This page 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. |
As a way of getting a consensus how about we lay down some facts which we need to put in the article. Feel free to edit this and add your own comments. Once we have a list of things we know to be true that need to go in, all we need to do is put the NPOV padding around it.
Again, try and keep it based on facts. We want both sides of the argument. Wikipedia is neither a judge nor a jury, but is to present the facts. I suggest we leave the paragraph for a few days for people to add comments here until we can build a better paragraph for it. -- Tomhab 14:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to add my comments below
Title: Bahá'í Studies Review process and censorship
The Bahá'í administration impose prepublication censorship called the "Bahá'í Studies Review Process" on all material written by members about the Faith on the topic. All such material must first be scanned by a review committee of the Bahá'í National Spiritual Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published for:
This was a temporary policy introduced many decades ago by Shoghi Effendi, but is still in force. Although Bahá'ís defend this as a way of protecting the young religion from misinformation, some this has led to some Bahá'ís being disillusioned and leaving the Faith citing it restricts their freedom of speech.
The section "Restrictions on freedom in the Bahá'í community" refers to "certain limitations on personal freedom in the Bahá'í community" without being specific. It refers only to prepublication review and inappropriate debate on listservs. These relate to publishing only. Bahá'ís who do not publish--and that is the vastest majority--are not restricted. What we non-publishers have to do is merely practice healthy self-discipline. For example, I try not to make unsubstantiated claims on Wikipedia, but that is not a restriction of my freedom. The "Restrictions on freedom in the Bahá'í community" heading and the first sentance are therefore grossly misleading. I therefore consider that (1) the title should be "Prepublication Restrictions in the Bahá'í Community", (2) that the first sentence should refer only to publishing, and (3) "For example" should be deleted. I altered and tidied up the paragraph earlier but 163.17.101.125 (from Taiwan?) changed it without explanation apart from saying it was 100% correct and that I'm a bigot...well that's a first! The Jargon File defines Bigot as A person who is religiously attached to a particular computer, language, operating system, editor, or other tool..., which I find reassuring to some extent. -- Occamy 19:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do not want to engage in Wiki ping pong with Martin2000 over "Restrictions on Publishing in the Bahá'í Community" section. He wants the title to be "Restrictions on Freedom in the Bahá'í Community" but refers to no personal restrictions except for speaking with Covenant-breakers, and that subject is covered amply in the Laws section lower in the article...In addition to observing religious laws (see below)... Being declared a Covenant-breaker is similar to Cherem in Judaism, Excommunication in Christianity and Takfir in Islamic law, so this is not unique to the Bahá'í Faith such that it needs to be amplified in this section. Therefore, by removing the superfluous Covenant-breaking issue, the only issue being dealt with is pre-publication review and publishing on the internet. These are not restrictions on personal freedom. Also the statement "Such restrictions can be seen as..." is literally POV. The situation is clarified by reference to "Opponents of the Bahá'í administration...." It is for this reason that I am insisting on the unambiguous NPOV "Restrictions on Publishing..." references. Occamy 20:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why Wikipedia is incapable of protecting its readers from fundamentalist Bahá'ís:
Shunning - Menu http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Shunning.htm
Compare "The Bahai Technique" - Slander & Shunning
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
Frederick Glaysher -- 69.244.183.198 21:10, 31 May 2005
Hi - I took out "according to Bahá'í sources" from Abdu'l Baha, and put the ref back behind "Baha'u'llah appointed...". Mirza Muhammad Ali (AB's half brother) did criticize AB's leadership, and tried to usurp his position, but if we are going to talk about this, I think it needs a paragraph in "Covenant and division" after the mention of Subh-i-Azal, not something this oblique. Haven't put this in yet, since the article is long and will need some work on other sections too once we have settled where all the critical comments are going to live in the end. How much about Mirza Muhammad Ali is there at `Abdu'l-Bahá already? PaulHammond 16:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
And why does `Abdu'l-Bahá have a dash in his name? PaulHammond
Here is the text of Baha'u'llah appointing Abdu'l-Baha:
Does it make sense to add the specific texts to the article that pass authority to Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice, i.e. the Covenant? -- Occamy 06:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am somewhat fed up with the dublication of effort both on this page and on the biographical pages. Every addition will only lead to further additions here and on the biographical pages. At the same time we get all the time the warning that the page is too long.
I have therefore conducted a wholesale cull, removed absolutely everything which is worth debating within the biographical sections and hope this will make the article more lightweight, allowing concentration on the doctrinal etc matters. Revert me if you are unhappy, but please do debate it. Refdoc 21:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PaulHammond removed a sentence just now wrt Abdul'Baha removing as covenant breakers large parts of his father's family. This is a matter which - if substantiated is of major inmportance and should not be removed - particularly not without a suitable comment on the talk pages.
I am slowly despairing with this page - it appears that where one hole is not yet stitched up someone comes and tears the next one right next to it. And while my impression has been that while Amir has been largely responsible for a lot of the recent POV edits, unsubstantiated edits and pointless deletes marring this page, a number of other users do not seem to hesitate to take similar measures. Not good! Refdoc 12:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The current photo of the Indian temple shows little more than an outline of an award-winning design. Can someone please replace it with an image that shows users what it really looks like? -- Occamy 17:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I took this picture from a page on Bahai architecture here on Wikipedia. I simply attempted to replace like with like, but the page had plenty of other pictures, plenty nice ones. Have a look and replace. Why does it have to be Delhi? Refdoc 17:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dehli's is the most famous and spectacular Bahá'í temple. Thinking about alternatives, maybe aside from the Shrine of the Bab, I can't think of anything else that would be so closely associated with the Bahá'í Faith in the public mind as the Dehli temple. Occamy 22:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A photo of the Shrine of the Bab would be more meaningful. Meanwhile, this photo of the Indian temple [ [1] is more interesting than the current strange one of red clouds. The copyright section on the source page is blank, so I don't know what would happen about a licence. Occamy 17:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"The majority of Bahá'ís live in the "Thirld World" " actually, the majority of the world population lives in the Third World.... should this be here? - -- Cyprus2k1 08:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As most countries do not register the religious affiliations of their citizens, and as some countries of those who register such data, deny the legality of conversion , e.g. Iran, it would be difficult to find alternative sources of numbers. Under these circumstances numbers provided by a religious body are as reliable as anything else floating about and simply need to be acknowldeged ("acc Bahai sources..."). Refdoc 09:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
yes and yes. Both my opinion and Wikipedia - assertions of facts need to be referenced. assertions of facts can be disputed and alternative assertions can be made with other references - common procedure. "Acc to Bahai sources there are x million worldwide including x thousand in Iran. The Iranian ministry for religious affairs denies this explaining there is anot a single Bahai living in Iran and the religion does not exist in the first palce but is a zionist conspiracy funded by the CIA") Two competing asertions of fact...
no, yes and yes. I proposed it, Various bits of the "cull" were close to achieving consensus/had achieved consensus and I eventually implemented the lot in order to get an impression of how it would look like and how it would go down generally. I wrote a comment on the talk page advising people of my suggestion. And subsequently this did not break any Wikipedia rule but was simply "bold editing". None of the asserted facts were removed as they all form part of other related and linked in pages. Feel free to object to my proposals Refdoc 09:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A cull is a mass slaughter of e.g. a cattle herd in the face of a danger - e.g. an illness or risk of starvation. You kill many to ensure the survival of the herd. And Wholesale cull is the same a bit bigger.... :-)
The need for a "mass cull" in this text obviously was twofold - firstly continously dublication of discussion and secondly frequent messages form the software that the page is too big. So sometrhing had to go tto satsify the software and I do think dublicated stuff is the first to go. Refdoc 09:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Martin2000 suggests that the Bahá'í administration's six million estimate of the number Bahá'ís is too high. It is likely to be broadly correct, and maybe a little conservative. Bear in mind that the number would include Bahá'ís who are no longer active in their local Bahá'í community, which would be the same for statistics on all religious adherents. The following numbers come from [ [3]] and provide an idea of the geographic spread of the worldwide Bahá'í community. I don't know where Britannica sources its data, but it is a start.... According to the 1992 Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year, the Bahá'í Faith had established "significant communities" in more countries and territories than any other religion except for Christianity. They were organized in 205 areas worldwide vs. 254 for Christianity. According to The Bahá'í World, this has since increased to 235 countries and territories, including over 2,100 racial, ethnic and tribal groups. Encyclopædia Britannica Online estimates that they had about 7.4 million members worldwide in mid-2002:
The Bahá'í Faith states that it currently has about 6 million members worldwide, including about 2.5 million adherents in India and 140,000 in the US. Occamy 22:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
yesterdays edit war betwen anonymous, were probably the same user using proxies (my guess)... how ridiculous.. :\ - -- Cyprus2k1 08:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is about Ariadoss's recent edit including details about the international bahai council etc.
