Talk:Baháʼí literature

Wikipedia article links
I've put the Baha'i texts template in to provide wikipedia links to specific articles on specific texts. Seemed streamlined that way. MARussellPESE 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion
Out of pure personal judgement, I've only added texts used as sources on more than one article. I'm not sure we need something like God Loves Laughter, but Thief in the Night would be a good addition. There's probably some central book(s) I've missed. If it's really useful, like an external link to the Ruhi books, please track it down and add it.

I think we should not put links to the Distribution Service, GR, Kalimat, etc. MARussellPESE 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Great resource. A couple of points/questions:
 * "Universal House of Justice and its angencies" - do you mean agencies?
 * Is this article concentrating on printed literature only? ie the Bab's "Qayyúmu'l-Asmá (The Resurrection of Names, a.k.a. Commentary on the Súrih of Joseph)" has never been published in full, at least not in English.
 * What about polemic accounts, or even accounts that aren't acknowledged by the Baha'i World Centre (Amanat has one of the best and most neutral resources I know about the 1844-1850 period, but he's not Baha'i)

Just thoughts without leaning toward any answers in particular -- Tomhab 21:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the observations.
 * Typo. Fixed.
 * Personally, I'd focus on the published texts. But a section on "Online texts" or "Unpublished texts" could be opened up. That could be the place to point at H-baha'i?
 * Polemic books. Hmmm. I wonder what similar religions' sites look like. This is "Bahá'í literature" not "literature about Bahá'í". The W.M. Miller and Maulana texts are present in appropriate articles. Don't think they belong here.
 * MARussellPESE 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are authors with multiple works in the bibliography, such as Balyuzi and Taherzadeh, who aren't mentioned in the main article. Also, there are works that are significant in that Baha'is are familiar with them and they come up in discussions, particularly the sort that come up on Wikipedia, that aren't in the article at all. This may become a difficulty later. -LambaJan 01:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates
I've been trying to use the date when the original document was written, or if it's a compilation, the earliest publication date. (The exception is Esselmont, which has undergone significant revision over time.) If we are going to use the pub. date of the particular ISBN then we'll confuse it, I think, as these have been reprinted in various editions over the years. (I used Smith's Concise Encyclopedia for dates.)

This is why Harvard referencing won't work on these pages too. Can we settle on a consensus? MARussellPESE 13:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think if we attach a particular ISBN to a book then the rest of the reference should go along with it. So dates, publishing location, hardcover, etc. Is there any standard for this? I'm sure it's come up before.


 * For Esselmont you can just put the edition number on it and the publishing date of that edition. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer's here: Cite sources. MARussellPESE 18:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, here's what it says:
 * Many times editors use an edition of a book that was published long after the original publication. In such cases, they must provide the date of the edition they are using or else the ISBN, and preferably both. This is important because different editions may be paginated differently.
 * When editors use an edition of a book that was published long after the original publication, they may put the original date of publication in square brackets followed by the date of publication of the edition used by the author who is making the citation. For example, an in-line citation might be
 * (Marx [1867] 1967)
 * and the complete reference would be:
 * Marx, Karl [1867] 1967 Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Vol. I. Edited by Frederick Engels. New York: International Publishers.''

Sounds good, we can use this formatting for the page. Cuñado  -  Talk  22:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It sure doesn't look good. Maybe someone can think of a better presentation for the original and publishing dates? Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  22:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It does look ugly. Maybe we could just have the date of publication as before, and at the end of the reference write "Originally published 1910." -- Jeff3000 03:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thought it would look like this. The "Year" field automatically drops parentheses around it. Looking over the full template, there doesn't seem to be another way of doing it that way. There have been so many printings of these over time, though, "Baha'u'llah (1982)" is meaningless. Maybe we need to ask for an update to the template to allow for bracketed original publication. I opened up a topic here. MARussellPESE 14:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe the discussion should be brought to Template talk:Cite book which the new version of the depracated Template:Book reference reference. -- Jeff3000 03:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this formatting will work:

Any thoughts? Cuñado  -  Talk  20:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooo. Much better. Consistency is most important I think. MARussellPESE 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kudos
Kudos to Jeff3000 and Cuñado for tightening up these citations' data and formatting. Very nice. Tedious work. Mille grazie. MARussellPESE 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

multiple authors
umm... check the "others" section in the bibliography. I'm not sure how to format multiple authors with first and last names, especially two authors with the same last name. It results in a string of names, and it might be hard to tell which are first, and which are last names. Cuñado  -  Talk  20:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about the change I just made. -- Jeff3000 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I found an example on this guideline page. With multiple authors they give the last name and first initial, like this: Lincoln, A., Washington, G. & Adams, J. (2007).....


 * I'll try and update the page now. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  21:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Periodicals
I'm moving the Baha'i World and periodicals to the bottom of the bibliography. These don't fit into a particular form and are probably of limited interest to people who aren't Bahá'ís. Mostly news and the original appearance of a letter or provisional translation. There's almost nothing in these that isn't available in one of the books already cited. I really wonder that we need them at all. MARussellPESE 18:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Authorized and loanwords
Sorry for the revert, but I think this version is problematic on several points:

1. Authorized is redundant.
 * Authorized translations use the characteristic Bahá'í orthography to render Arabic and Persian names and loanwords, introduced by Shoghi Effendi, who translated numerous writings into English. His service was not just that of a translator, as he was also the designated and authoritative interpreter of the writings.

Most Baha'i translations use Shoghi Effendi's preferred orthography, so stating "authoritative translations" do is not entirely correct. We could drop the first "authorized" or the second sentence altogether. My preference is for the former. We shouldn't over-emphasize the Shoghi Effendi's "authority", as this article discusses "authoritative text" at some length, and Shoghi Effendi's bio article is pretty clear too. It's easy to overdo this point.

2. The first sentence reads like this to me: "Authorized translations use Baha'i orthography and Shoghi Effendi introduced Arabic and Persian names and loanwords" (?)

3. Bahá'í orthography is clear that Shoghi Effendi did not introduce this form — it's one he modified from the existing standard. Saying that he "introduced" seems incorrect. "Developed" seems better.

4. Per my understanding of "loanword" we don't have many, if any, in the Baha'i writings, because words like Sadrat'l-Muntaha, Taraz, etc. are not widely recognized outside the Baha'i community, and sometimes in it, without a glossary offering translation. As such these are basically foreign words and have not been naturalized. I don't think we can refer to these correctly as "loanwords".

MARussellPESE (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the corrections! hajhouse (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is Literature - Texts
This article covers a much larger range of material than what are considered religious texts. In fact, beyond the Central Figures, nothing is considered "sacred". The Guardian's and House's correspondence are not treated, by those institutions themselves, on par with them.

If we were to confine ourselves to what would properly be considered "texts", then three-quarters of this article is out of place and should be deleted.

"Baha'i Literature" is the appropriate title. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Though with a lower case L. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  04:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That capital "L" is my American English showing. I prefer the UK form in Baha'i articles. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wiki-uk (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think splitting the article into one regarding such things as compilations, correspondence, commentary and history books and so forth and one specifically on the Holy Texts of the central figures would be appropriate. I would probably include the rulings of the House under the former category per the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha, simply because of the significance and the fundamental religious requirement to adhere to them. Peter Deer (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with MARussellPESE; it think the previous title was a better one. Ideally I think two articles could be created and included as per summary style in a Baha'i literature article, but I don't think there is enough material for that.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that there is sufficient material to be found, particularly if particular emphasis were given to specific forms; for example with Scripture, emphasis could be given to the relation between the Writings of the Bab to those of Baha'u'llah, and how those relate to administrative texts such as the writings of the Master and the Guardian, and the rulings of the House. In the other category, Baha'i review could be mentioned in summary, and certain realms of Baha'i literature, including commentary, fiction, apologia, and so forth could be presented individually. Peter Deer (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Now that's a project! (I'm not up to it now.) We'd have to be careful with WP:OR. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Contains what?
A litterature list is not enough for an encyclopedia article. What does that litterature contain? Lists without a description of content or some other enlightening information, are pretty meaningless. I'm not going to read all of it anyways, I just need a hint of what it's about. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't a list. The article describes, and provides examples of, various religious literary forms that Baha'i scripture and other works fit into. The presumption is that the reader is familiar with those forms themselves and doesn't need further discussion. (Further wikilinking is a good idea though, so thanks for the prod.)


 * Compare to Rabbinic literature or Christian literature. This is far more expansive than either.


 * We run a serious WP:NPOV risk if we were to try to summarize, or provide some sub-title, to the works to try to pin them down into a particular genre. Many of these books, especially the central ones, are hundreds of pages each and cover a variety of issues and literary forms. It's not uncommon to find works that cover one or more genres - aplogetic scripture, inspirational history, even introductory scripture. MARussellPESE (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-Bahá'í sources
The Dutch version of this article has been deleted, due to the lack of non-Bahá'í sources for it. Please comment. Does anyone have additional non-Bahá'í sources available? Wiki-uk (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that the following references are being considered non-Bahá'í sources:
 * Wiki-uk (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are not limited to English sources these are non-Baha'i sources: (not exactly sure of the name of the publisher and some details of the citation but this should be close.) The publisher(via URL) claims that there are other languages available but French is the only one I've found.
 * Wiki-uk (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are not limited to English sources these are non-Baha'i sources: (not exactly sure of the name of the publisher and some details of the citation but this should be close.) The publisher(via URL) claims that there are other languages available but French is the only one I've found.



Smkolins (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW Les Baha'is has a bibliography covering pages 163 to 183 for all it's analysis/summary.


 * and:




 * and:

I think this is a particularly strong reference - it covers others than Baha'is in equal detail, and has a pretty nuanced set of details - the link goes to the 2000 edition but there is a 2006 edition - here's something workable for both. Smkolins (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a thought. Are these kinds of listings important enough to actually be part of the article? I also wonder about university press whether the author is Baha'i or not but still about the religion. Thoughts?

Case in point: *
 * Here's a non-Baha'i publisher entry


 * another Smkolins (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Smkolins (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)





Smkolins (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

creative word vs revelation
I believe and will try to find refs that describe Abdu'l-Baha's writings as divine revelation but that the term "Creative Word" was always reserved for the Manifestations (including Jesus, Muhammad, etc.) I'm wondering if the article on him clarifies his unique station - that's he's not directly comparable to Ali or Peter, etc. Or it's possible this may be too subtle a point to bring out clearly. I guess we'll see when refs are found to underscore what I'm talking about. Smkolins (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe he is comparable to Ali and Peter. In his interpretation of Revelation 11, he mentions that each Prophet has a minor prophet, and mentions Muhammad and Ali, Moses and Joshua, and the Bab and Quddus. There's no clear reference but obviously Abdu'l-Baha is that minor prophet of the Baha'i Faith. The difference between past examples is that he was clearly appointed as authorized interpreter. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a very dodgy line. That passage does not lay out a doctrine of Prophet and attendant minor prophet - because it doesn't use the term "minor prophet". (It does discuss the role as "promoter" of the respective revelations that Ali, Joshua, and Quddus.) Nor, is there any evidence that 'Abdul-Baha is, was, or should be, considered a "minor prophet". In fact, the whole concept of "major" vs. "minor" prophets has little, if any, support from the scripture or interpretation. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To the extent that Abdu'l-Baha is 2nd in the Faith and so are Peter and Ali then sure. But consider that Abdu'l-Baha is Exemplar as well as interpreter. Exemplar is never applied to Peter (indeed there is some dwelling on his failures) and while to Shi'a Ali is an Example to Sunni's he is not and support for his position is not based on the Qur'an or all would accept. Here's something that clarifies:

"An attempt I strongly feel should now be made to clarify our minds regarding the station occupied by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the significance of His position in this holy Dispensation. It would be indeed difficult for us, who stand so close to such a tremendous figure and are drawn by the mysterious power of so magnetic a personality, to obtain a clear and exact understanding of the rôle and character of One Who, not only in the Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh but in the entire field of religious history, fulfills a unique function. Though moving in a sphere of His own and holding a rank radically different from that of the Author and the Forerunner of the Bahá’í Revelation, He, by virtue of the station ordained for Him through the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh, forms together with them what may be termed the Three Central Figures of a Faith that stands unapproached in the world’s spiritual history. He towers, in conjunction with them, above the destinies of this infant Faith of God from a level to which no individual or body ministering to its needs after Him, and for no less a period than a full thousand years, can ever hope to rise. To degrade His lofty rank by identifying His station with or by regarding it as roughly equivalent to, the position of those on whom the mantle of His authority has fallen would be an act of impiety as grave as the no less heretical belief that inclines to exalt Him to a state of absolute equality with either the central Figure or Forerunner of our Faith. For wide as is the gulf that separates ‘Abdu’l-Bahá from Him Who is the Source of an independent Revelation, it can never be regarded as commensurate with the greater distance that stands between Him Who is the Center of the Covenant and His ministers who are to carry on His work, whatever be their name, their rank, their functions or their future achievements. Let those who have known ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, who through their contact with His magnetic personality have come to cherish for Him so fervent an admiration, reflect, in the light of this statement, on the greatness of One Who is so far above Him in station." So in this comparison I'd say Peter and Ali are more like Shoghi Effendi, and that Abdu'l-Baha was new. And it in this light that I think reflects on the station of his writings vs Shoghi Effendi's. But I'm still looking for a reference for that.Smkolins (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And here's another ref pointing to the writings of these individuals with imbebed refs that could be pulled out for specifics:

"Furthermore, `Abdu'l-Baha is understood to occupy a station that is closer to the level of a Manifestation of God than any other human being who has ever lived (*World Order of Baha'u'llah,* 132), hence His writings are more sacred than Shoghi Effendi's. In fact, Shoghi Effendi implies that the term 'Baha'i scripture' applies to the writings of the Bab, Baha'u'llah, and `Abdu'l-Baha alone, and not to his own writings or those of the Universal House of Justice (even though their works are authoritative and binding on the Baha'is) (*Lights of Guidance,* 2d ed., 112)." Is this clear enough? Smkolins (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I would say Shoghi Effendi, and any Guardians that would have followed him, would be like the 12 Imams, and Abdu'l-Baha and Ali are equals, except for the unique designations of authority that were given to Abdu'l-Baha. I mean equals in the sense that Baha'u'llah called all the Manifestations of God equals, even though Baha'u'llah's revelation is clearly the greatest revealed so far. In that way Ali would have had the same capacity. There is also a quote in Ocean (I don't have it on my Mac) from Shoghi Effendi that mentions that these minor prophets are included in the prophets "endowed with constancy". This station is not focused on much because it is a station of servitude towards the Manifestation of God. This is very interesting but I think we've drifted from the topic of article content. I think the current description under "Scripture, inspiration and interpretation" sounds good and makes a distinction for Abdu'l-Baha. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  04:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Abdul-Baha's works can not be construed as divine revelation. His works are authoritative interpretation and, as such, should be presumed to be divinely inspired. But "revelation" means "to reveal" something that wasn't there before. "Revelation" perforce can only apply to the works of the Manifestations of God. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Translations
If the Book of Mormon has its own list of translations here, then why shouldn't there be a list of translations for the Bahá'í books? After all, the books of the Bahá'í Faith have more translations (about 800 languages, that is) than that (somewhat contradictory) book (about two-and-ninety/92 languages, not counting partial translations). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is important and can be authenticated with citations I'd say go for it. Not to mention the journals published of the communities of the religion world wide.--Smkolins (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Language
The 'new' spelling of Baháʼu'lláh, with two different marks: ʼ'  is not supported by the referenced source material. Is there an authoritative reference for this? Has the common practice become the norm or should the Bahá'í world switch to using this new spelling? What is the most effective representation of the name in English? Gplittle (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * see current discussions at Talk:ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, and subsequent sections. You might want to weigh in there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you... much better! Gplittle (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Other Authors section
I believe the other authors section should be removed. As an effort to compile primary source material, it clearly goes beyond what could be countenanced by WP:PRIMARY. It is very subjective what belongs on that list. Let me know if any objections. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed a bunch of stuff that are less notable. I think a few of those are very notable, like Dawn-breakers and Baha'u'llah and the New Era. Taherzadeh and Balyuzi are notable authors that stand out from any authors that came later, but they could be removed as well. Before the 1980s there were not many authors and the few available were widely read. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  06:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks much better now, I don't mind keeping these ones. Ideally we'd want a secondary source covering which authors were important but it may be a while before someone tracks that down. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)