Welcome!
Hello, Aaron.s.12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
The recent edit you made to Afterlife has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. DKqwerty ( talk) 15:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Afterlife appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Ash ( talk) 23:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Please - look - does any other religion of belief system give an extended verbatim quote in the article? Or as extensive - before you try any issue with the removal - try reading WP:UNDUE, WP:ABOUT, and WP:NOT - then after a close read of those - try thinking - how do I make this section WP:ENCYCLOPEDIAC fitting into what other beliefs have done above? If none of that makes any sense - try typing Help on your talk page and go through all the above bit by bit with another editor. Lets face it - no other belief system does it - and for Bahai section to have it - as well as the block of text with archaic language - is simply not on. cheers Satu Suro 01:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good at a quick glance - thanks for taking the comments above on board - if you wish to further create a separate article that deals with Bahaulah's words and ideas about life and death - please do - then you can link it back - cheers Satu Suro 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. The entire section was deleted for the first time apparently without the person investigating the Faith or the copyright status of the quote, and no other reason for deleting it was given. Given that level of impersonality I posted the following renditions based on a quick glance at the content of the warning messages. Thanks to the person that created the final version that is now posted. I have little interest in or time for learning about Wikipedia so am thankful for your assistance. I don't understand why in religious matters at least the Central Figures of the Faiths themselves shouldn't be allowed to speak for themselves, as that would be like playing telephone with the religion's teachings, and giving that Judaism with only about twice as many followers as the Baha'i Faith has four times as much text steadily on this page I am going to add a short quote. The only places in society where I can think it is appropriate for a person not to be allowed to speak for themselves is when they are uneducated about the subject matter themselves, which none of the Founders of these Faiths can be called, or mentally incapable of speaking for themselves, which also doesn't apply. Considering the great revisions and advances in human civilization and culture that these Souls have accomplished I believe their Words are even more valid than even the best scholar. I can see how scholarly support might be useful as a supplement to determine if the information is unbiased, but no one insincere has ever made as great an accomplishment as any of these Personages.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
03:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Also, I think the most helpful, final, and educative things a person could read about a religion's teachings on a subject would be a quote from the religion itself. While I agree to some degree now that an impartial overview will help a person be sure what they are reading is complete nothing could serve the purpose of conveying information, no matter who you are, about a Faith better than by quoting it's Founder.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
03:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
As to what the other religions have done, I see no reason for information to be constrained to what is currently existent. To do so as a general rule would bring about a complete halt to all progress in human civilization, so at the very least it should be considered. While some degree of uniformity in formatting makes sense constraining a religion to present itself in a certain form could very well lead to skewing the information that is finally presented about it. For example, Baha'is are strongly encouraged to rely upon the Writings of the Central Figures of the Faith in determining the truth of what the Faith teaches about it, which helps it maintain its unity. We also are disinclined to use words of other individuals within the Faith when the Words of one of the Central Figures is available. And when we do not have guidance about a particular subject, we have a duly elected international body that can legislate on matters not explicitly covered by Baha'u'llah. Considering that hodge-podge nature of Wikipedia, I do not believe that formatting is a serious issue and with the impartial article added a quote directly from the Founder of the Faith is hardly out of place. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 03:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
The Baha'i section is now appropriately half as long as the section on Judaism. Also, I found nothing in what I read about Wikipedia's policies that made me feel it was inappropriate to have a quote of His included on the page as long as the corroborating information is there. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
First, I think it was SatuSuro who made the version about the Faith that is now on the page, and would like to thank him for his research and work. Both of the quotes I have added are verifiable, I can post the references again if necessary; they are not original research; they are also impartial in presenting the Faith's teachings because they do not attempt to sway a person one way or another about what to believe about them but rather present them directly because they ARE the teaching. Anyone elses summary of them could only be inaccurate. There are no major disputes as far as I am aware about the Baha'i teachings about the life of the soul after death. This summary of the Wikipedia article about a neutral point of view I believe is exactly what applies here:
When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.
