Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 16

Guyana
The demographics section includes a quote from the World Almanac which claims that Guyana is 7% Bahá'í. I have not been able to find any corroboration of this fact, and both the Guyanese Census and the CIA world factbook  seem to contradict the claim. Does anyone have a source which corroborates the World Factbook number? I would hate to have to remove the quote entirely, but if its information is inaccurate I may have to. NoIdeaNick (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's unsettling, I can't seem to find any either. Good investigative work on your part, by the way. Peter Deer (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like it's time someone write a whole article on the Baha'i Faith in Guyana.... :-) I'm nearly done with Cameroon and wanted to do a few more in Africa and Asia and then regroup and look at the larger picture and consult on some I think would be more challenging.--Smkolins (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that there are island nations in the Pacific that are closer to 15% Baha'i, so the Guyana statistic is old anyway. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  05:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found this, which shows Nauru at 9% and Tonga at 6%, and Guyana is down at 2%. But that was in 2000, I think some of those islands have higher percentages now. Some of them have a few thousand people, so the percentage of Baha'is can fluctuate a lot. I don't know where to look for sources though, cause I just remember reading it in some article someplace sometime. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  06:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the trouble with censuses too, you have to find which ones are the most recent as well as the most reliable. So adherents.com's appears to be 8 years old, the Guyanese Census PDF 6 years old and the World Factbook doesn't seem to state when its census was taken. Peter Deer (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been plugging away at a Baha'i Faith in Guyana article and it's pretty near done and it addresses this statistical weirdness. Turns out there was a significant exodus in Guyana, and apparently the Baha'is were a disprortionate amount of the exodus. I've not found enough details to really nail this down, but there are some comments

"There are 1996 claims of the Bahá'ís population being over 5% of the population. Large migrations, including many of Bahá'ís left Guyana for other places, especially New York and Toronto. The 2002 national census showed about 0.1%, or 500 . However by 2005 the Association of Religion Data Archives estimated there were some 12000 Bahá'ís and recently the national census notes near 2% (15000) are Bahá'ís as well." Smkolins (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No criticism section?
Where is the criticism section like that of Islam and Christianity? Also, why are Bahai websites used as sources on this article? That's against the Wikipedia policy on self-promotion and conflicts of interest. --07fan (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See discussion above about on the question of appropriateness of criticism articles and what exists already.--Smkolins (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To 07fan, please do not make accusations of bias without significant evidence. Wikipedia policy calls for assuming good faith, and it bears noting that Baha'is are not the only ones who edit the article so it is frankly unfair and prejudicial to blame the lack of a section on 'self promotion.' That being said, if you have neutral and verifiable sources you should be bold and add all pertinent information that improves the article, instead of making unfounded accusations towards all Baha'i editors while not contributing productively to the article. Peter Deer (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight:
 * This article should have a criticism section like Islam and Christianity don't?
 * This article should not refer to Baha'i sources when discussing itself, when Roman Catholic Church points to the Holy See, and WP:SELFPUB says that references to articles about themselves are in-bounds?
 * Um — No. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

07fan, I don't know the history of the "criticism" sections for the articles on Christianity and Islam and whether there has been a discussion on having one for this article, although it seems likely that there has been one, although there appears to have been a discussion for this article [added later on, modify 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)]. If my memory serves me from an unrelated connection, the idea is to add any relevant alternative viewpoints in an NPOV and a verifiable way to the relevant section rather than combining them into their own section. There may be a guideline or even policy on this point, and if so, it would be helpful here. As for the use of Baha'i sources, I think the point here is that there should be no self-promotion. If both Baha'is and people who are not Baha'i permit the use of Baha'i sources, then I don't think this issue arises. With most Baha'i sources there will be an obvious editorial bias, for Baha'is are eager to promote their view of things. Among these sources are ones that have reliable information and others that are mostly opinion or unverifiable information. The same can certainly be said for non-Baha'i sources, and it falls upon the editors to use reliable sources, whether they are Baha'i or not, and the readers to have a sense of what they are reading. What is to be avoided is a contest in which two or more sides seek to twist the article in a certain direction, for example, by using sources that are clearly polemical. If there are specific guidelines or policies that you are aware of, perhaps you can bring them up. modify 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There already is a link to Bahá'í apologetics so I find no need to have a Criticism section as the article is a bit lengthy.--75.164.127.206 (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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


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

I am indifferent to the question of whether or not this article needs a special "criticisms" section--that's just a question of organization. But I think that it certainly needs to describe criticisms of the faith in the main article, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. There is a wealth of good articles out there criticizing the Bahá'í faith from a variety of perspectives. For starters, see or. This article is particularly harsh, comparing it to a panopticon: and exploring the opacity of the central authority of the faith, arguing that the central authority makes a deliberate effort to publicly present the faith as more liberal than it actually is. These are all in peer-reviewed academic journals. Cazort (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think that use of Baha'i source should be avoided. It is clearly not a verifiable source from media or academia. Vapour (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bahai Sects?
The article says the faith is non-sectarian, but I found this http://bahaifaction.sosblog.com/. Is this true? Should unitarian and reformed bahais be included in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.127.206 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The page already states that "Bahá'í divisions have had relatively little success and have failed to attract a sizeable following." and links to Bahá'í divisions which goes over it in detail. The combined population of all of these other groups is less than 0.01% of all Baha'is and thus the Wikipedia policy of undue weight states that extreme minorities do not get included.  Regards. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know they were such a small minority.--75.164.127.206 (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that site is particularly dishonest. It implies that there are about a dozen extant, even flourishing, Baha'i organizations. The inconvenient fact left out is than about three-quarters of them are defunct, and the rest have not much more than a few hundred adherents taken collectively. Most have on the order of scores, if not individuals. Rather pitiful actually. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The founder of Baha’I Faith Mirza Ali Mohammed Shirazi known as Bab, was a disciple of Sayed Kazim Rashti the leader of the Shaikhiya sect." Is when I stopped reading. Wow. Zazaban (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If one were writing an article about the Catholic Church; and someone else pointed out, "Well, you have a renegade priest in South America who went back to the Latin Mass, and he has a couple of hundred ardent followers, and they reject the Pope and have returned to what they believe is true Catholicism," would any essay about Catholicism thereafter have to include reference to this looney priest in order to be deemed fair and complete? Brent Poirier 24.63.162.219 (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jesus was a "looney" himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.11.214 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are quite a few Independent Catholic Churches (and a rather shoddy wikipedia article on them), and that article and a few related churches are discussed on the main page on Catholicism...a list of such groups can be found here: . Some such groups have attracted media coverage: .  But I have not found any reliable sources covering the Bahá'í splinter groups...they seem extremely marginal to me.  Cazort (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That there are a large number of substantially populated independent Catholic churches aught not to be compared to the estimates of these splinter groups which have never numbered more than hundreds and probably far less, and note a B article about the entire history of them that has survived much ...close... editing. Smkolins (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Baha'i Schools?
I was thinking it should be appropriate for some mention of Baha'i Schools in the main article. They are a significant undertaking of many Baha'i national communities and we've got articles on several. I could imaging a section under Bahá'í Faith - make a whole section for Socio-economic development projects and Baha'i schools would be the main component - perhaps even a main article and link to it.... Conversely it would be nice to also have more articles on such schools and other SEDs.... SO much to do....Smkolins (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, currently Bahá'í schools are barely mentioned on this page and I think even a little bit more mention would be important. Cazort (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had been on a program of writing up wiki articles about various schools and have improved many but I've been taken up with a rather larger project for some time now - see Category:Bahá'í Faith by country and begun a very early phase of redoing of Bahá'í Faith by country (while plugging away at current issues like Persecution of Bahá'ís and Iranian presidential election, 2009.) Smkolins (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Nuri - Bahá'u'lláh
Why has the name of Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Nuri been removed from the article? Is not "Bahá'u'lláh" a title meaning "The Glory of Allah"? Rather than using their proper names, should this article instead refer to Jesus as "Christ", and Muhammad as "The Prophet"? IbnRushd (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The name is included in the appropriate subsection (Bahá'í Faith), where detail is appropriate, but the lead is not were such detail needs to be included. Wikipedia's policy on naming conventions states that one should a "use the most common name of a person or thing".  Baha'u'llah is the most common name used in English, and virtually all reliable sources including Iranica, the Encyclopedia of Islam, Encyclopedia Brittanica use Baha'u'llah for the names of their article, and throughout their articles relating to the Baha'i Faith.  Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bahá'u'lláh is not a name - it is a title, like "the Christ", or "the Prophet", or "the Buddha". IbnRushd (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the most common name referring to the person in question as defined by third-party reliable sources, and that is what Wikipedia uses based on its policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your response. "Bahá'u'lláh" is a title, not a name. Can you please answer this point? IbnRushd (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A name is "a label for a noun, (human or animal, thing, place, product [as in a brand name] and even an idea or concept), normally used to distinguish one from another." (from the Wikipedia article). Or if you want the definition from dictionary.com it is "a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known."  Notice that a name from those definitions is what a person is known as. Virtually all English-language sources label the person in question as Baha'u'llah, and therefore it is used as a name.  I haven't made that decision.  Encyclopedia Iranica has, the Encyclopedia of Islam has, the Encyclopedia Brittanica has, and so forth; these are not Baha'i sources, but third-party sources.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further if I recall correctly several academic sources going back to his own lifetime also refer to him as Baha'u'llah. Smkolins (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

about Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith
It is my feeling that this is a minor topic, covered initially in the section above, with plenty of room on the daughter page therein connected. Smkolins (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be right that it would be better on a sub-page, with only a brief mention (say a sentence summarizing it) on the main page. I'm not sure how minor of a topic this is though; that's a subjective call--to a gay rights activist it would not be a minor topic.  What I do know is that I have had no trouble finding sources describing this issue, and from many different perspectives.  I think it is relevant, also, that religioustolerance.org lists the issue of homosexuality as one of its 3 pages on controversies involving the Bahá'í Faith.  This book:  dedicates about a page to the issue of homosexuality in the Bahá'í Faith, and could serve as an independent source to some of the material.  I'm not sure exactly what the best way to organize the material would be...but I think it belongs somewhere.  Cazort (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * which brings us to LGBT issues and the Bahá'í Faith. Also note that structurally the main page for that section talks about marriage perse.Smkolins (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, thank you...I was not aware of that page's existence! But why is there no link to that from the main page?  This could be easily remedied.  But at any rate, I would agree that the material I added probably belongs there.  Cazort (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mouse over "homosexual" you will see it. The article was recently renamed.Smkolins (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, thanks! I find this to be counterintuitive.  The normal practices in wikipedia seem to be to shy away from these sorts of links, see Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context) under "intuitiveness".  Cazort (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be - I didn't make it that way. Last I recall seeing it was actually linked explicitly. However it is readable as is. I don't think it's an easter-egg, to my reading it's a relevant link without being disruptive to the sentence. Smkolins (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to throw a comparable example from another interest of mine in Wikipedia, I noticed "flat" had a similar style of linking on Dark energy - where it links to Flatness problem. Smkolins (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's an easter-egg. I wasted some editors' time and my own time, because I did not locate the LGBT issues and the Bahá'í Faith page...even though I was deliberately looking for it.  It's likely other people will do the same thing.  If you type "homosexual" in the search box, and all it does is highlight those two occurrences, it's very reasonable to assume that there's nothing else out there, which is exactly what I did.  The key here is that: users should not be expected to follow or mouse-over links in order to figure out what they link to...piping?  In my opinion is only appropriate for bypassing disambiguation pages.  The example you gave on the Dark Energy page highlights the same problem--a text search for "Flatness problem" comes up blank.  This makes wikipedia hard to use.  Cazort (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cazort, the book you mentioned as a reference is about religion and homosexuality. This is an issue of relevance and context on the main page in a summary style article. If you find several references summarizing the Baha'i Faith, you won't find the issue of homosexuality highlighted to the such an extent. The discouragement of homosexuality is mentioned twice clearly in the article, and linked to the expanded sub-article. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  03:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just changed the piped link and added a "see-also", which addresses most of my concerns here. Cazort (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

