compared to what you have all achieved since. Thank you all for your good work. Congratulations. Rick Boatright 02:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving sections

I'm going to move the 'Teachings' section to above the 'History' section. I had a thought that people would want to see that before they get an introduction to the Bab. Cunado19 02:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

I think the criticism section looks really bad right now. For some, I found articles of people expressing those ideas, and did my best to copy down their opinion almost word for word with a link. Now those have been changed. For others, it's just poorly worded.

Compare the current version to this version.

Revert section to this version

1. Cunado19 03:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Revert. I think the criticism section did fall apart. Wyss 05:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep current version

1. Tomhab

Comments

The reason why I changed it is it's certainly not free from POV. In the previous form, it gave the criticism without any defense which simply is not NPOV. I can understand why the previous version came up, but it cannot be put in an Encyclopaedia like that. As a general rule, if you let one POV have one sentence then you've got to follow it up with a sentence from the other POV defending itself (prev version is one sentence saying why its wrong without any defense). As it was a one sentence summary, I changed it to the topic which was criticised. In my opinion it is now far more neutral. Whilst I certainly say its important to keep the current version, feel free to change wording where it is inappropriate, but style is secondary to content, and the previous content wasn't right. -- Tomhab 12:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, no, encyclopedias (including this one) don't achieve NPoV through tit for tat (word or sentence count). As to style, it does relate to content. Turgid writing obscures content and can be used to render a controversial article (or section) useless. Wyss 12:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, just saying that tit-for-tat is wrong (which in my experience if well written it works well). The present version doesn't have either (no tit, no tat). It has (or at least aims for) a neutral statement about each of the topics. The previous version has one POV... Are you implying that that would be better? -- Tomhab 20:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

2: Having a criticisms section is appropriate for this and for other articles on religions, but I have always felt that its implementation here was poor. Rather than being presented with brevity as NPOV points, the original version definitely appeared as POV; without some form of Baha'i answer or explanation it was unbalanced, which must be avoided in a sensitive/controversial article such as this. The only way to avoid each criticism expanding into a debate in itself is to use the briefest of phrases to describe each criticism and then link each to an expanded analysis elsewhere. Notwithstanding the expanded analyses elsewhere, each criticism should be accompanied--if possible--by a learned source that describes the criticism and another from Baha'i sources (or elsewhere) that provides a rebuttal or other form of answer. --Occamy 19:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought it would be nice to have brief rebuttals, but it would get really long. I was trying to settle on not allowing any editor's personal opinion to get on the page. So as long as there's a link to someone of some importance holding that opinion then it's fine with me.

Right now the references are pretty weak. The only criticism on the Christianity page is from a Nobel Prize laureate Bertrand Russell. I would like to hold a similar standard to the Baha'i pages, but I don't think there are any nobel prize winners attacking the Faith. Cunado19 08:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's apt to compare the Baha'i faith with Christianity, a deeply entrenched religion and social system with countless denominations and divisions which has evolved over a period of 2000 years. With Christianity, if one has a specific criticism, one can often find another denomination or branch to join. Baha'is are shunned if the try that. Wyss 13:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

First, Baha'is have the same standard that the Bible lays down...

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

And second, most of the editors on the English wikipedia are Christian background, and it shows the bias when there is basically no criticism of Christianity and every other religion has harsh criticism in the name of being objective. Cunado19 09:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The application of those standards is starkly different. Also, bear in mind the citing a possible weakness in one article is never justification for weakness in another (that's Wikipedia policy, truth be told). Wyss 12:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It is worded exactly like the Baha'i writings word it, if not more controversial. If the application is different then it's a case of Christians not following the Bible. Cunado19 13:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I was only saying that in practice, pithy criticisms of Christianity are much harder to come by because one can wontedly find a nominally Christian church to fit a dockingly vast range of worldviews and theological takes. So far as a case of Christians not following the Bible, whose interpretation of which conflicting passages are you referring to? (rhetorical question :) Wyss 13:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we're mixing two ideas together. Anyway, what you see as a benefit of Christianity (choosing a church to fit your worldview), I see as a weakness. A person can choose what the truth is like a free market economy. Are we off track or what? Cunado19 13:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, where did I say it was a benefit? Why do you think I see it as a benefit? Did you read my post, or skim it? Anyway I'm not discussing comparative appeals between faiths, only that a criticism section for a relatively new religion that expressly and pro-actively forbids denominations is easier to compile than for a 2000 year old one with thousands of flavours and varieties. Now, if we're talking about a specific denomination of Christianity, like "Pentacostal" or "Catholic" or "People's Temple", crit lists are a breeze to compile. Wyss 13:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The question is whether we are happy with having "topics of criticisms" as now, or "specific criticisms" without any defense as in the previous version. -- Tomhab 20:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm new to this discussion and just recently read over this subject matter on the Baha'i Faith I might be able to add a fresh perspective on things. I did want to point out that under the section of common accusation there is a bullet point about the laws in the Katab-i-Aqdas are unsuitable and obsolete. There is no supporting documents to this accusation. Not only is it vague at best but it offers no information on point. While the accusation should be left for disscussion and debate there doesn't seem much point in it's pressance on the page if there are no sources to back it. At least find one primary or secondary source to give some credibility to its claims. I vote to have it removed from the main article until a time when there is a supporting document to reason/justify the accusation. -- Justin Allen (non-registered user to wikipedia) 19, October 2005)

