Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive Orthodox

Linking to Orthodox Bahá'í Faith
Please stop linking this article to the "Orthodox" Bahá'í Faith. The link is totally irrelevant - it is as if Jehovah's Witnesses would put a link to their site on the article about Jesus, just because they believe in him. This article must be a short biography about Bahá'u'lláh. Thank you. --Saed 20:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Um, it is perfectly reasonable to put a the link to the Othodox Baha'i faith. Look at say John the Baptist, 5 religions are mentioned because they believe in him. You are in the wrong not the link. Besides, what do you have against the othodox babs anyway? You have removed every linking to them. Yes, we can see exactly what you change. --metta,  T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  20:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * one thing is a religion, another is a sect(constituted by a dozen people)!


 * I think that a link to the Orthodox Baha'i faith is valid - although I completely understand the Bahá'ís view of this.  The article about Jesus does link to the article about Jehovah's Witnesses  - as it should.  While I recognise and sympathise with the Baha'is view, the fact is that another group also claims a link to Bahá'u'lláh and they have been judged significant enough to have an article here.  To not link to the orthodox Bahá'ís is to make a point of view judgement on their validity - something that is outside the bounds of Wikipedia.  Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * isnt making a judgement that they are significant enough also POV?

I have nothing against the group of the Orthodox Bahá'ís. It is a matter of relevancy. Should we put on the article about Jesus every single link to the more than 20,000 groups, parties, sects and movements that are associated with him? The article about Bahá'u'lláh is a biography about him and his life. During the lifetime of Bahá'u'lláh (and even during the lifetime of his son ´Abdu'l-Bahá) the Orthodox Bahá'ís didn't even exist, so they have nothing to do with his biography. Thank you for your cooperation. --Saed 20:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * All I can say is so what? It doesn't matter the just because they didn't exist at the death of Bahá'u'lláh. They are an important religious phenominon. We list things with relavence. The 10,000 missing christian denominations are not there because they are not an important religious phenominon. They have their own list and are mentioned there. Orthodox Bahá'ís are important for two reasons, they are the second largest Baha'i group in the world. And two, their existance is interesting because the Baha'i religion is not supposed to have an factioning, it is against dogma.


 * In this case there are not 20,000 groups - there are only two (one much smaller than the other to be sure). Both recognise Bahá'u'lláh as a manifestation of God (if I am remembering my terminology right - I am not Bahá'í) and both have an article on Wikipedia.  And both articles should be linked to from here.  To do otherwise is introducing the point of view that Orthodox Bahá'ís are not legitimate.  The Orthodox Bahá'ís would say that they did exist before the death of Bahá'u'lláh (and Abdu'l-Bahá).  They would say that they are the true and legitimate continuation of that line - and whether you or I agree with that is beside the point.  We have to report the facts and not comment on our own beliefs - that is the essence of NPOV .  Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Sannse, I agree with you that we must report facts. What are the facts? The Orthodox Bahá'ís have claimed for forty years now that they have a membership of more than thousand believers, yet every insider knows there is only one "leader" somewhere in the US with a handful of very active followers on the Internet trying to tell everyone that they are the second largest group after the "Heterodox Bahá'is". Of course they are the second largest group, because they are the only one, there is no other group! So if I would create a website about my new Bahà'í sect and had I five followers could I make it to Wikipedia? Just because someone seems to be very active on the Internet is a legitimation for him to be included in Wikipedia? You can go to Encylopaedia Britannica, check your lexikons about religion, look in theological publications etc - there is no word of the Orthodox Bahá'ís. They seem to be big, because they are so active on the Internet (and on Wikipedia it seems). --Saed 21:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that at least part of the problem is that it is difficult to verify the significance of this group. There appears to be propaganda on both sides (please note the word "appears", I do not wish to slur either side).  Perhaps there is some way to find a provably unbiased account of the significance of this group.  I know that I was aware of them before I came to Wikipedia (I have an interest in religions in general and Bahá'í in particular), and I think an article on them is justified - and if an article is justified then a link from this article is also important.  If there are discrepancies in the reporting of membership and significance of the group then that should be included in the Orthodox Bahai Faith article.. but there would still be a case for inclusion of a link in this article in that instance.  Removing all references to this group is not acceptable and feels like censorship - that is not what I believe Wikipedia should be about  -- sannse (talk) 21:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * With the above in mind, I have re-added the link. -- sannse (talk) 18:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * And have restored the link in the absence of further discussion here -- sannse (talk) 18:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

such "alternative" groups are very very small and are already mentioned in the main article, mentioning OBF everywhere is like mentioning "Potters of God" on every Chrstian related article. the OBF look "big" because there is pretty much one or two persons around the world that create a lot of different sites about them, to give the impression that they are very significant. plz dont let wikipedia get hoaxed.. --Cyprus2k1 08:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are 70 localities where Orhtodox reside, there are poeple that or 4th generation orhtodox now, so grow up. Also, at this point I am re-again putting the link in as both groups claim the smae founder, and as wiki forbids the erasing of links, further if the erasieris continue and you want an erasier war then be prepared for soem unpleasant consequences on your major sites.