Is this really necessary given that we go into it this much detail. Isn't it covered in the Orthodox Bahai Faith page enough? Certainly not trying to discourage Ariadoss - it looks all correct and the more we can add to Wikipedia the better, but if its covered by other passages I'd say the best plan would be to have a small summary of events. -- Tomhab 23:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A basic outline/stub about the International Bahá'í Council is now available. Occamy 10:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What exactly are people protesting against??? This just seems to be pedantic and for the sake of it.
If there is a specific part you don't like revert that one bit. At present we are adding and removing a whole day's worth of small edits (almost all of them negligible to any POV, just including grammar and URL corrections). It's unlogged-in IPs too...
Also the pictures come back now........ -- Tomhab 10:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Due to continuing edit wars I have protected this page. This does not represent any opinion on the situation. violet/riga (t) 19:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually I blocked Martin2000 and his sock puppets for very disruptive activity, including extremely insulting behavior, sock puppetting, block evasion and (as it happened) wildly excessive reverting. His activities are also on the cusp of vandalism, but there is no consensus for that. He is currently unblocked. I will soon remove protection from the three protected Bahai-related articles and this will be his last chance to behave himself before I consider asking for arbitration, which I expect to get, with a revert parole, personal insult parole, and ban from altering the placement of pictures in Bahair-related articles seeming like the most likely remedy. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 11:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(The context of these comments can be found in the /Request for Comment archive. There is also some discussion of the material about Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l Baha's wives in the /Biographies archive.)
(this section has been cut-pasted down to be more easily located)
The neutral observer who entered the discussion made some comments, including moving the section about the wives out, since the information is in the Baha'u'llah page, Martin2000, can you please provide some more reasons why it should be here. If we are in disagreement, maybe we should go to mediation. -- Jeff3000 04:06, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Based on this, i suggest the paragraphs should be removed (they already exist in their relevant articles). what is everybodys else opinion? - -- Cyprus2k1 12:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
About this edit: I largely suspect ths point of adding in "Another example is that Bahais are forbidden from any association with excommunicated members, or else they run the risk of getting excommunicated from the faith themselves" which is slightly incorrect since its collusion with the excommunicated which is banned, and communication is discouraged but after changing that is a bit of a tautology........ Anyway I largely suspect the reason why it was added was so Martin2000 can imply the Bahá'í faith has restrictions on personal freedom not only publishing restrictions. Maybe I've just become cynical from being on the Bahá'í pages too long... -- Tomhab 12:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Check out Bahá'í timeline. Just added it. Feel free to add in new things or expand stuff. Please don't provide lots of detail though - the page is getting pretty long already. Besides thats what other articles are for. -- Tomhab 15:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also just made up Letters of the Living. It seems mostly right. Figured it was about time I built a page for it. -- Tomhab 00:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've added wikilinks to this and the other two new articles to the "See also" section of this protected page. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 07:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Similarly, I've just added a page on Bahá'ís in India on analogy with Islam in India, Jews in India, and Christianity in India. Please look it over and add and emend – and once the page is un-protected, would it be possible to insert a link to Bahá'ís in India from here? Cheers, QuartierLatin1968 03:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We're at 39kb which is double the maximum target size of 20kb Wikipedia:Article_size. This section is for people to discuss what needs to be converted into a new article.
I suggest much of the history, and backing up of the history. Example of the history of the covenant, and chunks from the Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdul-baha pages. Basically most up until (but not including) restrictions on publishing would go under my knife. I'm happy to do much of the work (although I'm sure others will put back in sections they believe were inappropriately removed). Opinions? -- Tomhab 15:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not disagreeing... but I think that controversies like "restrictions on publication" need to be moved down to BELOW beliefs and teachings.
Also, I would cut the "brief timeline" down to 4 to 6 elements... refering to the "non brief" one on a different page. Or, put it in paragrpah form and dump the brief timeline all together. Rick Boatright 02:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Squideshi inserted that the Bahá'í Faith is "syncretic". Its own article states that Syncretism is the attempt to reconcile disparate, even opposing, beliefs and to meld practices of various schools of thought. While the Bahá'í Faith does build on the spiritual values of other faiths, it brings so much new material that it would be misleading to describe it as syncretic. But I am not an expert in these matters and would value the opinions of others. Occamy 19:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Syncretic is about right and would in my eyes well apply. Refdoc 01:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
POV- aye. But mine, so I wrote "in my eyes".:-) No particular preferences whether in or out. Refdoc 02:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have rewritten the sentence and added a source. The source is incidentally Bahai in origin, and disputes the assumption, but it also says that the majority of religious studies text books describe Bahai faith as syncretic - so i think this really covers both angles. I do agree though with Tom etc taht the word should not be in the first line as it is under dispute. Refdoc 12:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it can be safely assumed that many think it is syncretic and others (mostly Bahais) will not agree. To write anything (much) different would be giving in to one POV or another.
Leaving this aside I have edited the sentence before as it appeared as if Krishna Mohammad etc are factually messengers of God rather than in teh eys of Bahais etc. Now it should be clearer that this is actually Bahá'í teaching ratrher than common ground. I hope you see my point Refdoc 15:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Look, the INTRO PARAGRAPH says that many scholars think the Bahá'í Faith is syncretic. I accept that. But see http://bahai-library.com/articles/rg.syncretism.html if you think there is no basis for a DISPUTE on this. In the mean time, Martin has managed YET ANOTHER revert (nitram0020...) and I'm up against 3rr on it. So, I'm logging off, and hopefully by morning, more sane heads will have chimed in here. I _thought_ we had a concensus regarding syncretic. I thought. It's in THE OPENING PARAGRAPH. but to put it in the opening SENTENCE, as a barefaced fact, instead of a DESCRIPTION in the opening sentence is just Martin's anti-Bahá'í bigotry. I've swallowed a lot on these articles to get NPOV. this, tho, is a LITTLE TOO MUCH. I'm going away to cool down for a few hours. Rick Boatright 22:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would search for non-pejorative applications of the word "syncretic" to the Bahá'í Faith, by scholars and others. If none are found, I would leave it out. If any are found, I would write in the main article "In view of . . . some people call the Bahá'í Faith 'syncretic.'" If there are few considerations that go into calling it syncretic, they could be listed within the sentence. If there are many, the sentence could read "In view of the considerations discussed at (link), some people call the Bahá'í Faith 'syncretic.'" JimHabegger 03:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please note that WP:3RR rule applies to everyone, however "good" his/her motives are. Please also note that continous edit warring can lead to page protection, invariably on the "Wrong Version" Refdoc 01:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reverting for "fun" or as a "punishment" is vandalism. It has clearly nothing to do with editing or with conflicts over which edit is the "right" one. Continous use of "Funny" reverts might lead to page protection, invariably on the "wronng version".
