User talk:Aaron.s.12

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

March 2010
The recent edit you made has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. DKqwerty (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Afterlife appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Ash (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has certain policies, which your inclusion does not adhere to and has thus been removed. Some of the policies include verifiability which states that all content must be must be attributed to a reliable, published source.  Reliable sources are secondary sources that are published by publishers who have editorial oversight such as academic publishers and peer-reviewed journals.  Self-published sources such as websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources.  Furthermore the use of primary source religious material is also not acceptable as sources since they can be interpreted in multiple ways.   Finally there is the neutral point of view policy with it's undue weight sub-policy which states that material in Wikipedia has to be represented by the amount of material that would be found in general literature, and the contents about the Baha'i Faith cannot be equal or more than other larger religions which have much more visibility in the outside world.  Try to please abide by these policies.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edits will continue to be reverted if you don't abide by Wikipedia's policies which I noted above, which you have gone against again. For your sake, I document them again here:
 * Primary religious sources such as Baha'u'llah's, Abdu'l-Baha's or Shoghi Effendi's works are not permissible as sources. You need to have secondary sources from reliable publishers (academic sources).  Self-published sources such as blogs and personal websites are not acceptable.
 * Links to other Wikipedia articles are not acceptable either, because those are also self-published
 * The undue weight policy does not allow smaller views such as those of the Baha'i Faith to be as prevalent as other larger religions.
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated from afterlife talk page with slight modification
Please - look - does any other religion of belief system give an extended verbatim quote in the article? Or as extensive - before you try any issue with the removal - try reading WP:UNDUE, WP:ABOUT, and WP:NOT - then after a close read of those - try thinking - how do I make this section WP:ENCYCLOPEDIAC fitting into what other beliefs have done above? If none of that makes any sense - try typing Help on your talk page and go through all the above bit by bit with another editor. Lets face it - no other belief system does it - and for Bahai section to have it - as well as the block of text with archaic language - is simply not on. cheers SatuSuro 01:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The compromise
Looks good at a quick glance - thanks for taking the comments above on board - if you wish to further create a separate article that deals with Bahaulah's words and ideas about life and death - please do - then you can link it back - cheers SatuSuro 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

- Thank you. The entire section was deleted for the first time apparently without the person investigating the Faith or the copyright status of the quote, and no other reason for deleting it was given. Given that level of impersonality I posted the following renditions based on a quick glance at the content of the warning messages. Thanks to the person that created the final version that is now posted. I have little interest in or time for learning about Wikipedia so am thankful for your assistance. I don't understand why in religious matters at least the Central Figures of the Faiths themselves shouldn't be allowed to speak for themselves, as that would be like playing telephone with the religion's teachings, and giving that Judaism with only about twice as many followers as the Baha'i Faith has four times as much text steadily on this page I am going to add a short quote. The only places in society where I can think it is appropriate for a person not to be allowed to speak for themselves is when they are uneducated about the subject matter themselves, which none of the Founders of these Faiths can be called, or mentally incapable of speaking for themselves, which also doesn't apply. Considering the great revisions and advances in human civilization and culture that these Souls have accomplished I believe their Words are even more valid than even the best scholar. I can see how scholarly support might be useful as a supplement to determine if the information is unbiased, but no one insincere has ever made as great an accomplishment as any of these Personages. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

Also, I think the most helpful, final, and educative things a person could read about a religion's teachings on a subject would be a quote from the religion itself. While I agree to some degree now that an impartial overview will help a person be sure what they are reading is complete nothing could serve the purpose of conveying information, no matter who you are, about a Faith better than by quoting it's Founder. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

As to what the other religions have done, I see no reason for information to be constrained to what is currently existent. To do so as a general rule would bring about a complete halt to all progress in human civilization, so at the very least it should be considered. While some degree of uniformity in formatting makes sense constraining a religion to present itself in a certain form could very well lead to skewing the information that is finally presented about it. For example, Baha'is are strongly encouraged to rely upon the Writings of the Central Figures of the Faith in determining the truth of what the Faith teaches about it, which helps it maintain its unity. We also are disinclined to use words of other individuals within the Faith when the Words of one of the Central Figures is available. And when we do not have guidance about a particular subject, we have a duly elected international body that can legislate on matters not explicitly covered by Baha'u'llah. Considering that hodge-podge nature of Wikipedia, I do not believe that formatting is a serious issue and with the impartial article added a quote directly from the Founder of the Faith is hardly out of place. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

The Baha'i section is now appropriately half as long as the section on Judaism. Also, I found nothing in what I read about Wikipedia's policies that made me feel it was inappropriate to have a quote of His included on the page as long as the corroborating information is there. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron


 * Sorry, but your assessment above is out of agreement with Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is not about Truth, but about |verifiability, and verifiability is about sources that have editorial oversight. Specifically about your comments above, and how they don't jive with Wikipedia policies:


 * "The entire section was deleted for the first time apparently without the person investigating the Faith or the copyright status of the quote, and no other reason for deleting it was given."
 * Copyright status is not the problem here, but it's applicibitly within Wikipedia policy, specifically going against all three main Wikipedia policies: verifiabiliy, no original research and neutral point of view.  The content you were adding was not encyclopedic nor academic, and would never appear in any well-known encyclopedia.
 * "I have little interest in or time for learning about Wikipedia so am thankful for your assistance."
 * You have been pointed to the Wikipedia policies, but have kept on adding your material which doesn't fit within Wikipedia policies.
 * "I don't understand why in religious matters at least the Central Figures of the Faiths themselves shouldn't be allowed to speak for themselves, as that would be like playing telephone with the religion's teachings,"
 * Because religious material can be interpreted in hundreds of different ways, and we can't let individual interpretations have any place on Wikipedia. A quote that you think is germane in understanding a topic, may not be the case, so Wikipedia depends on secondary sources to make that distinction, not individual editors.
 * "that Judaism with only about twice as many followers as the Baha'i Faith has four times as much text steadily on this page I am going to add a short quote."
 * It's not only about numbers, but about the amount of academic work in reliable sources. Judaism has a very large history, and is noted in tens of thousands of sources.  The Baha'i Faith doesn't meet that level of academic interest, and therefore deserve the same space here.


 * I can keep going refuting your statements, but the point is that your edits don't meet Wikipedia's policies. Regards ,-- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I think it was SatuSuro who made the version about the Faith that is now on the page, and would like to thank him for his research and work. Both of the quotes I have added are verifiable, I can post the references again if necessary; they are not original research; they are also impartial in presenting the Faith's teachings because they do not attempt to sway a person one way or another about what to believe about them but rather present them directly because they ARE the teaching. Anyone elses summary of them could only be inaccurate. There are no major disputes as far as I am aware about the Baha'i teachings about the life of the soul after death. This summary of the Wikipedia article about a neutral point of view I believe is exactly what applies here:

When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.

Also, the Baha'i Faith has been consistently among the top three fastest growing religions in the world for about the last fifty years. There is sufficient public interest in it for it to be given due consideration on the basis of some other factor, and size and general public knowledge about the Faith are the only two factors remaining that I am aware of. As the Faith is growing faster than public knowledge can keep up with it it should not be considered solely from the point of view of the academic community, so the only impartial test for how much consideration it should be given compared to other religions would be its size, which is estimated at seven to ten million followers worldwide based on the most recent statistics and statements from the Baha'i World Center. Judaism has approximately fourteen million followers world-wide. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron


 * You need to be able to view the history of pages. SatuSuro did not add the section, but I did, based on a published source from an academic publisher (Cambridge University Press).  Any more content devoted to the Baha'i Faith is undue weight, so please stop pushing an agenda.  Wikipedia is not a place for people to try to teach their religion.  As I have mentioned multiple times, Wikipedia tries to use secondary sources, and primary sources are frowned upon, also, Wikipedia is not a list of quotes, but an encyclopedia.  Also, you are reading neutral point of view incorrectly.  By adding quotes and overextending the reach of the Baha'i Faith, you are going against what most academic publishers would do and that is against the neutral point of view because you are giving the Baha'i Faith more prominence.  Fastest growing religions has nothing to do with, size has nothing to do with it, and public interest has nothing to do with either (and how do you even measure that compared to other religions) but as I've mentioned multiple times, the amount of academic scholarly work on that subject: that is Wikipedia policy and you need to abide by those policies. That Judaism has a 4000 year head is a fact, and there is no way to get a break.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a teach a religion.  Use your own forums for that.  If you continue editing as you do, going against consensus you can be blocked.  A final point, Wikipedia's Manual of Style frown against the use of the words 'the' and 'a' in subsection titles, and the Baha'i Faith is regarded as following in the Abhrahmic tradition by most scholars. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for writing it! Aaron.s.12 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

Wikipedia's policies
I want to be clear on some of Wikipedia's policies:
 * Wikipedia's undue weight policy states:
 * "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources."

This doesn't mean that it's the numbers of believers that are important, but the amount of weight that view is given in current reliable sources. You cannot compare the scholarly interest in Judaism to that of the Baha'i Faith. Academic books in the afterlife will give orders of magnitude more coverage to the Jewish views than those of the Baha'i views, and that's how Wikipedia works.


 * Also, from the verifiability policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and verifiability is based on "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From the no original research policy: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources"

Simply put: Judaism has a three-thousand year head start on us. Can we get a break? Aaron.s.12 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

Also, here is a link to a list of scholarly works that have been done from a Baha'i perspective on life after death, eighteen in all: http://bahai-library.com/books/biblio/life.after.death.html Aaron.s.12 (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

I can't find anything about religious texts in the article about verifiability. Baha'u'llah left His works for the world in the state they are in and those who have published them have done so with the sole intention of promoting His Words, otherwise they would not have chosen to both publish them and be obedient to His covenant. As a parallel, what would need to happen for a quote from the Torah, the Gospel, or the Qu'ran to be considered verifiable? From what I can see on this page the Bible was quoted simply as it is commonly known to be. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

Also, to provide a general background, I have found the scholarly information available about the Faith to be in large portions either inaccurate, insufficient, or prejucided, and that strangely those speaking from within the Faith have been most honest about the facts related to it. This can be corroborated by the fact that in this day of public information we have nothing but to lose from attempting to misrepresent information about the Faith, let alone the fact that lying is condemned within Baha'u'llah's teachings.

Based on my review of Wikipedia's three core policies and without having heard any reason that makes sense to me for why the length of the article should be limited, especially since the other sections of the article do not accurately reflect the level of public or academic interest in each Faith's teachings about the subject I have re-added a quote from Baha'u'llah. Also, the Baha'i Faith is not only an Abrahamic religion as Baha'u'llah and his legally appointed Interpreter recognized the divine Stations of Krishna and Buddha, so I have moved it under the neutral title 'other religions'. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron


 * As I mentioned that Judaism has a 4000 year start is a fact, and you can't go against it. The fact is that there is orders of magnitude more work on Judaism than the Baha'i Faith, and the list you provided is not acceptable as a statement of the importance of the Baha'i Faith in scholarly work because it is all Baha'i publishers, not third-party academic publishers.  Your statements above are coming in the sense of Truth with a capital T, but Wikipedia is not about Truth, but about verifiability, and it is an academic encyclopedia.  Would you see Britannica or Iranica, or the World Book include quotes: No.  That you believe the current scholaly work on the Baha'i Faith is inaccurate is your view, but you don't get to make that assessment on Wikipedia, because that would be original research.  Wikipedia makes those assessments based on third-party publishers.  And another final point, that the other sections don't fit exactly within Wikipedia's policies does not make it ok for there be more content that fails Wikipedia's policies.


 * To your point that because the Baha'i Faith accepts Krishna and Buddha, that does not make it not an Abrahamic Faith. As I noted above, there are tons of sources that classify it as an Abrahamic Faith including:


 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Then why does the section on Judaism have quotes from the Torah? Is the removal of the quote from the Baha'i section simply because of length restrictions to preserve the due weight policy? Here are a few articles and scholarly works where the Faith's belief in Buddha and Krishna on the same plane as its belief in the Abrahamic Prophets is mentioned: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W0702.pdf, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Baha'i+holy+places+in+Israel+added+to+UN+World+Heritage+list:+the+...-a0192850949, http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol2/india2.htm, http://www.wfn.org/2008/03/msg00120.html, http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/plural/bahai.htm, http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/mar/06/na-bahai-faith-is-a-unifying-force/, http://www.gotquestions.org/Bahai-faith.html, http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageNavigator/sfi_about_culture_religion_bahai, and http://www.jubilee.org.nz/articles/the-bahai-faith--christianity/. In light of this research I believe the best category for the Faith to be listed under is that of Universal Religion, but think the title of Other Religion is appropriate enough.


 * Comments:
 * The quotes in the Judaism also probably have to go, and that one section doesn't totally abide by Wikipedia policies, doesn't mean that it gives free rein to other sections to also not abide.  But Undue weight also plays a role here.
 * The fact that the Baha'i Faith believes in Krishna and Buddha does not disqualify it as an Abrahamic religion. Find a source that states that it is not an Abrahamic religion, and contrast that to the number of sources that state that it is an Abrahamic religion.  Abrahamic religions are defined as those linked to one another because of a 'family likeness' and a certain commonality in theology, and recognize a spiritual tradition identified with Abraham.  The Baha'i Faith fits both of those two qualities in the concept of Progressive revelation and eschatology, as well as that Baha'u'llah stated that his lineage was traced back to Abraham through Abraham's wife Keturah.
 * You also completely ignored the point about that Wikipedia's Manual of Style disallows the use of the words "the" and "a" in subsection titles.
 * Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What are the qualifications for a Faith being considered an eastern religion then? My proposition was that the Baha'i Faith is more than just an Abrahamic religion, that it meets both the qualifications for being that as well as those of an eastern religion based on my rough understanding of the category, which is why putting it in one category only would be not being truthful about what it is. In addition to their belief in Buddha and Krishna Baha'is meditate chanting a particular word, use the cross-legged position in their devotions, and are encouraged to self-perfection. One of the two languages in which the Baha'i Scriptures were revealed is Persian, which traces its roots back to Sanskrit which the Bhagavad Gita was written in. Several early believers also came from India, and the largest Baha'i population in the world is there. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron


 * Sorry, but you still don't get it. It's about what sources call the religion, and not what you think.  As I've noted most sources call the Baha'i Faith Abrahamic, and not Eastern, and not Abrahamic.  That's the point.  But what makes the Baha'i Faith not an Eastern or Indian religion is that there is no notion of Dharma.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It possibly believes in Dharma, depending on how the term is defined: http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/hinduism/ch2.htm, http://www.amazon.com/Hinduism-Bahai-Faith-Moojan-Momen/dp/0853982996. Baha'u'llah also said: O SON OF MAN! Write all that We have revealed unto thee with the ink of light upon the tablet of thy spirit. Should this not be in thy power, then make thine ink of the essence of thy heart. If this thou canst not do, then write with that crimson ink that hath been shed in My path. Sweeter indeed is this to Me than all else, that its light may endure for ever. and: O MY SERVANT! The best of men are they that earn a livelihood by their calling and spend upon themselves and upon their kindred for the love of God, the Lord of all worlds. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

To share my point of view, a lot of these questions have been as unexpected to me as it would be to ask for proof that Christians believe in God. The concept of progressive revelation and the fulfillment of the eschatological expectations and essential Teachings of all of the previous religions is so central to the Faith that it is only as you and the other editor point things out that I have realized what isn't common knowledge about It. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron


 * Again, you are not using reliable sources, but providing your own interpretation of primary source material to say it is not an Abrahamic religion. I've shown tons of sources that it is, and that's all that counts in Wikipedia. Most do not classify the religion as an Eastern religion, while tons do classify it as a Abrahamic. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please
The sheer amount of text you add to talk pages and whatever is overbearing - and quite unnecessary - your level of argumentation may fill your needs and issues but it doesnt serve wikipedia particularly well - dont be suprised if you eventually get blocked as a nuisance editor if you keep it up. either edit and understand the issues - if you need to have space to argue with the policies and expand like a balloon - find a blog - cheers SatuSuro 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I can't know something is offensive until I am told, and I thought that with a well-defined heading anyone who wanted to read the information would have the choice to. The more I have read about the policies the more confident I have become that the version I most recently posted is perfectly in line with them. I also wanted to post all of the discussion publicly so matters wouldn't have to be rehashed as a matter of courtesy. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

Things always get rehashed, the wheel is reinvented on wikipedia on an annual basis, people have bright ideas and suddenly whole realms of knowledge are reinvented in some bright spark american teenagers brain that reinvents parts of the worlds geography at a single hit... nah re-posting sections of talk can be more hindrance than help to understanding in a place like this - anyways it is just a warning and suggestion - large volumes of text on anything can be quite daunting to say the least - others may have other ways of seeing things. Also - First, I think it was SatuSuro who made the version about the Faith that is now on the page, - if you cannot read differences of edits - be very careful about claiming anything - I simply removed your over-long quote - I did not create anything in the article. AGF restrains my feelings about this issue. WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOT still seem very important to think about as you wander through this place SatuSuro 05:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I believe in efficiency, I checked the discussion page before posting my first addition. What's an AGF? Aaron.s.12 (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

WP:AGF assumption of good faith/civility etc SatuSuro 06:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

Welcom
Aaron:

First off, Welcome aboard. Wikipedia's Baha'is could use another enthusiastic contributor.

Second, if you're going to be spending time here, it pays handsomely to realize that this is a 'very different world than you're used to anywhere else in cyberspace. There are detailed rules for contribution, what WP is not and robust norms of conduct.

There is a Baha'i project page that some editors use. That would be a good place to start and connect with other interested people. You can always post to users' talk pages to invite opinion.

Please note, the the Baha'i editors in general, and some in particular Jeff3000, Cuñado, and myself) take the forms and norms here seriously. You may want to take a look here at a personal project page to see the level of effort we've already engaged on that line. Hyperbole will not serve the Faith in general, and will damage it here.

If there are two policies to be absolutely clear on, they are WP:NPOV and WP:OR. WP:UNDUE is related to NPOV. These require' the use of reliable tertiary sources providing content that enhances the treatment of a particular article.

With that in mind, and armed with a decent Baha'i encyclopedia or two, you can make some real contributions to the presentation of the subject here.

Looking forward to it.

Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Allah-u-Abha! Thanks for the welcome. I only posted here out of desperation because I felt that information about the Baha'i Faith being omitted on that page was a serious problem and that potentially thousands of people could be missing an entire and important religion in researching the subject. I have too much going on in my community and personal life to become a regular contributor here, but am happy to be better armed if I come across any other such omissions. I think the biggest difficulty I had was distinguishing between what is common knowledge about the Faith and what would be considered original research. With the exception of the Faith being considered both and Eastern and Western religion I posted nothing that isn't common knowledge among most of the Baha'is that I know, but that apparently is very different from what is common knowledge about the Faith among people in general. Part of the frustration and confusion I had was also due to the fact that other religions use little to no referencing, on the Afterlife page at least, and rely on sources from academics within the Faith itself, while I was being asked to provide outside sources and was not allowed to make even a personal paraphrasation of an obvious concept that resounds through entirety of His Revelation. The prohibition against using a quote also seems unfair, especially after reading from the neutral point of view article that personal statements are perfectly allowable as long as they are presented as such. Is it simply that the Baha'is are the only people on Wikipedia voluntarily abiding by rules I haven't understood yet? Or is the Faith being treated differently because of its youth and the relative lack of public knowledge about it? Was the problem with my presentation of the subject entirely due to the fact that it was a paraphrasation and thus considered 'original research' when it was little more original than noticing that the sky is usually blue and the sun rises and sets, or was it with the language I used itself? I am truly confused. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

I think quotes like these, which I have been struggling to understand the implications of, have also influenced my point of view:

The vitality of men's belief in God is dying out in every land; nothing short of His wholesome medicine can ever restore it. The corrosion of ungodliness is eating into the vitals of human society; what else but the Elixir of His potent Revelation can cleanse and revive it? Is it within human power, O Hakim, to effect in the constituent elements of any of the minute and indivisible particles of matter so complete a transformation as to transmute it into purest gold? Perplexing and difficult as this may appear, the still greater task of converting satanic strength into heavenly power is one that We have been empowered to accomplish. The Force capable of such a transformation transcendeth the potency of the Elixir itself. The Word of God, alone, can claim the distinction of being endowed with the capacity required for so great and far-reaching a change.

Baha'u'llah, Baha'i World Faith, p. 113

Divine Truth is relative and that is why we are enjoined to constantly refer the seeker to the Word itself -- and why any explanations we make to ease the journey of the soul of any individual must be based on the Word -- and the Word alone.

From a letter dated 4 June 1957 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada and The Compilation of Compilations vol II, p. 324

From a purely academic point of view too, I think that quotes would be the most final and telling way to present what the Baha'u'llah teaches. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

Two more things: if you guys aren't already, a friend suggested that you could be in communication with the N.S.A.s Office of Communications at ooc@usbnc.org about things going on here. Also, if one of the more experienced Baha'i editors on Wikipedia was willing to work with me I think I would like to create an entire page about the Baha'i views on the life after death. If it is something you would like to do with me please let me know. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

Also, do you have any thoughts about it not being considered either an Eastern or Western religion? A friend of mine concurs and from their thinking I checked and there are 131 mentions of Buddha and 59 mentions of Krishna in the Baha'i literature available in Ocean.Aaron.s.12 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

Also, articles without a quote would be LESS neutral because they are relying more on someone else's opinion and point of view on the subject and less on presenting the information as it is. The only fear that is that the person isn't honest about hisself, which there is no proof for in this case. Aaron.s.12 (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron

Your silence is giving me nerves. If you just don't need to respond please let me know that.Aaron.s.12 (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Aaron