Reverting Criticism

It's a little hard to get consensus with 4 voters unless everyone agrees. I'm assuming Dawud was voting yes for revert since he actually reverted it back. That's 3 for revert and 1 for keeping. Tomhab I see the point you're making about NPOV statements, but not even all of them are factual statements right now. Can I suggest that you make some edits and propose something new for the criticism? If you can get them all as factual statements then maybe we could all agree on something. If you're un-interested then I think we should just change it back. Cunado19 15:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you are voting about but I would like to say that I am willing to join the discussion. Nmentha, 18 August 2005

Well strictly speaking Occamy was voting for keeping as well before his note got moved (hence the 2). My point has always been moving away from "statements" and using "themes of common criticism". So there is no way I can "get them all as factual statements".

Nmentha - just read the section above about moving sections. There's a small disagreement about wording thats been going into a couple of paragraphs. -- Tomhab 00:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I just divided the criticism into two sections. It's just my attempt to reconcile the issues we were talking about. Feel free to keep improving.

PS, I decided to join the crowd of people with cool signatures. I think it's easier to follow discussions, and I don't like having the 19 on the end. Cuñado - Talk 06:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Its better than before but it still looks like each point is a fact whereas, each of them are disputable... I'll make my edit. Feel free to revert it - its just a proposal. -- Tomhab 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Now it's even worse than before in some aspects. The wording of "accusations" was changed. What's wrong with accusations? that seems to perfectly describe what they are, unless you're trying to stick your POV in that they are in fact true. The wording of them is as such, like "The Baha'i Faith alters its history." Then why was the other part changed to NPOV? saying "Baha'is are accused of being Zionists" I'll answer my own question, because for someone trying to smear the image of the Faith, it's better that way!

There's many other things, I don't even know where to begin. I'll edit and go from there. Cuñado - Talk 16:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think accusations is too PoV since it implies allegations of criminal or unethical behavior. One can criticize these aspects without asserting those motives. On the other hand, the Iranian political complaint relating to Zionism is rather isolated, with a mostly Iranian context. Wyss 17:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I take it neither of you like my proposal then.... Great. -- Tomhab 22:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

My only real issue was with the word accusations, which I think diminishes both "sides" of any criticism. Wyss 22:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Frequently cited accusations against the Faith and its principles include: sounds too combative to me I guess. Wyss 06:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean about accusations. My impression of "Accusation" is that one person is accusing another of something, and it's implied that the accuser thinks it's true, and the accused is denying it. That seems to be the situation here.

Can you think of a word other than 'criticism' or 'accusation'? How about charge, claim, allege, declare, assert... Or their accompanying nouns (allegation). Cuñado - Talk 15:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Maleness of the UHJ

The following was posted to my talk page regarding mentioning the "all-maleness" of the Universal House of Justice in the main article. I think it's appropriate to copy it over here with my response. I would like readers to notice Rick Boatright's distracting use of caps, which requires some extra effort before one realizes that the "main article" he refers to is only the "main article" on Baha'i Administration. How many readers interested in a concise, transparent overview on the Baha'i Faith are reasonably going to take the trouble to click on the exciting topic of administration? I could go on, but I won't. Wyss 19:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Baha'i - UHJ
The male-ness of the UHJ is extensivly discussed in the MAIN ARTICLE on Baha'i Admisistration, and expanding that (or much of any other) issue in the MAIN BAHA'I article would be like putting a section on ordination of women on the main catholic page. It's enclyclopaedic, but this is not where it goes. Rick Boatright 19:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean folks investigating the Baha'i Faith need to accidently stumble across this minor detail in the Administration article? Anyway, comparing an article on Catholicism with one on the Baha'i Faith doesn't make sense to me. The issue of male ordination in the Catholic Church is widely known while the all-male administering body of the Baha'i Faith, which is a relatively new religion which presents itself as progressive and tolerant, isn't. Wyss 19:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"The issue of male ordination in the Catholic Church is widely known" not really, depends on the point of view, if u live ,say, in a pretty much all muslim country that is not "widely known"...

