Talk:Baháʼí Faith

Archives
Archive 1 02/03-08/04	Archive 2 08/04-01/05
Archive 3 01/05-02/05	Archive 4 02/05-06/05
Archive 5 03/05-07/05	Archive 6 07/05-10/05
Archive 7 10/05-11/05	Archive 8 11/05-12/05
Archive 9 12/05-04/06	Archive 10 04/06-7/06
Archive 11 08/06-9/06	Archive 12 07/06-12/06
Archive 13 12/06-02/07	Archive 14 02/07-03/07
Archive 15 03/07-03/08	Archive 16 06/08-??/??
Biographies for discussion of material relating to the history of Baha'i figures
Picture discussion of the display of Baha'u'llah's photograph
Request for comment discussion generated by a RfC of Feb 2005
Off Topic discussions removed per wikipedia policy (Wikipedia is not a discussion board)

His

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

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

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

Bahá'í Faith is on the list of cults

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guyana

The demographics section includes a quote from the World Almanac which claims that Guyana is 7% Bahá'í. I have not been able to find any corroboration of this fact, and both the Guyanese Census [1] and the CIA world factbook [2] seem to contradict the claim. Does anyone have a source which corroborates the World Factbook number? I would hate to have to remove the quote entirely, but if its information is inaccurate I may have to. NoIdeaNick (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's unsettling, I can't seem to find any either. Good investigative work on your part, by the way. Peter Deer (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it's time someone write a whole article on the Baha'i Faith in Guyana.... :-) I'm nearly done with Cameroon and wanted to do a few more in Africa and Asia and then regroup and look at the larger picture and consult on some I think would be more challenging.--Smkolins (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that there are island nations in the Pacific that are closer to 15% Baha'i, so the Guyana statistic is old anyway. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this, which shows Nauru at 9% and Tonga at 6%, and Guyana is down at 2%. But that was in 2000, I think some of those islands have higher percentages now. Some of them have a few thousand people, so the percentage of Baha'is can fluctuate a lot. I don't know where to look for sources though, cause I just remember reading it in some article someplace sometime. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the trouble with censuses too, you have to find which ones are the most recent as well as the most reliable. So adherents.com's appears to be 8 years old, the Guyanese Census PDF 6 years old and the World Factbook doesn't seem to state when its census was taken. Peter Deer (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been plugging away at a Baha'i Faith in Guyana article and it's pretty near done and it addresses this statistical weirdness. Turns out there was a significant exodus in Guyana, and apparently the Baha'is were a disprortionate amount of the exodus. I've not found enough details to really nail this down, but there are some comments

There are 1996 claims of the Bahá'ís population being over 5% of the population.[3] Large migrations,[4] including many of Bahá'ís left Guyana for other places, especially New York and Toronto.[5] The 2002 national census showed about 0.1%, or 500 [6]. However by 2005 the Association of Religion Data Archives estimated there were some 12000 Bahá'ís and recently the national census notes near 2% (15000) are Bahá'ís as well.[7]

Smkolins (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

with all this vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

reactions section

If we're going to have a reactions section I feel it over emphasizes the bulk of the reaction to just Islam. It should note growth of the religion as well as opposition from multiple sources both religious and governmental as well as a kind of current events aspect. The current one seems to isolate, and simplify, all reaction far too narrowly. --Smkolins (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at it again the "citation" is "Lewis (1984) p.21". That doesn't seem to meet any kind of minimum information for a valid situation. There's no link or work cited. Jeff3000 - what do you think?--Smkolins (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The referencing for this particular case is the Harvard Referencing, and the full reference is in the Reference section (and is Lewis, Bernard (1984). The Jews of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691008078.). I think the section should stay, and I don't think much else should be added. Maybe reactions is a bad word for it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the name at least. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Missing Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the recent edit by Modify

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No criticism section?

Where is the criticism section like that of Islam and Christianity? Also, why are Bahai websites used as sources on this article? That's against the Wikipedia policy on self-promotion and conflicts of interest. --07fan (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See discussion above about on the question of appropriateness of criticism articles and what exists already.--Smkolins (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To 07fan, please do not make accusations of bias without significant evidence. Wikipedia policy calls for assuming good faith, and it bears noting that Baha'is are not the only ones who edit the article so it is frankly unfair and prejudicial to blame the lack of a section on 'self promotion.' That being said, if you have neutral and verifiable sources you should be bold and add all pertinent information that improves the article, instead of making unfounded accusations towards all Baha'i editors while not contributing productively to the article. Peter Deer (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight:

1. This article should have a criticism section like Islam and Christianity don't?
2. This article should not refer to Baha'i sources when discussing itself, when Roman Catholic Church points to the Holy See, and WP:SELFPUB says that references to articles about themselves are in-bounds?

Um — No. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

07fan, I don't know the history of the "criticism" sections for the articles on Christianity and Islam and whether there has been a discussion on having one for this article, although it seems likely that there has been one, although there appears to have been a discussion for this article [added later on, modify 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)]. If my memory serves me from an unrelated connection, the idea is to add any relevant alternative viewpoints in an NPOV and a verifiable way to the relevant section rather than combining them into their own section. There may be a guideline or even policy on this point, and if so, it would be helpful here. As for the use of Baha'i sources, I think the point here is that there should be no self-promotion. If both Baha'is and people who are not Baha'i permit the use of Baha'i sources, then I don't think this issue arises. With most Baha'i sources there will be an obvious editorial bias, for Baha'is are eager to promote their view of things. Among these sources are ones that have reliable information and others that are mostly opinion or unverifiable information. The same can certainly be said for non-Baha'i sources, and it falls upon the editors to use reliable sources, whether they are Baha'i or not, and the readers to have a sense of what they are reading. What is to be avoided is a contest in which two or more sides seek to twist the article in a certain direction, for example, by using sources that are clearly polemical. If there are specific guidelines or policies that you are aware of, perhaps you can bring them up. modify 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There already is a link to Bahá'í apologetics so I find no need to have a Criticism section as the article is a bit lengthy.--75.164.127.206 (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is one sided. For example, the article about the religion's attitude to homosexuality should be linked.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The negative attitude towards homosexuality is also to be found at the relevant place in the main article (under Baha'i laws) and IS linked to the article on "Homosexuality and the Baha'i Faith". Also, to be fair, there is no important verifiable fact about the Faith missing (including some, like the homosexuality one, which are either unfashionably conservative, controversial, or otherwise less liable to be popular). The "Baha'i apologetics" section gathers these, and also repeats some other negative criticism that is demonstrably ill-informed. There is obviously a limit on total length for any article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am indifferent to the question of whether or not this article needs a special "criticisms" section--that's just a question of organization. But I think that it certainly needs to describe criticisms of the faith in the main article, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. There is a wealth of good articles out there criticizing the Bahá'í faith from a variety of perspectives. For starters, see [8] or [9]. This article is particularly harsh, comparing it to a panopticon: [10] and exploring the opacity of the central authority of the faith, arguing that the central authority makes a deliberate effort to publicly present the faith as more liberal than it actually is. These are all in peer-reviewed academic journals. Cazort (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think that use of Baha'i source should be avoided. It is clearly not a verifiable source from media or academia. Vapour (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bahai Sects?

The article says the faith is non-sectarian, but I found this http://bahaifaction.sosblog.com/. Is this true? Should unitarian and reformed bahais be included in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.127.206 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The page already states that "Bahá'í divisions have had relatively little success and have failed to attract a sizeable following." and links to Bahá'í divisions which goes over it in detail. The combined population of all of these other groups is less than 0.01% of all Baha'is and thus the Wikipedia policy of undue weight states that extreme minorities do not get included. Regards. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know they were such a small minority.--75.164.127.206 (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that site is particularly dishonest. It implies that there are about a dozen extant, even flourishing, Baha'i organizations. The inconvenient fact left out is than about three-quarters of them are defunct, and the rest have not much more than a few hundred adherents taken collectively. Most have on the order of scores, if not individuals. Rather pitiful actually. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"The founder of Baha’I Faith Mirza Ali Mohammed Shirazi known as Bab, was a disciple of Sayed Kazim Rashti the leader of the Shaikhiya sect." Is when I stopped reading. Wow. Zazaban (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If one were writing an article about the Catholic Church; and someone else pointed out, "Well, you have a renegade priest in South America who went back to the Latin Mass, and he has a couple of hundred ardent followers, and they reject the Pope and have returned to what they believe is true Catholicism," would any essay about Catholicism thereafter have to include reference to this looney priest in order to be deemed fair and complete? Brent Poirier 24.63.162.219 (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus was a "looney" himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.11.214 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are quite a few Independent Catholic Churches (and a rather shoddy wikipedia article on them), and that article and a few related churches are discussed on the main page on Catholicism...a list of such groups can be found here: [11]. Some such groups have attracted media coverage: [12]. But I have not found any reliable sources covering the Bahá'í splinter groups...they seem extremely marginal to me. Cazort (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That there are a large number of substantially populated independent Catholic churches aught not to be compared to the estimates of these splinter groups which have never numbered more than hundreds and probably far less, and note a B article about the entire history of them that has survived much ...close... editing. Smkolins (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge of God

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

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

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

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

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

order

The page is currently ordered this way

1 Beliefs

2 Demographics

3 Teachings

4 History

5 Involvement in society

6 Social practices

7 Persecution

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

1 Beliefs (combine teachings into this)

2 History

3 Demographics

4 Involvement in society

5 Social practices

6 Persecution

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

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

Pronuciation

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

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

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

The clincher is that the Bahai narrator, who discusses the proper pronunciation in the audio reference, uses two-syllable /bəˈhaɪ/ in normal conversation ("we Bahais" at the very beginning of [13] is /wiː bəˈhaɪz/)! If he uses it himself, certainly it is acceptable! kwami (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Baha'i Schools?

I was thinking it should be appropriate for some mention of Baha'i Schools in the main article. They are a significant undertaking of many Baha'i national communities and we've got articles on several. I could imaging a section under Bahá'í Faith#Involvement in society - make a whole section for Socio-economic development projects and Baha'i schools would be the main component - perhaps even a main article and link to it.... Conversely it would be nice to also have more articles on such schools and other SEDs.... SO much to do....Smkolins (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, currently Bahá'í schools are barely mentioned on this page and I think even a little bit more mention would be important. Cazort (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I had been on a program of writing up wiki articles about various schools and have improved many but I've been taken up with a rather larger project for some time now - see Category:Bahá'í Faith by country and begun a very early phase of redoing of Bahá'í Faith by country (while plugging away at current issues like Persecution of Bahá'ís and Iranian presidential election, 2009.) Smkolins (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Interselector

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

---

Response to Jeff3000s comments:

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Plans, Current International Plan and Study Circles sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Comment - Bahá'í/Bábí split

There's a proposal on Talk:Bahá'í/Bábí split to rename that article and your views are requested on that page. Thanks! AndrewRT(Talk) 20:29, 25 January 2009 (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 [14] 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)

Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Nuri - Bahá'u'lláh

Why has the name of Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Nuri been removed from the article? Is not "Bahá'u'lláh" a title meaning "The Glory of Allah"? Rather than using their proper names, should this article instead refer to Jesus as "Christ", and Muhammad as "The Prophet"? IbnRushd (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The name is included in the appropriate subsection (Bahá'í Faith#Bahá'u'lláh), where detail is appropriate, but the lead is not were such detail needs to be included. Wikipedia's policy on naming conventions states that one should a "use the most common name of a person or thing". Baha'u'llah is the most common name used in English, and virtually all reliable sources including Iranica, the Encyclopedia of Islam, Encyclopedia Brittanica use Baha'u'llah for the names of their article, and throughout their articles relating to the Baha'i Faith. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bahá'u'lláh is not a name - it is a title, like "the Christ", or "the Prophet", or "the Buddha". IbnRushd (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the most common name referring to the person in question as defined by third-party reliable sources, and that is what Wikipedia uses based on its policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your response. "Bahá'u'lláh" is a title, not a name. Can you please answer this point? IbnRushd (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A name is "a label for a noun, (human or animal, thing, place, product [as in a brand name] and even an idea or concept), normally used to distinguish one from another." (from the Wikipedia article). Or if you want the definition from dictionary.com it is "a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known." Notice that a name from those definitions is what a person is known as. Virtually all English-language sources label the person in question as Baha'u'llah, and therefore it is used as a name. I haven't made that decision. Encyclopedia Iranica has, the Encyclopedia of Islam has, the Encyclopedia Brittanica has, and so forth; these are not Baha'i sources, but third-party sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Further if I recall correctly several academic sources going back to his own lifetime also refer to him as Baha'u'llah. Smkolins (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It does bear noting that He did not refer to Himself as "Mirza Husayn-Ali Nuri: Baha'u'llah" but rather as "Baha'u'llah" specifically, much as Fátimih Baraghání was titled "Tahirih" and used that as her name. Baha'u'llah would sign or seal His tablets and letters with the name Baha'u'llah, and was known by that as a name. I don't know what difference that makes, but it does fit with other such instances where people have chosen titles as their names (examples: Prince was Prince Rogers Nelson, Gautama Buddha was Siddharta Gautama, and Rumi was Mawlānā Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Balkhī). Particularly in English, Baha'u'llah serves as His most well-known and widely accepted name, if not the one He was given by His mother and father. Peter Deer (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-book created

On User:Wiki-uk/Books/Bahá'í Faith I have created a Wikibook. Let me know your thoughts. My idea is that it's already a bit long (148 pages). Wiki-uk (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

about Bahá'í_Faith#Marriage_and_sexuality

It is my feeling that this is a minor topic, covered initially in the section above, with plenty of room on the daughter page therein connected. Smkolins (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that it would be better on a sub-page, with only a brief mention (say a sentence summarizing it) on the main page. I'm not sure how minor of a topic this is though; that's a subjective call--to a gay rights activist it would not be a minor topic. What I do know is that I have had no trouble finding sources describing this issue, and from many different perspectives. I think it is relevant, also, that religioustolerance.org lists the issue of homosexuality as one of its 3 pages on controversies involving the Bahá'í Faith. This book: [15] dedicates about a page to the issue of homosexuality in the Bahá'í Faith, and could serve as an independent source to some of the material. I'm not sure exactly what the best way to organize the material would be...but I think it belongs somewhere. Cazort (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

which brings us to LGBT issues and the Bahá'í Faith. Also note that structurally the main page for that section talks about marriage perse.Smkolins (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you...I was not aware of that page's existence! But why is there no link to that from the main page? This could be easily remedied. But at any rate, I would agree that the material I added probably belongs there. Cazort (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you mouse over "homosexual" you will see it. The article was recently renamed.Smkolins (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks! I find this to be counterintuitive. The normal practices in wikipedia seem to be to shy away from these sorts of links, see Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#Piped_links) under "intuitiveness". Cazort (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be - I didn't make it that way. Last I recall seeing it was actually linked explicitly. However it is readable as is. I don't think it's an easter-egg, to my reading it's a relevant link without being disruptive to the sentence. Smkolins (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to throw a comparable example from another interest of mine in Wikipedia, I noticed "flat" had a similar style of linking on Dark energy - where it links to Flatness problem. Smkolins (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an easter-egg. I wasted some editors' time and my own time, because I did not locate the LGBT issues and the Bahá'í Faith page...even though I was deliberately looking for it. It's likely other people will do the same thing. If you type "homosexual" in the search box, and all it does is highlight those two occurrences, it's very reasonable to assume that there's nothing else out there, which is exactly what I did. The key here is that: users should not be expected to follow or mouse-over links in order to figure out what they link to...piping? In my opinion is only appropriate for bypassing disambiguation pages. The example you gave on the Dark Energy page highlights the same problem--a text search for "Flatness problem" comes up blank. This makes wikipedia hard to use. Cazort (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cazort, the book you mentioned as a reference is about religion and homosexuality. This is an issue of relevance and context on the main page in a summary style article. If you find several references summarizing the Baha'i Faith, you won't find the issue of homosexuality highlighted to the such an extent. The discouragement of homosexuality is mentioned twice clearly in the article, and linked to the expanded sub-article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I just changed the piped link and added a "see-also", which addresses most of my concerns here. Cazort (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

re-catting some pages

please see Talk:Bahá'í_Faith_by_country#re-catting Smkolins (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorg

The reorg by HajHouse, in my mind, is clearly poorer than the current organization. The current teachings section is about the fundamental social principles of the Baha'i Faith, and the laws do not fit in such a section and fit better within the social practices section which includes other day-to-day parts of Baha'i life, which includes worship. Also the consultation with the UN is not important enough to warrant its own section.

The previous organization was done through consensus, so please reobtain consensus when making such large changes. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the attempt didn't help. I'd prefer a more concise article but I can also see prominent aspects of the religion need some time. Smkolins (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur that the organization is better as is. I can see how some would put laws up with teachings, but this organization seems to fit the relative emphases within the religion better. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Underlying unity of the major world religions

I changed the phrasing of the statement on underlying unity of the major world religions. And then Jeff3000 changed it to something similar to what it was before. Would Jeff (or anyone) like to explain this? The current wording, "Bahá'í teachings emphasise an underlying unity of the major world religions", take as fact that there is an underlying unity there to be emphasised. Obviously, this is what Bahá'í's believe, but we are supposed to be describing what they believe, not assuming it. Yaris678 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous wording was "Bahá'í teachings emphasise the underlying unity of the major world religions" which would make it seem that there is indeed an underlying wording regardless of Baha'i belief. The current wording is "Bahá'í teachings emphasise an underlying unity of the major world religions" which clearly states that it's the Baha'i teachings that believe there is an underlying unity and that is not a fact. Your wording removed the importance of the teaching. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that you changed the wording from the to an. But I still think that wording implies there is a unity there to be emphasised. Perhaps you are confused over the meaning of the word emphasise. Yaris678 (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No I am not confused about the meaning of the word emphasize (it means to stress), because the Baha'i teachings definitely do emphasise (stress) an underlying unity, and that's what the sentence says. Using the word an in no way implies that an underlying unity exists. The subject of the sentence is the Baha'i teachings and the verb is emphasise, and it's exactly like saying Jim emphasizes an underlying unity, which is a belief and not a fact. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't emphasise something which isn't there. We know the belief is there but we don't know that the unity is there. Perhaps we should say "Bahá'í teachings emphasise their belief in the underlying unity of the major world religions." Yaris678 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's already clear that is a belief because it's the teaching of the Baha'i Faith which is clearly the subject of the sentence. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense. We are obviously looking at this in very different ways. I have requested a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Hopefully a third person will be able to explain the misunderstanding. Yaris678 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with Jeff3000's version. If we had to be that nit-picky it would not be a readable article. Prefacing every idea with a disclaimer that it is a belief is not a good idea. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff3000. The word "an" is better since "the" implies that it is a fact that there is an underlying unity of world religions. This may well be the case (I'm Mormon and I hold a similar belief) but using "an" appears to be a more neutral wording. This appears to be more of a linguistic disagreement since it appears that one or more of you may be British or speak British English. Yaris678 uses "emphasise" which is the "British" spelling while Jeff3000 used "emphasize" which is American English. The use of "the" in American English implies that something is a fact as the sentence was previously worded. Maybe "the" doesn't have the same implication in British English but I don't speak British English so I wouldn't be able to safely make that judgment. This may be where your disagreement originates. If that is the case you should decide which one is a compromise and try to be consistent in whether you use British or American English when writing the article. Yaris678 did suggest a compromise that may work: "Bahá'í teachings emphasise their belief in the underlying unity of the major world religions" but this does still imply that there is an "underlying unity of the major world religion." A better compromise may be along the lines of: "Bahá'ís believe that there is an underlying unity among the major world religions." I hope this helps you. Edward Lalone | (Talk)

What about "The Bahá'í belief in an underlying unity among the major world religions receives great emphasis". Makes it clear that this is a specifically Bahá'í belief rather than a generally recognised "fact" while expressing the idea that this belief is emphasi(s/z)ed.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to throw another hat in the ring, but for simplicity's sake, what about saying "Bahá'í teachings emphasize a belief in an underlying unity of the major world religions?" That keeps it simple while not implying that there is indeed such a unity. Does that not work for everyone? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with any of the wordings suggested by Edward Lalone, Soundofmusicals or Amory. On the point about American and British English - Yes, I am British. Yes, I think Jeff3000 is probably American. But I don't think our languages have diverged that much. Your suggestion that "the" implies something exits, whereas "a" does not, doesn't get a mention in Article (grammar). Yaris678 (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm less happy with the suggestion of Edward but perhaps it's because I see the current sentence serving two purposes - one is to note a teaching exists and second is to note it's notoriety within the complex of teachings Bahá'ís have and so it's placement early in the article. The original sentence with "the" or "a" accomplishes both I think whereas the alternatives strip the second purpose completely.Smkolins (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Shall we go with Amory's words then? Yaris678 (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I still prefer the current version because a teaching does not have a belief. Most people here do state the the current version is not ambiguous in the way you are reading it Yaris. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We're getting hung up on WP:NPOV and the language. Laudable that we all want to keep tightly to NPOV, but, in my opinion "Bahá'í teachings emphasise an underlying unity of the major world religions." is problematic. Baha'i teachings don't emphasize "an" underlying unity of religion — it unequivocally declares "the" underlying unity of these. I have a problem with using "an", an indefinite article, when "the", the definite article, is appropriate.

That said, "Bahá'í teachings emphasise the underlying unity of the major world religions." is clearly POV. It is not uncommon to get such into line by using constructs like: "So-and-so believe/teach/hold/assert/claim that ..." etc. This is where Amory's trying to go with: "Bahá'í teachings emphasize a belief in an underlying unity of the major world religions?" That clearly hits NPOV, but I still have a problem with the indefinite article here. (It's a touch wordy for my taste, too.)

I'd like to suggest:

• "The Bahá'í Faith teaches the underlying unity of the major world religions." or possibly,
• "Bahá'ís believe in the underlying unity of the major world religions."

I prefer the first, because this is something explicitly in the faith's teachings rather than a shared belief. These hit the fact clearly in that this "unity' is not taken as indefinite or part of a class, but quite specific and particular. It also hits NPOV by stating that teaching/belief as just that, rather than fact. MARussellPESE (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "The Bahá'í Faith emphasizes the teaching that there is an underlying unity of the major world religions." Smkolins (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Smkolins suggestion is too wordy. I agree with most of what MARussellPESE says. I prefer the second of his suggestions to the first. Who is the faith teaching anyway? Itself? If the second sentence does not emphasise the importance of this belief enough, how about "Central to the Bahá'í Faith is a belief in the underlying unity of the major world religions." Yaris678 (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I like that suggestion.Smkolins (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I have put that in for now. It doesn't have to be the last word on the subject if someone else wants to comment... Yaris678 (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

'Jawohl, quite good. Mille grazie, MARussellPESE (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary.com

The one-line summary of the Baha'i Faith is mentioned as a "religion founded in Iran in 1863 by Husayn ʿAlī (called Bahaullah) teaching the essential worth of all religions, the unity of all races, and the equality of the sexes."[16]. As this is an actual reference, and is concise and accurate, I think we should stick with its language. Whether or not the statement leads the reader into accepting the teachings as truth is trivial. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of anything less trivial - but it is of course totally beside the point in context!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cuñado, In case you didn't get what I was saying in my edit summary. The quote from dictionary.com isn't quite what we are after. It talks about the worth of religions, rather than the unity. It is the belief in the unity that marks out Baha'is. The stuff about races and sexes can be mentioned later in the article - it is not as central as the stuff about religion. Yaris678 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cuñado, Your new version is better, but I still prefer "Central to the Bahá'í Faith is a belief in the underlying unity of the major world religions." I think belief is a better word than doctrine or teaches. Plus my preferred wording states that it is central, something that was discussed above. The stuff about the "oneness" of the human race is a bit vague and irrelevant at this point. Finally, why did you remove references to Krishna and Zoroaster? I've been to a presentation by Baha'is and they definitely mentioned Krishna and I can't see why they would exclude Zoroastrianism. Yaris678 (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I like Cunado's version. Both the oneness and mankind and the oneness of religion are key beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. Plus the lead is no place to have the definitive list of Manifestations of God. I would change doctrine to principles. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would keep doctrine. I think it implies that there is a whole system of beliefs around it. But it's not a big deal. Anybody else? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Jeff3000's points:

• The Baha'i faith is big in India and it comes from Persia, so there is a point to mentioning those both Krishna and Zoroaster.
• The unity of humanity is something nice that lots of people believe in. The unity of religions is intrinsic to Baha'i theology, as is explained by the sentences immediately following the the one under discussion.

Yaris678 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Shall I revert to the other wording then? Or is someone going to address my points? Yaris678 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No you should not revert. As I mentioned above both the unity of humanity and the unity of religion are key beliefs in the Baha'i Faith. Neither is more important the other, and along with the unity of God they form three onenesses. And I believe my point that the lead is no place for the definitive list of Manifestations of God is definitely on point. That list deserves to be in the sub-article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - both are important and need to be in the early section.Smkolins (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address my points - you are just repeating points you have already made. In case I wasn't clear before:

• That the three onenesses are considered to be equally important in the Baha'i faith does not mean they have to be given equal importance in the article. To an outside observer trying to understand the Baha'i faith, the unity of religions is much more important because it leads into the whole manifestation thing.
• I am not claiming that we need to list all manifestations here - just that Zoroaster and Krishna are important in terms of the origins and current distribution of the religion and hence these two should be listed.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not addressing my points and are just repeating yourself as well. Here are some rebuttels to your points below, but you need to read more about the Baha'i Faith and most editors don't agree with you.

• Your point is not true. That you believe the unity of religions is more important to the unity of humanity for the outside observer is your personal opinion, and one that is not shared with other editors. This article is about the Baha'i Faith, what it is, what it believes, etc, etc. To an observer wanting to understand the Baha'i Faith it should know about the main principles that it teaches, and in fact the unity of humanity is described as the "cornerstone" of the Baha'i teachings by both primary and secondary sources.
• While Zoroaster and Krishna are regarded as Manifestations of God they are not discussed in the Baha'i writings in any great detail, and especially for Zoroaster, your point about it being important in terms of the origins and current distribution is just plainly false.

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph and the sentence we're talking about can be seen in two different dictionary entries, each stating the name of Baha'u'llah, year of founding, country of origin, etc. One says the religion is "emphasizing the spiritual unity of all humankind", the other says it teaches "the essential worth of all religions, the unity of all races, and the equality of the sexes." Another entry says, "a religion advocating universal peace and stressing the spiritual unity of humankind". These are about as concise as you can get, and reflect the kind of language that should be in the lead of the article, rather than writing in the points that are important to one of us.

Regarding the prophets, the list would be counterproductive if it was too long. Actually all we need is Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad to get the point across. That represents the vast majority of the world's religious adherents, and anyone who has studied them knows that those are accepting of previous prophets. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell the logic here is that because it's a persian religion that has the largest number of adherents in INdia that more emphasis should be given to the aspects which are important to those groups. While that might be something to take into consideration when teaching about the faith specifically to persons of those religious backgrounds on a personal level, Wikipedia's NPOV policy would indicate that placing undue weight on that particular approach beyond what is actually included in sources would not be appropriate. Frankly, as a Baha'i myself however, I would like to see more information on the subject because I have had a hard time finding sources to research regarding the Hindu and Zoroastrian roots. Peter Deer (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let me take you each in turn.

Jeff3000, Perhaps my clarification wasn't necessary, but you have responded to my points now. Thank you. I agree that some of this is a matter of opinion and I agree that some editors disagree with me. This is why I am discussing it here. Maybe I will persuade you. Maybe you will persuade me.

In response to the substance of your points:

• Are you saying that the three onenesses are more important to the understanding of the Baha'i faith than the concept of manifestations? If that is the case, the three onenesses should be explained properly before the concept of manifestations is introduced. At the minute two of the onenesses are mentioned almost in passing and the other isn't mentioned at all at that point in the article.
• My point about Zoroaster and Krishna is not false. Zoroastrianism and the Baha'i faith are both from Persia. Zoroastrianism was the state religion of Persia for many centuries. The Baha'i faith is big in India, but not as big as Hinduism.

Cunado, Two points about what you have said:

• I think sources such as dictionaries are helpful to verify facts. But we don't have to present facts in the orders that they appear in the source. Nor do we have to use precisely the same wording.
• I am not saying that any fact about the Baha'i faith is more important to me than any other. I am saying that it is helpful to present the belief in unity of religions at this point because it leads nicely into the belief in manifestations.

Peter Deer, I think you are agreeing with me. Thank you. But what were you refering to in your point about NPOV and undue weight?

Regards,

Yaris678 (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, that these things which are not mentioned very explicitly in the writings should not get specific extra emphasis because of the geography of the region, and should instead only be presented to the degree it is actually pertinent to the material and appropriate for the article. In terms of "neutrality" it is specifically not placing extra emphasis on those particular roots just because of the number of Baha'is that are from those regions. Peter Deer (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think I get the nature of the disagreement now. It is a disagreement about which manifestations deserve a mention at that point in the article. I think it should be based on "facts on the ground". i.e. the history and present day of the Baha'i faith. You think it should be based on significance given to the manifestations in Baha'i scripture. Am I right? The thing is, I think you have it the wrong way around about NPOV. Surely the neutral thing to do would be to base of article on reality. Taking the emphasis from scripture is just taking the point of view of the scripture. Yaris678 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Deer has correctly noted that the connection to Zoroaster and Krishna is minor in the scripture compared to the others, and, in addition, the secondary sources also do not emphasize Zoroaster and Krishna, especially in the way that you are alluding. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Baha'is DO consider Zoroaster and Krishna to be Manifestations, but this is based more than anything else on the implication of Them having founded religions regarded as "from God". Neither Person (on Them be peace) has, to my knowledge, specific mention in Baha'i scripture at all. Even if I am wrong here - there is in fact very specific mention, not to mention detailed discussion, of other Biblical and Quranic Personages (including Noah for instance) in The Kitab-i-Iqan - where neither Zoroaster or Krishna is mentioned. A complete list of every Personage believed or suspected by at least some Baha'is to be a Manifestation of God would NOT add anything to the basic argument of the introduction to the article, and would in fact be a major distraction. It would obscure "reality" rather than making it "the basis of the article". To include only a brief selection - and to make this selection from the best-known and most incontrovertible members of the full list is obviously eminently reasonable. We are not discussing the importance of Zoroaster or Krishna per se - especially not their geographical or historical significance, which I'm sure you will see for yourself on reflection is totally irrelevant - at this point in the article, and to the point being made. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of irrelevances being repeated there. For example, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should list all manifestations, so why bring up that red herring again? However, in amongst it all I could see some semblance of a reason to exclude those two at this point – we are sticking to the most incontrovertible manifestations. Or rather, a subset used to illustrate the general concept. I’m not that bothered one way or the other and I only asked why they have been removed. At least now I have a reason I can accept. I can also see some merit in the general point of not listing more things than is necessary at that point in the article.

In that spirit, can I suggest that in the lead we should only list the onenesses that are necessary for the purpose of introducing the concept of manifestations. I know I have said that before, but no one has answered my points on that issue. See my post above of 22:56, 23 October 2009

Yaris678 (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The intro mentions that it emphasizes "the spiritual unity of all humankind", and teaches "the oneness of the entire human race and the basic unity of all religions". The rest of the intro talks about the relationship to other religions. If anything, I would shorten the paragraph about other religions and add a point somewhere about the emphasis on the independent search after truth, which itself is often mentioned as the first and most important doctrine. If the lead only mentions the unity of religions, it would be an inaccurate summary of the Baha'i Faith. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point... given that we have already mentioned "the spiritual unity of all humankind" the bit about "the oneness of the entire human race and the basic unity of all religions" seems superfluous. Perhaps that paragraph should just start with "In the Baha'i faith, religious history is seen to have unfolded through a series of divine messengers..." Yaris678 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but I think the prophets section is getting large compared to the rest. How about moving or restating Shoghi Effendi's summary below as the second paragraph and the lead sentence more list what the Dictionary.com entry is, and move the whole prophet list paragraph down to the Bahá'í_Faith#Religion section. Smkolins (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the lead as it is now. I think the bit about manifestations is the right size, given how important this concept is. Yaris678 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're happy, but I'm not happy. As mentioned multiple times, and sourced by many different secondary sources, the principle of the unity of humanity is just as important, if not more. I'm going to revert. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The unity of humanity is already mentioned in the first paragraph. It doesn't need to be mentioned again in the second paragraph. Yaris678 (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Engagement of the community through projects addressing social problems and priorities

Seems to me there should be a section about this - how about something like this - insert the following in Bahá'í_Faith#Social_practices:

Since it's inception the religion has had involvement in socio-economic development beginning by giving greater freedom to women, promulgating the promotion of female education as a priority concern, and that involvement was given practical expression by creating schools, agricultural coops, and clinics. The religion entered a new phase of activity when a message of the Universal House of Justice dated 20 October 1983 was released. Bahá'ís were urged to seek out ways, compatible with the Bahá'í teachings, in which they could become involved in the social and economic development of the communities in which they lived. World-wide in 1979 there were 129 officially recognized Bahá'í socio-economic development projects. By 1987, the number of officially recognized development projects had increased to 1482.

Though it might need more update info if someone can help. Smkolins (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. My suggestion would be to create a sub-section called 'Socio-economic development', just above or below the section 'United Nations'. What is the source for the 1979 and 1987 statistics? That doesn't become clear to me from the last sentences of the above section. Wiki-uk (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The 1979-87 stat comes from the "3" source.Smkolins (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest taking the section titled "Work" and merge that into some of the above ideas for a new paragraph. Also, the UN section could use some cleanup and has related material. The above paragraph is a little too promotional. Cuñado ☼ - Talk

Is the "too promotional" question about "greater freedom"?? Or simply using the stats? What's the language you are tripping on?Smkolins (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the God section

Does anyone have access to the references used to see if the recent inclusions are harmonious with the sources? Infallible doesn't seem dubious, but "colossal" seems...well, out of place. Does anyone have access to the source material that could verify that for me? Peter Deer (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No hits on the word "colossal" though it could be line wrapped - [17]. However I found a line wrapped word (perspective) and did a search for it and the third hit in this [18] shows the google search should pick up the word colossal if it were linewrapped with a dash. All hits on the word in GPB don't convey the idea here [19] Smkolins (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the book, and neither of those two terms are in the reference. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Iran/Persia

The article for some time has said the religion was founded in 19th century Persia, while Persia linked to the Persian Empire, which divided up the history of the Iranian Plateau in different empires and dynasties. Now Persian Empire links to Achaemenid Empire, which is the kingdom of Cyrus and Darius. All other empires and dynasties have their own articles, so the only applicable link now would be the Qajar dynasty. I think this development is a good thing, because it's only 20th century nationalism that would make people think that there is something eternal about a nation (e.g. Iran) that can be tracked throughout time. I'm changing the link to point to Qajar dynasty, unless someone has a better idea. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is sound reasoning. There are various places where links like this exist and have lead to trouble as people pushed the link bac and forth. I think your link is the most sound. But I wonder if any events Baha'is mention in relation to that time are mentioned in the article even briefly? It wasn't so notable at the time perhaps or perhaps not but perhaps it is also worth noting as something from that time that reaches down to today.Smkolins (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

about Canonical Texts....

I think there should be a section but it should be larger and the Texts & Scriptures of the Bahá'í Faith template box should be in it - not sure I agree with the brief descriptions for the various categories referred to but I think it would settle down with some amplification. But as it is it's too understated. What do others think? Smkolins (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

With all respect to Editor:Desibhagera, the additions re:Zoroastrianism are too extensive and have not been melded into the article. They have been inserted with no editorial attempt to explain to the reader what is the historic relationship to the subject of the article, the Bahai Faith. These additions should be "undone". Their inclusion and present location will mislead the reader and forstall (and perhaps prevent) understanding of the Bahai Faith.--Buster7 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Smkolins (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only are they too extensive, but they really have nothing to do with this article, and should be removed as they are added. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Buster7 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (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 [20] which can return and is distinguished from the Holy Spirit (see [21]). 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)

Bahai Faith and Homosexuality

Recent editing attempts have been put forth regarding marriage and human sexuality. It may be an appropriate time to discuss the topic here before it is brought to the article...

• Marriage and the family are the bedrock of the whole structure of human society as expressed in Baha'i teachings on sexual morality. Baha'i Law is designed to protect and strengthen the divine institution of Marriage. Baha'i Law restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.

Understandably this stance may not fit the recent societal changes that we humans have experienced and have accepted regarding homosexuality. But there is no way around the fact that Bahalluah more than just discouraged it, he condemned it.

--Buster7 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting we change in the article? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

could anyone please make a new article presenting alleged prophecies within baha'i scriptures and texts