![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I suggest that either remove bahai from the article which is made in 19 century or just put it in small religions group. -- 76.68.19.254 ( talk) 05:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've contributed a long list of various references to inclusion of the Baha'i Faith being listed among the Abrahamic. Here's a more recent one (a news story about an event held) What is Interfaith? which covered the the Greater Dayton Interfaith Trialogue at Common Ground Interfaith Community Center. Here's a proposal for unified government of Jerusalem suggesting the Baha'is could be included as part of the Abrahamic group of religions (p. 138). Cultures of peace: the hidden side of history By Elise Boulding mentions the Baha'is out of the context of Islam though she also states "... the overview will be confined to the Abrahamic traditions…" on page 18. The torture debate in America ed. by Karen J. Greenberg includes in. Ethnomedicine By Pamela Irene Erickson includes it. Just more bricks on the pile. Smkolins ([[User talk:Smkolins|talk]
The article is titled "Abrahamic Religions", not "The Three Main Abrahamic Religions." If you want an article about "The Three Main Abrahamic Religions", make one. This article is about "Abrahamic Religions", and therefore by default should include all of them.
It's not absurd but it is (almost) certainly a counterfactual. I don't doubt that the term given was in use before the coining of the European terms by Western academics, but without even verifying it I doubt that there is much if any relation between the two. Someone else can look at the given reference and verify that it gives more than chronological support for the assertion. It is after all common sense since the internal narrative of these religions clearly state this figure as the first founder (discounting the lineage from Adam and Noah which in universe everybody living shares) whether actually historical or not. I.e. the first with whom the sole deity (Supreme Deity looks funny if there's only supposed to be one) of this religion interacted with to form the continuous and many branched community of faith in what could possibly be historical time. ATM, my personal belief is that Abraham/Sarah probably is an amalgam of actual historical figure(s) and the names of the Hindu godhead as mentioned in Abraham. Based on current archeology there is no historical basis for events earlier than Exodus at least 600 years later and the evidence there is scant, there really being no historical nation of Israel as distinct from other Cannanite peoples before the time of Solomon. And no monotheistic religion as such until after the Babylonian captivity¹. Lycurgus ( talk) 14:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
¹ Per recent archeology attesting that the Solomonic and later sites had same (multiple) deities as other local peoples.
I can tell it's controversial in this article, but there should be at least some mention of Sikhism even if it's just an explanation of it being considered Dharmic. It shares enough similarities with Abrahamic religions (a few Sikh's I know would even acknowledge Qur'anic/Biblical prophets as being representatives of the One God) that a mention is warranted if only to dispel what may be a common misconception. -- MichiganCharms ( talk) 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Islam does not have a symbol with which it is identified The symbol depicted is the Arabic word for "The God" If a symbol is required for purpose of consistency please replace it with the crescent moon Refer to this link for more details
http://islam.about.com/od/history/a/crescent_moon.htm
Thanks!
sorry for double post!!
One may as truthfully say that the increase in available food has been accompanied by genocide, particularly in Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.
Please add a source. I won't kill it again... but it won't stay.
Let the Hindutva organizations have their say... rather than remove... add whatever you want to say WITH A SOURCE... as you are changing the information over an existing source. - sinneed ( talk) 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
1) NOT Smkolins ( talk) 22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"01:50, September 2, 2009 Afaprof01 (talk | contribs) (71,169 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Soterios11; There are multiple religions that claim this heritage. We've gotten into disputes, and decided to limit this topic to the three major Abrahamic religions. Thanks) "
Where did "we" decide this? In January there was a small discussion, he posted comment in August and he went ahead and stripped the other Abrahamic religions from the article. Until his comment 1 was for removing Bahai, and 3 against. After his comment, chronologically, 2 more comments have been made against removal. There was also an additional comment about not removing Sikhism inbetween separately. And most of his changes were BEFORE his comment in late August. I've looked through the other talk sections and still fail to see consensus about his approach. Indeed Afaprof01 made a SINGLE comment in this entire talk page after he made sweeping changes to the article with his particular vision of it. Smkolins ( talk) 09:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this lively discussion page could be informed by a humble request from an editor unfamiliar with religion, and therefore a member of the audience who would be reading this article to satisfy their curiosity. Could you please direct your attention to rewriting the puzzling quoted statement below?
"There are other religions, not all monotheistic, that recognize, to a greater or lesser degree, the prophets of the Bible, the various Voodoo faiths (a syncretic blend of Christianity and African pagan religions),[12] and Unitarian Universalism.[13]"
I cannot understand this quoted statement. It is too long, too complicated, appears to mix ideas, and I am unsure what question it answers, or how it refers to its previous statements, and the paragraph in which it appears. For example, is recognizing Universalism, a characteristic of an Abrahamic faith? SalineBrain ( talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Afaprof is removing many reliable sources that indicate that other smaller religions are also within the Abrahamic tradition. These are not only not criticisms, but all deserve mention due to the sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 04:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph that was sourced from a PBS article because it was original research. The paragraph stated "Perhaps tainting the Bahá'í religion's claim to being an Abrahamic Religion is extreme Muslim animosity toward Bahá'i", but the source says no such thing. That Muslims don't accept the Baha'i Faith does not lead to the statement above which is unsourced. Note from WP:SYNTH that "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think "Genesis and the Qur'an…" and "Acceptance of some of Judaism's religious obligations found in the Bible as a spiritual devotion to the traditions of Abraham (rather than of Moses) by Christianity (see also Biblical law in Christianity and Judeo-Christian); and by Islam, including those which have parallel accounts in the Qur'an, such as the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses" should be redone. In part they should be merged along the lines of "each scripture refers to the same individuals and stories though often with major or minor distinctions" (though calling this commonality "parallel accounts" seems off I'm now sure what to call it) - some language like that should solve the neutrality marker. Also I'm dubious of the part "traditions of Abraham vs Moses" and "Acceptance of some of Judaism's religious obligations" parts. I don't see a commonality of Christianity and Islam on either account - the point of the commonalities section. But I'm unclear on the kind of language to use to really flesh this out so rather than chop it up I'm asking for discussion and consensus.... Smkolins ( talk) 03:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
from Worship and religious rites we suddenly break off from the parallelism of above all of which are amplifications of the commonalities section and we spin out of control. Additionally Proselytism should also be re-listed under the Commonalities section and then amplified per religion again. Someone? Smkolins ( talk) 05:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that that section is somewhat loaded, although it could be just me reading into it. e.g. should "Christianity without the incarnation of God is meaningless and useless" be somewhat rephrased to something like "The incarnation of God is a core (an essential?) belief of Christianity"? Gmfreak ( talk) 18:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Also see; "quite incompatible", "quite intolerable", "quite insufficient"...? Gmfreak ( talk) 18:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Underneath "The Significance of Abrahamic religions": "Even as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all acknowledge Abraham as an ancestor, members of the three traditions have also tried to claim him as exclusively theirs." Although is a direct quote from the reference, I have yet to see any detail or supporting argument behind this.
