Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 3

A solution to the last subject
There should be no objection to referring to Mirza Yahya in the article or the emergence of the Baha'i Faith from Islam. However, to make these two points dominate the opening description of the Faith is misleading since the first issue, that of Mirza Yayha, was settled over a century ago and there has not been any group of Azalis in existence since the early part of the 20th century. The comments are not fundamentally wrong in themselves, but their dominant position in the article is misleading. Therefore, I have added them with some minor adjustments, to the section on Covenant, etc. That may not be the perfect place for them, but I intend to rewrite that section shortly to make it more inclusive of these things--I just can't do it this morning.

The second issue, when emphasized in the opening paragraph, makes the Baha'i Faith appear to be primarily a branch of Islam. This is not correct. The independent nature of the Baha'i Faith has been established clearly by numerous sources. That it is not a branch of Islam was determined by two Islamic judicial rulings in Egypt in the 1920's and 1930's. The first was made on 10 May 1925 by the Appellate Court of Beba.

The verdict in this case states: "The Baha'i Faith is a new religion, entirely independent, with beliefs, principles and laws of its own, which differ from, and are utterly in conflict with, the beliefs, principles and laws of Islam. No Baha'i, therefore, can be regarded as a Muslim or vice-versa, even as no Buddhist, Brahmin, or Christian can be regarded as a Muslim or vice versa."

This ruling was later confirmed by a fatwa of His Honour the Grand Mufti of Egypt on 11 March 1939 where he stated in a letter to the Egyptian Ministry of the Interior that: "We hereby declare that this Community is not to be regarded as Muslim, as shown by the beliefs which it possesses. . . . Whoever among its members had formerly been a Muslim has, by virtue of his belief in the pretensions of this community, renounced Islam, and is regarded as beyond its pale, and is subject to the laws governing apostasy as established in the right Faith of Islam."

In additon to the above, some of my specific reasoning on particular points is as follows:

1.	". . . heavily based on the Shia branch of Islam" -- This is already mentioned in the section on the Bab where it says: "It is distinct from Islam but grew out of the Islamic matrix in the same way that Christianity grew out of Judaism, or Buddhism out of Hinduism." This is entirely accurate and is a commonly accepted understanding in academic and non-academic non-Baha'i circles. Especially when considered in the light of the ruling of the Grand Mufti of Egypt, this wording would appear to be more accurate than the "heavily based" wording.

2.	The title "Baha'u'llah" was not chosen by Mirza Husayn-Ali in Baghdad, but given to him by the Bab in the course of a number of such titles conferred on his followers around the time of the Conference of Badasht which took place in 1848, I believe. It was around this time that Qurratu'l-Ayn was named Tahirih and, I believe, that Mulla Ali Barfurushi was named Quddus. The Bab confirmed the titles by addressing each of the recipients by that title in subsequent letters to them.

3. The issue of who challenged who's leadership in the case of Baha'u'llah and Mirza Yahya is an issue that can only be rendered NPOV by Wikipedia standards by avoiding a judgement in either direction. Therefore, I have changed "Bahá'u'lláh challenged the leadership of the Bábí leader" to a more neutral "split occurred between" them.

4. The term "Bahaism" in describing the Baha'i Faith raises similar objections from Baha'is as the use of the term "Mohammedanism" to describe Islam raises from Muslims. It is normally used, as is "Mohammedanism", by people who are not believers in the religion to describe it, and therefore it conveys a certain attitude towards the faith that is sometimes not acceptable to believers. Because of this, Baha'is would not consent to allow Islam to be called "Mohammedanism", and the use of the term "The Baha'i Faith" can, I think, be expected to receive similar respect from non-Baha'is in a forum such as Wikipedia.

I hope this solution is agreeable to everyone.

--Jmenon 14:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Baha'i parts of Wikipedia have just been brought to my attention again by a vandal who made comments on my and Rick Boatright's User Talk pages, though I haven't had a lot to do with Baha'i articles since I started editing here.

I've just been looking around, and noticed that there is no article at Azali, and the only mention of the Bab at Babi is the one I just put there. If someone wants to write an informative essay on those Babis that chose to follow Subh-i-Azal rather than Baha'u'llah, then by all means write that article and put a link from here in the history section. But pro-Azal comments don't belong here, in an article devoted to explaining who the Baha'is are. PaulHammond 19:58, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Administrative order: Small point about elections
Aren't Baha'is "required" (or is the word obligated?) to vote in Baha'i elections, not just "eligible" as the documents says. Might be worth adding that its not enforced. I know its just nit picking, but might as well keep it as accurate as you can. I didn't want to change it myself just in case I'm wrong. :) Tomhab 15:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes Baha'is are required to vote, just as they are required to pray each day and fast during the month before Naw-Ruz (since they accept Baha'u'llah and his laws), but these are personnal obligations that Baha'is have between themselves and God, and thus there is no enforcement of these things. Also the word eligible in the paragraph relates to who is eligable to be voted for and who is eligable to vote.  Hope this addresses your concerns. -- Fadeaway919 18:13, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't think its worth changing then? I guess its only a subtle difference. -- Tomhab 21:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, because even in a democracy it is a citizen's responsibility to vote, but not all citizen's vote. While not exactly the same thing, I think it's similar. What do you think? -- Fadeaway919 22:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

A sweet little promo
The subsectioning of the part of the article is fine. Can you please, however, choose a title for it which is neutral and not belittling. -- Jeff3000 18:21, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Bahá'í Faith, according to The Britannica Book of the Year (1992), is the second most widespread of the world's independent religions in terms of the number of countries in which it is represented; true

''it is established in 247 countries and territories throughout the world. Bahá'ís come from over 2,100 ethnic, racial, and tribal groups and are numbered at approximately six million adherents worldwide.'' true

The central works of the Bahá'í Scriptures have been translated into 802 languages. true

whats wrong with that? - --Cyprus2k1 18:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to not have a war about this, a couple things. I would have liked that section to stay, until we had some kind of consensus, but it has been reverted.  I don't exactly consider the first change as vandalism, but as noted in my talk above, the original title was not NPOV.  Amir1, when you do find an appropriate section heading for that paragraph, please go ahead and put it in.  I would suggest you go over the other religious pages such as Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism to see what kind of heading would be most appropriate.  One final thing, the top paragraph of  Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism all are much larger than the current first paragraph of the Baha'i Faith article (with or without the heading), so I don't know if your point of where the Table of Contents should be is entirely valid, but like I said above, if you find an appropriate heading please go ahead and add the heading.  -- Jeff3000 22:44, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your objection to calling a promo a "promo"? --Amir 23:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a "promo", it's pretty much a quotation of a paragraph from Encyclopedia Brittanica that gets across the idea of the Baha'i Faith being a religion with a small number of followers, who are spread rather thinly across large areas of the world. Putting in a heading "a sweet little promo" is a)non-NPOV, b)silly c) doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article.  As the first person to remove it said "what the hell?".  Calling Cyprus a "vandal Baha'i punk" is not consensus language, and saying that your reason for putting such a nonsense heading in the article is "the intro is too long and the contents table doesn't appear on the first page" is totally bogus.  We can suppress the contents box entirely if you'd prefer. --PaulHammond 17:40, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * First the word sweet is inappropriate, and second the statements are true, and I have not seen in the rest of Wikipedia any other truths being called promo. Thirdly, a promo (and promotion is the correct english usuage) is not neutral.  -- Jeff3000 23:55, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * As people have very rightly pointed out, this is an encyclopaedia meaning that as much as we can, it is all neutral and based on facts which doesn't mean it can't include good points. It means including the good or "promos" if you like, and the bad. As the article isn't supposed to be layed out like a 14 year old's attempt of an essay labeling sections like this doesn't seem appropriate. It could also be seen as sarcastic to say the least, which shouldn't really be a problem with a featured article. -- Tomhab 23:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh my, I can't believe you guys. Is this what Bahaism does to human mind?! Can any non-Bahais (i.e., unenlightened losers) even touch Bahai-related articles without being interrogated, accused, attacked, labelled and gang-banged by you Bahais?! Why don't you guys quit being bashful and just put a big sign up there that says "non-Bahais please just read this article, no modifications are allowed unless approved by our Universal House of Justice" ?! --Amir 00:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Amir1, please, let's go over this civilly. I would ask you to go over other wikipedia articles and see if any other pages contain a section title like the one you propose.  In all my discussions, regarding the photo of Baha'u'llah, regarding his particular family history and now with this title and the length of the top paragraph, I have pointed out other places in Wikipedia which do not follow the style you wish to follow.  As indicitated at the top of this talk page, I have indicated the disputes, and I have posted this talk page on the Request for Comment Page.  Hopefully that will bring in some neutral readers who can comment on these disputes further.  -- Jeff3000 00:20, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * How about we just cut everything but the first two sentences into an introduction section? -- Tomhab 00:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sound's like a great idea to me, Tom. -- PaulHammond 17:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Part of the recommendation's to make an article reach featured status (see the link from the template at the top of this page) is the length of the top section. It should not be too short or too long.  For a article of this length, it is recommended that the top section be two to three paragraphs.  Thus be reducing the top paragraph, which serves like an introduction, would go against Wikipedia guidance. -- Jeff3000 18:03, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * No matter how you do it, it will still be promotionalism. Why should an encyclopedia article about a religion or faith contain cheapo ads and promos? None of these problems would have arisen had the article been written honestly and in good faith (no pun intended) in the first place.  But the sneaky Bahais took advantage of the open nature of Wikipedia, and used Wikipedia as a medium for promoting their cult.  This is really bad.  --Amir 00:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. I think you're right and Baha'is (or anyone who could be classed pro-Baha'i) have to be reminded that this needs to be neutral, but going the opposite way doesn't help anyone. I have got the be honest though - I don't think an online encyclopaedia is going to "convert" anyone if thats what you're worried about. :) -- Tomhab 00:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Amir, go and find out a bit more about what is involved in getting an article to featured status before you make such comments. Go look at the archive to this discussion page to see how Rick Boatright worked with someone from one of the other Baha'i groups to get this article up to a consensus form.  Go look at the comments on this article on the featured article comment link to see how people worked on it to allay the objections of outside observers.  Oh, and another thing.  Just because you assume something doesn't make it true.  I am not a Baha'i.  I am a person who investigated the faith in the past, but never declared.  Therefore, I have knowledge of the faith, respect for it, but also criticisms of it. PaulHammond 17:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Formatting
I'd like to attract peoples attention to the Wikipedia formatting tutorial.

In the article it seems when we mention books we use double quotes (eg "Paris Talks" and "The Promulgation of Universal Peace"). Should we be thinknig of changing this at some point to bold italics as the wikipedia conventions above? so... Paris Talks and The Promulgation of Universal Peace or is there some reason that I've overlooked why this has been avoided? -- Tomhab 01:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Go ahead Tomhab and change the book titles, but as I understand the formatting tutorial, the books should only be italicized and not bolded. -- Jeff3000 02:20, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just re-read it - yup you're right -- Tomhab 11:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Specter of CB
Hello my Bahai friends. Over the time, I have seen numerous articles (mostly on the web) about ex-Bahais who claim they either left the faith because of the intrusive, manipulative and threatening nature of the higher authorities in the bahai organizational and hierarchical structure (mostly they complain about threats of being labelled Covenant Breakers) or in many cases they are flat out expelled (to keep Tom happy I won't use the other ex word) as Covenant Breakers. So it seems that internally the specter of CB is definitely a big issue in the bahai "culture". Do you guys think it would be fair to include this bahai internal phenomenon in the article? I think it is fair becaue the way bahai faith goads its adherents into the bahai social structure, it seems that pretty much all of a memeber's life revolves around the faith (friends, relationships, etc) .... so getting kicked out is more than just losing one's "membership card", it means losing a hell of a lot more. --Amir 03:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes Amir, this needs to be in the article. Let us try to put it in, in a neutral way.  I suggest that we discuss the inclusion of the paragraph here, until we can agree it on it's wording, and then place it in the article.  This way we can get rid of the edit wars that we've had in the past, reduce the contention with each other as well as making the article better.  Below I have included some of the Baha'i perspectives on covenant-breaking.


 * One of the articles of belief in the Baha'i Faith is obedience to the covenent of Baha'u'llah which has been transfered to Abdu'l Baha, then Shoghi Effendi, and then the Universal House of Justice. At each level new level of succession there has been those who have disagreed, rightly or wrongly, and thus been declared covenent-breakers.  The most prominent of those are already presented in the article, Mirza Yahya, Mirza Muhammad Ali, and Mason Remey.  There are already links to the Orthodox Baha'i Faith and the other Minor Baha'i divisions.


 * In regards to more recent individual covenent breakers, I make the following successive points
 * Baha'is are given much personal freedom to do what they want to do. I don't know a single person who is afraid to do something that will cause them to declared a covenent-breaker.
 * Baha'is are not obliged to participate in Baha'i activities, and are free to leave the Faith, and will not be called covenent-breakers.
 * Baha'is who disagree with directives from the administration are not declared covenent-breakers.
 * Only people who disrupt the unity of the Baha'i Faith by defying and opposing the covenent and causing disunity are declared covenent-breakers.
 * The declaration to name an individual a covenent-breaker is not taken lightly, and I believe that even some Baha'is that have recently called for new divisions have not been declared covenent-breakers.


 * Some of many purposes of the covenent is to create a unity of action and preserving the purity of Baha'u'llah's teachings from people who have, as in past religions, been responsible for dividing those religions. One of the teachings of Abdu'l-Baha is that even if a decision is wrong, if everyone is united behind it, it will become apparent that the decision is wrong, and then the decision can be reversed.  However, if there is infighting, the fact that the decision is wrong does not become clearly apparent.


 * In response to some of the comments you have made above that covenent breaking is a big thing. I think if you ask most Baha'is, they would say it is non-issue with them.  The internet, with it's great characteristic of allowing anyone to publish material, and not have to go through the old media publications, allows, in my opinion, to make the voice of a rather small minority to look larger than they are.  For example, most Baha'is who have no problem with the covenent will not make website devoted to how good the covenent is.  Regardless, covenent-breaking is an issue and should be covered in this article.


 * The other point has to deal with the way you say that the Baha'i Faith goads its adherents into a social structure. I disagree with this.  I have much personal freedom to do what I want, and there is no administration forcing me to do things in a certain way.  If I wanted I could leave the Faith and not be considered a covenent-breaker.  Only if I started publicly causing disunity, would I be declared a covenent-breaker.  In regards to a Baha'i's life, most of my friends are not Baha'is and I spend most of my time with them.  One of the teachings of Baha'u'llah is to interact with everyone of different race or religion with the utmost compassion and love.


 * So how bout we start a paragraph in the talk pages, and work through it. -- Jeff3000 05:29, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * One further note, given that the size of this article is going beyond the recommended 32 Kbytes, and that there is already a ovenent-breaker article, the paragraph included in this article should be rather short and linking to the main covenent-breaker article which should be expanded.  This style follows that of other religious pages which have the main text of the article in sub-articles.  Once I get the time, and if no one else disagrees I would like to fashion this article much more like that of the other religious pages where there are links to the sub-articles.  -- Jeff3000 05:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm I think we have enough on covenant breaking in there - this was an issue 50 years ago and it might be a bit misleading as there aren't many covenant breaker labelings going on now. One thing which isn't on the article is a mention on the BSE literary review. Its rather contraversial so I'll let someone else write it up. Take Juan Cole as an example. A leading American Baha'i scholar who left (was asked to leave?) the faith for challenging the Universal House of Justices's "literary review" (which many might see as censorship) ideas. I know this one hangs over the head of the scholarly circles a bit. Please note Juan Cole is NOT a covenant breaker though (as far as I know, but may have been threatened with it). I'm sorry - I don't have any sources for this I'm afraid, but shouldn't be too hard to find on the net. -- Tomhab 11:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * He's got a web log, but he's mostly been talking about the situation in Iraq recently. The log is here Informed Comment, which has a link to his personal homepage.  There's also a stub about him here on Wikipedia.  Juan Cole is not a Covenant Breaker - that's a very rare thing which is not applied to people who just decide to leave the Faith. PaulHammond 17:59, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * On that note I think we should stress that Baha'is consider literary review to be different from censorship, however some might disagree. -- Tomhab 11:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * im not entirely sure if we´re talking about the same thing ,but this "literary review" is, as far as i know, (say) before a book being published, and suposse that book says that the bab said x in the epistle y, what is done is a "verification" of if indeed this is true/correct. looks very diferent from censorship to me... - --Cyprus2k1 18:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup. Literary Review is the process of Baha'is getting approval from the Baha'i authorities before they publish anything about the Baha'i Faith.  It is one of the policies that caused academics like Juan, and thinkers like those involved in the "Dialogue" magazine (of the late 80s, early 90s, IIRC), such problems, and led to the withdrawal of many of them from the faith.  But, this is getting off the topic of editing this article.  If you want to talk further about such things, email me.  -- PaulHammond 18:37, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I just figured this had a place in an encylopaedia, and if someone knew enough on the topic to write a section. The literary review was put in by the Guardian as a temporary process to make sure that "misinformation" (ie stuff not in line with current Baha'i theology) could not be spread (either intentionally or not, both facts and as far as I know opinions) until such a time that there are enough Baha'i scholars to all keep themselves in check. I guess some accademics took it personally. I'm not sure if people rebelled against the theory, or against it actually being used. -- Tomhab 18:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

solutions
If anyone thinks this article has POV problems, then please point *exactly* where they are, and what possible solutions you think there may be.

things to remeber:
 * This is a encyclopedic article, it´s NOT a pro-bahai article and it´s NOT a anti-bahai article.
 * the information on the article should be organized and in the proper context.

things NOT to do:
 * vague/empty acusations of non-NPOV with no evidence being point out.
 * ignoring constructive replies and keep arguing with the same thing.
 * revert/war editing when discussion/consensus is being asked on the talk page.
 * flamming

things to do:
 * be constructive! the talk page is for improving the article not for pointless non-constructive criticism.

(anyone is welcomed to edit and improve to what i said above)

also: a Bahá'í Faith/temp could be created for testing/improving the current article.

my sugestions.... - --Cyprus2k1 19:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Source of Baha'i censhorshiip
Martin2000, please provide sources for all info. If you do not, then your additions cannot be placed in Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 04:13, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh really? You mean you have never heard of Professor Juan Cole?  What about the Talisman listserv?  --Martin2000 05:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe Jeff hasn't heard of him, but I certainly have. I will continue to remove any reference to censorship or literary review leading to being labeled a covenant breaker until a source appears (which I sincerely doubt will happen). I've left the rest as its all down to opinion so will wait for a consensus on the issue. For the record I feel Martin's additions are not NPOV and require editting. -- Tomhab 13:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Juan Cole definitely was not labelled a CB just for publishing a book that the authorities didn't like. (Modernity and the Millenium, quite a cause celebre in the Baha'i dissident online community).  His (Juan Cole's) website used to have a lot of details about his Baha'i past, but now it seems it is all professional (about his publications etc), but if you dig around you can find the details of what happened to Juan and his relation to the faith.  Much as I admire the man, I don't think an exhaustive account of that history should appear in this article on the Baha'i Faith as a whole.  Martin, perhaps you'd consider finding out some good, referenced facts about Juan's relationship to the Baha'is, and go expand the Juan Cole stub I referred to earlier on this talk page?  - PaulHammond 16:06, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll add to my previous comment, in case anyone found it unclear. At no time, never was Dr Cole declared a Covenant Breaker.  There was one point at which he thought he was being threatened with this status, but nothing futher came of that.  In fact, Dr Cole resigned from the faith soon after that.  For anyone critical of the Baha'i Faith, and it's review policy, there is certainly an interesting article to be written here, but it should be at Juan Cole, or some new article, not here. - PaulHammond 16:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000, you are quite arrogant in your current demeanor. If you do have knowledge others do not, don't bragg with it, but do provide the references. You have been asked many times, but have not done so. You also keep reverting and use the edit commentary for personal attacks, which is quite out of order. Refdoc 15:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * He is certainly not as arrogant as you who decides on his own what and in what form, should be included in articles. He did clearly mention the cases of Juan Cole and the Talisman listserv -- is that not enough? An examination of your history (including what I saw from you in discussion pages of other articles) clearly shows that you came here (to bahai-related articles) with malintent.  You are a Christian evangelist, and you "contributed" to the Bahai articles to make the Bahai Faith look worse.  Why?  Because you have an agenda.  Your edit history shows that you have a focus on Christianity, particularly in Iran, and therefore, you view the Bahai Faith as a "competition" for your potential Iranian "market". That is really so low.  --Amir


 * The point is Martin tried to add details about the Juan Cole AND the Talisman listserv that were VERY VERY inaccurate. At the moment I'm struggling to find anything contraversial about Refdoc's Baha'i edits. They are all minor wording edits or spelling mistakes with the exception of the picture of Baha'u'llah which a consensus agreed we would try changing it to a link. -- Tomhab 22:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * He has also edidted the Bahaullah's page, including "[in bhaism] there is a limit of two wives, while in surrounding Islam the legal limit is four wives." -- that is a carefully crafted "contribution" to serve his ends. In general, I actually agree with his few contributions and/or corrections to the bahai articles, however, a look as his history (not just his bahai edits) clearly reveals what his intentions are around here. From my point of view, he sucks more than some bahai zealot, like Cyprus2k1 for instance, because at least the other guy is protecting his "own"  articles, while this guy has more hidden and sneaky agenda. --Amir 23:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amir, once again, seeking to make friends and influence people (*).. No, seriously, thanks for making the effort of following my "editing history" in such details that you can now determine my hidden and sneaky agenda. This is of huge help as often enough I believed in the past I was only sitting in front of the computer to kill some time or to have some fun. To write on Wikipedia seemed to belong more to the fun bits. I obviously wrote about the bits which I am interested it, and then diverged into those bits which are 'adjacent', or suddenly became more interesting. I will now look out more for my hidden agenda, maybe I can one day convert you by chosing carefully crafted edits.... Refdoc 00:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this link will be interesting. Its the difference you're talking about Amir, but it wasn't refdoc, it was Cyprus2k1. I might also add, that it is entirely "factual and correct" as you so like to put. -- Tomhab 00:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * hmmm ... think again. --Amir 00:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it was me - or not. Cyprus had introduced the Islam-law-four-wives'bit and had hung up Baha'ullah's three marriages on this quote. Martin2000, already in best form, barged in reverting. I felt there were two wrong things happening (sorry, Cyprus, if I presume wrongly, but teh formulation sounded this way): I felt Cyprus was wrongly trying to bring Islamic law as an excuse here, when this clearly was not the issue as the Baha'ullah was already living as a Babi. At the same time I felt Martin2000 's intemperate revert was no good and deleted information. So my carefully crafted edit. Introduction of NPOV, word for word, sentence for sentence, hopefully in dialogue. Ah, well. Good night Refdoc 01:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

recent revert
Dear User Martin2000, i kindly ask you to read Talk:Bah%E1%27%ED_Faith and to please stop flamming me. also, before doing reverts with vague/empty acussations(and flamming), please discuss here, what you may see wrong with my edits and what solutions you may think of. diff here

- --Cyprus2k1 09:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not revert again. In this cult of Bahaism there is a clear policy, in no uncertain terms, that all Bahais MUST submit their works to the authorities for review and approval PRIOR to publication.  You want to hide this ugliness by playing with words.  You are basically sticking around here to "protect" and promote Bahaism.  From your point of view, this article should be nothing short of a pretty picture.  Well, guess what?  Bahaism is not pretty, and even if the entrance door is pretty, inside of it is stinkier than a downtown restaurant's kitchen on a friday night.  --Martin2000 10:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * i apologise, when i saw you comment here i had already reverted..
 * but still i dont see any constructive argument. what you said its written there but no in a POV language of course as it was before. some things were incorrect/untrue and were correct/improved - --Cyprus2k1 10:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
In a blatant attempt to move on from some of the hassle above - the two pictures, one at the top from India and the one of the Shrine muich lower down, are they real??? Both pictures have oddly bright colours and too clean textures and appear to me more like graphics "artist's impression" etc. If I am wrong, fine, but if I am right could we get hold of some real photographs? Refdoc 01:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I assure you they're both quite real places. Probably two of the more asthetically pleasing of Baha'i buildings, but they've both been around for years (Shrine in this form ~50, Lotus 20 I think). If you click on the images then you can see they're not CG - people running around them and all. Perhaps touched up? I wouldn't be surprised if they are straight off a leaflet, but then again... is there anything wrong with that? -- Tomhab 01:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aye, I know the places are real, but the pictures appear odd.Refdoc 01:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the shrine one is particularly bad. Has someone got any pictures with less blue backgrounds?  Anyone been to Haifa recently with their camera?  - PaulHammond 17:40, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree. The pictures are definitely worked up (probably using computer graphic "paint" programs) to make them better looking. Just one glance at the color of the sky or the grass is enough to know this. They certainly are not the original pictures as taken by the camera. It seems bahism is all about exaltation of form over substance and it's a religion of luring you in with "pretty pictures" and tall tales. --Amir 02:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amir, nice to see you are still around...not. Leaving his remarks aside, I do think that the pictures should - gradually be replaced, simply for aesthetic reasons. Refdoc 02:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit of an amature photographer and do a fair amount of picture editing myself. I would never publish a picture that isn't slightly touched up. My own opinion of when touching up is too much is when you can start to recognise things which are not real. I guess if you compare them with other pictures from google then you might say the grass is a little too green on the lotus temple.
 * The Shine of the Bab doesn't really look touched up though in my opion. -- Tomhab 09:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The lotus temple image is taken from the architect's final rendering of the design. It is not a photograph. No shortage of photos exist on the web, but when I uploaded that one, I had no _certainly public domain_ photo of the Lotus temple. If someone has a decent photo of the lotus temple, replace it with one. In the mean time, I'll change the tag to say rendering or some such. The photo of the shrine of the Bab is essentially unretouched. It really DOES look like that when you use the right exposure at night. I have any number of similar photos I look with cheap cameras. It's really that pretty a building. Saddly, I've never BEEN to India. Anyway, I'll change the tag on the lotus temple photo and remove the -silly- tag atthe top about the photos. Rick Boatright 06:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the tag keeps reappearing (sorry for me even raising the subject) I though I do what I wanted to achieve anyway - that teh rendered pictures get replaced by more natural ones. Also i flet that the shrine does not have to have two pictures. I replaced Delhi by another one which I found in Wikipedia and I replaced the second (artifical) one with a book of Kitab-i Aqdas. Refdoc 15:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * having stood at the foot of that set of terraces, and looked up, I don't really think that third photo was artificial either... but that's ok, the photo of the Aqdas there is entirely appropriate. Rick Boatright 02:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * personaly i dont see anything wrong with the photo, i think the photo looks good because its professional and high-resolution. also i dont think the grass is greener(i actually think is yellower..) but maybe its because where i can from, green is *really* green ;) - --Cyprus2k1 09:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this photos instead? [] ? - --Cyprus2k1 09:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Cyprus! Didn't you know that the grass is always greener in Haifa.  It's a secret Baha'i conspiracy to grow extra Baha'i sock-puppets for guarding Wikipedia articles.  I'd have thought you'd have known that.  - PaulHammond 17:44, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * ho yes, the "secret bahai conspiracy" lol. they used to tell that bahais were "israeli spies" but of course people dont buy that anymore, so they have envolved to a more elaborated rumors. but, you know, i dont blame him, thats what the mullas tell him and he has little acess to real information. - --Cyprus2k1 11:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Baha'ullah's literary skills
I think it is highly inappropriate to reopen a debate here when there is an ongoing one on Baha'ullah's page itself. Further, the quality or lack of it has little or no bearing on the article on the faith, or has it ? Do Bahai's subscribe to the idea that only poets can be prophets and hence need Baha'ullah to write nicely? Refdoc 18:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Although, as Muslims regard the Quran as a miracle, and one of the proofs of Muhammad's Prophethood, Baha'is regard Baha'u'llah's writings, and his fluency in producing them as one of the proofs of Baha'u'llah's mission.  Muhammad once challenged his enemies to produce an utterance like the Quran.  Baha'is believe that the Bab and Baha'u'llah have answered that challenge. - PaulHammond 12:24, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are you getting increasingly more involved in the Bahai and Bahaullah subject, when you clearly do not have any expertise on this subject? How did you suddenly become such an expert on this subject?  --Amir 18:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He isn't an expert. It doesn't require an expert to distinguish between NPOV and attacks. Heck, if you think this is fun, you should have participated in trying to clean up the biography on Tesla. :-) Look,  I am familiar with the position that Baha'u'llah was a short, dirty, foul, illiterate country bumpkin who managed to create a cult of personality for reasons which highly cultured persians could never understand but would rather eradicate from the earth.  Other people disagree.  You may choose, for example, to ignore Baha'i sources when discussing the literary accomplishments of Baha'u'llah, but the simple reality is that authors like Juan Cole find his poetics and his imagery inventive and compelling.  Certainly, in the historical record, there are no shortage of islamic scholars who chose to become Baha'i both during and after His life.  Therefore, from a WIKIPEDIA point of view, it seems clear that the wiki can claim something along the lines that "The literary quality of Baha'u'llah's writings are disputed. Extreme positions on both sides are held fervently."  What else can the wiki say? You, and others, would argue that anyone who sees God or Poetics in the words of Baha'u'llah is insane because of your perception of it being over-arabicized gutter persian. Others, persian Baha'is including some very well educated ones, read the same texts and come away moved. uh. That's a dispute. That's the way disputes work. The Wiki doesn't try to SOLVE disputes, it recognizes and documents them. If I could, then yes, sure, I would be happy to use the wiki to promote the Cause of the Baha'i Faith. Duh. But I'm happy to participating in producing the best NEUTRAL DOCUMENT that we can produce. Rick Boatright 07:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I moved the Literary skills paragraph from between the early life paragraph and the exile paragraph, to immediately AFTER the paragraph that introduces the idea that he wrote 100 books. This way, it reads as a comment on the possible quality of his writing, not as a weird insertion by an anti-baha'i polemicist.
 * Then, I re-worded the literary skills paragraph to be more in keeping with the NPOV comrimize in the biography article and referenced that. Rick Boatright 02:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have already mentioned sources about criticism to Bahaullah's numerous linguistic and even simple grammatical errors (makes you wonder how "God" would be so weak at human languages) and I believe User:Refdoc included them in one or both of the two controversial bahai articles. --Amir 09:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amir, please be more specific about your scholarly references rather than your personal opinion. Learned Persians accepted Baha'u'llah though his writings. I am not a Persian speaker, but it is hardly credible that educated readers of his Persian or Arabic writings would accept his claim to be the next manifestation of God if the literary quality of his major works--at the very least--were substandard. I am assembling a list of Baha'i scholars who were not born as Baha'is; they would therefore have assumed a particularly critical posture when reviewing Baha'u'llah's writings. For starters, there was Mirza Muhammad Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani. Also here is a relevant quote from John Walbridge in Occasional Papers in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March, 2002), Essays and Notes on Babi and Baha’i History, http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol6/waless/waless.htm
 * It is interesting that the two greatest modern Iranian Baha’i scholars, Fadil Mazandarani and ‘Abd al-Hamid Ishraq-Khavari, were both former ‘ulama trained in philosophy. --Occamy 15:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL this is truly funny. oh my god.  you really think those guys are "scholars" ?!!!!!!!!  especially Ishraq-khavari !! hehe he was initially a Howza drop-out (the islamic "madrasa" which produces mullahs) so even as a mullah-wannabee he was a failure.  Later when he joined the bahai cult, his howza background was taken into account to assing him tasks and missions.  I have used a few of his books for reference and comparing notes (for example his so-called "bahai encyclopedia") and his persian language skills not only isn't scholarly, a village mullah writes better than him (and i am not exaggerating) ... I cannot imagine his Arabic be in a better shape.  his only "value" is that you can use his books for cross reference and note comparing, to find out bahai lies and contradictions easier. His "scholarlship" is on the same level as the poetry of Bahaullah's "court poet" Nabil Zarandi !!! hehe  :-) --Amir 12:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt: The point here is really not whetehr Baha'ullah was a great or whether he was a gornisht. No problem either way. Teh point is that this is the bahai article and this matter should simply not discussed here - it is discussed - very shortly - on the Bahaullah page and that page should be expanded. Refdoc 22:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This whole article needs gutting with bits moving around. I'd do it except I don't know how. -- Tomhab 00:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of pictures
Looking above, I can't manage to decipher any coherent reason why the pictures should be removed. Some say they're advertising or promotion - but the fact remains that a picture under a free license should always be used in place of a fair use one; also, it says "artist's rendering." Please tell me why these should not be displayed. &mdash; Dan | Talk 02:10, 7 Feb 2005

The pictures now present are not those discussed above. One was replaced like with like (artists rendereing temple Delhi, replced by a real photograph of the same) or left out as they were a doublette (two pictures showed the shrine of the Bab, now only one and the Kitab-i Aqdas was added instead)Refdoc 08:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excessive Length
The Baha'i Faith article is currently 38Kb and should be shortened. Amir1 keeps adding detailed biographical information without reference to the Baha'i Faith; that is the first paragraph that should go, which I have done. People wishing to add such paragraphs concerning Baha'u'llah, should do so in the relative article on Baha'u'llah. But ensure that appropriate scholarly references are provided; Wikipedia suffers from undocumented entries and fixing that problem should be a priority for all contributors. --Occamy 12:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sources required
Amir has added another unsubstantiated claim - that it was only Babi Persians who joined. Without sources this can not stand. It is indeed likely that a large part fo followers where Babi's before, but to make it an exclusive claim as Amir has done this would require some serious evidence. Not likely to be forth coming... Refdoc 15:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * And the previous statement, to which you didn't raise any doubts and you didn't call it "unsubstantiated", was (paraphrasing as i can't remember it verbatim, but nearly accurate) "many thousands of Persians joined the Bahai Faith due to the writings of Bahaullah in the 19th century." --   You really are a bright sparkle.  This clearly shows that you are now harrassing me, and if you continue on this path, I will not hesitate to bring this up with the admins.  --Amir 15:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well certainly not due to his convincing television personality... And you probably do not want to draw into doubt that indeed many thousands became Bahais at that stage? Anyay. That statement was odd too, no doubt. I have moved bits around a bit, removing reference to both Babi and the literary skills as predominant cause for changing adherence - until substantiated by sources, I would say.

Wrt Harrassement - please think carefully what you accuse me of - we are working on the same articles. I have every right to do so. And as it is you at the moment who is putting the largest amount of spurious stuff in, you will receive most of my requests for sources... Refdoc 15:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to ask people for sources, then be consistent. If you cannot, just shut up and be quiet.  The person who added "thousands of persians joined bahism in then 19th century due to bahullah's writings in persian" did it recently, when you were involved.  Why wasn't he interrogated by you?!  Why didn't you yourself provide sources for your bogus claims on the Christianity in Iran page until I asked and even then you only provided some bullshit Christian website?  So either, be consistent, or shut up.  If you want to make contributing to wikipedia difficult for people who can make meaningful contribution, then do this project a big favour and get out of here.  Finally, practice what you preach, Reverend.  --Amir 15:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia guidelines on No personal attacks state that examples of personal attack include:


 * Negative personal comments
 * Profanity directed against another contributor.


 * and also state:


 * There is no excuse for such attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Stay cool.


 * They also advise removal of those personal attacks, or following of the dispute resolution procedures. I have therefore edited out the swearing you directed at Refdoc above.  PaulHammond 18:45, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Please cease using personal attacks. Refdoc 16:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, practice what you preach, Reverand. Persoanl Attack is a relative term.  you are personally harrassing me and you have singled me out and I am not going to allow you to do this.  If you want, let's go to the admins board and ask for arbitration. Your call.  --Amir 16:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said, please cease using personal attacks. Making up names could be considered part of this. Refdoc 17:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me as I added the "many thousands of Persians..." to the discussion page as part of the literary discussion. I considered it was justified on the basis that there are currently approximately 300,000 Baha'is in Iran; scholarly sources confirm that thousands of Babis were killed in the nineteenth century. It therefore seems reasonable that thousands must have accepted Baha'u'llah's claim during his lifetime. Unfortunately, after a quick search, I cannot find any direct sources except for this contemporary comment on the difficulties of gathering information at that time:
 * In Persia it is impossible to speak of the Babis or to learn something about their affairs. The terror which this name awakens is such that no one dares to speak, or even to think of it. The Italians whom I found in Tehran, and who proved extremely kind in every way, wanted to tell me little or nothing about the Babis... Nicolas [first Dragoman of the French Mission in Tehran] started to speak to me about them only after we passed the Persian frontier... Gobineau would narrate to me episodes about this sect. Gathering material for the history of the Bab... was fraught with danger in the heart of Persia even for a Minister of the French Emperor. Michele Lessona, I Babi, translated by U. Giachery. http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/Iran-patterns.htm#N_2_ --Occamy 18:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry excuse me for jump in. I also read book you paste in above. But in there is talking of Babi not Bahai.  In this time he is writing about is almost no Bahai in Iran.  BL: Mon Feb 7 21:59:18 IRST 2005 -- 19 Bahman 1383
 * Of course you are correct. The point being made is that it was extremely difficult to gain information at that time--whether about Babis or Baha'is. Therefore a direct census of Baha'is in the nineteenth century is not likely to be available.--Occamy 18:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse me for repeating what I put on the Baha'u'llah discussion page but--for clarity's sake--this is Wikipedia's guideline on sources:
 * Cite sources (citation): provide references that help the reader to check the veracity of the article and to find more information. Good citations are critical to help make Wikipedia trusted and useful.
 * If you consult an external source while writing an article, citing it is basic intellectual honesty. More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject—you won't be around forever to answer questions. (Also, this forces you to check your facts, and you might find that you don't know everything.) The main point is to help the reader—cite whatever you think will be most helpful.
 * This applies when writing about opinions, as well—beware the temptation to write weasel phrases like, "Some people say..." Who said it, and where and when? (Remember that Wikipedia is not for your opinions or for original research.) --Occamy 20:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reorganising Archives
Without adding them to Wikipedia yet, I have copied all the Baha'i Faith Archive pages and have sorted the various contributions into separate files according to topic. I am ready to add the pages after obtaining users' general agreement. The topics are (largest first): I am reluctant to call them archives because they are part of the current multi-threaded discussion. As this page is already 112KB long, much of it it should be moved into topic pages as suggested above. How practical would it be for users to make Talk entries directly into the topic pages rather than the current mish-mash on this page? Thanks. --Occamy 07:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * History
 * Formatting
 * NPOV
 * Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh and Division
 * Orthodox Baha'i
 * Laws
 * Images
 * Practice

The plan to archive topically is good. To expect people to use the archives to append to discussions is impractical, I would think. Just go ahead and archive. Most discussions are circular anyway... :-) Refdoc 08:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * organize talk archives acording to topic? look a good idea to me.
 * there was this anon user (amir using a proxy?) that added things that were discussed(refuted) long ago Talk:Bah%E1%27%ED_Faith/archive1. with a organized archive anyone could more easily verify this :) - --Cyprus2k1 08:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Archived discussion files have been reorganised as follows: The original Archives remain unchanged for the time being. --Occamy 21:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * /Archive Practice
 * /Archive Orthodox
 * /Archive NPOV
 * /Archive Laws
 * /Archive Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh and division
 * /Archive Images
 * /Archive History
 * /Archive Formatting

Occamy, I had a look at what you did - but I think it is better to leave the old archives as a historical record of old discussions. I've had another go - putting the discussions that were on this page under categories (plus one miscellaneous), and leaving the old archives as is. PaulHammond 12:39, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Occamy seems to think my attempt to refactor this page was fine. If no-one else objects here for a couple of days, I'll move this meta-discussion to archive3 too. PaulHammond 19:42, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)