Also, the Baha'i Faith has been consistently among the top three fastest growing religions in the world for about the last fifty years. There is sufficient public interest in it for it to be given due consideration on the basis of some other factor, and size and general public knowledge about the Faith are the only two factors remaining that I am aware of. As the Faith is growing faster than public knowledge can keep up with it it should not be considered solely from the point of view of the academic community, so the only impartial test for how much consideration it should be given compared to other religions would be its size, which is estimated at seven to ten million followers worldwide based on the most recent statistics and statements from the Baha'i World Center. Judaism has approximately fourteen million followers world-wide. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Thank you for writing it! Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
I want to be clear on some of Wikipedia's policies:
This doesn't mean that it's the numbers of believers that are important, but the amount of weight that view is given in current reliable sources. You cannot compare the scholarly interest in Judaism to that of the Baha'i Faith. Academic books in the afterlife will give orders of magnitude more coverage to the Jewish views than those of the Baha'i views, and that's how Wikipedia works.
Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 04:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Simply put: Judaism has a three-thousand year head start on us. Can we get a break? Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Also, here is a link to a list of scholarly works that have been done from a Baha'i perspective on life after death, eighteen in all: http://bahai-library.com/books/biblio/life.after.death.html Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 04:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
I can't find anything about religious texts in the article about verifiability. Baha'u'llah left His works for the world in the state they are in and those who have published them have done so with the sole intention of promoting His Words, otherwise they would not have chosen to both publish them and be obedient to His covenant. As a parallel, what would need to happen for a quote from the Torah, the Gospel, or the Qu'ran to be considered verifiable? From what I can see on this page the Bible was quoted simply as it is commonly known to be. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Also, to provide a general background, I have found the scholarly information available about the Faith to be in large portions either inaccurate, insufficient, or prejucided, and that strangely those speaking from within the Faith have been most honest about the facts related to it. This can be corroborated by the fact that in this day of public information we have nothing but to lose from attempting to misrepresent information about the Faith, let alone the fact that lying is condemned within Baha'u'llah's teachings.
Based on my review of Wikipedia's three core policies and without having heard any reason that makes sense to me for why the length of the article should be limited, especially since the other sections of the article do not accurately reflect the level of public or academic interest in each Faith's teachings about the subject I have re-added a quote from Baha'u'llah. Also, the Baha'i Faith is not only an Abrahamic religion as Baha'u'llah and his legally appointed Interpreter recognized the divine Stations of Krishna and Buddha, so I have moved it under the neutral title 'other religions'. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 05:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Okay. Then why does the section on Judaism have quotes from the Torah? Is the removal of the quote from the Baha'i section simply because of length restrictions to preserve the due weight policy? Here are a few articles and scholarly works where the Faith's belief in Buddha and Krishna on the same plane as its belief in the Abrahamic Prophets is mentioned:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W0702.pdf,
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Baha'i+holy+places+in+Israel+added+to+UN+World+Heritage+list:+the+...-a0192850949,
http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol2/india2.htm,
http://www.wfn.org/2008/03/msg00120.html,
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/plural/bahai.htm,
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/mar/06/na-bahai-faith-is-a-unifying-force/,
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bahai-faith.html,
http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageNavigator/sfi_about_culture_religion_bahai, and
http://www.jubilee.org.nz/articles/the-bahai-faith--christianity/.
In light of this research I believe the best category for the Faith to be listed under is that of Universal Religion, but think the title of Other Religion is appropriate enough.
What are the qualifications for a Faith being considered an eastern religion then? My proposition was that the Baha'i Faith is more than just an Abrahamic religion, that it meets both the qualifications for being that as well as those of an eastern religion based on my rough understanding of the category, which is why putting it in one category only would be not being truthful about what it is. In addition to their belief in Buddha and Krishna Baha'is meditate chanting a particular word, use the cross-legged position in their devotions, and are encouraged to self-perfection. One of the two languages in which the Baha'i Scriptures were revealed is Persian, which traces its roots back to Sanskrit which the Bhagavad Gita was written in. Several early believers also came from India, and the largest Baha'i population in the world is there. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
It possibly believes in Dharma, depending on how the term is defined: http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/hinduism/ch2.htm, http://www.amazon.com/Hinduism-Bahai-Faith-Moojan-Momen/dp/0853982996. Baha'u'llah also said: O SON OF MAN! Write all that We have revealed unto thee with the ink of light upon the tablet of thy spirit. Should this not be in thy power, then make thine ink of the essence of thy heart. If this thou canst not do, then write with that crimson ink that hath been shed in My path. Sweeter indeed is this to Me than all else, that its light may endure for ever. and: O MY SERVANT! The best of men are they that earn a livelihood by their calling and spend upon themselves and upon their kindred for the love of God, the Lord of all worlds. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 00:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
To share my point of view, a lot of these questions have been as unexpected to me as it would be to ask for proof that Christians believe in God. The concept of progressive revelation and the fulfillment of the eschatological expectations and essential Teachings of all of the previous religions is so central to the Faith that it is only as you and the other editor point things out that I have realized what isn't common knowledge about It. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