References I've seen do not mention the exclusivity of either religion ( http://www.icmga.org/outreach/transcripts/ABRAHAM__THE_FRIEND_OF_GOD.pdf). I think this should be reworded to "each religion beleives Abraham to be a follower of their own respective religion". That is to say, Christians say he was Christian, Muslims say he was Islamic, etc.
10/17/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.154.163 ( talk) 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The list of Abrahamic religions in this article (main three plus those listed under "Smaller Abrahamic religions") does not seem to be in sync with List of religions and spiritual traditions. 86.133.247.170 ( talk) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
Would the Druze faith be considered a separate Abrahamic religion? It is an off-shoot of Islam, but to my knowledge it is not considered Islam. -- 96.245.119.190 ( talk) 04:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The intro misses some points. IMHO Abrahamitic religions are characterized by:
Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 07:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a recent addition, [1] on the following grounds. a) It added the word "Some" to make the statement "Some Christians believe that the God worshiped by the faithful Hebrew people of the pre-Christian era has always revealed himself as he did through Jesus" but it is de rigueur that all Christians believe that Jesus is the conduit/gateway/whatever to God and that the God is the same God as the Hebrew god. It's going to have to have some strong evidence to add the Weasel word "some" to this. b) It added the word "many" to the sentence "Nonetheless many Christians stress that they only believe in one God. To believe in 3 gods would be thought of as heretical. ". Once again it is de facto that Christianity is a monotheistic religion. All Christians believe in one God. If there are a few exceptions then we should list them rather than adding the word "many" to un-POV the text. c) Finally the editor pasted a big long section of text that they cross-posted onto other articles about Joseph Smith Jr which should be added to.... that article (though its not very tidy Wikipedia stuff). I had to add this in talk as the edit summary is too short. Ttiotsw ( talk) 08:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed the section saying "By some measurements, Islam is the fastest growing religion" as this doesn't add anything (see the link). By other counts Christianity is. Mike Young ( talk) 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
"Muslims have a traditional that Muhammed, as a Mecca-region Arab, descends from Abraham's son Ishmael." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Heya theology editors; a heads up from a film editor who just landed here on a wikilink from a movie. Under that section, the opening line says "all three religions", though four are listed (and I think Bahai might be spelled wrong, it's different than rest of the article). I didn't want to fix it myself because it's obvious you guys are in massive improvement to article mode and I'm sure the topic has lots of contention. So I just thought I'd throw it out there. Happy editing. Millahnna (mouse) talk 01:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Jeff3000 reverted my edits today. A small part of my edits were to correct an old, possibly inadvertent, vandalism (removal of a source by replacing it with a badly tagged entry, then further replacing with source needed), and to restore a counterpoint to an unsourced statement (either both should stay or both should go). The remainder of my edits brought the article back in line to a previous consensus that has not since been changed. Jeff left no note explaining his revert, which is against WP policy. I intend to republish my last edit. If Jeff doesn't like it, let him build a new consensus, with invitation of the old participants. Until the new consensus is reached, the old one stands, and the edits should reflect that, Dovid ( talk) 04:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Baha'i is an abrahamic religion i will start off the article Jigglyfidders ( talk) 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
One of the most important common Abrahamic belief is that of Satan, who is not even mentioned in the text. Could someone with sufficient knowledge fix this problem? 83.27.98.1 ( talk) 10:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see some references on early historical accounts of monotheism. Such information is randomly scattered throughout the article. It is almost as if people do not want such a section (its absence was the first thing I noticed). It would be interesting to include a minor timeline of the developments in legitimate early Abrahamic texts (eg: texts that can be effectively dated, not modern texts purported to be from ancient times). I have heard conflicting information regarding the origin of monotheistic religious practices and thought. I have heard that the Jews developed upon the ideas of Zoroastrianism when a large population became slaves and were exposed to it. They took zoroastrianism, added their own ethnic/tribal views, and reshaped it into a more recognizable form of Monotheism. On the other hand, I have heard that it was a pure invention of the Jews. I doubt this, but it has been told to me by "professional" historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.76.141 ( talk) 01:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
baha'i is not an Abrahamic religion. Abrahamic religions were preached by prophets sent by God. Baha'i is a simply someone's religious philosophical views. They weren't "sent" from God like in Islam or inspired by the Holy Ghost like in Christianity. Otherwise, any descendant of Abraham can start a new religion and tell people to pray to God. Ht990332 ( talk) 11:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This source is one of them. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Religion: beyond a concept by Hent de Vries. Per book:
A start, maybe, but IMHO an incomplete def. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I admit there are difficulties including the Baha'i Faith on equal footing with the traditional Abrahamic religions but I'm not sure how to solve them. Argument from tradition is one thing but since the Baha'i Faith is only 200ish years old, and scholarly references to it are few for much of that history, it's somewhat "unfair" to use only tradition as a sufficient reason for minimizing it's presence and distribution through the article. Additionally, while it is clearly small, it's orders of magnitude larger and distributed around the world far wider, than the other smaller religions that have some claim to being Abrahamic. And it's not that much smaller than Judaism. And it seems that overall Judaism is loosing ground against world population growth while the Baha'i Faith has ranked among the fastest growing religions for as long as stats have been gathered on rates of growth.
