Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

fyi

An article contributors to this article might be interested in has been nominated for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith in the Bahá'í Faith

That is a different article than this one, talking about the concept "faith" in the Baha'i faith. Which is not this article, talking about the Baha'i faith. Personally, that article looks like it may have a good reason for deletion. 66.129.58.144 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the date of this! It was settled nearly three years ago. And if you really want to know more, click on the link. Or was it very late at night when you came across this one? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Trinity

This sentence sounds strange:

and there is a substantial emphasis on monotheism; such doctrines, as the Trinity, are interpreted in a symbolic rather than literal sense.

But I can't think of how to change it. Also, one reference goes to Abdu'l-Baha in SAQ [1] and the other to Baha'i Studies Review, which I don't have. Perhaps we should remove the primary source, and reword the sentence. Does anybody have the wording of that source? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a simple division into two sentences would solve the problem nicely. Might want to paraphrase to keep the citation of the source.Peaky beaky (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to excise as misleading the clause after the semicolon, which currently reads

such doctrines as the Trinity contradict the Bahá'í view that God is single and has no equal.[17]

The doctrine of the Trinity, as expounded by the Catholic church and other "trinitarian" churches, does not contradict the view that "God is single and has no equal"; the belief in one God is fundamental to that doctrine, and Christianity is most certainly a monotheistic religion. Whoever put that clause was simply misinformed as to what the doctrine of the trinity is. For more reading check the Catechism of the Catholic Church at http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm#III Having said that, nobody promises that the doctrine is easy to understand, and indeed many people, even Christians, do not understand it. Oliver Low (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There are indeed many variations in the way the doctrine of the Trinity is "understood" among different varieties of Christianity, both personal and institutional (in fact many Christians are more or less Unitarian) - the point is that from The Baha'i viewpoint the whole idea of the Trinity at least compromises the view that "God is single and has no equal", and at worst contradicts that idea. To suggest that this is not the case would insinuate that the Baha'i Faith is to a degree Trinitarian - it is not, of course, in fact it is one of the most roundly Unitarian religions I can think of. It is indeed possible to "understand" Trinitarianism in a way that leaves it very close to Unitarianism anyway - but this is a matter for discussion of Christian doctrine, not here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote from the source is taken out of context... look for yourself. It also contradicts the original intent of the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.42.251 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous I've no idea what you are referring to - what quote and what source? Smkolins (talk)

I think he was talking about the Baha'i Studies Review citation? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cosmology?

Do Bahá´í have a cosmology? (Yeah, I presume so). Then I wish to have, somewhere in the articles, the following answers:

Was universe created, and was it created by God? (Typical Abrahamic tenets)
Do we reincarnate or do we have one life only? (Dharmic vs. Abrahamic)
Are our acts in this life affecting our fates within this life? (unclassified)

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot:

is there an end of time when God will judge all believers and nonbelievers, whereafter a new better Universe will be created? (~~Millenialism~~ Millennialism)

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, mostly they are already in the article:

"The Bahá'í writings describe a single, personal, inaccessible, omniscient, omnipresent, imperishable, and almighty God who is the creator of all things in the universe.[9][10] The existence of God and the universe is thought to be eternal, without a beginning or end"
"Through recognition and obedience, service to humanity and regular prayer and spiritual practice, the Bahá'í writings state that the soul becomes closer to God, the spiritual ideal in Bahá'í belief. When a human dies, the soul passes into the next world, where its spiritual development in the physical world becomes a basis for judgment and advancement in the spiritual world. Heaven and Hell are taught to be spiritual states of nearness or distance from God that describe relationships in this world and the next, and not physical places of reward and punishment achieved after death."

Which on the face of it simply denies reincarnation in Baha'i Writings. Many times when faced with a question that apparently the answers are a) or b) the Bahá'í Faith often comes up with a c) option. For example In each Dispensation occurs a return of the qualities exhibited in earlier Dispensations about half way down the page which references some 20 pages of the Kitab-i-Iqan. There isn't a return of individuality proposed, but there is never the less a very real return from previous times. This is also partly addressed here. Prophet's return, but so do "Those who follow or oppose the Prophets." It's not reincarnation, but it's not reincarnation or nothing either. From the above one might think it's only general circumstances or situations that might return in addition to the specific Founders of religion - but note the linking of John the Baptist and Elijah as explained in the Baha'i Writings - "Art thou Elijah?" He said, "I am not." This topic is also addressed in the concept of the Spirit of Faith [2] which can return and is distinguished from the Holy Spirit (see [3]). However this is a "fine point" which would take some pains to clarify in Wikipedia but sooner or later should be made. Smkolins (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, though tests and difficulties in this world are seen to help humans grow spiritually.
In Baha'i belief, the end times of previous religions are symbolic and have been fulfilled by the coming of Baha'u'llah: "In Bahá'í belief, each consecutive messenger prophesied of messengers to follow, and Bahá'u'lláh's life and teachings fulfilled the end-time promises of previous scriptures." There are no new worlds, but judgement is seen in accepting the new messenger from God, and there will be more messengers from God in the future. More info here.

For a more metaphysical description see Baha'i_cosmology. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe that answered most of my ignorance (and shallow reading). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Salvation

There is a series on the concept of salvation in various religions which is mostly lacking the Baha'i point of view. This is probably a salient topic and would benefit from the inclusion of additional perspectives. I do not have the expertise yet to make the necessary additions. Anyone out there interested? Aaron1972 (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the series of articles? Smkolins (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Look up "Salvation" and you will see the list of articles on the right side. Aaron1972 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Every religion is treated in this encyclopedia basically from the "believer's point of view". How else would one propose to do it? A "critical" article on any other religion would be quickly (and rightly) deleted. On the other hand all aspects of the Faith, including some that could be construed as "critical" are covered - also see Baha'i apologetics. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this article is referenced quite well by third-party reliable sources that treat the subject encyclopedicly. Publishers like Cambridge University Press, the Encyclopedia Iranica, and other reliable sources. Polemic sources, such as those by the Iranian government, are generally not viewed as reliable unless other third party sources note them. Also, the view of the Iranian government that the Baha'i Faith is not a religion is already in the article, but it's a minority viewpoint not shared with virtually any other reliable source, and thus that is why it is kept to a single point. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you are just insisting on political aspect of every critics on the article. There are lots of thing about that. for example:

Sunni Muslims believe that Babism - and Baha'ism - are some branch of Shia.
Sentences like "[...] emphasizing the spiritual unity of all humankind" and all about the faith is not an encyclopedic information.
In an observer view, we see the subject from out of it. for example from Islam: "Muslims believe that God is one and incomparable."
Because my native language is Persian and I'm able to read Arabic and English sources of Babism and Baha'ism, I can say that there are lots of missed information and the Faith washed and sterilized in this paper. (look at Edward Granville Brownes works and other orientalist, Subh-i-Azal and Azalis point of view, Shia's point of view, Sunni's point of view)
It is not true that every religions page is on believer's point of view. we have some rules in Wikipedia about adequacy, POV and so on. We have to do an encyclopedic work, we are not Priest or any kind of "Muballeq" (Arabic: مُبَلّغ).P. Pajouhesh (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In regards to your points:

Virtually all academic sources state that the Baha'i Faith is independent though emerging out of an Islamic matrix. Even the Encyclopedia of Islam states this, and Al-Azhar the most respected source from Sunni Islam has stated the Baha'i Faith is not a branch of Islam. Even the Iranian shi'a state that it is not a branch of Islam.
Straight out of a third-party reliable sources
You cannot use primary sources to interpret religious material, but you need reliable secondary sources. See no original research. If you have specific items from recent academic literature, please bring them up. Viewpoint from minority views such as azalis don't pass the undue weight policy, just as the Baha'i view in the Islam page would not be appropriate.
Most sources on this page are referenced by third-party academic sources.

If you further specific comments, please bring them up here. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember, this page is not meant to be pro- nor anti-Baha'i, but addressed academically. Using polemic sources don't really qualify as reliable sources as they don't have a lot of fact-checking. The most reliable sources are books and journals that are published by Academic publishers, and much of this article has been referenced by Peter Smith's "An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith" which is published by Cambridge University Press. You can even look at Encyclopedia Iranica or the Encyclopedia of Islam for how to treat the matter in a neutral way. Most of this article is specifically referenced from those third-party reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I adressed lots of informations including orientalist but you deleted the tag again. you have to know that only admins have to remove the tags. your behavior shows that you like to put me in fight edit. All you say is true, but half of it. a will call an admin for this article. don't remove the tag again till the conversation ended.P. Pajouhesh (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but admins are not the only one you can remove the tag. As stated in the page for the POV tag you need to give specific reasons from reliable sources why the page is not written in a neutral fashion for the tag to stay in place. Just saying so, does not make it so. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and Admins have no special role in such disputes. I can only comment as an experienced editor, and I'm not sure what the specific issues are here. I will say that the page should be written from a neutral point of view per our WP:NPOV policy, not from the religion's point of view, and if other pages don't follow that policy then they should. Maybe you should start dealing with specific issues a section at a time so that if you want more opinions it's easier for outside editors to comment. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller! In fact this page has been written, not from a believer's point of view, but from an academic view, as it's virtually completely referenced by third-party sources. If User:Mazdakabedi has issues he should bring them up here and/or tag specific sentences, and they can be dealt one by one, rather than making generalized and unsubstantiated comments, and tagging the whole page, where they may be small things that can be changed. His notes above about the issues, are either just plain wrong (like Muslims believing that the religion is a sect of Islam, instead they believe Baha'is are apostates), are referenced by third-party sources, or have been already fixed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Muslims believe that God is one and incomparable" IS unbiased in spite of anyone who might (mistakenly of course) think that Muslims don't believe in God at all, or imagine that Islam worships many gods. There is no need to include erronious "information" in order to avoid "bias" or achieve "balance". At this point do we need to add - "but the very reverend Lillywhite of the Outer Pensylvanian tub-thumpers says they worship pigs"?

In EXACTLY the same way "The Baha'i Faith emphasizes the spiritual unity of all humankind" is also unbiased - and for the same reason. It is not "something the Baha'is say", but well attested fact, to the extent that even the critics of the Faith do not deny it for a moment. In fact some, coming from a more or less racist or nationalistic point of view, seize on this very point to base the most virulent of their criticisms on the fact the Baha'is are "race mixers", or "unpatriotic traitors". The important thing about encyclopedic fact is that it is true, and that we have a reliable 3rd. party source that says so. Both these criterea are well met here. What "extra" information would you add at this point to make it "unbiased" or "balanced"?

I'm sure we could find some ignorant idiot to say that Muslims are polytheistic idol worshipers (although such foolishness does not of course belong in the "Islam" article)- but their very worst enemies don't accuse the Baha'is of being racist or ethnocentric. Surely simple fact like the Baha'is believing in the oneness of humankind can pass unchallenged? Or do we need to make something up at this point ourselves, perhaps? I am trying VERY hard to continue to "assume good faith" but to be honest this is becoming increasingly difficult. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The article should and does follow standards of what reliable sources say about the religion. It is highly cited. Historically the article had featured article status and was thus at that time carefully reviewed by numerous experienced admins and editors. The main contributors have sought to keep the high quality of the article. Numerous difficulties have been negotiated and resolved and standards applied. And some of the recent accumulation of citation problems are again being cleaned up. This is natural to the aging of the internet's websites.Smkolins (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, You are right, your writings had good resources. but, one mistake you did is that you chose from one parts of those sources that you like it. it is not neutral. it is called WP:OR. I just said that this article have to rewrite again. I didn't support or deny the faith. I just said the article is not encyclopedic. the sentences are not neutral, there are lots of thing washed from the faith that i named some of them before. besides, you ignore orientalist's works. look at your references. if no body know, anyone who read about Baha'i faith knows that most of your sources are from baha'i priest under Shoghi Effendi's programs. besides, I said a sample (Islam) of how a neutral sentence have to be form out of the religion's point of view, and a sample (Bahai) sentence of POV in the paper. but you played with my sample. besides, when you remove the tag, nobody understand that here there is a conversation about neutrality. but it's seem that maybe you don't know it or doing it intentionally. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, can you specify any specific sentences that you believe are not written in an encyclopedic manner, or that are not truthful? I did not play with your sample above, but showed how it's clearly referenced by a third-party reliable source. Also I noted that your statement that Muslims believe the religion to be a sect of Islam is clearly incorrect. Also remember that recent references are more reliable than old references. For example the Encylcopedia Britannica that was published in 1911 (which is now public domain) has views and statements that have been discounted since then. Similarly, statements that were made a long time ago, through the passage of time, may have been discounted by newer research. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OR is when you make a point not in the sources. Using responsible sources representing the balance of opinion of scholars and researchers is the way to support neutrality. I don't particularly care if you support or deny the religion. That's simply immaterial just as it is if any editor does or does not. Saying "your sources are from baha'i priest" shows a rather substantial lack of understanding of the religion as well as accusing contributors of not respecting the rules of wikipedia at the very same time you say we are right that we are using good sources. You have failed to demonstrate a substantial reason there should be a POV tag - it would seem to be irresponsible to tag it in fact and suggests you don't know the policies by which all articles are governed. As for limited sources from oriental sources we are under the rules that foreign language sources are not to be used. Otherwise I'd be glad to use a french language catholic university encyclopedia rather a lot. But it is simply not acceptable in general to use it. So we live within the rules. Smkolins (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A "sample" and an "example" are totally different things. You gave an example of an unbiased statement in the article on Islam - and an example that you felt was biased in the Baha'i article. Nobody "played" with this - I just pointed out that your two examples were were precisely the same. In both cases we have very simply stated information that nobody would consider biased for a moment. I would like to know if you have read past the top of the article - as many of the things you imply are missing or "washed out" are actually treated a bit further down the page. It takes more than one sentence or two to complete a full treatment of a subject.

What exactly do you mean by "orientalist"? The "orientalists" were English, French and other Western writers interpreting "Eastern" culture, literature and religion to "Western" readers in the later 1800s and early 1900s. Some of them had visited or even lived in Arabia or Persia - and some of them even spoke and read Arabic and/or Farsi - but they remained English or French scholars looking from the outside in, and they got a lot of things wrong, as you'd expect. In spite of this, they undoubtedly brought a better general knowledge of Islamic countries to their readers. On the other hand their writings are now considered VERY dated and inaccurate, and no article on any Islamic (or Baha'i) subject would rely very much on them for facts, expecially up-to-date ones.

Your posts (as I hinted when we were discussing this initially) show few if any signs that you are "reading" other people's posts, or making any real attempt to come to grips with what they are saying. You have an idea firmly in your head, and nothing is going to move it. If you want anyone to take your arguments seriously, you are going to have to read as well as write (listen as well as speak). You have been repeatedly asked for specific examples. You have not given any that that anyone could take seriously. Actually read the whole article, so that you have at least that much background about the Faith - and then suggest how ONE THING might be put in an even less biased way, or ONE important and verifiable fact that is missing - and the people here will certainly be interested. This kind of approach is how articles get improved - not just wild statements that have little or no relation to what is there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Festivals Page

Here's a Wikipedia page that could use some Baha'i Content: Religious festival — I'm Nonpartisan 14:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)

Hope you don't mind, but I fixed your wiki-link. — Parsa (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Infallibility

I think the concept of Infallibility should be explained on the Baha'i main page as it applies to the UHJ. The Baha'i point of view should also be mentioned on the infallibility page itself since we have other religions' point of view already. My 2 cents.

Both seem like valid suggestions. The question, insofar as this article is concerned, is how to best include that (in the Baha'i Administration section) appropriately? Peter Deer (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Bahá'í"

I've seen quite a few references in print and in videos of politicians, etc. referring to Bahá'ís as "the Bahá'í." I know the third paragraph states that Bahá'í is an adjective when referring to the religion, and a noun when referring to an adherent. However, perhaps it would be good for absolute clarity to add a short example sentence, or "Bahá'í" (Singular), "Bahá'ís" (plural)... something to that effect. — ★Parsa (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wilmette Institute

Just an FYI, I have added a new page for the Wilmette Institute as it is considered as one of the Centers of Baha'i Learning in the United States, along with Bosch Baha'i School, Louhelen Baha'i School, Green Acre, and the Native American Baha'i Institute. This page at the Bahai.us page gives a good explanation of Centers of Baha'i Learning.

Would it be appropriate to create a Centers of Baha'i Learning page at that would better reflect there role in the United States Baha'i community? Also, the pages for Bosch, Louhelen and Green Acre could really use some close attention and upgrade. I'm sure that if we asked around we could get some wikicommons photos for all three.I'm Nonpartisan 17:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)

To list or not to list... in re: the Messengers

Nine names is too many, but I'm not going to make the cut. We need to justify the inclusions & pare this to a manageable size. GWFrog (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nine names is indeed too many - and every name that is added only raises more questions about why someone's favourite prophet is left off. This is NOT a complete list - as one would be extremely ungainly in the intro. Another reason is that a full list of every person who might be regarded as definitely a Manifestion of God by at least some Baha'is would introduce controversy - we'd also get into major figures such as Confucius and Socrates who are normally regarded as "Divine Philosophers" rather than independant manifestations.

I think it is important to include the major Abrahamic prophets, who are actually mentioned in the Kitab-i-Iqan (Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad) and about whom there can be no controversy - and we should add, "as well as several figures from extra-Abrahamic traditions such as Zoroaster, Krishna, and the Buddha". That makes seven names, which in the circumstances is plenty!

I will "be bold" and edit to this effect - comments are of course still welcome.

Incidentally, anyone who might imagine that this problem is unique to this article - the "Musical Theatre" article has for a long time had basically the same problem with people who want to add their own favourite musical to the little list in the introduction to that article. For some time now such attempts have been simply squashed firmly. I don't think this can be regarded as "edit warring" - just a few thoughtless if well meaning souls who can't read an edit summary being intransigent. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Seven is better than nine, but... I guess I can live with that. GWFrog (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To speak for the other side while most of the article is pretty steady I'd say this bit is the one most poked at. Not a lot, but persistently over the years. I also had a discussion about this on my talk page with another editor just a few weeks ago where I argued from the other side mostly along the lines of the above. Smkolins (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this comes up a lot. The list I always preferred was Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, because those are the three most recent chronologically, and their adherents represent by far the majority of the world. If any more than that, Moses or Abraham could be mentioned, but I prefer not. That's my two cents. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This debate reminds me of the one about, "How many angels can sit on the head of a pin?" It's a discussion about delusional beliefs & which of them was more or less delusional than the other, & how many delusional people (prophets) there were, & which of them claimed the Divine Station (if there is such a thing) now credited to them.

Millions of people have wasted their time & have been slaughtered over such trivia. That's why I rarely come here!Thereisnohope (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

From a very general point of view this thread is about "example lists", which of course apply to many secular subjects too. If this article is "delusional" to you (and if so, why not - be a dull world if we all believed in the same things!) then go edit one you find more relevant. `Abdu'l-Bahá himself said if your religion makes you hate you'd be better off not having a religion. So isn't respecting each other's prophets a good idea rather than a bad one? I doubt of anyone ever killed someone else over an idea like that! And why not if they all taught roughly the same thing anyway. Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

An objective discussion of this question as to the nature of what Bahá'ís refer to as the Manifestations of God is made more difficult by traditional loyalties. Orthodox followers of each Manifestation have tended to claim some kind of uniqueness or superiority for the Founder of their faith. For example, many Christians view Jesus Christ as God incarnate, consider Moses to be inferior Him in some way, and regard Muhammad as an imposter. A majority of orthodox Jews see Moses as the human vehicle through which the Law of God was transmitted to humanity and consider Jesus Christ to be a false prophet. Muslims consider both Moses and Jesus Christ to be valid prophets, but the majority reject the Buddha and the Founders of other major faiths. For them, Muhammad was the last prophet whom God will send to man, and revelation of the Divine Will ended with the Qur'an. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There is (alas) a lot in what you say - although all this irrelevant here. This article is after all about the Baha'i faith and we are not concerned (at this point and in this place) about religious prejudice - however much we might be concerned about it elsewhere. The problem from a Wikipedia point of view is that "short lists" get attacked by people who want to add to them ad infinitum - there are so many people who might be considered manifestations of God by at least some Baha'is... We just have to draw the line somewhere. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to redirect Non-Bahá'í to this article, no merging is required. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose that Non-Bahá'í be merged into Bahá'í Faith. I think that the content in the Non-Bahá'í article can easily be explained in the context of the faith itself. The Non-Bahá'í article has had 108 views in the last 90 days, and is an orphan article with no references since December 2007. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge. It can probably be condensed into a sentence in this article (if a source can be found). ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Merge, (Assuming there is anything worth keeping in Non-Bahá'í, which I doubt.) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment merging means leaving a redirect. I'm not sure that is really indicated. I might suggest, alternately, if their exists an article on Bahai and other faiths, that the content be merged into it. If there isn't such an article yet, there probably should be at least one. However, if no one feels like creating it anytime soon, no real objections to turning that page to a redirect to this one, and adding whatever relevant information can be sourced from it to this one. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I would just get rid of that other article. It isn't well sourced, and doesn't really impart any knowledge. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I don't see any sources and can't really think of any either. I'd say delete. --Smkolins (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I'd have no objection to the Non-Bahá'í article being deleted, I prefer not to delete where content can be reused, and a reasonable redirect found - but in this case, I'm inclined to agree that this is not one of those cases! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

My prod of Non-bahai failed because the reason was in the edit summary, and not in the prod template. Given that process is not going to happen, I'm just going to be bold and redirect it to this page. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How many Baha'is?

Critics of the Faith often cite "excessive claims" of numbers of believers as evidence of all kinds of thing, of which dishonesty is one of the kindest - I really don't think it looks good to edge the numbers up, especially as they were originally based on a notoriously inexact Christian source, that has in the past, for whatever reason, overestimated Baha'i numbers a bit. It would be different if everyone had been actually counted - given it's only an estimate, and such an inexact one, I think it ought to left it as it is until we have hard numbers to the contrary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've not see such views common in scholarly third party sources. As for "notoriously inexact", about World Christian Encyclopedia, that's been studied - see end of that article. I've not seen other studies about this question of accuracy (since high precision is pretty much beyond anyone's ability given diversity of culture and circumstances about how things are to be counted practically.) From various comments and thoughts it seems to me the "main problem" is only that the WCE source does not use definitions of membership in tune with Baha'i sources - often but not universally reporting more Baha'is than Baha'i sources do when they exist. As far as what is stated in studies the WCE is observed, if anything, to favor Christian numbers which is somewhat counter the idea that it over-reports Baha'is (though I can see both issues being actually true.) The most obvious case of divergence being the American community I think. But I've never seen an actually study of how Baha'is, or any group, are defined as being members or not. I've seen comments that other sources exist - not least in that very study - but they are not available for reference. All of this is more or less summarized at Bahá'í statistics where there are many estimates over 7 million. So an estimate for the main intro section of 6 million seems fair and 5 million excessively conservative. However as a compromise I propose "6 ± 1 million". What do you say?--Smkolins (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless we have better evidence (and it would HAVE to be official Baha'i statistics - not some sympathetic Christian's original wild guess, statistically incremented every year!!) I'd be MUCH happier with just leaving it as is. "Over 5 million" may well be factual (although I personally suspect there are fewer people actually "on the rolls" than that, the definition of a Baha'i being apparently rather fluid in some quarters) - and if some sources put the numbers higher, well, at least no one can say the Baha'is are exaggerating. The main point that we can validly (and truthfully) make is that there are are several million Baha'is - i.e. although we are a tiny proportion of the world's population we are not THAT tiny. Failing an official statement (from the UHJ or some other Institution) that endorsed a higher figure I think "more than 5 million" (after all, 6 million IS over 5 million for heaven's sake!) had better stay. If people are incredulous, and on investigation find that if anything our estimate is on the low side, then at least they can get off this "Baha'is over-estimate their numbers grotesquely, which proves what liars they are" bit. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Had a bit of a look - the 5 million WAS originally at least quasi-official, if a bit casual (didn't realise that). But all the more reason for leaving it alone until it is officially up-dated! Don't think this is a matter for speculation and "negotiation", really. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Constructive, good faith edit to lead - adding "Abrahamic" to definition of Baha'i Faith

I have reverted this edit. Essentially of course it is perfectly true that the Baha'i Faith is an "Abrahamic" religion in any rational sense - and surely any fair-minded outsider would be happy to define it as such. On the other hand this is not a label the Baha'is specifically use themselves, and the people who DO use it - (Jews, Christians and Muslims who want to stress the obvious close relationship between their three religions) might (to varying degrees) dispute that a "new" religion like Baha'i can just push in here. To be fair, since it is "their" label, and not "ours" I think it is sensible to concede this point, at least in the first sentence of the article. MHO, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

See my version. As for the disputes, well there was a fair bit of that at Abrahamic religions and it was decided by consensus that the Baha'i Faith should be represented, proportionately, in the article. The consensus has been supported since as well.--Smkolins (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Man" vs "Human"

A recent constructive and good faith edit (I suspect from a person of roughly my age and vintage!) wanted to change "humankind" to "mankind". For myself I'd really love it if "man" were still common gender in a context like this, and could be taken as including women and children as well as adult males. Alas, such is probably no longer current usage, so that we are stuck with such monstrosities as "humankind". A small point, but the language DOES change with time. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, mankind is actually still common usage and humankind is barely used, as the hits on Wikipedia show. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgth (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Soundofmusicals reasoning above. Respected publishers such as the Economist use "humankind", so it's not incorrect -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And plenty more use mankind, so even if we go by published sources, mankind wins by a mile. Common usage vastly more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgth (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

But if humankind is accurate terminology, is commonly used, including by very respected publishers, and is more politically correct, why do you feel strongly against it? I don't see any negative to it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it is not commonly used, it´s rare even among respected publishers. Most readers to this article will have never seen the word before. Whilst the mankind article has 10k hits, the humankind article has 0.5k hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgth (talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually what you are saying is not really consistent with other sources. This article which is a survey of scholars notes that the use of the word mankind has been declining since the 19th century and is problematic and should and is being replaced, and has been eclipsed by other words including humankind and humanity. I don't think your argument is persuasive to change the wording here. Just having more hits on Wikipedia is not reason enough where there are other good reasons to use other words including correctness are included. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn´t say that it should and is being replaced and it doesn´t say that it´s being eclipsed by humankind, only that humanity is used to a similar extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgth (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Shall I quote from the article:

"Think twice before using “mankind” to mean “all humanity,” say scholars"
"Regarding using a term today as gender-neutral because it seems likely to be gender-neutral in the 10th or even the fifteenth century, meanings are what they are today, not what they were then. Many words change meaning and tone over time."
"In my opinion, 'humanity' and 'humankind' are the appropriate words in contemporary English."

You still have not provided a good reason why mankind is better given that humankind doesn't have any of the problems that mankind does, and Wikipedia recommends not using gender-specific words when other words are available, and the article clearly states that mankind is not gender-neutral. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The first two quotes are irrelevant to using the unheard of ´humankind´ and the third is just the opinion of one person. I have provided good reasons. Mankind is used much more often among sources, it is gender-neutral, even according to some in that article, and the vast majority of readers have never seen the word humankind before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgth (talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The first two quotes are not irrelevent, because you are proposing for the the use of mankind, and that is is gender neutral and those two quotes destroy the foundation of your argument. You can't ignore it. The article, notes that mankind was never gender neutral and is not gender neutral now. The only remaining argument you have is that is more common, with only a statement that it has more hits in Wikipedia. Not a very strong given the rest of all of the other aspects that need to be considered; you have not provided any statements saying that is a better word. SoundofMusicals also pointed you to a Wikipedia article stating that mankind should not be used when another word is available, and in this case it is. You don't seem to have consensus here. Also, please learn to sign your comments with four tildes (~). Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

They´re irrelevant when debating whether humankind is replacing mankind, which was what you were replying to. The article notes several things. One opinion is that mankind is gender-neutral and lists several reasons why. The Wikipedia article doesn´t state that, as mankind is seen as gender-neutral by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgth (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

They are not irrelevant because as you keep proving by your comments the basis of your argument is that mankind is gender neutral, which the synopsysis of the article is that most scholars agree that mankind is not gender neutral. Here are some other academic sources that say the same thing. [4] [5]. Commonality is not enough. And Wikipedia:Gender-neutral_language notes "Examples of non-neutral language that can often be easily avoided are: ... mankind ..." Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there some third option that could be used? I don't like "humankind" either and "mankind" doesn't really work anymore. How about "humanity" or "all people" or something like that? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Not most scholars, as they just spoke to a couple. That is not a policy or guideline, just an essay. Humanity is fine, though it should be intersperced with mankind so as to avoid repition, especially in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgth (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Repition isn´t so bad in the lead actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgth (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Humanity is a good replacement, but mankind should not be used as it's not gender neutral. Here are many more educational manual of style stating that "mankind" is not gender neutral and should be replaced with words such has humanity and humankind. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Despite being too politically incorrect for the language police, it´s still in wide and popular use... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgth (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, the applicable Wikipedia guidelines/essays are: WP:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language and WP:Gender-neutral language. The latter actually mentions "mankind" specifically, discouraging its use. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(Mainly)@Edgth (By the way please sign your contribitions with a row of four "~' characters. Not doing so is a nuisance and tries everyone's patience.) This site is an on-line encyclopedia. Like any encyclopedia (or any other publication for that matter) we do have certain overarching "house rules" to lend some kind of coherence and consistency of the publication as a whole. I pointed you at WP:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language very early in this piece - pointing out that we can't go changing THIS article to go against the MOS without changing the MOS itself - and a great many other articles. The place for this precise argument is in fact at the talk page for the MOS. I actually agree with you about "gender-neutral language", and I'd dearly love to have it expunged, not only from Wikipedia, but from the language as a whole, but realistically, I think we are stuck with it. Incidentally (@everyone else?) "humankind" and "humanity", while they mean more or less the same thing, are NOT necessarily interchangeable. Sometimes the fact that there is only one word (that we are allowed to use) saying EXACTLY what we want then a certain amount of repetition is unavoidable. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A major principle of belief within the Bahai Faith is the establishment of full equality between men and women. The gender neutral term of "humankind" is the preferred word, within the faith, to describe all of humanity. "Mankind", which obviously places one gender above the other, is rarely used. I am not implying that mankind is less of a word choice. My point is, for this article about a religion that emphatically supports gender equality, "humankind" says it clearer and with respect to the subject of the article. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the article itself as it is now, Buster. Adjwilley made some sensible changes which I tweaked a tiny bit. I think we have it about right. My own main objection to "politically correct" language is that it doesn't actually change the way people think even if it gets them to say things differently. But I accept that Edgth and I are in the minority on that one. What can't be helped... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the good-faith edits of Editor Edgth and returned the term humankind to the lead. As I have pointed out, humankind is the word of choice of Bahai writers. It is the most descriptive of the word choices available to translators of Farsi into English. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Buster, in "mankind" vs. "humankind" I agree "humankind" is better for the gender-neutrality issues. In "humankind" vs. "humanity" I would lean slightly toward "humanity" because even though it's not the preferred Bahai translation, it is a more common word in English, and less awkward than "humankind". That said, I think the article is fine as is, and I'm not going to make any more changes on this particular issue. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As there´s an article on the faith and the ´unity of humanity´, humanity is definitely a better fit in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgth (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are so against the usage of the word humankind. Many of the sources I note above specifically say that "humankind" can be used as a replacement of "Mankind". Also as Buster has mentioned, the word humankind is used in the texts of the religion, and in terms of accuracy, the use of the word is applicable. The use of the word is not a huge issue and is warrented. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, exactly the same problem has appeared on Mythology. After an edit-war I stopped reverting and currently "humankind" has been replaced by "humanity" [17] by an IP. Weird coincidence. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We also have stylistic similarities in the phrasing used by the IP and the named user: Edgth: [18] Most readers to this article will have never seen the word before. vs. IP: [19] Hey, humankind is virtually unknown and few readers will have ever come across the word before.. Perhaps an WP:SPI may be in order. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes that´s me. I was logged out when I first edited mythology so I decided to stay logged out in subsequent editing so as not be accused of socking funnily enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.46.44 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rapid-fire edit-warring on two different articles with multiple users and using IPs to avoid detection is disruptive editing. Your edit on Mythology does not reflect consensus and should be reverted. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an SPI is necessary...It's common for new users to accidentally edit logged out or just edit logged out not knowing the rules. Now they know, and I'm sure they'll stop. The edit warring, however, should definitely stop. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see comments by IP 190.235.46.44 just above: ...so I decided to stay logged out in subsequent editing so as not be accused of socking funnily enough. They admit staying logged-out to avoid detection while edit-warring. Anyway I opened the SPI before I had any input from this discussion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

I didn´t use IPs to avoid detection and why is it edit warring when I do it but not when you do it? You´ve done 4 reverts to that article. What consensus on Mythology? Why should it be reverted? You´re talking shit, to be impolite, especially your interpretation of my comment. Edgth (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You self-admitted staying logged out to avoid detection and now you are using personal attacks and profanities. This attitude is disruptive and is not helping your case. I suggest you stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I said that I stayed logged out because my first edit to the article was my IP and I didn´t want to edit there as my username because that could be seen as socking. Feel free to cry me a river over these personal attacks. Edgth (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There is clear consensus here that a single mention of "humankind" is not out of line. You need to stop going against consensus. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. There is consensus supporting "humankind. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Support "humankind". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Support "humankind".--Smkolins (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

An editor has come off a temporary ban over this one with both guns blazing - in contradiction of a very clear consensus (see above). Re-stating my own opinion, which is that we probably DID overuse the slightly awkward "humankind" before - BUT I am more than happy with the text of the article as it now is - with MOST uses of "humankind" replaced with "humanity". The remaining "humankinds" (especially the one in the first sentence) are cases in point of EXACTLY the right word, where none of the alternatives fit quite as well. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Two more sources prefer humankind

From Garner's Modern American Usage: "Humankind, a 17th Century creation, is unexceptionable, while mankind is, to many people, a sexist word. The prudent writer will therefore resort to humankind".
From The New Fowler's Modern English Usage: "First used in the 17th century as an ocassional variant of the human race or of mankind, the term (humankind) has gathered strength in the 20th century, sometimes written as two words the word is also favored by those who judge mankind to be unacceptable in our politically correct times". ```Buster Seven Talk 05:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia for promotion

FYI, maybe you guys have fooled everyone else on Wikipedia but I am fully aware that your followers have been going around to every religious article on Wikipedia and inserting Bahai next to any mention of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity -- as if this new, obscure religion which is in a class with hundreds of other "religions" is somehow on par with them in any way, shape, or form. In a real encyclopedia there would be no mention of this obscure faith outside of the main article on it. This is self promotion that you guys have managed to get away with. 108.182.88.129 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So far, you have removed a single mention @ God the Father that was initially made by User:History2007 back in late September of 2012. "Every religious article", I think, may be an over-statement. In fact, I know of no plot (as you imply) to make the insertions that you claim. What other articles have you researched? ```Buster Seven Talk 15:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Religious organizations established in the 19th century

Should the Bahá'í Faith not be added to this category? —Pawyilee (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think so, why not "be bold" and just do it? If anyone has any objections they will no doubt raise them. Seems fair enough to me, although I am not a big fan of "categories" in Wikipedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

seems perfectly correct. --Smkolins (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

transliteration

I did some research about transliterations of "Bahá'í Faith". It seems User:Mamdu may have had a point changing Baha'iyyah to ad-Deenu-l Bahaa'i. Apparently the first is actually used primarily by those who do not grant the Baha'i Faith as a religion while the second specifically is used to denote it as a religion (think of it as the two words as in English "Baha'i" and "Faith"). Apparently the equivalent arabic would be البهائية vs الدين البهائي (not that I can read it but I can at least see there are two words vs one.) However I don't know if there is a specific special syntax of accent marks or other things that should be used. You can see the arabic/farsi uses but transliterations…. --Smkolins (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

My point was simply that something as long-standing as this needed discussion before it gets changed. I had no idea which of the two forms is most correct/appropriate for this context. On the surface (based on your explanation, Smkolins) I would favour the current version as being more "neutral" and "encyclopedic". This article is not (or should not be if it is) "promotion", however much Baha'i editors (including me) want to ensure that it is factual and fair. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on talking about it before just changing it. However I don't see neutral coming out of it. Neither terminology is neutral in Arabic. However this isn't the arabic article. It is a question of the transliteration of the English. Baha'i Faith is its proper name in English and usually used in reference and therefore ad-Deenu-l Bahaa'i is the proper transliteration as a matter of grammar. I'm sure when it comes to the Arabic articles on the religion the thrust of reliable sources will have its say. But I'd like consensus so that a number of people understand what is being talked about. I'll note the "citation" is an examination of the word "Baha'i" itself and not "Baha'i Faith". This could be tripping over the facts of how the words are used in that it is pointing out more about pronunciation rather than the whole term. --Smkolins (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

i do believe this "Sacrifice They believe that human sacrifice is necessary for, salvation through god, and that they should only sacrifice women, because they are unclean because of their periods.And that they must burn them alive if they are on their period during the sacrifice..." is just a troll edit because i cant find any mention of this anywhere else can anyone find a source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.3.194.155 (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It was vandalims, and it's been removed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Exile and inprisonment

The article said (clumsily) that "Bahá'u'lláh was exiled for his teachings, from Persia to the Ottoman Empire, and died while officially being a prisoner". I've since changed it slightly. What it doesn't say is what kind of relationship was there between the two states. Firstly, you can't just ban someone to somebody's country without consent from that country. Secondly, it was not merely a question of the Ottomans accepting him, but obviously some arrangement was reached, otherwise, why would they too keep him prisoner? Why accept him in the first place, if only to keep him prisoner? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

here there is mention of "Complicity between the Persian and Ottoman rulers". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We need a better source for such a discussion - see wikipedia:reliable source. --Smkolins (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Smkolins, I wasn't suggesting it as a source - as I said it makes mention of "complicity between the Persian and Ottoman rulers". That is as something to on from to establish why another country would receive him and keep him prisoner. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting question and does require a more sophisticated explanation. My personal understanding is that when Baha'u'llah was released from prison from Iran, to Baghdad that he was no longer anyone's prisoner, but more like a "person of interest". He did go off by himself for two years to live in a cave, surely no one's prisoner. When Baha'u'llah was called to Istanbul, a military unit accompanied him and he was assigned housing, but after being sent to Andrianople He was also not necessarily a prisoner. It was only after that, when the whole family was taken into custody and put aboard ship to go to Akka that you would say he was officially a prisoner under armed guard and when He arrived in Acre, put into a prison cell by the Ottomans. I think the problem is how to tell this part of the story in a way that does not require an entire page: The Political Status of Baha'u'llah while in custody of Iranian Authorities and Ottoman Authorities.I'm Nonpartisan 03:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)

Infallibility

I think the concept of Infallibility should be explained on the Baha'i main page as it applies to the UHJ. The Baha'i point of view should also be mentioned on the infallibility page itself since we have other religions' point of view already. My 2 cents.

Both seem like valid suggestions. The question, insofar as this article is concerned, is how to best include that (in the Baha'i Administration section) appropriately? Peter Deer (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe in this infallibility (but this is irrelevant within this discussion). However this is a U.H.J. material claim and the best way to say it is that Baha'ullah (i.e. Mirza Hussein Ali-Nuri) gave this assurance (& if it is false and can be proven beyond doubt as "false", it would make him a false prophet.)

The approach must be to use reliable sources and relate how they present the information on the concept. As a first guess I'd suggest Peter Smith's "A Baha'i Concise Encyclopedia" on pages 196-197. --Smkolins (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I know WP:RS. This is *not* about TRUTH (or justice) on WP but much less, such as sourcing. However, this material evidence might already be in US Courts' hands for something a bit more important (if you know where to look at - hint: free KEYWORD search on PACER?..) Please don't ask for specifics as I am not here to argue with anybody. I am just trying to improve this article for all the WP readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.50.54 (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

Is it possible that parts of this article could be rewritten with reference to the writings of Bernard Lewis removed? I don't really know much about the Bahai religion and when I came here to learn about it I was very discouraged from learning more because of the references to Bernard Lewis. Lewis's work is considered racist by the important scholar Edward Said and his work has been criticized by Noam Chomsky as well. Compared to such anti-imperialist scholars like Chomsky and Said, the references to Lewis in this article on the Bahai faith make a non-believer and new comer like myself, suspicious that Bahai "scholars" are as unscrupulous as Bernard Lewis and like him, are apologists for anti-Semitism and those who are jealous of Islam. This an encyclopedia so lets try and get rid or references to these orientalist scholars like Bernard Lewis who make a newcomer like myself think the Bahai religion is more boring and know-nothing than it actually is. Teetotaler 9 March, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.159.118 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's also an old citation from 1984 - I wouldn't mind loosing the whole "reactions" section. --Smkolins (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The objection to Bernard Lewis seems to me to be quite insincere (sorry, but my powers of assumption of good faith don't stretch quite that far) and in any case highly partisan. None the less I do agree with Smolkins that the mention of Bernard Lewis' opinion has very marginal relevance - at best it is one person's opinion (speculation) of what might be a rationale for persecuting Baha'is - the reality is likely to be far more complicated. Really, speculation about what motives might drive people to commit crimes, as opposed to the description of the crimes themselves, belong (if anywhere) with the perpetrators, not an article about the victims. Lewis' remarks, as reported here, almost seem to imply that the Baha'is deserve to be persecuted for not being good Muslims! In any case I have deleted the sub-section concerned as patently unhelpful. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Matter of Shame???

Is it a matter of shame that Abdu'l-Bahá and ‎Bahá'u'lláh pictures be put forward in wikipedia after all they both are among the most influential of the Bahai Faith...182.182.126.113 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No it is not shame. Read the section Bahá'u'lláh#Photographs_and_imagery and the comparative talk pages at Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Archive_Picture you can get a feel for things. --Smkolins (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of following other encyclopedic conventions. In most publications about Baha'u'llah, it's the shrine of Baha'u'llah that is pictured, and not his picture, and Wikipedia follows those conventions. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, Baha'is don't like brainwashed people to think "oh!, the Baha'i faith is related to the ME/Al-Qaeda" when they see this pic!

Again I refer readers to the actual text of articles about when and how Baha'is use the picture and the discussions about what concensus has reached about applying Wikipedian standards in this situation. Speculating about how people interprit the picture is rather entirely besides the point. --Smkolins (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, Baha'is "rules" are irrelevant in this discussion. Wikipedia is not bound by outside conventions!

You appear to misunderstand why I pointed out the article. I did not wish to imply "Baha'i rules" apply here. I was addressing the claim of "shame" as mentioned. It has nothing to do with shame. As to the talk page that is very about wikipedia conventions. --Smkolins (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to Jeff's remarks, not yours, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.50.54 (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Then your comments make even less sense as his were specifically about the rules of wikipedia - thus "encyclopedic conventions". To be more explicit review the presentations of the Faith or Baha'u'llah in scholarly journals and you will find the Shrine more than the "picture".--Smkolins (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no such convention as you refer to. Look at Mormons for example. (In Islam it is explicitly forbidden to represent their prophet (PBUH) - Yet Wikipedia has an image with his face painted.) Jesus (PBUH) is depicted in Christianity. I am afraid you are the one who doesn't make sense here (& to be honest, I don't really care whether to put this picture or not). Bye! 67.87.50.54 (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Name of the religion

There is no suggestion that we should call the Baha'i Faith "Baha'ianity", on the analogy of "Christianity", nor (I hope) would we want to call Judaism "Judainity", or Christianity "Christism". If English speaking Buddhists preferred "The Buddhist Faith" as THE descriptive name for their religion I hope nobody would object - if only because it would be none of our concern. Recent suggestions that somehow the Bahai's, unlike the members of every other religion, have an obligation to adopt a name with an analogy to something else (or anything else?) is plain silly. Just imagine a similar obligation being applied to the adherents of any other religion. A further objection to "Baha'ism" is that the term has for a long time very seldom been used in a genuinely dispassionate sense - and is generally, at least in English, frankly derogatory. It is hardly surprising that the Baha'is themselves might prefer a simple descriptive term. There are equivalent (similarly obsolete/derogatory) terms for other religions, particularly Islam, that are similarly inappropriate, at least in an encyclopedic context. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Different but actually closely related subject - the first sentence of the lead paragraph contains the English and Arabic forms of the name of the Faith. The first is there for obvious reasons - this is English Wikipedia - the second is sensible, although strictly not obligatory, since Baha (="glory", or "splendour") is after all an Arabic word. To add further languages is however patently unnecessary, if not rather silly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

French version of this article

Someone should please check the equivalent in French because it is different in terms of wording and WP:lead.. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Image box idea

Why not have an image box at the top of this article with major figures such as Abdul'baha, 2 members of the UHJ (one from South America one from Africa), Ruhyyeh Khanum, Mona, Vahid and Shoghi Effendi (and others). The present picture of the UHJ is nice but I would leave it for the Administration section. This would make the article more informative in my opinion. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

+Some Europeans such as Italy's late Giacheri may be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.50.54 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, the religion is not about a singular person. Right now the head of the religion is the House of Justice and in my opinion it is the best picture to be at the top. -- 16:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

WIth that line of reasoning you must put the picture of Boby then :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.117.11 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree - a picture of the Universal House of Justice seems very appropriate. --Smkolins (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Baha'i" in other languages

There is no more justification for including the name of the Faith in other languages in the lead here than (say) in the article for Coffee or Basketwork. We lead with the name in English because this is the English Wikipedia - the Arabic is there because it IS an Arabic word, when all is said and done. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to revert it myself but I have decided to propose things in the talk page first.— 67.87.50.54 (talk)

And I agree with Soundofmusical's points. The methodology wikipedia uses for access to the other languages is the sidebar of linked articles in other languages. --Smkolins (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Graph for administrative section

You need a graph to explain all the elections and administrative levels (including protection and teaching Institutions), much like the work of your 'friends' here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.50.54 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be Bahá'í_administration#Structure. --Smkolins (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Then it's missing the most important part regarding HOW these institutions get elected by the Baha'is in the first place. My 2 cents as always.67.87.50.54 (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

ok - the problem is that the topic of the Baha'i Faith is huge and putting it all in one big article would make it unreadably huge. That's why there are links to other articles. The balance of *this* article is governed by the priorities of reliable sources of this part of the larger picture, the hub of a network of related articles. Individual people may find one or another topic more important from their perspective but the balance is what the sources say. --Smkolins (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sections and structure

The section about the founder of this cult has 2 paragraphs (or so) while the last section about the persecution in Egypt is of equal length. Only need to say: REALLY?

No need to be scared to sign your comment, even with an IP or Wikiname! - no one is going to track you down, honest! In assessing any other article, would you feel justified in drawing (unstated) conclusions on the relative lengths of more or less unrelated sections? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

you have ALWAYS to be careful with people who edit this article my mom says. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Besides, you should know (as a good Baha'i you are - as per your WP userpage) that you need to get the approval of your NSA for your edits here (since it is a form of 'publication' about this cult.)!

To answer your question the best i can, the whole thing is carried on the shoulder of one person initially and it is of utmost importance. I know you disagree since you don't even like his picture. Basically you are inviting the whole world to follow a 'superhuman' with a long beard & with oriental dress who looks UNIQUE. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Serves me right for answering a silly question, I suppose. If you've been reading my page you know very well I DON'T claim to be a particularly "good" Baha'i - and some regular editors here might very well be "worse" Baha'is than me (never met a bad Catholic or a "non-religious" Jew?) - as if that's got anything to do with anything. Actually this article is by no means an official, authorised one - and many of our sources would not be "approved" at an official level. Like every article in Wikipedia, conscientious editors (of whatever persuasion) simply try to keep it balanced and fair. I apply (I hope) exactly the same standards here as with the many articles in completely unconnected fields (aeroplanes, music) that I edit. the point is that this article isn't (or at least shouldn't be) an invitation to embrace the Faith - but a quick reference, mainly for people with no such intent at all. In this context, current events, like the persecution of Baha'is in various countries, might well be of more immediate interest than anything else, and therefore worthy of more detailed coverage. But honestly, if you're really disturbed, or even swayed, by things like the comparative length of a paragraph or a Middle-Eastern man with a Muslim background looking like, well, a Middle-Eastern man with a Muslim background, then what can I say? Middle-Eastern people with Muslim backgrounds sort of have a bad name nowadays - at least you can't say the article makes any bones about this (and other "inconvenient" facts). Or is this really all about the attitude to "the picture". As I think you probably know, Baha'is "like" Baha'u'llah's picture very much indeed, which is exactly why they don't like it flashed around too freely. This might sound strange, but there again, there it is. Be a dull world if we were all the same. There was a very long discussion about including "the" picture, and a consensus of Wiki editors (most of them NOT Baha'is at all, much less good ones) decided that Wiki should display it, but discreetly, at the bottom of Baha'u'llah's specific article. And there it remains, as I'm sure you know, in spite of most Baha'is being very much opposed to it being there at all.

A bit of advice from someone old enough to be a grandfather to most of the people here, if not you personally. Especially when it comes to politics or religion, being positive about what you like is a lot nicer than becoming obsessed with what you DON'T like.

Now a Wiki talk page should be very specifically about improving the article concerned, and none of this is - so it might be better continued (if at all) on my talk page (or yours, if you have one?) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

And the points to that end about balance of the article content and linking to relevant "main" articles are exactly why things are the way they are and earned "Good article" status - a procedure of wikipedia review for following the highest quality guidelines wikipedia has. --Smkolins (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet, you have just edited this article according to my comment. Thank you! 67.87.50.54 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

and you misconstrue my purpose in doing so. And nesting comments across time interleaved between comments as above and below tends to mix up the points being addresses. --Smkolins (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet you do the same here How funny you are! :) 67.87.50.54 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC) & please do tell us your purpose then (lol)

& Did i upset anyone with my comments above? I think Boby is cool. I like his dress in fact.67.87.50.54 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsupported reference to "Baha'ism" as being a pejorative word

There may be an offical name in English, "the Baha'i Faith", for the religion we're discussing, but I don't see how this makes "Baha'ism" pejorative. It's a natural tendency in English to use the Greek "-ism" marker for this kind of word, along the lines of "Judaism", "Buddhism" or "Sikhism". In fact Christianity in Greek has always been and is now "Christianismos". It's in the English language that the Latin ending is used. Also worth noting is that the Baha'i Faith in Arabic (as noted in the article) is "Baha'iyya", just as Judaism in Arabic is "Yahudiyya", there being (as in the Greek instance) no such derivational schism in that language. Furthermore, the two references given say nothing about "Baha'ism" being pejorative (The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion, xiii. Footnote 1 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=IZmkG1ASirgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ).--122.148.242.169 (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The references are meant to refer, I think, to the fact that "Baha'i Faith" is the official term in English, just as "Christianity" is the "official" English term for that religion (certainly the only one in normal, everyday, current use - although such a term as "the Christian Faith" would probably be considered acceptable as a neutral alternative, unless non-Christians with an axe to grind took to using it in a nasty or belittling sense, or Christians, for whatever reason, actually objected). "Baha'ism" simply is (for what reason I remain as much in the dark as you) usually used (in English, anyway) pretty much exclusively by people who do not refer to the Faith at all except in a more or less hostile manner. Every religion has such people, alas, whether or not they use a "special" vocabulary to make their own special points. It is at least good manners (especially in an encyclopedia) to avoid terms in this category. The equivalent that comes to mind most immediately is "Jehovah Witnesses", for the people who call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses". No one not intent on being rude would deliberately leave off the apostrophe s. In almost the same category is the term "Roman Catholic" to refer to people who call themselves "Catholic", this is certainly not neutral nor friendly, even if the users feel they have a right to be considered in some sense "Catholic".

Having said all that, I for one would be perfectly happy if we simply ignored the term "Baha'ism" altogether in this article - or if we mentioned it as simply not being current use among the Baha'is themselves. I seem to remember that this last used to be the case - in fact it may have even been me (perhaps in a foolish moment) that suggested the current wording? Or am I going senile? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm sure that haters of just about anything can be found on the internet, but I have never encountered a pejorative use of "Baha'ism". In fact to say that it's pejorative is so heavily POV that it reads like a paranoid fantasy, and this is what i'm concerned about, that to say such a thing has the effect of detracting from innocent people using the word legitimately (as they would see it). So yes, it would be much friendlier to state that the word isn't in common use amongst Baha'is. Thank you for your comment. --122.148.242.169 (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid my concern for your "innocent people" is minimal, and I just can't see any "paranoid fantasy" - read the section of this article on the (current and continuing!!) persecution of Baha'is and you may see what I mean. The main point of course is that it isn't a current term, any more than "Christism" or "Judaianity" would be, and provided the article says this clearly I would have no objection to a slight rewording. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but i was only concerned with the possibility of maligning anyone who has used "Bahaism" to refer to the "Bahai Faith", without accompanying it with ill intent. Also, i wanted to highlight the point that although prejudicial material may be easy to find on the internet, that is due to the vocality(?) of extremists rather than a indication of popularity, thats not how things work online, and it is not reflective of the real world. --Monsieur Puppy (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification - although pointing out that a term is not used (for whatever reason) hardly "maligns" people who might inadvertently have used it - by the same criterion a dictionary that listed the correct spelling of "acquire" would malign everyone who has at sometime spelled it "aquire". A dictionary or encyclopedia supplies information, hopefully in a way that "maligns" nobody. In fact it would seem to be a very positive thing to supply information that saved someone from making a faux pas (embarrassing mistake), even if they were for a moment mortified that they had made one in the past. It is true, of course, that the "on-line world" is not necessarily a direct reflection of reality. Alas, this does not always mean that reality is better than the web. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)