The sheer amount of text you add to talk pages and whatever is overbearing - and quite unnecessary - your level of argumentation may fill your needs and issues but it doesnt serve wikipedia particularly well - dont be suprised if you eventually get blocked as a nuisance editor if you keep it up. either edit and understand the issues - if you need to have space to argue with the policies and expand like a balloon - find a blog - cheers Satu Suro 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I can't know something is offensive until I am told, and I thought that with a well-defined heading anyone who wanted to read the information would have the choice to. The more I have read about the policies the more confident I have become that the version I most recently posted is perfectly in line with them. I also wanted to post all of the discussion publicly so matters wouldn't have to be rehashed as a matter of courtesy.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
05:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Things always get rehashed, the wheel is reinvented on wikipedia on an annual basis, people have bright ideas and suddenly whole realms of knowledge are reinvented in some bright spark american teenagers brain that reinvents parts of the worlds geography at a single hit... nah re-posting sections of talk can be more hindrance than help to understanding in a place like this - anyways it is just a warning and suggestion - large volumes of text on anything can be quite daunting to say the least - others may have other ways of seeing things. Also - First, I think it was SatuSuro who made the version about the Faith that is now on the page, - if you cannot read differences of edits - be very careful about claiming anything - I simply removed your over-long quote - I did not create anything in the article. AGF restrains my feelings about this issue. WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOT still seem very important to think about as you wander through this place Satu Suro 05:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Got it. I believe in efficiency, I checked the discussion page before posting my first addition. What's an AGF?
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
05:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
WP:AGF assumption of good faith/civility etc Satu Suro 06:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
19:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Aaron:
First off, Welcome aboard. Wikipedia's Baha'is could use another enthusiastic contributor.
Second, if you're going to be spending time here, it pays handsomely to realize that this is a 'very different world than you're used to anywhere else in cyberspace. There are detailed rules for contribution, what WP is not and robust norms of conduct.
There is a Baha'i project page that some editors use. That would be a good place to start and connect with other interested people. You can always post to users' talk pages to invite opinion.
Please note, the the Baha'i editors in general, and some in particular Jeff3000, Cuñado, and myself) take the forms and norms here seriously. You may want to take a look here at a personal project page to see the level of effort we've already engaged on that line. Hyperbole will not serve the Faith in general, and will damage it here.
If there are two policies to be absolutely clear on, they are WP:NPOV and WP:OR. WP:UNDUE is related to NPOV. These require' the use of reliable tertiary sources providing content that enhances the treatment of a particular article.
With that in mind, and armed with a decent Baha'i encyclopedia or two, you can make some real contributions to the presentation of the subject here.
Looking forward to it.
Ciao, MARussellPESE ( talk) 03:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Allah-u-Abha! Thanks for the welcome. I only posted here out of desperation because I felt that information about the Baha'i Faith being omitted on that page was a serious problem and that potentially thousands of people could be missing an entire and important religion in researching the subject. I have too much going on in my community and personal life to become a regular contributor here, but am happy to be better armed if I come across any other such omissions. I think the biggest difficulty I had was distinguishing between what is common knowledge about the Faith and what would be considered original research. With the exception of the Faith being considered both and Eastern and Western religion I posted nothing that isn't common knowledge among most of the Baha'is that I know, but that apparently is very different from what is common knowledge about the Faith among people in general. Part of the frustration and confusion I had was also due to the fact that other religions use little to no referencing, on the Afterlife page at least, and rely on sources from academics within the Faith itself, while I was being asked to provide outside sources and was not allowed to make even a personal paraphrasation of an obvious concept that resounds through entirety of His Revelation. The prohibition against using a quote also seems unfair, especially after reading from the neutral point of view article that personal statements are perfectly allowable as long as they are presented as such. Is it simply that the Baha'is are the only people on Wikipedia voluntarily abiding by rules I haven't understood yet? Or is the Faith being treated differently because of its youth and the relative lack of public knowledge about it? Was the problem with my presentation of the subject entirely due to the fact that it was a paraphrasation and thus considered 'original research' when it was little more original than noticing that the sky is usually blue and the sun rises and sets, or was it with the language I used itself? I am truly confused.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
18:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
I think quotes like these, which I have been struggling to understand the implications of, have also influenced my point of view:
The vitality of men's belief in God is dying out in every land; nothing short of His wholesome medicine can ever restore it. The corrosion of ungodliness is eating into the vitals of human society; what else but the Elixir of His potent Revelation can cleanse and revive it? Is it within human power, O Hakim, to effect in the constituent elements of any of the minute and indivisible particles of matter so complete a transformation as to transmute it into purest gold? Perplexing and difficult as this may appear, the still greater task of converting satanic strength into heavenly power is one that We have been empowered to accomplish. The Force capable of such a transformation transcendeth the potency of the Elixir itself. The Word of God, alone, can claim the distinction of being endowed with the capacity required for so great and far-reaching a change.
Baha'u'llah, Baha'i World Faith, p. 113
Divine Truth is relative and that is why we are enjoined to constantly refer the seeker to the Word itself -- and why any explanations we make to ease the journey of the soul of any individual must be based on the Word -- and the Word alone.
From a letter dated 4 June 1957 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada and The Compilation of Compilations vol II, p. 324
From a purely academic point of view too, I think that quotes would be the most final and telling way to present what the Baha'u'llah teaches. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 18:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Two more things: if you guys aren't already, a friend suggested that you could be in communication with the N.S.A.s Office of Communications at ooc@usbnc.org about things going on here. Also, if one of the more experienced Baha'i editors on Wikipedia was willing to work with me I think I would like to create an entire page about the Baha'i views on the life after death. If it is something you would like to do with me please let me know.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Also, do you have any thoughts about it not being considered either an Eastern or Western religion? A friend of mine concurs and from their thinking I checked and there are 131 mentions of Buddha and 59 mentions of Krishna in the Baha'i literature available in Ocean. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Also, articles without a quote would be LESS neutral because they are relying more on someone else's opinion and point of view on the subject and less on presenting the information as it is. The only fear that is that the person isn't honest about hisself, which there is no proof for in this case. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 19:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Your silence is giving me nerves. If you just don't need to respond please let me know that.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
08:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Welcome!
Hello, Aaron.s.12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
The recent edit you made to Afterlife has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. DKqwerty ( talk) 15:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Afterlife appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Ash ( talk) 23:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Please - look - does any other religion of belief system give an extended verbatim quote in the article? Or as extensive - before you try any issue with the removal - try reading WP:UNDUE, WP:ABOUT, and WP:NOT - then after a close read of those - try thinking - how do I make this section WP:ENCYCLOPEDIAC fitting into what other beliefs have done above? If none of that makes any sense - try typing Help on your talk page and go through all the above bit by bit with another editor. Lets face it - no other belief system does it - and for Bahai section to have it - as well as the block of text with archaic language - is simply not on. cheers Satu Suro 01:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good at a quick glance - thanks for taking the comments above on board - if you wish to further create a separate article that deals with Bahaulah's words and ideas about life and death - please do - then you can link it back - cheers Satu Suro 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. The entire section was deleted for the first time apparently without the person investigating the Faith or the copyright status of the quote, and no other reason for deleting it was given. Given that level of impersonality I posted the following renditions based on a quick glance at the content of the warning messages. Thanks to the person that created the final version that is now posted. I have little interest in or time for learning about Wikipedia so am thankful for your assistance. I don't understand why in religious matters at least the Central Figures of the Faiths themselves shouldn't be allowed to speak for themselves, as that would be like playing telephone with the religion's teachings, and giving that Judaism with only about twice as many followers as the Baha'i Faith has four times as much text steadily on this page I am going to add a short quote. The only places in society where I can think it is appropriate for a person not to be allowed to speak for themselves is when they are uneducated about the subject matter themselves, which none of the Founders of these Faiths can be called, or mentally incapable of speaking for themselves, which also doesn't apply. Considering the great revisions and advances in human civilization and culture that these Souls have accomplished I believe their Words are even more valid than even the best scholar. I can see how scholarly support might be useful as a supplement to determine if the information is unbiased, but no one insincere has ever made as great an accomplishment as any of these Personages.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
03:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Also, I think the most helpful, final, and educative things a person could read about a religion's teachings on a subject would be a quote from the religion itself. While I agree to some degree now that an impartial overview will help a person be sure what they are reading is complete nothing could serve the purpose of conveying information, no matter who you are, about a Faith better than by quoting it's Founder.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
03:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
As to what the other religions have done, I see no reason for information to be constrained to what is currently existent. To do so as a general rule would bring about a complete halt to all progress in human civilization, so at the very least it should be considered. While some degree of uniformity in formatting makes sense constraining a religion to present itself in a certain form could very well lead to skewing the information that is finally presented about it. For example, Baha'is are strongly encouraged to rely upon the Writings of the Central Figures of the Faith in determining the truth of what the Faith teaches about it, which helps it maintain its unity. We also are disinclined to use words of other individuals within the Faith when the Words of one of the Central Figures is available. And when we do not have guidance about a particular subject, we have a duly elected international body that can legislate on matters not explicitly covered by Baha'u'llah. Considering that hodge-podge nature of Wikipedia, I do not believe that formatting is a serious issue and with the impartial article added a quote directly from the Founder of the Faith is hardly out of place. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 03:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
The Baha'i section is now appropriately half as long as the section on Judaism. Also, I found nothing in what I read about Wikipedia's policies that made me feel it was inappropriate to have a quote of His included on the page as long as the corroborating information is there. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
First, I think it was SatuSuro who made the version about the Faith that is now on the page, and would like to thank him for his research and work. Both of the quotes I have added are verifiable, I can post the references again if necessary; they are not original research; they are also impartial in presenting the Faith's teachings because they do not attempt to sway a person one way or another about what to believe about them but rather present them directly because they ARE the teaching. Anyone elses summary of them could only be inaccurate. There are no major disputes as far as I am aware about the Baha'i teachings about the life of the soul after death. This summary of the Wikipedia article about a neutral point of view I believe is exactly what applies here:
When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.
Also, the Baha'i Faith has been consistently among the top three fastest growing religions in the world for about the last fifty years. There is sufficient public interest in it for it to be given due consideration on the basis of some other factor, and size and general public knowledge about the Faith are the only two factors remaining that I am aware of. As the Faith is growing faster than public knowledge can keep up with it it should not be considered solely from the point of view of the academic community, so the only impartial test for how much consideration it should be given compared to other religions would be its size, which is estimated at seven to ten million followers worldwide based on the most recent statistics and statements from the Baha'i World Center. Judaism has approximately fourteen million followers world-wide. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Thank you for writing it! Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
I want to be clear on some of Wikipedia's policies:
This doesn't mean that it's the numbers of believers that are important, but the amount of weight that view is given in current reliable sources. You cannot compare the scholarly interest in Judaism to that of the Baha'i Faith. Academic books in the afterlife will give orders of magnitude more coverage to the Jewish views than those of the Baha'i views, and that's how Wikipedia works.
Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 04:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Simply put: Judaism has a three-thousand year head start on us. Can we get a break? Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Also, here is a link to a list of scholarly works that have been done from a Baha'i perspective on life after death, eighteen in all: http://bahai-library.com/books/biblio/life.after.death.html Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 04:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
I can't find anything about religious texts in the article about verifiability. Baha'u'llah left His works for the world in the state they are in and those who have published them have done so with the sole intention of promoting His Words, otherwise they would not have chosen to both publish them and be obedient to His covenant. As a parallel, what would need to happen for a quote from the Torah, the Gospel, or the Qu'ran to be considered verifiable? From what I can see on this page the Bible was quoted simply as it is commonly known to be. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Also, to provide a general background, I have found the scholarly information available about the Faith to be in large portions either inaccurate, insufficient, or prejucided, and that strangely those speaking from within the Faith have been most honest about the facts related to it. This can be corroborated by the fact that in this day of public information we have nothing but to lose from attempting to misrepresent information about the Faith, let alone the fact that lying is condemned within Baha'u'llah's teachings.
