![]() | 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. |
I was thinking what the best place for the portal link is. In other pages the portal link is near the top, but if just placed in this article it looks weird, since the template is there as well. At the same time, I don't think the bottom of the page is where it should go. I've tried out different things to put the portal link beside the template, but none of them is perfect. The examples that tired are the following:
Idea #1: Seems to be the best, but has a little extra space at the bottom
<table style="float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; text-align:center;"> <tr> <td valign="top">{{portal}}</td> <td>{{Template:Bahá'í}}</td> </tr> </table>
Idea #2: Screws up in small widths, and doesn't work in IE, but works nicely for Firefox
{{Template:Bahá'í}} <div style="position: absolute; right:160px; top:490px;"> {{portal}} </div>
Idea #3: Screws up in small widths, and doesn't work in IE, but works nicely for Firefox
{{Template:Bahá'í}} <div style="position: relative; right:12em; top: -62.2em;"> {{portal}} </div>
Anyone have any ideas, and can you take the above and make them better? -- Jeff3000 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
{{Template:Bahá'í}} <div style="clear:right"> {{portal}} </div>
A very shiny happy version of things the article on answers.com seems more a little more NPOV http://www.answers.com/topic/bah-faith (unsigned comment by User:67.183.93.122)
I have a serious problem the the tone in the second sentence under "Demographics". It begins:
This is not NPOV. This either needs to go, or be re-written properly. The "Cristicism" section seems extremely downplayed juxtaposed with the "Praise" one. I am adding the inappropriate tone flag duely.-- Chèvredansante 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Reverted non-NPOV edits re: commentary. 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason why a virtual encyclopedia for all peoples is using specifically Bāhāī orthography in articles pertaining to the Bahāī Faith? Ought not the Bahāī tendency to use the accute accent be replaced with a macron over applicable vowels (thus: "Bahāī" rather than "Bahá'í", "Bahāullāh" rather than "Bahá'u'lláh") to render pronunciation in a more scholarly manner? Otherwise, the page looks like it was written by Bahāīs rather than being neutral. In recognition of their system of orthography, we can state how they write their words: "The Bahāī (rendered as "Bahá'í" by its adherants) Faith is an emerging global religion founded by Bahāullāh (written as "Bahá'u'lláh" by Bahāīs), a nineteenth-century Persian exile. "Bahāī" is either an adjective referring to this religion, or the term for a follower of Bahāullāh." It would make this more NPOV, IMHO.
Thank you very much for the explanation! Very good reason, then, to keep their system of orthography. I hadn't thought of the Google issue, but it's quite relevant. Again, thanks! Kitabparast 00:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Of all of them, I think there is one that might not constitute plagurism, however it would be debatable.
Is this not so? --→ Chèvredan∫ante talk · contrib 03:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This section is no good. Praise and criticism exist but each of them need actors. Also ones praise is another criticism. View the homosexuality issue in the U.S. So, before we start making value judgment we must discuss the Bahai position on issues in a coherent and neutral manner. That means that a bunch of the criticism section should be broken down and explained as law. Not to be cited from primary Bahai sources which are interpretable I believe but they need to be cited from notable doctrinal sources. The law section shouldn't be a list but an explanatory exposition of law with no value judgment. Bahais could kill children and it should be explained in law before it goes into the spinoff critiques of that practice. If you display Bahai doctrine in a way that represents the faith (does every Bahai agree to the majority laws? If so who dissents?) then the reader will make an informed opinion about the faith. The criticism of certain individuals and groups is less important in defining the faith. What they criticize may be bahai practice but their criticism is not a means to reveal what the practice is. The criticism is a layer added onto the practice since the practice is independent of the criticism. An exposé of notable critics is fine... but not the passive voice unsourced section we have now. The same goes for praise... praise should be incorporated into social outreach of the Bahais or be melded into law if applicable. gren グレン 18:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I see that Baha'is have been standing by and doing nothing while the "criticisms"--section--which we have discussed ad nauseum--is removed again and again. Is this what Baha'i "consultation" is worth? Yes, I realize that Wikipedia encourages revision, but without this, the site is fundamentally unbalanced. As for the criticism that these are "unsourced" or undiscussed, each (except the last, which I will work on) is linked to a place where it is discussed. What makes them "criticisms" instead of "praises"? The fact that they are commonly given as criticisms (and defended by Baha'is). The fact that outsiders would not be able to guess them is, to my mind, an important reason for including them here.
Another thing: in the previous section, somebody wrote that Baha'is are recognized and respected by almost every country in the world, or somesuch. Hogwash.