re-catting some pages
please see Talk:Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith_by_country Smkolins (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The previous organization was done through consensus, so please reobtain consensus when making such large changes. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the attempt didn't help. I'd prefer a more concise article but I can also see prominent aspects of the religion need some time. Smkolins (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


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

Underlying unity of the major world religions
I changed the phrasing of the statement on underlying unity of the major world religions. And then Jeff3000 changed it to something similar to what it was before. Would Jeff (or anyone) like to explain this? The current wording, "Bahá'í teachings emphasise an underlying unity of the major world religions", take as fact that there is an underlying unity there to be emphasised. Obviously, this is what Bahá'í's believe, but we are supposed to be describing what they believe, not assuming it. Yaris678 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The previous wording was "Bahá'í teachings emphasise the underlying unity of the major world religions" which would make it seem that there is indeed an underlying wording regardless of Baha'i belief. The current wording is "Bahá'í teachings emphasise an underlying unity of the major world religions" which clearly states that it's the Baha'i teachings that believe there is an underlying unity and that is not a fact.  Your wording removed the importance of the teaching.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware that you changed the wording from the to an. But I still think that wording implies there is a unity there to be emphasised.  Perhaps you are confused over the meaning of the word emphasise.  Yaris678 (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No I am not confused about the meaning of the word emphasize (it means to stress), because the Baha'i teachings definitely do emphasise (stress) an underlying unity, and that's what the sentence says. Using the word an in no way implies that an underlying unity exists.  The subject of the sentence is the Baha'i teachings and the verb is emphasise, and it's exactly like saying Jim emphasizes an underlying unity, which is a belief and not a fact.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't emphasise something which isn't there. We know the belief is there but we don't know that the unity is there.  Perhaps we should say "Bahá'í teachings emphasise their belief in the underlying unity of the major world religions."  Yaris678 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already clear that is a belief because it's the teaching of the Baha'i Faith which is clearly the subject of the sentence.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. We are obviously looking at this in very different ways.  I have requested a Third opinion.  Hopefully a third person will be able to explain the misunderstanding.  Yaris678 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * What about "The Bahá'í belief in an underlying unity among the major world religions receives great emphasis". Makes it clear that this is a specifically Bahá'í belief rather than a generally recognised "fact" while expressing the idea that this belief is emphasi(s/z)ed.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to throw another hat in the ring, but for simplicity's sake, what about saying "Bahá'í teachings emphasize a belief in an underlying unity of the major world religions?" That keeps it simple while not implying that there is indeed such a unity.  Does that not work for everyone? ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 01:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy with any of the wordings suggested by Edward Lalone, Soundofmusicals or Amory. On the point about American and British English - Yes, I am British.  Yes, I think Jeff3000 is probably American.  But I don't think our languages have diverged that much.  Your suggestion that "the" implies something exits, whereas "a" does not, doesn't get a mention in Article (grammar).  Yaris678 (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm less happy with the suggestion of Edward but perhaps it's because I see the current sentence serving two purposes - one is to note a teaching exists and second is to note it's notoriety within the complex of teachings Bahá'ís have and so it's placement early in the article. The original sentence with "the" or "a" accomplishes both I think whereas the alternatives strip the second purpose completely.Smkolins (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall we go with Amory's words then? Yaris678 (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * I'd like to suggest:
 * "The Bahá'í Faith teaches the underlying unity of the major world religions." or possibly,
 * "Bahá'ís believe in the underlying unity of the major world religions."