I think it's reasonable to presume that comments on this talk page are made in the context of this encyclopedia's readership, among whom, one may rest assured, male ordination in the CC is widely known. Wyss 11:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

its a "western" assumption

Ok, then the CC article should also carry the male-only crit in its main space. Weaknesses in other WP articles are never a justification for weak content. Wyss 14:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That assumes that the fact the CC left it out is incorrect. Personally I'm not too bothered. Its discussed elsewhere so I can see why its not needed however it may be worth a short mention. Either/or -- Tomhab 19:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I suffer from excessive capitalization disease. I apologise. I do that ALL THE TIME.  :) . That said, I wish to make it clear that I have no problem with the "all male House of Justice" phrase in the article, but think that adding a paragraph here is excessive when a reader would find the Baha'i Administration main article at the top of the section if they are struck with something as odd Rick Boatright 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

How about as a compromise: delete any reference to male/men in the paragraph but add something to the effect of "The Universal House of Justice is a male only institute" on the end. It's simple, looks less like it's been slipped in (which I believe is the worry of the two editor's I've noticed bringing it up), isn't dodging around the point, and leaves any interested reader the easy opportunity to read more.

You do like using the term "progressive" though don't you Wyss. I'm sure I won't be the first to remind you that when refering to "progression" in the sense you're implying, Baha'is don't mean "liberalisation". -- Tomhab 00:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

...As many have learned after deepening. Btw I'm not such a big fan of the word progressive, I use it here only because I've heard/seen it used in so many Baha'i contexts. Wyss 11:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'm not trying to hide information. I don't want to mention it here because it is controversial, and to mention it unnecessarily would invite people to insert a huge explanation in an article that is meant to be as concise as possible. It is the very first thing on the list of criticisms, which will surely be read by anyone who is interested enough to finish the article. It is expanded on the Universal House of Justice page. Cuñado - Talk 00:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot it was on the list of criticisms. Sorry about that. Wyss 11:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

PS, I've never heard of this being an issue or deciding factor in becoming a Baha'i. Cuñado - Talk

That's original research :) (Or put another way, issues can pile up) Wyss 11:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Book Template

Hey all. I just made a template to put on all the book pages, like Hidden Words and Seven Valleys, and others. Can I get some critiques before I go put it on a bunch of pages?

Please edit away, I wasn't sure about wording, size, spacing. It's at Template:Bahá'í books, with redirects made. Cuñado - Talk 06:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

How about keeping the Baha'i templates in line with each other? So match colours - not labeling a preference, but just - well why not? :) -- Tomhab 16:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

a Man and the Orangutan to whom he is married

I think changing that to => couples wasn't a good idea. Any comments? Cuñado - Talk 03:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, 'couples' could invite a terrible incorrect interpretation, and 'couple' reads like a break in sentence continuity regarding pluralisms, so in those respects 'man and woman' was best even though it could seem like harping on the issue since the forbidance of homosexuality -complete with a link- follows it. Personally I think this issue is small and the solution should be accurate and grammatically correct. LambaJan 23:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why we should write about some animals whom they claim have religion -Zanganeh

There's not much activity here, so I'll just change it back now. Cuñado - Talk 10:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Various Minor Edits

Hello, I've edited here before, but given that I wanted to make some comments as to why I've made some changes, I'm logging in and writing here.

Under "Current Plans and Focus"

- Added reference to the Ruhi Institute as it is the most well-known and widely experienced form of the study circles/institutes, and for many Baha'is has become synonymous.

Under "Laws":

- wording more gender inclusive (husband and wife) rather than "a man and his" by implication his possession (eg. wife). - I took out the polygamy reference because strictly speaking the Kitab-i-Aqdas does not prohibit polygamy. It limits polygynous marriages to a man and two wives. The fuller restriction on polygyny occurs in the writings of 'Abdul-Baha, but this section is on laws in Baha'u'llah's Kitab-i-Aqdas. - As well, the concept of homosexual marriages is not considered in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. What is prohibited is an allusion to a homosexual act which was then interpreted by Shoghi Effendi to mean the prohibition of all homosexual activity, which was then codified into Baha'i law. But again, as this topic is on the Kitab-i-Aqdas, I've deleted it. Small detail, but important.