Please note that Wikipedia policy regarding Open Proxies is completely clear and has nothing to do with the validity of any edits - Open Proxies are simply not on. TO repeat this: The use of open proxies is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Open Proxies can be banned indefinetely on sight. I have done so with two open proxies and I will do so with all others involved in editing this page. Refdoc 18:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Damn. Why is the page protected? I want to make some changes. Can someone unprotect the page? I am getting impatient with the Bahai censorshipmeisters and the incompetent low-IQ admin who has made a career for himself in Wikipedia by hanging around the Bahai articles where he doesn't even have the slightest qualification on the subject matter. Martin2000 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While we wait for the disputes over the Bahá'í Faith page to settle themselves, can we please change the top photo of the Dehli Temple? It is a poor photo of the building and it seems to have a numbing effect on the brain (mine at least). This temple is probably the most recognisable Bahá'í thing after the shrine of the Bab, and I therefore recommend [ [6]] as a replacement image. The site owner has given his permission (see his message under Temple Photograph section above) and I could not find a more interesting image of the temple on the site. Alternatively we can follow the pattern of most of the religion articles by using the nine-pointed star; but I can't find a suitable image. FYI, here is the list of images on the pages of the major religions.
And while we are at it, can we have something other than the photo of the Book of Laws? Occamy 19:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As it is, the page is protected, Editing is currently impossible. Once this changes... Refdoc 20:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I'm bored and the main page is locked, I thought I'd do a bit of spring cleaning. Taken out a few topics and archived them (bits about the biographies and the vote). A little tidier. Needs a lot more doing, but I'm not that bored. If you're worried about where they've gone they're in the relevant archived bits up top. -- Tomhab 22:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While we have this time out, it's worth listing the main points of dispute to resolve through ths Discussion page. Contributors should be careful to avoid POV, which really is not difficult, whether one is pro- or anti-Bahá'í. Facts that are undisputed--such as "monotheistic"--should be at the top of the article; points that are disputed by scholarly sources and not our POV--such as syncretic--should be at the bottom of the relative sections with a comment highlighting the dispute. Please add to the list of suggested disputes:
Looking through the article's History, it's amazing how much time has been wasted by contributors trying to force major changes without prior consultation via the Discussion page; enough interested people are watching to quickly make changes...but such a waste of time. Conversely, the debate about whether the Bahá'í Faith is syncretic has been constructive and illuminating (vandalism aside). Occamy 08:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Syncretic is disputed, which is why I posted it as disputed. Restrictions re publishing, fine, as long as it's clear that the restrictions are national not universal, that some NSA's do not implement such restrictions, and tmporary. images - I'll put some Bahá'í LOGOs here tonight Rick Boatright 14:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the top image of the article, on second thoughts, the nine-pointed star seems most appropriate. Other pictures could include the grave of Shoghi Effendi by the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh and Division section; Seat of the Universal House of Justice next to Administrative Order section; Indian temple by the Mashriqu'l-Adhkár section (why not rename it the Temples section, as this is the English wikipedia?); the Shrine of Baha'u'llah under Rituals, by text referring to the qiblih; maybe an early LSA in the Administrative Order section; how about one of the Bahá'í co-chair of the Millenium Forum organizing committee for the Involvement in the life of society section, to show the respected role of Bahá'ís among international NGOs? Nothing comes immediately to mind for the Teaching & Laws. Occamy 19:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re. Syncretic, Cole's following quote supports the view that all the major religions are syncretic to some extent, but it is the social (and political) aspects of each that are innovative. If this is a common feature, then it would be inappropriate to single out the Bahá'í Faith as being syncretic without putting the statement in context, i.e. that other religions are too. "...[Baha'u'llah's] writings throughout advocated a syncretic approach to religion and a liberal progressive one to political and social questions." Juan Cole, History Today, Mar90, Vol. 40 Issue 3, [ [7]]
We seem to have a problem.
The one (or two) people most opposed to forming concensus and compromise and getting the page in reaosnable form, are not posting or participating in the discussion.
Martin, in particular simply deletes everything posted to his talk page. and does not comment here.
What do we do NOW? Rick Boatright 06:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nah, these are all faily recent developments. A RFC is probably the best move actually... -- Tomhab 14:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC
Bah, call me skeptical, but I doubt they'll respond to make sure any consensus reached lacks legitimacy (so they can continue to revert to their heart's desire). You'll notice that Martin rarely uses talk pages. -- Tomhab 19:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Martin was banned for 245 hrs and so were several of his commonly used proxies - I guess this put him off somewhat Refdoc 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Aye, sorry, 24hrs. And he is probably lying low.
Refdoc 09:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Eleven days is long enough. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 16:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
69.160.150.226 has deleted whole sections without explanation or justification. After all the sweat and tears that have gone into them, do other users agree that they should be restored and then edited as needed? -- Occamy 17:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be an ongoing revert war related in some way to the one on Bahá'u'lláh. Protecting because it's getting a bit pointless. In the meantime, please discuss edits and I'll perform those that gain consensus. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 12:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let us unprotect this page now. The current way of editing is not really the way it should be done - no offense meant, Tony, all your edits are perfectly innocent. Also if they are editable again Martin2000 will have no "excuse" to abstain form Wikipedia and from making his required comment onto the RfC.
If no objection comes I will unprotect this page this pm (GMT) Refdoc 10:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected now. Let us see what happens... Refdoc 11:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the reference to `Alláh-u-Abhá because it is misleading for the article to state that "Formal and proper method of greeting among Bahá'ís is "`Alláh-u-Abhá", meaning God is Glorious." Persian Bahá'ís often use it as a greeting to other Bahá'ís but many westerners do not. Shoghi Effendi wrote "The Bahá'ís are free to greet each other with Allah-u-Abha when they meet, if they want to, but they should avoid anything which to outsiders, in a western country, might seem like some strange Oriental password." (Directives from the Guardian, p. 3); I have added the emphases in these quotes. In a December 8, 1941 letter written on his behalf: "The term of 'Allah-u-Abha, on the other hand, is a form of Bahá'í greeting...'" (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 266). "The use of "Allah-u-Abha" in the East is, generally speaking, confined to a greeting. It is not said at the end of prayers and the Guardian feels that the less it is used freely in public by the Bahá'ís in the West (before strangers) the better, as it gives a very peculiar impression of us, and makes us seem like some strange Oriental sect." (Shoghi Effendi through his Secretary; Compilations, Principles of Bahai Administration, p. 16). -- Occamy 16:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this information can be placed somewhere else. Is there enough significant information to warrant an article on Allah-u-Abha? Dremo 23:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
would perhaps be better phrased thus:
There is still a small community of Babis / Azalis / Bayanis who obviously read the Báb's writings differently, which makes it a little un-NPOV to phrase a comment on the Báb's dispensation being short as if it were fact, I think. Arvind 23:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I like the change. I had myself thought that that paragraph needed fixing. Dremo 00:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Nima" is normally a man's name... Refdoc 07:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the number of Babis, not only Bahá'í sources state that Babis were few in number; Juan Cole writes: "Later on, in the early twentieth century the few remaining Babis were among the most vociferous proponents of the Constitutional Revolution...." Source: "Millennialism in Modern Iranian History," in Abbas Amanat and Magnus Bernhardsson, eds. Imagining the End: Visions of Apocalypse from the Ancient Middle East to Modern America (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002), pp. 282-311. [10]. The decendents of Subh-i-Azal living in Famagusta are most unlikely to be secret followers of their ancestor who are hiding through taqqiya; the reason for this unlikelyhood is that the Turkish part of Cyprus is generally secular and poses no threat to them. Therefore any new "Bayanis" are unlikely to be directly connected with descendents of the Famagusta exiles. -- Occamy 20:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For those who haven't noticed, I've started up a lot of new articles (see Category:Bahá'í-related stubs). Although not the greatest reason I found out that whilst there were only a handful of Bahá'í stubs there were several hundred Islamic ones and wanted to get more Bahá'í stuff on wikipedia. Ends justifies the means I hope. Anyway, with the aim of making this more of a community project if people would like to read through it and make any edits they feel, go for it. I really should be doing more work though...
Oh just to add. I've started using the terms Bayani where normally I'd use Azali (as they seem to prefer that term) and Subh-i Azal where some might use Mirza Yahya. Any commentry on the decision would be nice. If poss, I'd like to get a set standard to be used across wikipedia as using one then the other gets confusing. -- Tomhab 23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The chronology has been deleted from the article but I think that the article needs a short chronology to provide a sense of perspective to developments in the Bahá'í Faith. This would be in addition to the detailed chronology listed elsewhere. -- Occamy 13:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is VERY misleading to suggest that any Bahá'í is eligible to elect the NSA and UHJ, since Bahá'í voters are prohibited from informing delegates or NSA members of their choice of candidate and do not have any ballots available from which to choose candidates for the NSA or the UHJ. In addition, only a small fraction (less than 1%) of Bahá'ís are eligible to participate in the elections of the NSA or the UHJ, which are either delegates, in the case of NSA elections, or NSA members, in UHJ elections. Delegates and NSA members are also prohibited from informing Bahá'ís who they voted for in the NSA or UHJ elections, so there is no input from the voter and no accountability from the person doing the electing.
Most astute observers and political science scholars would call this a "sham election", as it would not even qualify to be called "representative democracy" since there is a no accountability between the elected representative and the voter and no communication of the desire of the voter to the representative. In other words, if the representative is not capable of representing the will of the voters because of communication restrictions that are part of the election structure, how can you call this democracy?
Bahá'í elections are therefore like electing electors to the Electoral College in the U.S., but without a vote by the people for President. The elector thus has no idea who the voters in her district would prefer as President, and the voter has no idea who the elector voted for!
Avoiding disclosure of sufficient detail of Bahá'í elections as you have done in your section on the Administrative Order of the Bahá'í Faith, gives the reader the impression that "any" Bahá'í is eligible to elect the NSA or the UHJ and that the elections are a "democratic" process. This is a false and misleading impression that any objective and unbiased writer would seek to avoid. -- 24.6.117.96 22:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Reply to Above
You missed the point entirely! The point is not whether individual voters remain anonymous, it is the fact that they have NO VOTE at all! There is NO ballot, and NO NSA or UHJ candidates on any ballot that are used in Bahá'í elections at the "all" Bahá'í stage, and this is NOT made clear in your description of Bahá'í elections. "Wishful thinking" concerning your hope that a delegate or NSA may vote for the best person, let alone the person that would best serve the interests of Bahá'ís, is not the same as VOTING for that person! Your own website defines [2] [11] "representative democracy" as "a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests. This is not possible under the Bahá'í scheme of elections since the interests of Bahá'ís can not be ascertained by the representative because Bahá'ís are unable to communicate their interests based on the structure of the election! -- 67.188.7.127 00:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Reply to Above
The term "democracy" is also misleading because your website defines this as "a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry" [12] According to the authoritative interpretations of Bahá'í law, the ultimate power rest with the UHJ, not the Bahá'í citizenry [13] If the Bahá'í citizenry wanted to alter a law passed by the UHJ, they would be powerless under the Bahá'í election scheme since there would be know way of communicating their dissatisfaction collectively through the election process in order to alter the objectionable law.
I think the most neutral languge which informs the reader of the democratic shortcomings of Bahá'í elections is the term "semi-democratic". The languege below I think best describes this semi-democratic process:
Bahá'í elections are semi-democratic. What this means, is at the lowest level of administration, the Local Spiritual Assembly (LSA), "all" Bahá'ís in that particular locality get to vote once a year for their nine-member LSA.
At the National Spiritual Assembly (NSA) level (the country level), the direct democratic input of Bahá'ís is diminished, in that Bahá'ís are required to vote once a year for "delegates" that in turn vote for the nine-member NSA. The structure of this election is such that no ballot exists for NSA members, only for delegates, so the delegate does not know whom Bahá'ís in her area would prefer as National Spiritual Assembly members. In addition, the Bahá'í voter has know idea whom their delegate voted for because of the secret ballot at the NSA level. It is "hoped" that the delegate voted for the best spiritual person to represent the Bahá'í Faith on the NSA, but the Bahá'í voter has no way of communicating to their delegate who they think is the best spiritual person to represent their interests on the NSA.
The nine-member Universal House of Justice (UHJ) elections are held every five years, and are based on votes of the NSAs around the world. Like the NSA elections, there is no way Bahá'ís can communicate collectively who they believe are the best spiritual people to serve their interests on the UHJ or ascertain who their NSA voted for, as this is also a secret ballot.'' -- 67.188.7.127 01:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for asking me to have a look at this. I must agree, ¨representative democracy¨ it does not seem to be. But ¨sham election¨ or ¨semi-democratic¨ does not apply either. A similar system would be called in German Räterepublik - probably best translated as Councilar-republican system or indeed Soviet system (if there wasn´t the stalinism/leninism association...) It is/has been a valid form of republican government, but due to its obvious ease of abuse nowadays not a very popular one on state level. Many reformed churches are goverened in a similar way though - a local congregation elects its own elders who form the session, one is elected to go to the regional presbyterium, where again some will get selected to attend at national synods/assemblies. Works pretty well if you want a stable system with slow speed of changes and when the majority of the participants are sane and sensible people.... In summary my suggestion is to describe the system but leave all and any (potentially emotive) terms wrt democracy etc out. Hope that helps. Sorry I am not much here in these days. Refdoc 23:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Because of its inclusiveness in recognizing all the above as messengers of God, the Bahá'í Faith is commonly assumed in religious studies textbooks to be syncretic, although this is disputed by other scholars and by the Bahá'ís themselves who feel that the issue is one of perspective and therefore neither significant nor relevant.
I'm troubled by this sentence at the end of the intro. I don't think it's true to say that the Bahá'ís believe that the issue of syncretism is "neither significant nor relevant", as shown by the passion evidenced by Bahá'ís in the discussions here. I think that Bahá'ís don't like the implication in the word "syncretic" that their faith is a man-made philosophy - but I can't think of a three-word phrase that explains that, and I think a digression on what Bahá'ís think about their religion being called "syncretic" is out of place here. I'm going to cut the untrue "therefore", because I think that the Bahá'ís feel it's a matter of perspective is fair enough - but if anyone can come up with a pithy summary of why Bahá'ís don't like being called "syncretic" I'd be pleased to see it! PaulHammond 11:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing a kind of copy edit on the article today - and I came across the point where the article talks about Abdu'l Baha's death, then jumps straight into talking about schisms, covenant-breakers and Guardians before mentioning Shoghi Effendi. I think it read better this way - it goes from Abdu'l baha's death to ABs Will, the appointment of Shoghi Effendi, then him dying without leaving a will, and then all the sections about Bahá'í controversies come in. If anyone disagrees with me - feel free to be bold in your edits! PaulHammond 12:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
It's not clear why the link to Minor Bahá'í divisions has been removed from the article. -- Occamy 20:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
It was red - I assumed the article had been deleted. Apparently, someone just introduced a spelling mistake - I'll have a go at fixing that. PaulHammond 21:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Ah - apparently someone corrected "Bahá'í" (no diacritics) to "Bahá'í", thus destroying the link to the article (the article has no diacritics, and there is no redirect from minor Bahá'í divisions to minor Bahá'í divisions. PaulHammond 21:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a disambig at the start of this article - there are links to other groups if people are interested, references and links to the splits at the appropriate places in the article, and the history of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha etc. is something that is common to the Remeyite groups anyway. Plus it encourages people to put arguments about the different schisms right at the top of the article. So, I've removed it. PaulHammond 12:44, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
It is appropriate to reintroduce vast to the following passage in the Covenant section: "A few Bahá'ís accepted his claim and became known as Remeyites, whilst the vast majority looked towards the creation of the Universal House of Justice..." The emphatic rejection of Mason Remey's claim is described in two letters from the Hands of the Cause in the Holy Land to all the Hands of the Cause (sourced from "Ministry of the Custodians" ISBN 0-85398-350-X [ [14]]), extracts from which are:
This page 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. |
As a way of getting a consensus how about we lay down some facts which we need to put in the article. Feel free to edit this and add your own comments. Once we have a list of things we know to be true that need to go in, all we need to do is put the NPOV padding around it.
Again, try and keep it based on facts. We want both sides of the argument. Wikipedia is neither a judge nor a jury, but is to present the facts. I suggest we leave the paragraph for a few days for people to add comments here until we can build a better paragraph for it. -- Tomhab 14:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to add my comments below
Title: Bahá'í Studies Review process and censorship
The Bahá'í administration impose prepublication censorship called the "Bahá'í Studies Review Process" on all material written by members about the Faith on the topic. All such material must first be scanned by a review committee of the Bahá'í National Spiritual Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published for:
This was a temporary policy introduced many decades ago by Shoghi Effendi, but is still in force. Although Bahá'ís defend this as a way of protecting the young religion from misinformation, some this has led to some Bahá'ís being disillusioned and leaving the Faith citing it restricts their freedom of speech.
The section "Restrictions on freedom in the Bahá'í community" refers to "certain limitations on personal freedom in the Bahá'í community" without being specific. It refers only to prepublication review and inappropriate debate on listservs. These relate to publishing only. Bahá'ís who do not publish--and that is the vastest majority--are not restricted. What we non-publishers have to do is merely practice healthy self-discipline. For example, I try not to make unsubstantiated claims on Wikipedia, but that is not a restriction of my freedom. The "Restrictions on freedom in the Bahá'í community" heading and the first sentance are therefore grossly misleading. I therefore consider that (1) the title should be "Prepublication Restrictions in the Bahá'í Community", (2) that the first sentence should refer only to publishing, and (3) "For example" should be deleted. I altered and tidied up the paragraph earlier but 163.17.101.125 (from Taiwan?) changed it without explanation apart from saying it was 100% correct and that I'm a bigot...well that's a first! The Jargon File defines Bigot as A person who is religiously attached to a particular computer, language, operating system, editor, or other tool..., which I find reassuring to some extent. -- Occamy 19:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do not want to engage in Wiki ping pong with Martin2000 over "Restrictions on Publishing in the Bahá'í Community" section. He wants the title to be "Restrictions on Freedom in the Bahá'í Community" but refers to no personal restrictions except for speaking with Covenant-breakers, and that subject is covered amply in the Laws section lower in the article...In addition to observing religious laws (see below)... Being declared a Covenant-breaker is similar to Cherem in Judaism, Excommunication in Christianity and Takfir in Islamic law, so this is not unique to the Bahá'í Faith such that it needs to be amplified in this section. Therefore, by removing the superfluous Covenant-breaking issue, the only issue being dealt with is pre-publication review and publishing on the internet. These are not restrictions on personal freedom. Also the statement "Such restrictions can be seen as..." is literally POV. The situation is clarified by reference to "Opponents of the Bahá'í administration...." It is for this reason that I am insisting on the unambiguous NPOV "Restrictions on Publishing..." references. Occamy 20:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why Wikipedia is incapable of protecting its readers from fundamentalist Bahá'ís:
Shunning - Menu http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Shunning.htm
Compare "The Bahai Technique" - Slander & Shunning
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
Frederick Glaysher -- 69.244.183.198 21:10, 31 May 2005
Hi - I took out "according to Bahá'í sources" from Abdu'l Baha, and put the ref back behind "Baha'u'llah appointed...". Mirza Muhammad Ali (AB's half brother) did criticize AB's leadership, and tried to usurp his position, but if we are going to talk about this, I think it needs a paragraph in "Covenant and division" after the mention of Subh-i-Azal, not something this oblique. Haven't put this in yet, since the article is long and will need some work on other sections too once we have settled where all the critical comments are going to live in the end. How much about Mirza Muhammad Ali is there at `Abdu'l-Bahá already? PaulHammond 16:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
And why does `Abdu'l-Bahá have a dash in his name? PaulHammond
Here is the text of Baha'u'llah appointing Abdu'l-Baha:
Does it make sense to add the specific texts to the article that pass authority to Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice, i.e. the Covenant? -- Occamy 06:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am somewhat fed up with the dublication of effort both on this page and on the biographical pages. Every addition will only lead to further additions here and on the biographical pages. At the same time we get all the time the warning that the page is too long.
I have therefore conducted a wholesale cull, removed absolutely everything which is worth debating within the biographical sections and hope this will make the article more lightweight, allowing concentration on the doctrinal etc matters. Revert me if you are unhappy, but please do debate it. Refdoc 21:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PaulHammond removed a sentence just now wrt Abdul'Baha removing as covenant breakers large parts of his father's family. This is a matter which - if substantiated is of major inmportance and should not be removed - particularly not without a suitable comment on the talk pages.
I am slowly despairing with this page - it appears that where one hole is not yet stitched up someone comes and tears the next one right next to it. And while my impression has been that while Amir has been largely responsible for a lot of the recent POV edits, unsubstantiated edits and pointless deletes marring this page, a number of other users do not seem to hesitate to take similar measures. Not good! Refdoc 12:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The current photo of the Indian temple shows little more than an outline of an award-winning design. Can someone please replace it with an image that shows users what it really looks like? -- Occamy 17:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I took this picture from a page on Bahai architecture here on Wikipedia. I simply attempted to replace like with like, but the page had plenty of other pictures, plenty nice ones. Have a look and replace. Why does it have to be Delhi? Refdoc 17:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dehli's is the most famous and spectacular Bahá'í temple. Thinking about alternatives, maybe aside from the Shrine of the Bab, I can't think of anything else that would be so closely associated with the Bahá'í Faith in the public mind as the Dehli temple. Occamy 22:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A photo of the Shrine of the Bab would be more meaningful. Meanwhile, this photo of the Indian temple [ [1] is more interesting than the current strange one of red clouds. The copyright section on the source page is blank, so I don't know what would happen about a licence. Occamy 17:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"The majority of Bahá'ís live in the "Thirld World" " actually, the majority of the world population lives in the Third World.... should this be here? - -- Cyprus2k1 08:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As most countries do not register the religious affiliations of their citizens, and as some countries of those who register such data, deny the legality of conversion , e.g. Iran, it would be difficult to find alternative sources of numbers. Under these circumstances numbers provided by a religious body are as reliable as anything else floating about and simply need to be acknowldeged ("acc Bahai sources..."). Refdoc 09:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
yes and yes. Both my opinion and Wikipedia - assertions of facts need to be referenced. assertions of facts can be disputed and alternative assertions can be made with other references - common procedure. "Acc to Bahai sources there are x million worldwide including x thousand in Iran. The Iranian ministry for religious affairs denies this explaining there is anot a single Bahai living in Iran and the religion does not exist in the first palce but is a zionist conspiracy funded by the CIA") Two competing asertions of fact...
no, yes and yes. I proposed it, Various bits of the "cull" were close to achieving consensus/had achieved consensus and I eventually implemented the lot in order to get an impression of how it would look like and how it would go down generally. I wrote a comment on the talk page advising people of my suggestion. And subsequently this did not break any Wikipedia rule but was simply "bold editing". None of the asserted facts were removed as they all form part of other related and linked in pages. Feel free to object to my proposals Refdoc 09:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A cull is a mass slaughter of e.g. a cattle herd in the face of a danger - e.g. an illness or risk of starvation. You kill many to ensure the survival of the herd. And Wholesale cull is the same a bit bigger.... :-)
The need for a "mass cull" in this text obviously was twofold - firstly continously dublication of discussion and secondly frequent messages form the software that the page is too big. So sometrhing had to go tto satsify the software and I do think dublicated stuff is the first to go. Refdoc 09:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Martin2000 suggests that the Bahá'í administration's six million estimate of the number Bahá'ís is too high. It is likely to be broadly correct, and maybe a little conservative. Bear in mind that the number would include Bahá'ís who are no longer active in their local Bahá'í community, which would be the same for statistics on all religious adherents. The following numbers come from [ [3]] and provide an idea of the geographic spread of the worldwide Bahá'í community. I don't know where Britannica sources its data, but it is a start.... According to the 1992 Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year, the Bahá'í Faith had established "significant communities" in more countries and territories than any other religion except for Christianity. They were organized in 205 areas worldwide vs. 254 for Christianity. According to The Bahá'í World, this has since increased to 235 countries and territories, including over 2,100 racial, ethnic and tribal groups. Encyclopædia Britannica Online estimates that they had about 7.4 million members worldwide in mid-2002:
The Bahá'í Faith states that it currently has about 6 million members worldwide, including about 2.5 million adherents in India and 140,000 in the US. Occamy 22:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
yesterdays edit war betwen anonymous, were probably the same user using proxies (my guess)... how ridiculous.. :\ - -- Cyprus2k1 08:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is about Ariadoss's recent edit including details about the international bahai council etc.
Is this really necessary given that we go into it this much detail. Isn't it covered in the Orthodox Bahai Faith page enough? Certainly not trying to discourage Ariadoss - it looks all correct and the more we can add to Wikipedia the better, but if its covered by other passages I'd say the best plan would be to have a small summary of events. -- Tomhab 23:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A basic outline/stub about the International Bahá'í Council is now available. Occamy 10:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What exactly are people protesting against??? This just seems to be pedantic and for the sake of it.
If there is a specific part you don't like revert that one bit. At present we are adding and removing a whole day's worth of small edits (almost all of them negligible to any POV, just including grammar and URL corrections). It's unlogged-in IPs too...
Also the pictures come back now........ -- Tomhab 10:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Due to continuing edit wars I have protected this page. This does not represent any opinion on the situation. violet/riga (t) 19:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually I blocked Martin2000 and his sock puppets for very disruptive activity, including extremely insulting behavior, sock puppetting, block evasion and (as it happened) wildly excessive reverting. His activities are also on the cusp of vandalism, but there is no consensus for that. He is currently unblocked. I will soon remove protection from the three protected Bahai-related articles and this will be his last chance to behave himself before I consider asking for arbitration, which I expect to get, with a revert parole, personal insult parole, and ban from altering the placement of pictures in Bahair-related articles seeming like the most likely remedy. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 11:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(The context of these comments can be found in the /Request for Comment archive. There is also some discussion of the material about Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l Baha's wives in the /Biographies archive.)
(this section has been cut-pasted down to be more easily located)
The neutral observer who entered the discussion made some comments, including moving the section about the wives out, since the information is in the Baha'u'llah page, Martin2000, can you please provide some more reasons why it should be here. If we are in disagreement, maybe we should go to mediation. -- Jeff3000 04:06, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Based on this, i suggest the paragraphs should be removed (they already exist in their relevant articles). what is everybodys else opinion? - -- Cyprus2k1 12:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
About this edit: I largely suspect ths point of adding in "Another example is that Bahais are forbidden from any association with excommunicated members, or else they run the risk of getting excommunicated from the faith themselves" which is slightly incorrect since its collusion with the excommunicated which is banned, and communication is discouraged but after changing that is a bit of a tautology........ Anyway I largely suspect the reason why it was added was so Martin2000 can imply the Bahá'í faith has restrictions on personal freedom not only publishing restrictions. Maybe I've just become cynical from being on the Bahá'í pages too long... -- Tomhab 12:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Check out Bahá'í timeline. Just added it. Feel free to add in new things or expand stuff. Please don't provide lots of detail though - the page is getting pretty long already. Besides thats what other articles are for. -- Tomhab 15:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also just made up Letters of the Living. It seems mostly right. Figured it was about time I built a page for it. -- Tomhab 00:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've added wikilinks to this and the other two new articles to the "See also" section of this protected page. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 07:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Similarly, I've just added a page on Bahá'ís in India on analogy with Islam in India, Jews in India, and Christianity in India. Please look it over and add and emend – and once the page is un-protected, would it be possible to insert a link to Bahá'ís in India from here? Cheers, QuartierLatin1968 03:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We're at 39kb which is double the maximum target size of 20kb Wikipedia:Article_size. This section is for people to discuss what needs to be converted into a new article.
I suggest much of the history, and backing up of the history. Example of the history of the covenant, and chunks from the Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdul-baha pages. Basically most up until (but not including) restrictions on publishing would go under my knife. I'm happy to do much of the work (although I'm sure others will put back in sections they believe were inappropriately removed). Opinions? -- Tomhab 15:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not disagreeing... but I think that controversies like "restrictions on publication" need to be moved down to BELOW beliefs and teachings.
Also, I would cut the "brief timeline" down to 4 to 6 elements... refering to the "non brief" one on a different page. Or, put it in paragrpah form and dump the brief timeline all together. Rick Boatright 02:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Squideshi inserted that the Bahá'í Faith is "syncretic". Its own article states that Syncretism is the attempt to reconcile disparate, even opposing, beliefs and to meld practices of various schools of thought. While the Bahá'í Faith does build on the spiritual values of other faiths, it brings so much new material that it would be misleading to describe it as syncretic. But I am not an expert in these matters and would value the opinions of others. Occamy 19:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Syncretic is about right and would in my eyes well apply. Refdoc 01:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
POV- aye. But mine, so I wrote "in my eyes".:-) No particular preferences whether in or out. Refdoc 02:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have rewritten the sentence and added a source. The source is incidentally Bahai in origin, and disputes the assumption, but it also says that the majority of religious studies text books describe Bahai faith as syncretic - so i think this really covers both angles. I do agree though with Tom etc taht the word should not be in the first line as it is under dispute. Refdoc 12:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it can be safely assumed that many think it is syncretic and others (mostly Bahais) will not agree. To write anything (much) different would be giving in to one POV or another.
Leaving this aside I have edited the sentence before as it appeared as if Krishna Mohammad etc are factually messengers of God rather than in teh eys of Bahais etc. Now it should be clearer that this is actually Bahá'í teaching ratrher than common ground. I hope you see my point Refdoc 15:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Look, the INTRO PARAGRAPH says that many scholars think the Bahá'í Faith is syncretic. I accept that. But see http://bahai-library.com/articles/rg.syncretism.html if you think there is no basis for a DISPUTE on this. In the mean time, Martin has managed YET ANOTHER revert (nitram0020...) and I'm up against 3rr on it. So, I'm logging off, and hopefully by morning, more sane heads will have chimed in here. I _thought_ we had a concensus regarding syncretic. I thought. It's in THE OPENING PARAGRAPH. but to put it in the opening SENTENCE, as a barefaced fact, instead of a DESCRIPTION in the opening sentence is just Martin's anti-Bahá'í bigotry. I've swallowed a lot on these articles to get NPOV. this, tho, is a LITTLE TOO MUCH. I'm going away to cool down for a few hours. Rick Boatright 22:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would search for non-pejorative applications of the word "syncretic" to the Bahá'í Faith, by scholars and others. If none are found, I would leave it out. If any are found, I would write in the main article "In view of . . . some people call the Bahá'í Faith 'syncretic.'" If there are few considerations that go into calling it syncretic, they could be listed within the sentence. If there are many, the sentence could read "In view of the considerations discussed at (link), some people call the Bahá'í Faith 'syncretic.'" JimHabegger 03:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please note that WP:3RR rule applies to everyone, however "good" his/her motives are. Please also note that continous edit warring can lead to page protection, invariably on the "Wrong Version" Refdoc 01:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reverting for "fun" or as a "punishment" is vandalism. It has clearly nothing to do with editing or with conflicts over which edit is the "right" one. Continous use of "Funny" reverts might lead to page protection, invariably on the "wronng version".
Please note that Wikipedia policy regarding Open Proxies is completely clear and has nothing to do with the validity of any edits - Open Proxies are simply not on. TO repeat this: The use of open proxies is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Open Proxies can be banned indefinetely on sight. I have done so with two open proxies and I will do so with all others involved in editing this page. Refdoc 18:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Damn. Why is the page protected? I want to make some changes. Can someone unprotect the page? I am getting impatient with the Bahai censorshipmeisters and the incompetent low-IQ admin who has made a career for himself in Wikipedia by hanging around the Bahai articles where he doesn't even have the slightest qualification on the subject matter. Martin2000 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While we wait for the disputes over the Bahá'í Faith page to settle themselves, can we please change the top photo of the Dehli Temple? It is a poor photo of the building and it seems to have a numbing effect on the brain (mine at least). This temple is probably the most recognisable Bahá'í thing after the shrine of the Bab, and I therefore recommend [ [6]] as a replacement image. The site owner has given his permission (see his message under Temple Photograph section above) and I could not find a more interesting image of the temple on the site. Alternatively we can follow the pattern of most of the religion articles by using the nine-pointed star; but I can't find a suitable image. FYI, here is the list of images on the pages of the major religions.
And while we are at it, can we have something other than the photo of the Book of Laws? Occamy 19:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As it is, the page is protected, Editing is currently impossible. Once this changes... Refdoc 20:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I'm bored and the main page is locked, I thought I'd do a bit of spring cleaning. Taken out a few topics and archived them (bits about the biographies and the vote). A little tidier. Needs a lot more doing, but I'm not that bored. If you're worried about where they've gone they're in the relevant archived bits up top. -- Tomhab 22:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While we have this time out, it's worth listing the main points of dispute to resolve through ths Discussion page. Contributors should be careful to avoid POV, which really is not difficult, whether one is pro- or anti-Bahá'í. Facts that are undisputed--such as "monotheistic"--should be at the top of the article; points that are disputed by scholarly sources and not our POV--such as syncretic--should be at the bottom of the relative sections with a comment highlighting the dispute. Please add to the list of suggested disputes:
Looking through the article's History, it's amazing how much time has been wasted by contributors trying to force major changes without prior consultation via the Discussion page; enough interested people are watching to quickly make changes...but such a waste of time. Conversely, the debate about whether the Bahá'í Faith is syncretic has been constructive and illuminating (vandalism aside). Occamy 08:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Syncretic is disputed, which is why I posted it as disputed. Restrictions re publishing, fine, as long as it's clear that the restrictions are national not universal, that some NSA's do not implement such restrictions, and tmporary. images - I'll put some Bahá'í LOGOs here tonight Rick Boatright 14:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the top image of the article, on second thoughts, the nine-pointed star seems most appropriate. Other pictures could include the grave of Shoghi Effendi by the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh and Division section; Seat of the Universal House of Justice next to Administrative Order section; Indian temple by the Mashriqu'l-Adhkár section (why not rename it the Temples section, as this is the English wikipedia?); the Shrine of Baha'u'llah under Rituals, by text referring to the qiblih; maybe an early LSA in the Administrative Order section; how about one of the Bahá'í co-chair of the Millenium Forum organizing committee for the Involvement in the life of society section, to show the respected role of Bahá'ís among international NGOs? Nothing comes immediately to mind for the Teaching & Laws. Occamy 19:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re. Syncretic, Cole's following quote supports the view that all the major religions are syncretic to some extent, but it is the social (and political) aspects of each that are innovative. If this is a common feature, then it would be inappropriate to single out the Bahá'í Faith as being syncretic without putting the statement in context, i.e. that other religions are too. "...[Baha'u'llah's] writings throughout advocated a syncretic approach to religion and a liberal progressive one to political and social questions." Juan Cole, History Today, Mar90, Vol. 40 Issue 3, [ [7]]
We seem to have a problem.
The one (or two) people most opposed to forming concensus and compromise and getting the page in reaosnable form, are not posting or participating in the discussion.
Martin, in particular simply deletes everything posted to his talk page. and does not comment here.
What do we do NOW? Rick Boatright 06:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nah, these are all faily recent developments. A RFC is probably the best move actually... -- Tomhab 14:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC
Bah, call me skeptical, but I doubt they'll respond to make sure any consensus reached lacks legitimacy (so they can continue to revert to their heart's desire). You'll notice that Martin rarely uses talk pages. -- Tomhab 19:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Martin was banned for 245 hrs and so were several of his commonly used proxies - I guess this put him off somewhat Refdoc 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Aye, sorry, 24hrs. And he is probably lying low.
Refdoc 09:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Eleven days is long enough. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 16:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
69.160.150.226 has deleted whole sections without explanation or justification. After all the sweat and tears that have gone into them, do other users agree that they should be restored and then edited as needed? -- Occamy 17:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be an ongoing revert war related in some way to the one on Bahá'u'lláh. Protecting because it's getting a bit pointless. In the meantime, please discuss edits and I'll perform those that gain consensus. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 12:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let us unprotect this page now. The current way of editing is not really the way it should be done - no offense meant, Tony, all your edits are perfectly innocent. Also if they are editable again Martin2000 will have no "excuse" to abstain form Wikipedia and from making his required comment onto the RfC.
If no objection comes I will unprotect this page this pm (GMT) Refdoc 10:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected now. Let us see what happens... Refdoc 11:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the reference to `Alláh-u-Abhá because it is misleading for the article to state that "Formal and proper method of greeting among Bahá'ís is "`Alláh-u-Abhá", meaning God is Glorious." Persian Bahá'ís often use it as a greeting to other Bahá'ís but many westerners do not. Shoghi Effendi wrote "The Bahá'ís are free to greet each other with Allah-u-Abha when they meet, if they want to, but they should avoid anything which to outsiders, in a western country, might seem like some strange Oriental password." (Directives from the Guardian, p. 3); I have added the emphases in these quotes. In a December 8, 1941 letter written on his behalf: "The term of 'Allah-u-Abha, on the other hand, is a form of Bahá'í greeting...'" (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 266). "The use of "Allah-u-Abha" in the East is, generally speaking, confined to a greeting. It is not said at the end of prayers and the Guardian feels that the less it is used freely in public by the Bahá'ís in the West (before strangers) the better, as it gives a very peculiar impression of us, and makes us seem like some strange Oriental sect." (Shoghi Effendi through his Secretary; Compilations, Principles of Bahai Administration, p. 16). -- Occamy 16:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this information can be placed somewhere else. Is there enough significant information to warrant an article on Allah-u-Abha? Dremo 23:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
would perhaps be better phrased thus:
There is still a small community of Babis / Azalis / Bayanis who obviously read the Báb's writings differently, which makes it a little un-NPOV to phrase a comment on the Báb's dispensation being short as if it were fact, I think. Arvind 23:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I like the change. I had myself thought that that paragraph needed fixing. Dremo 00:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Nima" is normally a man's name... Refdoc 07:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the number of Babis, not only Bahá'í sources state that Babis were few in number; Juan Cole writes: "Later on, in the early twentieth century the few remaining Babis were among the most vociferous proponents of the Constitutional Revolution...." Source: "Millennialism in Modern Iranian History," in Abbas Amanat and Magnus Bernhardsson, eds. Imagining the End: Visions of Apocalypse from the Ancient Middle East to Modern America (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002), pp. 282-311. [10]. The decendents of Subh-i-Azal living in Famagusta are most unlikely to be secret followers of their ancestor who are hiding through taqqiya; the reason for this unlikelyhood is that the Turkish part of Cyprus is generally secular and poses no threat to them. Therefore any new "Bayanis" are unlikely to be directly connected with descendents of the Famagusta exiles. -- Occamy 20:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For those who haven't noticed, I've started up a lot of new articles (see Category:Bahá'í-related stubs). Although not the greatest reason I found out that whilst there were only a handful of Bahá'í stubs there were several hundred Islamic ones and wanted to get more Bahá'í stuff on wikipedia. Ends justifies the means I hope. Anyway, with the aim of making this more of a community project if people would like to read through it and make any edits they feel, go for it. I really should be doing more work though...
Oh just to add. I've started using the terms Bayani where normally I'd use Azali (as they seem to prefer that term) and Subh-i Azal where some might use Mirza Yahya. Any commentry on the decision would be nice. If poss, I'd like to get a set standard to be used across wikipedia as using one then the other gets confusing. -- Tomhab 23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The chronology has been deleted from the article but I think that the article needs a short chronology to provide a sense of perspective to developments in the Bahá'í Faith. This would be in addition to the detailed chronology listed elsewhere. -- Occamy 13:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is VERY misleading to suggest that any Bahá'í is eligible to elect the NSA and UHJ, since Bahá'í voters are prohibited from informing delegates or NSA members of their choice of candidate and do not have any ballots available from which to choose candidates for the NSA or the UHJ. In addition, only a small fraction (less than 1%) of Bahá'ís are eligible to participate in the elections of the NSA or the UHJ, which are either delegates, in the case of NSA elections, or NSA members, in UHJ elections. Delegates and NSA members are also prohibited from informing Bahá'ís who they voted for in the NSA or UHJ elections, so there is no input from the voter and no accountability from the person doing the electing.
Most astute observers and political science scholars would call this a "sham election", as it would not even qualify to be called "representative democracy" since there is a no accountability between the elected representative and the voter and no communication of the desire of the voter to the representative. In other words, if the representative is not capable of representing the will of the voters because of communication restrictions that are part of the election structure, how can you call this democracy?
Bahá'í elections are therefore like electing electors to the Electoral College in the U.S., but without a vote by the people for President. The elector thus has no idea who the voters in her district would prefer as President, and the voter has no idea who the elector voted for!
Avoiding disclosure of sufficient detail of Bahá'í elections as you have done in your section on the Administrative Order of the Bahá'í Faith, gives the reader the impression that "any" Bahá'í is eligible to elect the NSA or the UHJ and that the elections are a "democratic" process. This is a false and misleading impression that any objective and unbiased writer would seek to avoid. -- 24.6.117.96 22:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Reply to Above
You missed the point entirely! The point is not whether individual voters remain anonymous, it is the fact that they have NO VOTE at all! There is NO ballot, and NO NSA or UHJ candidates on any ballot that are used in Bahá'í elections at the "all" Bahá'í stage, and this is NOT made clear in your description of Bahá'í elections. "Wishful thinking" concerning your hope that a delegate or NSA may vote for the best person, let alone the person that would best serve the interests of Bahá'ís, is not the same as VOTING for that person! Your own website defines [2] [11] "representative democracy" as "a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests. This is not possible under the Bahá'í scheme of elections since the interests of Bahá'ís can not be ascertained by the representative because Bahá'ís are unable to communicate their interests based on the structure of the election! -- 67.188.7.127 00:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Reply to Above
The term "democracy" is also misleading because your website defines this as "a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry" [12] According to the authoritative interpretations of Bahá'í law, the ultimate power rest with the UHJ, not the Bahá'í citizenry [13] If the Bahá'í citizenry wanted to alter a law passed by the UHJ, they would be powerless under the Bahá'í election scheme since there would be know way of communicating their dissatisfaction collectively through the election process in order to alter the objectionable law.
I think the most neutral languge which informs the reader of the democratic shortcomings of Bahá'í elections is the term "semi-democratic". The languege below I think best describes this semi-democratic process:
Bahá'í elections are semi-democratic. What this means, is at the lowest level of administration, the Local Spiritual Assembly (LSA), "all" Bahá'ís in that particular locality get to vote once a year for their nine-member LSA.
At the National Spiritual Assembly (NSA) level (the country level), the direct democratic input of Bahá'ís is diminished, in that Bahá'ís are required to vote once a year for "delegates" that in turn vote for the nine-member NSA. The structure of this election is such that no ballot exists for NSA members, only for delegates, so the delegate does not know whom Bahá'ís in her area would prefer as National Spiritual Assembly members. In addition, the Bahá'í voter has know idea whom their delegate voted for because of the secret ballot at the NSA level. It is "hoped" that the delegate voted for the best spiritual person to represent the Bahá'í Faith on the NSA, but the Bahá'í voter has no way of communicating to their delegate who they think is the best spiritual person to represent their interests on the NSA.
The nine-member Universal House of Justice (UHJ) elections are held every five years, and are based on votes of the NSAs around the world. Like the NSA elections, there is no way Bahá'ís can communicate collectively who they believe are the best spiritual people to serve their interests on the UHJ or ascertain who their NSA voted for, as this is also a secret ballot.'' -- 67.188.7.127 01:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for asking me to have a look at this. I must agree, ¨representative democracy¨ it does not seem to be. But ¨sham election¨ or ¨semi-democratic¨ does not apply either. A similar system would be called in German Räterepublik - probably best translated as Councilar-republican system or indeed Soviet system (if there wasn´t the stalinism/leninism association...) It is/has been a valid form of republican government, but due to its obvious ease of abuse nowadays not a very popular one on state level. Many reformed churches are goverened in a similar way though - a local congregation elects its own elders who form the session, one is elected to go to the regional presbyterium, where again some will get selected to attend at national synods/assemblies. Works pretty well if you want a stable system with slow speed of changes and when the majority of the participants are sane and sensible people.... In summary my suggestion is to describe the system but leave all and any (potentially emotive) terms wrt democracy etc out. Hope that helps. Sorry I am not much here in these days. Refdoc 23:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Because of its inclusiveness in recognizing all the above as messengers of God, the Bahá'í Faith is commonly assumed in religious studies textbooks to be syncretic, although this is disputed by other scholars and by the Bahá'ís themselves who feel that the issue is one of perspective and therefore neither significant nor relevant.
I'm troubled by this sentence at the end of the intro. I don't think it's true to say that the Bahá'ís believe that the issue of syncretism is "neither significant nor relevant", as shown by the passion evidenced by Bahá'ís in the discussions here. I think that Bahá'ís don't like the implication in the word "syncretic" that their faith is a man-made philosophy - but I can't think of a three-word phrase that explains that, and I think a digression on what Bahá'ís think about their religion being called "syncretic" is out of place here. I'm going to cut the untrue "therefore", because I think that the Bahá'ís feel it's a matter of perspective is fair enough - but if anyone can come up with a pithy summary of why Bahá'ís don't like being called "syncretic" I'd be pleased to see it! PaulHammond 11:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing a kind of copy edit on the article today - and I came across the point where the article talks about Abdu'l Baha's death, then jumps straight into talking about schisms, covenant-breakers and Guardians before mentioning Shoghi Effendi. I think it read better this way - it goes from Abdu'l baha's death to ABs Will, the appointment of Shoghi Effendi, then him dying without leaving a will, and then all the sections about Bahá'í controversies come in. If anyone disagrees with me - feel free to be bold in your edits! PaulHammond 12:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
It's not clear why the link to Minor Bahá'í divisions has been removed from the article. -- Occamy 20:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
It was red - I assumed the article had been deleted. Apparently, someone just introduced a spelling mistake - I'll have a go at fixing that. PaulHammond 21:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Ah - apparently someone corrected "Bahá'í" (no diacritics) to "Bahá'í", thus destroying the link to the article (the article has no diacritics, and there is no redirect from minor Bahá'í divisions to minor Bahá'í divisions. PaulHammond 21:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a disambig at the start of this article - there are links to other groups if people are interested, references and links to the splits at the appropriate places in the article, and the history of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha etc. is something that is common to the Remeyite groups anyway. Plus it encourages people to put arguments about the different schisms right at the top of the article. So, I've removed it. PaulHammond 12:44, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
It is appropriate to reintroduce vast to the following passage in the Covenant section: "A few Bahá'ís accepted his claim and became known as Remeyites, whilst the vast majority looked towards the creation of the Universal House of Justice..." The emphatic rejection of Mason Remey's claim is described in two letters from the Hands of the Cause in the Holy Land to all the Hands of the Cause (sourced from "Ministry of the Custodians" ISBN 0-85398-350-X [ [14]]), extracts from which are: