Talk:Bahai (disambiguation)

Untitled

Look, this is not the place to discuss how many LSA's everybody has, or who is right about the Covenant. Give just enough information to get people to the page they're looking for, please. Dawud 2 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

You don't think its important to say the relative size differences then? -- Tomhab 4 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

It already says the Haifa group is the largest. If you want to qualify that with "overwhelmingly" I wouldn't object. However, we don't really know the populations of any of these groups, so specific numbers would be out of place, I think. And the number of LSA's has nothing to do with anything, except possibly establishing a minimum figure. Dawud 06:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Expanding disambiguation page

I've expanded the entries under the disambiguation page, however I don't think this category actually requires a disambiguation page. It's not as if there is another competing definition for Bahá'í (like there is for mercury), rather different sectarian groupings have different beliefs and opinions. Thus, the page should attempt to represent an NPOV between the various sectarian interpretations (as a general page) with links to specific pages for separate groups. Sufisticated 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

that already exists Bahá'í divisions. Given that disambiguation pages are usually much shorted, I recommend that the page goes back to the previous format -- Jeff3000 03:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, I'm going to revert. This is not the format of a disambiguation page, and this is covered under Baha'i Divisions. See Divisions of Islam for an example. Cuñado - Talk 06:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

I think you're correct in that the various groups should be covered in the Bahá'í Divisions page.

However, please correct me if I am wrong, but disambiguation pages are for when there are competing definitions of a word. To use Wikipedia's example, Mercuryrm li can mean:

• Mercury the planet
• Mercury the element
• Mercury the plant
• Mercury the magazine etc.

There is no competing definition for Baha'i. The fact that different sectarian groups with the Baha'i religion have differing beliefs and opinions, does not mean that there should be a disambiguation page with links pointing to each (but if you are going to have it, what is the logic in not expanding it?)

It is like the disambiguation page for Islam (disambiguation). It only points to

• Islam the religion
• The president of Uzbekistan
• Cat Stevens

Not Sunni, Shi'i, Ibadi, Zaydi, Druze etc. Instead, the body of the Islam article does have information and links to various sects and groups including the Babi and Baha'i faiths.

What I suggest is that the disambiguation page be removed, and the main body reflect dissent on certain points from sectarian groups, including their links and a link to Bahá'í Divisions.

Cheers Sufisticated 13:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive dialogue Sufisticaed. I think the difference between the Islam page is that the divisions within Islam are each of a sizeable percentage of the total number of Muslims (especially referring to the Snni and Shi'i sects). The globally recognized Baha'i Faith (i.e. United Nations, Foreign Affairs Departments of many countries) is the one that has its world centre in Haifa, Israel. The other divisions are quite small, and given that the disambiguation link (which links to all the other divisions) is right at the top of the page, where everyone can see it, I think is appropriate. -- Jeff3000 14:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, the problem as I see it is that it is out of keeping with Wikipedia rules as it were. Even though numerically the various sects might be small, their influence on Baha'i theology and practice is quite large. Furthermore, if you include unaffilliated Baha'is (Baha'is who are not officially enrolled members of the BIC, unenrolled Baha'is etc.) then the numbers shoot right up in terms of sectarian divisions. Sufisticated

The divisions that are considered sects probably represent less than two thousand combined, and they actually have no influence on theology. Most Baha'is don't even know that they exist and have never heard of their theology. I would assume that the only reason you're suggesting this is that you are a supporter of that theology, or you are trying to damage the credibility of the Faith by advertising those groups which are pretty much defunct.

The concept of covenant-breaking is an important one within Baha'i theology, and the impact of various sectarian divisions has been disproportionate to their numerical strength. Each of the major leadership changes, have been accompanied by minor revolutions in the way the succession was perceived. Remember the *entire* French National Spiritual Assembly was considered dissolved by the Hands when they supported Mason Remey's claim to guardianship. (See MacEoin, Denis, "Baha'ism", A New Handbook of Living Religions, ed. John R. Hinnells, (London: Penguin Books, 1997) 620-622). There is also a rising phenomenon of unaffiliated Baha'is, particularly in the academic community, and perhaps reflected in the high 'inactive status' rate on community roles, which will probably make for some interesting reading if someone/I get the time to write it up.

However, this conversation is not about the history and influence of sectarian division within the Baha'i religion. Not that it should matter, but I am not a Baha'i, so I have no interest in propogating the apologetics of either the Baha'is as represented by the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, nor the Orthodox Baha'is, etc. etc. I'm aiming for a NPOV, difficult as that is to attain at times. Sufisticated 23:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The main article should be concise and to the point. I personally almost cut it in half while cropping out entire sections that were unnecessary, and shortening others. It's much better to have links to more information. Cuñado - Talk 17:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That's my point Cuñado, disambiguation pages *aren't* for links to further information. See Disambiguation#What_NOT_to_put_on_disambiguation_pages. Actually there *is* a legitimate need for a Baha'i disambiguation page, not to point to sub-sects within the Baha'i religion, but to let readers choose between:

   :::: Baha'i (the religion)
   :::: Baha'i (the eleventh century theologian)

To that end, I'm proposing to change the disambiguation page to reflect the legitimate choices (I'm keen to write up a page on Shaykh Baha'i anyway) and then the main Baha'i page will need some minor editing to reflect the incorporation of various sectarian histories. Sufisticated 22:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you are not wrong, however, disambiguation pages often include articles which have the same word derivitive, but different meanings. eg:

The word Baha'i can mean one of several things:

• A Bahá'í who is a follower of the religious leader Bahá'u'lláh with several devisions:
  • The largest sect Bahá'í Faith
  • A much smaller sect Orthodox Bahá'í Faith
  • with other Bahá'í divisions making up less than half a percent
• Shaykh Baha'i, an eleventh Century theologian.

So in fact, the present page is alright (possibly need a little more formatting and trimming) but needs a bit about Shaykh Baha'i. If you're still worried, think of disambiguation pages as an aid to navigation. Use them to help people find what they want as quickly as possible. -- Tomhab 23:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The *definition* of Baha'i is single among the various followers, i.e. follower of Baha'u'llah, and disambiguation pages are not for "lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms a part of the article title." Sufisticated 23:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't giving a list... a list would include:

• Bahá'í apologetics
• Bahá'í humor
• Bahá'í Faith and Science

Thats what it means by don't include long lists of things. The Baha'i faith and Orthodox Baha'i Faith are distinct and different enough to warrant separate articles. You've been on wikipedia for a month, contributed less than 50 edits of which half of them are on this topic and you're arguing over this? -- Tomhab 23:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, what has an ad homeniem comment about me (my relatively new entrance to the world of Wikipedia) have to do with anything. I actually work in the academic field of Islamic studies for a major university and the Baha'i religion is a sub-interest of mine, but don't let the appeal to authority get in the way:) But I tell you what, to show you I'm actually interested in contributing substantially, and not just tinkering at the edges, I'm happy to fill out Shaykh Bahai and then we can talk about making this a disambiguation page worth its name. Sufisticated 03:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, sounds good. And relatively low edits on your account all related to the same subject is significant, especially if you're voting on a disputed issue (which is essentially what you're doing). I'm going to add the reference to Shaykh Baha'i, because it should be on there regardless. Cuñado - Talk 04:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I started doing some background research on Shaykh Bahai, it came up in the EI that there was a Mehmed Effendi Bahai (d.1062/1653) as well (just a bit of interesting triva on the word "Baha'i").

Sorry if I offended. One of the first thing you can notice on controversies is when new users start quoting/misquoting guidelines to get their way in an argument. Sorry I was so tetchy. -- Tomhab 15:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Diacritics in title?

Should this page not be redirected to Bahai (disambiguation)? Wiki-uk (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is completed. Wiki-uk (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Baha'i terraces

If this heading/link belongs on the disambiguation page at all (questionable) - it doesn't seem to me to belong under the "Baha'i Faith" heading - which otherwise disambiguates between "varieties" of the Faith, not (rather indirectly) related subheads, which are in general (correctly, I think) avoided. Disambiguation pages are for disambiguation - putting the terraces under the heading almost gives an impression that there exists a group of covenant breakers with the title "The Terraces". Personally I would not have this line at all on this page, but if it must be it needs its own line...--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)