 * I prefer the first, because this is something explicitly in the faith's teachings rather than a shared belief. These hit the fact clearly in that this "unity' is not taken as indefinite or part of a class, but quite specific and particular. It also hits NPOV by stating that teaching/belief as just that, rather than fact. MARussellPESE (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "The Bahá'í Faith emphasizes the teaching that there is an underlying unity of the major world religions." Smkolins (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Smkolins suggestion is too wordy. I agree with most of what MARussellPESE says.  I prefer the second of his suggestions to the first.  Who is the faith teaching anyway?  Itself?  If the second sentence does not emphasise the importance of this belief enough, how about "Central to the Bahá'í Faith is a belief in the underlying unity of the major world religions."  Yaris678 (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that suggestion.Smkolins (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. I have put that in for now.  It doesn't have to be the last word on the subject if someone else wants to comment...  Yaris678 (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Jawohl, quite good. Mille grazie, MARussellPESE (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * Cuñado, Your new version is better, but I still prefer "Central to the Bahá'í Faith is a belief in the underlying unity of the major world religions." I think belief is a better word than doctrine or teaches.  Plus my preferred wording states that it is central, something that was discussed above.  The stuff about the "oneness" of the human race is a bit vague and irrelevant at this point.  Finally, why did you remove references to Krishna and Zoroaster?  I've been to a presentation by Baha'is and they definitely mentioned Krishna and I can't see why they would exclude Zoroastrianism.  Yaris678 (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Cunado's version. Both the oneness and mankind and the oneness of religion are key beliefs of the Baha'i Faith.  Plus the lead is no place to have the definitive list of Manifestations of God. I would change doctrine to principles. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would keep doctrine. I think it implies that there is a whole system of beliefs around it. But it's not a big deal. Anybody else? Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Jeff3000's points:
 * The Baha'i faith is big in India and it comes from Persia, so there is a point to mentioning those both Krishna and Zoroaster.
 * The unity of humanity is something nice that lots of people believe in. The unity of religions is intrinsic to Baha'i theology, as is explained by the sentences immediately following the the one under discussion.
 * Yaris678 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall I revert to the other wording then? Or is someone going to address my points?  Yaris678 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No you should not revert. As I mentioned above both the unity of humanity and the unity of religion are key beliefs in the Baha'i Faith. Neither is more important the other, and along with the unity of God they form three onenesses.  And I believe my point that the lead is no place for the definitive list of Manifestations of God is definitely on point.  That list deserves to be in the sub-article.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - both are important and need to be in the early section.Smkolins (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address my points - you are just repeating points you have already made. In case I wasn't clear before: Yaris678 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That the three onenesses are considered to be equally important in the Baha'i faith does not mean they have to be given equal importance in the article. To an outside observer trying to understand the Baha'i faith, the unity of religions is much more important because it leads into the whole manifestation thing.
 * I am not claiming that we need to list all manifestations here - just that Zoroaster and Krishna are important in terms of the origins and current distribution of the religion and hence these two should be listed.
 * Sorry, but you are not addressing my points and are just repeating yourself as well. Here are some rebuttels to your points below, but you need to read more about the Baha'i Faith and most editors don't agree with you.
 * Your point is not true. That you believe the unity of religions is more important to the unity of humanity for the outside observer is your personal opinion, and one that is not shared with other editors. This article is about the Baha'i Faith, what it is, what it believes, etc, etc. To an observer wanting to understand the Baha'i Faith it should know about the main principles that it teaches, and in fact the unity of humanity is described as the "cornerstone" of the Baha'i teachings by both primary and secondary sources.
 * While Zoroaster and Krishna are regarded as Manifestations of God they are not discussed in the Baha'i writings in any great detail, and especially for Zoroaster, your point about it being important in terms of the origins and current distribution is just plainly false.
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph and the sentence we're talking about can be seen in two different dictionary entries, each stating the name of Baha'u'llah, year of founding, country of origin, etc. One says the religion is "emphasizing the spiritual unity of all humankind", the other says it teaches "the essential worth of all religions, the unity of all races, and the equality of the sexes." Another entry says, "a religion advocating universal peace and stressing the spiritual unity of humankind". These are about as concise as you can get, and reflect the kind of language that should be in the lead of the article, rather than writing in the points that are important to one of us.
 * Regarding the prophets, the list would be counterproductive if it was too long. Actually all we need is Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad to get the point across. That represents the vast majority of the world's religious adherents, and anyone who has studied them knows that those are accepting of previous prophets. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


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

OK. Let me take you each in turn.

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Yaris678 (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically, that these things which are not mentioned very explicitly in the writings should not get specific extra emphasis because of the geography of the region, and should instead only be presented to the degree it is actually pertinent to the material and appropriate for the article. In terms of "neutrality" it is specifically not placing extra emphasis on those particular roots just because of the number of Baha'is that are from those regions. Peter Deer (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I think I get the nature of the disagreement now.  It is a disagreement about which manifestations deserve a mention at that point in the article.  I think it should be based on "facts on the ground".  i.e. the history and present day of the Baha'i faith.  You think it should be based on significance given to the manifestations in Baha'i scripture.  Am I right?  The thing is, I think you have it the wrong way around about NPOV.  Surely the neutral thing to do would be to base of article on reality.  Taking the emphasis from scripture is just taking the point of view of the scripture.  Yaris678 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter Deer has correctly noted that the connection to Zoroaster and Krishna is minor in the scripture compared to the others, and, in addition, the secondary sources also do not emphasize Zoroaster and Krishna, especially in the way that you are alluding.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

That's a good point... given that we have already mentioned "the spiritual unity of all humankind" the bit about "the oneness of the entire human race and the basic unity of all religions" seems superfluous. Perhaps that paragraph should just start with "In the Baha'i faith, religious history is seen to have unfolded through a series of divine messengers..." Yaris678 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but I think the prophets section is getting large compared to the rest. How about moving or restating Shoghi Effendi's summary below as the second paragraph and the lead sentence more list what the Dictionary.com entry is, and move the whole prophet list paragraph down to the Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith section. Smkolins (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the lead as it is now. I think the bit about manifestations is the right size, given how important this concept is.  Yaris678 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're happy, but I'm not happy. As mentioned multiple times, and sourced by many different secondary sources, the principle of the unity of humanity is just as important, if not more.  I'm going to revert.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