Based on my review of Wikipedia's three core policies and without having heard any reason that makes sense to me for why the length of the article should be limited, especially since the other sections of the article do not accurately reflect the level of public or academic interest in each Faith's teachings about the subject I have re-added a quote from Baha'u'llah. Also, the Baha'i Faith is not only an Abrahamic religion as Baha'u'llah and his legally appointed Interpreter recognized the divine Stations of Krishna and Buddha, so I have moved it under the neutral title 'other religions'. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 05:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Okay. Then why does the section on Judaism have quotes from the Torah? Is the removal of the quote from the Baha'i section simply because of length restrictions to preserve the due weight policy? Here are a few articles and scholarly works where the Faith's belief in Buddha and Krishna on the same plane as its belief in the Abrahamic Prophets is mentioned:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W0702.pdf,
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Baha'i+holy+places+in+Israel+added+to+UN+World+Heritage+list:+the+...-a0192850949,
http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol2/india2.htm,
http://www.wfn.org/2008/03/msg00120.html,
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/plural/bahai.htm,
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/mar/06/na-bahai-faith-is-a-unifying-force/,
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bahai-faith.html,
http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageNavigator/sfi_about_culture_religion_bahai, and
http://www.jubilee.org.nz/articles/the-bahai-faith--christianity/.
In light of this research I believe the best category for the Faith to be listed under is that of Universal Religion, but think the title of Other Religion is appropriate enough.
What are the qualifications for a Faith being considered an eastern religion then? My proposition was that the Baha'i Faith is more than just an Abrahamic religion, that it meets both the qualifications for being that as well as those of an eastern religion based on my rough understanding of the category, which is why putting it in one category only would be not being truthful about what it is. In addition to their belief in Buddha and Krishna Baha'is meditate chanting a particular word, use the cross-legged position in their devotions, and are encouraged to self-perfection. One of the two languages in which the Baha'i Scriptures were revealed is Persian, which traces its roots back to Sanskrit which the Bhagavad Gita was written in. Several early believers also came from India, and the largest Baha'i population in the world is there. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
It possibly believes in Dharma, depending on how the term is defined: http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/hinduism/ch2.htm, http://www.amazon.com/Hinduism-Bahai-Faith-Moojan-Momen/dp/0853982996. Baha'u'llah also said: O SON OF MAN! Write all that We have revealed unto thee with the ink of light upon the tablet of thy spirit. Should this not be in thy power, then make thine ink of the essence of thy heart. If this thou canst not do, then write with that crimson ink that hath been shed in My path. Sweeter indeed is this to Me than all else, that its light may endure for ever. and: O MY SERVANT! The best of men are they that earn a livelihood by their calling and spend upon themselves and upon their kindred for the love of God, the Lord of all worlds. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 00:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
To share my point of view, a lot of these questions have been as unexpected to me as it would be to ask for proof that Christians believe in God. The concept of progressive revelation and the fulfillment of the eschatological expectations and essential Teachings of all of the previous religions is so central to the Faith that it is only as you and the other editor point things out that I have realized what isn't common knowledge about It. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
The sheer amount of text you add to talk pages and whatever is overbearing - and quite unnecessary - your level of argumentation may fill your needs and issues but it doesnt serve wikipedia particularly well - dont be suprised if you eventually get blocked as a nuisance editor if you keep it up. either edit and understand the issues - if you need to have space to argue with the policies and expand like a balloon - find a blog - cheers Satu Suro 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I can't know something is offensive until I am told, and I thought that with a well-defined heading anyone who wanted to read the information would have the choice to. The more I have read about the policies the more confident I have become that the version I most recently posted is perfectly in line with them. I also wanted to post all of the discussion publicly so matters wouldn't have to be rehashed as a matter of courtesy.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
05:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Things always get rehashed, the wheel is reinvented on wikipedia on an annual basis, people have bright ideas and suddenly whole realms of knowledge are reinvented in some bright spark american teenagers brain that reinvents parts of the worlds geography at a single hit... nah re-posting sections of talk can be more hindrance than help to understanding in a place like this - anyways it is just a warning and suggestion - large volumes of text on anything can be quite daunting to say the least - others may have other ways of seeing things. Also - First, I think it was SatuSuro who made the version about the Faith that is now on the page, - if you cannot read differences of edits - be very careful about claiming anything - I simply removed your over-long quote - I did not create anything in the article. AGF restrains my feelings about this issue. WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOT still seem very important to think about as you wander through this place Satu Suro 05:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Got it. I believe in efficiency, I checked the discussion page before posting my first addition. What's an AGF?
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
05:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
WP:AGF assumption of good faith/civility etc Satu Suro 06:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
19:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Aaron:
First off, Welcome aboard. Wikipedia's Baha'is could use another enthusiastic contributor.
Second, if you're going to be spending time here, it pays handsomely to realize that this is a 'very different world than you're used to anywhere else in cyberspace. There are detailed rules for contribution, what WP is not and robust norms of conduct.