And another other thing: Would whoever has been adding prominent links to "Baha'i Faith" to other religious sites, please stop? For instance, somebody keeps adding "...and most recently, the Baha'i Faith" to the list of Abrahamic religions in the first paragraph of Christianity. First of all, nobody except Baha'is do that. Neither Christians, Jews, nor Muslims as a group have much interest in your relationship with them. Second, it's only half true. Think about it--according to your theology, Muhammad is the "seal" of the Semitic line of prophets, which Abraham started. The Bab and Baha'u'llah are outside this. Dawud 12:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I yield to you on points of Baha'i theology. I forget that in Baha'i-speak, "consultation" means silencing internal critics, not compromise with external ones. You are right--we are not part of any community which obliges us to respect one another's views. God willing, I will never be "in line with" you people.
In order to be balanced, an article must include significant criticisms. You Baha'is, however, have done everything possible to make criticisms less visible. So yes, I do see you as "torpedoes." You're not interested in accuracy, you're interested in whitewashing your religion. Unfortunately there are more of you right now. It's the nature of the topic, I suppose.
Many of the sources you've been calling "blogs" (having discovered that this is apparently grounds for disqualification of otherwise embarrassing material) are actually articles or letters stored on various personal websites. I can't imagine what you think the problem could be, or what you think a "legitimate" source would look like. Surely the problem couldn't be content...?
Who is this "Gren" and what makes you think his views (which I find nearly unintelligible) deserves special deference? If you think the "criticisms" section is too short, then by all means, let's expand it. The original point of the abbreviated section was to alert people to the existence of more such criticism (with sources etc.) on "Baha'i apologetics". As things stand, a reader of this entry might remain oblivious to the dark side of your religion, or fail to make the connection with "apologetics." I'm sure the prospect fills you with horror. 218.168.241.124 12:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
None of the criticisms that were there before remain on the main page. A couple are linked. Thus, of all the controversies which have historically turned inquirers away from your religion, all that is left is a bare mention of the existence of CB groups (without describing shunning), plus links. While few "seekers" would be attracted to CB sects, many would balk at joining a religion that practiced the policies which were formerly described under "criticisms".
Expulsions, by the way, are different from "divisions" since most expellees do not go on to start their own rival Baha'i group.
Why would criticisms be considered POV on the main page, but allowed on the "apologetics" page? (Other than because you've made it into a dumping ground for such things.) But I find this whole line of reasoning ridiculous. Imagine Scientology with no mention of criticisms--how neutral would that be?--Dawud
It's been awhile now, and I see a disturbing pattern at work. It goes like this: Some Baha'i erases something critical of their religion. We spend weeks discussing whether, and how, criticisms should be incorporated. The article left behind lacks the criticisms in question. I begin to suspect that this is an intentional strategy.
I propose that in the future, criticisms should STAY UP while we discuss whether and how to change them. Otherwise the Baha'is among us have no incentive to compromse. 218.167.174.135 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think some people need to realize that "netural point of view" means exactly that - nothing more, nothing less. Emphasis on the latter. Danny Lilithborne 14:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Side note: I just archived the Demographics section because this page is very long, I hope this wasn't premature. LambaJan 23:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Dawud, Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets not MESSENGERS. This was to differenciate the Quranic Dispensation from the Jewish one in which there was a continuing heiarchal line of Prophets. Be you Sunni or Shia, you recognize the fact that the Administration post Muhammad was to not be Prophetic, thats all it was. If you read the Surah of Hud, you will see that not only is a new Messenger not sealed off, but it is FORETOLD. Really read the Surah, and then read 120 towards the end of it
(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 11 - Hud) 69.226.45.60 12:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if this article included information about why Baha'i houses of worship cannot accept donations from non-Baha'i's. I don't know, so I can't include it. But here's the reason for my question: a nice Baha'i house of worship near where I grew up was doing some major renovations. I had fond memories of it and the people there from my childhood so I wanted to give them a donation toward the work. (I don't think there is a Catholic church in the world that would refuse a donation like that for the "new roof" fund.) But I was told that it was a tenet of the Baha'i faith that donations from outsiders cannot be accepted. Crypticfirefly 06:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Generally speaking quotes are not italicized. This is a long-standing and bad habit of some Bahá'í publishers and has crept into the style of these articles. My old copy of Turabian says that italics are used wherever one would underline with a typewriter. (Yup, I'm that old.) My old Strunk & White and the Wikipedia MOS both follow suit. (Yup, that old: I know how to play Bridge.)
I've just finished up the reprint of the old US-NSA's Comprehensive Deepening Program and they italicized every-last quoted word. It's a fabulous book, and dirt cheap. (I wish I'd read it years ago, but I'm not that old.) I'm intending to use it as a foundation for junior-youth classes. But the italics made my teeth itch at every turn.
So, in addition to giving you insights into me you'd rather not have, accept my apologies in advance if you see my edits eliminating these. MARussellPESE 14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Jeff3000, could you provide reference for the Guardian's preferred usage. (Was this a decision of his?) Near as I can tell this is a US NSA convention. And, at least on Ocean they're in quotes in Dispensation. (I've gotta look at a hard-copy.)