- Under "Symbols"

I've changed the text to read that the five-pointed star is technically the official symbol. See Lights of GUidance, page 110: "Strictly speaking, the five-pointed star is the symbol of our Faith." (From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, Oct 28, 1949)

- Corrected the transliteration for Baha' which needed an apostraphe to indicate the hamza.

- Under "Unofficial Websites"

Re-added "The Baha'i Religion" as it is an academic introduction and there isn't a similar resource listed. Glad to see H-Bahai is still up.

Sufisticated 07:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you add the five pointed star discussion to Bahá'í symbols. And good job with the husband and wife, that seemed to take care of it much better. Cuñado - Talk 16:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

- Goodo will do now. 211.28.124.223 14:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Most Visited Building in the World

The Baha'i temple in New Delhi has been described as the most visited building in the world, with 4 million visitors per year. A quick scan through the Internet shows the Parisians claim the title for the Eiffel Tower with 6 million. New York claims the title for the Empire State Building with 3.8 million www.esbnyc.com. Washington DC's National Air & Space Museum claims 8 million [[1]]. The Vatican museums have 3 million visitors. So the honour of most-visited seems to be with the National Air & Space Museum, though there could be another that I missed. --Occamy 07:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And the British Museum has over six million visitors a year. --Occamy 19:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"The Greatest Name" Arabic transcription problem?

If you had the Arabic phrase "Glory of the most glorious" (بهاء الأبهى) standing alone, then it would be indeed transcribed Bahá'u-l-'Abhá or Bahá'ul 'Abhá (with a nominative 'i`rab or case vowel at the end of the first word) -- but when you add the vocative particle to it (Arabic يا بهاء الأبهى), then it should now be transcribed as Yá Bahá'a-l-'Abhá or Yá Bahá'al 'Abhá (and not "Yá Bahá'ul 'Abhá" as it stands now on the article page), since words in the possessive or iDafa construction take the accusative case when preceded by the vocative particle. This is a minor and perhaps semi-obscure rule of Arabic grammar, and I didn't want to change the transcription on the article page (in case I would be modifying an established official Bahai transcription), but nevertheless "Yá Bahá'al 'Abhá" is more strictly correct than "Yá Bahá'ul 'Abhá" according to the norms of Classical Arabic. AnonMoos 13:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that "Yá Bahá'ul 'Abhá" is the customary transliteration. There could be a Farsí to Arabic pronunciation issue in this. I understand that Arabic spoken by native Farsí speakers sounds rather jarring to a native Arabic speaker. I think that the transliteration as presented should probably stay as is. Thanks for the insight. --MARussellPESE 20:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I studied enough Arabic to know that it's really confusing. Just because the Abha has a definite article, doesn't mean it's pronounced Al'abha. If words with definite articles are strung together with other words, then the definite article can change, and it could be "al" "ul" or "il", depending on whatever grammatical rule it's following. I don't know the rules exactly, but I assume there's a reason why it's pronounced "ul" instead of "al" in this case, and I assume someone who is an expert in classical Fusha Arabic grammar can tell you why, but probably neither of us know enough to critique it. And by the way, it has nothing at all to do with Persian pronunciation, it is Arabic.... ARABIC!! Cuñado - Talk 21:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's "ul" because in nominative case, the letter in question carries a damma (u sound) whereas when it is in accusative, it carries a fatha (a sound). The problem is that the nouns in question change case depending on the grammar of the sentence. So ‘abdul-bahā’ might be ‘abdal-bahā’ depending on some grammatical rules. Sufisticated 06:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through some of the pages and seen a mix of different transliteration styles (and I've been bold enough to correct them to follow the style in use by Bahá'í institutions). Would it be worthwhile to have an explanation of the transliteration rules somewhere? It's somewhat difficult to find details (unless you know where to look in old Bahá'í volumes) because it's based on an old Oxford standard. If this is useful and someone can point out where it should go, I'm willing to add the content. Nafisto 22:27, 04 October 2005 (UTC)

The spellings and tranliterations used today in Bahá'í documents are part of a semi-official standard, a slightly modified version of a standard adopted at the Tenth International Congress of Orientalists in Geneva, September 1894. This standard, as I understand it, is not necessarily final - it may or may not change in the future. The history of Bahá'í transliterations, along with the current standard and its noted short-comings, is described here: (http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/transliteration.htm). For now I'd say we should adhere to the set standard, if for no other reason than to maintain a consist form in our references.

