Talk:Kitáb-i-Aqdas

Copyright
Seems like some of the content in here comes from http://bahai-library.com/encyclopedia/aqdas.html. Not familiar with the copyright rules...is this an issue? Dremo 04:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure. My incling is its bad, but I'll ask someone to take a look -- Tomhab 19:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * well it's pretty clear that that is the source for most of but there doesn't seem to be much, if any, direct cutting and pasting. Geni 04:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Book cover
I would prefer the previously used picture (the blue version published by the Bahá'í World Centre). The Kitáb-i-Aqdas is the 'Most Holy Book', and I feel that cover is more fitting to such a status. The quality of the scan is better as well. Wiki-uk 16:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I like the blue cover better. -- Jeff3000 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I changed it because on the blue version it's harder to read the words on the front. If you find a third option that is nice and readable it would be nice. But go ahead and change it back to the blue one. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|link=http://www.bahai.us/|20px]] -  Talk  16:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dowry
I wish to have some mention of the amount of gold and silver is prescribed in this Book around Dowry. A line as simple as "A dowry of gold for a city dweller, silver for outside the city, is conditional on marriage for the male to pay the female. The minimum ammount is 2.2 ounces and the maximum amount is 11 ounces."RoddyYoung 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Put it as a note beside the bullet on the dowry in the Laws section of the Baha'i marriage page. -- Jeff3000 15:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest adding it to this page and Baha'i laws. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added it to this page, the Baha'i laws page, and the Baha'i marriage page. I've used the metric equivalent of approx 1 troy ounce. -- Jeff3000 16:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

question
The article doesn't state how to recite from scripure. Should it be done in a somber serious tone, a pleasant singing-like tone, or should it be hymned like as with the Quran, or just plainly as most Protestants do with the Bible? Someone65 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no rules as how to read Baha'i scripture. It varies from culture to culture and from person to person.  Prayers are sometimes just read, or some people put them to music.  The Kitab-i-Aqdas is not typically recited out-loud as the Quran is, unless it is being studied in a group, and people take turns reading paragraphs.  But again there are no rules, and in fact Shoghi Effendi stated that there should be no rituals involved in any part of Baha'i life.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I also think the article (or another one) lacks in other areas. Is artificial birth control allowed? In etiquette/grooming, should men shave or wear any religious garments etc.? Is polygamy allowed? What is the nature of god? Are there any specific greetings between bahais? as with shalom with jews or sala alaykum with moslems? Are there food restrictions? ANy self-defence rules? I havent seen these things covered anywhere Someone65 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of those are covered in Baha'i laws for the laws that have been written down.  But to answer your specific questions (1) yes (2) no (3) no (4) see Baha'i concept of God (5) See Allah-u-Abha (6) Only alcohol (7) None specifically written down.  I believe you are coming this down from the wrong perspective.  As I mentioned above, Baha'i practice varies significantly from culture and culture due to Shoghi Effendi's prescription that there should be no rituals.  I would read the section Baha'i_laws. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

translations
I think the whole section should be moved down the article. You don't see leading discussions in Bible and Quran on translations and frankly those issues are far more relevant and speak to a whole different thrust that this section. Obscure translations are not important by the very fact they are obscure. Smkolins (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC) I don't agree. The matter of the translation of the Kitab-i-Aqdas is one of the most interesting aspects of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, from the official Baha'i people ignoring two extant translations for 120 years, to the extreme delay in their own translation, then translations coming out so differently. It is obvious there have been "issues" among the Baha'is associated with both publication and translation, even a battle about it. (Witness the battle right here now over translations). It's more honest to keep this more prominent. It is not honest to call the two other translations "obscure." Both are easily readable online now. Baha'is themselves are running comparison translations online between Haddad, Elder-Miller, and Authorized. The fact that the Baha'i administration in fact strove to keep these translations obscure is a part of the story of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Mentious (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That you believe the translations are the most interesting aspect of the subject in question is your own opinion. The academic material about the Aqdas doesn't treat the translations as important as you make them to be, and how Wikipedia treats the subject has to based on how how reliable sources about the Kitab-i-Aqdas treat the subject.  See my comments below regarding Wikipedia policies. For example, the Iranica article about the Kitab-i-Aqdas leaves the translations to the end. Also be careful about making statements that don't appear in reliable sources, you need to assume good faith regarding other editors.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And again I stress the strength of the issue of translation of other holy texts is far more involved and studied in scholarly review and still comes somewhat down page on those articles. I've not seen any scholarly commentary about comparing translations on the Aqdas. Period. The delay has been commented in the article from some sources but that's about the total discussion about it and no article takes the subject at any length. This is why I say the position of the topic is out of balance with the importance of the text. So far we've got two scholarly articles and Baha'i sources dealing with the text and those subjects deserve priority than one view of one scholar and one polemical minister from a long time ago. Smkolins (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We really should just be sticking to reliable secondary sources, which are the academic scholarly ones. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

:"one polemical minister" :"from a long time ago"
 * My statement was not what you wrote, but that the translations are "one of the most interesting aspects" and that is self-evident. The controversy about the translations is already evident right here on this page among editors.
 * As to opinions, you, yourself, are expressing your opinions and your last post contains opinions. Calling it a "holy" text is an expression of personal opinion.
 * As to opinions, you, yourself, are expressing your opinions and your last post contains opinions. Calling it a "holy" text is an expression of personal opinion.
 * As to opinions, you, yourself, are expressing your opinions and your last post contains opinions. Calling it a "holy" text is an expression of personal opinion.
 * I have pointed to three translations. The "minister" you site did not translate the text. An Arabic scholar did. This comment, and your insistence on discrediting the Elder text because Miller was a sponsor of the book, shows your bias.
 * I have pointed to three translations. The "minister" you site did not translate the text. An Arabic scholar did. This comment, and your insistence on discrediting the Elder text because Miller was a sponsor of the book, shows your bias.
 * The Elder-Miller translation is contemporary: 1961. In any case, the Kitab-i-Aqdas is itself an ancient book. (From a long time ago.) This is about something from a long time ago! Meanwhile, older translations are themselves normally considered to be closer-to-the-source than modern ones. Any scholar interested in a text will be interested in older translations closer to the time and place. Your comment shows your a bias; a Baha'i teaching/protection agenda.
 * The Elder-Miller translation is contemporary: 1961. In any case, the Kitab-i-Aqdas is itself an ancient book. (From a long time ago.) This is about something from a long time ago! Meanwhile, older translations are themselves normally considered to be closer-to-the-source than modern ones. Any scholar interested in a text will be interested in older translations closer to the time and place. Your comment shows your a bias; a Baha'i teaching/protection agenda.

:"I've not seen any scholarly commentary about comparing translations on the Aqdas. Period." '':"We really should just be sticking to reliable secondary sources, which are the academic scholarly ones." :The delay has been commented in the article
 * It is you who are treating the translations as important, it seems, by seeking to keep any translations but your preferred one off the page. In contributions I've made here, I've cited three translations at times to make a point clear. It is you and your allies who have deleted that content in which actual words from three translations were cited (relative to marriage): "Enjoined, "prescribed," and "ordained." These factual quotes from 3 translations were deleted by you while you substituted a phrase "not obligatory" that does not exist in the Kitab-i-Aqdas.
 * It is you who are treating the translations as important, it seems, by seeking to keep any translations but your preferred one off the page. In contributions I've made here, I've cited three translations at times to make a point clear. It is you and your allies who have deleted that content in which actual words from three translations were cited (relative to marriage): "Enjoined, "prescribed," and "ordained." These factual quotes from 3 translations were deleted by you while you substituted a phrase "not obligatory" that does not exist in the Kitab-i-Aqdas.
 * (If you saw any, would you refrain from deleting them?) In any case, that's irrelevant. I have not suggested "analysis of translations." But simply offering more than one translation from those available, when helpful. This is a common practice in examination of literature.
 * (If you saw any, would you refrain from deleting them?) In any case, that's irrelevant. I have not suggested "analysis of translations." But simply offering more than one translation from those available, when helpful. This is a common practice in examination of literature.
 * The Elder-Miller translation is not "secondary" next to the Wilmette-Haifa "authorized" translations. They are both translations, and are primary sources, secondary only to the Arabic script itself.
 * The Elder-Miller translation is not "secondary" next to the Wilmette-Haifa "authorized" translations. They are both translations, and are primary sources, secondary only to the Arabic script itself.
 * Yes, finally. No remark existed here about that extraordinary 120-year delay until these past 2 days. Editors finally stopped deleting reference to it.Mentious (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you still don't understand what I'm getting to. That translations exist has been sourced by secondary sources, that includes all of the translations you wish to include, and the Baha'i translation.  No one is saying that that should be removed from the article, and it hasn't.  What is being stated that the translations themselves, both the Baha'i translations and the non-Baha'i translations, cannot be used to say that anything is a fact in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, without a secondary source using that translation states that.  So once again, all translations including the Baha'i one are primary sources, and cannot be used. Secondary sources that analyze the book, including the translations, can be used.  For example, look at the Iranica encyclopedia article on the Aqdas.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you still don't understand what I'm getting to. That translations exist has been sourced by secondary sources, that includes all of the translations you wish to include, and the Baha'i translation.  No one is saying that that should be removed from the article, and it hasn't.  What is being stated that the translations themselves, both the Baha'i translations and the non-Baha'i translations, cannot be used to say that anything is a fact in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, without a secondary source using that translation states that.  So once again, all translations including the Baha'i one are primary sources, and cannot be used. Secondary sources that analyze the book, including the translations, can be used.  For example, look at the Iranica encyclopedia article on the Aqdas.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you still don't understand what I'm getting to. That translations exist has been sourced by secondary sources, that includes all of the translations you wish to include, and the Baha'i translation.  No one is saying that that should be removed from the article, and it hasn't.  What is being stated that the translations themselves, both the Baha'i translations and the non-Baha'i translations, cannot be used to say that anything is a fact in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, without a secondary source using that translation states that.  So once again, all translations including the Baha'i one are primary sources, and cannot be used. Secondary sources that analyze the book, including the translations, can be used.  For example, look at the Iranica encyclopedia article on the Aqdas.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Elder-Miller translation
Describing Earl Elder as "openly hostile" is unnecessary to the page, and obviously an attempt to discredit the Elder-Miller translation. This is misleading for three reasons: 1) All Miller did was write a preface, and he expresses no "hostility" toward the Baha'i Faith in his preface. Rather, he gives a respectful and highly-interested historical summary. The cite provided to supposedly show Elder as "hostile" is also misleading. Upon reading the contents of Miller's elder work one does not find hostility, but simply historical facts Baha'is want to suppress. 2) In any case, Miller's only contribution was to write a PREFACE to the Elder translation, with the scholar Earl Elder the translator. Proof of this is that Elder is full copyright owner; Miller never even held any copyright interest; only Elder. It is part of the edit war that developed here that activist editors wish to discredit the Elder translation by pointing to a Christian involved with procuring the translator. (Everybody in the west were Christians back then.) Given the problematic nature of Aqdas contents for Baha'is, the Elder translation would obviously be more objective one than the partisan one created 120 years later by the Baha'is. Thus for objectivity on a Wiki page, both should be in the mix. (As noted, Elder is easily readable online.) Perhaps this page needs a few comparison translations from Elder/Authorized posted to show which appears more objective and honest. In general this page needs to become more objective and honest and less of a "Baha'i teaching" vehicle. Mentious (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple points that you need to consider if you want to edit constructively in Wikipedia. There are a number of core Wikipedia policies that need to be followed.  Some are related to content, and some are related to how you interact with other editors.  Some of the content policies, are verifiability and reliable sources that states that content in the article must be sourced by reliable sources, and that self-published sources are not usually acceptable as sources.  There is also shades of reliablity, with sources published by academic publishers and journals are considered more reliable.  Another core content policy is no original research which works in tandem with verifiability which states that you can't interpret statements, nor make conclusions based on two sourced statements if the sources don't make the same conclusion.
 * A important behavioural policy is to assume good faith, and your statements above seem to not assume good faith at the other editors.
 * Now specifically, comparing translations would clearly be original research and not allowed, unless you have a reliable source that compares the translations. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "…procuring the translator" vs "Miller's only contribution was to write a PREFACE" I cannot follow your thinking here. And (deep breath) "Everybody in the west were Christians back then." Excuse me?!?!?! But since you mention it he wasn't just "a Christian" as many scholars and editors are, and those of other religions, he was employed as a missionary - "'Despite a growing independence in most other activities, the university maintained its connection with the American Mission and other Protestant missions through the School of Oriental Studies. Two member of the mission's staff, Earl Elder and…'" So you actually have two christian proselytizers writing this translation. One with a documented history attacking the religion and making a living at it enough to "procure" the services of the other (in your words so far) and a second employed in missionary work in Egypt as a scholar. But even with all that still the major thrust of all of the scholarship on the text spends almost all it's time talking about other things than the translations that have existed which refers back to the point further above. Smkolins (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Marriage "highly recommended" but "not obligatory"??
Hey, I assumed "good faith" until I saw the inclusion of the highly-interesting "adultery fine" deleted, plus my actual quotes of the Aqdas on the marriage issue deleted 2-3 times and replaced by fiction. Somebody keeps talking about "vandalism." Verily, my straightforward, factual contributions have been getting regularly vandalized here. Now, about that matter:

Activist editors keep placing statements like this on the page: "[marriage] is highly recommended but is stated to not be obligatory." (Currently there.) I don't know where this comes from. I have found no such statement in the Aqdas studying 3 translations for 30 years. In replacement of this incorrect statement, I have stated what Baha'u'llah ACTUALLY SAYS in his short marriage statement, using 3 translations including "Authorized": That "God has ordained marriage for you" (Elder-Miller), that marriage is "enjoined on all" (Haddad), and "prescribed" (Authorized.) These actual quotes from the Aqdas -- a generous portrayal that actually quotes three translators -- keep getting deleted and replaced with the fictionalized "not obligatory" line, which is more of a Baha'i talking point. Note that the editor presents it as if reporting the contents of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, but does not quote any actual text. If editors can find a statement by Baha'u'llah in the Aqdas that seems to contradict his other statements, like the line "marriage is not obligatory" -- you should post it. Pointing to later books that opine about the Kitab-i-Aqdas, as justification for statements, is not the same thing as reporting the contents of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. This page should be primarily about the Kitab-i-Aqdas with later Baha'i books opining about it -- secondary. Mentious (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, using of the actual Kitab-i-Aqdas (original or translation) to back up sourced statements in the article is not allowed by Wikipedia policies. See no original research.  What is stated by policy is that reliable secondary sources, and there are tons of secondary sources that stated the above (that it is not obligatory), and the sources have been included, and I have others from various journals and books published by university presses, which are considered the most reliable.  Also you need to continue assuming good faith, and comments above such as "activist editors" is not assuming good faith, and if you continue such behaviour, your actions will be reported to the administrators.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * About the "vandalism" the issue to me is that you regularly remove cited content and then place uncited content or use citations entirely out of bounds in wikipedia. If you were a novice editor I could understand but you've been in wikipedia some time and an introduction to the policies and spirit of things has been repeatedly offered to you. You have an awareness of the editing of wikipedia enough to read and use the edit summaries - how is it that you systematically fail to respect the need for good sources? This is absolutely central to wikipedia and breaking that standard attracts sharp response and eventually administrative reaction. I've seen people permanently blocked who don't "get it" and simply do about their own pov arguments. Smkolins (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparative translations natural and appropriate in presentation of any text
"Now specifically, comparing translations would clearly be original research and not allowed, unless you have a reliable source that compares the translations. Regards, " Posting an Elder translation beside an "Authorized" translation would not be "original research." These translations are by others, and long-ago published. In fact, published much earlier than the "authorized" translation. This is not the same thing as "criticizing a translation." It is a simple matter to post two different translations of a verse, by two different translators, and let the reader compare. It happens all the time in study of literature. Such side-by-side translations are common and typical to any study of texts. The reader can compare them himself; seeing the differences between them, etc. A translation is a translation. Are you saying that only Wilmette-Authorized translations of the Kitab-i-Aqdas will be allowed to be seen on this page? Earl Elder was a competent Arabic translator with his Arabic translations published by Columbia University. It should be no problem to occasionally post more than one translation so that readers can make their own comparisons. Mentious (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my comments. Noting that an earlier translation is available is well sourced by secondary sources, and can be included in the article.  Similarly that a newer Baha'i produced translation is also available is also well sourced by secondary sources, and can be included in the article.  But comparing and contrasting specific verses from the two translations cannot be included unless that type of analysis has been published in secondary reliable sources.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Your statement is confusing. Are you saying you hope to allow only Wilmette-Haifa translations ("Authorized") and not any other translations? Or are you saying that no actual quotations from the Kitab-i-Aqdas will be allowed on this page about the Kitab-i-Aqdas? As to using more than one translation of the same verse, posting more than one translation of an ambiguous or controversial verse is a common practice in any study of literature. I don't know why it should be a problem. Mentious (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying that only Baha'i translations can be used, but in fact saying that no translations can be used, unless backed by a secondary reliable source, because that is considered original research. While the study of literature does in fact compare and contrast translations, Wikipedia is not itself an avenue to publish original research, but can only publish and link to research that has already been published by reliable publishers.  So if you can find an literary analysis of the translations published by reliable secondary sources that can be included in Wikipedia, but otherwise it cannot.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Baha'i Laws" section
I find this section to be very faulty. All it says is this:

"Some laws and teachings of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are, according to Bahá'í teaching, not meant to be applied at the present time; their application depends on decisions by the Universal House of Justice. See also Bahá'í laws for laws in practice in Bahá'í communities."

Two observations:

-- No laws have been listed. It seems an exposition on the Aqdas, in a section on "laws," some of the laws should at least be listed.

-- The statement "not meant to be applied at the present time" is not found in the Aqdas itself, nor the idea that the UHJ was supposed to pick and choose which and when.

This might be supplemental statement after some exposition of the laws (the actual contents). In other words, the section titled "Laws" is basically empty. Again, why not present the contents of the Aqdas here rather than Baha'i statements about the Aqdas and let the reader find out about the book. That seems meet and seemly. Mentious (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple points. One that "not meant to be applied at the present time" is not in the Aqdas is beyond the point, because it can be sourced to a reliable secondary source  which I would include if I could edit the page.  You need to understand that the primary religious material of the Aqdas cannot be directly used because it requires interpreation and that is original research and not allowed by Wikipedia policy.  Also if you go to the link right after the sentence you quote, you see a list of Baha'i laws, which goes into detail as to which ones are not currently applicable.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact what I've seen among scholarly sources spends most of it's time discussion the themes and style issues of the text much more than a delineated list of the laws perse. I was part way into integrating a source that does review the laws and when taking a break when the page was locked. Smkolins (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"One that "not meant to be applied at the present time" is not in the Aqdas is beyond the point, because it can be sourced to a reliable secondary source"
 * You miss the point. A page section titled "Laws," as it stands, contains no information about what laws the Aqdas contains, but instead only a statement of the Wilmette-Haifa group's position on those laws, and why they are unapplicable or irrelevant. I think it's fine to state the Wilmette-Haifa explanation for its non-application of its laws. But only secondarily following some exposition of what those Aqdas laws are. Some small list, something. Otherwise it looks like a coverup by Wilmette-Haifa Baha'i partisans and that you are afraid to post the actual contents of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Why not let the Kitab-i-Aqdas itself be the primary source here and opinions about it secondary. Question: Are only the opinions of so-called "scholars" (people working at universities) allowed at Wikipedia. You speak as if that's the case. Mentious (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources don't differentiate between what the Baha'i viewpoint on the laws are, they just state what the laws are, and that's how the articles are sourced. Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and no original research and the reliable sources guidlines delineate what can be used in Wikipedia.  Self-published sources such as blogs, websites, and even self-published books are not allowed to be used as sources, except about themselves. Journals and academic and university publishers are at the other end of the spectrum and are considered the most reliable.  Newspapers are in the middle of the reliability spectrum, they are not academic, but have editorial oversight.  So, while "scholars' are not the only ones that can be used as sources in Wikipedia, the published source must have editorial oversight.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is plain and simple. No reputable source makes the points you keep trying to post and there are reputable sources that you keep removing for poor or no reason and instead make characterizations of other editors. Personality attacks do not a case make. Smkolins (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Self-published sources such as blogs, websites, and even self-published books are not allowed to be used as sources, except about themselves."
 * You are changing the subject. This isn't about "self-published blogs or websites." It's about the use of more than one translation of the Aqdas. The Elder-Miller translation of the Kitab-i-Aqdas is a reputable source for information about the contents of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. This editor did not publish "Al-Kitab Al Aqdas" by Elder-Miller, or the Haddad translation 110 years ago.
 * This is a religious subject, by the way, not an academic subject. Are all Wikipedia pages dominated by the opinions of academics? Even pages about mysticism or fashion trends? Most of the "academics" that you site are actually Haifa-Wilmette Baha'i partisans. I think it would also be appropriate to include some of the views of other Baha'i sects -- on the Aqdas -- rather than only the Wilmette-Haifa group. The opinions of various religious sects, after all, are the warp and woof of religious discussion.
 * I have removed some activist statements here when they were false. Like the repeated insistence that the Kitab-i-Aqdas states a statement 'marriage is not obligatory.' And in a few cases when statements were Baha'i teaching points unrelated to the Kitab-i-Aqdas content and without any cites. I have made no "personality attacks." (Baha'i terminology there.) I don't even know anything about the personalities here. Mentious (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned multiple times, everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable and attributed to a reliable source. That is not only applicable to religious topics, but every single topic. "All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable"  That the translations exist is a source that is sourced and verifiable, and can be in the article, and are.  But as per policy the no original reserach policy the primary religious material which includes the translation cannot be used by themselves, but "must be referenced to a secondary source" that provides for that understanding and interpretation.  So while you are right that they are not self-published material, you need secondary sources that analyze the primary sources in the way that you understand them, because people understand religious material differently.  Some read the material literally, other read it symbolically.  Because there are different viewpoints, including your personal ones, and my personal ones, only those that have been referenced in reliable secondary sources can be used as references.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed some activist statements here when they were false. Like the repeated insistence that the Kitab-i-Aqdas states a statement 'marriage is not obligatory.' And in a few cases when statements were Baha'i teaching points unrelated to the Kitab-i-Aqdas content and without any cites. I have made no "personality attacks." (Baha'i terminology there.) I don't even know anything about the personalities here. Mentious (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned multiple times, everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable and attributed to a reliable source. That is not only applicable to religious topics, but every single topic. "All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable"  That the translations exist is a source that is sourced and verifiable, and can be in the article, and are.  But as per policy the no original reserach policy the primary religious material which includes the translation cannot be used by themselves, but "must be referenced to a secondary source" that provides for that understanding and interpretation.  So while you are right that they are not self-published material, you need secondary sources that analyze the primary sources in the way that you understand them, because people understand religious material differently.  Some read the material literally, other read it symbolically.  Because there are different viewpoints, including your personal ones, and my personal ones, only those that have been referenced in reliable secondary sources can be used as references.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable and attributed to a reliable source.


 * The Elder-Miller translation of the Kitab-i-Aqdas is both reputable and a prime source. It was also published before your partisan translation.

''"But as per policy the no original reserach policy the primary religious material which includes the translation cannot be used by themselves," ''
 * Quoting Elder-Miller or Haddad translations of the Kitab-i-Aqdas is not "original research." It is fundamental to presenting the contents of the Kitab-i-Aqdas in any honest, expository setting. Simply giving the name of the publication, the source, is all that is required. Did you think that I wrote the Elder-Miller Aqdas?

"you need secondary sources that analyze the primary sources in the way that you understand them,"


 * Sites of various translations of the Kitab-i-Aqdas are legitimate on this page whether you think they are "understood correctly" (the official way) by the readers or not. Are you saying that no use of alternate translations of the Aqdas are allowed on your little page unless secondary sources are found to comment on them? Those can easily by found. What you're really saying is that you only want to allow Wilmette-Haifa "official" opinions here; that this provides the only true "understanding" of the Aqdas, and that people can't ever be exposed to the text as-it-is without "authorized" Wilmette-Haifa sites. Mentious (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just stating something does not make it true. I've pointed you to Wikipedia policy that states that that primary religious material cannot be used except when joined with a reliable secondary source that provides the reference.  That's not my rule, that's Wikipedia's rule, and uou disagreeing with that policy does not change it.  Secondly, I have never said the that Baha'i published version is applicable either.  As you can see from the page, the primary source Baha'i version of the Kitab-i-Aqdas is not used to back up any statement; there are reliable secondary sources that do that.  You can provide a link to all translations in the "External links" section of the article if you wish, so that people can be exposed to the text, but Wikipedia's policies are based on published secondary source material.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Some read the material literally, other read it symbolically.


 * I'm well aware that you Baha'i have this problem. The question of what's literal in a religious text, and what's symbolical, is a religious question for religious sages and seers. It is not necessary for Wikipedia editors to decide. If this is a problem for Baha'is, why not bring it out on the page? Bring out the many statements of the Aqdas and controversies over whether they are "literal" or not. Let the public decide whether your explanations make sense or not.

Because there are different viewpoints, including your personal ones, and my personal ones,

I have simply posted content from the Kitab-i-Aqdas and facts about it, not personal opinions about the content of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Your issue, I think, is that you want to keep the content of the Kitab-i-Aqdas off the Wiki page about the Kitab-i-Aqdas. It seems that your many sites, directing people to the "official explanation" for those contents, should be adequate control of the situation.

only those that have been referenced in reliable secondary sources can be used as references.


 * I posted William Miller's comment about the delay in publication of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. That is obviously a perfectly legitimate "secondary source."

Mentious (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What is symbolic and what is literal is, as you state, open to question, and that's why Wikipedia requires secondary sources that make those assertions. I've been mentioning that all the time.  Also, all the sources in the article are non-Baha'i publishers, so your statement about "official [Baha'i] explanation" is not valid.  Finally, William Miller's comment about the delay in publication, is a secondary source, and it was never removed from the article.  -- Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What is symbolic and what is literal is, as you state, open to question, and that's why Wikipedia requires secondary sources that make those assertions.


 * I have not asserted "this is literal," or "this is symbolic." I have merely posted a bit from the actual Kitab-i-Aqdas, because this page was strangely lacking actual content from it, though this page is supposed to be about the Kitab-i-Aqdas. If you are embarassed about its contents, that's your problem. But you can point to the Official Partisan Explainers to your heart's delight, as you are doing.

Also, all the sources in the article are non-Baha'i publishers, so your statement about "official [Baha'i] explanation" is not valid.


 * It is valid because most of the "scholars" and writers you point to are Baha'is.

Finally, William Miller's comment about the delay in publication, is a secondary source, and it was never removed from the article.


 * Indeed, indeed. I want to note that the page has contained a great many statements, quite obviously made by Baha'i activists, lacking any cites are sources whatsoever. Then when sources are given (as numbers) they often do not substantiate the statement originally made. For example, the cite about the Aqdas saying marriage is "not obligatory" pointed to some other writer, and not to the Aqdas, and there was no evidence there that this statement exists in the Aqdas. I was a very active Baha'i for 13 years, by the way, and I have been studying the Kitab-i-Aqdas for 30 years. So I know both sides of the various questions, and not only one side, and contribute here with more objectivity. I wonder if most others can say the same. Mentious (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What's important in Wikipedia policy is verifiability and reliable sources. All of the secondary sources are published by very reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia policy.  Journals and academic publishers are the most reliable publications, because they have very strong editorial oversight.  That's what is important in Wikipedia policy.  That this page is lacking sourced content from the primary source is because Wikipedia policy disallows it, except with a secondary source to back up that understanding.  There is no embarrassment at all, but just following Wikipedia policy, and you need to do so as well.  Finally, your status is inconsequential, and my status is inconsequential as well.  Everyone in Wikipedia is equal regardless of academic standing or expertise, but everyone has to follow Wikipedia's policies which only allows things to be sourced if they are verifiable from reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"You cannot make your own interpretation of primary religious material, translation or otherwise, unless you have a reliable secondary source that makes the same interpretation;"


 * None of my edits have involved me giving any "interpretation" or opining about the meaning of any Aqdas content. But simply stating the facts about the Aqdas contents (such as the fact that Baha'u'llah wants adulterers fined in gold), including direct quotes from the text. This is what you find problematic, not me "interpreting" it, which I have not done. Mentious (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You have when you say that the Aqdas states that marriage is obligatory because of the use of the terms "enjoined" or "prescribed" because that is your understanding of the text, which goes against the reliable secondary sources, and Baha'u'llah's own clarifications that it was not obligatory. Because it's so easy to have different understandings of the text, Wikipedia requires the inclusion of a secondary source to back up the primary source understanding. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

''What's important in Wikipedia policy is verifiability and reliable sources. All of the secondary sources are published by very reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia policy.''


 * I think you have stated this, what, ten times now? Who is it directed to? The Elder-Miller translation of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, published in 1961 by the Royal Asiatic Society, is certainly a verifiable and reliable source. I have also quoted the contents of the Kitab-i-Aqdas itself (in my contributions), even the "authorized" version that you favor. Is this not a verifiable, reliable source either?
 * The translation is still a primary source (except for the preface), and needs a secondary source to back up it's assertions. And yes, I've mentioned many times that the Baha'i translation can also not be used. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally, your status is inconsequential, and my status is inconsequential as well.

Mentious (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This must have been addressed to some other editor. I made no statements about "status." (Words matter!) I did make a statement about my experience and objectivity. Your statement that experience and objectivity are "inconsequential" is clearly false, since Wikipedia itself automatically polls contributors to state their level of experience. Thus it seems to be consequential to Wikipedia. But I am calling into question your objectivity as an editor here. It appears that you are doing "Baha'i teaching" here rather than trying to present the Kitab-i-Aqdas in a forthcoming and honest way. This was clear to me from the highly incomplete nature of the page when I arrived, and the fact that it contained mostly Baha'i "teaching" lines rather than straight information or content from the Aqdas. Hopefully the objectivity and richness of the content at this page is slightly improved now.
 * Please assume good faith. You brought up your expertise as a Baha'i for 13 years and studying the Aqdas, and I noted that it doesn't really matter.  I could be a university professor and that doesn't matter.  All that matters is following Wikipedia's polices.  I am not inserting Baha'i teachings, but I am inserting statements sourced from reliable secondary sources, journals and university publishers.  As I've stated Wikipedia policy doesn't allow strait content from the Aqdas because it is a primary source, and requires secondary source material.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

False statements presently on the page
"The institutional status of the authority of `Abdu'l-Bahá and a House of Justice are specifically delineated.[7][9]"

This refers to what's in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, and is false or mischaracherizes the text. Baha'u'llah makes one statement in the text, about passing on authority to some son, and the name of the son is not even specified: "When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root." In fact, authority was passed onto two sons by Baha'u'llah. This can hardly be called a "specific delineation" about "institutional status" of 'Adbu'l Baha. The cites given (7 and 9) do not succeed in magically producing such a clarity or content in the text of the Aqdas. The statements in the Aqdas are short. Why not actually produce the quotes that attest to this?

"You brought up your expertise as a Baha'i for 13 years and studying the Aqdas, and I noted that it doesn't really matter."


 * Certainly expertise matters at Wikipedia. Also a little objectivity is probably valued. I think you are lacking in that, based on the kind of page -- basically a whitewash and avoidance of the Aqdas -- you have presided over.

"and requires secondary source material."


 * I think you have said this 10 times. The material I've placed there from Elder is secondary source material; while many of the statements made by the Baha'i activists here has been lacking in any cites at all. Mentious (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement above regarding 'The institutional status of the authority of `Abdu'l-Bahá and a House of Justice are specifically delineated" is clearly sourced by secondary reliable sources, and your personal interpretation of primary source material is not applicable. The existence of the translation is definitely soured, but the actual translation is primary source material, except for the preface which is a scondary source. Which other statements are you referring to that do not have secondary source citations, and I'll find them for you. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk)


 * The statement that successorship is "clearly delineated" in the Kitab-i-Aqdas is demonstratably false and that can be readily seen by the full presentation of the actual text. Apparently you do not understand the difference between what the Kitab-i-Aqdas actually says, and what somebody says ABOUT the Kitab-i-Aqdas, or says that it says. Authority is Not specifically delineated (vis-i-vis 'Abdu'-Baha), but a metaphor used ("root"). "Are specificially delinated" refers to the content of the Kitab-i-Aqdas content and it is simply not true. Learn to distinguish between the Aqdas itself, and what others SAY ABOUT it. I think you have been a Baha'i so long you don't have any concept of what objectivity would be regarding these matters.

and your personal interpretation of primary source material is not applicable.

I made no "personal interpretation" but stated facts about the content of the Kitab-i-Aqdas:

-- No successor is specifically named. (And there was controversy about it.) -- No successorship is dealt with (by Baha'u'llah) except in regard to immediate successorship (his sons). (Ensuring successorship controversy later). -- You could not call that sentence "clear" or a "delineation." (Ensuring successorship controversy later, and most of AB's families ending up ex-communicated as "covenant breakers.")

If you want to add onto such facts the official Baha'i interpretation of such facts, that's fine, but don't say the above facts are "my interpretation" of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentious (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your analysis goes against the secondary source material, and secondary source material is what counts in Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that you want to present "The Kitab-i-Aqdas as Filtered Through the Wilmette-Haifa Filters" rather than the Kitab-i-Aqdas itself. Editors here have preferred to make "Baha'i teaching point" statements "about" the Aqdas than expose its contents -- even in their own "authorized" translation. I think the two should be distinguished: What it says, then what Baha'is say-about-what-it says. Making that distinction would help the page a lot and bring down the propaganda quotient 10 notches.--Mentious (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What you don't understand is that in Wikipedia it doesn't matter what you think the Aqdas states, but what secondary reliable sources state what the Aqdas states. That's what the verifiability and no original research policies are stating.  You say that I need to learn to distinguish between the Aqdas itself and what others say about it, and that is true, but in Wikipedia it's what others say about it (in reliable secondary sources) that is important.  That has nothing to do if I'm a Baha'i or I'm not, but about Wikipedia policy.  And there is no filter, everything is referenced to reliable non-Baha'i secondary source publications.  Please refrain from making accusations.
 * And for completeness, the statement that you are stating doesn't have a source, I've even found a third one. From the Iranica article:
 * "''The provisions of the Aqdas cover three basic areas: 1) the function of Bahāʾallāh’s son and successor ʿAbbās Effendi ʿAbd-al-Bahāʾ as “infallible interpreter” of the holy scripture; 2) the Bahāʾī administrative order structure in a pyramid of “Houses of Justice”(boyūt al-ʿadl) elected by the believers; 3) civil, penal, moral, and religious laws to be integrated with authoritative interpretation and administrative function. In addition, there are religious exhortations to all believers in general and to particular rulers of the age."
 * and just for even more completeness here is more info from the current sources:
 * "The second pillar is also established in the Kitab-i Aqdas as a result of the designation of ‘Abdu’l-Baha - as Baha-’u’llah’s successor and as head of the community." ... "Of the elected institutions, the local “House of Justice” (Baytu’l-‘adl) and the international body responsible for the entire globe(Baytu’l-‘adl-i a’z.am) are both ordained in the Kitab-i Aqdas."
 * "These statements of rules are also interspersed with principles to guide interpretation. The foundational principle is the interpretive authority of 'Abdu'1-Baha and his position of successorship."
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What you don't understand is that in Wikipedia it doesn't matter what you think the Aqdas states,


 * I can read. Direct quotes can be placed here. Wikipedia wants pages to provide educational information. Are you saying that I can't read the Kitab-i-Aqdas or post its contents here? Or are you saying that the Kitab-i-Aqdas needs to be kept off of the Baha'i Kitab-i-Aqdas teaching page at Wikipedia?


 * In fact, more direct quotes from the Kitab-i-Aqdas should be on this page and less Baha'i teaching statements or "damage control" spin doctoring. That would improve it immensely as a Wiki page. The facts should be presented about the Kitab-i-Aqdas (especially its actual contents). Baha'i explanations or interpretations of same should be secondary, not the entire Wiki page contents. Most people, when reading the Kitab-i-Aqdas as-it-is, find it a bizarre and disturbing book. That is the problem that the activists here are trying to control. Truth should be more important.


 * I've mentioned this multiple times, and you've read it because you've quoted it back to me, but statements from primary religious material needs secondary source material to back it up. That's Wikipedia policy.  You can link to the translation that you wish in the External links sections.  Also, stop making comments that this is a spin, everything has been sourced by third-party publications.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Too much subjective "Baha'i voice" on this page
One example:

'''That Bahá'u'lláh had three wives, when his religion teaches monogamy, has been the subject of criticism. The writing of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and Bahá'í teachings on gender equality and monogamy post-date Bahá'u'lláh's marriages and are understood to be evolutionary in nature, slowly leading Bahá'ís away from what had been a deeply rooted cultural practice."''

This should say "Baha'is answer this criticism by saying..." prior to the 2nd sentence.

I have inserted that bit twice now trying to make this page objective. The activists keep deleting it, presenting this as "the truth" instead of the Baha'i answer to that criticism. Can we maybe just pretend this page is a little objective with honest language like that?--Mentious (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a valid concern, and I would be amenable to the change. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would elaborate on the timing of the marriages and the rules in the Babi and Muslim faiths vs the timing of the Aqdas being enforced about this but essentially I agree as well. Smkolins (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Says the Baha'i Lord of the Wiki Aqdas Information-Control Project.--Mentious (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop making personal attacks. All I'm doing is referring you to Wikipedia policy.  I've been completely civil with my interaction with you, but you keep attacking me.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A little sarcasm is a "personal attack"? That seems like hyping things. ("Attack" used twice.) Please lose the Arbitrator Tone. And remember that the "WikiProject Bahá'í Faith" project is allegedly an "attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Bahá'í Faith on Wikipedia." I'm trying to increase the quantity, and quality, of information about the Kitab-i-Aqdas on Wikipedia -- even actual quotes from it. Thus cease from attacking my objectively true contributions (such as quotes from the actual book under discussion and indisputably true facts about it) with deletions.--Mentious (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm doesn't help. I asked an administrator to look into your actions, and he asked you to stop using personal attacks. He also asked you to abide by Wikipedia policy of using secondary sources instead of primary source material for religious material.  He noted, as the policy notes, that using quotes from religious material is problematic, and thus requires the a secondary source reference.  That is what I've been telling you on numerous occasions, and content that doesn't abide by Wikipedia policy can and will be removed.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"using quotes from religious material is problematic,"


 * But the subject of this page is religious material; a religious text. It's much more problematic if a page is supposed to be about a religious text yet the text itself -- its contents -- can't be quoted. Wikipedia pages on other religious-material -- "The Mundaka Upanishad" and of "The Imitation of Christ" -- have plentiful quotations from from those texts. Why should Baha'i activists be allowed to suppress their text on a Wiki page that is supposed to be about that text? (It seems to me that is what is going on; not issues about "secondary cites.")

He also asked you to abide by Wikipedia policy of using secondary sources instead of primary source material for religious material.

You don't want the Aqdas quoted on your Aqdas page it appears. But the Wiki page on the Buddhist Lotus Sutra has abundant quotations from the Lotus Sutra. The Wiki page on the Tao Te Ching has abundant quotes from the Tao Te Ching. This is common for all Wiki pages that deal with a religious scripture -- many quotations (primary source). Is there a double standard for Baha'is and their books?
 * I have no issue with Baha'is pointing to secondary source material to explain the Aqdas according to their sect. The page is well-loaded with that, and I have not deleted any of it. (Except when associated with false or tangential comments.)
 * "False" judgements are best rendered through reliable sources. Yet you deleted that. Smkolins (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that the Baha'i editors wish to have their page on "the Kitab-i-Aqdas" consist entirely of secondary sources (opinion of of others) and do not wish to see the page feature primary sources -- actual quotes from the text! Even in their "authorized" translation. That is irrational, and a level of information control not seen on other Wikipedia pages. The Baha'i activists are free to surround Aqdas quotes with secondary cites and official Baha'i explanations. But what is this page without any primary source material? (Without information on the subject itself?) Note: My contributions which were vandalized (deleted) here were all of the nature of undisputed facts about the Aqdas and a small quote from it: The words used for Baha'u'llah's admonition to marriage from three translators, including the "authorized" translation: "ordained," "prescribed," and "enjoined." It included the "authorized" translation. It appears that it this was simply information that some editors here did not wish to be known. --Mentious (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'm going to ask you nicely to assume good faith. You are making accusations again, and that goes against Wikipedia policy.  Please comment about the content, not the editors themselves.  In regards to your arguments above, I don't know how to make this any more clear; Wikipedia policy requires that the use of primary religious material have secondary reliable sources that back up the statements to be used.  If you can find secondary sources that back up what the primary source is saying (or what you think the primary source is saying), go ahead and include it, but otherwise Wikipedia policy disallows it.  That other pages don't follow Wikipedia policy is not an argument for not following Wikipedia policy (just like saying other people steal, allows me to steal).  Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, the The Imitation of Christ article actually abides by policy. All of the references are secondary source material, and all of the primary source quotes are attributed to the secondary sources.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, the The Imitation of Christ article actually abides by policy. All of the references are secondary source material, and all of the primary source quotes are attributed to the secondary sources.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The rational way forward is to proceed with the best available information and see what it says. Not make up our own minds and present our own arguments or at least back them up with reliable sources about why it is true or false. Smkolins (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Status of the book
The second sentence of the text now says, "It has the same status as the Quran for Muslims or the Bible for Christians." I object to this. To a Christian, the Bible is the whole body of Divine Revelation. To a Muslim, the Quran is the whole body of the Divine Revelation in Muhammad's dispensation, and encapsulates all previous revelations. To Bahá'ís the Kitáb-i-Aqdas is not the whole of Bahá'í revelation; it is not clear to me that the book even outranks the Íqán. I therefore intend to delete this sentence. J S Ayer (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording is clumsy. It's clearly a book of laws and the "choice wine" thereof. I agree it is not comparable in the sense of the total of the scripture and the Aqdas is not. But is the "Most Holy Book" serving a central role including defining the first steps of the Baha'i Covenant. But I think article would be better served if these individual points were made. Smkolins (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)