There is a Baha'i project page that some editors use. That would be a good place to start and connect with other interested people. You can always post to users' talk pages to invite opinion.
Please note, the the Baha'i editors in general, and some in particular Jeff3000, Cuñado, and myself) take the forms and norms here seriously. You may want to take a look here at a personal project page to see the level of effort we've already engaged on that line. Hyperbole will not serve the Faith in general, and will damage it here.
If there are two policies to be absolutely clear on, they are WP:NPOV and WP:OR. WP:UNDUE is related to NPOV. These require' the use of reliable tertiary sources providing content that enhances the treatment of a particular article.
With that in mind, and armed with a decent Baha'i encyclopedia or two, you can make some real contributions to the presentation of the subject here.
Looking forward to it.
Ciao, MARussellPESE ( talk) 03:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Allah-u-Abha! Thanks for the welcome. I only posted here out of desperation because I felt that information about the Baha'i Faith being omitted on that page was a serious problem and that potentially thousands of people could be missing an entire and important religion in researching the subject. I have too much going on in my community and personal life to become a regular contributor here, but am happy to be better armed if I come across any other such omissions. I think the biggest difficulty I had was distinguishing between what is common knowledge about the Faith and what would be considered original research. With the exception of the Faith being considered both and Eastern and Western religion I posted nothing that isn't common knowledge among most of the Baha'is that I know, but that apparently is very different from what is common knowledge about the Faith among people in general. Part of the frustration and confusion I had was also due to the fact that other religions use little to no referencing, on the Afterlife page at least, and rely on sources from academics within the Faith itself, while I was being asked to provide outside sources and was not allowed to make even a personal paraphrasation of an obvious concept that resounds through entirety of His Revelation. The prohibition against using a quote also seems unfair, especially after reading from the neutral point of view article that personal statements are perfectly allowable as long as they are presented as such. Is it simply that the Baha'is are the only people on Wikipedia voluntarily abiding by rules I haven't understood yet? Or is the Faith being treated differently because of its youth and the relative lack of public knowledge about it? Was the problem with my presentation of the subject entirely due to the fact that it was a paraphrasation and thus considered 'original research' when it was little more original than noticing that the sky is usually blue and the sun rises and sets, or was it with the language I used itself? I am truly confused.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
18:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
I think quotes like these, which I have been struggling to understand the implications of, have also influenced my point of view:
The vitality of men's belief in God is dying out in every land; nothing short of His wholesome medicine can ever restore it. The corrosion of ungodliness is eating into the vitals of human society; what else but the Elixir of His potent Revelation can cleanse and revive it? Is it within human power, O Hakim, to effect in the constituent elements of any of the minute and indivisible particles of matter so complete a transformation as to transmute it into purest gold? Perplexing and difficult as this may appear, the still greater task of converting satanic strength into heavenly power is one that We have been empowered to accomplish. The Force capable of such a transformation transcendeth the potency of the Elixir itself. The Word of God, alone, can claim the distinction of being endowed with the capacity required for so great and far-reaching a change.
Baha'u'llah, Baha'i World Faith, p. 113
Divine Truth is relative and that is why we are enjoined to constantly refer the seeker to the Word itself -- and why any explanations we make to ease the journey of the soul of any individual must be based on the Word -- and the Word alone.
From a letter dated 4 June 1957 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada and The Compilation of Compilations vol II, p. 324
From a purely academic point of view too, I think that quotes would be the most final and telling way to present what the Baha'u'llah teaches. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 18:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Two more things: if you guys aren't already, a friend suggested that you could be in communication with the N.S.A.s Office of Communications at ooc@usbnc.org about things going on here. Also, if one of the more experienced Baha'i editors on Wikipedia was willing to work with me I think I would like to create an entire page about the Baha'i views on the life after death. If it is something you would like to do with me please let me know.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Also, do you have any thoughts about it not being considered either an Eastern or Western religion? A friend of mine concurs and from their thinking I checked and there are 131 mentions of Buddha and 59 mentions of Krishna in the Baha'i literature available in Ocean. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Also, articles without a quote would be LESS neutral because they are relying more on someone else's opinion and point of view on the subject and less on presenting the information as it is. The only fear that is that the person isn't honest about hisself, which there is no proof for in this case. Aaron.s.12 ( talk) 19:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron
Your silence is giving me nerves. If you just don't need to respond please let me know that.
Aaron.s.12 (
talk)
08:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron