Talk:People of the Bayan

Attempt to redirected the article “The People of the Bayan” to the article “Babism” is error since the period of Babism was finished by the manifestation of new religion cycle: religion Nuqta-I-Bayan (See “A Summary of the Persian Bayan”, Wahid II, Chapter 1), which for many believers have not finished yet. Into religion of the Bayan one else religion cycle was born, it is religion Bahai. Babism – period of “Minor Mystery” for religion of the Bayan. To think that the religion of the Bayan is not, is error. The religion of the Bayan is, but it is not aggressive.

On 23 May 1844 Báb manifested as The Primal Point (e.g. The Prophet-Mission) and started to dictate the Holy Text “The Bayán”. It was opened new religion cycle. Then only He addressed to His followers as “The People of the Bayán”.

Not all Bábís believed in the return of Mission and they stayed in small-number religion group carrying all sign of Islam.

Not long before execution Ali Muhammad from Shiraz (The Primal Point) sent the letter-nomination to Mirza Yahya (Subh-i-Azal) like of His successor. But not all from the People of the Bayán believed in Subh-i-Azal and they kept orthodox understanding of station of the Bayán. Except them else a few religions movements were made with their leaders or without such, which also did not believed in Subh-i-Azal.

After manifestation of Bahá'u'lláh the People of the Bayán divided. One part of them followed for Bahá'u'lláh and named Bahai. Other part of them stayed truthful to Subh-i-Azal and kept their name the People of the Bayán. Till nowadays the People of the Bayán also undergo to schisms, but all they worship “The Bayán” as a Holy Scripture of contemporary religion cycle and keep their name. The People of the Bayán did not admit the religion cycle, which was opened by Bahá'u'lláh.

It should not mix different religions.Inventcreat (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Jeff3000, could you pay attention on that Babism, Religion of the Bayan, Religion of the Bahai are different religions, please? In the Religion of the Bayan the Messiah is Nukta (Primal Point), Ali Muhammad of Shiraz, and their Holy Scripture – “Bayan”. Babism is period of “Minor Mystery” for religion of the Bayan. Redirecting of art. “People of the Bayan” to art. “Babism” is not correct action.Inventcreat (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is not true by most academic accounts, which is what counts in Wikipedia. The original movement is called Babism by the vast majority of academics, and the movement after the split is called Azali Babism or something of the like, both of which currently have articles.  Be careful not to use primary works to prove anything, and be careful not to use minor of points of view, as they are largely not acceptable.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Jeff3000 here. "People of the Bayan" is a Babi term and synonymous with Babis. Azalis would likewise take the term for themselves even though Baha'is would consider the term defunct.
 * Both groups have articles that you could add to, but again Jeff3000's is right here. WP:OR is hard to meet if you're using primary sources for reference beyond the most basic facts.
 * Lastly, non-English language references are terribly hard to use. WP:NONENG requires English language references unless the point can't be made without the non-English source. I'd be stunned if there were information on the Babi Faith in Russian that's not in English. MARussellPESE (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jeff3000 and MARussellPESE, Báb, started to dictate the Bayan in position of the Primal Point (Messiah), from 1844 began to address to His followers as the People of the Bayan.

Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed about finishing of religion cycle of the Bayan and declared of himself as New Messiah in 1863 and carried for himself a part of Babis and a part of the People of the Bayan.

Could you show, please, even if an original source, in which Subh-i-Azal would addressed to his followers differently, for example, Azalis, or would He said something about abolition that was revealed through Báb (as the Primal Point)? Holy Scripture are laws for religion and not an academics majority.

Redirecting of something from cycle of the Bayan to back direction, for example, to Babism is wrong. Do redirecting of the Christian religion to time of John the Baptist is true? Inventcreat (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Inventcreat (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you are not understanding Wikipedia policies. It's not what Mirza Yahya says, but what is verifiable from secondary sources.  And virtually all secondary sources call the movment Babism before the split and Azali Babism after the split, and all your argument is based on original research from primary sources.  It's just not acceptable.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Jeff3000,
 * Your actions (redirection of the article “People of the Bayan” to “Babism”) and your commentaries breather by hostility to religion of the Bayan and to the People of the Bayan, specially, to the part of them, who follow for Subh-i-Azal.


 * Articles about checked facts from life of humanity are collected in Wiki. Wiki is not a place for any religion hostility. If Subh-i-Azal is unwanted you that let’s do not mention of Him. The article is not about Him, The article is about Bab, who being in the position of The Primal Point, founded the religion of the Bayan, which is continuing of its being and now. Regards, Inventcreat (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Inventcreat, it is not about hostility but due to Wikipedia policies, and you are not following the Wikipedia policies I noted above, and have not addressed the points thereof. If you want to be a useful editor on Wikipedia you have to follow all of the Wikipedia policies, and the creation of this page goes against the policies of Verifiability, No original research and content forking.  That's all that counts.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Jeff3000,
 * Verifiability is by the first-source, original scripture, and not by articles of Wikipedia, which are not understanding or falsified. For example, Babism rose with two Babs: Sheikh Ahmad and Siyyid Kázim and not in 1844.
 * In 1844 religion of the Bayan arised, from it, namely, from those, whom are named Azalis, the first Bahai arised. Who did that falsification? Policies of Wikipedia is Veriability and truthworthy, and not of policies of hidding of the reality, as we could understand you. Inventcreat (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you don't understand the policies. Verifiability states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Note here that the sources must be third-party and independent.   Then from no original research, it states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."   Again here note that they should be from secondary sources and tertiary sources.  Primary source material should not be used.  All of the reliable sources call the movement Babis before the break, and Azalis or Azali Babis after the break.  The use of "People of the Bayan" is not an academic term, and is used perdominantly in primary source material.
 * Your assertion that Babism arose with Shaykh Ahmad and Siyyid Kazim is pure original research and is also not allowed.
 * Again, I ask you to read the Wikipedia policies, including WP:Content Forking. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Inventcreat, Jeff3000 is right on the money here. The article you're trying to create here is based on your original research and is a content fork from the well-established article he keeps redirecting to. Please, stop re-creating it. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jeff3000, Thank you for your commentary. We understand you arguments and the quotations, which you brought, but we cannot agree that the consideration of beginning the movement of Babism from Sheikh Ahmad (the First Bab with name Supreme) and Cayyid Kazim Rushti (the Second Bab) you carry off to original research. Both of them are well known as Two Babs in original and in secondary publications as well. (See “Tarikh-i-Jadid” collected by Mirza Jani with translation and commentaries of E.G. Browne). We are sure that secondary sources from E.G. Browne, Gobineau, A.M. Nicholas, A.G. Tumanskiy and M. Momen answer to requests of Wikipedia.

We also understand your displeasure by references on resources in the article “People of Bayan”. We are continuing our work on making better of the article, but it should not the article to redirect to “Babism” since the article “Babism needs in essential reworking.

We have looked through your commentaries and discussions at Wikipedia. We have paid our attention that you had known before our together with you discussion about People of the Bayan (or about religion of the Bayan) from whom Bahai arose. It looks you try to hid original parentage of Bahai from the People of the Bayan. Other your reason is to hid being of Religion of the Bayan. Why?

We have paid our attention you become inflamed from word “Azali”. Let’s will not to mention of them since Azali are only a part of the People of Bayan (we suppose the most numerous and active part of them) and the article is not about Azali, and it is about all People of Bayan. Your activity still has made informative loss for Wikipedia. It is a lie by pass over in silence. Administrators of Wikipedia can pay their attention on that. Inventcreat (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, all of the above is original research from primary sources. Doesn't fly. You should read some modern research from Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam, Britannica, etc, etc, etc, etc.  -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jeff3000, results of research and publication of prof. E.G. Browne, Gobeneau, A.M. Nicholas, A.G. Tumanskiy and others are not original research. You do error because the midst age of their works is about 100 years. You do references, in your commentaries, on works, which also cannot be original research. They look like falsifications. Your inclination to questionable publications can send for sympathy. It needs to correct errors and not do copies from them. You and your friends insistently hide all information about People of the Bayan, in particular, about Azali. Partly we can understand it. Nuqta, in His letter to Baha, left him to protect his brother, Azal. One of such form (maybe the best) of the protection is through keeping silence or giving of incorrect information about Azali. But, dear Jeff3000, Nuqta did not left Baha to protect of people of the Bayan. Could you explain for us please your policy? What has it to do with Wikipedia policies? It is your policy of keeping silence about People of the bayan. Inventcreat (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple points.
 * Wikipedia prefers modern research over old research, because old research can be wrong, such as thoughts about a flat-earth
 * You argue if the Bab left Baha'u'llah to protect the Babis, but it's inconsequential to this discussion, and is not only your opinion, but is original research.
 * From Article titles which is a Wikipedia policy, the name of the article should be "common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject."
 * All of the recent research uses the term Babism to refer to the movement before the break
 * Modern research
 * {Cite journal| last = Smith | first = Peter | title = Research Note; A note on Babi and Baha'i Numbers in Iran | journal = Iranian Studies | volume = 17 | issue = 02-03 | pages = 295–301 | publisher = International Society for Iranian Studies | location = | date = Spring-Summer 1984 | url = http://www.jstor.org/pss/4310446 | issn = | doi = | id = | accessdate = 2010-07-18}}
 * Denis MacEoin, The Sources for Early Bābī Doctrine and History (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 88.
 * Abbas Amanat, Resurrection and Renewal — the Making of the Bábí Movement in Iran 1844-1850; Cornell University Press (1989); ISBN 0-8014-2098-9
 * Even older research uses the term Babism
 * ALM Nicolas' work was in French, so it can't be used to define the "common name in English"
 * Compte de Gobineau's work on the Religions et Philosophies doesn't use the word Bayan, even in French, but the work documenting his work (Comte de Gobineau and orientalism: selected eastern writings, By Arthur Gobineau (comte de), Geoffrey Nash) uses the word Babism
 * All of the recent research uses the term Azali or Azali Babism to refer to the movement after the break
 * Browne (1889) pp. 351-352
 * Barrett (2001) p. 246
 * The article you are proposing is virtually completely based on sources of primary sources, including the Bayan, other writings of the Bab, and the Bible, etc, which is completely original research. The only secondary sources you use is MacEoin's article on Azali Babism, which proves the common name for the movement is not the one you are indicating.
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Compte de Gobineau's work on the Religions et Philosophies doesn't use the word Bayan, even in French, but the work documenting his work (Comte de Gobineau and orientalism: selected eastern writings, By Arthur Gobineau (comte de), Geoffrey Nash) uses the word Babism
 * All of the recent research uses the term Azali or Azali Babism to refer to the movement after the break
 * Browne (1889) pp. 351-352
 * Barrett (2001) p. 246
 * The article you are proposing is virtually completely based on sources of primary sources, including the Bayan, other writings of the Bab, and the Bible, etc, which is completely original research. The only secondary sources you use is MacEoin's article on Azali Babism, which proves the common name for the movement is not the one you are indicating.
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Barrett (2001) p. 246
 * The article you are proposing is virtually completely based on sources of primary sources, including the Bayan, other writings of the Bab, and the Bible, etc, which is completely original research. The only secondary sources you use is MacEoin's article on Azali Babism, which proves the common name for the movement is not the one you are indicating.
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jeff3000,

Thank you for your detailed commentary. You persistently give information about Babism and Bahai, their history and their successions as proofs. Here no one call in question your conviction. But, dear Jeff3000, our article about the people of the Bayan. You persistently give quotations and research materials about other subject.

We repeat again, our article about the people of the Bayan and it is given on basis reliable academic sources, for example,

1. “The Tarikh-i-Jadid, or New History of Mirza 'Ali Muhammad The Bab, by Mirza Huseyn of Hamadan, Translated from the Persian with introduction, illustrations, and appendices by Edward G. Browne, p. 387 (8-th row from the bottom).

http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/K-O/M/MirzaHuseyn/TJ387.gif

2. A Summary of the Persian Bayan is a Section 3 (pages: 316 - 406) of the book "Selection from the Writings of E. G. Browne on the Babi and Baha'i Religions" by Moojan Momen (Oxford: George Ronald, 1987). It is strange that those reliable academic works are not any authoritative for you. We firstly in our life have met distrust to the researcher in your face, but you yourself do reference on E.G. Browne in your commentary. Inventcreat (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Jeff3000-anonymous author, please, could you do not behave like a hooligan. Inventcreat (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your arguments don't pass Wikipedia's policies. Your first book above is a primary source, and not applicable for notability to define academic research, and your second source actually uses the term Babism, right on the first page in the article (it quotes "Having been almost single-handedly responsible for bringing Babism to the attention of a wide public in the West."  Any use of the term "People of the Bayan" in that source is in quotes from the Bab, thus making it a primary source.  As I noted above from Article titles which is a Wikipedia policy, the name of the article should be "common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject."   It is very clear that the term used to describe the religion is Babism, and you are performing original research so please stop!.  It's not be being a hooligan, it's me abiding by Wikipedia policies, and you not. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

“The Tarikh-i-Jadid, or New History of Mirza 'Ali Muhammad The Bab, by Mirza Huseyn of Hamadan, Translated from the Persian with introduction, illustrations, and appendices by Edward G. Browne, p. 387 (8-th row from the bottom). It is not any original research Inventcreat (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not only is that a primary source, it is one that a whole bunch of academics claim is biased. Virtually the whole article you are pushing is based on primary sources, which is original research, and the title of the article as noted above should be the one most commonly used in English, and I've provided tons of sources that indicate that is the case.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jeff3000,

In ideal an article should have all levels of reliable notes:

1.	Primary sources (main level)

2.	The secondary research sources (if such are)

3.	All other sources (if it has informative value).

There are both primary sources (p. 1) and all other sources (p. 3) in our article “The People of the Bayan”.

You claim that you (academic majority) turn out well to remove the secondary sources (p. 2) about the people of the Bayan from history. How have you worked it? Maybe through the policy for academic publications: do not publish any research result about the people of the Bayan? The people of the Bayan has exposed by religion repressions until now.

Is not if any connection between your liquidator’s actions in Wikipedia and physical and mental liquidation of the people of the Bayan all over the world? And how have you felt your conscience? You sin on the True. Inventcreat (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about Truth it is about verifiability, and the policies I've noted countless times above state that primary sources cannot be used, and that all academic sources call the groups you call the People of the Bayan are known much more widely as either Babis or Azalis. You are doing original research, and Wikipedia is no place for that.  Go start a blog.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Inventcreat, your point has been asked and answered. No authoritative, third party, source refers to Babis as "People of the Bayan". This may be a transliteration from Russian, but it is not the English usage.


 * On Wikipedia you're wrong regarding your hierarchy of sources. Primary sources are not allowed as their inclusion in original research. This is a hard and fast policy here, and Jeff3000's enforcing it is not hooliganism.


 * I think that discussion should be closed and this article reverted without further discussion. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jeff3000 and MARussellPESE, we have looked through once more numerous commentaries of Jeff3000. They are not academic and they are thematic selections from different (academic) texts with ignore of itself essence of those texts.

It is informative swindling on Russian language is called “Appliqué”.

Jeff3000 leads such his “Applique” till negation of original texts e.g. till absurdity. During of the “Cold War” the method of “Applique” was widely used for giving academic view to ideological speculations.

Dear Jeff3000 and MARussellPESE, whom do you fight with, yet by such methods?

If in English language Wikipedia is particular meaning about Babism, including People of the Bayan and Azalis, from whom Bahai arose, that it should be written down in the article “Babism”. You persistently direct our article “People of the Bayan” to nowhere.

Researching articles “Babism”, “Bayan”, “Arabic Bayan”, “Persian Bayan”, "Bab" and also their getting up we have come to thinking that some ones from users of Wikipedia hide existence of religion of the Bayan, and their Messiah, Ali Muhammad from Shiraz, and attribute the Holy Scripture (of the People of the Bayan) to Bahai, but it already means a theft. For example, for Bahai the Bayan is or as a history book, or as Old Testament only.

Doing of the “Appliques” (e.g. academic swindling) you hide of owners of the Holy Scripture “The Bayan” and falsify history of Bahai, but it already is your problem.

If some difference is between any religion confessions, congregations and so on, we suppose they should be discussed in other place and not in Wikipedia.

Also we hope you will stop the gaming of the terms “policy of Wikipedia”, “verifiability”, “original and secondary sources” and quotations from them and so on Gaming the system. Please, do not lead your commentaries till absurdity WP:POINT, showing that the Holy Scripture “The Bayan” is without any religion. Each religion has its Holy Book and vice versa. They are connected one to another always.

When secondary and third party sources ignore primary ones or a part of them then falsification of reality comes to. In such cases it is necessary to address to other secondary and third party sources, which do not have difference with primary sources. Inventcreat (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything you are saying above is original research. You argue that the current secondary and tertiary sources have missed the point of the primary source material, and that you are right.  That's not a valid argument in Wikipedia.  Virtually all of the academic research calls the people who followed the Bab before the split with Baha'u'llah, Babis, and after the break, Azalis, and that's what they are called in Wikipedia.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Inventcreat, you're definitely making personal attacks now accusing us of gaming the system and swindling. We've been patient but your arguments have been asked and answered: The content of the article you're posting is original research and verboten. The only one looking to game the system would be you, should you continue to insist. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Iventcreat, stop going against Wikipedia's policies. You brought this up at the Adminstrator's noticeboard, and another editor disagreed with you, and instead of abiding by every other person's opinion, you restored your POV fork which doesn't abide by the policies, and then you argued on the archive page that primary sources are acceptable.  What I have been pointing out here about primary sources is that primary sources cannot be used to establish notability nor names, and that virtually all secondary sources call the groups Babis and Azalis.  Your analysis that the People of the Bayan are different than the other two groups is straight original research and not allowed.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Jeff3000, The “discussion” had been moved to the Administrator’s notice board (See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217 N53). Here you protected your opinion doing notes on the secondary sources, in midst of which happened split. You did notes on that part of the secondary sources, which is opposite to the primary ones. And else you wrote about our book in the commentary 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC). It is not our original research it is our translation from English in Russian of the book A Summary of the Persian Bayan, it is a Section 3 (pages: 316 - 406) of the book "Selection from the Writings of E. G. Browne on the Babi and Baha'i Religions" by Moojan Momen (Oxford: George Ronald, 1987). Please, keep more attention with first conditions of your mind conclusion and therefore with your commentaries. In reality you did not do any discussion. You did something different. It will be better if you talk of your opinion on the Administrator’s notice board, maybe they can understand your original opinion. Regards, Inventcreat (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Inventcreat, but you don't understand Wikipedia. Discussions are not meant to continue on the administrator's noticeboard, but on the talk page.  If any of the administrator's believed you had a point, they would have continued here.  And even though I'm going to repeat myself a thousand times, I'll try one more time to try to make you understand Wikipedia policies.  Even if you think the secondary sources go against your interpretation of the primary sources, the secondary sources are what is able to be cited.  Your interprations of the primary source material are considered original research, as much you think they are obvious, primary sources cannot be used to make conclusions.  That's it.  There is no ifs, and or buts.  Your quoting of "Selection from the Writings of E. G. Browne on the Babi and Baha'i Religions" is a primary source, as it's just a translation of primary source material, not secondary source material.  If you look at your version of the page you are pushing, all but one of the sources is a primary source, and the single secondary source from Encyclopedia Iranica actually calls the group Azalis.  So stop coming along saying that your version is not using primary source material.  That's all it is.  -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeff3000, please, see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217 N53. Inventcreat (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did, and the administrator's sided against you. You're edits don't abide by policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Jeff3000, we have not received yet any decision from the Wikipedia’s Administrators. Regards, Inventcreat (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the "conversation" is you denigrating the process with accusations of vandalism whereas all we've said is reliable sources say otherwise than you intend and you've yet to provide any acceptable source. Smkolins (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Smkolins, please, see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217 N53. Regards, Inventcreat (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm quite aware. Looks like nothing but spiraling allegations. Smkolins (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)