Keldan 20:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerning "standards", wikipedia generally seems to like things to be consistent across the page and/or related pages. For example, the use of "US English" Vs "UK English" (well their spellings) need only be consistent in the article. I'd say yes, rather than following proper and immaculate standards, just do what looks best/fits in best. In my opinion then, use the Effendi Persian/Arabic transliterations when in doubt. -- Tomhab 21:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'd like a strict transliteration of the Arabic (eg. Bahā' Allāh instead of Bahá'u'lláh) but a quick glance at the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) proposes that primary transliterations should be used. Now while that was referring to naming conventions, given that practically all non-Arabic speakers familiar with English language Baha'i texts would be thrown-off by stricter transliterations for commonly used words and phrases, then I think sticking to the primary transliteration concept should be used even in the body of the text.

The exception might be to explaining Arabic terms in a particular context. For example, in the section under Symbols, at the moment, a sentence reads:

"The Greatest Name is Yá Bahá'ul 'Abhá (Arabic: يا بهاء الأبهى usually translated as "O Glory of the Most Glorious!")"

which I'd leave as is, because for English speaking Baha'is the transliteration "Yá Bahá'ul 'Abhá" is used in English prayer books and sacred texts.

If it were to read "The text of the Greatest name is a rendering of an Arabic phrase يا بهاء الأبهى yā bahā’ al-abhā, and is usually translated as "O Glory of the Most Glorious!"

Then a stricter transliteration could be used. My 2p :) Sufisticated 06:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Great Disappointment

Can a Bahá'í Faith expert look at Great Disappointment and verify the dubious paragraph about the Bahá'í? Tempshill 05:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tempshill, the paragraph is correct. Bahá'ís do believe that the Báb fulfilled the prophecies of the Bible and heralded the coming of Bahá'u'lláh, who Bahá'ís believe is the return of Christ. But Bahá'ís also believe that the apparent fulfillment (for Bahá'ís) of these prophecies is not what should be used to confirm one's faith, but instead through independent investigation of the teachings of each faith. -- Jeff3000 14:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph, though, says that the Bahá'ís believe that that prophecy — William Miller's prophecy — was fulfilled by the Báb. Tempshill 00:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. As I understand the article, the "prophecy" relates to Jesus' return as stated in the Bible, and William Miller predicted that it would happen in 1844, and when that prediction apparently did not happen, there was "the Great Dissappointment". Bahá'ís believe that the claims of the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh fulfilled the prophecies of the Bible, and since they started in 1844, the "Great Dissappointment" did not happen (and I think that is what the last statement is saying). -- Jeff3000 00:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff3000, but I can see the confusion in the text as written. Perhaps it should read: "Members of the Bahá'í Faith believe that the Great Disappointment wasn't a disappointment at all, and that these Biblical prophecies were fulfilled by the coming of the Báb, who heralded the coming of the return of Christ: Bahá'u'lláh." (Emphasis added for the discussion only.) That should, I think clarify the distinction. Thank you Tempshill for opening this discussion up. MARussellPESE 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Made the changes suggested by MARussellPESE -- Jeff3000 03:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Need some contributors

There is a discussion at Talk:Bahá'í Faith and Science that has turned into a revert war today. I would like to invite anyone interested to participate in the discussion, even if it doesn't favor me. Cuñado - Talk 21:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Official Versus Non-Official

I've probably jumped the gun a bit by editing the titles anyway, but I wanted to point out that having a list of "Official" and "Unofficial" Websites is not neutral. There are official websites of the Baha'i International Community, and webpages authored by other Baha'is and non-Baha'is writing about the Baha'i faith. Baha'is who don't belong to the Baha'i International Community (eg. disaffiliated/unenrolled, members of groups like the Orthodox Baha'is etc.) wouldn't consider the websites of the Baha'i International Community to be "official" for them.

Having said that I think given the prominence of those published by the Baha'i International Community, means it is probably worth marking them off from the rest in some fashion, hence my current titles: "Official Websites of the Bahá'í International Community" and "Other Bahá'í websites". A little bit clunky I know. Sufisticated 06:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Baha'i News

I am interested in setting up a wikinews service along the lines of www.yahoogroups.com/BahaiMonitor and the en.wikinews.org/wiki/Quaker.

How much interest do people think there will be and are there any volunteers to help out? How ideas for publicising within the Baha'i community?

User:AndrewRT