Ergonomically, I find them very hard to read — especially in the san-serif font wikpedia defaults to.
Consistency is best, however. Ciao, MARussellPESE 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Good job. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style is actually pretty clear. So I agree that we should use that standard for the numerous quotes on the Baha'i pages. Here's an example again to make sure it's clear:
Agreed?
And since we're talking about style, I just read over
Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing which we should be familiar with. Basically it means after writing a paragraph summarized from a book, follow it with parenthesis and the author's name, and year if possible. Then at the bottom under references have the full publishing information for the book.
Cuñado
-
Talk
22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading that there are three charter documents of the administration. The article currently mentions two of them. I think Shoghi Effendi is the source for that. Can someone check on that? It should be easy to find, and for the next few days I won't have a computer with both Ocean and the internet (long story).
Cuñado
-
Talk
01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be four charter documents of the administration:
Support is as follows:
These are the only references to "charter" in terms of the administration and order of the Bahá'í Faith. Nmentha 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Technically speaking, there are another 2 or 3 tablets that mention the House of Justice in the book, Tablets of Baha'u'llah. These are also foundational for the administrative order but I don't know if they are refered to as "charters". Nmentha 05:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it totally necessary to have the wikisource link on a bunch of documents like
Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá? The actual text is linked under references, and the wikisource link is not pleasant to the eyes.
Cuñado
-
Talk
01:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The current version seems to me to give excessive weight to what is clearly the minority position. I agree that a section on the Covenant would not be complete without reference to covenant breaking and divisions, but as currently worded the minority view appears to have more weight than the majority view. Can we try to develop a consensus here rather than have endless revisions and reversions on the main page. AndrewRT 13:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Part of a series on the |
Apostles of Baháʼu'lláh |
---|
![]() |
Does anyone object to adding this template to the page? Not all the links are filled in yet, but I'm in the middle of doing that.
Cuñado
-
Talk
17:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
On the article on Abrahamic religion, Bahá'í is listed as one of the Abrahamic religions as follows: "generally held to include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Bahá'í" I think someone would need to elaborate more on the link, it's quite a valuable bit of information, if anything.-- 202.156.6.54 07:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this edit by an anon. I think the description in the main article is complete and that the wording of the text I removed is biased. John Reid 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed this:
to this
And Tomhab changed it back. I agree that mine was not very good, but neither was the first one. "in time" is very vague, and could imply that we're expecting another prophet any day now. The 1000 comes from the mention that 500 Prophets will come over the next 500 thousand years.
Cuñado
-
Talk
06:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to state a reminder that 500 prophets in the next 500,000 years does not imply that there will be one every 1,000 years. There could be periods without them and some with more than one. Even the prophecy regarding the next Manifestation of God states 'no less than a thousand years' for all we know, it could be more than just equal to a thousand years. It is safer to simply state no more or no less than what is in the writings. Nmentha 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I haven't heard this phrase, but I have heard of "mass conversion" in the same context. AndrewRT 10:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm suggesting a better organisation of the article's sections for a better reading: Teachings - Demographics - History - Current plans and focus - Laws - Places of worship - Symbols - Calendar - Involvement in society - Relation to other religions.
What do you think? CG 20:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Finally, why is the image of the Universal House of Justice put at the top of the article? Is it a holy place or a core concept or a symbol of the faith? In Christianity, it's the cross (in the template) used at the top of the article, in Islam it's the mosque, in Buddhism, it's a buddha statue, in Judaism it's the Menorah and in Hinduism, it's the Aum, so give me a reason why is this picture relevant at the top of the article since there is a section talking about it. CG 15:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
For the same reason that you got confused about what the religion represents, is why the first part of the article needs a "demographics" and "relation to other religions". Those first two sections are an extension of the introduction, and necessary since more than half of the people in the world have never heard of the Baha'i Faith. However, I agree that some of the contents of the "other religions" section could be moved, since they don't all address that subject, but "persecution" does, since it deals directly with the relation to the Islamic world.
The demographics section can't be replaced with a mention in the intro, because there is more than a sentence, and the issue of how many Baha'is there are in the world has been a huge debate, and needs a careful explanation. See Baha'i statistics.
I'm going to try some moving around and re-titling, according to the discussion so far. If you don't like it just change it.
Cuñado
-
Talk
18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
When we describe Baha'i teachings it can be difficult to achieve a neutral point of view, and we need to make a particular effort. This doesn't mean that Baha'i teachings should not be fully and accurately described. What it means is that, when teachings are described, we must take account of:
For example, the Baha'i Faith teaches tolerance, but this doesn't extend to accepting practicing homsexuality. We shouldn't make bland statements about tolerance without having a more detailed, and critical, evaluation of what that means in practice.
Another example, Baha'i Faith teaches about the unity of religion - all religion comes from the same source. Yet it also says that the teachings within the New Testament have been superceded and that the Old Testament was factually wrong about certain details - e.g. Isaac being the sacrificial lamb.
This is what I understand by NPOV in this context. AndrewRT 12:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
A conversation was going on at Talk:Bahá'í orthography, which I would like to propose here. It involves the issue of the proper transliteration of Arabic names on the Baha'i pages. Basically, there are four levels of transliterating Arabic, and most Baha'i books use the highest level of transliteration, which is common among academics, and standardized by Shoghi Effendi. At this level, a reader could take the English word and render perfectly the original Arabic. At the lowest level, most of the useful information is lost, but it's much easier to type and use for electronic purposes. I'll use `Abdu'l-Bahá as an example, to show the levels.
1. Best - ‘Abdu’l-Bahá - notice that those are not apostrophes (') or grave accents (`) which are located on the keyboard, but they are located on the clickable characters beneath the edit window. This level would also include underscores and dots ( Ḥají Ákhúnd )
2. Just as good - `Abdu'l-Bahá - using the apostrophe and grave accent, which are on the keyboard. Without underscores and dots.
3. lazy - `Abdu'l-Baha - ignoring the accents above long vowels. All characters are found on the keyboard.
4. electronic - Abdul-Baha - ignoring accents and apostrophes.
5. Other - a combination of these.
The only available wiki standard is only a proposal, and itself is unclear.
As far as I can tell, there are three places where these can be applied separately, that is the page title, the introductory paragraph, and the rest of the page. For example, a page title could use one form, another form could be used once alongside the original Arabic, and another form could be used in the article. Currently the first three forms are used throughout all of the Baha'i articles. Jeff3000 and I both agree that a change is in order. I suggest we vote for consensus.
Cuñado
-
Talk
07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Jdemarcos, it might help to know that we had a bad experience with an editor who constantly put his personal opinion in as facts. He kept changing the worldwide figures to 2 million and then quoted his personal experience as a reference. He created a page called "Criticism of the Baha'i Faith", which was rightfully voted for deletion as very POV. He then waged a campaign of adding a list of why the Baha'i Faith is wrong and corrupt, and used web blogs as sources. Then he requested that Baha'is stop editing his section and claimed that it's a big Baha'i conspiracy.
I think your edits were very reasonable and only improved the article.
Cuñado
-
Talk
17:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Subh-i-Azal does not belong in this page. He is not a figure in the Baha'i Faith, but of the Babi Faith. The Bab, however, has a central role for Baha'is, as Baha'is believe he foretold of the Baha'u'llah and in that spirit he is included as a central figure (and that is why he is in the page, as one who Baha'i claim foretold of the coming of Baha'u'llah). You might believe that it should not be the case, and Baha'is should see Subh-i-Azal as a central figure, but I don't believe you'll find a verifiable source that states that Baha'is (not Babis) see him as a central figure. As for the Bab, I would say almost all sources state that he is a central figure for Baha'is. The Bahá'í/Bábí split article is indicated as the main link for the Bab section as this is a summary style page. -- Jeff3000 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson said "as standard Baha'i texts make clear". Baha'i sources indicate that Baha'u'llah was in fact the leader of the community all along. The appointment of Azal was to distract the authorities, and when Baha'u'llah left for two years the community fell apart. Subh-i-Azal was supported in every way by Mirza Musa and Baha'u'llah, both spiritually and financially. An expansion of his role should be dealt with in Baha'i/Babi split, or the Subhi-i-Azal page, but no Baha'i text considers him a major figure in the Faith, except for his role in being a Covenant-breaker. You can call it what you want, but an expansion of his role in this page is giving undue weight to anti-Baha'i polemic.
Currently the article states that he was the appointed leader of the Babis and that there were tensions between him and Baha'u'llah. This is in a section that gives hardly any detail about Baha'u'llah's own life.
Cuñado
-
Talk
06:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the Baha'i Faith. Not the Babi Faith. Not the Azali creed. Mirza Yahya was never a Baha'i leader. The Browne citation clearly identifies him as a Babi figure. This is so obvious I can't understand why this section was added in good faith. His conflict with Baha'u'llah is duly noted and a link to his biographical article provided. Links to the Bab, Babism, and Babi/Baha'i split are all provided. It's not as if anything's being hidden here. Just proper weight in the proper article.
Wjhonson, you're not reading the article. Nothing in this section says that these figures were "leaders" except referring to Yayha as leader of the Babis. How much more clear can it get? The Bab is not identified as such. Frankly, neither are the others. These are principle historical figures of the Baha'i Faith. MARussellPESE 15:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have trimmed the Báb's section in the article to adapt to these criteria for inclusion. Those who want to learn more about the Báb and Bábism should go to those articles, and here only information relevant for the Bahá'í Faith should be included. -- Jdemarcos 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
I was thinking what the best place for the portal link is. In other pages the portal link is near the top, but if just placed in this article it looks weird, since the template is there as well. At the same time, I don't think the bottom of the page is where it should go. I've tried out different things to put the portal link beside the template, but none of them is perfect. The examples that tired are the following:
Idea #1: Seems to be the best, but has a little extra space at the bottom
<table style="float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; text-align:center;"> <tr> <td valign="top">{{portal}}</td> <td>{{Template:Bahá'í}}</td> </tr> </table>
Idea #2: Screws up in small widths, and doesn't work in IE, but works nicely for Firefox
{{Template:Bahá'í}} <div style="position: absolute; right:160px; top:490px;"> {{portal}} </div>
Idea #3: Screws up in small widths, and doesn't work in IE, but works nicely for Firefox
{{Template:Bahá'í}} <div style="position: relative; right:12em; top: -62.2em;"> {{portal}} </div>
Anyone have any ideas, and can you take the above and make them better? -- Jeff3000 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
{{Template:Bahá'í}} <div style="clear:right"> {{portal}} </div>
A very shiny happy version of things the article on answers.com seems more a little more NPOV http://www.answers.com/topic/bah-faith (unsigned comment by User:67.183.93.122)
I have a serious problem the the tone in the second sentence under "Demographics". It begins:
This is not NPOV. This either needs to go, or be re-written properly. The "Cristicism" section seems extremely downplayed juxtaposed with the "Praise" one. I am adding the inappropriate tone flag duely.-- Chèvredansante 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Reverted non-NPOV edits re: commentary. 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason why a virtual encyclopedia for all peoples is using specifically Bāhāī orthography in articles pertaining to the Bahāī Faith? Ought not the Bahāī tendency to use the accute accent be replaced with a macron over applicable vowels (thus: "Bahāī" rather than "Bahá'í", "Bahāullāh" rather than "Bahá'u'lláh") to render pronunciation in a more scholarly manner? Otherwise, the page looks like it was written by Bahāīs rather than being neutral. In recognition of their system of orthography, we can state how they write their words: "The Bahāī (rendered as "Bahá'í" by its adherants) Faith is an emerging global religion founded by Bahāullāh (written as "Bahá'u'lláh" by Bahāīs), a nineteenth-century Persian exile. "Bahāī" is either an adjective referring to this religion, or the term for a follower of Bahāullāh." It would make this more NPOV, IMHO.
Thank you very much for the explanation! Very good reason, then, to keep their system of orthography. I hadn't thought of the Google issue, but it's quite relevant. Again, thanks! Kitabparast 00:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Of all of them, I think there is one that might not constitute plagurism, however it would be debatable.
Is this not so? --→ Chèvredan∫ante talk · contrib 03:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This section is no good. Praise and criticism exist but each of them need actors. Also ones praise is another criticism. View the homosexuality issue in the U.S. So, before we start making value judgment we must discuss the Bahai position on issues in a coherent and neutral manner. That means that a bunch of the criticism section should be broken down and explained as law. Not to be cited from primary Bahai sources which are interpretable I believe but they need to be cited from notable doctrinal sources. The law section shouldn't be a list but an explanatory exposition of law with no value judgment. Bahais could kill children and it should be explained in law before it goes into the spinoff critiques of that practice. If you display Bahai doctrine in a way that represents the faith (does every Bahai agree to the majority laws? If so who dissents?) then the reader will make an informed opinion about the faith. The criticism of certain individuals and groups is less important in defining the faith. What they criticize may be bahai practice but their criticism is not a means to reveal what the practice is. The criticism is a layer added onto the practice since the practice is independent of the criticism. An exposé of notable critics is fine... but not the passive voice unsourced section we have now. The same goes for praise... praise should be incorporated into social outreach of the Bahais or be melded into law if applicable. gren グレン 18:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I see that Baha'is have been standing by and doing nothing while the "criticisms"--section--which we have discussed ad nauseum--is removed again and again. Is this what Baha'i "consultation" is worth? Yes, I realize that Wikipedia encourages revision, but without this, the site is fundamentally unbalanced. As for the criticism that these are "unsourced" or undiscussed, each (except the last, which I will work on) is linked to a place where it is discussed. What makes them "criticisms" instead of "praises"? The fact that they are commonly given as criticisms (and defended by Baha'is). The fact that outsiders would not be able to guess them is, to my mind, an important reason for including them here.
Another thing: in the previous section, somebody wrote that Baha'is are recognized and respected by almost every country in the world, or somesuch. Hogwash.
