Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 18

Official written agreement between the BWC and the State of Israel
I know such accord exists and has been signed in the 1990s between the Baha'i World Centre (BWC) in haifa, Israel and the State of Israel. I think it is a material fact and should be mentioned in the Administration section (and please don't tell me this accord does not exist!) 67.87.50.54 (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Like every country doesn't regulate religions? Come on! For a church to marry people in the United States they have to be registered with the Department of State of whatever state they are in - filing paperwork back and forth, paying registration costs, etc. Yet I don't see entries in wikipedia articles noting the registration status and details of each religion and institution per country. Occasionally there is some reference to when a religion is DENIED the ability to be registered and recognized and that has been mentioned in some place for Baha'is as well as others. But aside from that and as far as reliable sources I can only find a couple brief mentions in Smith's "A Concise Encyclopedia" and one newspaper story about the Baha'is having an agreement with the state of Israel. It is not notable in the reviews of the Faith I can find.--Smkolins (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this accord is not what you say (obviously you don't know since you have not read it). It is more like establishing the relations of the Vatican with Italy, which is to be updated as the status of BWC itself evolves. It is a kind of "seat accord". Why this is unknown to most Baha'is is a mystery all by itself :) . The idea is that BWC will obtain an international status (within Israel) sometime in the future much like the Holy See. When the Secretary General of the BWC says that Baha'is are not treated favorably by Israel is somewhat 'incorrect' to say the least. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, Reliable sources and Notability are Wikipedia policies. Original research and synthesis are not permissible.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I can't help you with the verifiability part since the UHJ itself does not want to share this document with you! Regards, 67.87.50.54 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Jeff3000 that notability through reliable sources is the standard you seem to be referring to other standards of information. --Smkolins (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding notability, please refer to the article at Holy See. It has one section devoted to it entirely.

Finally, "Original research or synthesis"? not really, but again you need to read the original document for yourself FIRST before judging. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "regarding notability"is being spoken of, between us, in two different ways. I'm addressing if reliable sources discuss it and they don't. You are suggesting the topic is, but if sources dont then your opinion is not with the norm. --Smkolins (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a problem with the fact that this document exists and the Universal House of Justice of this sect does NOT want to share its content publicly. It is not a question of 'my belief to be in line with the norms'! You are being risible :) 67.87.50.54 (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You err in several ways all at the same time. And going into personal attacks doesn't help.--Smkolins (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

NB: I do have this document in possession and its authenticity is NOT disputed in any way, shape or form. At this point, if i were you, i would ask the advise of your Baha'i Internet agency before digging a greater hole for yourself! 67.87.50.54 (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you err in several ways at the same time.--Smkolins (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, verifiability, Reliable sources and Notability are Wikipedia policies. Original research, synthesis and self-published sources are not permissible.  Also, Wikipedia is not a forum; if you wish to discuss the existence or non-existence of a documented, without sources, please do that at a forum, or on your talk pages.  Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt the document concerned exists, and, further, I suspect you know very well it doesn't exist, or alternatively does not bear anything like the construction you put on it here, or you would be able to give us a source. "Stirring" as we call it in Australia can be great fun, but Wikipedia (especially the talk pages of articles) is a bad place to try it, because we are constrained to take you seriously ("assuming good faith" we call it) however fantastical you become. There is in fact (keep my response to you serious) a whole article detailing a number of official Iranian government accusations of this general nature. The fact that this particular charge has NOT been raised at an official level (perhaps it will be soon?) when so many remarkable charges HAVE been raised in this context does make it "original research" from a Wikipedia point of view. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever is claimed or not I think it is pretty clear this interaction is not aimed at improving the article. --Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I got this document from the NSA itself. It would take an email to your UHJ to confirm this; yet you continue to dig a whole for yourself with all your unfounded arguments and personal accusations.67.87.50.54 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, verifiability, Reliable sources and Notability are Wikipedia policies. Original research, synthesis and self-published sources are not permissible.  Also, Wikipedia is not a forum; if you wish to discuss the existence or non-existence of a documented, without sources, please do that at a forum, or on your talk pages.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the editor who claims to have the document can produce it, or indicate somewhere where it is available, then it would be extremely useful if he would either produce it, or provide a link to a website where it can be found. That would allow others to determine if the document exists, exactly what it says, and how important the information to be sourced from it is, which would help determine which article it would go into. I am in no way an expert on the state of Israel, but I would have to assume that if a democratic country like Israel were to have been a party to such a document, that its official records would contain a copy of it. Otherwise, all I see are to date unfounded assertions regarding something whose very existence has yet to be definitively established.
 * If the document or explicit reference to it in independent reliable sources cannot be produced, then it seems to me that further discussion of it on this page would not be particularly relevant to the development of this article, and a violation of WP:TPG, and also probably WP:TE as well, and such violations can reasonably in some cases lead to some form of sanctions. Therefore, I believe it is in the best interests of the editor, and the project itself, if he produces a copy of the document that others can see, or drops the subject altogether and does not continue to misuse this page in what seems a counterproductive way in violation of WP:TPG. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I found this online (which proves the accord does exist). I hope this helps your discussion above:

173.63.117.11 (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The point being? Surely many religious (and non-religious) bodies have agreements of similar import with governments of various countries, as someone remarked right near the top of this discussion! Such agreements are necessary for all kinds of reason - not the least to secure property rights, tax-free status and so on. A religion that is either not recognised at all, or specifically banned in several countries can be forgiven for laying stress on obtaining such recogntion where it is available. The partisan site from which this was dredged contains a parallel accusation that the Baha'is are subversive of the state of Israel, and "fantasising" about a time when Israel may have a Baha'i government! Which is it to be? You can't have it both ways! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not true. Read the agreement of the Universal House of Justice. It is a (political) accord of "friendship" and "cooperation" as stated in their letter. 67.87.49.154 (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Change in use of Badi calender
Since the use of the Baha'i (or Badi) calender in the West is no longer tied to the Gregorian calender but to direct astronomical observation - references to Gregorian calender dates for Baha'i feasts and festivals etc. perhaps should be changed, even if it is only adding "(in most years)" here and there. This is, in factual terms, a pretty petty change - never making more that one day's difference (so far as I know) but if it is noted at all, it needs to be done comprehensively, and carefully. The "twin holy days" which are now celebrated according to the Muslim calender in the West, as they always have been in Iran - also may need some careful changes, by an editor thoroughly familiar with all the implications, etc. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed but also minding that the primary identification should remain the common calendar. For informational purposes the Badi calendar specifics should be included but not to the point they obscure identifying the general calendar - at least that is my feeling. --Smkolins (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nearly "rushed in where angels feared to tread" here myself but was held back by similar constraints. Better not done at all than done in a way that obscures rather than enlightens. Exactly what I was talking about when I used the word "careful". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

But the facts need to be correct. For eg. saying that Baha'is fast from 2nd to 21th March or that the Baha'i new year is on 21st March may not be true for every year after the Letter from the UHJ dated 10 July 2014. The "twin holy days" will not be celebrated according to the Muslim calender in the West, as they always have been in Iran (1st and 2nd Muharram);but rather on the first and the second day of the 8th new moon after Nawruz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed99999 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Section of Reincarnation
I have reverted the section on Reincarnation for a number of reasons, including that (1) the sources are based on interpretation of primary source material, (2) sourced by pages of the Unitiarian Baha'is, which is a small subset of the Baha'is that don't pass the the undue weight policy of Wikipedia "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it". 3) Reincarnation, Resurrection, etc, are not primary teachings of the Baha'i Faith that should be on the summary style article that is already past the size recommendation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree on quite the obscure angle. Obscure to the point of oblivion pretty much. --Smkolins (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The anonymous editor notes "The beliefs of the largest body of Baha'is, the Unitarian Baha'is, are not represented whatsoever in this article. Equal to leaving Sunnis out in a discussion on Islam". There are no reliable sources that point to that.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting New Libel
We are used to old one, that the Baha'i Faith is "Zionist" and the Baha'is were (are?) supporters of the Shah(s) regime(s). Now the reverse is true, apparently - the Faith is, according to the newest information, persecuted by the Zionists, and the objections of the Irani government stem from anti-Shah activity. Watch out, because apparently this is now what God passes by (and "every other source) now says! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * headed for the deep end. --Smkolins (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Claims on Hindu Texts
Any claims to Hindu texts are one sided as Hindus do not recognize bahaulah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.209.165 (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bahá'í Faith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120104102223/http://bahai-library.com/uhj_nine_pointed_star to http://bahai-library.com/uhj_nine_pointed_star
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/6.4%20Hassall.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Medium sized"
This still troubles me - at least in this context. An essentially comparative adjective like this would need qualification to be considered encyclopedic, surely? "Medium sized" compared with Islam or Christianity? I don't really think that is either sustainable, nor terribly relevant anyway. Either a "puff" or a "putdown" but not in either case real information. A source using the phrase is of course no justification at all - a book or journal article will often be written in very different terms to that appropriate in a general encyclopedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:verifiability is that the source ought to be reliable, which it is in this case. I did not see more requirements on that policy page or other policies and guidelines. Ninefive6 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because a reliable source uses a particular word, especially an adjective (maybe very appropriately in its own context) does not mean the same adjective is equally appropriate here. "Medium sized" (by itself, without information about what the medium sized thing is being compared to) is much too vague to convey useful encyclopedia type information - it does not, in this context, really mean anything. This may not be spelled out in a particular policy or guideline - assuming we work on the text of Wikipedia in even a vaguely rational way it shouldn't have to. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts in various directions. I've reviewed the chapter including the statement. It is not an extended investigation of what sizes of religions means or of the Baha'i Faith statistical picture itself. It is a one paragraph reference to the religion in a chapter mostly dedicated to the debate of what it means to be the fastest growing religion and mostly debunks a few contenders saying (my words) all smaller religions will count high in percentage growth because of small size and lists the Baha'is as part of such a pattern - though he qualifies it slightly by saying the Baha'i Faith "is a medium sized religion", which he didn't do of any of the others save doing so in a way of Zoroastrianism. And all of that is based on reviewing data back circa 2001 and earlier. However as the book is about Scientology the balance of the chapter is examining the idea of "fastest growing" in a broader review of religious growth as success and ends qualifying Scientology's strength's and weaknesses without an overall simple statement one way or the other that I found. The mention here of the Baha'is is so weak the index at the back of the book doesn't even include it - there is another briefer mention that is (which leaves me a bit puzzled why the index did one and not the other.) But as I say it is not a broad review of what sizes of religions are and what is large, medium and small and why. So Soundofmusical's review is sound in my opinion. So… I could support his view on what should or should not be said about the Baha'i Faith being a medium sized religion. But a broad article like Major religions does exactly this without a hard fought and cited examination of this idea and the Abrahamic religions article has had flavors of this by noting ethnographic religions that are Abrahamic as the smallest populations and the Baha'i Faith being somewhat above those religions in overall notability. But in neither case has it, the idea that the Baha'i Faith is a medium sized religion, achieved simple widespread acceptance. People pick at the idea fairly often though not, as far as I can tell or recall, that the whole idea is unencyclopedic but because people pull threads about relevance or balancing appropriate weight. But it is true that searching an academic Library for "medium sized religion" (or plural) finds a real paucity of sources using the terminology and most not in the context of religions (the top hit being the rate of facebook's growth is like a medium sized religion.) However the only specific religion in such a place (that is to say an academic publication) I've yet found called a "medium sized religion" is indeed this statement about the Baha'i Faith (in google scholar AND my academic library source.) A broader review in google (avoiding ones that cycle back to wikipedia) finds Judaism mentioned. That's about it - Judaism, the Baha'i Faith, and Zoroastrianism. So my view… it is descriptive, meaningful, to me, it is "right" to me to say so, but I can easily see that it is a weak argument and not with broad appeal. But I'd like to hear from someone other than just Soundofmusicals that the mention should not be made. Will the pin fall? It's wobbling... --Smkolins (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wish for a moment (as one does now and then) that I was someone other than me. Still, trying to put things another way, or as another person might...

Think pizza sizes - small, medium and large. Depend a lot on context without a standard of comparison, don't they? One shop's "large" might be anther shop's "small", and in yet another place be a "super-jumbo". Compared with the "great" religions the Baha'i Faith is really (talking as a Baha'i myself here) very small fry. Compared with the smaller religions (including some much better known ones) it is not as small as you might suppose - especially if you judged from the tiny Baha'i communities in some Western countries. So I accept that there is an understandable, even a commendable intention here.

BUT does the idea of a medium-sized, or "average" religion even produce a useful general impression? Describing a person as being of "medium height" works, because there is a relatively narrow band between "quite short" and "fairly tall" (although even in this case "short for a man" is different from "short for a woman" - and people from different countries, or even generations, often differ widely in their height. So what does an "average" or medium-sized" religion look like compared with a small or a large one?

If we want to provide useful information about any measurable quantity the word "medium" by itself is usually far too vague - instead we use one of its mathematical equivalents, the median, mean, or mode - these can look similar, or be very widely disparate, depending on the nature of the distribution.

To give an idea of the numeric size of the Baha'i Faith (or any other group of people) - especially in an encyclopedia - which is (or ought to be) a "fact book" before all else - we are honestly stuck with numbers and fractions (percentages). If we decide a numeric comparison is relevant we must be specific - by (say) comparing the actual size of religion A with that of religion B.

It is illuminating, incidentally, that the original source, in describing the Baha'i Faith as "medium sized" was in fact comparing it with a number of other relatively minor religions, to make an essentially rather vague statistical point we are certainly not (I hope) labouring here. It makes even less sense pulled out of its context in the source. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said the source is not particularly salient on the question of size - but it did go through the effort of distinguishing the Baha'i Faith as a medium sized religion vs others even as it was lumped together with smaller segments in comparison with truly large religions. But no one who has actually used the wording in relevant sources seems to have wandered across your statistical terminology quandary of what the word means. They haven't defined it carefully (perhaps the wording was more common a century ago and then left alone mostly.) So as I say the points on each side, from my pov, have some reality. The question is how much reality they have in this case. Others here in wikipedia in other articles have found a relevance of the type being discussed. Just not often or universal. (we've had a ton of this over at the planet nine article for example splitting out 3 or so specific cases and a need to avoid the general term because it could imply any of the specific ones.) Speaking in the context of religion statistics, to me, I equate the idea of medium with not obscure, ones you hear about once and never again. Not more, and not less. But to your point I do suppose it is why the original source dismisses a simple answer to the question of size and rate of growth but debating the points and coming up with more subtle answers belongs on articles devoted to the question. In my pov. --Smkolins (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone else reverted this, and, at the risk of edit warring, I'm afraid I have re-reverted to the "pre" status quo. This is a generally very factual article that a Baha'i could (with perhaps the odd reservation) actually recommend to a non-Baha'i as a "neutral introduction". It has been commended in the past (not, I take it, by Baha'is) as a model for quality in a Wiki article. Undermining it with a "non-fact" like a vague and quite meaningless description of the "size" of the Faith is retrograde, however you look at it, and to be resisted. The "source" does not even specifically support the description of the Faith as "medium sized" (whatever that might be held to actually mean) anyway. It is talking about a very different (statistical) question, that this article does not (and quite rightly, IMHO) even raise, and that in relation to quite a different religion. Its "mention" of the Faith is extremely peripheral, in fact it is no more than an example of religions with a very poorly specified characteristic. Using it as a source in this article would be drawing a very long bow indeed, even if it were in itself a much more reliable source than it is, purely on the grounds of relevance. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are three reasons why I think the description is factual; (a) my own (and anyone's) mathematic calculation, (b) wikipedia's prerequisite for valueing secondary sources, and (c) the scholarly credentials of the source in question. To substantiate point (a) with maths: one of the smaller religions, Samaritanism numbers in the three digits. The largest religion Christianity numbers are in ten digits. Baha'i figures are 4 to 3 digits separated in either direction. Alternatively, the WCE stat used on the same page put Baha'is at number 11 of 16 religions mentioned, besides an "other religionists" category for smaller religions. This puts Baha'is somewhere in the middle. Both points plausibly allude to Baha'is being a mid-sized religion. To substantiate point (b) the World Christian Encyclopedia is a reliable source. It is used repeatedly in Baha'i related books and even other Wikipedia articles mentioning Baha'is, such as Growth of religion. To substantiate point (c), the fact that James Lewis uses the term twice in the same paragraph in regards to Baha'is means it was intentional. In all, the book was co-authored by 3 professors in religion, 2 academics in religion, 1 scholar in religion, 2 researchers in religion - 8 professionals in religious study in total, each of whom is notable enough to have a wikipedia article. Some of those authors are concurrently researchers, professors, scholars and academics. Numerous reviews of the book claim it is religiously comparative and that particular page was comprehensively comparative. The publisher OUP is among the most respected publishing houses in the world known for fact-checking their content. As for relevance, it was published fairly recent (2009) and I think an adjective or any lemma outside of an algebraic, arithmetic or mere numeric form is important for two reasons. Firstly, it would apply wkipedia's WP:WEIGHT policy (note: one all editors must follow) on how much proportion content should elucidate. For example, among the most discussed Baha'i-related topics in the western hemisphere this year has been Baha'is numbering the second-largest religion in South Carolina in the context of comparitive sizes. A 'baha'is south carolina' google search has this comparative size data come up as among the most common search return outside of dot-org websites at 364,000 results. This illustrates that content describing comparative sizes ticks Wikipedia's due weight box policy. Therefore your best bet to avoid being reverted is rather than wholesale deleting the addition you should replace it with another word or sentence describing Baha'i size. Your version of the demographics section seems lacking since it only gives Baha'i statistics in isolation when numerous sources describe them comparatively - also see other religion articles that describe religion in a comparative manner. Ninefive6 (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

POV and original research concerns
The section on Iranian-Bahá'í relations seems to at times fail to keep a neutral point of view. The paragraph which begins "The Iranian government claims that the Bahá'í Faith is not a religion," makes bold statements which are at times supported by Human Rights Watch documents. Other times the paragraph says, "These accusations against the Bahá'ís have no basis in historical fact," which seems very close to original research. What I have to think would be best would be to attribute these statements to their sources.


 * eg. "In a report by Human Rights Watch, the group concluded that the government's statements that Bahá'ís who recanted their religion would have their rights restored, attest to the fact that Bahá'ís are persecuted solely for their religious affiliation.

I think doing this will work to restore a neutral point of view in the article. CawheeTalk 14:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To a degree, at least, that seems not unreasonable. How about "being bold" and making a suitable change here and there in that direction? Just to see what everyone thinks, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Smkolins (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok - im a random stumbling across the page, I found the whole paragraph based on original research- at least in terms of the tone in which it was written. It needs a rewrite, whilst there is no doubt that Iran has been unkind - an unbiased viewpoint must remain. It doesnt read as being unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.92.83 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

the name of the country of origin of bahai faith is Persia=Iran
at the Qajar dynasty era when the Bahai Faith launched first time, the name of the country was Persia only among  western countries but in inside of Iran the name was Iran (official: eminent government of Iran) (Persian:دولت علیه ی ایران ) but in Reza Shah era the name officially changed to Iran internationally by a statement to foreign countries. in the Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi era the government said both of the name refer to Iran and all right received for the country. please refer to Name of Iran article for more reference and infos and edit based on these information if its not enough refer to Iranica for more. thank you so much. Amir  Muhammad  16:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems a topic to rightfully in its own page. Wikipedia is not a place to correct historical wrongs but the bring together the best available information. Until sources really begin to change how they refer to the country. I recognize this is out there but when Baha'i related articles use the terms is when the article will change its forms. At least that's my pov. Please note I'm friendly to the goal, just not the time for that here.Smkolins (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the word "Bahai"
I undid your reverting on the Article Bahai Faith] because Baha is an Arabic name but the word Bahai (Baha=Arabic word+ i=Persian suffix=Arabo-Persian word=Bahai. the Bahai is an [[Arabo-Persian .you are a native speaker of English and it seems that you even do not understand Persian or Arabic, please let others share their knowledge . if you are a member of Bahai Faith it doesn't mean you know everything about it . im seeing some users are trying to show Bahai as the second religion of Israel and use Arabic (second official Lang of Israel) (israelization) . Bahai faith inst Israeli-origin religion and only some in-exile followers and some modern buildings . i can not bear this bad propaganda even in Naw-Ruz that is completely a Persian word, no one mentioned the Persian type ?? encoring the Persian legacy of the religion ? really ? why ?? we mustn't edit based on Iran-Israel relations we must be WP:Neutral.


 * No, sorry, but you are wrong - that's NOT how it works. Think for a moment and you will see why this MUST be so. The very first sentence of an article is in a way a summary of what follows, but it (usually) must still leave a lot unsaid - that's what the rest of the article is for! In this case there is a quite long article to follow that makes the point you want to make over and over again. The rule is there for a reason - otherwise we'd have dozens of translations and transliterations at the head of every article in Wikipedia. If we have to have a Persian translation of the article title - then why not a Hebrew one - the Baha'i headquarters are in Israel? Why not a Hindi one - most Baha'is live in India? And so on - let one new language there and we'd have half a page of them in no time! It's just not the place - the article title is the English language one simply because this is the English edition of Wikipedia; the Arabic one is there very simply because "Baha" is an Arabic word (the fact that like many Arabic words it is used as a load word in Persian is neither here or there). Please, always sign your posts - and comment on articles at the page for the article concerned! (Exchange from personal talk page). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Long sentences but i think it is still non-scene for me .ok maybe you right, tell me why you deleted the category Iranian religions either ?? you wanna delete the legacy of Iran related to the article and i pretty know that kinda censor here. it is not fair i think. it is absolutely an Israelization of a culture which its origin is IRAN . got it? The Stray Dog   by Sadeq Hedayat  15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read past the first sentence of the article? The point is that the fact that Baha'i originated in Iran is not "censored" at all - but repeatedly mentioned in a long, detailed article. It very simply doesn't need to be part of the article title or the first sentence. Adding translations and transliterations of the article title to that sentence is generally unconstructive and unnecessary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Stray Dog, some of the polcies of Wikipedia you should know about are Assume Good Faith and no personal attacks. Secondly, I agree with Soundofmusicals here. This has nothing to do with Israel, please stay on point.  The the only reason that the Arabic translation is in the lede is that it has to do with the fact that Baha is an Arabic word.  There is no further need of other translation in the English Wikipedia.  And that doesn't mean that there is any censorship, the rest of the article goes in detail of where the religion started, and by whom and so forth. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Linguistic investigation about adding the Persian word
Hereby, I'm inviting an expert in Persian and Arabic languages whom is an expert and well-known academic linguist. There is two opposite opinions which are saying that: 1-Mustn't add Persian word on the lead; 2-Must add it. dear ( Mr. Hamid Hassani) if its possible for you please come here and comment about the discussion. i think we need an academic and WP:Neutral in this subject. first of all im saying my opinion: We must add the Persian name on the lead, Because : and the opposite opinion is the 's opinion which is saying:
 * 1:The Note 1 on the lead of the article is just clearly mentioning the Persian origin spelling of the word Bahai, not Arabic
 * 2:Bahai isn't completely Arabic word, and is an Arabo-Persian, because Baha(Arabic word) + i(Persian suffix)=Bahai=Arabo-Persian word
 * 3:The origin of the religion is Persia(Iran) and its prophet's mother-tongue was Persian and we must add Persian spelling same in the way that Baha'ullah spelled it not only Arabic.
 * 4:Baha is a loanword in Persian and we must add the Persian spelling which is different with Arabic.
 * 5: the English name belongs to the Persian spelling Bahai not Arabic spelling "Bahaiyya"
 * We must add the Persian spelling as Note 1 Mentioned:
 * we mustn't add Persian just because Baha is an Arabic origin word. The Stray Dog   by Sadeq Hedayat  15:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am here just because you pinged me. :) In my opinion, it is better to mention the Iranian names in their Perso-Arabic scripts style on all related articles' lead. There are some differences between Persian and Arabic letters, among them, representing two similar vowels, such as and . I prefer choosing the Persian spelling in the names such as the one you are discussing about. Hamid Hassani (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you dear Mr. Hassani. I knew that but I wasn't sure about it . Thank you for ensuring me. The Stray Dog   by Sadeq Hedayat  23:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ The Stray Dog   by Sadeq Hedayat  21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * .Hello dear ,Three days passed and you didn't come as an opposite opinion in the discussion. silence of you will be assumed: you are agree with professional and linguistic opinion or you wanna interrupt the investigation and you're not agree. anyway per the discussion on the above and linguistic opinion of a linguist called Mr Hamid Hassani, im adding the Persian name of the Bahai and spelling of it in the way that he said . please  pay attention that i do not delete anything based on Vandalism, and please do not revert it because it can be a WP:Disruptive edit and starting an EDITWAR. if you are not agree with the enforcement; you can say your scientific and referable comments to restart the discussion here. thanks.  The Stray Dog   by Sadeq Hedayat  20:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * IF you are dropping the "unfair to Persians", and "Israelisation of Persian culture" arguments, which is what we were actually clashing over from my point of view, then well done! Because as I hope you might be coming to realise for yourself, this was always a very silly and irrelevant argument. IF you are sincere about changing this to a linguistic matter about having the alternative "article title" in Persian rather than Arabic... As I say if that is now the argument rather than the obvious plain untruth about the article being "censored" to favour Arab (or Jewish?) over Persian culture then I really no longer have any personal problems, either as a Baha'i (which I happen to be) or as a Wikipedia editor (in this context no less important). As a Baha'i I probably would (if anything) prefer the alternative title to be in Persian myself - as a Wiki editor my main argument was always that we didn't need BOTH - that if we had the article title in Arabic then we didn't need the Persian as well. If you can assure me that the argument will remain linguistic, (no Irani chauvinism!) and that we are agreed that it is a matter of whether we have Arabic OR Persian (but not both) then by all means argue this out with others with (as you rightly point out) more knowledge of Arabic and Persian than I have. (This post largely copied from one on my personal talk page). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * we didn't need the Persian??? (as you said it above). its not our wish also its not a restaurant menu as well as, it is a top-importance article . if im a pro-Persian/Iranian do not invalidate my edits itself because im bringing referable citations and every person from Iran can be pro-iran as well as from another country . for example i think you can be a pro-bahai because you are a bahai and also pro-israel because the main shrine of it is in Israel . but im not sure and i can not prove it because it is only a thought. i brought an academic person as a WP:third opinion. it seems you are not good with it and you are just defending your point of view about it . a defense like a gladiator :)). please do not be upset about it. im trying to respect your opinions and it is the reason that i ain't tryna delete your edits (Arabic spelling) if i was a pro-Persian i would just try to delete Arabic spelling. happy editing  The Stray Dog   by Sadeq Hedayat  19:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We have mot been communicating as well as we should, I think. Not having a true "language in common" is perhaps the main problem? In any case I have deliberately left this for a day or two for the dust to settle, and then done what I hoped you might have done yourself. As I have actually said - I can see your point about the appropriateness of giving the Persian (Farsi) rather than the Arabic in the lead sentence. What I actually objected to was having the Persian AND the Arabic in this first sentence. Where this leads is to a great long list of different languages, which I thing you will agree is NOT what we want.


 * To a non-Person/non-Arabic speaking person (even an English speaking Baha'i) the two languages are perhaps not quite so clearly differentiated as they might be. It's all a bit like English and Latin - we use the Latin alphabet, and there are many Latin loan words in English, but Latin and English are not even particularly closely related. In the case of Arabic and Persian the remark holds true about the alphabet and the loan words - but Persian, as an Indo-European language, is more closely related to English (and Latin) than it is to Arabic (a Semetic language, and related to Hebrew). See, I knew all this stuff all along, but you put me off with your talk about "Israelisation", and "protecting" Persian culture.


 * The other thing I moved was the detailed "etymological" information - there is a separate little section on that under the "contents menu" - I tried to add the substance of your original argument there, where it actually belongs.


 * Best wishes - try to think about improving the article (only reason we're here at all) nd we won't go wrong! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally agree with Soundofmysicals - thinking of the diverse readership more are likely to be Arab speakers than Persian/Farsi. Perhaps an alias redirect as is done for Bahai Faith and Baha'i Faith could be done.Smkolins (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bahá'í Faith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928073554/http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/epe/PDF%20articles/GervaisBahaiFaith_22feb08.pdf to http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/epe/PDF%20articles/GervaisBahaiFaith_22feb08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Note about "Arabic text" at top of this article
This reads:


 * This article contains Arabic text. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols.

Plainly, this refers to the Arabic alphabet - and the way it shows on your computer screen. Equally plainly, it does NOT refer to nationalism in any respect - nor to a specific language normally written using the Arabic alphabet. It is true that languages using "Arabic" script use marginally different forms of the basic alphabet to represent the different sounds of the languages concerned - as do languages using Latin script. In fact the differences between "Persian" and "Arabic" script are paralleled by those between the "German" and "French" alphabets (different diacritics, and even different letters - like the German "double S" (not on my keyboard). BUT not at all what this note is about. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And I didn't write that either.Smkolins (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is Persian written in the article, hence the reason why I initially added the template. I'm not trying to turn this into a nationalism issue, I'm neither Persian or Arab. (Smkolins (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.167.35 (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey. I didn't write that. Smkolins (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Bahai population in South Carolina, USA?
Saw a recent article discussing data from teh Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies which shows that Bahai is the second largest religious tradition in South Carolina (after Christianity). 

That seems noteworthy. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.0.226.192 (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's already noted at - Growth_of_religion and curiously was disavowed as significant at .Smkolins (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"Womankind" vs "humankind"
"Mankind" still crops up now and then - mostly from the pens or keyboards of people who firmly exclude one sex from the concept. For the rest of us it has been getting more and more old-fashioned for at least the last forty years. I must admit that "humankind" struck me as a little odd the first time I heard it, but that was long before most Wiki editors were born! It occurs once in this article (in a direct quote). And anyone who can use the term "political correctness" - which once had a fairly neutral meaning but is nowadays firmly associated with a very definite POV - and then claim they are being neutral has obvious real problems with reality. (If that's not becoming a loaded word itself...) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The current view of someone declining to comment here seems to be that "humankind" is too politically loaded" for wikipedis, and has suggested "humanity". Or do we want something like "the various races, nationalities and other groups of humanity around the Earth". Oh dear... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep the language mankind though have used humanity. I feel that people who want to advance language usage have an agenda whereas the reality matters more to wikipedia, and, for that matter, Baha'is. See Bahá'í Faith and gender equality. Smkolins (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

FA?
This article should never have been promoted FA. This article fails by one major criteria and that is it does not represents a universal view of that Faith in any way but only the point of view of Baha'is themselves. See Jesus article to see what is a good FA article which meets all FA criteria. SSZ (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia just relies on reliable sources, and overall of the notability of the subject. It was not only nominated, it was awarded the status. Smkolins (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You still haven't responded to my point (namely this article does NOT convey a UNIVERSAL view of this Faith/cult). Smoklins, please do not take it personal. I have said it at BWC talk page and I repeat it here: You have done a good job overall and you get A+ for your volunteer work (assuming you don't get paid for that), as I would give A+ to ANY volunteer who gives his/her time to Wikipedia for free. There are many resources (I suppose) in *Iran and elsewhere on this topic. WHY are they not mentioned in this article? (*I am not a Muslim, but I know Iran to be the birthplace of this Faith/Cult.)
 * Actually my point of relying on reliable sources is exactly the requirement of wikipedia. Don't take this personally or along some preconcieved idea of what Baha'is do or don't do. And please don't hint at what might or might not be my reasons for doing things. I've never been paid for this, nothing I've done has ever been screened by Baha'i institutions nor have they asked for or sponsored me to any activity in wikipedia. I'm entirely beholden to the standards of wikipedia as are you. In my view most of the issues with Iran are not the mainstay of this article because, despite it being the homeland of much of the earliest development of the religion, those formative years of certain parts of the history are now, and have been for some time, a minority of the situation of the world wide development of the religion which now has far more members outside Iran, and distinct from Iranian lineage, than of it, and that whatever sources in English are available, vs those in Arabic or Persian or other Middle Eastern languages, which wikipedia needs, are somewhat limited and more properly in their own articles such as BIHE, and such aims and wishes also has to be taken into account with the individuals actually doing the work and what they, we, see fit to work on. I've particularly contributed to making some 100 of the more than 200 countries of the world in which there is some knowledge of Baha'is being present - and that took years of effort which is a good reflection, to me, of the substance of history being statistical quips like "second most widespread religion". Yet I lament that among the piles of work in wikipedia and beyond, the other hundred remain undone. Perhaps I will have that work return to the top of my pile some day.Smkolins (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This article did not receive as much scrutiny as it should have, in 2007, during its nomination. Notably, as the WP encyclopedia matures and more editors get engaged, this tends to become less likely. I could just wait for the improvement requested to come to fruition. Also I was thinking may be it will "self-heal" over time; but going through the talk page archives, I think the problem is much deeper. Even if you had the sources available and assuming you would make the change, it would require a MAJOR revamp from the ground up. 47.17.27.96 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your statements undermine the reviews and efforts at the time. Be that as it may the work to make the article better is ever ongoing, especially and particularly as reliable sources continue to appear. Several articles had long languished needing sources and work has proceeded in a high diversity of pages to advance the articles as reliable sources have been identified and people have undertaken the actual work to get things done. Smkolins (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Judaism and Christianity alike, among other "mainstream" religions, refute the claim of Baha'u'llah being a Messenger of God. Why is this important fact not mentioned in this article? SSZ (talk)


 * With all due respect, the place for discussion of Christian and Jewish beliefs/non-beliefs (not to mention those of other religions) is the article/s for the religion/s concerned. Claims made by religious leaders are commonly disputed (or "refuted") by people other than said leaders' own followers. Isn't this on the self-evident side? If not then perhaps it's not just this article that needs rewriting? For the record, this article (whether or not it would be considered an "FA" by today's standards) tries very hard to be scrupulously fair - the claims of Baha'u'llah are (for example) reported as claims, not as fact. Difficult topics and contradictions (real or supposed) are not avoided, and there is even an article (with extensive links to specific topics) listing various objections to the Faith. What exactly is it you would do differently? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For one, I would mention that Jews and Christians do not recognize this Faith as legitimate (Like most Jews do not recognize Jesus Christ as their Messiah). 47.17.27.96 (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just need reliable sources rather than OR. There are sources discussing Jesus from a Judaic perspective so there is a section and its own article. Smkolins (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that falls under the obvious category. By definition, Christians don't accept any claims of Jesus' return, otherwise they wouldn't be Christians. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  18:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not editing this article. So the onus is on you to bring it to par with FA. 47.17.27.96 (talk)
 * Returning to the initial objection to this article by the editor who started the thread - Jesus has had over two thousand years to become a universal figure - He is accepted as a divine person, part of the very Godhead by many Christians, while other Christians (especially those with Unitarian leanings) have subtly or widely differing views of His exact status. And that is without considering the non-Christian religions (including the Bahá'í Faith) that either formally proclaim Him a prophet or messenger sent directly by God himself, or give Him a less formal or explicit recognition as a great spiritual teacher. Even many atheists and agnostics have great respect for Him. Baha'u'llah, on the other hand was born just two hundred years ago. Recognition of His claimed status is effectively limited to the relative handful of his followers. Members of other religions in fact very seldom specifically refute His claims because they have no apparent cause to do so - the whole matter, as one very nice Catholic priest once expressed it to me, is that "this does not impinge on my consciousness". In view of this difference it seem more than a little silly to suggest that this article could possibly be rewritten to mirror the "universal" approach of the article on Jesus. Wouldn't the result strike everyone as pretentious and unnecessary? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a double standard. Baha'is mention their point of view on Jesus Christ in its article and for other religions as well (even though Baha'is are a (tiny) group with only ~6 million followers according to cited sources). The fact it took two centuries or more for Jesus to have his message spread over the world is irrelevant as far as content of WP is concerned (and the same holds true for Baha'ullah or anyone else). Jews, as a community, reject most of the claims of Christianity from the get-go to this day. This is very disingenuous IMO not to mention other religions' point of views of the main tenets of the Baha'i faith while Baha'is' point of view has been pasted all over WP. 47.17.27.96 (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where there are reliable sources and balance of them the standards are followed and the relevance is established. Smkolins (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL 47.17.27.96 (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The attitude of the vast majority of Christians to Baha'u'llah is very (very understandably), the most profound and complete ignorance and apathy. Other individual Christians who have heard of Baha'u'llah have recorded profound respect for Him and His teachings - without for a moment accepting his specific claims or abandoning their own religion. I know of some who have in fact resumed, or even commenced, practice of their own faith as result of contact with Baha'is. Others may well be disturbed or antipathetic - but since when did this kind of thing become something relevant to a general encyclopedia? Further, if and when the "Christian attitude to the status of Baha'u'llah" assumed much greater importance, to the extent of becoming a relevant and notable subject, or even something about which one could, in any context, make a meaningful statement at all - it would very plainly be a Christian Topic rather than a Baha'i one. As it is, For the moment, indeed, this is utterly laughable. But until it is a relevant and notable topic in Christianity - how can it be part of even the most scrupulously fair article about the Baha'i Faith? Talking about LOL and "double standards - I think that is the real point here. The question of the current "FA" status of this article is quite another matter. Personally I think there are so many really good Wikipedia articles that deserve this status and do not even have a "C" or "B" rating. But get back to the topic rather than this kind of POV nonsense. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * And hang on - is it really an approach consistent with the principles under which Wikipedia operates to consider a religion "illegitimate" because one does not agree with its tenets? The assumption that ALL religions not originating from a "legitimate" source and conforming to a "correct theology" should be suitably "refuted" smacks more of the Spanish Inquisition than the ideals of Wikipedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You talk as a Baha'i. This review is not about the Baha'i teachings being right or wrong. Again, it is about having a UNIVERSAL view of the faith/cult. You MUST know (WITHOUT any research in books) that MOST Christians, Muslims or Jews refute the teaching of Baha'u'llah (or they would have CONVERTED already and they might or not convert sometime in the future). Simple as that. Respectfully, 47.17.27.96 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No I don't- especially not here - I talk as a Wikipedia editor - the vast majority of articles on my watchlist (most of them far "busier" than this one too!) are actually on non-religious topics (aeroplanes and such, as it happens) - just have a look. If I wanted to READ an article on a Baha'i subject (for information, rather than to "see what they say") I would go to a Baha'i website, to be frank. There are also several "anti-Baha'i" sites for that matter, if you're that way inclined. Have a look at one if you like and tell us if you found it "balanced"! But all this is irrelevant. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums (fora?) where getting to know each other is the main point. We are (supposed to be) concerned with nothing but improving Wikipedia articles. Ad hominem remarks are not only offensive, and officially discouraged (you can get kicked off for them) but usually way off target anyway.


 * The point is that each Wikipedia article we might want to improve (many of them need it, as you've noticed, I'm sure) is on a particular topic. The article on Jesus is about Jesus, not Baha'u'llah, Muhammad, or Moses. Because of the "balance" thing, and because Jesus is important (in different ways) to the various "brands" of Christianity, and also to other religions (and even non-religions) the topic needs to have a very varied, "universal" approach. I have tried to point this out before, but an article that tried to give a this kind of coverage to Baha'ullah would be pretentious and silly, and you would be the first to object to it. I've said all this three of four time now - if it hasb't registered then repeating myself yet again is pretty pointless. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

""Oh, and look up "refute" in a dictionary or something. You can't "refute" something you've never heard of - nor do you need to refute something to not accept it. Most Christians have never heard of Baha'u'llah - and if they have they are mostly simply not interested enough to need to "refute" it. Baha'is are, as you remark, a very very small subset of religious people - Christians who have an opinion about Baha'i one way or the other are an even tinier subset. So how can the "Christian attitude to Baha'u'llah" be a topic, or even a sub-topic - and even if it was - what would it have to do with the Faith itself - surely it would be a Christian topic, if anything. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks. I see you evading to answer my question, again. Look at the Jesus article. Jews'POV is mentioned right in the lead. Cheers. 47.17.27.96 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the fact there are sections discussing other views of Jesus in that article, and those based on reliable sources, then there would be such a discussion in the article and lead - and a whole separate article. You suggest "There are many resources (I suppose) in *Iran and elsewhere on this topic. WHY are they not mentioned in this article?" and I said "whatever sources in English are available, vs those in Arabic or Persian or other Middle Eastern languages, which wikipedia needs, are somewhat limited and more properly in their own articles such as BIHE". Soundofmusicals pointed out "there is even an article (with extensive links to specific topics) listing various objections to the Faith", which has a direct analog for Christianity but who's content is not directly what you are asking for - coverage of refutations of the Baha'i Faith. You say "For one, I would mention that Jews and Christians do not recognize this Faith as legitimate." Well that would be OR - I've never seen the like. The closest I can come are various comments about how small and obscure the Baha'i population is (somewhat referred to in Growth of religion albeit from the line of thought of the basis of the article.) In fact, contrary to your point, to the extent there is commentary in the wider society of the religion, there is a respect for the religion as legitimate (see Abrahamic religions.) As Soundofmusicals said, "You can't "refute" something you've never heard of". But instead of recognizing these comments discussing the merits of the situation instead you descend to the level of personal attack. Of Soundofmusicals you say "You have a double standard" and "You talk as a Baha'i." Those are personal attacks. Please stop it. Smkolins (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No it is not "personal attack to say people talk as representative of the Baha'i Cult unless you think it is by itself an insult to be part of that Faith/Cult. 47.17.27.96 (talk)
 * We are all just editors first and foremost. "Talks as a Baha'i" implies bias and the accusation is itself a personal attack in the sense that your tone is endlessly accusatory and conspirationalist.Smkolins (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. "Conspirationalist"? I know you are not the enemy mostly because you don't have (nor anybody else or even most nations) the wherewithal to do what has been done to us, verifiably. 47.17.27.96 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Secondly, You can't dispute facts. People who know this Faith and who control the press, western media and world judiciary have de facto OPPOSED it with ~5 trillion dollars everyday for 5 years almost daily to hinder its propagation and progress, verifiably (statistically/scientifically), indisputably (and not disputed in US court by the FBI itself). 47.17.27.96 (talk)
 * I can with great emphasis just say "huh"? There's a jewish conspiracy against the religion? Wow. (sputter, sputter, I'm nearly speechless.) Smkolins (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not Jewish conspiracy but CRIMINAL conspiracy! (unless Jews - or whoever else are involved - want to take responsibility as a religion for this PROVEN (in US Federal Court) CRIME - which I doubt they ever will - nor will anyone else as a religion IMO). A CRIME against me, the Baha'is, THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS AT LARGE thru their pension funds valuations. NOT to speak about "OPPORTUNITY COSTS" in terms of HUMAN LIVES lost in FAKE WARS (as explained in detail in PR - documents entitled "FAQ"). 47.17.27.96 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Soundofmusicals has been report to WP admin for his strange behavior and personal attacks towards other editor JesseRafe recently; so you try to reverse as "best defense is to attack"? And please stop your non-sense unverified accusation towards me here or I might have to report you on this page as well, including for your past non-sense talk page discussion with me and other WP editors (see archives for references and verification). 47.17.27.96 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope that the truth wins out. I'd wish that is why you bring this unrelated matter to this page.Smkolins (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it just come out because of the flow of our conversation above (Please read again - with time stamps). Thanks for your wishes. You might also want to read this (now you are in the know, as has been the "Universal House of Justice" for 10 years without any action on their behalf but only censorship)... For info, I am a current US pilot among other things and have edited, like you, WP for 10 YEARS already for free without any major glitch. PEACE OUT!. 47.17.27.96 (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And the result for Soundofmusicals? "(Result: no violation)". But instead the angst there and here.Smkolins (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And no (before you ask) I DO NOT WANT TO BECOME THE CHIEF OF the Baha'i cult. 47.17.27.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Fortunately there's no chance of that.

Baha'i faith was founded in Persia or the Ottoman empire?
In the head section of the article it is stated that "The Bahá'í Faith was founded by Bahá'u'lláh (1817-1892) in 19th-century Persia."

This statement is incorrect. When Baha'u'llah was exiled from Iran in 1853 he was a Babi and there were no words of him bringing a new religion. For the next ten years he lived in Iraq,which was part of the ottoman empire, (up to 1863) when he finally announced the creation of the Baha'i faith in Garden of Ridwan (Iraq, ottoman empire). He was then banished to Palestine (part of the ottoman empire) for the rest of his life and it is there that he wrote and propagated the scripture of the new belief system. I am changing [Persia] in the head section to the [ottoman empire]. Illuminator123 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The origin of the religion has several stages of roots to Persia - first and foremost perhaps is that the Babi Faith is accepted as having a directly relationship with the Baha'i Faith. But even focusing just on Baha'u'llah it is accepted that the experience in the Siyah-Chal, in Teheran, is the originating moment of Baha'u'llah's claim to religious leadership, albiet privately. The events in Ridvan were a of a stage of making that leadership more public, and then in Constantinople more public still. Smkolins (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The relationship of the Baha'i faith with Babi faith is irrelevant here. Just because they are related it does not mean the Baha'i faith was founded wherever the Babi faith originated. Baha'u'llah never made any claims to religious leadership or any claims that he had created a new faith while he was in Iran. These claims were made in the last years that he was in Iraq (ottoman empire) and even then he was still practicing Babi beliefs and introducing himself as the leader of the Babi community. His claims about a new religion called the Baha'i faith were announced in the Garden of Ridwan and there is no document or evidence that would show the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminator123 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments again. You are disputing claims I am not making. The roots of the religion clearly go back to Iran. Yes the first announcements happnened in stages in Iraq and Turkey which were both part of the Ottoman Empire. But the roots of the religion clear go back to Iran in multiple ways. It is possible a majority of the scripture is in Persian, (or at last a huge proportion of it,) as well as a very united relationship between the Babis in Iran who became Baha'is - almost all of them - and the originating experience of Baha'u'llah happened in Iran. I'm not debating your points - but are you seeing mine? They are relevant to understanding how and where the Baha'i Faith originated. And can we stop making changes and talk about it first and come to a consensus? Perhaps an adaptation of language would serve. Smkolins (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to dispute your points. What I am disputing is the claim in the head of the article that the Baha'i faith was 'founded' or 'originated' or was 'established' in Iran. It wasn't. All these happened in the ottoman empire and they are irrelevant to the facts that you mentioned including the Babi-Baha'i connections that no one is denying, the roots of the Baha'i faith in Babism that no one is denying, or the fact that many Babis (not all) converted to the Baha'i faith. I was simply trying to fix this misconception in the head of the article.Illuminator123 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As has been remarked on many pages and in other contexts on Wikipedia this is an encyclopedia of existing knowledge. You are drawing a conclusion contrary to the weight of reputable sources - which is something we just don't do on Wikipedia. This is is bare WP:OR unless you can find at least one reliable source to back up your conclusion. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The Encyclopædia Iranica article titled BAHAISM i. The Faith states "He was exiled to Iraq, in the Ottoman empire, then to Istanbul and Edirne in Turkey. He was accompanied by his younger half-brother, Mīrzā Yaḥyā Ṣobḥ-e Azal, whom the Bāb appears to have pointed to in 1850 as leader of the Babi community. The Bāb had also spoken of the advent of another messianic figure, “he whom God shall make manifest (man yoẓheroh Allāh),” and in 1863 in the garden of Necip Paşa in Baghdad Bahāʾ-Allāh informed a handful of close followers that he was the messianic figure promised by the Bāb (Ostād Moḥammad-ʿAlī Salmānī, Ḵāṭerāt, ms., International Bahāʾi Archives, Haifa; Eng tr. M. Gail, My Memories of Bahāδu’llāh, Los Angeles, 1982, p. 22). While in Edirne (1863-68) Bahāʾ-Allāh wrote letters to Babi followers in Iran openly proclaiming himself to be the spiritual “return” (rajʿa) of the Bāb. During the Edirne period relations between Bahāʾ-Allāh and Ṣobḥ-e Azal became increasingly strained, and in 1867 Bahāʾ-Allāh sent his younger brother a missive demanding his obedience to the new revelation, which Azal rejected. Babis in Iran were then forced to choose between Bahāʾ-Allāh and Azal. The vast majority accepted the assertions in Bahāʾ-Allāh’s writings that he was a manifestation of God (maẓhar-e elāhī) bearing a new revelation, rejecting Azal’s form of Babism. Although the Bahais date the inception of their religion from Bahāʾ-Allāh’s 1863 private declaration in Baghdad, the Bahai community only gradually came into being in the late 1860s, and most Babis did not become Bahais in earnest until after 1867, though many may have been partisans of Bahāʾ-Allāh earlier (Bahāʾ-Allāh, “Sūrat damm,” Āṯār-e qalam-e aʿlā IV, Tehran, 125 Badīʿ/1968, pp. 1-15; “Lawḥ-e Naṣīr,” Majmūʿa-ye maṭbūʿa-ye alwāḥ, Cairo, 1920, pp. 166-202; Salmānī, Ḵāṭerāt, tr. pp. 42-48, 93-105)."
 * Regards, A35821361 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All of which brings us back to Iran being the origin of the events that lead to the formation of the Baha'i Faith that progressively took place in further places dates and time. Smkolins (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The statement that "Bahá'u'lláh was exiled for his teachings from Persia to the Ottoman Empire" is patently false
The statement that "Bahá'u'lláh was exiled for his teachings from Persia to the Ottoman Empire" is patently false. Even the most polemic Bahá'í sources note that he was imprisoned and exiled due to his association with Bábism after the unsuccessful attempt by some Bábis to assassinate the Shah of Iran, Naser al-Din Shah Qajar. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Precisely - he was exiled as a leading Babi teacher - patently true by your own word. --Soundofmusicals (talk)


 * Although actually - provided other editors are OK with the latest edit it is probably reasonably fair. Wikipedia has never been a "Baha'i" site - we aim for a fair and balanced treatment of controversial subjects, without ubdue POV either way. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Final thought - although he was in practice under house arrest in latter period of his "imprisonment" - hence the emphasis on "officially" mention of the Mansion of Bahji in this context gives a pov impression of opulence. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd think about tweaking the language more:

"The Bahá'í Faith was founded by Bahá'u'lláh in 19th-century Persia. Bahá'u'lláh was a Bábí and there was a fringe element in the Bábí community that sought revenge for the execution of the Báb. The government response to the attempted assassination the Shah of Iran, Naser al-Din Shah Qajar, swept up Bábís en mass - some were killed outright and some were imprisoned, like Bahá'u'lláh, and then exiled from Persia to the Ottoman Empire. He was deeply moved while in prison, he later revealed, and set forth on the path of developing the Bahá'í Faith." I believe this is factual and also structurally sound in that it leads back to the statement of founding the religion which then goes on to speak of Abdu'l-Baha's leaadership etc. Just add the various wikilinks. How's that? Smkolins (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We have to remember that this is meant to be part of the 'lead" section, which is a general summary and is not actually supposed to go into great detail. That of course is the main point - otherwise we'd stick the whole article in one block and not have an "opening summary" section at all. My initial reaction to this topic is that it is plain nonsense. Of course Baha'u'llah WAS exiled for his beliefs - had he repudiated the Bab (as a number of the Bab's disciples did, of course) his troubles, at least in this connection, would have been over and he never would have had to suffer a forced exile. The attempt on the life of the Shah FOLLOWED the execution of the Bab himself, and the murder, judicial and otherwise, of large numbers of his followers. In these circumstances, mentioning one without the other is selective reporting to reinforce a POV (in this case one of opposition, or at least cynicism). The text as it stood before Mr. A35821361's edit was generally a fair summary - the point our friend DOES have was that it was not, of course, the Baha'i teachings as such that caused his exile, but the teachings of the Bab. As I already pointed out, the Bab's teachings were at this stage what Baha'u'llah was teaching himself - so this is nit picking, but if we remove any inaccuracy at all in the original in a neat succinct way, without going into questions that raise more questions that raise more questions... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree it is a opening summary section and should not go in the detail that would be below. I believe the above suggestion only adds one line and boils down some 9 tense and dramatic years to one sentence that preserves the focus of Baha'u'llah as a Babi, the execution, the government response, and the core pivotal moment of initiating the path to the new religion which was mentioned two lines before. Smkolins (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How about the current version - just cutting out the bit about the assassination attempt - which preceded the imprisonment and exile but was not necessarily its primary cause? Babism was of course already under heavy persecution (in fact it was this, especially the "judicial murder" of the Bab that precipitated the attempted assassination). The effect of the bit I have cut (whether intentional or not) is plainly to imply that Baha'u'llah was not exiled for religious reasons - which really IS "patently false", not to mention undue POV. The full background, as we all agree, I hope, does need to be part of the article, just not at this stage of the lead. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tweaked but ok.Smkolins (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Baha'u'llah was actually released on the grounds that he was found not to have been connected with the assassination attempt - he was exiled quite simply as an apostate and a heretic. Further attempts to tease in a POV mention of the attempt on the Shah's life at this point is unfair - not to mention OR - since no reliable source makes the claim anyway. B. was also generally opposed, from the beginning, to other "rebelious" acts (according to Nabil, who on this point possibly IS biassed) these were acts of heroic self-defence). Anyway - this precise point is not where discussion of this (assuming it would be a good idea) belongs. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * He was released under pressure from the Russian legation and exiled with an escort of Russian horsemen to Baghdad. It was external political pressure that led to his deportation in lieu of being executed.  There were plenty of Babis who were not arrested, executed or exiled subsequent to the assassination attempt and preceding uprisings.  Baha'u'llah happens not to be one of them.


 * Baha'u'llah was imprisoned and banished due to an assassination attempt on the life of the Shah. unfortunately one of the editors is carelessly reverting the statements without providing any sources for his claims. This is the Wikipedia policy on the lead section in such circumstances: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Unfortunately editor is providing no sources and repeatedly claiming that other editors are imposing their own POV. I have inserted a citation for the claims being made. I have also reworded the section in order to give it a more neutral appearance which takes into account the statements of all parties.Illuminator123 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)