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


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

Engagement of the community through projects addressing social problems and priorities
Seems to me there should be a section about this - how about something like this - insert the following in Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith:

"Since it's inception the religion has had involvement in socio-economic development beginning by giving greater freedom to women, promulgating the promotion of female education as a priority concern, and that involvement was given practical expression by creating schools, agricultural coops, and clinics. The religion entered a new phase of activity when a message of the Universal House of Justice dated 20 October 1983 was released. Bahá'ís were urged to seek out ways, compatible with the Bahá'í teachings, in which they could become involved in the social and economic development of the communities in which they lived. World-wide in 1979 there were 129 officially recognized Bahá'í socio-economic development projects. By 1987, the number of officially recognized development projects had increased to 1482." Though it might need more update info if someone can help. Smkolins (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. My suggestion would be to create a sub-section called 'Socio-economic development', just above or below the section 'United Nations'. What is the source for the 1979 and 1987 statistics? That doesn't become clear to me from the last sentences of the above section. Wiki-uk (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The 1979-87 stat comes from the "3" source.Smkolins (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest taking the section titled "Work" and merge that into some of the above ideas for a new paragraph. Also, the UN section could use some cleanup and has related material. The above paragraph is a little too promotional. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk
 * Is the "too promotional" question about "greater freedom"?? Or simply using the stats? What's the language you are tripping on?Smkolins (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the God section
Does anyone have access to the references used to see if the recent inclusions are harmonious with the sources? Infallible doesn't seem dubious, but "colossal" seems...well, out of place. Does anyone have access to the source material that could verify that for me? Peter Deer (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No hits on the word "colossal" though it could be line wrapped - . However I found a line wrapped word (perspective) and did a search for it and the third hit in this shows the google search should pick up the word colossal if it were linewrapped with a dash. All hits on the word in GPB don't convey the idea here  Smkolins (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the book, and neither of those two terms are in the reference. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Iran/Persia
The article for some time has said the religion was founded in 19th century Persia, while Persia linked to the Persian Empire, which divided up the history of the Iranian Plateau in different empires and dynasties. Now Persian Empire links to Achaemenid Empire, which is the kingdom of Cyrus and Darius. All other empires and dynasties have their own articles, so the only applicable link now would be the Qajar dynasty. I think this development is a good thing, because it's only 20th century nationalism that would make people think that there is something eternal about a nation (e.g. Iran) that can be tracked throughout time. I'm changing the link to point to Qajar dynasty, unless someone has a better idea. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  18:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is sound reasoning. There are various places where links like this exist and have lead to trouble as people pushed the link bac and forth. I think your link is the most sound. But I wonder if any events Baha'is mention in relation to that time are mentioned in the article even briefly? It wasn't so notable at the time perhaps or perhaps not but perhaps it is also worth noting as something from that time that reaches down to today.Smkolins (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * Looking at it again the "citation" is "Lewis (1984) p.21". That doesn't seem to meet any kind of minimum information for a valid situation. There's no link or work cited. Jeff3000 - what do you think?--Smkolins (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The referencing for this particular case is the Harvard Referencing, and the full reference is in the Reference section (and is Lewis, Bernard (1984). The Jews of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691008078.). I think the section should stay, and I don't think much else should be added.  Maybe reactions is a bad word for it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on the name at least.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear friends, Although it may possibly be technically correct to say that Bernard Lewis states that Baha'i existence challenges Islamic doctrine of perfection of Muhammad's revelation, given that there are many Baha'i books upholding the perfection of Muhammad's revelation, can term 'perfection' be removed given that the statement is not in inverted commas and thus does not have to be word for word what Mr Lewis stated? In this way the Wiki article may become more objective even in places where Mr Lewis' comments are not. Daniel De Mol (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism
With all respect to Editor:Desibhagera, the additions re:Zoroastrianism are too extensive and have not been melded into the article. They have been inserted with no editorial attempt to explain to the reader what is the historic relationship to the subject of the article, the Bahai Faith. These additions should be "undone". Their inclusion and present location will mislead the reader and forstall (and perhaps prevent) understanding of the Bahai Faith.--Buster7 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Done. Smkolins (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only are they too extensive, but they really have nothing to do with this article, and should be removed as they are added. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Buster7 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bahai Faith and Homosexuality
Recent editing attempts have been put forth regarding marriage and human sexuality. It may be an appropriate time to discuss the topic here before it is brought to the article...
 * Marriage and the family are the bedrock of the whole structure of human society as expressed in Baha'i teachings on sexual morality. Baha'i Law is designed to protect and strengthen the divine institution of Marriage. Baha'i Law restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.
 * Understandably this stance may not fit the recent societal changes that we humans have experienced and have accepted regarding homosexuality. But there is no way around the fact that Bahalluah more than just discouraged it, he condemned it.

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


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

Baha'i prophecies?
could anyone please make a new article presenting alleged prophecies within baha'i scriptures and textsJigglyfidders (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean Bahá'í prophecies?Smkolins (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

txJigglyfidders (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral
The article needs to be written from a neutral perspective. The Iranian perspective should definitely be attributed to them, but the perspectives critical of the Iranian perspectives should also be attributed, not merely stated as fact.Bless sins (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Virtually all third party sources (Amensty, Human Rights Organizations including FDIH and others, Britannica, Iranica, the UN, European Union, New York Times, CBC, etc, etc) state the the Iranian government's perspective is propaganda, and being neutral means actually abiding by the wider consensus. The Iranian government's view is given the right amount of coverage in the part of the article where it is germane regarding to the ostensible reasons for persecution. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Add more categories?
To moderators: I suggest adding some more Categories, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religious_organizations or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Organizations_based_in_Illinois. I tried to do it but cancelled my edit, fearing my browser would mess up the non-Roman fonts included in the article. I noticed this lack of categories when searching for places to link to my new page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irfan_Colloquium (in progress). Jonah22 (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is already in a subcategory under Religious_organizations (Religious faiths, traditions, and movements - Abrahamic religions - Bahá'í Faith). As for the second the religion as a whole is "based" out of Haifa Israel and then each country has it's own national assembly. The US National Assembly is based in a suburb of Chicago so that might apply but there is no article (yet?) about the US community or it's national assembly. We're still trying to get caught up on the countries. Smkolins (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Baha'i edits
These edits should probably be reverted. They are clearly well intentioned, but replace "educator" with "Manifestation", remove the reference to males on the House of Justice, and use quotes from bahai.org as a reference. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  22:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is perhaps a drift from NPOV language if capped Manifestation is too strong. And while some of the changes are admittedly true they are less obvious ways of putting things to a new reviewer of the information I think. However I appreciate the action of discussion. I've pointed the new editor to this discussion as this may serve to add some opportunity for reflection on the quality that made the article a Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Smkolins (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted them. While they were done under good faith, they were done using Baha'i jargon, and replacing some neutral language with some non-neutral language. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My College professor was an educator. He was, however, not a manifestation of knowledge. To "dumb-down" these elevated individuals, these prophets, to mere educators does our readers a dis-service. They exemplified what it takes to have even a glimmer of the Unknowable. This particular piece of "Baha'i jargon" (Manifestation) is not some foolish internal fiddle-faddle or gibberish. To call them educators distorts their place in human history. --Buster7 (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "their place in human history" isn't observable from neutral sources. While we do have an article Manifestation of God which could be syntactically redressed to look like manifestation there is a aspect of needing to say everything in just one article and in every more developed term in every place it can be used.Smkolins (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Educator" in this sense is "Baha'i jargon" if anything is! Teaching, in the Baha'i world view is by far the most noble of all the professions (the next one down is that of the farmer). Thus calling even God himself (much less His Manifestations) the "Educator" is totally appropriate. In a Baha'i sense you just can't have a "mere" educator, unless he is grotesquely unworthy of his calling. Now all this might not be appropriate to an article primarily written to explain the Faith of God to people steeped in a very different culture. You can't grumble too much if we Baha'is sometimes lose sight of this a little - and need to be brought back into "this" world to use "common" language.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In no way do I intend to demean the role of educators. I just want the article to clearly express the elevated status that these few individuals have within my faith.--Buster7 (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No - I'm actually agreeing with you! "Educator" is not unclear to a (well-informed) Baha'i - but may very well be confusing (unclear) to the general public, for whom, after all, this article is written. The word "educator" in the usual sense is a very pale thing, as you rightly point out, compared with "Educator" in a Baha'i sense (or in Baha'i jargon). Of course any expression of the elevated status of God (and His Manifestations) is inadequate and incomplete - why we do it "one aspect at a time". Thus "The Educator" is one of the many names of God, as is "The Help in Peril", for instance. My point was that all this is much too metphysical for this article (possibly for many Baha'is too?)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You think using a term like "Manifestations" which noone that is a not a Baha'i will understand will show their elevated status. The probability of that is 0. Only Baha'is understand the word Manifestation  The phrase uses "divine educators", with the divine indicating the special status, but if you want go ahead and change it to "divine messengers", but Manifestations, especially with a capital-M, is not only not understandable, it's not neutral.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Jeff, that "divine messenger" fits the neutrality bill (and, much more importantly, the "understandability" and "non-Baha'i jargon" bills) best of all. I have actually gone and changed it. As for "expressing elevated status" - this in itself is probably (in this context) rather less important HERE, Buster. My point was, to repeat myself yet again, that "educator" did this perfectly well already, albeit in a Baha'i jargon sort of way... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

about the Algeria detail
It's a small thing but the citation request might be a bit hard to nail down under Bahá'í_Faith - the State Dept reference goes to great length to detail how tightly Islam is controlled but mentions other religions not at all. It doesn't seem hard for me to see that other religions have no recognition in Algeria but it seems very hard to actually document positively instead of by implication.See. Smkolins (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * like "Although society generally tolerates foreigners and citizens who practice religions other than Islam, some local converts to Christianity kept a low profile out of concern for their personal safety and potential legal and social problems."

or

"Ordinance 06-03, which entered into effect in September 2006 and has been enforced since February 2008, limits the practice of non-Muslim religions, restricts public assembly for the purpose of worship, and calls for the creation of a national commission to regulate the registration process. The ordinance requires organized religious groups to register with the Government, controls the importation of religious texts, and orders fines and punishments for individuals who proselytize Muslims. Many representatives of churches and some human rights organizations reported that the Government has not provided the administrative means to process and approve requests to register non-Muslim religious groups under the ordinance. The National Commission for Non-Muslim Religious Services, the governmental entity responsible for regulating the registration process for non-Muslim religious groups, reportedly had not approved any requests for accreditation by non-Muslim religious associations by the end of the reporting period. Christian citizens who converted from Islam reportedly constitute the vast majority of the groups who have sought legal registration."

Yet a couple refs mention a Baha'i population in the low thousands, ,. Smkolins (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

baha'i population
Most sources put the number of adherents of Baha'i at 7 million. Could someone make this change please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanttoeditthissh (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not true. See Baha'i statistics for a breakdown of estimates. David Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 2000, is the main source for all those claims, and besides claiming 7 million worldwide, its breakdown gives 750 thousand Baha'is in the USA, which is 600 thousand more than Baha'is claim to have enrolled, which itself is probably made up of tens of thousands that are enrolled and don't consider themselves Baha'is. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  21:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I've never seen documentation to this effect I've heard comments from scholars familiar with the World Christian Encyclopedia saying that they count individuals as Baha'is based on audiences at public events. Baha'is institutions generally have far stricter rules for counting members. This isn't to say that the World Christian Encyclopedia is a useless reference but it is to note that individual statistics have individual meanings and comparing them in detail is often frought with overinterpritation of information and tricky assumptions. However I've not yet seen careful explanations of WCE stats so this approach to understanding WCE is not - and note there is broad agreement among various sources like CIA and WCE that is in detailed in a reference. On the other hand Baha'i institutions generally use "over 5 million" which has a basis in Baha'i sources stretching back to 1987 or so but also deals with the vagaries of how different cultures and societies deal with counting memberships - for example in Iceland membership in religions is illegal without government registration and this is far from normal across much of the developing countries.Smkolins (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

just cause folks tend to watch this page... see Bahá'í Faith and Native Americans
A new article! Smkolins (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And a lovely one at that, well-referenced and comprehensive. Nice job, I'll add to my watchlist and get to work contributing. Peter Deer (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

is it?
Is this an Abrahamic religion? If so, could someone clarify this in the lead with citations please? Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.83.83 (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Refer to link or [].--Buster7 (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

the Trinity and the critical importance of the Manifestations
Ok, so I'm a N00B to editing Wikipedia, and in my ignorance I posted this exhaustive explaination on the wrong page hoping that someone would change the article for me because I thought I couldn't myself. I have since realized that I can change the article, but rather than waste the long explaination I wrote, I thought I'd post it here so others could read my justifications after I inevitably screw up the post or someone changes it.

I have not included any new sources in my edit since it is largely concerned with the misrepresentation of a source that has already been cited. Most of my edits can be supported by that source. Here is my original post:

Please change

{Bahá'í teachings state that God is too great for humans to fully comprehend, or to create a complete and accurate image of, by themselves. Therefore, human understanding of God is achieved through his revelations via his Manifestations.[15][16] In the Bahá'í religion God is often referred to by titles and attributes (e.g. the All-Powerful, or the All-Loving), and there is a substantial emphasis on monotheism; such doctrines as the Trinity contradict the Bahá'í view that God is single and has no equal.[17] The Bahá'í teachings state that the attributes which are applied to God are used to translate Godliness into human terms and also to help individuals concentrate on their own attributes in worshipping God to develop their potentialities on their spiritual path.[15][16] According to the Bahá'í teachings the human purpose is to learn to know and love God through such methods as prayer, reflection and being of service to humankind.[15]}

to

{Bahá'í teachings state that God is too great for humans to fully comprehend, or to create a complete and accurate image of by themselves. Therefore, human understanding of God is achieved through his revelations via his Manifestations.[15][16] The Manifestations are thus seen as critical divine intermediaries, necessary for mankind's guidance on the path of God's will. The dual nature of the Manifestations is described by Baha'u'llah as simultaneously human and divine, similar to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.[17]

In the Bahá'í religion God is often referred to by titles and attributes (e.g. the Almighty, or the All-Loving). The Bahá'í teachings state that the attributes which are applied to God are used to translate Godliness into human terms and also to help individuals concentrate on their own attributes in worshipping God to develop their potentialities on their spiritual path.[15][16] According to the Bahá'í teachings the human purpose is to know and love God. Baha'is carry out these teachings through prayer, reflection and being of service to humankind.[15]}

because

1. Source [17]- [Stockman, Robert. "Jesus Christ in the Baha'i Writings". Baha'i Studies Review 2 (1).] concludes that the Baha'i teachings regarding the nature of the Manifestations parallels the concept of Jesus in the Trinity by Christian theologians. To have the original Wikipedia page state the opposite based on this source was a major oversight. The article poses the following points:

a)Jesus refers to Himself as God in some instances and separate from God in others. The Trinity seeks to explain how Jesus could be God and also separate from God. Baha'u'llah also refers to this dual nature, and the author cites a quote.

b) Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha both discussed the Trinity and confirmed that Christians were correct in their conclusion that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were all parts of God's nature, while at the same time God was one in His essence (not three separate gods). The author cites two quotes.

c)The analogy of God as the sun and Jesus as a mirror reflecting the light of the sun has been used by theologians to explain the Trinity. The author cites Abdu'l-Baha's use of the same analogy.

2. The article in source [17] also references Baha'u'llah referring to mankind's requirement to accept the Manifestation of God, without Whose guidance they will "be gone astray" and all of their work will amount to nothing. The author states that Baha'is see recognition of the Manifestation as "crucial for one's spiritual progress", hence my addition of the line . This is a key point in Baha'i theology.

3. "Almighty" is a name for God used by Baha'is, similar to "All-Powerful", but one that is more commonly used.

4.  This was changed to emphasize that the Baha'i teaching is that the human purpose is to know and love God. Prayer, reflection, and service are some methods Baha'is might use to achieve these ends, but are not the human purpose themselves or the only means possible. This sentence could be misleading.

Thank you for considering my request for an edit. As you can see, items 1 and 2 are important parts of this article that have been misrepresented or left out. I hope that the article will be edited accordingly. Need to sleep (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Need_to_sleep


 * Sorry the above does not fly since you are doing synthesis from various different sources, many primary, to make your conclusion that the Baha'i concept of God is like the Trinity in Christianity.  Not only is performing synthesis considered original research and not allowed per policy, but using primary sources to make conclusions is also against the original research policy.  Statements sourced must be clearly specified from secondary sources.  In fact the article from Stockman that you are referring to writes "the Trinity contradicts the Bahái view that God consists of a single consists of a single, transcendent, unknowable essence."  The parts you are referring to and quoating above is, according to the author of that article, "one Bahá'í explanation of the symbolism of the Trinity", and does not indicate that the Baha'i viewpoint of God is like the Trinity, which is an untrue statement.  For example, if you peruse many other Baha'i scriptures there are statements clearly stating the opposite, such as when Abdu'l-Baha writes "the falsity of Trinity is evident".
 * In the end you are confusing the teachings of the Baha'i Faith which do not mention the trinity, to how the Baha'i teachings explain the symbolism of a Christian concept, the Trinity. Most academic sources on the Baha'i Faith do not liken the Baha'i concept of God to the Trinity, as there are many connotations to that term which are false in the Baha'i viewpoint, and thus it has no place in this article.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Jeff3000 in general. Moreover the dual nature of the Manifestation as stated in Baha'i and Christian contexts really doesn't bear on the question of the Trinity from a Baha'i or Christian pov, though it by itself is a key doctrine. It may take some work finding citations but I think the most that can be said is that, from a Baha'i pov, God the Almighty, the Manifestation, and the Holy Spirit, must be in unique and superlative relationship, but at the same time keeping to monotheism, while allowing the characteristics of God that are knowable to be considered holy as the understandable signs of God, but not in keeping with polytheism either. To push either the relationship of God, the Manifestation and the Holy Spirit, to a singularity, or to raise the characteristics of God to independence would violate the key stances of these topics that numerous sources underscore. That the Manifestation speaks for God, or at the request of God, or as God, is not the same as confusing the station of the Manifestation as separate from and inferior to God and that the characteristics of God are sometimes given voice in the literature is not to equate them with independence from a Baha'i pov. However, let me congratulate you on an approach of trying to use sources to make a point. Most new contributors tend to just jump in with an opinion and do so right in the article. You have acted in awareness that sources matter, and that talking about changes in the article are important. You deserve alittle affirmation even if your first attempt was syntacticly clumsy. We've all made goofs and while we don't agree with what the sources say, I think you have the skills to be a valuable contributor to wikipedia - just keep in mind that it can be a tough learning ground despite a policy and predisposition to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Smkolins (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gate of the Heart by Saiedi explains in detail the concept of the Primal Will and stages of divine creative Action that are presented in the Bab's writings. These concepts helped me understand the the Christian trinity in light of the Baha'i teachings.  The Primal Will is a creation of God which is responsible for the creation of the universe (both matter and spirit).  The Manifestations of God are reflections of the Primal Will (one of the Bab's titles is Primal Point) not of the essence of God Himself.  The Primal Will has two stations: divinity and servitude.  In the station of divinity it is the will and purpose of God and in the station of servitude it is the servant of God.  Thus the manifestations speak to us with the voice of God while being merely servants of the essence of God, creator of the Primal Will.  Saiedi states on p247 that the approach of Hegel and others in following an incarnationist approach to Christianity "...confounds the essence of God with the realm of divine Action."  And further: "The metaphysical truth the doctrine of the trinity attempts to explain has nothing to do with the essence of God.  Rather, it is an affirmation of the triad of Will, Determination, and Destiny or the Manifestation of God in the world."  The highest level we can attain is an understanding of the "revelation of God at the level of the phenomenal world."  The difficulty thus far, at least before the Bab, has been with the "tendency of human beings to take the categories that pertain to their own reality and then elevate them to the descriptions of the essence of God."  Aaron1792 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo Availability
Hello Friends, I've been busy, writing a photographic history book about the [ http://www.amazon.com/Bahai­-Temple-Images-America-Candace/dp/0738584215/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1288149065&sr=8-1 Baha'i Temple] in Wilmette, for Arcadia publishers. It has 199 historic photographs, and I have digital scans for many more. If I understand the law for copyright correctly, any photo older than 70 years is now in the public domain, so that would include any photo taken before 1940? Rather than load these up on the Creative Commons willy-nilly, do you have a photo wish list these days? I've got some really nice photos of 110 Linden Ave, 536 Sheridan Road, and of Louis Bourgeois. I'm Nonpartisan 03:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)
 * My understanding of copyright is that the photo goes into the public domain, not after 70 years, but after 70 years after the authors death, so there many some time to go before the pictures go into the public domain. I may be wrong though.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Holy Spirit In Baha'i Faith
I would like to request that an article be in Wikipedia on Baha'i's beliefs on the role of the Holy Spirit. Thank you in advance.--Splashen (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That may be possible but see Holy_spirit first as a starting point. Smkolins (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)