So again, I think the content of the article related to the Baha'is should be moderated, but not relegated on equal footing with the smallest religions that belong in the article. Certainly any adjustments should be done properly. Smkolins ( talk) 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps its notoriety is itself something that should be in the article - perhaps something like: (redoing below)
Smkolins ( talk) 11:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC) I realized the question arose what to do with that paragraph amidst what was there which got into moving/changing paragraphs so here's a suggested complete redo of that section including updated information for minor Abrahamic religions:
(section division just for Baha'i Faith)
{{main|Bahá'í Faith}}
Though smaller and younger than the well known Abrahamic religions, the Bahá'í Faith is nevertheless significant because of its activities, distribution and numbers. It was profiled in the French language encyclopedia Fils d'Abraham [1]with one volume devoted to the religion. [2] Since its inception the religion has had involvement in socio-economic development [3] by creating schools, agricultural coops, and clinics. More recently Bahá'ís were urged to seek out ways, compatible with the Bahá'í teachings, in which they could become involved in service of the communities in which they lived. [4] The religion is almost entirely contained in a single, organized, hierarchical community, but is recognized as the second-most geographically widespread religion after Christianity. [5] [6] The only countries with no Bahá'ís documented as of 2008 are Vatican City and North Korea. [7] In 1988 it entered Mongolia. [8] Official estimates of the worldwide Bahá'í population come from the Bahá'í World Centre, which has claimed "more than five million Bahá’ís" as early as 1991 [9] The Association of Religion Data Archives (relying mostly on the reviewed [10] content of World Christian Encyclopedia) estimated some 7.6 million in 2005. [11]The Bahá'í Faith has also consistently been placed high in the statistics of growth over these various releases of data from 1970 to 2005. [9] [12] [13] [14]
There are several specific characteristics of the religion which bear on the topic. Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, has claimed a lineage of decent from Abraham through Keturah and Sarah. [15] [16] [17] Additionally Bahá'u'lláh actually did loose a son, Mírzá Mihdí albeit to an accident. [18] However this son asked his life be given up in the cause of the religion and was accepted and his grave and place of death are visited while on pilgrimage at the Monument Gardens. [19]
For a broader review of the religion see:
- God in the Bahá'í Faith
- Progressive revelation
- Manifestations of God
- Bahá'í literature
- Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity
- Bahá'í Faith and gender equality
- Bahá'í Faith by country
(in a distinct section named Smaller Abrahamic Religions)
Several religions often of less than 1 million, down to tens of thousands, members are mentioned occasionally in lists of Abrahamic religions: Samaritans, [20], Yazidi, Druzes, [21] [22] Mandaeism, [23] Manichaean, Rastafari movement [24] and Alawites. [25] Indeed restricting the members of the group to three has been criticized.
Smkolins ( talk) 16:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC) If there are no objections I may get bold and put some version of this in (my latest thinking trims the leading paragraph and might do a one sentence extension next to the list of articles. But I don't want to give the appearance of sudden changes pretending at consensus as has been done in the past by others. Smkolins ( talk) 12:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
If you notice your edit removed all the references that Smkolins spent a significant time collecting, and replaced them with text numbers like [54] that don't point to anything. Even if you're going to move all the content to the end you should fix the references. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
─ AFA Prof01 ( talk) 05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, i noticed Bahai is classified among the smaller religions. I have added the headings in the appropriate parts because Bahai is larger than Mandeism, Druze, Yazidi and other smaller religions. Someone65 ( talk) 18:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that Mormonism classifies as its own religion as it has its own book, and very dstinct teachings from christianity. Should Mormonism have its own section? Someone65 ( talk) 22:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yet again, a well-intentioned editor has added hundreds of words about Bahai, with clear attempt to establish it (incorrectly) as a recognized Abrahamic religion on par with the three that are historically, religiously, and academically recognized for centuries. This is getting quite tiresome!─ AFA Prof01 ( talk) 22:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Smkolins: What would you call "having finished even one (section on the topic of inclusion) yet?" I respectfully point out that there are multiple articles already existing on the Baha'i faith. For example: Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity, Bahá'í Faith by country, Bahá'í Faith and the unity of religion, Bahá'í House of Worship, Bahá'í teachings, Bahá'í calendar, etc. etc. ─ AFA Prof01 ( talk) 04:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Afaprof01, you might take note that every [3], [4], [5], [6] online post of The children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam by F. E. Peters, John L. Esposito also posts the review which includes "Though this update would have been improved by including the fourth Abrahamic faith, the Baha'i religion, it is recommended for academic, religious, and public libraries of all sizes." from a reviewer at the Library Journal. If/when I find the source of that review I'll add it as a reference. Smkolins ( talk) 11:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
OK folks, can we get agreement that the Baha'i Faith deserves to not be treated categorically like the smallest religions? There are *many* refs that mention it vs a few refs at most the mention each of the others, not to mention these other religions are from 10s of thousand to around a million vs over 7 million for Baha'is, and actively growing since systematic stats have been kept, plus available refs detail specific bits of info relevant to the article whereas the other religions are only generally and superficially examined. And to be clear I cut several instances of duplicated information about the religion, cut small sections not necessary to the article as well as trimming back from parallel treatment. Smkolins ( talk) 01:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this topic, but my understanding but this to boil down to whether Bahai is, as it claims, in a historical line following from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and then Bahai. If so, it should be included, if not, then not. But we seem to have the problem of "is this so"?. IMHO, there is. I'd say include it but with a NPOV statement that not all agree it is so and why. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This quote from an earlier comment by Ht990332 was never really refuted or confirmed. It makes valid points that need to be considered: ─ AFA Prof01 ( talk) 19:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Additions in *Bold*; deletions in -italics-; notes afterwards in parentheses
76.121.212.176 ( talk) 04:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe the set of edits I just made won't offend anyone (at least, won't offend them any more than the status quo). I have not meaningfully changed, added, or removed content, with the exception of two non-English references (which are discouraged in EN WP). Even that removal does not affect much, as the two refs were in the "list" ref, which are a long set of bullets, hence, missing two items form a long list should not remove any verifiability.
I corrected several typos, and revised some sentence structure.
But the big edit relates to overall structure of Bahá'í+smaller religions. A lot of the argument about inclusion of Bahá'í is equally appropriate to the other religions. Therefore, I:
Finally, I removed a new section (via revert) that was rambling, bordering on incoherence, about "brahminism" or something like that.
One can quibble about the details of the restructuring, but I think it makes the overall article better organized and more easiliy understood, ESPECIALLY about Bahá'í and the "others." If anyone has issues with it, please discuss before reverting or changing it wholesale. As I said, I don't think there's anything controversial, but on this article, one can never be certain. Dovid ( talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't particularly think these changes are purely non-controversial, though I do see they were thought out. However I'd like to still bring these opinions and acts to a consensus based on as much fact as possible. To that end, I'd like present more information that I think counters these changes.
In 1948 the Bahá'í International Community registered with the UN as an international non-governmental organization (NGO) and in 1970 was granted consultative status (now called "special" consultative status) with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Consultative status with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) followed in 1976, and with the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) in 1989. Working relations with the World Health Organization (WHO) were also established in 1989. Over the years, the Community has worked closely with the UN Environment Program (UNEP), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the UN Development Program (UNDP).* "Bahá'í International Community: History of Active Cooperation with the United Nations". Bahá'í International Community. 2008. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
Perhaps some version of this should be condensed and used in the article - this further distinguishes the prominence of the religion from ethnographic (if that's the right word) Abrahamic religions (if it is the right word then perhaps it would serve to group them in a more sophisticated way than simply saying "smaller" or even "other".)
Towards the end of building consensus I'd like to extend a thanks to participants in the discussion as the more principled the approach to the discussion the greater the facts that have been brought to light. I hope this can portend a better approach to article development that it's had in the past.
--Additionally I'd say "However, it differs from the established Abrahamic faiths in its increasing universalism.…" is a very different change in tone from "Following the pattern of increasing universalism it even extends the same basic respect…" - points made and substantiated in the lead of the article and so not keeping with the spirit of the article. Smkolins ( talk) 00:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Outdenting myself, I'd like to request we agree to back up to this version and discuss. I awaken to see things deteriorate so far that bots have begun to revert changes. Smkolins ( talk) 11:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
1) Arguing about two refs that might still need a basis for inclusion
2) A new edit having nothing to do with my edits that you or anyone could easily add and that I do not dispute
3) A minor wordsmithing of one other sentence
Reversion undid a lot of very small positive tweaks I have done, and a significant restructuring that benefits the article overall. What's the rationale for taking them out? It would require significant effort to put all those positives back into a reverted version. So why do that? Edit in the small changes you want, and levae the other valuable edits in place. There's a difference between merciless and cunterproductive. I can take merciless. I don't understand counterproductive.
Dovid (
talk)
03:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
As for a revert taking away small good changes, I'd like to agree to the major issue(s) and clearly things were being done out of phase with talking. I think several people have said talking is good. So let's talk and then agree rather than prejudging agreement and then getting into changes from there.
Now whether you think this justifies getting a section of it's own, can we at least get rid of the subtext of "POV Vigilantism" and etc. Please note several Baha'is have contributed in recent history explicitly to reduce the over all size of the religion in the article even over the contributions of others. We are being responsible contributors and to keep taking jabs is uncalled for. We have certainly not gone around jabbing fingers at other editors making substantial controversial and unscholarly changes with accusations about what religion they represent.
Smkolins (
talk)
21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Afaprof's latest edits have a number of problems:
Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The picture showing three symbols is wrong. The symbol of Islam isn't Arabic Text; it is the Crescent. Maybe the Crescent can have Arabic Text on itself, but only Arabic Text can't be the symbol of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.245.190.63 ( talk) 11:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The first two symbols are correct, the Star of David in Judaisam and the cross in Christianity, but the third symbol, in Islam is not. The word Allah written in Arabic alphabeth is a great word, however that is not a symbol of Islam during the history. The symbol of Islam is a CRESCENT MOON and that thinks 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. So please change that and put a right symbol. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniensis ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
the article appears to be based on the idea that "there are three Abrahamic religions. We will now give a brief discussion of each, sorted by topic". This is pointless. What this article needs are not "1.Judaism, 2.Christianity, 3.Islam" h3-subsections to every h2-section, it needs a coherent discussion of the commonalities and differences of the three religions for each point. Only when we do this will the article be useful. Summaries of Jewish, Christian and Islamic tradition seen in isolation can just be consulted in the articles linked. The discussion of the common roots and historical split of the religions, on the other hand, will justify the existence of this as a separate topic. The relevant period is that of Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, say AD 100 to AD 700, during which time the three religions emerged. Without a solid understanding of the cultural landscape of Late Antiquity, it is impossible to understand anything about the topic. Listing various random facts on each religion is not helpful. -- dab (𒁳) 12:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This article presently uses both the AD and Common Era notations. Per WP:ERA, only one of the notations should be used in one given article. I understand that the subject of this article is all three Abrahamic religions, so maybe some will feel that Common Era is appropriate, but I prefer to use AD/BC personally. What are some community thoughts on this issue?. — CIS ( talk | stalk) 04:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
Peters
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I suggest that either remove bahai from the article which is made in 19 century or just put it in small religions group. -- 76.68.19.254 ( talk) 05:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've contributed a long list of various references to inclusion of the Baha'i Faith being listed among the Abrahamic. Here's a more recent one (a news story about an event held) What is Interfaith? which covered the the Greater Dayton Interfaith Trialogue at Common Ground Interfaith Community Center. Here's a proposal for unified government of Jerusalem suggesting the Baha'is could be included as part of the Abrahamic group of religions (p. 138). Cultures of peace: the hidden side of history By Elise Boulding mentions the Baha'is out of the context of Islam though she also states "... the overview will be confined to the Abrahamic traditions…" on page 18. The torture debate in America ed. by Karen J. Greenberg includes in. Ethnomedicine By Pamela Irene Erickson includes it. Just more bricks on the pile. Smkolins ([[User talk:Smkolins|talk]
The article is titled "Abrahamic Religions", not "The Three Main Abrahamic Religions." If you want an article about "The Three Main Abrahamic Religions", make one. This article is about "Abrahamic Religions", and therefore by default should include all of them.
It's not absurd but it is (almost) certainly a counterfactual. I don't doubt that the term given was in use before the coining of the European terms by Western academics, but without even verifying it I doubt that there is much if any relation between the two. Someone else can look at the given reference and verify that it gives more than chronological support for the assertion. It is after all common sense since the internal narrative of these religions clearly state this figure as the first founder (discounting the lineage from Adam and Noah which in universe everybody living shares) whether actually historical or not. I.e. the first with whom the sole deity (Supreme Deity looks funny if there's only supposed to be one) of this religion interacted with to form the continuous and many branched community of faith in what could possibly be historical time. ATM, my personal belief is that Abraham/Sarah probably is an amalgam of actual historical figure(s) and the names of the Hindu godhead as mentioned in Abraham. Based on current archeology there is no historical basis for events earlier than Exodus at least 600 years later and the evidence there is scant, there really being no historical nation of Israel as distinct from other Cannanite peoples before the time of Solomon. And no monotheistic religion as such until after the Babylonian captivity¹. Lycurgus ( talk) 14:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
¹ Per recent archeology attesting that the Solomonic and later sites had same (multiple) deities as other local peoples.
I can tell it's controversial in this article, but there should be at least some mention of Sikhism even if it's just an explanation of it being considered Dharmic. It shares enough similarities with Abrahamic religions (a few Sikh's I know would even acknowledge Qur'anic/Biblical prophets as being representatives of the One God) that a mention is warranted if only to dispel what may be a common misconception. -- MichiganCharms ( talk) 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Islam does not have a symbol with which it is identified The symbol depicted is the Arabic word for "The God" If a symbol is required for purpose of consistency please replace it with the crescent moon Refer to this link for more details
http://islam.about.com/od/history/a/crescent_moon.htm
Thanks!
sorry for double post!!
One may as truthfully say that the increase in available food has been accompanied by genocide, particularly in Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.
Please add a source. I won't kill it again... but it won't stay.
Let the Hindutva organizations have their say... rather than remove... add whatever you want to say WITH A SOURCE... as you are changing the information over an existing source. - sinneed ( talk) 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
1) NOT Smkolins ( talk) 22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"01:50, September 2, 2009 Afaprof01 (talk | contribs) (71,169 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Soterios11; There are multiple religions that claim this heritage. We've gotten into disputes, and decided to limit this topic to the three major Abrahamic religions. Thanks) "
Where did "we" decide this? In January there was a small discussion, he posted comment in August and he went ahead and stripped the other Abrahamic religions from the article. Until his comment 1 was for removing Bahai, and 3 against. After his comment, chronologically, 2 more comments have been made against removal. There was also an additional comment about not removing Sikhism inbetween separately. And most of his changes were BEFORE his comment in late August. I've looked through the other talk sections and still fail to see consensus about his approach. Indeed Afaprof01 made a SINGLE comment in this entire talk page after he made sweeping changes to the article with his particular vision of it. Smkolins ( talk) 09:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this lively discussion page could be informed by a humble request from an editor unfamiliar with religion, and therefore a member of the audience who would be reading this article to satisfy their curiosity. Could you please direct your attention to rewriting the puzzling quoted statement below?
"There are other religions, not all monotheistic, that recognize, to a greater or lesser degree, the prophets of the Bible, the various Voodoo faiths (a syncretic blend of Christianity and African pagan religions),[12] and Unitarian Universalism.[13]"
I cannot understand this quoted statement. It is too long, too complicated, appears to mix ideas, and I am unsure what question it answers, or how it refers to its previous statements, and the paragraph in which it appears. For example, is recognizing Universalism, a characteristic of an Abrahamic faith? SalineBrain ( talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Afaprof is removing many reliable sources that indicate that other smaller religions are also within the Abrahamic tradition. These are not only not criticisms, but all deserve mention due to the sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 04:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph that was sourced from a PBS article because it was original research. The paragraph stated "Perhaps tainting the Bahá'í religion's claim to being an Abrahamic Religion is extreme Muslim animosity toward Bahá'i", but the source says no such thing. That Muslims don't accept the Baha'i Faith does not lead to the statement above which is unsourced. Note from WP:SYNTH that "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think "Genesis and the Qur'an…" and "Acceptance of some of Judaism's religious obligations found in the Bible as a spiritual devotion to the traditions of Abraham (rather than of Moses) by Christianity (see also Biblical law in Christianity and Judeo-Christian); and by Islam, including those which have parallel accounts in the Qur'an, such as the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses" should be redone. In part they should be merged along the lines of "each scripture refers to the same individuals and stories though often with major or minor distinctions" (though calling this commonality "parallel accounts" seems off I'm now sure what to call it) - some language like that should solve the neutrality marker. Also I'm dubious of the part "traditions of Abraham vs Moses" and "Acceptance of some of Judaism's religious obligations" parts. I don't see a commonality of Christianity and Islam on either account - the point of the commonalities section. But I'm unclear on the kind of language to use to really flesh this out so rather than chop it up I'm asking for discussion and consensus.... Smkolins ( talk) 03:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
from Worship and religious rites we suddenly break off from the parallelism of above all of which are amplifications of the commonalities section and we spin out of control. Additionally Proselytism should also be re-listed under the Commonalities section and then amplified per religion again. Someone? Smkolins ( talk) 05:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that that section is somewhat loaded, although it could be just me reading into it. e.g. should "Christianity without the incarnation of God is meaningless and useless" be somewhat rephrased to something like "The incarnation of God is a core (an essential?) belief of Christianity"? Gmfreak ( talk) 18:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Also see; "quite incompatible", "quite intolerable", "quite insufficient"...? Gmfreak ( talk) 18:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Underneath "The Significance of Abrahamic religions": "Even as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all acknowledge Abraham as an ancestor, members of the three traditions have also tried to claim him as exclusively theirs." Although is a direct quote from the reference, I have yet to see any detail or supporting argument behind this.
References I've seen do not mention the exclusivity of either religion ( http://www.icmga.org/outreach/transcripts/ABRAHAM__THE_FRIEND_OF_GOD.pdf). I think this should be reworded to "each religion beleives Abraham to be a follower of their own respective religion". That is to say, Christians say he was Christian, Muslims say he was Islamic, etc.
10/17/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.154.163 ( talk) 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The list of Abrahamic religions in this article (main three plus those listed under "Smaller Abrahamic religions") does not seem to be in sync with List of religions and spiritual traditions. 86.133.247.170 ( talk) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
Would the Druze faith be considered a separate Abrahamic religion? It is an off-shoot of Islam, but to my knowledge it is not considered Islam. -- 96.245.119.190 ( talk) 04:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The intro misses some points. IMHO Abrahamitic religions are characterized by:
Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 07:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a recent addition, [1] on the following grounds. a) It added the word "Some" to make the statement "Some Christians believe that the God worshiped by the faithful Hebrew people of the pre-Christian era has always revealed himself as he did through Jesus" but it is de rigueur that all Christians believe that Jesus is the conduit/gateway/whatever to God and that the God is the same God as the Hebrew god. It's going to have to have some strong evidence to add the Weasel word "some" to this. b) It added the word "many" to the sentence "Nonetheless many Christians stress that they only believe in one God. To believe in 3 gods would be thought of as heretical. ". Once again it is de facto that Christianity is a monotheistic religion. All Christians believe in one God. If there are a few exceptions then we should list them rather than adding the word "many" to un-POV the text. c) Finally the editor pasted a big long section of text that they cross-posted onto other articles about Joseph Smith Jr which should be added to.... that article (though its not very tidy Wikipedia stuff). I had to add this in talk as the edit summary is too short. Ttiotsw ( talk) 08:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed the section saying "By some measurements, Islam is the fastest growing religion" as this doesn't add anything (see the link). By other counts Christianity is. Mike Young ( talk) 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
"Muslims have a traditional that Muhammed, as a Mecca-region Arab, descends from Abraham's son Ishmael." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Heya theology editors; a heads up from a film editor who just landed here on a wikilink from a movie. Under that section, the opening line says "all three religions", though four are listed (and I think Bahai might be spelled wrong, it's different than rest of the article). I didn't want to fix it myself because it's obvious you guys are in massive improvement to article mode and I'm sure the topic has lots of contention. So I just thought I'd throw it out there. Happy editing. Millahnna (mouse) talk 01:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Jeff3000 reverted my edits today. A small part of my edits were to correct an old, possibly inadvertent, vandalism (removal of a source by replacing it with a badly tagged entry, then further replacing with source needed), and to restore a counterpoint to an unsourced statement (either both should stay or both should go). The remainder of my edits brought the article back in line to a previous consensus that has not since been changed. Jeff left no note explaining his revert, which is against WP policy. I intend to republish my last edit. If Jeff doesn't like it, let him build a new consensus, with invitation of the old participants. Until the new consensus is reached, the old one stands, and the edits should reflect that, Dovid ( talk) 04:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Baha'i is an abrahamic religion i will start off the article Jigglyfidders ( talk) 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
One of the most important common Abrahamic belief is that of Satan, who is not even mentioned in the text. Could someone with sufficient knowledge fix this problem? 83.27.98.1 ( talk) 10:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see some references on early historical accounts of monotheism. Such information is randomly scattered throughout the article. It is almost as if people do not want such a section (its absence was the first thing I noticed). It would be interesting to include a minor timeline of the developments in legitimate early Abrahamic texts (eg: texts that can be effectively dated, not modern texts purported to be from ancient times). I have heard conflicting information regarding the origin of monotheistic religious practices and thought. I have heard that the Jews developed upon the ideas of Zoroastrianism when a large population became slaves and were exposed to it. They took zoroastrianism, added their own ethnic/tribal views, and reshaped it into a more recognizable form of Monotheism. On the other hand, I have heard that it was a pure invention of the Jews. I doubt this, but it has been told to me by "professional" historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.76.141 ( talk) 01:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
baha'i is not an Abrahamic religion. Abrahamic religions were preached by prophets sent by God. Baha'i is a simply someone's religious philosophical views. They weren't "sent" from God like in Islam or inspired by the Holy Ghost like in Christianity. Otherwise, any descendant of Abraham can start a new religion and tell people to pray to God. Ht990332 ( talk) 11:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This source is one of them. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Religion: beyond a concept by Hent de Vries. Per book:
A start, maybe, but IMHO an incomplete def. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I admit there are difficulties including the Baha'i Faith on equal footing with the traditional Abrahamic religions but I'm not sure how to solve them. Argument from tradition is one thing but since the Baha'i Faith is only 200ish years old, and scholarly references to it are few for much of that history, it's somewhat "unfair" to use only tradition as a sufficient reason for minimizing it's presence and distribution through the article. Additionally, while it is clearly small, it's orders of magnitude larger and distributed around the world far wider, than the other smaller religions that have some claim to being Abrahamic. And it's not that much smaller than Judaism. And it seems that overall Judaism is loosing ground against world population growth while the Baha'i Faith has ranked among the fastest growing religions for as long as stats have been gathered on rates of growth.