And another other thing: Would whoever has been adding prominent links to "Baha'i Faith" to other religious sites, please stop? For instance, somebody keeps adding "...and most recently, the Baha'i Faith" to the list of Abrahamic religions in the first paragraph of Christianity. First of all, nobody except Baha'is do that. Neither Christians, Jews, nor Muslims as a group have much interest in your relationship with them. Second, it's only half true. Think about it--according to your theology, Muhammad is the "seal" of the Semitic line of prophets, which Abraham started. The Bab and Baha'u'llah are outside this. Dawud 12:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I yield to you on points of Baha'i theology. I forget that in Baha'i-speak, "consultation" means silencing internal critics, not compromise with external ones. You are right--we are not part of any community which obliges us to respect one another's views. God willing, I will never be "in line with" you people.
In order to be balanced, an article must include significant criticisms. You Baha'is, however, have done everything possible to make criticisms less visible. So yes, I do see you as "torpedoes." You're not interested in accuracy, you're interested in whitewashing your religion. Unfortunately there are more of you right now. It's the nature of the topic, I suppose.
Many of the sources you've been calling "blogs" (having discovered that this is apparently grounds for disqualification of otherwise embarrassing material) are actually articles or letters stored on various personal websites. I can't imagine what you think the problem could be, or what you think a "legitimate" source would look like. Surely the problem couldn't be content...?
Who is this "Gren" and what makes you think his views (which I find nearly unintelligible) deserves special deference? If you think the "criticisms" section is too short, then by all means, let's expand it. The original point of the abbreviated section was to alert people to the existence of more such criticism (with sources etc.) on "Baha'i apologetics". As things stand, a reader of this entry might remain oblivious to the dark side of your religion, or fail to make the connection with "apologetics." I'm sure the prospect fills you with horror. 218.168.241.124 12:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
None of the criticisms that were there before remain on the main page. A couple are linked. Thus, of all the controversies which have historically turned inquirers away from your religion, all that is left is a bare mention of the existence of CB groups (without describing shunning), plus links. While few "seekers" would be attracted to CB sects, many would balk at joining a religion that practiced the policies which were formerly described under "criticisms".
Expulsions, by the way, are different from "divisions" since most expellees do not go on to start their own rival Baha'i group.
Why would criticisms be considered POV on the main page, but allowed on the "apologetics" page? (Other than because you've made it into a dumping ground for such things.) But I find this whole line of reasoning ridiculous. Imagine Scientology with no mention of criticisms--how neutral would that be?--Dawud
It's been awhile now, and I see a disturbing pattern at work. It goes like this: Some Baha'i erases something critical of their religion. We spend weeks discussing whether, and how, criticisms should be incorporated. The article left behind lacks the criticisms in question. I begin to suspect that this is an intentional strategy.
I propose that in the future, criticisms should STAY UP while we discuss whether and how to change them. Otherwise the Baha'is among us have no incentive to compromse. 218.167.174.135 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think some people need to realize that "netural point of view" means exactly that - nothing more, nothing less. Emphasis on the latter. Danny Lilithborne 14:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Side note: I just archived the Demographics section because this page is very long, I hope this wasn't premature. LambaJan 23:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Dawud, Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets not MESSENGERS. This was to differenciate the Quranic Dispensation from the Jewish one in which there was a continuing heiarchal line of Prophets. Be you Sunni or Shia, you recognize the fact that the Administration post Muhammad was to not be Prophetic, thats all it was. If you read the Surah of Hud, you will see that not only is a new Messenger not sealed off, but it is FORETOLD. Really read the Surah, and then read 120 towards the end of it
(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 11 - Hud) 69.226.45.60 12:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if this article included information about why Baha'i houses of worship cannot accept donations from non-Baha'i's. I don't know, so I can't include it. But here's the reason for my question: a nice Baha'i house of worship near where I grew up was doing some major renovations. I had fond memories of it and the people there from my childhood so I wanted to give them a donation toward the work. (I don't think there is a Catholic church in the world that would refuse a donation like that for the "new roof" fund.) But I was told that it was a tenet of the Baha'i faith that donations from outsiders cannot be accepted. Crypticfirefly 06:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Generally speaking quotes are not italicized. This is a long-standing and bad habit of some Bahá'í publishers and has crept into the style of these articles. My old copy of Turabian says that italics are used wherever one would underline with a typewriter. (Yup, I'm that old.) My old Strunk & White and the Wikipedia MOS both follow suit. (Yup, that old: I know how to play Bridge.)
I've just finished up the reprint of the old US-NSA's Comprehensive Deepening Program and they italicized every-last quoted word. It's a fabulous book, and dirt cheap. (I wish I'd read it years ago, but I'm not that old.) I'm intending to use it as a foundation for junior-youth classes. But the italics made my teeth itch at every turn.
So, in addition to giving you insights into me you'd rather not have, accept my apologies in advance if you see my edits eliminating these. MARussellPESE 14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Jeff3000, could you provide reference for the Guardian's preferred usage. (Was this a decision of his?) Near as I can tell this is a US NSA convention. And, at least on Ocean they're in quotes in Dispensation. (I've gotta look at a hard-copy.)
Ergonomically, I find them very hard to read — especially in the san-serif font wikpedia defaults to.
Consistency is best, however. Ciao, MARussellPESE 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Good job. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style is actually pretty clear. So I agree that we should use that standard for the numerous quotes on the Baha'i pages. Here's an example again to make sure it's clear:
Agreed?
And since we're talking about style, I just read over
Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing which we should be familiar with. Basically it means after writing a paragraph summarized from a book, follow it with parenthesis and the author's name, and year if possible. Then at the bottom under references have the full publishing information for the book.
Cuñado
-
Talk
22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading that there are three charter documents of the administration. The article currently mentions two of them. I think Shoghi Effendi is the source for that. Can someone check on that? It should be easy to find, and for the next few days I won't have a computer with both Ocean and the internet (long story).
Cuñado
-
Talk
01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be four charter documents of the administration:
Support is as follows:
These are the only references to "charter" in terms of the administration and order of the Bahá'í Faith. Nmentha 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Technically speaking, there are another 2 or 3 tablets that mention the House of Justice in the book, Tablets of Baha'u'llah. These are also foundational for the administrative order but I don't know if they are refered to as "charters". Nmentha 05:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it totally necessary to have the wikisource link on a bunch of documents like
Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá? The actual text is linked under references, and the wikisource link is not pleasant to the eyes.
Cuñado
-
Talk
01:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The current version seems to me to give excessive weight to what is clearly the minority position. I agree that a section on the Covenant would not be complete without reference to covenant breaking and divisions, but as currently worded the minority view appears to have more weight than the majority view. Can we try to develop a consensus here rather than have endless revisions and reversions on the main page. AndrewRT 13:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Part of a series on the |
Apostles of Baháʼu'lláh |
---|
![]() |
Does anyone object to adding this template to the page? Not all the links are filled in yet, but I'm in the middle of doing that.
Cuñado
-
Talk
17:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
On the article on Abrahamic religion, Bahá'í is listed as one of the Abrahamic religions as follows: "generally held to include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Bahá'í" I think someone would need to elaborate more on the link, it's quite a valuable bit of information, if anything.-- 202.156.6.54 07:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this edit by an anon. I think the description in the main article is complete and that the wording of the text I removed is biased. John Reid 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed this:
to this
And Tomhab changed it back. I agree that mine was not very good, but neither was the first one. "in time" is very vague, and could imply that we're expecting another prophet any day now. The 1000 comes from the mention that 500 Prophets will come over the next 500 thousand years.
Cuñado
-
Talk
06:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to state a reminder that 500 prophets in the next 500,000 years does not imply that there will be one every 1,000 years. There could be periods without them and some with more than one. Even the prophecy regarding the next Manifestation of God states 'no less than a thousand years' for all we know, it could be more than just equal to a thousand years. It is safer to simply state no more or no less than what is in the writings. Nmentha 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I haven't heard this phrase, but I have heard of "mass conversion" in the same context. AndrewRT 10:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm suggesting a better organisation of the article's sections for a better reading: Teachings - Demographics - History - Current plans and focus - Laws - Places of worship - Symbols - Calendar - Involvement in society - Relation to other religions.
What do you think? CG 20:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Finally, why is the image of the Universal House of Justice put at the top of the article? Is it a holy place or a core concept or a symbol of the faith? In Christianity, it's the cross (in the template) used at the top of the article, in Islam it's the mosque, in Buddhism, it's a buddha statue, in Judaism it's the Menorah and in Hinduism, it's the Aum, so give me a reason why is this picture relevant at the top of the article since there is a section talking about it. CG 15:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
For the same reason that you got confused about what the religion represents, is why the first part of the article needs a "demographics" and "relation to other religions". Those first two sections are an extension of the introduction, and necessary since more than half of the people in the world have never heard of the Baha'i Faith. However, I agree that some of the contents of the "other religions" section could be moved, since they don't all address that subject, but "persecution" does, since it deals directly with the relation to the Islamic world.
The demographics section can't be replaced with a mention in the intro, because there is more than a sentence, and the issue of how many Baha'is there are in the world has been a huge debate, and needs a careful explanation. See Baha'i statistics.
I'm going to try some moving around and re-titling, according to the discussion so far. If you don't like it just change it.
Cuñado
-
Talk
18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
When we describe Baha'i teachings it can be difficult to achieve a neutral point of view, and we need to make a particular effort. This doesn't mean that Baha'i teachings should not be fully and accurately described. What it means is that, when teachings are described, we must take account of:
For example, the Baha'i Faith teaches tolerance, but this doesn't extend to accepting practicing homsexuality. We shouldn't make bland statements about tolerance without having a more detailed, and critical, evaluation of what that means in practice.
Another example, Baha'i Faith teaches about the unity of religion - all religion comes from the same source. Yet it also says that the teachings within the New Testament have been superceded and that the Old Testament was factually wrong about certain details - e.g. Isaac being the sacrificial lamb.
This is what I understand by NPOV in this context. AndrewRT 12:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
A conversation was going on at Talk:Bahá'í orthography, which I would like to propose here. It involves the issue of the proper transliteration of Arabic names on the Baha'i pages. Basically, there are four levels of transliterating Arabic, and most Baha'i books use the highest level of transliteration, which is common among academics, and standardized by Shoghi Effendi. At this level, a reader could take the English word and render perfectly the original Arabic. At the lowest level, most of the useful information is lost, but it's much easier to type and use for electronic purposes. I'll use `Abdu'l-Bahá as an example, to show the levels.
1. Best - ‘Abdu’l-Bahá - notice that those are not apostrophes (') or grave accents (`) which are located on the keyboard, but they are located on the clickable characters beneath the edit window. This level would also include underscores and dots ( Ḥají Ákhúnd )
2. Just as good - `Abdu'l-Bahá - using the apostrophe and grave accent, which are on the keyboard. Without underscores and dots.
3. lazy - `Abdu'l-Baha - ignoring the accents above long vowels. All characters are found on the keyboard.
4. electronic - Abdul-Baha - ignoring accents and apostrophes.
5. Other - a combination of these.
The only available wiki standard is only a proposal, and itself is unclear.
As far as I can tell, there are three places where these can be applied separately, that is the page title, the introductory paragraph, and the rest of the page. For example, a page title could use one form, another form could be used once alongside the original Arabic, and another form could be used in the article. Currently the first three forms are used throughout all of the Baha'i articles. Jeff3000 and I both agree that a change is in order. I suggest we vote for consensus.
Cuñado
-
Talk
07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Jdemarcos, it might help to know that we had a bad experience with an editor who constantly put his personal opinion in as facts. He kept changing the worldwide figures to 2 million and then quoted his personal experience as a reference. He created a page called "Criticism of the Baha'i Faith", which was rightfully voted for deletion as very POV. He then waged a campaign of adding a list of why the Baha'i Faith is wrong and corrupt, and used web blogs as sources. Then he requested that Baha'is stop editing his section and claimed that it's a big Baha'i conspiracy.
I think your edits were very reasonable and only improved the article.
Cuñado
-
Talk
17:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Subh-i-Azal does not belong in this page. He is not a figure in the Baha'i Faith, but of the Babi Faith. The Bab, however, has a central role for Baha'is, as Baha'is believe he foretold of the Baha'u'llah and in that spirit he is included as a central figure (and that is why he is in the page, as one who Baha'i claim foretold of the coming of Baha'u'llah). You might believe that it should not be the case, and Baha'is should see Subh-i-Azal as a central figure, but I don't believe you'll find a verifiable source that states that Baha'is (not Babis) see him as a central figure. As for the Bab, I would say almost all sources state that he is a central figure for Baha'is. The Bahá'í/Bábí split article is indicated as the main link for the Bab section as this is a summary style page. -- Jeff3000 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson said "as standard Baha'i texts make clear". Baha'i sources indicate that Baha'u'llah was in fact the leader of the community all along. The appointment of Azal was to distract the authorities, and when Baha'u'llah left for two years the community fell apart. Subh-i-Azal was supported in every way by Mirza Musa and Baha'u'llah, both spiritually and financially. An expansion of his role should be dealt with in Baha'i/Babi split, or the Subhi-i-Azal page, but no Baha'i text considers him a major figure in the Faith, except for his role in being a Covenant-breaker. You can call it what you want, but an expansion of his role in this page is giving undue weight to anti-Baha'i polemic.
Currently the article states that he was the appointed leader of the Babis and that there were tensions between him and Baha'u'llah. This is in a section that gives hardly any detail about Baha'u'llah's own life.
Cuñado
-
Talk
06:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the Baha'i Faith. Not the Babi Faith. Not the Azali creed. Mirza Yahya was never a Baha'i leader. The Browne citation clearly identifies him as a Babi figure. This is so obvious I can't understand why this section was added in good faith. His conflict with Baha'u'llah is duly noted and a link to his biographical article provided. Links to the Bab, Babism, and Babi/Baha'i split are all provided. It's not as if anything's being hidden here. Just proper weight in the proper article.
Wjhonson, you're not reading the article. Nothing in this section says that these figures were "leaders" except referring to Yayha as leader of the Babis. How much more clear can it get? The Bab is not identified as such. Frankly, neither are the others. These are principle historical figures of the Baha'i Faith. MARussellPESE 15:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have trimmed the Báb's section in the article to adapt to these criteria for inclusion. Those who want to learn more about the Báb and Bábism should go to those articles, and here only information relevant for the Bahá'í Faith should be included. -- Jdemarcos 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)