So again, I think the content of the article related to the Baha'is should be moderated, but not relegated on equal footing with the smallest religions that belong in the article. Certainly any adjustments should be done properly. Smkolins ( talk) 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps its notoriety is itself something that should be in the article - perhaps something like: (redoing below)
Smkolins ( talk) 11:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC) I realized the question arose what to do with that paragraph amidst what was there which got into moving/changing paragraphs so here's a suggested complete redo of that section including updated information for minor Abrahamic religions:
(section division just for Baha'i Faith)
{{main|Bahá'í Faith}}
Though smaller and younger than the well known Abrahamic religions, the Bahá'í Faith is nevertheless significant because of its activities, distribution and numbers. It was profiled in the French language encyclopedia Fils d'Abraham [1]with one volume devoted to the religion. [2] Since its inception the religion has had involvement in socio-economic development [3] by creating schools, agricultural coops, and clinics. More recently Bahá'ís were urged to seek out ways, compatible with the Bahá'í teachings, in which they could become involved in service of the communities in which they lived. [4] The religion is almost entirely contained in a single, organized, hierarchical community, but is recognized as the second-most geographically widespread religion after Christianity. [5] [6] The only countries with no Bahá'ís documented as of 2008 are Vatican City and North Korea. [7] In 1988 it entered Mongolia. [8] Official estimates of the worldwide Bahá'í population come from the Bahá'í World Centre, which has claimed "more than five million Bahá’ís" as early as 1991 [9] The Association of Religion Data Archives (relying mostly on the reviewed [10] content of World Christian Encyclopedia) estimated some 7.6 million in 2005. [11]The Bahá'í Faith has also consistently been placed high in the statistics of growth over these various releases of data from 1970 to 2005. [9] [12] [13] [14]
There are several specific characteristics of the religion which bear on the topic. Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, has claimed a lineage of decent from Abraham through Keturah and Sarah. [15] [16] [17] Additionally Bahá'u'lláh actually did loose a son, Mírzá Mihdí albeit to an accident. [18] However this son asked his life be given up in the cause of the religion and was accepted and his grave and place of death are visited while on pilgrimage at the Monument Gardens. [19]
For a broader review of the religion see:
- God in the Bahá'í Faith
- Progressive revelation
- Manifestations of God
- Bahá'í literature
- Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity
- Bahá'í Faith and gender equality
- Bahá'í Faith by country
(in a distinct section named Smaller Abrahamic Religions)
Several religions often of less than 1 million, down to tens of thousands, members are mentioned occasionally in lists of Abrahamic religions: Samaritans, [20], Yazidi, Druzes, [21] [22] Mandaeism, [23] Manichaean, Rastafari movement [24] and Alawites. [25] Indeed restricting the members of the group to three has been criticized.
Smkolins ( talk) 16:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC) If there are no objections I may get bold and put some version of this in (my latest thinking trims the leading paragraph and might do a one sentence extension next to the list of articles. But I don't want to give the appearance of sudden changes pretending at consensus as has been done in the past by others. Smkolins ( talk) 12:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
If you notice your edit removed all the references that Smkolins spent a significant time collecting, and replaced them with text numbers like [54] that don't point to anything. Even if you're going to move all the content to the end you should fix the references. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
─ AFA Prof01 ( talk) 05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, i noticed Bahai is classified among the smaller religions. I have added the headings in the appropriate parts because Bahai is larger than Mandeism, Druze, Yazidi and other smaller religions. Someone65 ( talk) 18:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that Mormonism classifies as its own religion as it has its own book, and very dstinct teachings from christianity. Should Mormonism have its own section? Someone65 ( talk) 22:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yet again, a well-intentioned editor has added hundreds of words about Bahai, with clear attempt to establish it (incorrectly) as a recognized Abrahamic religion on par with the three that are historically, religiously, and academically recognized for centuries. This is getting quite tiresome!─ AFA Prof01 ( talk) 22:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Smkolins: What would you call "having finished even one (section on the topic of inclusion) yet?" I respectfully point out that there are multiple articles already existing on the Baha'i faith. For example: Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity, Bahá'í Faith by country, Bahá'í Faith and the unity of religion, Bahá'í House of Worship, Bahá'í teachings, Bahá'í calendar, etc. etc. ─ AFA Prof01 ( talk) 04:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Afaprof01, you might take note that every [3], [4], [5], [6] online post of The children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam by F. E. Peters, John L. Esposito also posts the review which includes "Though this update would have been improved by including the fourth Abrahamic faith, the Baha'i religion, it is recommended for academic, religious, and public libraries of all sizes." from a reviewer at the Library Journal. If/when I find the source of that review I'll add it as a reference. Smkolins ( talk) 11:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
OK folks, can we get agreement that the Baha'i Faith deserves to not be treated categorically like the smallest religions? There are *many* refs that mention it vs a few refs at most the mention each of the others, not to mention these other religions are from 10s of thousand to around a million vs over 7 million for Baha'is, and actively growing since systematic stats have been kept, plus available refs detail specific bits of info relevant to the article whereas the other religions are only generally and superficially examined. And to be clear I cut several instances of duplicated information about the religion, cut small sections not necessary to the article as well as trimming back from parallel treatment. Smkolins ( talk) 01:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this topic, but my understanding but this to boil down to whether Bahai is, as it claims, in a historical line following from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and then Bahai. If so, it should be included, if not, then not. But we seem to have the problem of "is this so"?. IMHO, there is. I'd say include it but with a NPOV statement that not all agree it is so and why. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This quote from an earlier comment by Ht990332 was never really refuted or confirmed. It makes valid points that need to be considered: ─ AFA Prof01 ( talk) 19:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Additions in *Bold*; deletions in -italics-; notes afterwards in parentheses
76.121.212.176 ( talk) 04:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe the set of edits I just made won't offend anyone (at least, won't offend them any more than the status quo). I have not meaningfully changed, added, or removed content, with the exception of two non-English references (which are discouraged in EN WP). Even that removal does not affect much, as the two refs were in the "list" ref, which are a long set of bullets, hence, missing two items form a long list should not remove any verifiability.
I corrected several typos, and revised some sentence structure.
But the big edit relates to overall structure of Bahá'í+smaller religions. A lot of the argument about inclusion of Bahá'í is equally appropriate to the other religions. Therefore, I:
Finally, I removed a new section (via revert) that was rambling, bordering on incoherence, about "brahminism" or something like that.
One can quibble about the details of the restructuring, but I think it makes the overall article better organized and more easiliy understood, ESPECIALLY about Bahá'í and the "others." If anyone has issues with it, please discuss before reverting or changing it wholesale. As I said, I don't think there's anything controversial, but on this article, one can never be certain. Dovid ( talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't particularly think these changes are purely non-controversial, though I do see they were thought out. However I'd like to still bring these opinions and acts to a consensus based on as much fact as possible. To that end, I'd like present more information that I think counters these changes.
In 1948 the Bahá'í International Community registered with the UN as an international non-governmental organization (NGO) and in 1970 was granted consultative status (now called "special" consultative status) with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Consultative status with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) followed in 1976, and with the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) in 1989. Working relations with the World Health Organization (WHO) were also established in 1989. Over the years, the Community has worked closely with the UN Environment Program (UNEP), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the UN Development Program (UNDP).* "Bahá'í International Community: History of Active Cooperation with the United Nations". Bahá'í International Community. 2008. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
Perhaps some version of this should be condensed and used in the article - this further distinguishes the prominence of the religion from ethnographic (if that's the right word) Abrahamic religions (if it is the right word then perhaps it would serve to group them in a more sophisticated way than simply saying "smaller" or even "other".)
Towards the end of building consensus I'd like to extend a thanks to participants in the discussion as the more principled the approach to the discussion the greater the facts that have been brought to light. I hope this can portend a better approach to article development that it's had in the past.
--Additionally I'd say "However, it differs from the established Abrahamic faiths in its increasing universalism.…" is a very different change in tone from "Following the pattern of increasing universalism it even extends the same basic respect…" - points made and substantiated in the lead of the article and so not keeping with the spirit of the article. Smkolins ( talk) 00:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Outdenting myself, I'd like to request we agree to back up to this version and discuss. I awaken to see things deteriorate so far that bots have begun to revert changes. Smkolins ( talk) 11:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
1) Arguing about two refs that might still need a basis for inclusion
2) A new edit having nothing to do with my edits that you or anyone could easily add and that I do not dispute
3) A minor wordsmithing of one other sentence
Reversion undid a lot of very small positive tweaks I have done, and a significant restructuring that benefits the article overall. What's the rationale for taking them out? It would require significant effort to put all those positives back into a reverted version. So why do that? Edit in the small changes you want, and levae the other valuable edits in place. There's a difference between merciless and cunterproductive. I can take merciless. I don't understand counterproductive.
Dovid (
talk)
03:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
As for a revert taking away small good changes, I'd like to agree to the major issue(s) and clearly things were being done out of phase with talking. I think several people have said talking is good. So let's talk and then agree rather than prejudging agreement and then getting into changes from there.
Now whether you think this justifies getting a section of it's own, can we at least get rid of the subtext of "POV Vigilantism" and etc. Please note several Baha'is have contributed in recent history explicitly to reduce the over all size of the religion in the article even over the contributions of others. We are being responsible contributors and to keep taking jabs is uncalled for. We have certainly not gone around jabbing fingers at other editors making substantial controversial and unscholarly changes with accusations about what religion they represent.
Smkolins (
talk)
21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Afaprof's latest edits have a number of problems:
Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The picture showing three symbols is wrong. The symbol of Islam isn't Arabic Text; it is the Crescent. Maybe the Crescent can have Arabic Text on itself, but only Arabic Text can't be the symbol of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.245.190.63 ( talk) 11:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The first two symbols are correct, the Star of David in Judaisam and the cross in Christianity, but the third symbol, in Islam is not. The word Allah written in Arabic alphabeth is a great word, however that is not a symbol of Islam during the history. The symbol of Islam is a CRESCENT MOON and that thinks 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. So please change that and put a right symbol. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniensis ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
the article appears to be based on the idea that "there are three Abrahamic religions. We will now give a brief discussion of each, sorted by topic". This is pointless. What this article needs are not "1.Judaism, 2.Christianity, 3.Islam" h3-subsections to every h2-section, it needs a coherent discussion of the commonalities and differences of the three religions for each point. Only when we do this will the article be useful. Summaries of Jewish, Christian and Islamic tradition seen in isolation can just be consulted in the articles linked. The discussion of the common roots and historical split of the religions, on the other hand, will justify the existence of this as a separate topic. The relevant period is that of Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, say AD 100 to AD 700, during which time the three religions emerged. Without a solid understanding of the cultural landscape of Late Antiquity, it is impossible to understand anything about the topic. Listing various random facts on each religion is not helpful. -- dab (𒁳) 12:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This article presently uses both the AD and Common Era notations. Per WP:ERA, only one of the notations should be used in one given article. I understand that the subject of this article is all three Abrahamic religions, so maybe some will feel that Common Era is appropriate, but I prefer to use AD/BC personally. What are some community thoughts on this issue?. — CIS ( talk | stalk) 04:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
Peters
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).